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.
About this Item
Title
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.
Author
Fulke, William, 1538-1589.
Publication
At London :: printed by Henrie Bynneman,
Anno. 1583. Cum gratia & priuilegio.
Rights/Permissions
To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Subject terms
Martin, Gregory, d. 1582. -- Discoverie of manifold corruptions of the holy scriptures of the heretikes -- Early works to 1800.
Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
Bible -- Versions, Catholic vs. Protestant -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A01309.0001.001
Cite this Item
"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." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A01309.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 25, 2025.
Pages
MART. 26. Wherein you proceede so farre, that when Daniel sayde to the King, I worshippe not idolls* 1.1 made with handes (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) you make him saye thus, I worshippe not thinges that be made with hands,* 1.2 leauing out the worde idolls altogither, as though he had sayd, nothing made with hand, were to be adored, not the Arke, the propitiatorie, no nor the holy crosse it selfe, that our Sauiour shed his bloud vpon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish and take from it at your pleasure.
FVLK. 26. That (thing) is put for idoll, I confesse it to be a fault in some translations, but in the Geneua Bible it is reformed. Contempt of the authoritie of
descriptionPage 127
that Apocryphall chapiter (as it seemed) did breede that negligence. Where you write, that he should by saying, I worshippe not thinges made with handes, haue denyed the Arke, and the propitiatorie to be worship∣ped, it is very true, for neither of both was to be wor∣shipped, as they were made with handes, but God was to be worshipped where they were, and those thinges to be reuerently esteemed, as the sacraments, of Gods presence. As for the crosse whereon Christ dyed, I see no cause why it shoulde be worshipped, if it were to bee had, but rather, if it were worshipped, it shoulde bee serued as the brasen serpent was. None of the Apostles made anye accounte of it: Nicode∣mus and Ioseph of Arimathia, if there had beene any matter of religion in it, might haue preserued it, and not haue suffered it to be buried in the earth, with the two other crosses▪ as the storie of the inuention, sayeth, if it be true. At the finding whereof, Helena as Sainct Ambrose writeth, Regem adorauit non lignum v∣tique, quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorum. She worshipped the King, not the tree verily, for this is an Hethenishe errour and vanitie of vngodly men. De obit. Theodosij.