A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cauils, and false sleightes, by which M. Whitaker laboureth to deface the late English translation, and Catholike annotations of the new Testament, and the booke of Discouery of heretical corruptions. By William Rainolds, student of diuinitie in the English Colledge at Rhemes

CHAP. XII. M. VV. reasons against the latin bible are ansvvered: and the same bible is pro∣ued to be in sundrie places more pure and sincere then the hebrue novv extant. (Book 12)

HERE M. VV. draweth to that which is his principal scope in this preface, that is to deface the late Translati∣on of the new Testament set forth in this Colledge. For although he spend more wordes against M. Martins Dis∣couerie, yet he sheweth far more sto∣make against this. whereof before I come to speake, order requireth that I examine his disputation against the decree of the Tridentine Councel,* 1.1 which for veritie and sinceritie iustifi∣eth & approueth as autentical, the old common latin edition. Against which decree M.VV. thinketh him self to haue good aduantage, and much honor he speaketh of the fountaines, the greeke and hebrew originals, and much he dis∣graceth our latin translation & trans∣lator, for differing so much ftom those originals.

First of al before I come to his argu∣ments,* 1.2 I request the reader to carye in mind three thinges touching this con∣trouersie, vvhereby he shal the more vprightly & skilfully iudge betvvene vs and our aduersaries. [ 1] One is, that M. VV. discourse in this common place of praising the fountaines, maketh against

him self and his brethren more then against vs. For vvhereas they pretend to translate after the greeke and he∣brue, (as vve do not) and yet in sundrie places svvarue from the greeke & he∣brue,* 1.3 this his long idle talke conuin∣ceth vs of no faulte, but it condemneth him and his brethren of greate and inexcusable corruption, vvho preten∣ding reuerence to the greeke and he∣brevv, yet at their pleasure depart frō both. And this is that vvhereof M. Mar. reproueth them in a great part of his Discouerie. Example vvhereof see thou in his preface Num. 16.17.18.23.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50, 51. and after in euerie chapter of the booke vvelnie: and so much M. Mar. protested to them in the beginning in plaine termes,* 1.4 sayng. And if they folovv sincerely their greeke and hebrevv text, vvhich they professe to folovv, and vvhich they esteeme the only autentical text, so far vve accuse them not of heretical corruption. but if it shal be euidently proued that they shrinke from that also, and translate an other thing, and that vvilfully, and of intention to countenance their false religion and vvic∣ked opinions, making the scriptures speake as they list: then vve trust &c. And of this

first riseth a second note, [ 2] which I wish likewise to be remembred, that their deflecting from the greeke, is alwaies in matter of controuersie, and so dis∣crieth their malicious wilfulnes. If there be any in the latin, it is no such thing, but in matters (for any cōtrouersie) mere indifferent, and so quiteth the transla∣tour of malice and euil meaning, and iustifieth his vpright and plaine sinceri∣tie. [ 3] And hereof ensueth the third, tou∣ching our simple and plaine dealing in folowing the latin, that we decline not from the greeke or hebrue,* 1.5 because it more harmeth our cause then the la∣tin, as the aduersaries gladly pretend and M. W. verie confidently auou∣cheth, but only in respect of the truth it self. And thus much also was he told in the preface of the new testament, to wit, that as for other causes vve prefer the latin,* 1.6 so in this respect of making for vs or against vs, vve allovv the greeke as much as the latin, yea in sundrie places, more then the latin, being assured that they haue not one, and that vve haue many aduantages in the greeke more then in the latin. And this is there manifested by sundrie and verie euident examples, touching traditions, priesthode, iustification by workes,

the real presence, fasting, freewil, the mystical sacrifice, and against their on∣ly faith and assurance of saluation, wherein the greeke is more pregnant for vs then the latin. Contrarywise let M. VV. frame against the Catho∣like religion, or any part thereof, one argument out of the scriptures, which we refuse to stand vnto vpon this pre∣tence, because it is in the greeke and not in the latin, and I am content to excuse him here of a lye. Otherwise he can neuer saue him self from a lye, and a lye in sight, to obiect that vnto vs, which nether he nor any of his can proue, and we before hand haue in pre∣cise termes warned him of it, and pro∣fessed, and proued the contrarie.

And therefore, although in truth (reader) whatsoeuer he saith, & a great deale more, is answered verie suffici∣ently and abundantly alreadie in the preface of the Testament, as thow wilt confesse, if it shal please thee with dili∣gence to pervse it, and I accompt it a peece of our miserie in this time, to be matched with such blunt aduersaries whose maner of writing is now to cloy vs with crābe recocta, cole vvorts tvvise, yea tē times sodden, & nether thē selues can

bring any new stuffe, nor scoure more brightlie or otherwise mend vp their old, nor refel our answeres & confuta∣tions made to them, but dissembling any such matter, as though it had neuer bene treated of before, vse to runne idelly, and ministerlike vpon a cōmon place as M. VV. doth here, which is more against them selues then against vs: yet because it is my lotte to deale with him now the first time, and there∣fore am loth to pretermit any thing wherein him self seemeth to put any force, I wil take his argumētes as new, and suppose that he neuer read the pre∣face of the Testament against which he writeth, and therefore will likewise hereafter borow some part of my an∣swere thence.

Two argumentes he maketh against our latin translation, and consequent∣ly against vs for folowing the same in our English. The first is,* 1.7 that the foun∣taines, vz, the greeke and hebrew, are more pure thē the latin, which he pro∣ueth by certaine sentences of S. Hierō, S. Austin, and S. Ambrose. The other is one particular fault, wherein as he sayth, the vulgar translation is vniuer∣sallie false, the greeke contrarie is true.

Before his arguments he premitteth certaine interrogatories, wherein he seemeth to auouch (if I vnderstand him) that only to be the word of god, which is written in the lāguage where∣in first the holy Ghost by the Prophets and Apostles vttered it. That I misre∣porte him not, I will set downe his wordes.* 1.8 Thus he opposeth vs. Quid in∣terpretandum suscepistis? nonne scripturas? Quaenam vero sunt scripturae?* 1.9 quis nescit dei verbum scriptum illud esse &c. VVhat tooke you in hand to interprete? not the scriptures? and vvhat are the scriptures? vvho is igno∣rant but that is the vvritten vvord of god, vvhich the lord committed to his church in bookes and letters? and those oracles of god vvere they vttered by the holy Ghost in la∣tin? or can they better or more diuinely be declared in any tonge, then that vvhich the holy Ghost vvould vse? where vnto I an∣swere, that if his questions haue such meaning & sense as the wordes beare, and may stand ful wel with his skil and knowledge, then are they not so much fantastical as phrenetical. For accoun∣teth he nothing the vvritten vvord of god, but that vvhich is in hebrevv and greeke, and vvas vvritten by the pro∣phetes and Apostles in that language?

Then vvhat meaneth he, and the rest of his Euāgelical confraternitie so per∣petuallie to brag, that they haue geuen vs nothing but the pure vvord of the lord, vvho haue geuen vs nothing but their ovvne contaminated translati∣ons in English, French, Flēmish, Dutch and such vulgar languages? Is this the word of God M. W? vttered the holy Ghost his oracles euer in Flēmish or English? why inscribe yow your En∣glish testamente, The testamente of our Lord Iesus Christ,* 1.10 if nothing but the greeke or hebrue be the written word and testament of god? But let this passe for an example of his singular foo∣lishnes, speaking he knoweth not what. See we herein an other example of his notable impietie.* 1.11 Our Sauiour Christ, the Euangelistes and Apostles when they cited places of the old testa∣ment, not according to the fountaines & hebrue, but according to the Septua∣ginta, cited they not scripture?* 1.12 In omnem terram (saith the apostle Paule) exiuit sonus eorum. Their sound is gone forth in to al the vvorld. whereas in the hebrew now it is far othervvise, and othervvise your selues translate it in your later bible, their line is gone forth.* 1.13 although in the

bible of the yeare 1577. ye leaue the hebrew and folovv vs.* 1.14 Take heede (saith the same Apostle) lest that fal vpon you vvhich is spoken in the Prophetes:* 1.15 See ye con∣temners, and vvonder and perish. which wordes in the hebrew are nothing so. Shal we saie this is not scripture,* 1.16 and the Apostle abused his audience, and according to M. VV. diuinitie must needes tel them a lye, when he telleth them, this saith the Prophete, this saith Esaie, this Ieremie &c. because he citeth the wordes not according to the origi∣nal, but according to the translation of the 70. which many times much vari∣eth from that which we find now in the original? The Apostle S. Iames repro∣uing the prowde and loftie mindes of some, bringeth this text of scripture against them.* 1.17 deus superbis resistit, humili∣bus autem dat gratiam, translated in your English testaments thus. The scrip∣ture offereth more grace, and therefore saith. God resisteth the proude, and geueth grace to the humble. vvhich vvordes are taken out of the Prouerbes of Salomon,* 1.18 but not according to the hebrevv, but after the 70.* 1.19 vvhich Caluin cut cleane a∣vvay and leaft out of his translation, ether for this reason vvhich you geue,

or because (belike) they agreed not vvel vvith his proude and disdainful stomake,* 1.20 notvvithstanding they re∣maine in the greeke testaments printed at Geneua. But by your argument he doth wel therein, and saueth S. Iames from a manifest lie, who affirmeth the scripture to speake so, whereas by yow, it is no scripture. And then it were wel done of yow to mend your testaments at the next edition, and leaue out this so cleare a falshode, except yow retaine it of policie, that at a neede yow may haue one more reason to refuse this epistle, which we see graueleth yow so sore. I wil not multiplie exāples, be∣cause it is a thing most euident, and he knoweth litle that knoweth not this to be the common maner both of some Euangelists, & of S. Peter and S. Paule generallie, to cite the scripture in this sort. VVhereof S. Paules epistle to the Hebrues in euerie chapter almost ge∣ueth proofe,* 1.21 as likewyse doth the first of S. Peter, and Beza graunteth the same of the Euangelists, & the auncient fa∣thers affirme both the one & the other.* 1.22

And what neede I to presse M. W. with sentences, whereas I may dispute against him out of whole chapters

and bookes. For let vs suppose some part of the old testament to haue bene written first in hebrew or chaldee, as is a part of Daniel, and to haue bene translated into greeke or latin, after∣wardes the chaldee or hebrue to perish, the greeke or latin to remaine: as for ex∣ample we see in the bookes of Tobie, Iudith, and one booke of the Macha∣bees.* 1.23 The two first of which, S. Hie∣rom translated out of the chaldee, the third he found (though he translated it not) written in hebrue. And the like is thought verie probably of the songe of the three children. Shal we now be so fond as to imagine, that as so one as the hebrue or chaldee was lost, we lost our scriptures?* 1.24 then what saie you to S. Matthewes gospel, which certainly was written by him in hebrue, as wit∣nesseth a 1.25 Papias, Ireneus, Eusebius, b 1.26 Pā∣tenus, c 1.27 Origenes,d 1.28 Sophronius,e 1.29 S. Hie∣rom and al antiquitie. Haue we not S. Matthewes gospel, because vve haue not his hebrue text? nay presuppose that a gospel of S. Matthevv in hebrue may be found, as you knovv such a one is extant, and setting aside the autho∣ritie of the Church, (vvhich to yovv is nothing) no reason can be brought, but

yovv ought as vvel to admit that for the original, as the greeke of S. Luke and S. Iohn: yet dare yovv prefer that before the greeke, and count that the more autētical, & reforme the greeke according to that hebrue? this one ex∣ample if M. VV. had the grace to con∣sider, and the ground hereof, it vvere sufficient to ansvvere vvhatsoeuer he saith in his idle discourse in praise of the greeke & hebrue for defacing the latin. But let vs examine his reason vvherein lieth the pith of this questiō.

Thus he declaimeth for the puritie of the greeke and hebrue.* 1.30 VVhereas vve couet to attaine the meaning of the holy Ghost, hovv shal vve do this more assuredly, then if vve heare the holy Ghost speaking in his ovvne vvordes. This is so cleare that the Pa∣pistes them selues confesse it to be necessarie, if so be the first original copies vvere pure & vncorrupt. For now they crie that the old tes∣tament in the hebrue fountaine, and the nevv testament in the greeke, is most corrupt. & vvhy so? vvhat causeth our Papistes so to refuse the hebrue and greeke fountaine, and to hunt after the litle riuer of the latin edi∣tion? vvho doubteth, but it is done for that only reason, because they find the fountaines to be not so commodious for them. For if they

had the fountaines fauorable inough, they vvould rather take thence, then from the di∣ches and dregges of a corrupt translation.* 1.31 Novv because they knovv that certaine des∣truction hangeth ouer their heads, if they be called to the fountaines, therefore are they constrained not only to auoyde the spring of the purest and most holesome vvaters, but also they labour to proue that the litle riuers are purer then the fountaines. Here (Rea∣der) thou hast many wordes and litle matter, much a doe and smale reason, much craking and boasting of the pure fountaines, by one who from his infan∣cie neuer dranke but of the stinking puddles of Geneua lake. In which dis∣course of his, three thinges may be lear∣ned. [ 1] First, that he confesseth of vs that we refuse not the fountaines, but be∣cause we thinke them to be corrupt. Wherein he saith truly, and whereby thou maist note, that in folowing the latin as we doe, we are lead not as they are, by fansie and panges, but by consci∣ence and iudgment. [ 2] The second is, that he affirmeth it as a thing without al doubt, that thus we say, because the foūtai∣nes be not so cōmodious for vs. once againe, because the fountaines are not fauorable inough vnto vs. and yet once againe, be∣cause

vve knovv there is no vvay vvith vs but death and destruction, if vve he called to the fountaines. whereof because I haue spokē alreadie, I wil say no more. only this may serue for an example what a lustie courage they can shew in bragging, and what a pretie feate they haue, in so few lynes to varie a lye so many wayes. And if M. W. had geuen but one example, wherein he by his hebrue & greeke text could so plage vs, and bring vs certam perniciem, assured des∣truction, he had done somewhat like a professor of this new diuinitie, and it were a readie way to end al these con∣trouersies. Because he doth not (and I dare warrant him he can not) for the contrarie part, that the greeke is more cōmodious and fauorable to vs then to them, see thou (Christian reader) the preface of the new testament, and thou shalt find it iustified by sundrie manifest examples. and touching the hebrue somewhat shal be spoken hereafter. [ 3] Thirdly, wherein is the state of this questiō, he telleth vs that the foūtaines are most pure and holesome, the latin edition most corrupt and infected. By the fountaines he meaneth the vulgar hebrue and greeke as they are now

commonly printed, which they pretend to folow. By the latin edition, that which is vsed in the Church of Rome, and hath bene these thousand yeres, and is approued by the general Coun∣cel of Trent.

To the end thou mayst the better iudge of that which shal be spokē, thus much must I warne thee of before, tou∣ching the historical knowledge of this cōtrouersie, that whereas in S. Aug. & S. Hieroms tyme, there was maruelous varietie of new Testamentes in latin, whereof rose some confusion and trou∣ble in the Church, that godly and lear∣ned man Damasus then Pope of Rome and ruler of the Church,* 1.32 tooke order with S. Hierom, that he should correct one before vsed, which otherwise was least faultie, which afterwardes should be commended to the Church by that supreme authoritie. Thus much S. Hie∣rom signifieth in diuers places,* 1.33 espe∣ciallie in his preface before the new Testament dedicated to the same Pope Nouum opus (saith he) me facere cogis ex veteri &c. You cōstraine me to make a nevv vvorke of an old, that I after so many copies of the scriptures, dispersed thorough the vvorld, should sit as a certaine iudge, and

determine vvhich of them agree vvith the true greeke. And afterwardes shewing the difficultie of such a worke, how daungerous it was and subiect to the reprehensions of many, he comforteth him self principally with this: That thou (speaking to Damasus) vvhich art the high priest, doest commaūd it so to be done. Tu qui summus es sacerdos fieri iubes. This vvorke vvhen S. Hierom had accom∣plished, and deliuered vp, yet nether vvas his iudgment so absolutely and vniuersally in euery part folovved, that vvithout farther search and trial it was by & by approued. But at length after due examination and some alte∣ration of lesser pointes, as we find by S. Hierom him self, being approued by the Pope & allowed by the Church, it grew to a more general vsage, and to be most frequented in publike wri∣tinges, commentaries, scholes, and al places of Christian excercise. This is that which we cal the common latin edition, which, albeit it haue some pla∣ces translated obscurely, some vnaptly, some copies corrupted by false wri∣ting or printing &c. yet comparing it with the greeke now extant, we say it is far more pure and vncorrupt, and no∣thing

so subiect to cauilling & wrang∣ling by great diuersitie of different co∣pies.* 1.34 The like we say of the old testa∣ment, a great part where of was transla∣ted by S. Hierom by order of the same Pope, most of al corrected and brought in to ecclesiastical vse: sauing the psal∣mes, which could not be done so easely because thoroughout Christēdom, the principal part of the Seruice in al chur∣ches consisted of them, and therefore could not wel be altered without much trouble and scandal,* 1.35 as we gather by S. Austin, and which therefore we retaine stil as they were vsed in the primitiue church long before S.* 1.36 Hieroms time according to the version of the 70. Touching both these Testaments trans∣lated and corrected thus, we say. [ 1] First, that against them M. W. in his long dis∣course of allegations, speaketh neuer a word, and so speaketh neuer a word to the purpose. [ 2] Secondarely, that they are purer thē are the fountaines which we now haue, whereof this man speaketh so much, and (for ought may appeare) vnderstandeth but litle. [ 3] Next, that how so-euer some smale faultes may be found in them, absolutely they haue no error touching ether doctrine or maners.

[ 4] Last of al, that to refuse them, and ap∣peale from them to the greeke and he∣brue as the heretikes do, is the high way to denial of all faith, to Apostasie from Christ his religion, and so to plaine Atheisme. These foure pointes I wil brieflie touch in order.

[ 5] The first is, that M. VV. in al his long talke about the fountaines speaketh neuer a word to the purpose against vs,* 1.37 but rather much & al against him self. For if the fountaines were so pure in the times of S. Hierom and S. Am∣brose, and the church then troubled vvith the great diuersitie of their latin bibles, reformed one to the puritie of the fountaines and originals, and vve novv find those fountaines and origi∣nals differing frō that reformed bible, vvhy shal vve not conclude, that the fountaines haue in the meane season bene corrupted? not so, saith M. W.* 1.38 but contraryvvise, rather the latin bibles haue bene corrupted. VVhat reason leadeth him thus to speake? vvhat pro∣babilitie moueth him to imagine, that so many hundred yeres, hebrue bookes could continue vvithout error, being vvritten out by a fevv, and they for the most part Iewes, ignorant, enemies

of Christ and his Church, destitute of the spirite of God, men geuen ouer in to a reprobate sense, rather then the latin publikely read, expounded by thowsandes in euerie prouince of the Christian vvorld,* 1.39 garded by infinite good men, by Sainctes for life, and full of the holy Ghost, liuing in that church vvherein properly vvas fulfil∣led the prophecie of Esaie made by God to Christ his sonne, & to his Catho¦like Church in him.* 1.40 This is my couenant vvith them saith our lord▪ my spirit vvhich is in thee, and the vvordes vvhich I haue put in thy mouth, shal not depart from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy seede, & from the mouth of thy seedes seede saith our Lord, from this tyme forth for euermore. Wherein God promiseth the Church, that she shal be a faithful and perpe∣tual obseruer of his vvord and testa∣ment. Which vvarrant you neuer find made in like sorte to the synagoge. But this notwithstanding you perhaps prefer this synagoge before the Church, and Iewes before the Christians, that is in effect, Moyses before Christ, and therefore are content to speake and thinke more honorably of them vvith vvhom you ioyne more nylie, and to

vvhom you beare a better affection▪ yet hovv soeuer your minde be there∣in, S. Hierom cōmending the hebrue fountaines in his time, maketh nothing in the world for you in these daies, except he say, that in al ages to come, the hebrue should remaine stil pure and incontaminate, and the latin should a∣gaine be corrupted, and the Church though warned by the trouble which she susteined in his time about that matter, yet afterwardes should cōtemne so pretious a thing as the written word of God is, and runne in to a far greater inconuenience then before, & through extreme negligence, nether haue the latin bible true which once was refor∣med and made agreable to the hebrue, nor yet the hebrue bible true, by which she might once againe mende and cor∣rect the latin.

And here let the reader waigh whe∣ther we thinking of the Church as we doe,* 1.41 thinking of Christes promise and the assistance of the holy Ghost as christian faith teacheth vs, whereby we are most assuredly perswaded that she neuer erreth, nor euer can erre damna∣bly, whether we, I say, haue not great reason to support our opinion which

here we defend.* 1.42 Caluin in his Institu∣tions recounting certaine causes why the auncient writers speake so reuerently and yeld so much to the Romane church, amongst other putteth this for one. That vvhereas the churches of the East part and of Greece, as also of Africa, vvereful of tumultes and dissensions amonge them selues, the Romane church vvas more quits then other, and lesse troublesome. a 1.43 For as the vvesterne people are lesse sharp & quick of vvit then they of Asia and Africa, so much lesse desyrous are they of nouelties. This therefore added very much authoritie to the Romane church, that in those doubtful times she vvas not so vnquiet as vvere the other,* 1.44 and the doctrine once deliuered to her, she held and retayned more fast then did all the rest. This grace of constancy in the faith and truth once receaued, when as the aduersaries yeld to the Romane church,* 1.45 and reproue the Oriental and greeke church for lightnes, inconstan∣cie, & mutabilitie in the same kind, we who beleeue the same grace of god to haue stil remained, haue iust occasion to thinke that she was as tenax, as con∣stant in preseruing the truth of the bi∣bles, as of other parts of religiō, where∣in by Caluines verdite she excelled al

churches vnder the sunne. And if the greeke churches then, in that prime flower, were so mutable and incōstant and so far inferior to the latin, in this respect especiallie of holding fast mat∣ters of religion once deliuered vnto them, with what iudgement or consci∣ence can we magnifie the later ages of those Greekes, who much more haue deflected from the Catholike & Apos∣tolike faith, haue more decayed in lear∣ning, vertue, and al good qualities, haue degenerated almost in to a barbarisme, and are now fallen in to such miserie, ignorance, and slauery, as euerie man seeth: much lesse can we mention in this comparison the Iewes Synagog, who hauing the maledictiō of god vpō them,* 1.46 as many times our Sauiour fore∣told in the gospel, are not only quite destitute of the graces of god, but also for the most part seeme altogether void of the giftes of nature, of vvit, iudge∣ment, policie, and ordinarie humane discourse.

But al this vvil M.W. say, is but con∣iecture. and as probablie he disputeth against it for the contrarie part, that in the hebrue and greeke there is no cor∣ruption. For if it be so,* 1.47 that the Ievves and

heretikes haue laboured so much herein, vvho can doubt but they haue attempted this especially in these places and sentences of scriptures, vvhich the Church of Christ most vsed for confirmation of her faith and religi∣on? There are most euident testimonies of scriptures, by vvhich the Ievves and all he∣retikes are refuted. tel vs vvhat in them haue those men peruerted, but that they re∣maine vnto vs safe and sound. Neuer vvould other Ievv or heretike corrupt the scriptures, except he thought that might be to him some vvaie commodious for the mainteining of his monstruous opinions. VVherefore seing those places are safe by vvhich the Ievves are re∣felled, and the heretikes of al times are killed, this must needes seeme a fained tale, vncredi∣ble, and false, vvhich you bring, that the fountaines are corrupted. To satisfie M.W. longing, who would so faine know wherein the Iewes or heretikes haue falsified the bibles, I wil seuerally geue him examples, some sithence S. Hie∣roms tyme, and some before, and ac∣knovvledged by S. Hierom him self, from whom M. W. taketh most in com∣mendation of the hebrue fountaines.

[ 2] * 1.48And that those fountaines are some∣what infected, and degenerated from that puritie which they had in S. Hie∣roms

time and before, I proue by eui∣dent reason, manifest experimentes, & plaine confessions of our more learned aduersaries. First touching the hebrue, S. Hierom read and translated accor∣ding to the ordinarie reading and poin∣ting of his time, Esaie 9.* 1.49 Puer datus est nobis, et filius natus est nobis, et vocabitur nomen eius, admirabilis, consiliarius, Deus, fortis, pater futuri saeculi, princeps pacis. A child is geuen to vs, and a Sonne is borne to vs, and he shalbe called Admirable, a Coun∣seller, God, Strong, Father of the vvorld to come, Prince of peace. And in his commen∣tarie expressing euerie word, he ma∣keth no doubt of any other reading. Forsake the latin, and go to your Iewes and their hebrue fountaines now, and what find you? pro thesaur••, carbones. Thus. Puer datus est nobis, et filius natus est nobis, et vocabit nomen eius qui est admira∣bilis, consiliarius, deus, fortis, et pater aeter∣nitatis vel futuri seculi, principem pacis. VVhereby is taken from Christ, as prin∣cipal a testimonie of his diuinitie, as any we find in the old testament. And whence cōmeth this alteratiō, but from the iniquitie of the Iewes, who haue al∣tered the passiue, vocabitur,* 1.50 into the ac∣tiue, vocabit, & geuē other pointes then

were vsed or read in S.* 1.51 Hieromes time. And this, Luther confesseth manifestly. Totus hic textus miserè & sceleratè (saith he) a Iudaeis est crucifixus &c.* 1.52 This vvhole text is miserably and vilanouslly crucified, & depraued, and corrupted by the Ievves. For as the child him self vvas crucified of them, so by the same men both this place, and a 1.53 his scripture, (or scripture appertayning to him) is daily crucified. The prophete attributeth six names to the child and sonne, the Ievves reade the first fiue in the nominatiue case, the sixt in the accusatiue, and they al expound it of Ezechias,* 1.54 vnder whom God gaue that great victorie against Sēnacherib. And in the same place. The text seemeth to haue bene corrupted by those that put to the points. The letters vvhether ye reade them vvith pointes or vvithout pointes are alone, and the grammer doth beare it vvel, but the Ievves most pestilent men, oft tymes corrupte sentences of the prophetes by their pointes & distinctions. But let it suffice vs that the Chal∣dee interpreter, and the 70. thinke as vve do.

Thus Luther, condemning of vile corruption on your pure originals, & ge∣uing withal this general rule, that the Iewes most pestilent men haue no consci∣ence in that foule abusing, and altering, and crucifying the scriptures, no more

then they had in crucifying Christ, and that therefore he preferreth the Septu∣aginta and Chaldee interpreter before al the hebrew copies. VVhich reason touching Luther and the Protestantes is nothing at al. For the Chaldee inter∣preter is no more the hebrevv original then is Luthers translation. And the translatiō of the 70. which is now ex∣tant, besides that it is ful of diuersitie & not of the Catholikes esteemed to be altogether autentical, is much more of Luther and the Protestants condem∣ned. For of them thus he writeth in the same commentarie. 70 interpretes digni sunt odio &c. The 70.* 1.55 interpreters are vvorthie of hatred, for I can not beleeue, & it is false that they translated and turned the bible by the holy Ghost: for there appea∣reth in them manifest vanitie, impietie & studie to corrupt it. Thus Luther. VVhere in though he rayle to fowly, yet hereof appeareth how much he esteemeth of the 70. And the true ground, whereby both Luther and the Protestants hold this so singular a peece of scripture against the Iewes, is nether the Chaldee interpreter, nor the 70. as Luther pre∣tendeth, nor the hebrew fountaine which is worse, but that, whereby we

retaine al scriptures, that is the chur∣ches authoritie and warrant, who tes∣tefieth vnto vs that this is the letter of the prophete, as Lyra from whom Lu∣ther borowed his answere teacheth. Thus he writeth. In this place of Esaie is proued the humanitie and diuinitie of Christ,* 1.56 but the Ievves ansvvere sayng, it is not in the hebrue, He shal be called, but, he shal cal, and so that vvhich directly expresseth the diuinitie is not referred to the child borne, but to the true god calling him, and the name of the child is put in the end of the place, that is,* 1.57 Principem pacis, prince of peace. But they that thus say corrupt the text. therefore vve must run to the translations. And first that this is false, is proued by the 70. vvho translate, vocabitur, he shal be called, and by S. Hierom. And thus it is read in the office of the masse vpon Christemas daie, and that office for the most part, folovveth the trāsla∣tion of the 70.* 1.58 And by this translation it is cleare that the hebrue should not be, vocabit, but vocabitur, as these vvil haue it corrup∣ting the text. And the same is proued by the Chaldee translation. VVhere the churches authoritie is the supreme groūd & staye, for in deede the other cōuince nothing, as shal better appeare heareafter.

An other example of like corrupti∣on,

and in as high and great a point as this, against the diuinitie of our Saui∣our, I geue you, Ierem. 23. where S. Hierom did reade and translate accor∣ding to the hebrew, thus.* 1.59 Ecce dies veni∣unt dicit dominus, et suscitabo Dauid germē iustum, er regnabit rex, et sapiens erit. et hoc est nomen quo vocabunt eum, dominus iustus &c. as in our vulgar translation. Behold the daies come sayth our lord, and I vvil raise to Dauid a iust branch, and he shal raigne, as a king, and shal be vvise. & this is the name by vvhich they shal cal him, Our iust lord, or, the lord our iustice. where the name Tetragrammaton, attributed to our incarnate Sauiour, proueth that he is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or lord god of Israel, wherein the two natures diuine and humane appeare most euidently. S. Hie¦rom in the text putteth a double rea∣ding, one after the hebrew, an other af∣ter the 70. Vpon the place,* 1.60 in his com∣mentarie he writeth thus. If vve reade according to the 70, Vocauerit eū Dominus, the sense is, he shal be called Iosedech, a iust lord: if according to the hebrue, nomen eius vocabunt, then the sense is, He shal be called the lord our iustice. The thing which I note, is the word, vocabunt, they shal cal him: which in S. Hieromes time was the

hebrevv reading, and touching Christ his diuinitie is of that consequence as hath bene said. In the hebrew text now, it is cleane otherwise, and vpon one point and letter chaunged, thus it is to be translated. God (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) vvho is our ius∣tice,* 1.61 shal cal him: whereby is lost al the proofe of Christs diuinitie, which that so pregnant a place otherwise should yeld. And that this fault is like∣wise committed by the like malice of the Iewes, and the true reading is to be taken from our latin translation, Lyra in the place aforesaid, sheweth in these wordes. Other names of God are communi∣cable vvith creatures, but the name Te••ra∣grammaton is not so,* 1.62 vvhich signifieth the di∣uine essence, pure & simple in it selfe vvith∣out relation to external vvorks or creatures, and therefore vvhereas Christ is called by this name in the place of Ieremie, it folovv∣eth that he is true God.* 1.63 But the Ievves an∣svvere by corrupting the letter, sayng, that thus it is in the hebrevv, Et hoc est nomen eius qui vocabit eum, Dominus iustus noster. And this is the name of him that shal cal him, Our iust lord: so that the name Tetragrāmaton vvhich in our translatiō is turned, Dominus, is not re∣ferred to Messias the sonne of Dauid, but to the true God, who called Messias to deliuer his peo¦ple.

And how goeth Lyra against this di∣stinction? saith he the Iewes are honest men, & haue kept their bibles pure and vncorrupted, and in respect of them, al the latin bibles are most contaminate, after the paterne of M. VV? Nay, far otherwise. notwithstanding he knew the hebrew bibles and tong in an other maner of degree and perfection (as be∣ing him selfe a natural borne Iewe) then M. W. or any of his great clearkes who vaunt so much of a litle, yet he re∣plieth thus. Contra istam solutionem non potest argui &c. Against this solution a man can not argue, but by shevving them that here they corrupt the true letter and deny the truth, because they vvil deny Christs di∣uinitie. And this might best be done by old bibles vvhich vvere not corrupt in this pas∣sage and in others in vvhich mentiō is made of Christs diuinitie, if a man could come by any such. And thus our forefathers disputed against them out of this place and the like.* 1.64 And although I neuer yet savv any bible of the Ievves vvhich is not corrupted in this place, yet I haue heard of men vvorthie of credit by reason of their life, conscience, and knovvledge, vvho haue svvorne that they haue seene it so in old bibles as it is in S. Hie∣roms translation. But if a man can not get

any such bibles vncorrupt, then must vve runne to other trāslations, vvhich the Ievves vvith reason cā not deny. And the 70. reade as doth S. Hierom, as appeareth by our Eccle∣siastical office. Here againe M. W. may see the foule & monstruous corruptiō of the Iewes in these fountaines and ori∣ginals, vniuersally in al their hebrew bi∣bles. Vniuersally I say, for if in our daies some one or other print be corrected, that correction hath bene made in res∣pect of the latin Church, which hath kept the truth of doctrine, & therefore preserued the true letter, not in respect of the Iewes, vvho altogether (as witnes∣seth Lyra) corrupted the true letter, because they vvould deny Christs diuinitie.

One exāple more I geue him in an o∣ther kynd, which neuertheles importeth vs as much as do these former of Christ his deitie. It is touching his passion and our redemption, and sheweth that the Protestantes them selues esteeme more of our translatiō, not only then of al the hebrew bibles which are now currant, but also then those that were in S. Hie∣roms time. And therefore to answere your misapplied allegations by your owne English translations, confer you your English bibles in the 53. chapter

of Esaie, with your hebrew fountaines. Our translation hath thus.* 1.65 Generationem eius quis enarr abit? quoniam abscissus est de terra viuentium: propter scelus populi mei percussi eum. VVho shal declare his genera∣tion? for he is cut of from the land of the li∣uing: for the sinne of my people haue I smitten him. A plaine testmonie, that God laid vpon our Sauiour, our iniquities, which is the sūme of the chapter: that he there∣fore was true man, and withal (as before is declared) that he was true God, whose generation was inexplicable. for so do the fathers cōmonly expound that parcel. So that in this one verse, we haue the true effect of Christs death and passion, besides his diuine and hu∣maine nature. The 70. translate it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.66 for the iniquities of my people, he vvas lead to death. The hebrew bibles in S. Hieroms time, did reade thus. Generationem &c. propter scelus populi mei percussit eos. For the sinne of my people he stroke them. The hebrew bibles in our time, though in sense agree, yet in reading seeme to dif∣fer, hauing thus:* 1.67 A preuaricatione populi mei plaga, vel percussio ipsis. Because of the transgression of my people, a vvound vvas geuen to them. which inuerteth the sense,

and maketh a great alteration, as euerie man may see. The English bible of the yere 1577.* 1.68 translateth it: vvhich punish∣ment did go vpon him for the transgression of my people.* 1.69 of the yere 1579. For the trans∣gression of my people vvas he plagued. And this sense commonly others folow, as Castalio, the French, the Geneua bible &c. which is the sense & word of our la∣tin translation, not of the hebrew text. Only the English translator of the yere 1562.* 1.70 foloweth nether the 70. not greeke, nor latin, but the brainsicke fan∣sie of his owne head, making a mingle mangle, and thrusting in a patch of his owne.* 1.71 Thus he goeth to worke. vvhose generation yet vvho may number? he vvas cut of from the ground of the liuing, vvhich punishmēt did go vpon him for the transgres∣sion of my people, vvho in deede had deserued that punishment. where in deede he de∣serueth a whippe, & plaieth not only a foolish, but also a wicked part, in adding that later sentence to the text, only because he would seeme to come some∣what nye the hebrew, which for al that he toucheth not. Luther, vvho folo∣vveth the error of the hebrew copies, exclaimeth vpō the Iewes for their old spitful & malicious māgling of this text

as of many other.* 1.72 Thus he translateth & cōmenteth vpon it. Propter trāsgressiones populi mei plaga eis. for the sinnes of my people a vvoūd to them. This place is somevvhat ob∣scure and hard, because of the novvne of the plural nūber, lamo. The 70. read pro sua iu∣stitia, vel potius malitia ductus est ad mortē. For his iustice, or rather malice he vvas lead to death. Wherein I marueile at Luthers reading of the 70. For S. Hierom ci∣teth them far othervvise, and far other∣vvise is it in the common prints novv extāt, for ought I can find. Which agree vvith the citation of S. Hier. before no∣ted. But proceede we on. Our interpreter (saith Luther, meaning the latin vsed in the Church) turneth it thus: propter peccata populi mei per cussi eum. For the sinnes of my people haue I smitten him. An excellent sen∣tence, but the Grammar doth not vvel beare it. Much here are vve beholding to the deuil and to the Ievves, vvho haue not only depra∣ued filthily, but also cōfoūded this as much as is possible, by their diuisions. And those that studie hebrevv must note this, that the Ievves vvheresoeuer they can, depraue the meaning of the prophete by their vvicked expositions, vvhere they can not do so, by their distincti∣ons or diuisions: as in Daniel, The 70. vveeks are abbridged, there a man vvith his fingers

may feele their corruption, vvhere they sepa∣rate and teare a sunder these thinges that are to be ioyned,* 1.73 and al this, in despite of the Christians. VVherefore I leaue this to those that be studious of the hebrevv tōge, that they marke the malice of the deuil and the Rab∣bines, vvhose only studie and labour is to de∣praue, teare a sunder, and turne vpside dovvne the prophetical and Christian sense. In vvhich chapter againe he calleth them corruptores scriptorum propheticorum, corrupters of the vvritings of the prophetes. And in this one place besides the au∣thoritie of Luther, besides the general rules vvhich he deduceth, vvilling vs euer to bevvare of the Rabbines and Ievves, vvhose vvhole studie is to a∣buse & deface the scriptures in despite of vs and our religion, and therefore smale reason hath M. W. to make so much of them as he doth:* 1.74 I note tvvo sortes and maners of their corruption. [ 1] The first is, by plaine alteratiō of points and letters and sillables. For certaine it is, our translator and the 70. neuer trāslated these hebrew vvordes vvhich now stand in this text, or as vve find in S. Hierom. [ 2] The second, vvhich speci∣ally Luther noteth in Daniel, is by di∣uiding vvordes vvhich by the prophete

vvere ioyned, vvhich is as vile and des∣perate a corruption as may be. So for exāple, Seruetus auoided the authori∣tie of the Apostle S. Paule,* 1.75 affirming Christ to be God. For being vrged vvith these vvordes: Ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia deus benedictus in secula: Of vvhom (that is of the Ievves race) is Christ according to the flesh, vvho is God blessed for euer: which contayne a sure testimonie that Christ vvas not only man, as Seruetus vvould haue him, but also God most blessed, he vvel acquainted vvith Be∣zaes maner of correcting the testamēt, ansvvered after this Ievvish tricke: that he beleeued vvith al his hart vvhat so euer S. Paule that elect vessel of the Lord had vvritten.* 1.76 mary it seemed to him that S. Paule said not so, and plea∣ded his greeke testament vvhere thus stoode that sentence. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. of vvhom is Christ according to the flesh, vvho is aboue al. And there making a ful distinction, then folovveth the rest as a thankesgeuing. The Lord be pray∣sed for euer. amen. And thus haue the. Ievves done in very many places of scripture by Luthers verdicte.

Sundrie other particular errors could I note vnto thee (Christiā reader) in the hebrew, had I but a peece of that insolent vaine which many of our ad∣uersaries haue, and vvherein they tri∣umphe against men of great and excel∣lent learning, such as of vvhom they & I shal (I doubt) neuer be vvorthie to be named scholers (example vvhereof take thou Charkes scornful abusing of Father Campian in the Tower, for ig∣norance in such trifles as these are) or were I disposed to disgrace the foun∣taines and originals, which I am not, but honour them as I may, and sauing the euident truth and faith of Christ, which standeth fast and vnmoueable, though heauen and earth fall, much more though the Iewish Pharisees and Scribes write their text amisse, this cause & faith I say foreprised, I esteeme of them, as of things deseruing much studie and reuerence: because how soeuer some grosse errors, partly of ma∣lice, partly of ignorance, haue crept in, yet commonly and for the most part, the text I hold to be true and sincere. And againe I suppose this kinde of writing can not be but tedious to the English reader, whose profit I princi∣pally

intend,* 1.77 and therefore will go from these particularities so far as I may, to talke of a few resonable & the same general arguments and questions, wherein M.W. if he haue some part of that wit, intelligence, and modestie, which a scholer & diuine should haue, wil not I hope much stande against me.

[ 1] And first gladly would I learne of him, what reason he and his fellowes haue, why they should thinke the he∣brew text to be so inuiolate, so sincere, and vpright? is it because of Gods pro∣mise and prouidence, or of mans circū∣spection and wisdome? if because of Gods promise, where finde they any such? how many examples in the scrip∣tures haue they to the contrarie? whole bookes of the prophetes are perished, bookes of singular cōmoditie, & made by Gods owne appointment, and they perished then, in that time of the sina∣goge, when Iacob vvas the peculiar people of God, and Israel the lot of his inheritance,* 1.78 * 1.79 when of al nations they vvere to God a holy nation, a kingly priesthode,* 1.80 when al other people vvere suffered to go their ovvne vvaies, & the Iewes only were in Gods special protection. For touching the bookes of the auncient prophets som∣time

extant, and now not appearing, we reade cōmonly in the old testamēt. as of a 1.81 Liber bellorum domini, The booke of the vvarres of our Lord, b 1.82 The booke of the iust men, c 1.83 The booke of Iehu the sonne of Ha∣nani, d 1.84 The bookes of Semeias the prophete, and Addo: and e 1.85 Samuel vvrote in a booke the lavv of the kingdome (hovv kings ought to rule) & laid it vp before our lorde, f 1.86 and the vvorkes of Salomon vvere vvritten in the vvordes of Nathan the Prophete, and in the bookes of Ahias the Silonite, and in the visiō of Addo the Seer,* 1.87 and many other which were to long to rehearse. VVhich en∣tier bookes of the warres of our lord, of the iust, of those excellent prophets, of Iehu, of Semeias, of Addo, of Samu∣el, of Nathan, of Ahias and others, are quite perished, and perished then, when the Iewes were so chosen a peo∣ple, such a kingdome, in such order & gouernment, of Kings and princes, and Senate, & ecclesiastical regiment. And now when they are no people, haue no gouernment, no king, no Priest, no comparable regiment, may we reasona∣bly thinke their diuine and ecclesiasti∣call bookes to haue bene so warelie kept, that euerie parte is safe, euerie parcel sound, no points, letters or titles

lost, al sincere, perfit and absolute. If the protestāts will claime this to them by mans wisdome and policie, see how notably they contradicte them∣selues. Al the bishops, and princes,* 1.88 and states of Christendome were not wise inough by the protestants opiniō, these thousande yeres past, to keepe them selues in the true religion and Gos∣pell of Christ. But whereas vntil 600. yeres, (as we learne by M. Iewels chalenge) they were protestants and enemies of the Masse, of the Real pre∣sence, of the Pope of Rome, and (as M. W. telleth vs here) vniuersally pro∣testāts quo ad praecipuas religionis partes,* 1.89 in the principall parts of religion, they fell from that pure protestant-Gospel to serue Antichrist, to worship bread and wine for God, to adore Images, which is most grosse idolatrie, in steed of a true bible and word of God, to haue our cō∣mon translation, which is most impure & fullest of corruptiō. Al this M.W. tel∣leth vs, and he telleth vs in this booke, and it is the common songe of them al. And therefore how is it credible that al this while the Iewes should be so wise, so prudent, so politike, and circū∣specte that they admitted no faults,

kept their bible so sincere and imma∣culate that there only the water of life was reserued,* 1.90 and the minde & mea∣ning of the holie Ghost vvas to be found no∣vvhere so assuredly as there: what is this but to make the Christians al this while more brutish then beastes, and the Iewes almost equal to Angels.

[ 2] Againe, so great likenes and simili∣tude is there betwene some hebrew let∣ters,* 1.91 that excellent learned men haue bene deceaued by mistaking one for an other, as appeareth by comparing the olde translations of the bible with the later,* 1.92 and S. Hierom affirmeth the same of the Septuaginta. This if a man would declare by examples I thinke he might gather some hundreds out of the psalter. I wil note only one verse of a short psalme which also may serue for a higher pointe. In the psalme 109 after our translation thus we reade with the Septuaginta.* 1.93 Tecum principium in die vir∣tutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum: ex vte∣ro ante luciferum genuite. The Protestāts for the more parte (as we see by Marlo∣rate,* 1.94 folowing therein Bucere, Muscu∣lus, Caluine and Pomerane) translate it thus. Populus tuus cum voluntariis obla∣tionibus in die exercitus tui, in pulchritudine

sanctitatis: ex vtero ab aurora tibiros ado∣lescentiae tuae.* 1.95 The english bible of the last edition differing notably both frō olde and new, from vs and the Protes∣tants, translate thus. Thy people shal come vvillingly all the time of (assemb••ing) thine armie in holie beauty: the youth of thy vvōbe shal be as the morning devv. which trans∣lation is farthest from the hebrew, far∣thest from al sense and reason. for who would make youth to rule vvombe and ioyne them together being sundred so far?* 1.96 and the bible geuen out two yeres before, hath scant one worde like, and touching the later part is cleane oppo∣site. for thus it translateth In the day of thy p••vv••r shal the people offer thee free-vvil offeringes: the devv of thy birth is of the vvombe of the morning. there is, youth of the vvombe, and, devv of the morning: here is, devv of the birth, or youth (for that is one word in hebrew) and, vvombe of the morning. If a man would translate it pre∣cisely, vsing only the libertie to make choise of diuers significations which the hebrew words yelde, and drawe it so far as the hebrew wil beare, to the sense of the Septuaginta, which I take to be the best, then word for word thus it should stand. Tecum principatus in die

potētiae tuae, in decoribus sanctitatis: ab vter•• à Lucifero tibi ros natiuitatis tuae. How euer it be framed, great difference wil rise of necessitie amongst diuers inter∣preters. And whence proceedeth that? one great cause is the diuers significatiō of one word. The first, which the 70. turned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tecum, vvith thee, others, po∣pulus tu••s,* 1.97 thy people, is in the hebrew one word, with so smale a difference of one point, as is possible. The next ex∣pressed of the 70.* 1.98 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 principatus, may be as well signified by the hebrew, as spontanea oblatio. The third, which the 70.* 1.99 turned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, S. Hierom, forti∣tudinis, the Protestants, exercitus, may truely signifie them al, povver, vertue, strength, liberalit••e, and armie: and so au∣rora or Lucifer is the same word.* 1.100 But that which chiefely I note in this sen∣tence, whatsoeuer other difference was betweene the old hebrew text and the new, is the diuersitie of sense rising through diuersitie of reading, vpon occasion of similitude in the hebrew letters.* 1.101 as for example. The Septuagin∣ta read in sp••endoribus, or decoribus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in brightnes, whom commonly al the Protestants folow S. Hier. in menti∣bus, in mountaines, the difference com∣meth

of the likenes of two hebrew letters daleth and res••h. The last word, the 70. rendered by genuite, I haue be∣gotten thee. Which word of how great strength & force it is in this place, may be perceaued by vew of the Apostle Paules argument,* 1.102 who out of that verse word proueth the eternal diuinitie of our Sauiour. S. Hierom translated that word, adolescentiae tuae, as commonly do the Protestants. What is the occasion of this difference?* 1.103 the great likelines of two wordes: the Septuaginta read the first, S. Hierom the second. The prin∣tes now vsed though in sense folow S. Hierom, yet misse one of his letters, and therefore come nearer to the rea∣ding of the 70. And this verse letter vau for iod, hath certainly made disagree∣mēt in some other places. As where the Septuaginta read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam,* 1.104 my strength vvill I kepe to thee, and so S. Hierom read and translated. now it is in the hebrew, fortitudinē eius,* 1.105 his strength vvil I keepe to thee, to the great peruer∣ting of the whole sense and sentence. A like error to that Genes. 3.* 1.106 (if it be an error, as many verie probably rather thinke it is none) ipsa conteret caput tuum

for ipse or ipsum,* 1.107 about which the Pro∣testants keepe such a stur.

[ 3] But what should I rehearse exam∣ples of such smale errors committed by learned men, by Rabbines, by S. Hie∣rom, by the Septuaginta, vvhereas the protestants sticke not to charge di∣rectly the verie Apostle S. Paule with error in this kind. For whereas S. Paule writeth, That nether eye hath seene, nor eare heard,* 1.108 nether hath it entred in to the hart of man,* 1.109 vvhat God hath prepared for those that loue him, iis qui diligunt illum, whereby we proue that heauen is prepared as a reward for charitie and the workes thereof, and so refel their mathemati∣cal solifidian fansie,* 1.110 many pretie an∣sweres they geue vs: as that S. Paule doth after his fashiō very finely writhe the place.* 1.111 So Luther, Paulus sententiam commodè detorsit. Illyricus, That to loue, is as much as to beleeue, and so charitie as much as faith, and then, to be saued by only faith, why may we not interprete it, To be saued by only charitie? Qui diligunt (saith he) p••nitur pro iis, qui ad eum supplices fide confugiunt. Fides per effectum suum di∣lectionem declaratur. Those that loue him, that is those that by faith humbly flye vnto him. Faith is noted by his effect, that is chari∣tie.

But Peter Martyr goeth an other way to worke, and thinketh that the Apostle read not right. Thus writeth he. Diligentibus se, habet Apostolus,* 1.112 Prophe∣ta vero dixit expectantibus: et diserimen ag∣noscitur prouenisse a magna similitudine duorum elementorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 et 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. The Apos∣tle hath the vvord louing, the Prophet hath,* 1.113 trusting or expecting: and it is vvel knovven that this difference grevve from the great similitude of tvvo hebrevv letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.114 for so much as among the hebrevves the same verbe vvritten vvith one letter signifieth to trust or expect, vvith the other, to loue ve∣hemently, vvhich Paule folovved In which censure (Christian reader) besides his sacrilegious contempt in diuinitie (wherein thou maist learne to care the lesse for their condemning and railing at the fathers, when they are so sawcie with this singular Apostle) besides this prophane wickednes in diuinitie, I say, he fowly belieth the Apostle against al humanity. For the secōd word, which he obiecteth, hath no such significatiō: & if he meant some other word somewhat resēbling the first, as other of his brethrē gesse, yet nether cā they serue his turne, for so much as the grāmatical rules wil not beare such construction,* 1.115 as against

Erasmus and him,* 1.116 Beza hath truely noted. But graunt we to P. Martir, that which he would haue, let S. Paule, I wil not say indued with the holy Ghost so abundantly,* 1.117 Paule that piller & foun∣dation of the Church, so directed by God, as he could not erre: but only Paule brought vp from his infancy in the law of Moyses, in cōtinual studie of the law and Prophetes, at the feete of Gamaliel,* 1.118 so noble a scholemaister, let this Paule be deceaued in reading the Hebrew, then how intolerable is their peruersitie, who wil not suffer so much to be iudged of the common, base, vulgar & ignorant scribes, so maliti∣ously bent against Christ and al Chris∣tianitie, as before is noted.

[ 4] But hovvsoeuer M. W. speaketh of his fountaynes and origin••ls, knovv thou (Christian reader) that other of his side far more skilfull then he, with∣out any contradiction acknovvledge vvhat soeuer I say.* 1.119 Sebastianus Casta∣lio by occasion defending him self agaynst such a one as M. W. seemeth to be writeth thus. Videtur esse in ea opinio∣ne (sicut et plerique omnes Iudaei, et nōnulli hac in parte Iudaizantes Christiani) vt in hebraicis bibliis nullum vsque mendum ir∣repisse

putet &c.* 1.120 This good felovv seemeth to be of that opinion (as in maner all Ievves are, and some Christians dravving to Iu∣daisme in this respect) that they thinke no error euer to haue creapt into the hebrevv bibles, that God vvould neuer suffer that any vvord should be corrupted in those holie bookes: as though the bookes of the old testa∣ment vvere more holie then those of the nevv, in the vvhich nevv, so many diuers readinges are founde in so many places, or as though it vvere credible that God had more regarde of one or other litle vvord or syllable, then he had of vvhole bookes, vvhereof he hath suffered many, I say not to be depraued, but to be vtterly lost. This Iudaical superstition &c. Hetherto Castalio. And D.* 1.121 Hum∣frey in his first booke de ratione interpre¦tandi, sayth. Iudaismus quot locos depraua∣uerit &c. The Ievvish superstition, hovv many places it hath corrupted, the reader may easely find out and iudge.* 1.122 And in the next booke. I like not that men should to much folovve the Rabbins as many do. Nam quae Christum verum Messiam promittunt et annūciant, ab••istis turpissimè c••nspurcata sunt. for those places vvhich promise and declare Christ the true Messias, are most fil∣thely depraued by them. And Conradus Pellicanus sometime professor of he∣brew

in Zuricke, writing vpon the 8•• psalme and those wordes of our tr••n∣slation, Conuertuntur ad c••r, vvhere, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cor, the protestants according ••o the hebr••vv prints novv, haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gesseth vvel,* 1.123 & no doubt ri••htly that the difference came through the great likenes of tvvo letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and prefe••reth our reading before the he∣brewes & vvithal accuseth the Iewes of al times not only since Christ, but also befo••e, of n••glig••nce in cō••e••uing thei•• holie bo••kes. Thus he vvriteth. The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one vvay,* 1.124 vvhereas the Ievves ••ovv reade an other. vvhich I say, because I vvould not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the ••gnorance or sl••uthfulnes of the o••d in∣terpreter. Rather vve haue cause to finde fault for vvant of diligence in the Anti∣quaries,* 1.125 and faith in the Ievves, vvho both before Christs comming and fithence, seeme to haue bene lesse carefull of the psalmes, then of their ovvne Talmudicall songes. And a∣gaine in the same volume, vpon that verse of the psalme 108. Quis deducet me in ciuitatem munitam?* 1.126 quis deducet me in Idumaeam? vvho vvill bring me in to the sensed citie? vvho vvill bring me in to Idu∣maea, vvriteth thus: The Syriake interpre∣ter,

ether folovving, or finding out, or i••er••a∣sing the fables of the Ievves, translateth this verse after this s••r: vvho vvil bring me in to that vvicked Rome? vvho vvil bring me in to that Constantinople of the Idumeans? sol centiously do the Rabbines of the Ievves abuse their authoritie,* 1.127 not only in their com∣mentaries, but also in the translations of their lavv, vvhich cōmonly are to be read, vvhere∣by the miserable people reading so, is easely seduced. VVhere besides our principal purpose, vve may learne vvithal,* 1.128 that the Iewes haue one tricke of the Pro∣testāts, vz, in to their bible & cōmuniō bookes or such like vvherein is con∣t••yned their maner of Se••u••ce, to thrust besides the text, glaunces against the Pope and Church of Rome: as ••n deede the hatred of Christ, Christi∣anitie, and that Church, commonly runneth together. The like testifieth Munster alleaging these vvordes of Ab••n Ezra against the Christians. F••vv there vvere that beleeued in that man,* 1.129 vvhō these (Christians) haue made their G••d, and vvhen Rome did beleeue in the time of Con∣stantine a••d altered the vvhole lavv, and put in his banner the signe of the crucified man, by the persvvasiō of that Monke of Idu∣maea, that is the Romane bishop (so Aben

Ezra expoundeth it) there vvere none through the vvorld, that obserued that lavv, besides a fevv Idumeans: and here of it com∣meth, that the kingdome of the Romanes is called the kingdome of Edom. Wherein a man may see and compare together the Iu••aical and Protestantical vayne in rayl••ng at the Romane Church, and those that liue in the vnitie of it. To the I••wes vve are Gentiles, to the Pro¦testantes vve are Idolaters. In the Ie∣wes speach and sense, it is al one to say, a Romane, a Catholike, or an Idumean, that is a Gentile: so is it in the speach and sense of the Protestan∣tes, saue that in steede of Catholike, sometymes they vse the vvord, Papist. The Ievves peruert their diuine Ser∣uice vvith the manifest abuse of scrip∣ture,* 1.130 against the Romane faith and Church: and do not our Ievvish Pro∣testantes much more? Cal to remem∣brance (Christian reader) their Ge∣neua, or rather Gehenna psalmes sung in their cōgregations, vvhere (as they tel vs) nothing soūd••th but gods vvord & the Canonical scripture, & see vvhe∣ther in any old Greeke, Hebrew, Latin, or English psalters they find praying a∣gainst the Pope, & to be deliuered frō al Pa∣pistrie.

That the Pope, as wel as the Turke, vvould thrust our of his throne,* 1.131 our lord Iesus Christ, Gods deare sonne. vvhether in any old Creede, ether Apostolike, or made by Apostolike or honest men, they are taught to beleeue, release & pardō of their sinnes (vvhich is in these mens diuinitie, perfect & entier iustification) and that only by faith, as in their rim••ng Creede vvithout rime or reason they sing. Fi∣nally as the Ievvish Rabbines thrus∣ting once in to their peoples eares, that Rome is Edom, and the Romane an Edomite, m••ke that al scrip••ure spo∣ken against Edom, soundeth against Rome: euen so the Protestants telling their people, that Rome is Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist, make them forthwith beleeue, that vvhatsoeuer the scripture hath ••gainst Babylon & Antichrist, that maketh iust against the Romane Church, the Pope and Catholikes.

But to returne to our original mat∣ter, and to drawe to an end of this que∣stion, touching the pure fountaines & originals: for plaine and euident de∣monstration how true that is, I referre M.VV. to these two general experimē∣tes, which at his leasure he may vew and

consider of. [ 5] One is, the great diuersitie of reading, which in many places of the hebrew old testament we find.* 1.132 For example whereof, let him peruse Exod. ca. 2. losue 22, and 23. Iudic. 3. the first of Samuel ca. 10, 17, 22, 28. 2 Samuel 7. Esa. 14, 33, 54, &c. and Munsters no∣tes vpon those chapters, where he shall find the reading and sense oftentymes as far disagreing as blacke and white. And Munst. in his preface forewarneth the reader thereof.* 1.133 Sometymes (sayth he) euen amongst the hebrvves in one sentence I haue found diuers reading. For sometymes dissensions are sound amongst thē, some thin∣king this to be the true reading, some thin∣king contrarie.

[ 6] An other experiment is, that the he∣brew printes wante now somewhat, which certainly was in the first origi∣nals. Example whereof may be the Psalme 144.* 1.134 which being made accor∣ding to the hebrew alphabete and ha∣uing the verses in number answering to the hebrew letters, the first begin∣ning with Aleph, the second with Beth, the third with Gimel, &c. (as doth the Psal.* 1.135 33.) & therefore should certainly haue 22. verses, as hath that other, this lacketh one verse in al hebrew copies,

& so wanted it euen in S. Hieroms t••me.* 1.136 and euident it is, that the error is in the hebrew, where lacketh the 14. verse which should beginne with Nan, as it is very playne by the translation of the 70, and by our common Psalter.* 1.137 Fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis, & sanctus in omnibus operibus suis. Which verse in he∣brew should haue begun with that let∣ter,* 1.138 which of al the alphabete only mis∣seth. So as most certaine it is, that the hebrew is faultie. And thus to end this matter of the hebrew fountaines & ori∣ginals, I wil gather that which I haue said in to a fevv conclusions & vvithal ansvvere M.VV. allegations.

[ 1] The first is, that this opinion of the Protestants detracting so much from the latin bibles,* 1.139 and yelding so much to the hebrevv, is Iudaical, iniurious to the Church, to the holy Ghost and state of the nevv testamēt, as vvhereby they professe to thinke more religiō & care of Gods word to haue bene resident in the Iewish synagoge, thē in al the King∣domes, Princes, Pastors & Prouinces of Christianitie, for these thovvsād yeres.

[ 2] The second, that albeit S. Hierom in his tyme so soone after the great perse∣cutions, the Church being troubled vvith that most busye, terrible and po∣tent

heresie of the Arrians against the diuinitie of Christ and the holy Ghost,* 1.140 vvhen as yet the Canon it selfe com∣prehending the sacred bookes of scrip∣tures, by general authoritie vvas not confirmed and receaued, vvhē (as saith S.* 1.141 Austin) there vvas in••umerable va∣rietie of latin trāslations. (Qui ex hebrae•• lingua scripturas in graecam verterunt, nu∣merari possunt, latini autem interpretes nullo modo) and they infinitely differing a∣mong them selues, as in the same place he noteth, when for these causes there vvas not, nor vvel could be any one vniforme translation approued: al∣though at this tyme S. Hierom might iustly appeale from them al to the he∣brew as in cōparison being most pure & incorrupt: yet nether then were the he∣brew copies simpliciter faultles, as hath bene shevved by playne examples and demonstrations, by the very Protestāte bibles, and by confession of the best & learnedst among them. and S. H••erom, [ 3] though M. W. seeme to ground him self most vpō him, acknovvledgeth so much.* 1.142 For examining tvvo places of Deuteronomie vrged by the Apostle S. Paule in his epistles, both differing in that point vvhich he most presseth, frō

the hebrew bibles extant in S. Hieroms daies, he resolueth in fine, that the he∣brew vvas corrupted, othervvise then the Apostle read it. The one place is:* 1.143 Scriptum est, Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno. It is vvritten, Cursed is euerie one that hangeth on tree. in vvhich short place compared vvith the original in Deute∣ronomie, there is somevvhat to much, and somevvhat to litle. To much, be∣cause here is omnis, euery one, and in ligno, on tree, which are not now found in the Hebrew,* 1.144 though both in the Greeke of the Septuaginta. To litle, because there is in the hebrew, Elohim, which wanteth in S. Paule, maledictus Deo or Dei, cursed of God is euerie one so hanged. S.* 1.145 Hie∣rom answereth thus. My iudgement herein is this, ether that the old bookes of the Hebrevves had othervvise then they haue novv, or that the Apostle put the sense of the scripture not the vvordes, or (vvhich I ra∣ther suppose) after the passion of Christ both in the Hebrevv and in our bookes, the name of God vvas added by some mā, that he might make vs more infamous, vvho beleeue in Christ accursed of God. The other place is this. Scriptum est, Maledictus omnis,* 1.146 qui nō permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sun•• in libro legis, vt faciat ea. Cursed is euerie

one that abideth not in al thinges vvhich are vvritten in the booke of the lavv to do them. Where the Apostles argument hanging principally vpon the two wordes omnis and in omnibus, euerie one, and in al thinges, both which are in the Septuaginta, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nether in the hebrew, he thus answe∣reth the matter.* 1.147 I am vncertayne, vvhether the Septuaginta added, omnis homo, and in omnibus, or vvhether it vvere so in the old hebrevv, and aftervvard put out by the Ievves. Thus t•• suppose I am moued for this reason, because the vvordes, omnis, and in omnibus,* 1.148 al, and in al, as necessary to proue that they be al accu••sed, vvho are of the vvorkes of the lavv, the Apostle skilful in the hebrevv tonge, and m••st cunning in the lavv, vvould neuer haue so sett dovvne, had it not bene so in the hebrevv. VVhere∣fore I perusing the hebrevv volumes of the Samaritanes found there vvritten the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as much to say, as omnis siue omnibus, al or in al, and so that to agree vvith the Sep∣tuaginta. In vayne therefore haue the Ievves razed that out, lest they should seeme to be accursed, vvhereas the more auncient ex∣amples of an other nation, testifie that it vvas vvritten so. Thus S. Hierom.

[ 3] Thirdly this I gather, that since S.

Hieroms time much more haue the hebrew bookes bene corrupted, and that not in smale ind••fferent matters, which might better be borne, but in very hye pointes touching the diuini∣tie and humanitie of our Sauiour, tou∣ching his passion and the redemption of the world. And therefore when S.* 1.149 Hierom speaking of the puritie of the bibles before his birth, is applied to iustifie the copies written so many a∣ges after his death, and so consequent∣ly to iustifie al their new English, Flē∣mish and Germane interpretations made according to some hebrew co∣pies as they pretend, this is as iust as Germanes lippes, according to our en¦glish prouerbe, whose hartes & mindes & religions we see to differre infinite∣ly. This is to answere of chalke, when the question is proposed of cheese.

[ 4] Next this we see that the condition of the hebrew tonge is such, that errors are very soone cōmitted therein by rea∣sō of smale points of distinctiōs, of let∣ters so nighly resembling one an other. Wherevnto ioyne we the malice of the Rabbines. their hatred of the Christi∣ans and Christian religion, whom Lu∣ther confesseth to be as very crucifiers

of the word of Christ (especially such places as most appertaine to him) as they were of Christ him selfe, and that they employe their studie herevnto. And if we consider withal, how in time of the law thorough their default they lost whole bookes & volumes of their diuine Prophetes, we shal fynde smal reason to moue vs to beleeue, that since Christ, they should become so ho∣ly, and deuout, & watchful, & circum∣spect, as M.VV. by commending their fountaines and originals would make them.

[ 5] Finally al this hath bene declared not only by plaine reasons, factes, ex∣amples, demonstrations, but also by plaine confession of those, whom our aduersaries principally reuerence and honour, and in this matter were most skilful, by Munster, by Pellicane, by Sebastianus Castalio, by Luther and such others.

And hereof may the reader easely learne an answer to that questiō,* 1.150 which many frame as a matter of intricate dif∣ficultie, whē these corruptions should come in to the hebrew bibles, whether before Christs time, or betwene that and S. Hieroms, or from S. Hieroms

time to vs. [ 1] Not the first say they, be∣cause thē Christ would haue obiected that vnto them, as he did other faul∣tes. [ 2] Nor the second, because S. Hierom had the hebrew veritie, as he oftē spea∣keth. [ 3] Nor the third, because our hebrew bibles agree with those of S. Hierom. The āswere I say is easye,* 1.151 because whe∣ther part of the three so euer a man take he can not misse. [ 1] For errors grew in those bibles, some before Christ, more after Christ vntil S. Hieroms age, and yet more from S. Hierom afterwardes.* 1.152 And wel it may be that Christ obiected the same vnto them, though it be not recorded in the Testament, as certaine it is, many thinges he preached vnto thē and reproued in them, whereof no written record is extant. And wel it may be that both Christ obiected and the Euangilist noted so much, when he writeth as spoken of our Sauiour, in∣forming his Apostles, and reiecting the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees: You haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old, Thou shalt not kill. Exod. 20. v. 13.* 1.153 you haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old, Thou shalt not cōmitte aduoutrie. Exo. 20.* 1.154 14. It vvas sayd also, VVhosoeuer shal di∣misse his vvife, let him geue her a bill of di∣vorcement.

Deut. 24. ••. Againe you haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old,* 1.155 Thou shalt not commit periurie, but shal performe thy othes to our Lorde.* 1.156 Exod. ca. 20. v. 7. You haue heard that it vvas sayd, An eye for an eye, & a tooth for a tooth. Exod. 21. v. 24. You haue heard that it was sayd,* 1.157 Thou shalt loue thy neyghbour and hate thy enemy. Leuit. 19. v. 18. Where our Sauiour ioyning this later precept, Thou shalt hate thy enemy with those other preceptes of the law & written in the law as, Thou shalt not kil. Thou shalt not cōmit aduoutrie. He that diuorceth his vvife, let him geue her a bil of diuorcement. Thou shalt not cōmit per∣iurie. Thou shalt performe thy othe. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: sheweth playnly that the pharisees taught this la∣ter to be the law of god as wel as the for¦mer, & therefore no marueil if they put it vnto the law with the rest, as by christs words it seemeth most lykely they did. And whether this were so or not, cer∣taine it is, through the intolerable neg∣ligence and iniquitie of Priest,* 1.158 Prince and People, that in the tyme of Manas∣ses, not one peece or parcel, but the whole law was lost for many yeres to∣gether, as appeareth in the booke of Kinges,* 1.159 & at length, as it were by great

chaunce was it found out againe in the tyme of Iosias, which crime our Saui∣our for ought we reade, neuer charged them with al. And therefore if likewise he neuer charged them with this, it were no great marueil.

[ 2] More corrupted might it be after Christ, by how much that nation was more alienated frō the fauour of God. And S. Hierom him selfe acknowled∣geth some corruption, howsoeuer in comparison he truely accompte the hebrew most pure and sincere in such sort and for such reason as hath bene touched. And S. Iustinus the martyr in his cōference with Triphon, talking of the very hebrew bibles, not of the translation of the 70. only, as some ansvvere (Ex scripturis quae pro confessis apud vos habentur testimonia petam,* 1.160 saith he, I vvil bring proofes of that vvhich I say from those scriptures vvhich your selues ac∣knovvledge for such) of their corruption he geueth three examples.* 1.161 One out of Esdras. A secōd out of Ieremie. A third out of the Psalmes. Out of Esdras, this. Esdras spake vnto the people. This Pascha is our sauiour & refuge.* 1.162 And if you shal per∣svvade your selues, and this shal enter in to your hartes, that you shal humble him vpon

the vvood, and after hope in him, this place shal not be desolate for euer, saith our lord of hostes. But if you vvil not beleeue in him, nor heare his preaching, you shal become a scorne to the nations. which place is in like maner cited by Lactantius. Apud Esdram ita scriptum est.* 1.163 Et dixit Esdras ad populum. Hoc Pascha saluator nost••r est et refugium nostrum &c. The place out of the prophete Ieremie is this. Ex Iere∣miae responsis haec verba recîderūt.* 1.164 Ego vt ag¦nus qui ad sacrificandum &c. Out of Iere∣mies ansvveres this haue the Ievves cut avvay:* 1.165 I as a lambe that am lead to be sa∣crificed, and against me they deuised coun∣sels sayng, come, let vs cast vvood vpon his bread, and let vs take him avvay from the land of the liuing, and let there be no more memorie of his name. VVhich place con∣taineth the prophetical foreshewing of a double veritie. First of Christs cru∣cifying vpon the crosse, to which pur∣pose the words are plaine.* 1.166 Then of his true presence in the blessed sacrament. for the Prophete calleth Christs na∣tural body vpon the crosse by the name of bread, in respect of Christ first pro∣mising the same body for euerlasting foode to his Christians in forme of bread,* 1.167 and then after accomplishing

the same promise by actual deliuery of the same body in such forme at the time of his last supper.* 1.168 And the place is so expoūded by the aūcient fathers,* 1.169 as for example by S. Hierom, and by Tertullian most euidently. And Oe∣colampadius in his commentarie vpō these wordes, cōfesseth it to haue bene the common sense and interpretation of the auncient and Primitiue church. The third place out of the psalmes, is this.* 1.170 Ex nonagesimo quinto etiam Dauidis psalmo haec pauca verba recîderunt, a ligno. Cum enim scriptum esset &c. Also from the nynetie and fifth psalme of Dauid they cut avvay these fevv vvords, From the vvood. For vvhereas it vvas vvritten, Declare ye among the nations, that our lord hath raig∣ned from the vvord, they leaft thus much on∣ly, Declare ye among the nations, that our lord hath raigned. Of these three places thus defaced by the Iewes, the first at this time is extant in no hebrew bibles, nor to my knowledge in any greeke translation. The second is in al the he∣brew now corrected & restored by the Christians. For S. Iustine noteth that it was not cleane abolished out of al he∣brew bibles, & the fault was but fresh∣ly committed in his daies. Resectio istae

saith he,* 1.171 ex Hieremia, ad huc in quibusdam exemplaribus quae in Iudaeorum asseruantur synagogis, scripta reperitur. Non enim ita diu est, quod haec verba recîderunt. This peece so cut of from Ieremie, is as yet found vvrittē in some of. those copies that are kept in the Ievves synagoge. For it vvas but of late, that they cut avvay these vvords. By vvhich vvordes also it is euident that he meaneth the very hebrevv bi∣bles, not the translation of the 70. on∣ly, vvhereas he so precisely nameth such as vvere preserued in the Ievves syna∣goges,* 1.172 some of which retayned styl that parcel, but most vvanted it. and manifest it is that the Ievves nether in our time keepe so honorably the translation of the 70. in their sinagoges, & much lesse did they ke••pe it in S. Iustines daies, vvhen (as appeareth by the vvhole dis∣cours and manifest vvordes of this au∣thor in this same place) they much more detested it. The third, a ligno, is vvanting in al greeke and hebrevv bi∣bles, & is only reserued in our ecclesi∣astical Breuiarie, & certaine Doctors, as Tertullian, Lactantius, Cassiodo∣rus,* 1.173 and S. Austin, vvho notvvithstan∣ding so readeth it, as though it vvere the common reading in the churches

of Africa in his time, and maketh no mention of any other reading, vvhere those vvords should be leaft out.

[ 3] And from S. Hieroms time vntil our daies very probable it is, that these er∣rors and corruptions haue multiplied, not only for the general and particular reasons already touched, but for this especially, that whereas since that time the Iewes obstinacie, barbarousnes, im∣pietie, and ignorance in their owne tonge hath much increased, the Christi∣ans notwithstanding haue not had any great occasion to handle much or ex∣ercise that language, & therefore haue had smaler regard to bookes written therein, without which as first of al, they perfectly receaued the Christian faith, and planted it in these partes of Christendome, so without it, haue they as perfectly continued in the same, and now enlarged it euen to the extreme corners of the world,* 1.174 and without the which they haue for these thousād yers liued most christiāly as Saintes, & chri∣stianly as Saintes finished their tēporal liues, & after liued with Christ for euer.

And now touching M. W.* 1.175 question demaunding how the Church hath faithfully conserued the bookes of scriptures, who thus findeth fault with

the hebrew bibles as corrupt, I answere as before,* 1.176 that the Church hath most faithfully conserued the scriptures, al∣beit not in this or that tonge, which the wanton curiositie of euery fantastical heretike coueteth. We haue the true word and gospel of Christ, though per∣haps we haue not ten words in that lāguage which our Sauiour spake. And then why may we not haue the law & the prophetes, though there were ne∣uer an hebrew bible in the vvorld? Againe vnreasonably demaundeth he of our church for hebrevv bibles vn∣corrupt, vvhich perhaps neuer had any such, and neuer vndertooke to keepe the vvord of God in that language more then in Arabike or Syriake, no more then she vndertooke to keepe S. Matthevves Gospel in hebrevv, or S. Paules epistle to the hebrevves. But if she deliuer faithfully to the Christians,* 1.177 that vvhich she receaued of Christ and his Apostles touching al parts of Chris∣tian faith and religion, be it vvritten or vnvvritten, in one language or other, she performeth that, vvhich Christ com∣mitted to her charge, and vvhich is suffi∣cient for the saluation of euery Christi∣an, and vvhereby she proueth her

selfe to be the House and Church of the li∣uing God,* 1.178 the sure Piller and ground of truth, the Spovvse of Christ,* 1.179 and faythful mother of al Christians.

M. D.* 1.180 Whitgift thinketh it vntolerable that the English ministers should ap∣point, vvhat maner of apparel is cōue∣nient for them selues to vveare, vvhat ceremonies or rites should be vsed in their poore Seruice. He by many argu¦ments taketh from them al authoritie in such matter, & vvil haue the vvhole Ministerie altogether to depend & be directed by the superior magistrates, the Quene and the Lordes of her Coū∣cel.* 1.181 Then hovv much more vntolera∣ble is it, that some one or other single minister should appoint the vniuersal Church & gouernours thereof, in what maner and fashion the word of God must be kept, in what language, as it were in what kind of paper or parche∣ment he wil haue it written. As if some busye headed felow in a cōmon welth not contented to be ruled & preserued by his Prince in true religion, iustice and quiet possessiō of his owne, should farther take vpon him to prescribe vvhat maner priestes, hovv qualified, and in vvhat Vniuersitie brought vp,

should preach vnto him the vvord of God, & minister the sacraments: vvhat sort of men should exequute vnto him iustice, and examine his cases of law: by what capitaynes, of vvhat byrth, countrie and experience, by vvhat kind of defence, open force, or secret policie, fight by sea, or rather land, strength of horsmen or footemen, he vvil be mainteined in peace and quietnes.

* 1.182And vvhat meaneth he to require for pure bibles in any language of our Church, vvhich he holdeth for Anti∣christian, and the prelates thereof and al other Catholikes, for members of Antichrist. For vvhiles he thus thin∣keth, vvhat soeuer bibles, hebrevv or not hebrevv, Greeke or Arabike vve offer him, he can by reason yelde no more credite vnto them then to our latin, no more then to our traditions, or any other thing proceeding from vvarrant and credite of such profes∣sed enemies of Christ: as vvel and lear∣nedly proueth S.* 1.183 Austin in his booke de vtilitate credendi. Much more a∣greable to reason & Christiā diuinitie is it, for him and his to resort to their ovvne church of elect & predestinate,

or hovv so euer he list to terme them, vvhich hath so florished these many hundred yeres, by vvitnes of their ecclesiastical stories, by report of M. Fox in his Actes and monumentes.* 1.184 Let him resort to the brethren of Lions, to VVycleffe, and the VVycleffis••es, to Robert Rigges, Iohn Puruey, Hen¦ry Crompe, Iohn of Chlum, Iohn Scut, William Havvlam, Richard VVich, Iohn Hus, alias Iohn Goose, the Hussites and Thaborites of Bohemia and such other,* 1.185 vvho (as they tel vs) vvere glorious pillers, & doctors, and maintainers of their church and Protestant-gospel, and like glistering starres shined in the face of the Christiā world. And that I tye him not to particular mē, or one only pro∣uince of Bohemia, in many other pro∣uinces and kingdomes of the world hath their church continued, as most confidently writeth D.* 1.186 VVhitgift a∣gainst T. C. who framing an argument against the Archbishops authoritie drawē from this supposition, VVhat if the vvhole church be in one prouince or in one realme, vvhich hath bene,* 1.187 and is not vnpossible to be againe, M. D. VVhit. an∣swereth it thus. To your supposition if the

vvhole church &c.* 1.188 I say that if the skie fal you may catch larkes, as the common pro∣uerbe is, making it as vnpossible a case to haue the church of Christ in one on∣ly kingdom, as it is vnpossible for the skie to fal. And presently in the same page: Do you not knovv, that the church of Christ is dispersed thorough the vvhole vvorld, and can not novv (after Christs ascension) be shut vp in one kingdome much lesse in one prouince, except you vvil become Donatistes? He that is not vvilfully blinde, may see in to vvhat straightes you are driuē vvhen you are constrained to vse such im∣possibilities for reasons. And M. VV. in this booke telleth vs,* 1.189 that there neuer wanted mightie States, & Princes, and nations, who withstoode the bishop & Sea of Rome as they do now. Nullis tem¦poribus defuerūt (sayth he) nec Episcopi, nec Presbyteri, nec Imperatores, nec populi &c. There neuer vvanted at any time, nether Bi∣shops, nether Priestes, nor Emperours, nor nations, nor Priuate men, vvhich had not rather be condemned of your church for here∣tikes, then to mainteine the Catholike com∣munion of your Apostasie. wherefore ha∣uing so large a scope, let him repayre to that his owne church and successi∣on of Protestantes, and of them seeke

for the true written bible, of whom he receaueth the sense and meaning of the same, not to our church and suc∣cession of Catholikes, whom he chief∣ly condemneth for erring in the true sense, and then reproueth as bitterly for corrupting the true text.

The conclusion of al is this. if as a Christian, as an obedient child of the Church, and willing to learne,* 1.190 if thus he demaūd of the Church for true bi∣bles, she can serue him with more va∣rietie of such, & in mo languages, then it wil stande with his ease to reade.* 1.191 If he demaund this as an heretike, as a rebellious Apostata, as to picke qua∣rels and maintaine strife, the Church hath nought to do with him. She an∣swereth as our sauiour answered the Pharisees. Quid me tentatis hypocritae? & as he taught his Apostles: Nolite dare sanctum canibus. She sendeth him to his owne scattered and diuided cōgrega∣tion, in to whose communion he hath thrust him selfe, & vnder whose false banner he fighteth against her, vvhom the vniuersal Christian vvorld, in al times and ages vntil our daies, hath acknovvleged, for the only, true, ca∣tholike & apostolike church of Christ.

And hitherto of the hebrevv foun∣taines and originals, vvherein I haue sta••ed somevvhat the longer, first of al that the reader may see that not vvith∣out iust cause I charge M.W. vvith a manifest lie,* 1.192 in saing vve flee the he∣brevv, for that vve knovv it to con∣taine the assured bane and destruction of our cause. He may here perceaue in part,* 1.193 vvhat reason, vvhat argument, vvhat conscience moueth the Church thus to prescribe, and vs to folovv the Churches ordinance herein. That vve nether feare, nor contemne, nor refuse it, but for the vnderstāding of the true sense, studie and honour it as much as he, though vve hange not our faith vpon it so, as if the Ievves depraue a text touching Christs diuinitie, vve therefore vvil denie him to be God, and if they raze out the only text, that foreshevveth the maner of his passion and crucifying, vve vvil not for al that geue ouer our faith, that in such sort he vvas crucifyed for vs.

Secondarely thus I haue done to sa∣tisfie M· VV. d••maund, who chalen∣geth vs so confidently, to shevve any error in the originals. vvho affirmeth so peremptorily those places to be

safe and vntouched, which appertaine to the proofe of our Christian religion. Which how true it is he now seeth, if he wil beleeue ether reason, or his owne maisters. Besides that his argument is ouer slender, when he wil conclude those originalles to be pure, because there is no corruption in matters of cō∣trouersie, as though there could be no errors, but those which proceede of wilfulnes and malice against Christian religion:* 1.194 as though the Iewes could not erre by negligence, ignorance, and other humane infirmitie, by which Caluine, Beza & the rest of that knot can imagine very many, and the same very grosse errors to haue crepte in to our latin bibles. But true is the old pro∣uerbe, Graculus graculo, Like wil to like as I haue said. Of the Iewes for neare alliance and brotherhode they iudge so diuinely, as though they were halfe goddes, who neuer erred. ether of ma∣lice▪ ether of wilfulnes, or ignorance, or slowthfulnes, or want of due consi∣deration, or thorough any kind of like ether sinne or imbecillitie. But of the Christian Catholike Church, of the Bi∣shops and Pastors, by whom they haue that peece of Christianitie which

yet they retaine, they deeme most wic∣kedly: them they accompt more disso∣lute, more irreligious, more careles & negligent in matters diuine, then the worst people that liue vnder the cope of heauen. These in the same kind haue erred, both of malice, and of wilfulnes, and of contempt, and of negligence, by al maner of faulting, voluntarie & inuoluntarie, wherevnto a man may possibly fal.

Thirdly, some reason mouing me thus to doe, was because nether M. Martin in his Discouerie, much lesse the preface of the new testament (han∣dling only such thinges, as were incidēt to that booke, that is, geuing reason why in that translatiō the latin vulgar edition vvas folowed before the com∣mon greeke testamentes) had any oc∣casiō to treate of this matter. For albeit M.* 1.195 Martin proueth errors in matters historical to be in our cōmon hebrew bibles, yet he maketh no stay therein but rather presupposing the hebrew text to be altogether true, as the ad∣uersaries pretend, he so much the more discouereth their wilfulnes and peruersitie, who in their translations depart sundrie times frō those hebrew

originalls, which they seeme to mag∣nifie as altogether faultles and vnspot∣ted.

One principal corruption of great moment and importance he obiecteth out of the 21. psalme,* 1.196 where the pro∣phet saith in the person of Christ, They haue pearced my handes and feete, which by the Iewes being maliciously altered by mutation of one or other letter in to, As a lyon my hands and feete, without wit, reason, or common sense, where∣by is euacuated the best and clearest prophecie in the whole body of scrip∣ture touching the maner and fashion of Christs crucifying, who besides M. W. would so blindly haue dissem∣bled it, & yet stil sing vs the old song of the pure fountaines?

It is written that not long sithence, certaine euangelical Anabaptistes late∣ly conuerted from Iudaisme, reading that place of S. Peter in Castalios tran∣slation,* 1.197 Iesum Nazarenum scelestis mani∣bus comprehendistis, et ad palum alligatum sustulistis, Iesus of Nazareth you haue ap∣prehended, and binding him to a post or stake, so made him avvay,* 1.198 vpon this text fel to a great and daungerous conten∣tion among them selues in their con∣gregations,

whether Christ were pear∣ced hand and foote with nailes as the Church beleeueth, or were only bound hand and foote to a gibbet, as the fashi∣on among the Turkes is now a daies, & as the other two theeues were done to death which were crucifyed with him. And remoue the traditiō of the Church (which these good felowes care not for) and this place of Dauid,* 1.199 and cer∣tainly out of the old testament it can not, perhaps nether out of the new, be clearely proued to a contentious here∣tike, that he was crucified in such sort as the truth is, and we beleeue. For as the heretikes now a daies at home in our coūtrie gladly abhorre the name of the crosse, & al signes or memories there of, & both in priuate talking & publike preaching and writing,* 1.200 rather vse the name of gallovves or gibbet: so others a∣brode in their commentaries vpon the scripture much vrge the same, and wil∣lingly take and prosecute al cōiectures and gesses, that tende to the proofe thereof.* 1.201 So for example Marlorate fa∣uouring (as it plainely appeareth) Cas∣talios translation and the Iewish rea∣ding, writeth expressely. De foss••one ma∣nuum ac pedum Christi, in historia passionis

Christi, nihil memorarunt Euangelistae. Of pearcing Christs handes and feete, in the sto∣rie of Christs passion the Euangelistes make no mention. as much to say, as there∣fore we are not bound to beleeue it. For by these mēs doctrine, we are bound to beleeue nothing, which is not proued by scripture. And the self same affir∣meth Wolf. Musculus, vz,* 1.202 that the Euangelistes make no declaration that Christ should be put to death in any such maner. And it may wel be that M. W. accounteth this for a trifle, ne∣ther careth greatly which way Christ died, so that he confesse him to haue di∣ed one way or other.* 1.203 For so touching this place writeth Martin Bucer that great Rabbine and Apostle of Cam∣bridge Vniuersitie in the sacramētarie heresie, & M.W. first predecessor in that profession & chaire which he now pos∣sesseth. His wordes are these. Although it be novv in the hebrevv bibles, As a lyō my handes & feete, yet Felix Pratensis vvitnes∣seth, that he read, Foderunt,* 1.204 They pearced my handes and feete in a certaine commen∣tarie, vvhere vnto the Ievves geue as much credite, as to Dauid him selfe. Sed cum Iudae∣is ob voculam ego nunquam contend crim, But I for my part (saith Bucer) vvould neuer

contēd vith the Ievves for so trifling a vvord. And Zuinglius in his Tigurine transla∣tion in deede contendeth not, but striketh it quite out, and putteth in for it, Tanquam leo, As a lyon, translating it more like a Iew and sworne aduersa∣rie of the gospel, then a Christian. For whereas the euangelist writeth, apply∣ing it to our sauiour, Os non comminuetis ex eo,* 1.205 A bone of him you shal not breake, he translateth this place of the psalmist cleane opposite to the euangelist thus,* 1.206 Concilium pessimorum frangit manus meas et pedes meos instar leonis.* 1.207 The assembly of vvicked men breaketh my handes and feete like a lion. By that wicked interpretatiō secretly also furthering the detestable opinion of other his brethren before touched, against the maner of Christs crucifying.

But to let this passe vvhich requireth a larger discourse, how soeuer M. W. like or dislike the opiniō, here of I con∣clude, that these fountaines, which he calleth,* 1.208 Most pure and holesome, are in ma∣nie respectes impure and pestilent, and haue in them far greater errors mali∣ciously thrust in against matters of such height, thē he and his felowes shal find in our latin bibles so long as they shal

be able to reade one letter in thē.* 1.209 They haue errors against Christs diuinitie, they haue errors against his humanitie, errors against his passion, errors against the force of his redemption, and many other errors against other partes of our religion. These errors Luther him self confesseth, Lyra a Iew borne acknow∣ledgeth, reason and experience cōuin∣ceth, S. Iustine to Triphon a Iew a∣uoucheth and approueth, S. Hierom by plaine demonstration sheweth: and to passe by others, Castalio accompteth M.W. halfe a Iew for thinking so super¦stitiously, as here he pretendeth. And except he can bring better arguments, then hitherto he hath, he geueth vs oc∣casion to thinke him not only scarce halfe a Christian, but also scarce halfe a wise man, who of so difficile & hard a point pronounceth so rashly, so vnpro∣bably, and so vnreasonably. Whereof I inferre, that not so lightly as these fel∣lowes imagine, but with great and di∣uine wisdome, the general Councel autorized the aūcient latin translation so corrected and amended, as in the Ca∣non of the same Councel it is appoin∣ted: although peraduenture whē those fathers so decreed, they intended not

this comparison, in to which by the importunitie of our aduersaries we are now drawen.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Concil. Tri∣dent. sessio. 4.
• * 1.2

  3. thinges to be noted in this ques¦tion.
• * 1.3

  M.W. dis∣course most against him self.
• * 1.4

  Discou. in prefat. nu. 39.
• * 1.5

  The greeke and hebrew more aduan¦tageable to the Catho∣like cause then the la∣tin. Pag. 15.
• * 1.6

  In prefa. no∣ui testamen.
• * 1.7

  M.W. rea∣sons for pre¦ferring the hebrew and greeke be∣fore the latin.
• * 1.8

  Pag. 15.
• * 1.9

  If the latin testament be not the word of god, whose word are their vulgar tran∣slations?
• * 1.10

  An assertiō both foo∣lish and im∣pious.
• * 1.11

  The Apo∣stles and E∣uangelists cited scrip∣ture, not ac∣cording to the hebrew.
• * 1.12

  Rom. 10. v. 18. Linea corū. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.13

  Anno 1575.
• * 1.14

  Act. 13. v. 41.
• * 1.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Heb. in gen∣tibus.
• * 1.16

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.17

  Iac. 4. v. 6.
• * 1.18

  Prouerb. ca. 3. ver. 34.
• * 1.19

  Caluin. in Iacob. ca. 4.
• * 1.20

  Caluin mā∣gleth S. Ia∣mes epistle.
• * 1.21

  1. Pet. ca. 2.3. & 5. Beza in Ioh. c. 19. v. 37.
• * 1.22

  Ireneus l. 3. cap. 25.
• * 1.23

  Hier. prefat. in Tobiam, Iudith. & li. Regum.
• * 1.24

  S. Mat. wro∣te the Gos∣pel in He∣brew.
• a 1.25

  Apud Euseb. l 3. c. 33 Ire∣ne. li. 3. ca. 1. Euseb. lib. 2. ca. 18.
• b 1.26

  li. 5. c. 19.
• c 1.27

  l. 6. c. 19.
• d 1.28

  in argu¦mēt. in Mat c. in catal.
• e 1.29

  Mt. gospel in hebrew set forth by Munster and Quin∣quarboreus.
• * 1.30

  Pag. 15.
• * 1.31

  It had bene valiantly done of M. W. by one example to haue made this con∣quest ouer vs.
• * 1.32

  S. Hierom author of our commō edition of the new te∣stament, and that by the Popes appointe∣ment.
• * 1.33

  In catal. in fine, & praef. in nouum te¦stamentum.
• * 1.34

  The old te∣stament.
• * 1.35

  Aug. de doc∣trina Chris∣tian. li. 2. ca. 13. & epi. 10 ad Hieron.
• * 1.36

  4. things hā∣deled in this questiō
• * 1.37

  That M. W. speaketh neuer a word to the purpose.
• * 1.38

  More proba¦ble that the hebrew is corrupt thē the latin.
• * 1.39

  The church warranted, that she should euer keepe the word of God.
• * 1.40

  Esaie 59.
• * 1.41

  Ioan. 14. & 16.

  Praise of the Romai∣ne Church, for holding fast the true doctrine once deli∣uered.
• * 1.42

  Caluin. inst. l. 4. c. 6. ¶. 26.
• a 1.43

  Vnto this reason dra∣wen from humane wi∣sedome, set the Christiā reader adde Christes prayer. Luc. 22. v. 32 I haue pra∣yed &c. that thy fayth faile not.
• * 1.44

  Doctrinae semel tradi∣tae suit aliis omnibus te¦nacior.
• * 1.45

  The Greeke church not comparable to the Ro∣mane.
• * 1.46

  Math. ••5.
• * 1.47

  Pag. 20.
• * 1.48

  That the he¦brew bibles are in some places cor∣rupted.
• * 1.49

  Esa. 9.
• * 1.50

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.51

  Luth. tom. 4. enarration. Esa. cap. 9.
• * 1.52

  The Iewes corrupters and crucifi∣eis of such places of scripture as appertaine to Christ.
• a 1.53

  Scriptura eius.
• * 1.54

  4. Reg. 19.
• * 1.55

  Luth. in Esa. ca. 53. v. 11. fol. 282.
• * 1.56

  Lyra. proba. diuinita∣tis & humanita∣tis Christi contra Iu∣daeos, in fine glos. noui te¦stamenti.
• * 1.57

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.58

  Translatiōs, truer then the original text.
• * 1.59

  Ierem. 23. v. 5.6.
• * 1.60

  Hier. in Ier. ca. 23. v. 6.
• * 1.61

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.62

  Lyra vbi supra.
• * 1.63

  The Iewes corrupt the letter of the scripture.
• * 1.64

  Al bibles corrupt in this place.
• * 1.65

  Esa. 53. v. 8.
• * 1.66

  Hierom. in Esa. ca. 53.
• * 1.67

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.68

  Bib. 1577.
• * 1.69

  1579.
• * 1.70

  Bib. 1562.
• * 1.71

  The English translations adde to the text.
• * 1.72

  Luther to. 4. in Esa. c. 53.
• * 1.73

  The Iewes corrupt the scripture, in despite of Christians.
• * 1.74

  ••. maners of corruption.
• * 1.75

  Rom. 9. v. 5.
• * 1.76

  Sixtus Se∣nensis in bibliotheca sancta. lib. 8. pag. 646.
• * 1.77

  General rea¦sons why the hebrue text can not be so since∣re as the ad∣uersarie would pre∣tend.
• * 1.78

  Deut. 52. v. 9
• * 1.79

  Exod. 19. v. 6
• * 1.80

  Act. 14. v· 15.
• a 1.81

  Num. 21. v. 14.
• b 1.82

  Iosue 10. ver. 13. 2. Reg. 1. v. 18.
• c 1.83

  2. Paral. 20 v. 34.
• d 1.84

  ibid. 12. ver. 15.
• e 1.85

  1. Reg. 10. vers. 25.
• f 1.86

  2. Paral. 9. vers. 29.
• * 1.87

  The Iewes haue lost ma¦ny & whole volumes of their Pro∣phetes: much more may they leese or al∣ter points, letters and syllables.
• * 1.88

  Most vnrea∣sonable ab∣surditie, and contradi∣ction.
• * 1.89

  Whit. pag. 9.
• * 1.90

  Whit. pa. 15.
• * 1.91

  Similitude of letters.
• * 1.92

  Hieron. in Osee. c. 2.
• * 1.93

  Psal. 109. v. 3
• * 1.94

  Marlorate in Psal. 110.
• * 1.95

  Of the yere 1579.
• * 1.96

  Of the yere 1577.
• * 1.97

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.98

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.99

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.100

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.101

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.102

  Hebr. 1. v. 5.
• * 1.103

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.104

  Psal. 58. v. 10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.105

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.106

  Genes. 3. v. 15.
• * 1.107

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.108

  1. Cor. 2. v. 9.
• * 1.109

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.110

  Pretie āswe∣eres & inter¦pretations.
• * 1.111

  Luther in Esa. ca. 64. Illyric. in 1. Cor. ca. 2. v. 9
• * 1.112

  Martyr in 1. Cor. ca. 2 fo. 46.
• * 1.113

  S. Paule mis¦sed in read∣ing Hebrue.
• * 1.114

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.115

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.116

  Beza in 1. Cor. ca 2. v. 9.
• * 1.117

  The Protes∣tantes attri∣bute more to the Iew∣ish scribes, then to S. Paule the Apostle.
• * 1.118

  Act. 22.
• * 1.119

  Castalio de¦fens. suae trā¦slatio. pag. 227.
• * 1.120

  M.W. opini¦on touching the Hebrew vncorrupt, is luysh.
• * 1.121

  Humfre. lib. 1. de rat. in∣terpre. pag. 178.
• * 1.122

  Lib. 2. pag. 219.
• * 1.123

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.124

  Pellican to. 4. in psal. 85. vers 9.
• * 1.125

  The Iewes at al tymes negligēt in conseruing the scriptu∣res.
• * 1.126

  Idem ibidē in psal 108. vers. 11.
• * 1.127

  In vulgo le∣gend is legis suae transla∣tionibus.
• * 1.128

  The Protes∣tants & Ie∣wes resem∣ble one the other in ma¦ny pointes both of fayth and maners.
• * 1.129

  Munster. in Gen. ca. 27.
• * 1.130

  Where is now becom the canon of Carthage Counsel. 4. cap. 47. so much vr∣ged by M. Iewel, that nothing should be read or sung in the church beside Cano¦nical scrip∣ture?
• * 1.131

  Bad time, & worse reasō.
• * 1.132

  Great varie∣tie in the He¦brew bibles
• * 1.133

  Munster in praefat. bib. ••omi primi.
• * 1.134

  ps. 144.
• * 1.135

  ps. 33.
• * 1.136

  The Hebrew bibles vn∣perfit.
• * 1.137

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.138

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.139

  The protes∣tants opini∣ō iniurious to the holy Ghost.
• * 1.140

  Although S. Hierom appealed from the la∣tin to the Hebrew, yet the like rea∣son is not for vs now.
• * 1.141

  August. de doctr. Chris∣tiana. lib, 2. ca. 11.
• * 1.142

  S. Hierom thought the hebrew bi∣bles to be in some places corrupt and faultie.
• * 1.143

  Gal. ••. v. 1••. Deuter. 21. v. 23.
• * 1.144

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.145

  Hiero. in ••al c. 3.
• * 1.146

  Gal. •• v. 10. Deutron. 27. v. 26.
• * 1.147

  Hier. in Gal. cap. 3.
• * 1.148

  The Iewes conuicted by S. Hier. of corrup∣ting of the scriptures.
• * 1.149

  S. Hierom praysing the hebrew bi∣bles of his tyme, no∣thing iusti∣fieth these of our time.
• * 1.150

  An argumēt commonly made for the puritie of the he∣brew bibles
• * 1.151

  The an∣swere.
• * 1.152

  Very proba¦ble, that Christ no∣ted the Iewes for corrupting the text of scripture. Ioā. 21. v. 25
• * 1.153

  Mat. 5. v. 22. v. 28.
• * 1.154

  32.
• * 1.155

  34.
• * 1.156

  38.
• * 1.157

  43.
• * 1.158

  The whole law for ma∣ny yeres to∣gether lost by the Iews
• * 1.159

  4 Reg. c. 22.
• * 1.160

  Iustinus martyr tom. 2. pag. 141.
• * 1.161

  S. Iustine the Martyr conuinceth the Iewes of mangling the scriptu∣res.
• * 1.162

  Esd. ••.
• * 1.163

  Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 18.
• * 1.164

  Ierem. ca. 11.
• * 1.165

  Whole sen∣tences cut out of the bibles by the Iewes.
• * 1.166

  The real presence.
• * 1.167

  Ihon 6.
• * 1.168

  Mat. 26.
• * 1.169

  Hierom. in Ieremi. ca. 11. Tertul. in lib. contra Iudaeos. Oecolamp. in Ierem ca. 11.
• * 1.170

  Psal. 95.
• * 1.171

  Iustinus vbi supra, pa. 142
• * 1.172

  In quibusdā exemplari∣bus.
• * 1.173

  August. in Psal. 9••.
• * 1.174

  Our first preachers & forefathers perfecte Christians without he∣brew bibles
• * 1.175

  pag. 19.20.
• * 1.176

  The church hath faith∣fully cōser∣ued the scri∣ptures, not∣withstāding the corrup∣tion of the hebrew bi∣bles.
• * 1.177

  ••he office of the true Church.
• * 1.178

  1. Tim. 3. vers. 15.
• * 1.179

  Eph. 5. c.
• * 1.180

  D. Whit. in the defen∣se, &c. tract. 2 pag. 87. tract. 7. pag. 257.265.266.285.287.289.
• * 1.181

  No more reason that euery parti∣cular man should pre∣scribe the church in this, then that euerie subiect should pre¦scribe the prince how to rule his realme.
• * 1.182

  The pro¦testantes can not pos¦sibly be∣leue any bi∣ble deliue∣red them by the Cath. Church in what lan∣guage so euer.
• * 1.183

  August. de vtil. creden¦di ca. 14.
• * 1.184

  Fox actes & monumētes edit. 1563. pag. 44.45.91.101.102.103.108.141 140.235.251
• * 1.185

  The pro∣testantes church and succession.
• * 1.186

  Whit. in the defens. &c. tract. 8. chap. 6. pag. 465.
• * 1.187

  Act. cap. ••.
• * 1.188

  How stan∣deth this with the in∣uisibilitie & general, suppression of the Church, which the Tower dispu¦ters so pain¦fully labour to proue? The second days confe∣rence.
• * 1.189

  Whit. cōtra Sander. p. 47
• * 1.190

  A short and true answer to M. W. de∣maund.
• * 1.191

  Such de¦maunders wil neuer be satisfied, ne¦ther can they, while they remain so mynded. Mat. 22. v. 18. Mat. 7. v. 6.
• * 1.192

  pag. 16.
• * 1.193

  We honour & esteeme of the he∣brew bibles notwithstan¦ding we al∣ter not our fayth vpon pretence thereof.
• * 1.194

  The Protes∣tants, par∣tial iudges for the Iewes a∣gainst the Christians and Church Catholike.
• * 1.195

  Discouer. c. 22 num 9.10.11.12▪ & in the pre∣face nu. 39.
• * 1.196

  In the pre∣face to the reader, nu. 44. and c. 22. num. 9.
• * 1.197

  Act. 2. v. ••5.
• * 1.198

  Sixtus ••e∣nens. in Bi∣bliotheca sancta. lib. ••. pag. 648.
• * 1.199

  The Protes∣tāts secret∣ly begin to disproue the Chur∣ches fayth touching the maner of Christs crucifying.
• * 1.200

  Calfh. a∣gainst the crosse.
• * 1.201

  Marlor. in Psal. 22. v. 17
• * 1.202

  Muscul. io Ma••. cap. 27.
• * 1.203

  Bucer. in Psal. 22. v. 17.
• * 1.204

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.205

  Ioā. 19. v. 36.
• * 1.206

  Zuing. tom. 3. in E••chi∣rid. psalmo∣rum. Psa. 21.
• * 1.207

  The Tigu∣rine transla∣tiō, wicked and Iuysh against the crucifying of Christ. to like pur∣pose is the translation of Leo Iudae Cinzit me, ••cu leo ma∣nus meas, &c.
• * 1.208

  Pag. 16.
• * 1.209

  The con∣clusion.