Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 3

Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue · Treatise · Chapter 3

p. 87CHAP. III.

Hereticall translation against sacred IMAGES.

p. 88Martin.

I Beseech you, what is the next and readiest,1. and most proper English of Idolum, idololatra, idololatria? is it not Idol, Idolater,foreign. idolatrie? are not these plaine Englishforeign. wordes, and well knowen in our languag…?foreign. Why sought you further for other termes and wordes, if you had meant faithfully? What needed that circumstance of three words for one, worshipper of images and, worshipping of images? whetherBib. 1577. Eph. 5. Col. 3.Eph 5Col 3 (I pray you) is the more naturall and conuenient speeche, either in our English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say as the holy Scripture doth, Couetousnes is idolatrie, & consequently, The couetous man is an idolater: or as you translate, Couetousnes is worshipping of Images, and, The couetous man is a worshipper of images?

Fulke.

IF you aske for the readiest and moste1. proper English of these wordes, I must needes answere you, an image, a worshipper of images, and worshipping of images, as we hauehave sometimes translated. The other, that you would hauehave, Idoll, Idolater, and Idolatrie, be rather Greekish than English wordes: which though they be vsed of many English men yet are they not vnderstoode of all, as the other be. And therefore I say, the more naturall, and conuenient speech for our English tongue, & p. 89as conuenient for the truth of the thing it is to say, couetousnesse is the worshipping of images, and the couetous man is a worshipper of images: as to say couetousnesse is idolatrie, and the couetous man is an idolater, as I hauehave proued before. Seeing Idolum by your owne interpreter is called simulachrum, and simulachrum signifieth as much as imago an image, Cap. 1. numb. 5.

MART. 2. We say commonly in Englishe, Suche a richeThe absurditie of this translation, A couetous man is a vvorshipper of images. man maketh his money his God: and the Apostle sayth in like maner of some, Whose belly is their God, Phil. 3. and generally euerie creature is our idol, when we esteeme it so exceedingly that we make it our God. But who euer heard in English, that our money, or bellie, were our images, & that by esteeming of them too much, we become worshippers of images? Among your selues are there not some euen of your Superintendentes, of whom the Apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their money and bellie, by couetousnesse and bellie cheere? Yet can we not call you therefore in any true sense, worshippers of images, nether would you abide it. You see then that there is a great differēce betwixt idol and image, idolatrie & worshipping of images: and euen so great difference is there betwixt S. Paules wordes and your translation.

FVLK. 2. Before you can shewe that absurditie of this translation, a couetous man is a worshipper of images, you must defende your owne vulgar Latine translation, which calleth foreign simulachrorum seruitus, which I hauehave proued to signifie the seruing or worshipping of images, cap. 1. nu. 5. Now to our English phrase, a riche man maketh his money his God, a glutton his bellie, and so of other creatures honoured aboue measure. I say the worshipping of images may be after two sortes, either when they are worshipped as gods, (as among the grosser sort of the Gentils & Papistes) & then it is against the first commaundement. Thou shalt hauehave none other gods but me: or else when men pretende to worshippe God by them, as the Israelites did in the calfe Ex. 32. & in Ieroboams calues, & in the brasen serpent, & p. 90the wiser sort of the Gentils and Papists pretend to do in worshipping their images: & then it is a sinne against the second cōmaundement. Thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen images. Thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship thē. By similitude therfore of thē that trusted in images as their gods, & so honored thē, which were not able to helpe them, the Apostle calleth the couetous man a worshipper of images, & couetousnes worshipping of images: & not properly: but because their monie is to thē the same occasion of departing from God, that the images was to the worshipper of thē. So if we will speake vnproperly, as the Apostle saith, their belly is their God, we may say, it is their idoll, or their image, which they worship as God: not that the belly, or any such thing is God, or an idol, or an image properly, but that it is so termed, for that to such vile creatures, is giuen that diuine honor, which is due to God: but by worshippers of idols, and images, is giuen to idols or images. I confesse the vse of the English tongue in these speaches, is rather to call thē idols, than images, and to extend the name idol (which is alwaies taken in the euill parte) to that which the word image can not so aptly signifie: yet in trueth of the thing there is no difference betwene idol and image, worshipping of idols, and worshipping of images, whether you speake of such as be idols & images so properly called, or of such as be onelyonly by similitude, figuratiuely so named. If any of our Superintendēts be such as you speake of, I wish them amended or else remoued. For my parte I know none to be suche, although I wish to the best, encrease of Gods grace, to despise the world, & to be more earnest in setting foorth Gods glorie. As for the great difference you speake of, betwixt S. Paules wordes, and our translation, I see none as yet.

MART. 3. Will you see more yet to this purpose? In the English Bible printed the yeare 1562. you reade thus: Howe2. Cor. 6.2 Cor 6 agreeth the Temple of God with images? Can we be ignorant of Satans cogitations herein, that it was translated of p. 91purpose to delude the simple people & to make them beleue that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in the Churches, which were then in plucking downe in Englande, when this your translation was first published in print? Whereas in very truth you know, that the Apostle here partely interpreteth him selfe toSalomōs Tēple did vvell agree vvith images, but not vvith idols. speake of men, as of Gods temples wherein he dwelleth, partely alludeth to Salomons Temple, which did very well agree with images (for it had the Cherubins, which were the representations of Angels, & the figures of oxen to beare up the lauatory) but with idols it could not agree: and therefore the Apostles words are these, How agreeth the Temple of God with idols?

FVLK. 3. We had neede to see more, before we be conuicted of corruption: for hitherto we hauehave seene nothing, but a folish cauill, groūded vponupon the cōmon vse of the word idol in English, in which speach it is takē only for vnlawful images, although in the Greeke it signifieth as generally, as Imago in Latin, & by Tully him selfe is vsed for the same. But in the English Bible printed 1562. we read thus 2. Cor. 6. How agreeth the tēple of God with images? Here you can not be ignorant of Satans cogitatiōs, that it was translated of purpose, to make the simple people beleue, that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in churches, which were then in plucking downe in Englande when this translation was first published in print. You are so cunning in Satans cogitations, that he hath inspired into you a manifest vntrueth: for this text was so translated, & printed nere 30. yeres before 1562. in King Henrie the eightes time, when images were not in plucking downe. And when it was printed againe 1562. which was the fifth yere of her Maiesties reigne (God be thāked) there was no neede to plucke downe images out of churches, which were pluckt downe in the first and secōd yeres of her reigne. Wherfore that purpose is vainly imagined of you, for the trāslaters purpose was the same that the Apostles: to shew that the religion of God, hath nothing to do with images, made by mans deuise▪ to honor them as gods, or to honor God by them. And where p. 92you say that the Apostle alludeth to Salomons temple, which did well agree with images, but not with idols: I answere you, Salomons tēple did not agree with images made by the deuise of man, to honour God by them, or in thē. For the Cherubins were not of mans deuise: but of Gods commaundemēt: the oxen to hold vp the lauatory, the pomegranats, & other ornaments, were not for any vse of religion to worship God in them, or by them, but for vse & garnishing of the house appointed by God in his law, and by direction of his spirit in Salomon. For the commaundement, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe, is no restraint vntounto God, but vntounto men of their owne braine, or priuate intent, to make images to serue in religion. Therefore the Apostle speaking of suche images as were forbidden by Gods lawe, is not otherwise to be vnderstoode, and no more is our translation.

MART. 4. When Moises by Gods appointment erectedforeign. a brasen serpent, and commaunded the people that were stungThe brasen serpent, first an image, and lavvfull: aftervvard an idol, and vnlavvfull. with serpents, to behold it, & thereby they were healed: this was an image only, and as an image was it erected & kept & vsed by Gods commaundement. But when it grew to be an idol (saith S. Augustine) that is, when the people began to adore it as God,Numb. 21.Num 21 then king Ezechias brake it in peeces to the great cōmendationLib. 10. de Ciuit. c. 8. of his piety & godly zeale. So when the children of Israel in the absence of Moises made a caife, & said, These are thy Gods4. Reg. 18. ô Israel that brought thee out of Aegipt, was it but an imageExod. 32.Exod 32 which they made? was that so hainous a matter, that GodThe moltē calf, an idol. would so hauehave punished them as he did? No they made it an idol also, saying, These are thy gods ô Israel. And therfore the Apostle1. Cor. 10.1 Cor 10 saith to the Corinthians, Be not idolaters, as some offoreign. them. Which also you translate most falsely, Be not worshippers of images, as some of them.

FVLK. 4. The brasen serpent first and last was an image, holy, when it was commaunded by God to bee made as a sacrament of our redemption by Christ, lawfull, when it was reserued onelyonly for memorie of that excellent miracle: vnlawefull, cursed, and abhominable, p. 93when it was worshipped, and therefore iustly broken in peeces, by the godly king Ezechias. You cite Augustine as it pleaseth you, to followe your owne context. Quem sanè serpentem propter facti memoriam reseruatum, cum posteà populus errans, tanquam idolum colere cepisset Ezechias, &c. Which serpent truly being reserued for the memorie of the fact, when afterward the people going astray, began to worship as an idoll, Ezechias the king, seruing God with religious power, with great praise of his pietie, brake in peeces. Here it is certaine, that Augustine as most Ecclesiasticall writers, vseth the word Idolum, for an image abused. But that the people began to adore it as God, he sayth not, for they onelyonly worshipped God by it, falsly in deede, and superstitiously: but yet not beleuing that image to be God him selfe, but a holy representation of his power, which was shewed by it in the dayes of Moses. That Ezechias by religious or Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie, did put downe idolatrie you passe it by, as though you saw it not in S. Augustine. But you bring an other example to proue, that images except they be worshipped as gods, be no idols. In truth, seeing all religious worship is due onelyonly to God, although the idolaters intend not to worship their images as gods, yet by worshipping of them, they make vntounto them selues gods of them, and so offende both against the first, and second commaundementes. Yet how proue you, that the Israelites made a god of their calfe. Because they sayed these are thy gods, ô Israel, that brought thee out of the land of Aegipt. But euen by that same speach it is manifest, that they worshipped not the calfe, as beleuing it to be God: but contrariwise protested thereby, that they meaned not to chaunge their God, but to worshippe the same God, which brought thē out of the land of Aegipt by that image, which they could not be ignorant that it was made but yesterday, of their earings, and therefore could not thinke it was the same god that brought them out of the lande of Aegipt, but that they would worship p. 94God by that visible shape, which they sawe before them. And Aaron by his proclamation cōfirmeth the same. To morow, (saith he) shal be holy daie to Iehoua, that is, to the only true God, whom they dishonored, pretending to worship him by that Image: so hainous a thing it is, to make Images to represent God, and to worship them for his honour, although the worshipper do not beleeue them to be Gods. Therefore where wee hauehave in some translations, 1. Cor. 10. called those Idolaters worshippers of Images, we hauehave not erred: for an Image it was they worshipped, thinking to worshippe God thereby. But if either Image, or Idoll; worshippers of Images or Idolaters, would please you, wee hauehave both in our translations, the one expressing what wee meane by the other, that these cauillations were needelesse, but that malice against the truthe incenseth you to picke quarrels, and that translation whiche vseth the termes of Idols and Idolaters, was then in printing at Geneua, when Images were in pulling downe in Englande, namely the firste and seconde yeares of the Queenes raigne, beyng finished the 10. of April 1560. whiche notably confuteth the fonde purpose, that you slaunder our translators to hauehave had.

MART. 5. We see then that the Iewes had images without sinne, but not idols. Againe for hauing idols they were accounted like vntounto the Gentiles, as the Psalme saith, They learnedPsalm. 165. their workes, and serued their grauen idols. But they were not accounted like vntounto the Gentiles for hauing images, which they had in Salomons Temple, and in the brasen serpent. S. Hierom writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites (who wereIn c. 25. Ezech. The Protestāts are like to the Ammonits and Moabits. Gentiles and Idolaters) that comming into the Temple of Hierusalē, & seeing the Angelicall images of the Cherubins couering the Propitiatory, they sayd, Lo, euē as the Gentils, so Iuda also hath idols of their religion. These men did put no differēce betwene their owne idols, and the Iewes lawfull images. And are not you ashamed to be like to these? They accused Salomons Temple of idols, because they sawe there lawefull images: you p. 95accuse the Churches of God of idolatrie, because you see there the sacred images of Christ and his Saincts.

FVLK. 5. We knowe that the Iewes had images without sinne, and so hauehave we: but to hauehave images in any vse of religion without Gods expresse commaundement, neither is it lawfull for thē nor vsus, because we hauehave a generall commaundement to the contrary. They were accounted like the Gentils therefore, for hauing images contrarie to Gods commaundement, of their owne appointment, & worshipping them: not for hauing images appointed by God, which yet it was not lawful for thē to worship. But the Protestāts (you say) are like to the Ammonits, and Moabits, of whom S. Hierom writeth, thatIn Ezech. cap. 25Ezek 25 comming into the temple, and seeing the Cherubins couering the propitiatorie, they said, loe, euen as the Gentiles, so Iuda also hath idols of their religion, as we accuse the church of God of idolatrie, because we see there the sacred images of Christ, and his Saincts.

This that you say S Hierom writeth, he onelyonly reporteth it, as a ridiculous fable of the Iewes. Ridiculam verò in hoc loco, Haebrei narrant fabulam. The Hebrewes in this place, tell a ridiculous fable. But fables are good enough, to bolster false accusations. Secondly, he reporteth them to say: Sicut cunctae gentes colunt simulachra, ita & Iuda habes suae religionis Idola. As all nations worshippe images, so hath Iuda also idols of their religion. By which wordes you see, that he calleth images, and idols, the same thinges. For simulachrum, to be taken as largely as Imago, I hauehave proued before, in so much that man is called Simulachrum Dei, the image, not the idoll of God, as idoll is taken in the euill parte. But neither are you like to Iuda, nor we to Ammon, and Moab, in this case. For Iuda had Gods commaundement, to warrant their images, so hauehave not you, but his commaundement against your images. Againe, Moab and Ammon (if the tale were true) had idolatrous images of their owne, so hauehave not we.

p. 96MART. 6. But tell vsus yet I pray you, do the holy Scriptures of either Testament speake of all maner of images, or rather of the idols of the Gentiles? your conscience knoweth thatThe holy Scripture speaketh against the idols of the Gentiles, not against all maner of images. they speake directly against the idols and the idolatrie that was among the Pagans and Infidels: from the which as the Iewes in the old Testament, so the first Christians in the new Testament were to be prohibited. But will you hauehave a demonstration that your owne conscience condemneth you herein, and that you apply all translation to your heresie? What caused you being otherwise in all places so ready to translate, images: yet Esai. 31. and Zachar. 13. to translate, idols, in all your Bibles with full consent? Why in these places specially and so aduisedly? No doubt because God saith there, speaking of this time of the new Testament: In that day eueryevery man shall cast out his idols of siluer and idols of God. And, I will destroy the names of the idols out of the earth, so that they shall no more be had in remembrance. In which places if you had translated, images, you had made the prophecie false, because images hauehave not bene destroyed out of the world, but are, and hauehave bene in Christian countries with honour and reuerence, euen since Christes time. Mary in the idols of the Gentiles we see it verified, which are destroyed in all the world so farre as Gentilitie is conuerted to Christ.

FVLK. 6. Verily the commaundement of God, being a cōmaundement of the first table, vntounto which what soeuer is said in the Scriptures of images, or the worship of them forbidden, must be referred, speaketh generally of all maner of images made by the deuise of man, for any vse of religion, whether they be of Iewes, Pagans, or false Christians. But we are offred a demonstration, that our owne conscience condemneth vsus herein, and that we applie all translation to our heresie. And that is this. In Esai 31. and Zacha. 13. with one consente all translate Idols, because God speaketh of the time of the newe Testament, where if they had translated Images, they had made the prophecie false, because Images in Christian countries are with honour, but Idols of the Gentiles are p. 97destroyed out of the worlde so farre as gentilitie is conuerted to Christe. A goodly demonstration I promise you. That the translators had no such respect, it is plaine, for that they do not vnderstād the 31. of Esay of the time of Christe: but of the reformation made by Ezechias. But in Esay 44. whiche is a manifest prophesie of the Church of Christ, they all vse the worde Image, also Micheas the 5. and in diuerse other places, where the destruction of Idolatrie is prophesied, by the religion of Christ, which is verified onelyonly in true Christians: for otherwise both the Idolatrie of Pagans, and of false Christians, hath remained in many places, and yet remaineth to this day.

MART. 7. And what were the Pagans idols or theirRom. 1.Rom 1 idolatrie? S. Paule telleth vsus, saying: They changed the glorieVVhat vvere the idols of the Pagans. of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, & of birdes and beasts, and creeping thinges, and they serued (or worshipped) the creature more than the creator. Doth he charge them for making the image of man or beast? Your selues hauehave hangings and clothes full of such paintings and embroderings of imagirie. Wherewith then are they charged? with giuing the glorie of God to such creatures, which was to make them idols, and them selues idolaters.

FVLK. 7. That the Paganes changed the glory of God into the similitude of the Image of man, &c. it was the extremitie of their madnesse, but that they made Images of man or beaste, If you will not confesse▪ that Iupiter, Mars, &c. were men, and Isis a cowe or beast, yet remember that they made Images of their Emperours, and committed Idolatrie to them: otherwise to make Images out of religiō, was not the offence of Idolatrie in them, nor vsus, that hauehave them in hangings, and paintings, and other lawfull Images.

MART. 8. The case being thus, why do you make it two1. Cor. 5. Bib. 1562.1 Cor 5 distinct things in S. Paul, calling the Pagans, idolaters: and the Christians doing the same, worshippers of images: and that p. 98in one sentence, whereas the Apostle vseth but one and the selfe same Greeke worde in speaking both of Pagans and Christians? It is a maruelous and wilfull corruption, and well to be marked, and therefore I will put downe the whole sentence, as it is in your English translation. I wrote to you that you shoulde not companie with fornicators: and I meant not at all of the fornificators of this world, either of the couetous, or extortioners, either **foreign.the idolaters &c. but that ye cōpanie not togither, if any that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or couetous, or **foreign.A WORSHIPPER OF IMAGES, or an extortioner. In the first, speaking of Pagans, your translator nameth idolater according to the text, but in the later part speaking of Christians, you translate the very self same Greeke word, worshipper of images. Why so? forsooth to make the reader thinke that S. Paule speaketh here, not only of Pagan idolaters, but also of Catholike Christians that reuerently▪ kneele in praier before the Crosse, the holy Roode, the images of our Sauiour Christ and his Saincts: as though the Apostle had commaunded such to be auoided.

FVLK. 8. The reason is, because we compt Idolaters and worshippers of Images to be all one. But it is a maruelous wilfull corruption, that in one sentence 1. Cor 5. we call the Paganes Idolaters, and the Christians worshippers of Images, and yet the same Greeke worde in both. If this were a faulte, it were but of one translation of the three, for the Geneua Bible, hath Idolater in both, the other worshipper of Idolls, in the later place. And wee thinke the later to be vnderstoode of Idolatrous Papists, which worship Idols made with handes of men, as Crosses, Roodes, and other Images, to as great dishonor of God, and daunger of their soules, as Pagans did. So that if it had bene worshippers of Images in both, the translation had not bene amisse.

MART. 9. Where if you hauehave yet the face to denie this your malitious and heretical intent, tell vsus, why all these other wordes are translated and repeated alike in both places, couetous, fornicators, extortioners, both Pagans and Christians: p. 99and only this word (idolaters) not so, but Pagans, idolaters: and Christians, worshippers of images. At the least you can not denie but it was of purpose done, to make both seeme all one, yea and to signifie that the Christians doing the foresaid reuerence before sacred images (which you call worshipping of images) are more to be auoided than the Pagan idolaters. Whereas the Apostle speaking of Pagans and Christians that committed one and the selfe same heynous sinne what soeuer, commaundeth the Christian in that case to be auoyded for his amendement, leauing the Pagan to him selfe and to God, as hauing not to doe to iudge of him.

FVLK. 9. I thinke the cause was, that Christians might vnderstand, who was an Idolater, & what the word Idolater signifieth, which was vsed in the former parte of the sentence. And if the translators purpose was by this explication, to dissuade the readers from worshipping of popish Images, I see not what cause he hath to be ashamed thereof, seeing the Greeke word signifieth as much as he saith: not as though Idols were proper onelyonly to the Gentiles, and Images to Christians, for in other places he vseth the name of Images, speaking both of the Pagans, and the Christians, 1. Cor. 8. Although for my parte, I could wishe he had vsed one worde in both places, & either called them both Idolaters, or both worshippers of Images.

MART. 10. But to this the answere belike will be made,VV. Fulke, Cō futat. of Iohn Hovvlet fol. 35. as one of them hath already answered in the like case, that in the English Bible appointed to be read in their Churches, it is otherwise, and euen as we would hauehave it corrected: and therfore (saith he) it had bene good before we entred into such hainous accusations, to hauehave examined our grounds that they had bene true. As though wee accuse them not truly of false translation, vnlesse it be false in that one Bible which for the present is redde in their Churches: or as though it pertained not to them how their other English Bibles be translated: or as though the people read not all indifferently without prohibition, and may bee abused by eueryevery one of them: or as p. 100though the Bible which nowe is read (as wee thinke) in their Churches, hauehave not the like absurde translations. yea more absurde,Bib. 1577. Col. 3. v. 5.Col 3:5 euen in this matter of images, as is before declared: or as though we must first learne what English translation, is reade in their Church (which were hard to know, it changeth so oft) before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation: or as though it were not the same Bible that was for many yeares read in their Churches, and is yet in eueryevery mans handes, which hath this absurde translation whereof we hauehave laste spoken.

FVLK. 10. Mine answere was framed to Howlets reason, who would proue that our seruice was naught, because the Scriptures were therein redde in false and shamelesse translations: example of whiche hee bringeth. 1. Iohn. 5. Children keepe your selues from Images. To whome mine answere was apte, when I saide in the Bible appointed to bee redde in the seruice, it is otherwise, and as he him self saith, it ought to be, which answere as though it were made to the generall accusation of our translations, you with many supposings, as though this, as though that, would make it seeme to be vnsufficient, whereas to Howlets cauill, it was not only sufficient, but also proper. And therfore this is a vaine supposell, as though we accuse them not truely of false translation, vnlesse it be false in that one Bible, whiche for the present is redde in their Churche. For we graunt you not the other to be false, because this is true, and so are all the rest. As though it pertayned not to them howe their other English Bibles be translated. It pertaineth so farre that if their were a faulte in the former, we hauehave amended it in the later. But in that text, for which I answered, I acknowledge yet no faulte, neither is that mine only answere, for I proue that Image and Idoll with the Apostle, signifieth the same thing. Or as though the people redde not all without prohibition, and may be abused by eueryevery one of them: There is no suche false translation in any of them, that the people canne bee abused there by, to runne into heresie. Yet againe: p. 101Or, as though the Bible which now is redde (as we thinke) hauehave not the like absurd translation, yea more absurd euē in this matter of Images, as is declared before. As though you hauehave proued, whatsoeuer you prate of: once againe: Or, as though we must first learne, what English translation is redde in their Church (which were hard to knowe, it changeth so often) before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation. If you will accuse that translation, which is redde in our Church, as Howlet doth, reason would you should first learne which it is, and that is no hard matter, seeing there was neuer more appointed than two, as oft as you say we chaunge. Or, (at last) as though it were not the same Bible, that was for many yeares redde in their Churches, and is yet in eueryevery mans hands, which hath this absurd translation, whereof we last spake. As though I could prophecie, when I answered Howlet, for the Bible appointed to be redde in the Church, in 1. Iohn. 5. that you would finde fault with an other text, in that translation, that sometime was redde in the church, and yet is in many mens hands? Which although it be well altered in that point, which you quarrell at, in the two later translations, yet I see no absurditie in the first, which for one Greeke word, giueth two English words, both of one signification, yea, & the later being plainer, explicating the former, which to English eares is more obscure, and lesse vnderstoode.

MART. 11. Surely the Bible that we most accuse, notBib. 1562. onelyonly in this point, but for sundrye other most grosse faultes and hereticall translations, spoken of in other places, is that Bible which was auctorised by Cranmer their Archbishop of Canterburie, and redde all King Edwards time, in their Churches, and (as it seemeth by the late printing thereof againe, anno 1562) a great part of this Queenes reigne. And certaine it is, that it was so long redde, in all their Churches, with this venemous and corrupt translation of images, alwaies in steede of idols, that it made the deceiued people of their secte, to despise, contemne, & abandon the very signe and image of their saluation, the crosse of Christ, the holy roode, or crucifixe, representing the maner of p. 102his bitter passion and death, the sacred images of the blessed virgin Mary, the mother of God, and of S. Iohn Euangelist, representing their standing by the crosse, at the very time of hisIoh. 19. v. 26.John 19:26 passion. In so much that now by experience, we see the foule inconuenience thereof, to wit, that all other images and pictures of infamous harlots and heretikes, of heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lawfull in England at this day, and their houses, parlours, and chambers, are garnished with them▪ onelyonly sacredimages, and representations of the holy mysterie of our redemption, are esteemed idolatrous, and hauehave bene openly defaced in most spitefull maner, and burned, to the great dishonour of our Sauiour Christ, and his Saincts.

FVLK. 11. That Bible perhaps you mislike more, than the other translations, because Archbishop Cranmer allowed it by his authoritie. But howsoeuer it be, (as I thinke, there be more imperfections in it, than in the other) it is not your accusation without due and substantiall proofe, that can make it lesse esteemed, with any indifferent, or wise man. If it hauehave caused the people to contemne, and abandon all Popish Idols, there is cause, that we shoulde giuegive God thankes for it. Albeit not the translation onelyonly, but preaching of the Gospell, and Christ crucified especially, by which Christ hath bene truely, and liuely paynted forth vntounto them, and euen crucified amonge them, hath made them contemne, yea and abhorre all carnall and humane deuises of the image of our saluation, or representation of his passion, by vayne and dead images, to be any helpes of faith, religion, or the worshippe of God. Where you saye it is seene by experience, that all other images of infamous harlots, and heretikes, of Heathen tyrants, and persecutors, are lawefull in England, to garnish houses, when sacred images are esteemed idolatrous, defaced, and burned: I knowe not well your meaning. For if you hauehave any true images of the Patriarches, Prophetes, Apostles, or other holye persons, I thinke they be as lawefull, to garnishe p. 103priuate houses, as the other you speake of. Yea the stories of the whole Bible paynted, both of the olde Testament, and the newe, are not forbidden, but in many places vsed. Prouided alwaies, that in the places appoynted for the publike seruice of God, suche thinges are not lawefull, for daunger of idolatrie, nor in priuate places to be abused, as they are of Papistes, but rather, though they were as auncient, and as goodly monuments as the brasen serpent was, which no images at this daye, can be, it is to the great honour of God, that they shoulde be despised, defaced, burned, and stamped to powder, as that was, which sometyme was erected by the commaundement of God, by which not onelyonly great miracles were wrought, but the wonderfull mysterie of our saluation through faith in Christ, was prefigured.

MART. 12. And as concerning the Bible, that at this daye is redde in their Churches, if it be that of the yeare 1577. it is worse sometyme in this matter of images, than the other. For where the other readeth, Couetousnes, which is worshippingCol. 3. v. ….Col 3 of idolls: there this later (where vntounto they appeale) readeth thus, Couetousnes, which is worshipping of images. and Ephes. 5. it readeth as absurdly as the other, AVV. Fulke Confut. fol. 35. couetous man which is a worshipper of images. Loe, this is the English Bible, which they referre vsus vntounto, as better translated, and as correcting the fault of the former. But because it is euident by these places, that this also is partly worse, and partly as ill as the other, therefore this great confuterFol. 36. Bib. 1579. of Maister Iohn Houlet, fleeth once more, to the Geneua English Bible, saying, Thus we reade, and, so we translate: to wit, A couetous person, which is an Idolater. Where shall we hauehave these good fellowes, and howe shall we be sure that they will stande to any of their translations? from the first redde in their Churches, they flee to that that is nowe redde, and from this againe, to the later Geneua English Bibles, neither redde in their Churches (as we suppose) nor of greatest authoritie among them: and we doubt not but p. 104they will as fast flee from this, to the former againe, when this shall be proued in some places more false and absurd, than the other.

FVLK. 12. It pleaseth you worse perhaps, that lesse fauoureth your pelting distinction of images, and idols, but it is neuer the worse to be liked of them, that be wise, and learned, which know that foreign, and foreign, in Greeke, doe signifie the same thing, which you can not deny. And where you say, in your scornefull moode, loe, this is the Bible, which they referre vsus vntounto, as better trā slated, and as correcting the fault of the former, you follow your accustomed vaine of lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former, in this point of images, but confute the frowardnes of that foolish reason, which accuseth our seruice, of reading the Bible, in shamelesse translations, in that text, 1. Iohn. 5. whereas in the Bible appointed for the seruice, it is not as he sayth, but euen as he would hauehave vsus to saye. I flye not therefore (as it pleaseth your wisedom to say) from that translation also, to the Geneua Bible, neither doe I alledge the Geneua trā slation for that cause you pretend, but to shew, that albeit we translate in such words, as you can not mislike, yet your venemous slaundering pennes, and tongues, can neuer giuegive ouer your peeuish quarrelling. In the place by you quoted, I defend both as true, and answerable to the Greeke, and of one sense and meaning, where the sound of words onelyonly, is diuers, the signification of matter, one, and the same. And yet you must hauehave your foolish florish in roperipe termes. Where shall we hauehave these good fellowes, &c? You shall hauehave vsus, by the grace of God, ready to iustifie all our translation, from shamelesse falsification, and hereticall corruptions, which is your impudent charge against vsus. And if in matter of lesser moment, you can descry the least errour, in any, or in all of our translations, we shall be willing to confesse the same, and ready to reforme it. For truth is deerer to vsus, than credit: although we thinke it better credit, to p. 105reforme a fault, than being admonished, wilfully to cō tinue it, or defend it.

MART. 13. But what matter is it howe they reade in their churches, or how they correct their former translations by the later: when the olde corruption remaineth still▪ being set of purpose in the top of eueryevery dore within their churches, in these wordes: Babes keepe your selues from images? Why remaineth1. Iohn. 5.1 John 5 that written so often and so conspicuously in the wals of their churches, which in their Bibles they correst as a fault? their later Bibles say, Keepe your selues from idols: their church walles say, Keepe your selues from images. S. Iohn speaking to the lately conuerted Gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were conuerted: they speaking to the olde instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ our Sauiour, of the holy Crucifixe, of the Crosse, of euerie such representation and monument of Christes passion, and our redemption. And therefore in the verie same place where these holy monumentes were wont to stande in Catholike times, to witte, in the roode loft, and partition of the Church and chauncell: there nowe standes these wordes as confronting and condemning the foresayd holy monumentes, Babes keepe your selues from images. Which wordes whosoeuer esteemeth as the wordes of Scripture, and the wordes of Sainct Iohn, spoken against Christes image, is made a verie babe in deede, and sottishly abused by their scribled doores, and false translations, to count that idolatrie, which is in deede to no other purpose, than to the great honour of him whose image and picture it is.

FVLK. 13. Still you harpe on the olde vntuneable string, that the former is a corruption, which saith, Babes kepe your selues from images, which sentence sore grieueth you, to be written in the toppe of church dores, or in place where the Roode loft stoode. And you aske why it remaineth on the wals, which we correct as a fault in the Bibles? But who tolde you that they correct it as a fault in the Bibles? Is eueryevery alteration with you a correction? The one explicateth the other, that idols of which p. 106S. Iohn speaketh, be images abused in religion. Not that all images be idols (as the worde idoll in the Englishe speach is taken) nor that al idols be images, but as images that are worshipped. But S. Iohn (you say) speaking to the conuerted Gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were conuerted. That is true, but not onelyonly from them, but from all other idols. Except perhappes you thinke, that Christians by that texte shoulde not abhorre the images of Simon Magus, and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gnostikes, and other heretikes, which worshipped the image of Christ, and of Sainct Paule, as Irenaeus and EpiphaniusIrenaus libr. 1. e…. 20 23. 24. Epiphanius. lib. 1. Tom. 2 H. 27. doe testifie. And it seemeth you so thinke in deede. For you say soone after, whosoeuer esteemeth those wordes, as the wordes of Scripture (if images be put for idolls spoken against Christes image) is made a verie babe. Suchs babes were Irenaeus and Epiphanius, that they condemned this worshipping of images for heresie. Suche a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image of Christ painted in vaile hanging in a Church at Anablatha, he iudged it to be contrarie to the Scriptures, and rent it in peeces. Suche a babe was Tertullian, that speaking of that verie texte of Sainct Iohn, litle children keepe your selues from idolls, he writeth, Non iam ab idololatria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est ab ipsa effigie eorum. Indignum enim vt imago Dei viui, Imago Idoli & mortui fiat, He biddeth them take heede, not nowe from idolatrie, as from the seruice, but from the idolls them selues, that is to say, from the verie images, or shapes of them. For it is vnworthie that the image of the liuing God, shoulde bee made the image of an idoll, and that being deade. Finally, suche a babe was your vulgar translatour, that he sayth. Filioli cust…dite vos à simulachris, Which is all one, as if he shoulde hauehave sayed ab imaginibus (as I hauehave plentifully proued) children keepe your selues from images. As for the purpose you pretende to hauehave in honouring Christ by p. 107images contrarie to his commaundement, is in deede nothing but dishonouring of him and destruction of your selues.

MART. 14. But the gay confuter with whome I beganne,V V. Fulke. Fol. 35. sayeth for further aunswere: Admit that in some of our translations it bee, Children keepe your selues from images (for so he woulde hauehave sayed if is were truely printed) What great crime of corruption is here committed? And when it is sayed agayne, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they meane by so translating to make the simple beleue that idols and images are all one, which is absurde: he replyeth that it is no more absurditie, than in steede of a Greeke worde, to vse a Latine of the same signification. And vponupon this position he graunteth that according to the propertie of the Greeke worde a man may say, GodGen 1.Gen 1 made man according to his idol, and that generally, idolū foreign.may as truely be translated an image, as Tyrannus a King (which is verie true, both being absurde) and here he cited many authours and dictionaries idly, to proue that idolum mayforeign. signifie the same that image.foreign.

FVLK. 14. But this scornefull replier with whom I hauehave to do, is so accustomed, to false and vnhonest dealing, that he can neuer report any thing that I hauehave written truely, and as I hauehave written, but with one forgerie or an other, he will cleane corrupt and peruert my saying. As here, he shameth nothing to affirme, that I graunt, that according to the propertie of the Greeke worde, a man may say. God made man according to his idoll I will reporte mine owne wordes, by which euerie man may perceaue howe honestly he dealeth with me.

But admit that in some translation it bee as you say: Children keepe your selues from images: what greate crime of corruption is here committed? You saye that it is to make simple men beleeue that idolls and images are all one, which is absurde. This is no more absurditie, than in stead of a Greeke word to vse a p. 108Latine of the same signification. But you replie, that then where Moises sayeth that God made man according to his owne image, we shoulde consequently say, that God made man according to his idoll. I aunswere, howsoeuer the name of idols in the Englishe tongue for the greate dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of images, is become so odious that no Christian man woulde say, that God made man according to his idoll, no more than a good subiect woulde call his lawefull Prince a tyraunt, yet according to the Greeke word, foreign may bee as truely translated an image, as foreign, a King.

Here if I were disposed to giuegive the rayne to affection, as you doe often being vnprouoked by me, were sufficient occasion offered, to insult against your falsehoode. But I will forbeare, and in plaine wordes tell you, that if you be so simple, that you can not vnderstande the difference of these two propositions, foreign wheresoeuer it is reade in Greeke, may be truely translated an image: and this: wheresoeuer the worde image is vsed in Englishe, you may vse the word idoll, you are vnmeete to reade a Diuinitie Lecture in Englande, how soeuer you be aduaunced in Rhemes. If not of ignorance, but of malice, you hauehave peruerted both my words and meaning, let God and all godly men be iudge betwene you and me. My wordes are not obscure nor ambiguous, but that euerie child may vnderstand my meaning to be no more but this. That this Englishe worde idoll is by vse restrayned, onelyonly to wicked images. The Greeke worde foreign signifieth generally all images, as foreign did all Kings, vntill Kings that were so called, became hatefull for crueltie, which caused euen the name tyrannus to be odious.

MART. 15. But I beseech you Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that foreign may by the originall propertie of the worde signifie an image, (which no man denieth) doe they tell you also that you may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, p. 109as the common vsuall signification thereof? or do they tell you that image and idol are so all one, that wheresoeuer you finde this worde image, you may truely call it, idol? for these are the points that you should defend in your answere. For an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus, God hathRom. 8. Imagini. 1. Cor. 15. Imaginem.Rom 81 Cor 15 predestinated vsus to be made conformable to the idol of his sonne. And againe, As we hauehave borne the idol of the earthly (Adam:) so let vsus beare the idol of the heauenly (CHRIST.) And againe, We are transformed into the2. Cor. 3. Hebr. 10.2 Cor 3Heb 10 same idol, euen as our Lordes spirit. And againe, The Law hauing a shadowe of the good things to come, not theCol. 1. 2. Cor. 4.Col 12 Cor 4 very idol of the things. And againe, Christ who is the idol of the inuisible God? Is this (I pray you) a true translation? yea, say you, according to the propertie of the worde: but because the name of idols, in the English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping of images, is become odious, no Christiā man would say so.

FVLK. 15. No man denieth (you say) that foreign may by the originall proprietie of the worde signifie an image. It is well, that being conuicted by all Dictionaries, old and new, you will at length yeelde to the truth. But you demaund whether the Dictionaries do tell me that I may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common vsuall signification thereof. Sir I medle only with the translations of the Scripture, and the Dicctionaries tell me that so it vsually signifieth, and therefore so I may translate in the Scripture, or any other ancient Greeke writer, that vseth the worde according to the originall proprietie thereof. Peraduenture some later Greeke writers restraining it onelyonly to wicked images, may so vse the terme, as the generall signification thereof will not agree to the meaning in some odde place or other. But that is no matter to pleade against our translation of the Scripture, whē in that time it was written, the word was indifferent, to signifie any image. Further than this, you aske of me, if the dictionaries do tell me, that image and idol are all one, and wheresoeuer p. 110I find the worde Imago, I may truly call it idoll? No forsooth sir, they teach me no such thing: neither doe I say that the worde image and idoll may be confounded But the cleane contrary, if your Mastership had not mistaken me, because it was not your pleasure to take me either according to my wordes, or according to my meaning. Why sir, These are the pointes you shoulde defende in your aunswere, for an example, doe they teache you to translate in these places thus: God hath predestinated vsus to be made conformable to the idoll of his sonne. And againe, wee hauehave borne the idoll of the earthly, &c. I pray you sir, pardon me to defende that I neuer sayd, ne thought, you your selfe confesse in the ende, that I say, that no Christian man woulde say so: wherefore when you say that I affirme, this is a true translatiō according to the propertie of the word: can I say lesse? Then you lye like a Popish hypocrite.

MART. 16. First note howe foolishly and vnaduisedly he speaketh here, because he would confounde images and idols, and make them falsely to signifie one thing: when he sayeth, the name of idoll, is become odious in the English tongue because of worshipping of Images, He shoulde hauehave sayed, The dishonour done to God in worshipping Idols, made the name of Idols odious. As in his owne example of Tyrant, and king: he meant to tell vsus that Tyrant sometime was an vsuall name for eueryevery king, and because certaine such Tyrants abused their power, therefore the name of Tyrant became odious. For he wil not say (I trow) that for the fault of kings, the name of Tyrant became odious. Likewise the Romanes tooke away the name of Mālius for the crime of one Manlius, not for the crime of Iohn at Nokes, or of any other name. The name of Iudas is so odious that men now commonly are not so called. Why so? because he that betrayed Christ, was called Iudas: not because he was also Iscariote. The very name of Ministers is odious and contemptible. Why? because Ministers are so lewde, wicked, and vnlearned, not because some Priests be naught. Euen so the name of idoll grewe to be odious, because of the idols of the p. 111Gentiles, not because of holy images. For if the reuerence done by Christians to holy images were euill, as it is not, it shoulde in this case hauehave made the name of images odious: and not the name of Idols. But God be thanked, the name of Images is no odious name among Catholike Christians, but onelyonly among heretikes and Imagebreakers, such as the second generall Councell of Nice hath condemned therefore with the sentence of Anáthema. No more than the Crosse is odious, which to all good Christians is honourable, because our Sauiour Christ died on a Crosse.

FVLK. 16. Nay firste note how falsly, and then how foolishly, and yet how impudently he continueth a slaū der against me, of his owne deuising, that I would confound those English wordes, images, and idols. For first he will teach me to speake English, that where I sayd the name of idoll is become odious in the English tongue, because of worshipping of images, I should hauehave sayed. The dishonour done to God in worshipping of idolls, made the name of idolls odious. And what I pray you were those idolls, the worshipping of which made the name odious, but images? May I not be so bold, vnderunder your correction, to vse the generall name images, which you say are not idolls, vntill they be abused. When the image of Iupiter, King of Creete, was first made, and nothing else done vntounto it, would you call it an image, or an idoll. Sure I am, you called the brasen serpent, first an image, and then an idoll. Euen so I trust I may without offence of English men, say, that the abuse of images, called first without note of infamie foreign, idolls, made the name idols to be odious, and therefore not applyed, but to such abused images: and the example I brought of Tyrannus, which first did signifie a king, is very plaie and like, but that you are disposed to play the peeuish quarreller. And trow you, I will not say, that for the fault of kings, the name of tyrant became odious. Yes verily, I will not spare to saye, and so I sayde before, that for the fault of such cruell Kings, as were called p. 112Tyranni, though the name it self first signified not so, that name of tyrant became odious. As for your fomblitudes of Manlius, and Iudas, two proper names, compared with image, and idoll, King, and Tyrant, which be common names, I will not vouchsafe to answer them. But the name of ministers (you saye) is odious, for the faults of ministers, and not for the faults of priestes. Popish priestes are odious enough, for their owne faults, so that they neede not be charged vniustly, with the faultes of our euill ministers. Which, I would wish, were fewer, than they be, but I trust there are not so many euill of them, as your popish priestes hauehave bene, and are dayly found to be. And whosoeuer of our ministers hath bene found worst, I thinke there may be found, not a priest, but a Pope of your side, as euill, or worse than he. But if reuerence done by Papistes, (which you call Christians) to images, had bene euill, (say you,) it should hauehave made the name of images, odious also. No sir, that followeth not, so long as that reuerence was accounted good, and lawfull, and now that it is found to be abhominable, the people hauing the other odious worde of idolls, in vse, neede not abandon the name of images, except they had an other, to signifie lawfull, and good images. The curse of the idolatrous Councell of Nice the second, no Christian man regardeth, which knoweth that by Gods owne mouth in the Scriptures, all makers and worshippers of idolatrous images are accursed.

MART. 17. But to omit this mans extraordinary & vaduised speaches which be too many and too redious (as when he sayeth in the same sentence, Howsoeuer the name Idoll is growē odious in the English tongue, as though it were not also odious in the Latine & Greeke tongues, but that in Latin & Greeke a man might say according to his fond opinion, Fecit hominem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places where is imago) to omitte these rashe assertions I say, and to returne to his other wordes, where he sayeth, that though the originall propertie of the wordes hath that signification, yet no p. 113Christian man would say, that God made man according to his idoll, no more than a good subiect woulde call his lawfull Prince, a Tyrant. Doth he not here tell vsus that, which we would hauehave, to wit, that we may not speake or translate, according to the originall propertie of the word, but according to the common vsuall, and accustomed signification thereof? As we may not translate, Phalaris tyrannus, Phalaris the King, as sometime Tyrannus did signifie, and in auncient authors doth signifie: but, Phalaris the tyrant, as now this worde tyrannus is commonly taken, and vnderstoode. Euen so we mayAb idolis. not now translate, My children, keepe you selues from images, foreign.as the word may, and doth sometime signifie, according1. Ioh. 5.1 John 5 to the originall propertie thereof, but we must translate, keepe your selues from idols, according to the common vse and signification of the word, in vulgar speech, and in the holy Scriptures. Where the Greeke word is so notoriously and vsually peculiar to idols, and not vntounto images: that the holy fathers of the second Nicene Councell, (which knew right well the signification of the Greeke word, them selues being Grecians) doe pronounce Anathema, to all such as interprete those places of the holy scripture, that concerne idols, of images, or against sacred images, as now these Caluinists doe, not onelyonly in their commentaries vponupon the holy Scriptures, but euen in their translatiōs of the text.

FVLK. 17. We can not yet be rid of this mans extraordinarie, and vnaduised surmises, which are too many, and tedious, as where I say, the name Idoll is odious in the English tongue, he gathereth, that I meane, it to be odious onelyonly in the English tongue, and not in the Latine and Greeke. I hauehave shewed before, that in Tullies time, it was not odious in Latine, and it is not long, since Maister Martin confessed the Greeke worde, according to the originall proprietie, to signifie as generally, as foreign, an image, which is not odious. Although in later times, among Christians, both of the Greeke, and the Latine Church, the name of Idolum, became odious, as well as the word Idoll in English. Therefore it is not my fond opinion, but. M. Martines foolish collection, that a p. 114man may say in Latine, fecit hominem ad idolum suum: and yet I am charged with rash assertions, when nothing is reproued that I affirme, but that which he him selfe doth imagine.

But nowe you will returne to those wordes of myne, where I say, that though the originall proprietie of the wordes, hath that signification: yet, no Christian man would say, that God made man according to his idoll, no more than a good subiect woulde call his lawefull Prince, a tyrant. These wordes (you say) doe tell vsus, that we may not speake, or translate, according to the originall proprietie of the word, but according to the common, vsual, and accustomed signification thereof. For speaking I graunt, as the words are vsed in our time: but for translating, I saye you must regarde howe the wordes were vsed in time of the writer, whose workes you translate. As if you would translate out of Euripides, foreign, would you say, who is tyrant of this land? or rather, who is King? or in Aristophanes, foreign, would you translate, Iupiter, tyrant of the gods, or King of the gods? I thinke not. But in S. Iohn, seeing at that tyme that he wrote, foreign, signified an image generally, it may be translated, an image, generally, and seeing he speaketh of the vnlawefull vse of images, it may also be translated an idoll, as the worde is nowe taken to signifie. Howe the late pettie Prelates of the seconde Nicene Councell were disposed to vse the worde, to colour their blasphemous idolatrie, it is not materiall. The auncient dictionaries of Suidas, Phauorinus, Hesychius, with the examples of Homer, Plato, and other auncient Greeke Authors, are of more credite for the true and auncient signification of that word.

MART. 18. This then being so, that wordes must beLoco citato. fol. 35 translated as their common vse and signification requireth, if you aske your olde question, what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, keepe your selues from images, p. 115the Greeke being foreign; you hauehave aunswered your selfe, that in so translating, idoll, and image, are made to signifie one thing, which may not be done, no more than Tyrant and King, can be made to signifie all one. And how can you say then, that this is no more absurditie, than in steede of a Greeke worde, to vse a Latine of the same signification. Are you not here cō trary▪ your selfe? Are idoll, and image. Tyrant, and King, of one signification? sayd you not that in the English tongue, idoll is growen to an other signification, than image, as tyrant is growen to an other signification than King? Your false translations therefore, that in so many places make idols, and images, all one, not onelyonly forcing the word in the holy Scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby, (as Ephes. 5. & Col. 3.) are theyEph. 5. A couetous man is a vvorshipper of images, and Col. 3. Couetousnes is vvorshipping of images.Eph 5Col 3 not in your owne iudgement very corrupt: and as your owne consciences must confesse, of a malitious intent corrupted, to disgrace thereby the Churches holy images, by pretence of the holy Scriptures that speake onelyonly of the Pagans idols.

FVLK. 18. Againe, I repeate, that wordes must, or may be translated, according to that signification they had in time of the writer, whome you translate. And to my question, what absurditie is it in that text of Saint Iohn, for foreign, to translate image: you aunswer by that meanes, idoll and image, are made to signifie one thing. But that is not so, for image signifieth more generally, than idoll in English, and image aunswereth properly to the Greeke worde, foreign, idoll, to the meaning of Saint Iohn, that is of wicked images, so that the translation is good. Euen as foreign, may be translated a King, generally, according to the worde, and if the Author meane of a cruell King, it may be translated a Tyrant. For King is a generall word, applyed to good Kings, and to euill, as image is to lawefull and vnlawefull images. Therefore our translations, that for foreign, saye an image, are not false, much lesse anye malicious corruptions. And if the translators in so doing, intended to disgrace popishe images, I thinke they did wel, and according to the meaning p. 116of the holy Ghost, who forbidding generally, all images, that may be had in religious reuerence, did not restraine the signification of the word foreign, to the wicked idols of the Gentiles, but left it at large, to comprehend all such images, and all kindes of worshipping them, as are contrary to the lawe and commaundement of God.

MART. 19. But of the vsuall, and originall signification of wordes (whereof you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speake more anone, if first we touch some other your falsifications against holy images: as, where you affectate to thrust the word Image into the text, when there is no such thing in the Hebrew or Greeke, as in that notorious example; 2. Par. 36. (Bib. 1562.) Carued images that were layd to his charge. foreign. subaud. foreign. Num. c. 22. foreign.Num 22Againe, Rom. 11. To the image of Baal. and Act. 19 The image that came downe from Iupiter. Where you are not content to vnderstand image, rather than idoll, but also to thrust it into the text, being not in the Greeke, as you knowe very well.

FVLK. 19. Three places you note, where the word Image is thrust into the text, being neither in the Hebrew, nor Greeke. The first, 2. Par. 36. bib. 1562. which I confesse is a fault, but I maruell how it crept in. For Thomas Mathewes bible, which was printed before it, hath not that worde, Carued images. It is reformed also in both the translations that followed.

The second, Rom. 11. is no corruption, for seeing you acknowledge, that a substantiue must be vnderstoode, to beare vp the feminine article, what reason is there, why we should not vnderstand foreign, rather than foreign, seeing it is certaine, Baal had an image, that was worshipped in his temple? 2. Reg. 10. The third place is, Actes the 19. where the worde Image is necessarily to be vnderstoode, which fell downe from Iupiter, as it was fayned. Herevnto Plinie beareth witnesse, lib. 16. cap. 40. & sheweth by whom it was made, & of what matter, of the like speaketh Herodianus. And the similitude of this Image, p. 117is yet to be seene, in those auncient Coygnes, that yet remaine, which were called foreign temples. Wherefore your vulgar translation which turneth foreign. Iouis prolis, is not right, and therefore is corrected by Isidorus Clarius, a Ioue delapsi simulachri, with the consent of the deputies of the Councell of Trent.

MART. 20. Of this kinde of falsification is that which is crept as a leprosie through out all your Bibles, translating, Sculptile and conflatile, grauen image, molten image, namely in the first commaundement, where you know in the Greeke it isforeign idoll, and in the Hebrue, such a worde as signifieth onelyonly a grauenforeign thing, not including this worde image: and you know that God commaunded to make the images of Cherubins, and of oxen in the Temple, and of the brasen serpent in the desert, and therfore your wisedomes might hauehave considered, that he forbadde not all grauen images, but such as the Gentiles made and worshippedThe meaning of the 1. Commaū dement concerning false Gods & grauen idols. as Goddes: and therefore Non facies tibi sculptile, concurreth with those wordes that goe before, Thou shalte hauehave none other gods but me. For so to hauehave an image as to make it a God, is to mke it more than an image: and therefore, when it is an Idoll, as were the Idols of the Gentiles, then it is forbid by this commaundement. Otherwise, when the Crosse stood many yeares vponupon the Table in the Queenes Chappell, was it againstThe Crosse in the Q. Chappel. this commaundement? or was it idolatrie in the Queenes Maiestie and her Counsellers, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of your Churche? Or do the Lutherans your puefellowes, at this day commit idolatrie against this commaundement, that hauehave in their Churches the crucifixe, and the holyImages in the Lutheran Churches. Images of the mother of God, and of S. Iohn the Euangelist? Or if the whole storie of the Gospell concerning our sauiour Christ, were drawen in pictures and Images in your Churches, as it is in many of ours, were it (trow you) against this commaundement? fie for shame, that you should thus with intolerable impudencie and deceite abuse and bewitch the ignorant people, against your owne knowledge and conscience. For, wot you not, that God many times expresly forbade the Iewes both mariages and other conuersation with the Gentiles, least they might fall to worship p. 118their idols, as Salomon did, and as the Psalme reporteth of them?…. Reg. 11. Psalm. 105. v. 35.Ps 105:35 This then is the meaning of the commaundement, neither to make the idols of the Gentiles, nor any other like vntounto them, and to that end, as did Ieroboam in Dan and Bethel.

FVLK. 20. This is a sore complaint, that we hauehave falsified the Scripture, as it were with a Leprosie, in translating sculptile, and conflatile, a grauen and a molten Image, and namely in the first commaundement, where there is no worde of Image, or Imagrie: but in deede in the second commaundement, wee translate▪ the Hebrue worde Pesel a grauen Image. You say it signifieth a grauenforeign thing, not including the worde Image. I answere you are not able to bring a place in the Bible, where it signifieth any other grauen thing, but onelyonly an Image: & yet it is deriued of a verbe, that signifieth to graue or hewe, as the worde Pisilim, Iud. 3. taken for quarries offoreign stone doth declare. Beside this, the worde nexte following, signifying a similitude or Image, sufficiently sheweth, that it is not taken generally for any grauen worke, but for such, wherein the likenesse or similitude of God, or any creature is meante to be resembled: and the same doth also the Greeke worde foreign testifie; as for the Cherubins, Oxen, Brasen serpent, or any thing which God commaundeth, is not forbidden by this precept: but that whiche man maketh of his owne head, to honour as God, or to worship God by it. Wherefore very absurdely, to cloake suche abhominable Idolatrie▪ you say that this commaundement, Non facies sculptile, doth concurre with those words, Thou shalt hauehave none other Gods but me. By which not only two seuerall cōmaundements are confounded, but also a vaine tautologie cō mitted: or els that added for interpretatiō ▪ which is more obscure, than the text interpreted. Touching the crosse that stoode sometimes in the Queenes chappel, whereof you speake your pleasure, as also of hir Maiesties Councellours, it is not by and by Idolatrie, what soeuer is against that commaundement, neither is the hauing of p. 119any Images in the Churche (which are had in no vse of religion) contrarie to this commaundement. And although wee will not accuse the Lutherans of Idolatrie, neither can wee, because they worship no Images: yet will we not excuse them, for suffering of Images to be in their Churches, whereof may ensue daunger of Idolatrie, but that in some parte they goe against this commaundement, deceyued in their iudgement, and of vsus not to be defended in their errour. After you hauehave railed a fitte, with fie for shame, and suche like Rhetorike, you seeme to make the prohibition of Images, none other, but such as the prohibition of mariage, and other conuersation with the Gentiles, which was only for feare of Idolatrie. But when you can shewe the like absolute commaundement, to forbid mariage, and conuersation withHebr. the Heathen, as this is for Images in religion, and worshippingTeraphim. of them, we may hauehave some regarde of your similitude:Matsebah. otherwise the meaning of this commaundement,Temunah. is generally to forbid all Images of God, and ofM…schith. Pesel.his creatures, to honour God by them: for to honourTselamim. them as Gods, is a breach of the first commaundement,Tabnith. as properly as of the second.Hamanim.

MART. 21. This being a thing so plaine as nothing moreSamel. Massecah.in al the holy Scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceite & Nesachim.falfehood, for the most part doth translate still, images, images, Gillulim.when the Latine, and Greeke, and Hebrue hauehave diuers otherMiphletseth. Gr.wordes, and very seldome that which answereth to image. Forforeign. when it is image in the Latin, or Greeke, or Hebrue, textes, your translation is not reprehended: for we also translate sometimes,foreign. images, when the text of the holy Scripture requireth it. And weforeign are not ignorant that there were images, which the Pagans adored for their gods: & we know that some idols are images, but not al images, idols. But when the holy Scriptures call thē by so many names, rather than images, because they were not onelyonly images, but made idols: why do your translations, like cuckoes birds, sound continually, images, images, more than idols, or otherAl image and iages, in their trāslations. wordes equiualent to idols, which are there meant?

p. 120FVLK. 21. In deede there is nothing more plaine in all the holy Scriptures, thā that the worshipping of Images, of al sortes, is forbidden▪ but that our itching humor of deceit, and falshood, (as it pleaseth you to speake) hath corrupted the text, to establish any false opinion of the vse of Images, it is not yet proued. But now you set vponupon vsus with 13. Hebrue wordes, and 9. Greeke words at ones, which we for the most parte doe translate still Images, Images: and you say we sounde with Cuckowes birdes continually Images, Images, more than Idols or other wordes equiualent to Idols. How many times the word Image is sounded, I neuer had care to seeke, and now I hauehave no leysure to number, but I am sure Idols and Idolatrie, in that translation in which least, are named aboue fortie or fiftie times. But to a conscience guiltie of worshipping of Images, contrary to the expresse commaundement of God, the very name of Images must needes sounde vnpleasantly. That wee hauehave no greater chaunge of wordes to answere so many of the Hebrue tongue, it is of the riches of that tongue, and the pouertie of our mother language, which hath but two wordes, Image, and Idoll, and them both borowed of the Latine and Greeke: As for other wordes equiualent, wee know not any, and we are loth to make any new wordes of that signification, excepte the multitude of Hebrue words of the same sense cōming togither, do sometimes perhaps seeme to require it. Therfore as the Greeke hath fewer wordes to expresse this thing than the Hebrue, so hath the Latine fewer than the Greeke, and the English fewest of all, as will appeare if you would vndertake to giuegive vsus English wordes for the 13. Hebrue wordes. Except you would coyne such ridiculous inkhorne termes, as you do in the new Testement, Azymes, Prepuce, Neophyte, Scandale, Parasceue, and such like.

MART. 22. Two places onelyonly wee will at this time aske you the reason of: first why you translate the Hebrue and Greeke**Matsebah. that answeareth to Statua, image, so often as you doe?foreign p. 121Whereas this word in the said tongues, is taken also in the better part, as when Iacob set vp a stone and erected it for a title,**Gen. 28. v. 22. Esa. 19. v. 19.Gen 28:22Isa 19:19 powring oile vponupon it: and the Prophet saith, Our Lordes altar shal be in Aegipt, and his title beside it. So that the word doth signifie generally a signe erected of good or euill, and therefore might very well (if it pleased you) hauehave some other English than, image. Vnlesse you will say that Iacob also set vp an image: &, Our Lords image shall be in AEgipt: which you will not say, though you might with more reason than in other places.

FVLK. 22. Seeing you aske, why we translate the Hebrue word Matsebah so often an image? It had bene reason you shoulde hauehave tolde vsus howe often we doe so, or at least noted some place, where it can not signifie an image. We knowe the word being deriued of the verbe Iatsab that signifieth to stande, may be taken for some thing erected, that is no image, but a pillour, or as your Latine text calleth it a title, in both the places by you noted Gen. 28. Esai. 19. and else where Gen. 25. 2. Sam. 18. But when soeuer we translate it an image, the circumstaunce of the place so requireth, as 2. Reg. 10. where it is sayed, that Baals images were taken out of his temple, broken and burnt. For they were images of Baal, that were worshipped in his temple, and not titles or pillours. Likewise 2. Reg. 17. where it is sayd, that the Ismaelites made vntounto them selues, Statuas, images, and groues vnderunder euerie high hil and vnderunder eueryevery thicke tree: as appeareth by Ezechiel. 6. where they be called Gillulim idols, which had the similitude of men, as Baalim and suche other.

MART. 23. Secondly we demaund, why your verie lastOf the yeare 1570. Englishe Bible hath (Esa. 30. 22.) For two Hebrue wordes, which are in Latine Sculptilia and Conflatilia, twise, images,Pesilim. Massechoth.images: neither worde being Hebrue for an image: noforeign. more than if a man would aske, what is Latine for an image, and you would tell him Sculptile. Whereuppon he seeing a faire painted image in a table, might happily say, Ecce egregium sculptile. Which euerie boy in the Grammar schoole woulde p. 122laugh at. Which therefore we tell you, because we perceiue your translations endeuour and as it were affectate, to make Sculptile foreignand image all one. Which is most euidently false and to your great confusion appeareth Abac. 2. v. 13. Where for these wordes, Quid prodest sculptile quia sculpsit illud fictorforeign. suus, conflatile & imaginem falsam: Which is according to the Hebrue and Greeke: your later English translation hath, What profiteth the image? for the maker thereof hathOf the yeare 1579. made it an image, and a teacher of lies.

FVLK. 23. If it had said, the grauen images of siluer, and the molten or cast images of gold, I know not what aduauntage it had bene to you, or losse to vsus. But neither word (you say) is Hebrue for an image. Alacke this is poore sophistrie, when all the worlde of Hebricians know, they are Hebrue for nothing else, but for grauen or cast images, and by the figure Synecdoche, are taken generally for images of what making or matter soeuer they be. And the question is not, by what art images are made: but to what vse, and howe they be vsed, that they may be condemned for vnlawefull. This I take to be the cause, why the interpretour neglected the difference of the Hebrue words, which sometimes is not obserued, & in English vnpossible alwaies, & vnprofitable to be kept. As for your owne conceite, whereat you thinke boyes might laugh, I leaue it to your selfe. For if we were asked, what is Latine for an image, we coulde aunswere somewhat else than Sculptile. But if a boy shoulde aske Pesilim or Massecath in this place of Esay doth signifie, we woulde not aunswere a grauen thing, or a molten thing, least he might shewe vsus the mantilltree of a chimney, and a brasse pot hanging ouer the fire, and demaund further whether Esay in this text spake of them, and all such things as they are. But it is most euidētly false (you say) that Sculptile and Image are all one, and this appeareth to our great cōfusion, Abacuc the second &c. But I say to your shame, it will appeare by this verie texte, that Pesel and Massecah signifie one and the same thing p. 123and that most euidently. For thus the textis, What profiteth the Image (Pesel) for his maker iots…ro, hath made it, or (as you will hauehave it) hath grauen it Pesalo: what followeth nowe, but Massecah an Image? you had rather say Conflatile a molten Image. But then you muste remember, that the maker of it by grauing, made it a molten Image, whiche is a straunge peece of worke, excepte you will saye, that first he did caste it, and then he did graue it, but saye whiche way you will, the same Image is called Pesel and Massecah without difference. The last wordes are vmoreh shaker, and a teacher of lies. For which wordes your translation hath Imaginem falsam, a false Image, whereas Moreh neuer signifieth an Image. But of that afterwarde.

MART. 24. I woulde eueryevery common Reader were able to discerne your falsehood in this place. Firste, you make Sculpere sculptile, no more than, to make an image: Which beyng absurde you knowe (because the painter or embroderer making an image, can not be sayde Sculpere sculptile) might teach you that the Hebrue hath in it no signification of image, no more than Sculpere can signifie, to make anSculptile. image: and therefore the Greeke and the Latine precisely (forforeign. the most part) expresse neither more nor lesse, than a thing grauen: but yet meane alwaies by these wordes, a grauen idol, to whiche signification they are appropriated by vse of holy Scripture, as Simulacrum, idolum, conflatile, and sometime imago. In which sense of signifying Idols, if you also did repeate images so often, although the translation were not precise, yet it were in some parte tolerable, because the sense were so: but when you doe it to bring all holy images into contempt, euen the image of our Sauiour Christe crucified, you may iustly be controlled for false and hereticall translatours.

FVLK. 24. I would eueryevery common reader were able to discerne your foolishe malice in this place. For firste while you cauill at the Etymologie of the words, which the Prophete regardeth not, you make him say, p. 124that the …h…o…er thereof, hath grauen a grauen thing, a …cl…ea thing. Secondly, where you say, that the Hebrue word Pes… hath no signification of an image in it, leaning to the bare de…tion from the verbe Pasal, you controule the onelyonly vse of it, which is to signifie an image, or idoll, whether it be grauen, or molten, or by what workemanship soeuer it be made, which you confesse to be the sense of it. But when we doe it (you say) to bring all holy images into contempt, we may iustly be controuled, for false and hereticall translatours. First we knowe no holy images, made with handes at this time so accompted, but they are all prophane and abhominable idols. Secondly, if the translatours purpose were euill, yet so long as the wordes and sense of the originall tongue will beare him, he can not iustly be called a false and hereticall translatour, albeit he hauehave a false and hereticall meaning. As you Papistes hauehave in your late translation of the newe Testament: yet where you translate, either according to the wordes, or according to the sense, no equitie can condemne you for false translatours.

MART. 25. As in this verie place (which is an otherAbic. …. falshoode like to the other) conflatile you translate image, as you did sculptile, and so here againe in Abacucke (as before in Esay is noted) for two distinct words, ech signifying an other diuerse thing from image, you translate, images, images. Thirdly, for imaginem falsam, a false image, you translate an other thing, without any necessarie pretense either of Hebrue or Greeke, auoiding here the name of image, because this place telleth you that the holy Scripture speaketh against false images, or as the Greeke hath, false phantasies, or as you translate theforeign. Hebrue, such images as teach lies, representing false gods which are not, as the Apostle saith, Idolum nihil est, And, Non1. Cor. 8. Act. 19.1 Cor 8Acts 19 sunt Dij qui manibus fiunt. Which distinction of false and true images you will not hauehave, because you condemne all images, euen holy and sacred also, and therefore you make the holy Scriptures to speake herein accordingly to your owne faasie.

p. 125FVLK. 25. Seing the Prophet regardeth not the Etymologie of the wordes, but vseth both for one and the same Image, no nor regardeth the matter whereof it is made, as appeareth in the nexte verse, where he calleth this Idoll wodde, and stone, which cannot be molten, eueryevery reasonable man may see, that the worde Massecah doth in this place signifie generally an Image, which is made to be a teacher of lies. And whereas you repeate, that the two wordes doc signifie each an other diuerse thing from Image, because the one signifieth a grauen thing▪ the other a molten thing, you speake with out all shame, and sense of honestie: for Pesel signifieth not eueryevery grauen, carued, or hewen thing, but onelyonly an Image. For who would say, that a morter, or a gutter of hewen stone were in Hebrue to be signified by the word Pesel, or a pewter pot, or a dishe, by the worde Massecah; Seing the vse of the Hebrue tongue therefore hath appropried these names onelyonly to Images, it is great frowardnesse, & no learning to quarell about the etimologie or deriuation of them. As this name building in English, is taken only for houses: as when we say here are goodly buildings, which if a man would extende according to the deriuation, & shewing nothing else but walles of bricke or other matter, prayse them for goodly buildings, he should be thought to speake straungly in our tongue, & yet according to the deriuation, building may signifie any thing that is builded. But for Imaginem falsam, a false image, you charge vsus to translate an other thing, without any necessary pretence, either of Hebrew, or Greeke. Such affirmations will make vsus thinke meanly of your knowledge, in the Hebrew tongue. For what I pray you els, cā Moreh in this place signifie, but a teacher? or whereforeign is it euer taken for an image, as your Latine text hath, or a fantasie, as the Greeke readeth. Turne ouer your dictionarie, and Hebrew concordance, and see if you can find it vsed for an image▪ or an idoll. At least wise, giuegive credit to Isidorus Clarius, who thus writeth in his notes vponupon p. 126the text. Quod ait imaginem falsam, in Heb. est docen…, vel annuncians mendacium. That he saith a false Image, in the Hebrue it is teaching or shewing foorth a lie The distinction you make of true and false Images, is vaine for this purpose: for all Images that are vsed in religion, are false, and teachers of falshood, which you with Gregorie say are Laye mens bookes; but what shall they teacheAbac. 2. Ierem. 10.Hab 2Jer 10 saith Abacuc and Ieremie, but lies and vanitie? where note that Ieremie calleth the Image woodde, by Synecdoche, signifying all Images made with hands, of any matter. Againe he saith, eueryevery artificer is confounded in his Image, because it is false which he hath made, and there is no breath in it. In whiche verse it is to be obserued, that hee vseth firste the worde Pesel, saying Mippasel and afterward Nifco, for the same Image madeforeign by the artificer, without distinction of grauing or melting, at leastwise for the sense, though the wordes be diuerse. Euen so your vulgar Latin translator vseth Sculptile, conflatile, imaginem & simulachrum, for one and the same thing. The Scripture therfore telling vsus that all Images are false, because they being voyde of life, are sette vp to represent the liuing, it is not our fantasie, but the auctoritie of Gods worde, that causeth vsus to reiect your fantasticall distinction, of true and false Images.

MART. 26. Wherein you proceede so farre, that when Daniel sayde to the King, I worshippe not idollsDan. 14. v. 4. made with handes (foreign) you make him saye thus, I worshippe not thinges that be made with hands, Bib. 1562. 1577.leauing out the worde idolls altogither, as though he had sayd, nothing made with hand, were to be adored, not the Arke, the propitiatorie, no nor the holy crosse it selfe, that our Sauiour shed his bloud vponupon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish and take from it at your pleasure.

FVLK. 26. That (thing) is put for idoll, I confesse it to be a fault in some translations, but in the Geneua Bible it is reformed. Contempt of the authoritie of p. 127that Apocryphall chapiter (as it seemed) did breede that negligence. Where you write, that he should by saying, I worshippe not thinges made with handes, hauehave denyed the Arke, and the propitiatorie to be worshipped, it is very true, for neither of both was to be worshipped, as they were made with handes, but God was to be worshipped where they were, and those thinges to be reuerently esteemed, as the sacraments, of Gods presence. As for the crosse whereon Christ dyed, I see no cause why it shoulde be worshipped, if it were to bee had, but rather, if it were worshipped, it shoulde bee serued as the brasen serpent was. None of the Apostles made anye accounte of it: Nicodemus and Ioseph of Arimathia, if there had beene any matter of religion in it, might hauehave preserued it, and not hauehave suffered it to be buried in the earth, with the two other crosses▪ as the storie of the inuention, sayeth, if it be true. At the finding whereof, Helena as Sainct Ambrose writeth, Regem adorauit non lignum vtique, quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorum. She worshipped the King, not the tree verily, for this is an Hethenishe errour and vanitie of vngodly men. De obit. Theodosij.

MART. 27. But concerring the worde image, which you make to be the English of all the Latine, Hebrew, and Greeke wordes, be they neuer so many and so distinct, I beseeche you, what reason had you to translate foreign, images, Sap. 15. verse 13. doth the Greeke worde so signifie? doth not the sentence following, tell you that it shoulde hauehave bene translated, grauen idolls? for thus it sayth. They iudged all the idolls of the nations to be Gods. Loe, your images, or rather, loe, the true names of the Pagans gods, which it pleaseth you to call, images, images.

FVLK. 27. I thinke you are not able to proue, that we make, image the English to all the Hebrewe wordes, though you boldly affirme it. But in the place by you mentioned, I suppose they translated the Greeke worde p. 128grauen or carued images, rather than idoll, because the writer in that place, Sap. 15. 13. speaketh of the first framing and fashioning of those images, which though the purpose of the workeman be neuer so wicked, yet can not properly be called idolls, before they be abused by them that worship them.

MART. 28. But (to conclude this point) you might, & it would hauehave well becommed you, in translating or expounding the foresayd wordes, to hauehave followed S. Hierom, the great famousComment. in Abac. 2.Hab 2 translator, and interpreter of the holy Scriptures: who telleth you two senses of the foresaid wordes: the one literall, of the Idols of the Gentiles: the other mysticall, of Heresies & errours. Sculptile, sayth he, & conflatile: I take to be peruerse opinions, which are adored of the authors that made thē. See Arius, that graued to him selfe this idoll, that Christ was onelyonly a creature, and adored that which he had grauen. Behold Eunomius, howe he molted and cast a false image, and bowed to that which he had molten. Suppose he had exemplified of the two condemned heretikes, Iouinian, & Vigilantius also: had he not touched your idols, that is, the olde condemned heresies, which you at this day adore?

FVLK. 28. It becommeth vsus best in translation, to follow the originall text, and as neare as we can, the true meaning of the holy Ghost. As for the two senses, which Hieronym telleth, stand whole and vntouched, for our translation. There is a difference betwene a translation, and a commentarie. In commenting vponupon the text, they that see it conuenient, may apply the idolls of the Gentiles, & the worship of them, to the heresies of our times, of the Papistes, Anabaptistes, Libertines, and such like, as the Apostle doth by similitude to couetousnes. As for olde condemned heresies, which you charge vsus to worship, as idols, you are able to proue none, whatsoeuer you bable of Vigilantius, and Iouinian, neither of both doe we follow in any error, much lesse in any heresie.

MART. 29. These onelyonly (I meane heresies and heretikes) are the idols and idolaters (by the ancient Doctors iudgement) p. 129which hauehave bene among Christians, since the idolatrie ofZach 13. Loco citato.Zech 13 the Gentiles ceased, according to the Prophets. Therefore S. Hierom sayth againe: If thou see a man that will not yeeld to the truth, but when the falshoode of his opinions is once shewed, perseuereth still in that he began: thouOsee. 11.Hos 11 mayst aptly say, Sperat in figmento suo, and he maketh dumme or deafe idolls. And againe, All Heretikes hauehave their gods: and whatsoeuer they hauehave forged, they adore the same as Sculptile, and Constantile: that is as a grauen and molten idoll. And againe, He sayth well, I hauehaveOsee. 12.Hos 12 found vntounto my selfe an idoll: For, all the forgeries of heretikes are as the idolls of the Gentiles: neither doe they much differ in impiety, though in name they seeme to differ. And againe, Whatsoeuer according to the letterIn 5. Amos. is spoken against the idolatrie of the Iewes, doe thou referre al this vntounto them, which vnderunder the name of Christ worship idols, and forging to them selues peruerse opinions, carye the tabernacle of their king the deuill, and the image of their idolls. For they worshippe not an idoll, but for varietie of their doctrine, they adore diuerse Gods. And he put in very well, which you made to your selues: for they receiued them not of God, but forged them of their owne minde. And of the idoll of Samaria, he sayth, we alwayes vnderstand Samaria, (and theIn 8. Amos. idoll of Samaria) in the person of Heretikes, the same Prophet saying, WOE BE TO THEM THAT DESPISEc. 6. SION, AND TRVST IN THE MOVNT OF SAMARIA. For Heretikes despise the Churche of God, and trust in the falshood of their opinions, erecting them selues against the knowledge of God: and saying, when they hauehave diuided the people (by schisme,) we hauehave no part in Dauid, nor inheritance in the sonne of Isay.

FVLK. 29. Not these onelyonly, but the idols of the Simonists, Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Collyridians, and such like, made with handes, of Christ, and his mother, of Paule, and Simon, and Selene, and Pythagoras, p. 130&c. and such other, were idolls of false Christians, since the idolatrie of the Gentiles gaue place, by the iudgement of Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and other auncient doctors. And whatsoeuer you cite, or can cite out of Saint Hierom, against the idolls of heresies, agreeth most aptly to your selues, the Papistes, who worship not onelyonly idols made with handes, but also the idols of your braines, which are abhominable heresies.

MART. 30. Thus the Reader may see, that the holye Scriptures which the aduersaries falsly translate, against the holy images of our Sauiour Christ, and his Saincts, to make vsus Idolaters, doe in deede concerne their idolls, and condemne them as idolaters, which forge newe opinions to them selues, such as the auncient fathers knewe not, and adore them, and their owne sense and interpretation of Scriptures, so farre and so vehemently, that they preferre it before the approued iudgement of all the generall councels and holy doctors, and for maintenance of the same, corrupt the holy scriptures at their pleasure, and make them speake according to their fansies, as we hauehave partly shewed, and now are to declare further.

FVLK. 30. Thus the Reader may see, that when you hauehave cauilled, quarrelled, falsified, and slaundered, as much as you can, to charge vsus with false translation of the Scripture, concerning images, you can finde nothing worth the nothing: but if some small ouersight, through negligence, or perhaps the Printers fault, hath escaped, you make a great matter of it, although it be corrected by our selues in other translations, and when all other matter faileth, you returne to your accustomed veine of rayling, and reuiling, which in no wise mans iudgement, deserueth any aunswer, because it is so generall.