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.

MART. 7. One addition of theirs I would not speake of, but onely to knowe the reason why they doe it, because it is very strange, and I know not what they should meane by it. This I am sure, if they doe it for no purpose, they doe it very folishly, and forgetfully, & contrarie to themselues. In the Go∣spell of S. Marke, in the reckening of the Apostles, they adde these wordes, And the first was Simon, more than is in their Greeke text. Which addition they learned of Beza, whose con∣tradictions in this point are worthie nothing. In S. Matthew where these wordes are, he suspecteth that, first, was added by some Papist, for Peters primacie: here, where the word is not, he auoucheth it to be the true text of the Gospell, and that because Matthew readeth so. There he alleaged this reason, why it could not be said, the first, Simon, because there is no consequence

nor coherence of second, third, fourth, &c. here he saith, that is no impediment, because there be many examples of such speach, and namely in the said place of S. Matthew. There he saith it is not so, though al Greeke copies haue it so: here it must needes be so, though it be only found in certaine odde Greeke copies of E∣rasmus, which Erasmus him selfe (as Beza confesseth) allowed not, but thought that these wordes were added in them out of S. Matthew. What these contradictions meane I know not, and I would learne the reason thereof, of his scholers our English trā∣slators, who by their Maisters authoritie haue made the selfe same addition in their English translation also.

FVLK. 7. It seemeth you like the addition well e∣nough, because it importeth a shadow of Peters prima∣cie, but yet your malice is so great against Beza, whose sinceritie in this case you shoulde rather commende, if there were any sparke of honest equitie in you, that you cannot passe it ouer without quarrelling, and cauilling. But your pretense is to know the reason why they do it. I haue some maruaile, that you should be ignorant of such things, as are compted so materiall for the mainte∣nance of the Popes primacie. Especially sith Beza telleth you so plainly the reason of it. True it is, that the cōmon printed bookes haue not that addition. But Beza taketh Erasmus to witnesse, that in diuerse Greeke copies these words are expressed, & because they agree best with the context, Beza translateth them out of those copies. For except you so read (saith Beza) the next verse begin∣ning of the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall haue no worde at all, with which it may be knit. But in S. Mathew (you say) he su∣specteth that the worde (first) was added by some▪ Papist for Peters primacie. He onely obiecteth, what if it were so, & answereth the obiection him self out of S. Marke: as vpon S. Marke, for the coherence with that which fol∣loweth: wherfore it is not without great and malicious impudēce, that you charge him with cōtradiction, where there is none, and where he saith more towarde your cause, than any of you could say for your selues.

Notes

• Marc. 3. v. 16.
• Bibl. 1579.
• Mat. 10. v. 2.