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. 22. Here of pittie you will shewe vnto vs a peece of learning, how the Fathers reconcile the sayde Hebrue and Greeke, without violence to the text, as they do alwayes, or else leaue the matter to God.

First S. Augustine De ciuitate, lib. 18. cap. 43. de doctr. chr. lib. 2. cap. 15. of their agreement, notwithstanding they* 1.1 were separated into seuerall celles, gathereth, that those Septuaginta were inspired with the same prophetical spi∣rite of interpreting, that the Prophetes were in fore∣shewing. But this doth S. Hierome vtterly denie, and de∣rideth* 1.2 the ground of this imagination, those 72. celles at Alexandria, as a fable and a lie. That S. Ambrose saith, we haue found that many thinges are not idely added of the 70. Greeke interpreters: We confesse as much, where* 1.3 their addition serueth for explication of that whiche is

contavned in the Hebrue, and so meaneth Ambrose: not that they had auctoritie to adde any thing, which Moses had omitted. And we acknowledge with S. Hierome, that their may be many reasons giuen for the difference of the one, frō the other: But concerning this place of S. Luke now in question, you say he giueth a reason therof, both for the 70. & for the Euangelist that followed thē, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them by the auctoritie of Moses. And for this you quote Comment. in 28. Esa. and in question. Hebrai. in neither of which places is any mention of this place, much lesse any reason giuen to reconcile it, or the Septuaginta with the Hebrue. It seemeth you redde not the bookes your selfe, but trusted to much some mans collectiō, which you vn∣derstoode not. In the Preface to the Hebrue questions, Hieronime excuseth him selfe against enuious persons, that barked against him as though he did nothing but reproue the errors of the 70. saying.

That he thinketh not his labour to be a reprehension of thē, seing they would not expresse vnto Ptolomaeus king of Alexādria, certain mysticall thinges in the Scriptures, and especially those things which promised the comming of Christ, least the Iewes might haue bene thought to worship an other God, whom that follower of Plato therefore did greatly esteeme, because they were said to worship but one god. But the Euangelistes also, and our Lorde and Sauiour, and S. Paule the Apostle, bring foorth many thinges, as it were out of the old Testament, which are not had in in our bookes, of whiche in their due places wee will more fully discusse. Whereof it is cleare, that those are the more true examples, which agree with the auctori∣tie of the newe Testament.

Thus much Hierom in that place: but neither in his questions vppon Genesis, nor 1. Paralip. the proper places for this texte, is their any mention of this place of Luke, Qui fuit Cainan. In the place cited by you vpon the 28. of Esay, hee sayth, Le∣gimus in Apostolo, &c. We reade in the Apostle. In other

tongues and lippes will I speake to this people, and nei∣ther so shall they heare me, sayth the Lorde. Which see∣meth to me to be taken out of this present chapter, ac∣cording to the Hebrew. And this we haue obserued in the old Testament, except a few testimonies which only Luke vseth otherwise, whiche had knowledge of the Greeke tongue rather, wheresoeuer any thing is said out of the old Testamēt, that they set it not according to the 70. but according to the Hebrue, folowing the translatiō of no mā, but turning the sense of the Hebrue into their owne speach.

You see that Hierome saith nothing parti∣cularly, & that which he sayth generally, concerneth this place nothing at all. And very like it is, that this corru∣ption was not crept into S. Lukes text in his tyme, espe∣cially seeing neyther S. Ambrose in his commentarie vpon S. Luke, once toucheth this controuersie, as hee doth all other questions about that Genealogie. Where you say S. Hierome was a great patrone of the Hebrue, not without cause, being at that time perhaps the He∣brue veritie in deede. It is without perhaps, or perad∣uenture, that not one iote, or pricke of the lawe of God can perishe, by the testimonie of our Sauiour Christe, Math. 5. And if you will beleeue Arias Montanus, an ex∣cellent learned Papiste, he will tell you as much, out of the same text doubtles, in his Preface vnto the great Bi∣ble by him set out, with diligent obseruation of all the Accents & Hebrue points, which Christ (sayth he) will neuer suffer to perish. And if the Hebrue veritie were in Hieronyms time (as doubtlesse it was) whether he had a perfect copie therof, or no, the same Arias Montanus testi∣fieth, if you dare credite him, being one of your sect, for opinion, though in sinceritie of minde, and loue of the truth, which I pray to God to reueale vnto him, I thinke him far better than a number of you: he (I say) affirmeth in the same Preface, against the obiection that is made of the Iewes corruption of the Hebrue bookes:

Etenim apud nonnull. for we reade in some auctors that through

the fraude and impulsion of the spirit of errour, some of the nation of the Iewes in times past were brought to that point of insolencie, or madnesse, that in the begin∣ning of the Christian church, they changed some words, which might altogither breake of that their contention of oppugning the Christian veritie: But those places so defiled by them, were very fewe, and in the bookes of our writers, and also in the copies, both printed & writ∣ten of the Iewes them selues, are all for the most partno∣ted, and shewed out. For although either by the fraude of those men, or by the ignorance of the booke writers, or by iniurie of the times, some change hath bene made in the Hebrew bookes, which we vse, yet is there not one word, nor one letter, nor point that is mentioned to haue bene of olde time, which is not found to haue bene safe∣ly kept, in that moste riche treasurie, which they call the Mazzoreth. For in that, as in an holy and faithfull custo∣die, appointed with vttermost diligence, and great study, the remnants, monuments, tokens, steppes, and examples of the auncient reading, are all conteined, and the way how to compare the olde and new reading is shewed: of which truely, being compared togither, a very certaine way is extant, to the prescript rule whereof, the holy my∣steries may be shewed forth, examples whereof some∣time in this worke, in due place, and else where also, with Gods helpe, we will set forth.

Thus farre Arias Monta∣nus, whose iudgement if you say you are not bound to follow, yet I suppose you can yeelde no sufficient reason, why you should not credit his testimonie, concerning the certaintie of the Hebrew veritie, remaining to this daye, and which shall remaine to the worldes ende, al∣though all the smatterers among you, would brast for spite against it. Concerning the opinion of them, which thinke that Moses might leaue out Cainan, in the genea∣logy of Sem, by the same spirit that Mathew left out three kings in the genealogie of our Sauiour. I answer, if it be lawfull so to imagine, we may without studie answer all

controuersies, although the same reason is not of Moses compiling a certaine account of the time, from the floud to the calling of Abraham, and of Mathew, shewing by the legall discent, which euery man might take out of the bookes of Kinges and Chronicles, that Christ was the sonne of Dauid, and therefore he was not bound to the number of successors, seeing for memorie, it was his purpose to recite but thrise foureteene generations. That Beda maruaileth at the doubt, which he could not dissolue, his modestie is to be commended, rather than his knowledge. Neuerthelesse, the same Beda, in his pre∣face vnto his retractation vpon the Acts of the Apostles, speaking of such difference, as he founde in the Greeke text of the Actes, from the Latine, he saith:

Quae vtrum negligentia interpretis omissa, &c. Which things, whether they were omitted through negligence of the Interpre∣ter, or otherwise vttered, or for lack of regard of the wri∣ters depraued, or otherwise left, as yet we coulde not know. For I dare not so much as suspect, that the Greeke copie was falsified: wherefore I admonish the Reader, that wheresoeuer we haue done these things, he reade thē for his learning: yet that he interlace them not in his booke, as places corrected except perhaps he shal find the same in some Latine booke of a peculiar edition, to haue bene of olde so interpreted.

This place sheweth that in Bedes time, there were more Latine translatiōs than one, & that the vulgar Latine was not of such authoritie, but that it might be corrected by the Greeke, with the con∣sent of other auncient Latine translations. Likewise vpon the text in question, Lib. 1. in Luc. cap. 3. he confesseth that the name & generation of Cainan, according to the He∣brew verity, is found neither in Genesis, nor in the Chro∣nicles: saying that S. Luke tooke this generation from the edition of the Septuaginta. But whether is the truer, or whether both can be true, he leaueth it to the know∣ledge of God. Noting that whereas according to the He∣brew verity, from the floud to the birth of Abrahā, there

were but 292. yeares, the 70. make 1077. so that the diffe∣rence is no lesse than of 785. yeares. But to fauour this fact of Beza, in putting out the name of Cainan, there is an auncient copie of the Gospels & Actes in Greeke and Latine, of as great antiquitie by all likelihood, as any copie this day extant in Christendome, sent vnto the V∣niuersitie of Cambridge this laste yeare, by Beza him selfe, there to be kept in the cōmon librarie, in which co∣pie, this generation of Cainan, both in the Greeke, & in the Latine, is cleane left out, euen as Beza hath done in his translation. So that he hath not onely the authoritie of Moses, which of it selfe is sufficient, but also the testi∣monie of this most aūcient booke, both for the Greeke & for the Latine, to approue his facte in putting out Qui fuit Cainan. What your vulgar latine translation hath left out in the later ende of the Lordes prayer in S. Mathew, and in the beginning and middest in S. Luke, whereby that heauenly prayer is made vnperfect, not comprehen∣ding all things that a Christian man ought to pray for, beside many other like omissions, whether of purpose, or of negligence, and iniurie of time, yet still by you de∣fended, I spare to speake of in this place.

Notes

• * 1.1

  8••.
• * 1.2

  Pr••fat. in Pent•••• teuch.
• * 1.3

  Hexam. lib. 3. c. 6.