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.

FVLK. 11. Nowe concerning the seconde pointe, which is calling of some bookes into controuersie or mouing scruples about them, to diminish their credite, or auctoritie, whether you be guiltie of that crime ra∣ther than we, I haue somewhat noted before. But with what euidence you are able to charge vs, it cōmeth now to be cōsidered: you will go no further than the epistle to the Hebrewes. You may be ashamed to haue gone so far. For of al bookes of the new Testament, their is none that we might worse spare to confounde your blasphe∣mous heresies, than that epistle, which is the very mall to beate into pouder the abominable Idoll of your Masse, and your sacrilegious priesthood seruing to the same. Wherefore it is without all colour that you charge vs, to seeke to diminish the credite of that epistle. But you will not aske why we doubt of, or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules, because we will tell you, that it was once

in doubt. If you acknowledge that the auctor of this e∣pistle was once in questiō, you cleare vs of mouing scru∣ples about it, or calling it in question, which was your first charge. Let Eusebius, Hierome, and other auncient* 1.1 writers, beare that blame, if it be blame worthie, to tell what other mens opinions haue bene in such a matter. Some holding that it was written by S. Luke, some by S. Barnabas, some by S. Clemens. But you must wit if you wil, that they which at this day doubt of the writer ther∣of, or else thinke it not of S. Paules penning, haue other reasons to lead them, than onely because it was doubted of. For beside those reasons which they had, which of old time doubted of the writer therof, as the diuersitie of the stile, and inscription thereof, and manner of reasoning, they haue also obserued something out of the epistle it self, which seemeth to argue, that it was not writtē by S. Paule: as that in the beginning of the 2. chapter he saith, The doctrine of saluation was confirmed to vs by thē that heard it, after it was first spoken by the Lord him self, which seemeth to agree with the profession of S. Luke in the beginning of his gospell. Wheras S. Paule denieth that he learned his gospel os men, but only by reuelation of Iesus Christ. Gal. 1. v. 12. But of all thē that doubt, or thinke it not to be S. Paules epistle, there is not one that doubteth of the auctoritie thereof, but that it is equall with the epistle to the Ro∣manes, or the gospell of S. Iohn. Although in the Latine* 1.2 church as S. Hierom testifieth, it hath bene doubted whe∣ther it were Canonicall. The cause seemeth to be the he∣resie of the Nouatians, which abused a text out of the 6. chapt. against remissiō of sinnes cōmitted after grace re∣ceyued, which we shew was no sufficiēt cause to refuse so diuine an epistle, seing the Apostle speaketh not of parti∣cular faults, which are cōmon to the faithful oftētimes e∣uery day, but of an vtter apostasie, & falling cleane away frō the truth of the gospel once knowen & professed, in∣to an horrible contempt & persecuting of the same. But we must make you a reasonable answere, why in the English Bi∣bles

printed 1579. & 1580. we presume to leaue out S. Paules name, out of the very title of the said epistle? which name is in the Greeke & Bezaes Latine translatiō, which we professe to fo∣low. I answere without any presumptiō, that that which is vncertaine we spare to affirme. Exāple we haue not only that ancient Greeke copie whereof Beza speaketh, which leaueth out the name of Paulé, but also diuerse printed bokes in which that name is left out. Beside it is certain, that title was not of ancient time vniuersally added. For S. Hier. in Catalogo scriptorū ecclesiast. after he hath recited al the epistles of S. Paule, at lēgth he cōmeth to this epi∣stle, Epistola autē quae fertur ad Hebraeos, &c. But the epistle which is called vnto the Hebrewes, is not thought to be his, for the differēce of the stile & speach, but either writ∣tē by Barnabas, as Tertullian holdeth, or by Luke the E∣uangelist, as some men thinke, or by Clemens, that after was B. of the Romane church, whom they say to haue or∣dered & adorned the sentēces of Paul in his own speach, or els truly, bicause Paule did write vnto the Hebrews, & because of the enuie of his name amōg thē he cut of the title in the beginning of the salutation. These things cō∣sidered, what neede those tragical exclamations in so tri∣fling a matter? Doth not the title tell it is S. Paules? why strike they out S. Paules name? what an hereticall peeuishnesse is this? For lacke of good matter, you are driuen to lowde cla∣mors against vs, but I will euen conclude in your owne wordes, I reporte me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether we do it to deminish the credite of the e∣pistle, which of al S. Paules epistles we might least misse, when we come to dispute against your Popish sacrifice, & sacrificing priesthood: or whether you do not craftily moue a scruple in the mindes of simple persons, to make thē doubt of the auctoritie of that epistle (whose double cannon shot you are not able to beare, whē it is thūdred out against you) vnder colour that it is not of sound cre∣dit among our selues, that vse it against you. Which of al the lies that euer Satan inuented, & taught you to vtter, is one of the most abhominable.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Euseb. lib. 6. cap. ••. Hieronim. ad▪ ••a••d. Tom. 3.
• * 1.2

  •••• ••••••••. lib. 3. cap. 6. in Euāg Math. ••••. 5. cap. 26.