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. 49. In graunting Peter to be the firste, wee neede not graunt him to be the chiefe, and if we graunt him to be the chiefe, it followeth not that he is chiefe in auctoritie. But if that were graunted, it is not necessarie that he was head of the Church. And albeit that were also graunted, the Bishop of Rome could gaine no∣thing by it. But what saith Beza, where the texte saith, the firste Peter? If wee muste beleeue you, hee saith, No, wee will graunt you no suche thing, for these wordes were added to the Greeke texte by one that fauoured Pe∣ters primacie. I praye you Martin where hath Beza those wordes? will you neuer leaue this shamefull for∣gerie? Beza in the tenth of Mathew doth only aske the question. Quid si hoc vocabulum, &c. what if this worde were added, by some that would establish the Primacie of Peter? for nothing followeth that may agree with it. This asketh Beza but as an obiectiō, which immediatly after he answeareth, & concludeth that it is no addition,

but a naturall word of the text, found in all copies, con∣fessed by Theophylact an enimie of the Popes primacie, and defendeth it in the third of Marke, where it is not in the common Greeke copies nor in the vulgar Latine, a∣gainst Erasmus, who finding it in some Greeke copies, thought it was vntruely added out of Mathew. But Beza saith: Ego verò non dubito quin haec sit germana lectio. But I doubte not but this is the true and right reading of the texte: and therefore hee translateth Prim••in•• Simo∣nem, the firste Simon, out of the fewe copies Erasmus speaketh of. Therefore it is an abhominable slaunder to charge him with following the common receyued texte where it seemeth to make against you when hee contendeth for the truth against the common text, yea and against your owne vulgar Latine, to giue you that which you make so great accompte of, that Peter in the Cataloge of the Apostles was firste. So greatly hee feareth to acknowledge that Peter was called first. And so true it is that you charge him to say. No, wee will graunt you no such thing, for these wordes were added to the Greeke texte by one that fauoured Peters primacie. I hope your favourers seeing your forgerie thus manifestly discouered, will giue you lesse credite in other your shamelesse slaunders, at the leastwise this in equitie. I trust all Papistes will graunt, not to beeleue your report against any mans writing, except they reade it thōselues. Now ••••at this worde, (the first) argueth no primacie, or superioritie, beside those places quoted by Beza, Act. 26. 20. Rom. 1, 8. & 3, 2. You may read 1. Par. v▪ 23 & 24. where the posteritie of Leui and Aaron are rehearsed as they were appointed by Dauid in their orders, or courses. Subuel primus, Rohobia primus, sors prima Ioiarib, &c. where least you should thinke of any headship, or principalitie, because the Hebrue is somtime 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you may see, that Subuel is called primus of the sonnes of Gerson, when there is no more mentioned, & more ex∣presly, Rohobia is called primus of the sonnes, of Eleazer,

of whome it is sayd, that he had no more sonnes, & that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth here, the first in order, it appeareth by those generations, where the second, third, or fourth, is named, as in the sonnes of Hebron, and of Oziel. Also in the sonnes of Semei, where Iehoth is counted the first, Zi∣za the second: Iaus and Beria, becaused they increase not in sonnes, were accounted for one familie. In all which, there is no other primacy, than in the first lot of Ioiarib, where the Hebrew worde is harishuon, and so follow the rest••n order, vnto foure and twenty courses. Therefore there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greeke text, in that place, neither did Beza euer deny to stande to it.

Notes

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