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. 38. I had rather it should be compted want of iudgement in me, so it were by a man of iudgement, than to be taken so often with falsification, and lacke of truth. For my skill in Greeke phrases, although I neuer professed any, yet I see nothing brought by you, to change mine opinion of Saunders vnlearned slaunder, in rayling against Beza, for saying that S. Luke should write false Greeke. And if Soloecophanes do differ as much from Soloecismus, as golde doth from copper (as you seeme to say) when you write that I take a counter for golde, I might thinke my selfe very vnlearned in deede, if I did vnderstand Beza speaking of Soloecophanes, as though he spake of Soloecismus. But you demaund why Beza sayeth, that he seeth not why S. Luke should vse Soloecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancie vsed of the finest au∣thores. Still you thrust in your lie, in euery corner: who sayeth he meant it was an elegancie? Beza sayeth he

seeth no cause why S. Luke should vse Soloecophanes, that is, departe from the vsuall and ordinarie construction: and therefore passeth to an other coniecture. But you speake me fayre to tell you, whether is the better & ho∣nester defense, to say that it is an elegancie, and fine phrase, or to say it is a faulte in the texte, it came out of the margent, the Gospell is here corrupted. First I an∣swere you that Beza affirmeth neither, but rather tran∣slateth as Basill did re••d. Secondly, I say there is no dis∣honestie in either of both coniectures, for this Soloeco∣phanes though it be no elegancie, yet may be defended from Soloecisme, or false Greeke. And certaine it is that some woordes haue crept out of the margent into the texte, as the name of Ieremye in all copies that are ex∣tant Math. 27. and, of Esay in many: Marc. 1. And yet we say not the Gospell is corrupted, which fowle phrase it seemeth, you haue great pleasure in, not withstanding you your self out of Lindanus, charge all the Greeke co∣pies of the epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion the mischieuous mouse of Pōtus. You aske fur∣ther, whether I thinke Beza such a foole to stande rather vpon the later▪ if he might haue vsed the former, and had so meant by Soloecophanes? Nay rather, thinke you Beza such a foole, that he would meane a plaine Soloecisme, and call it only an appearaunce of Soloecisme? what he rather stoode vpon, his translation doth best shewe, which is both with S. Basilles reading, and with the appearaunce of incongruitie, which is none in deede. Yea what needed any defense at all, say you, if it had bene an vsuall and knowne elegancie. So well you loue a lie when you haue made it, that you can neuer leaue it vntill you haue worne it all to naught. Now you haue it, not onely an elegancie, but an vsuall and knowen elegancie. Verily I neuer saide it was an elegancie, as my wordes are plaine to be redde of euery man, and much lesse that it was an vsuall and knowen elegancie. Only I say it is vsuall and common in the Greeke tongue, that the praepositiue ar∣ticle,

is vsed for the relatiue, and so much in the next se∣ction you your selfe do graunt me: and as for defense you talke of, I see none needefull, except it be for that this phrase here vsed of S. Luke, is lawfull, though it be not so common, as the ordinarie construction.