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. 18. His biting (as you call it) at the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luk. 1. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ast. 2. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 9. Seeing they concerne no controuersie, might haue bene contained in the section next before, especially se∣ing you confesse he sayth he durst not, and that he had a conscience vpon coniecture to chaunge any thing. But in the 3. of Luk. vers. 36. He maketh no conscience at all to leaue out the words, Qui fuit Cainan, saying in his an∣notations, that he doubted not to put it out by authori∣tie of Moyses, Gen. 11. A sore charge to diminish any part of the holy Scripture. But if he haue only corrected an errour of the scribe, which by all likelihoode tooke vpō him to adde vnto S. Luke out of the Greeke text of the 70▪ that which is not in the Hebrue, verily, I see not what offense he hath committed. For first he can meane no fraude in cōcealing those words, wherof he doth admo∣nish the reader, and of the cause of his leauing them out. Secondly▪ he winneth no aduantage against his aduersa∣ries, or to his own cause, by omitting to say, that Sala was the sonne of Cainan, whom Moyses affirmeth to be the sonne of Arphaxad. And seeing Moyses Gen. 11. hath no such Cainan the sonne of Arphaxad, it is not like that S. Luke, who borrowed that parte of his genealogie out of Moises, woulde adde any thing which Moises had o∣mitted. But you say that Beza to maintaine the Hebrue verity of the old Testament, eareth not what become of the Greke in the new Testament. You should haue made your antitheton more ful (wherein it seemeth you plea∣sed your selfe not a litle) if you had sayed that Beza to maintaine the Hebrue veritie of the olde Testament, ca∣reth not what becommeth of the Greeke corruption in

the newe Testament: and so you shoulde haue spoken both more eloquently, and more truly. But at other times (you say) against the vulgar Latine text, they call the Greeke, text the Greeke veritie, and the pure foun∣taine, and that whereby all translations must be tried. We say in deede that by the Greeke text of the newe Testament, all translations of the newe Testament must be tried, but we meane not by euerie corruption that is in any Greeke coppie of the newe Testament, and muche lesse that the Hebrue text of the olde Testament, should be reformed after the Greeke of the newe, where it is vncorrupted: and least of all where any copie is guiltie of a manifest errour as in this place nowe in question.