A defense of the sincere and true translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils, friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie Martin, one of the readers of popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. By William Fvlke D. in Diuinitie, and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge. Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels & cauils, as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse papistes in their English pamphlets, against the writings of the saide William Fvlke.

MART. 10. As for partes of bookes, doe they not reiect certaine peeces of Daniel and of Hester, because they are not in the Hebrew, which reason S. Augustine reiecteth: or because they were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers? by which reason some part of S. Marke and S. Lukes Gospell might nowe also be called in controuersie, specially if it be true which M. Whitakers by a figuratiue speech more than insinuateth, That* 1.1 he can not see by what right that which once was not in

credit, should by time winne authoritie. Forgetting him selfe by & by, & in the very next lines admitting S. Iames epi∣stle (though before doubted of for Canonicall Scriptures, vnles* 1.2 they receiue it but of their curtesie, & so may refuse it when it shall please them, which must needes be gathered of his wordes, as also many other notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumbe blanckes▪ Which onely to note, were to confute M. Whi∣takers by him selfe, being the answerer for both Vniuersities.

FVLK. 10. As for peeces of Daniel, & of Hester, we reiect none, but only we discerne that which was written by Daniel in deede, from that which is added by Theo∣dotion the false Iew, & that which was written by the spi∣rit of God of Esther, from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfecter. But the reason why we re∣iect those patches (you say) is because they are not in the Hebrew, which reason S. Augustine reiecteth. Here you cite S. Augustine at large, without quotation, in a matter of controuersie. But if we may trust you that S. Augustine reiecteth this reason yet we may be bold vpon S. Hieroms authoritie, to reiect whatsoeuer is not found in the canō of the Iewes, written in Hebrew, or Chaldee. For what∣soeuer was such, S. Hierom did thrust through with a spit or obeliske, as not worthy to be receyued. Witnes here∣of S. Augustine him selfe, Epist. ad Hier. 8. & 10. in which he disswaded him from translating the Scriptures of the olde Testament out of the Hebrew tongue, after the 70. Interpreters, whose reasons as they were but friuolous, so they are derided by S. Hierom, who being learned in the Hebrew & Chaldee tongues, refused to be taught by Au∣gustine, that was ignorant in them, what was to be done in translations out of them. Also Hieronym him selfe testi∣fieth that Daniel in the Hebrew, hath neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymne of the 3. children, nor the fable of Bel & the Dragon: which we (saith he) because they are dispersed throughout the whole world haue added, set∣ting a spit before them, which thrusteth them through, lest we should seeme among the ignorant to haue cut of a great part of the booke. The like he writeth of the

vaine additions that were in the vulgar edition vnto the booke of Esther, both in the Preface, & after the ende of that which he translated out of the Hebrew. There are o∣ther reasons also beside the authoritie of S. Hierom, that moue vs not to receiue them. As that in the storie of Su∣sanna, Magistrats & iudgement of life & death are attri∣buted to the Iewes being in captiuitie of Babylon, which hath no similitude of truth. Beside out of the first chap∣ter of the true Daniel, it is manifest, that Daniel being a young man was caried captiue into Babylon, in the dayes of Nebucadnezer, but in this counterfect storie, Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages, which reig∣ned immediatly before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the storie of Bel and the Dragon, Daniel is said to haue liued with the same king Cyrus, and after when he was cast into the lyons denne, the Prophet Habacuck was sent to him out of Iurie, who prophecied before the first comming of the Chaldees, and therefore could not be aliue in the daies of Cyrus, which was more than 70 yeares after. The additions vnto the booke of Esther in many places, be∣wray the spirite of man, as that they are contrary to the truth of the story, containing vaine repetitions, & ampli∣fications of that which is contained in the true historie, & that which most manifestly conuinceth the sorgerie, that in the epistle of Artaxerxes, cap. 16. Haman is called a Macedonian, which in the true storie is termed an Aga∣gite that is an Amalekite, whereas the Macedonians had nothing to doe with the Persians many yeares after the death of Esther & Haman. I omit that in the ca. 15. ver. 12. the author maketh Esther to lie vnto the king in saying that his countenance was ful of all grace, or else he lyeth him selfe, v. 17. where he saith, the king beheld her in the vehemēcy of his anger, & that he was exceding terrible.

As for other reasons, which you suppose vs to follow, because these parcels were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers, it is a reason of your owne making, and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure. But if that be true which Maister Whitaker by a figuratiue speech doth

more than insinuate, parte of S. Markes and S. Lukes Go∣spell, may also be called in controuersie. Why? what saith M. VVhitaker? Marie, that he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit, should by tyme winne au∣thoritie. But when I pray you was any part of S. Marke or S. Luke out of credit? if any part were of some person doubted of, doth it follow that it was not at al in credit? you reason profoundly, and gather very necessarily. As likewise that he forgetteth him selfe in the very next lines, ad∣mitting S. Iames epistle (though before doubted of) for Cano∣nicall. VVill ye say that S. Iames epistle was once not in credit, or not worthy of credit, (for that is his plaine meaning) because it was doubted of, yea reiected of some? yea, you saye it must needes be gathered of his wordes, that we receiue it but of curtesie, and so may re∣fuse it when it pleaseah vs. Demonstrate this in a syllo∣gisme out of his words if you can, or all the whole rable of Rhemes, if you be able. For my part I can but maruaile at your bold assertions, and abhorre your impudent en∣forcements. As for other contradictions, notorious ab∣surdities, dumbe blanks, & I know not what other mon∣sters you feine vnto him, without all proofe or perticular declaration, all wise men see howe easie a matter it is to raile & slaunder in generals, & whē you dare come to particulars, I doubt not but the world shal see your va∣nitie so detected by M. Whitaker him selfe, that you shal haue litle ioy thus insolently to deface his godly & lear∣ned writings. It had bene more than time that his booke had bene confuted, which hath bene abroad a yeare and a halfe almost, if you can with such facilitie by onely no∣ting such matters, shewe that he confuteth him selfe. But somwhat you must say afarre of, to saue your credit with your Disciples, to keepe them playe for the time, while with long studie, and great trauaile, you are crowding out great trifles.

Notes

• * 1.1

  pag. 10.
• * 1.2

  M. VVhitakers booke.