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. 44. We say to you first, that you haue falsely pointed the Hebrue word in the margēt for all the prin∣ted bookes that euer I haue seene, as Bomberge both in folio, and quarto, Stephanus, Basil, Plantine, Arias Mon∣tanus, Cōplutensis, al place Camets vnder Caph, where you make Patach. But perhaps your Hebrue is most out of Mūsters Dictionarie, where it is pointed as you make it. But for answere to your question, we say, that their is a double testimonie of the Mazzorites to proue, that in the most auncient and best corrected copies, the Hebrue was Caru, they haue digged or pearced: this is testified not onely by our translators, but also by Ioannes Isaac your owne Rabbin, against Lindanus a prelate of yours. And this the auctors of the Complutense edition, doe acknowledge, for thus they haue pointed it Caru, where* 1.1 is nothing but the redundans of Aleph (whiche is vn∣derstood in euery Camets) differing from the vsuall rea∣ding and declining of the Verbe Carah, that signifieth* 1.2 to pearce or digge. Againe, where it is redde other∣wise, if it be rightly pointed, as it is in Arias Montanus Caari, it cannot signifie Sicut leo, as a lion, as both the* 1.3 Mazzorites do teach, and Iohannes Isaac a Grammarian out of thē by the points, & the note ouer iod doth plain∣ly demonstrate. For what should shure••h sound in iod? or if you would contend it should be Daghes, to what pur∣pose should it be in iod, if the worde should signifie as a lion? Therefore howsoeuer this varietie of copies came either by negligence of some writers, or by corruption of the Iewes, wee haue sufficient warrant for the aunci∣ent and true reading, whiche the Greeke translator did followe, whiche also was in S. Hieromes copie, other∣wise hee woulde not haue translated out of the Hebrue Fixerunt: they haue pearced. Therefore Rabbi Ioseph, which made the Chalde•• Paraphrase vpon the Psalter,

laboured to expresse both the copies, as well that which hath plainely (they haue pearced,) as that whiche hath it corruptly, as though it spake of a Lion, and yet can not rightly be so translated, because the points are imper∣fect euen for that reading. Therefore he hath saide Ni∣kethin* 1.4 Heich Cheariah, They haue indented and pearced like a lion my handes and my feete▪ as it is in the Ve∣nice print of Daniel Bomberg, although Arias Montanus in his Bible, haue no more but Nachethin, which he tra∣slateth,* 1.5 biting my handes and my feete. I haue played the foole to vtter these matters in the mother tongue to ignorant men, that can make no triall of them, but you haue not only giuen me example, but also enforced me with your vnsoluble question (as you thought) by one word somewhat out of frame, to ouerthrow the whole Hebrue text. But you are to be pardoned, for that you follow your M. Lindanus herein, who hath nothing else in effect to quarrel against the Hebrue text, but this: & therfore he repeteth it in many places, to make greater shew of it as you doe. In other, places where the Hebrue worde hath diuerse significations, who shall forbid vs to chuse that which is most agreeable to the circumstance of the text, and to the analogie or rule of faith?

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉