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. XIII. Of the puritie of our latin testamēt in respecte of the greeke copies novv extant. Item a com∣parison of our translator vvith al other•• of this age, vvith an ansvvere to those obiections vvhich M. VV. deuiseth a∣gainst him.

IT resteth now that I finish the other two partes which as yet remaine of the last chapter, touchinge the ex∣act veritie of our latin translation, & the impietie in appealing from that to the greeke and hebrew. But before I come thether, reason requireth som∣what to be spoken of the new testamēt in greeke, as hath bene spoken of the old in hebrew. And it may be that the Protestantes find more fault with vs, for that at the least in the new testamēt we leaue not our old latin and folow the greeke, in which tonge the Euāge∣listes vvrote. To iustifie our doing

herein, much may serue of that vvhich hath bene said in the last chapter, much more may be seene in the preface before mencioned of the nevv testa∣ment, vvhereof as I said I vvil make my aduantage for breuities sake, be∣cause I perceaue this trifle riseth and increaseth betvvene my fingers more then ether my self, or others vvould haue it. VVherefore I vvil gather to M. VV. handes the summe of that which is there spoken, because he see∣meth neuer to haue read it, and after adde one or two short obseruations of mine owne & so passe away.

Tē reasons there shal he find, why we in our translation folovved rather the latin then the greeke: the tenth reasō vvhereof may be subdiuided in to ten reasons more at the least, prouing the latin to be purer then the greeke, by most cleare examples, fortified vvith the authoritie of Tertullian, of S. Hierō, of the Ecclesiastical historie, of Caluin, of Beza, of Erasmus, of the English translations and translators them selues. VVhich discourse is con∣cluded vvith this approbation of that excellent man Theodorus Beza. Hovv vnvvorthely (saith he) and vvithout cause

doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter, as dissenting from the greeke? he dissented I graūt from those greeke copies vvhich Eras∣mus had gotten, but vve haue found not in one place, that the same interpretatiō vvhich he blameth, is grounded vpon the authoritie of other greeke copies, and those most aunci∣ent. Yea in some number of places, vve haue obserued that the reading of the latin text of the old interpreter, though it agree not some time vvith our greeke copies, yet is it much more cōuenient, for that it seemeth he folow∣ed some truer and better copie. After this, folow eight other reasons shewing our latin translation to agree generally with the greeke or with more graue & sufficient authoritie thē are the greeke copies now extant: after which folow many examples wherein Beza particu¦larly chargeth the greeke copies of corruption, whom in that case the en∣glish trāslations folow. Al which ma∣keth most euidently for vs & iustifieth our doing. For if in truth (euen by the confession of our greatest aduersaries) our latin be purer then the greeke, if our latin be framed exactly though not to the vulgar greeke examples now vsual, yet to more auncient and perfect examples as Beza hath obser∣ued,

if the greeke testaments haue in them many faultes, errors & corrupti∣ons, as Beza in word auoucheth and by manifold examples sheweth, if this be so true that our english translators them selues at their pleasure leaue the greeke and folow our latin, with what face, reason, or conscience, can M.W. crie vpon the pure and vncorrupt ori∣ginals, which him self and his masters proue to be so impure and contamina∣ted? With what honestie can he cal vs to the greeke, from which them selues depart so licentiously? Vnto these I wil ioyne only three short obseruati∣ons, which the diligent reader perhaps may amplifie by verie many particular examples, and so wil come to confer our translator with our aduersaries.

[ 1] The first may be the difference of our greeke copies now, from the old, whereof let this be an example. Beza reiecteth the whole storie of the adul∣terous womā whereof mentiō is made in the eight of S. Ihon. His reason is, be∣cause the old fathers did so, and it was not in the old greeke testaments: which he proueth by the authoritie, of S. Chry∣sostom of Theophilact, of Nonnus, and S. Hierom. and amongst 17 old copies of Henrie

Stephen, one vvanted it, the rest had it, but so, that in their reading there vvas maruelous varietie. whereof he inferrteh, Tāta va∣rietas lectionis facit vt de totius istius narra∣tionis fide dubitem. This great varietie of rea∣ding maketh me to doubt of the truth of the vvhole matter. Yet notwithstanding this cōtrarie practise of the old greekes and greeke testaments, and infinite va∣rietie in the copies, the new printes haue it (for ought I can find) vniuersal∣ly and agreably: and in al our english testaments (trāslated after the greeke) it is as canonical as any other part of S. Iohns gospel. So that herein appea∣reth a great diuersitie betwene the old greeke testaments and the new, and therefore daungerous it is to folowe these new, if we can not do it but with condēnation of the old: & yet as daun∣gerous is it to folow the old, if we can not do it without condēnation of that which the church holdeth for a part of S. Iohns gospel. The like noteth thae same writer in the epistle to the Ephes. the 3. chap. a parcel whereof in S. Hierōs time VVas not in the greeke bookes, but only in the latin. but (saith Beza) In omnibus veteri∣bus libris et scholiis quoque graecis haec parti∣cula additur. Novv it is added in al the old greeke copies & scholies also.

[ 2] A second obseruation may be the rash & vnconsiderate additions which haue bene made in the greeke text. an example whereof may be taken from the same Euangelist and the ende of the same chapter, where in the greeke is added this peece, Exiuit e templo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Transiens per medium illorum, et sic praeteriit. touching vvhich thus writeth Beza. These vvords are found in verie auncient copies, but I thinke as doth Erasmus, that the first part is taken out of Luke the 4. v. 30. and creapt into the text by fault of the vvri∣ters vvho found that vvritten in the margēt, and that the later part 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vvas added to make this chapter ioyne vvel vvith the next. And thus to thinke I am moued not only because nether Chrysostome nether Au∣gustine make any mention of this peece, but also because it seemeth not to hāg together ve∣ry probably for if he withdrew him selfe out of their sight, hovv vvent he through the mid∣dest of thē? etc. & so forth disputeth against this parte as altogether vnprobable & not likely to be true. Yet is it now ge∣nerally in most greeke copies, how beit the english translators leaue it out of their testaments. The reason I take to be, because howsoeuer they bragge of

their greeke and hebrew originals, the truth is, they translate nether the one nor the other (except sometimes some few words for a shew) but only take that, which Beza in latin deliuereth vn∣to them. And yet (whereof I marueil) the freshest translation which profes∣seth to folowe Beza, & inscribeth the booke thus: The Testament of our Lorde Iesus Christ translated out of greeke by Theodore Beza, and Englished by L. T. put∣teth this in, which Beza leaueth out and against vvhich Beza disputeth so earnestly that it can not be scripture, as being contrarie to it self. But for ex∣cuse of the English translator it may be (and true it is) that Beza one yere thought thus, an other yere thought otherwise. And so in one Testament of his, held that for false & Apocryphal, which in an other Testament he gaue out & autorized as sacred & Canoni∣cal. Vnto this place thou maist referre that peece which the Protestāts so glo∣riously sing and say in the ende of the Lords praier. For thine is the Kingdome, the povver, and glorie for euer and euer. Amen. which as Erasmus disliketh, confessing it notwithstanding to be, In omnibus grae∣cis exemplaribus & nulla latino, In al greeke

testaments and no one Latin, so Bullinger himself counteth it to be a mere patch sowed to the rest, by I knowe not whō, and alloweth wel of Erasmus iudgmēt, reprouing Laurentius Valla for fin∣ding fault with the latin editiō because that lacketh it. Non est (saith he) quod Lau∣rentius Valla stomachetur &c. There is no reason vvhy Laurence Valla should take the matter so hotely, as though a great part of the Lordes praier vvere cut a vvay. Rather their ras••nes was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their toyes vnto the Lords praier.

[ 3] A third obseruation may be, that the greeke testaments omit vpon light occasions, often times that which they should not, and which the latin retaineth for autentical & canonical. Example where of may be the place be∣fore noted of the incarnatiō. Quod nas∣cetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur filius dei. That (saith the Arch••ngel to our bles∣sed ladie) vvhich of thee shal be borne ho∣ly, shal be called the sonne of God. In which sentence the two syllables, ex te, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what force they cary against the Ana∣baptists hath bene declared. Now con∣sider the gener••l corruption of the greeke cop••es in that behalf. Of them thus writeth Carolus Molineus a great

Protestant in his new testament. I haue read, exte, in most aūcient bibles, of vvhich one copie I haue, printed at Lions▪ the yere 1479. and that is the old vndoubted reading. for so reade the old and nevv Breuiaries and Romane offices. But Erasmus, vvhom Bucer and Bullinger folovv, seemeth only to haue fallen vpon a copie in this part vnp••rfite, the error vvhereof is spread a broade in many co∣pies both greeke and latin printed at Basil, Zuricke, Paris, and Lions, you and at Gene∣ua also in the ordinarie glosse vpon the three first Euangelistes set forth the yere 1549. and 1554. but novv of late the Geneuians, especi∣ally Theodorus Beza haue acknovvleged and mended this error. how it is mended I know not, but sure I am in the text of any greeke copie I could neuer yet for it, and Beza in his mending doth shew so notable a tricke of an Anabaptist as may be. In the annotations of his testa∣ment, he writeth of this peece wel and christianly thus. Exte, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of thee. so I found it vvritten in some bookes of the old edition, and in the booke of Complutum, and in many places of Epiphanius. And Athana∣sius in h••s epistle to Epictetus bishop of Co∣rinth, shevveth that so vve must reade. For thus vvriteth he. The Angel said not simply that vvhich shalbe be borne in thee, but of

thee, that vve should beleeue that vvhich vvas borne, by nature to haue bene formed of her. By which reasons he proueth that to be the true reading in the greeke, the latin testaments generally concurring therewith. But how now amēdeth he his testamēt? thus. where∣as before it was in the margent of some greeke testamēts, as appeareth by the print of Iohn Crispine the yere 1553. he leaft it cleane out both of text and margent of the greeke testaments which after this were printed in Gene¦ua, as appeareth in the two prints of the testamēt set forth by Beza him self the yere 1565. in greeke and latin, and the greeke testament printed after that by Henricus Stephanus the yere 1576. so that the other true reading remaineth only in the latin, which against an Anabaptist, or any other Protestant making no accompt of the latin, farther then it agreeth with the greeke, is nothing worth. And there∣fore the english bible of the yere 1561. in this point drawing towards Ana∣baptisme, as also the bible printed the yere 1577. leaueth it cleane out.

An other error of like qualitie, though not of like quantitie and great∣nes

is in the 36. verse, ca. 17. of S. Luke vvhich (as the same man sayth) vvanteth in Euthimius an auncient greeke vvriter & in Theophilact, and in al the copies prin∣ted at Basile, and in the translation of Zu∣ricke, and in the bibles printed at Geneua, nether Erasmus, nor Sanctes Pagninus, nor Bucer, nor Bullinger, nor Brentius, nor Cal∣uin, reade it. sed habetur in meis antiquis, et in vulgari aeditione. but it is in my old bi∣bles, and in the vulgar edition. Hereof it riseth, that Erasmus in sundrie places would leaue out verses, because they were not in his greeke copies, Beza contrariewise would put them in, be∣cause he found them in his. For exam∣ple. Of that sentēce Mar. 11. v. 26. Quòd si vos n••n dimis. ritis, nec pater vester qui in caelis est, dimittet vobis peccata vestra, Eras∣mus writeth, that in the greatest number of greeke testaments this verse is not read, ne∣ether in Theophilacte. Nos tamē in plarisque vetustis exemplaribus reperimus, atque ad•••• in Theophilacto Romano (saith Beza) yet I found it in most of the auncient copies, & in The ephilact printed at Rome. A sm••le stu∣dent with meane diligence may en∣large this by verie many examples, & the greeke testaments of our time for the greater multitude cōming through

the handes of heretical printers, speci∣ally in the beginning of this tragical heresie, ministreth great store & vari∣etie of cutting of, and leauing out, and such like false practises.

[ 4] But the last and principal reason why we prefer our latin translator be∣fore al other, is this which I shal now speake of. Flacius Illyricus finding fault with the church which was about 400. yeres after Christ in S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostoms time, for igno∣rance in the hebrew tong▪ treating of this matter how the testament should be faithfully translated, Vnus (saith he) popularis meus Hieronymus linguarum egre∣giè peritus fuit &c. Only my countryman Hierom vvas maruelous cunning in the tōgs. he indeuoured to illustrate the scriptures, both by his translations and commentaries. But he in deede being ignorant of mans sickenes & Christ the phisition, and vvanting the keye vvhich openeth the scripture, that is, the difference betvvene the lavv and the gospel, being also destitute of Christ vvho openeth the dore, he did litle good. The like defect vvas in Lyra not lōg before our time, vvhere∣as othervvise he tooke great paines to set∣forth and expound the holy bible. Out of which censure this I gather, not how

arrogantly and impiously these men despise and contemne the principal doctors and Primitiue church, but that al skil & knowledge of tonges serueth not to make a man interprete the testa∣ment as he ought, except withal he be of sounde religion towardes God, in∣dued with his grace and spirite, voide of partialitie and affection, and with single & sincere minde coueteth to ex∣presse the sense and meaning of the ho∣ly Ghost.

If by these rules we examine and scanne our old interpreter, we shal manifestly finde that he is to be pre∣ferred both before al the interpreters of our time whosoeuer is counted best, yea put thē al together, as also be∣fore the greeke testaments which now are currant. For that his knowledge was sufficient in the greeke tonge, and therefore erred not for want off kil, the thing it self speaketh, and it is confes∣sed by al his and our aduersaries, Pelli∣cane, Beza, Castalio, Molineus, as shal appeare hereafter. That he had good stoare of greeke copies, & those truer and perfecter then we haue com∣monly now, Beza likewise in plaine termes confesseth. his words are ci∣ted

before. & he geueth this general rule of him, that amongst the old greeke ex∣amples which he vsed to the furni∣shing of his new testament, two he had which he calleth, The second & the eight, vvhich lightly neuer disagreed from our vulgar translation. Vpon the first of S. Marke he vvriteth thus. In prophe∣tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so vve found it vvrittē in al our greeke bookes, sauing the second & the eight, in vvhich vve reade, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Isai the prophete, and so did the old interpreter translate the place. And that it should be so, is proued most clearely by the Syriake bible, S. Hier. S. Austin, S. Epiphan. & S. Chrysost. specially de∣fending this place against Porphitie. Againe in S. Luke, Eiectis for as omnibus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the old interpreter reade not this, yet vve found it in al our old bookes, excepting the secōd and eight, quorum miri∣ficus est cum vulgata editione consensus. Be∣tvveene vvhich and the vulgar edition there is a vvounderful consent.

But because al this serueth not in this diuine vvorke, except the minde be rightly guided and voide from al passions, in this parte principally our interpreter by al reason must needes be iudged soueraine and excellent, be∣cause

liuing so longe before the na∣mes of Papists and Protestants vvere knovvē, he could not vnequally bend to one side against the other. and his precisenes and religious vprigh••nes is often times singularly commended by the aduersaries them selues.Vetus in∣terpres (saith Beza) videtur summa religi∣one sacros libros interpretatus. The old inter∣preter seemeth to haue inteepreted the holy bookes vvith marue••ous sinceritie and religiō. And Molineus. I gerrimè a vn gari con∣suetaque lectione recedo, quam etiam enixè defendere so••eo. I can verie hardly de∣part from the vulgar and accustomed rea∣ding, vvhich also I am vvont verie earnest∣ly to defend. And ••o vse one domestical vvitnes, D. Humfrey thus speaketh of him. Proprietati verborum satis videtur addictus vetus interpres, et quidem n••mis anxiè, quod tamen interpretor religione qua∣dam fecisse, non gnorantia. The old inter∣preter seemeth sufficiently bent ••olovv the proprietie of vvords, and he doth it in deede to carefully, vvhich notvvithstanding I sup∣pose him to haue done not of ignorance, but of religion and conscience. Hereby is vvel and perfitly iustified the sincere and vpright dealing of our interpreter, vvhose fault ether is none, or if it be

any, it is this, that in folowing the exact signification of the greeke word, he was to scrupulous and carefull, to full of conscience and religion, which is a very good fault, if it must be called a fault, and commended and iustified els where by D. Humfrey him self. Liberi∣us (saith he) in aliis prophanis licet expa∣tiari & degredi a verbis: in canonica scrip∣tura nulla licentia est tolerabilis. non enim concessum est homini dei linguam mutare. In prophane vvritings a man may range a∣brode more freely, & depart from the vvords: in canonical scripture no such licence is tole∣rable. for man may not alter the tonge of God.

Against this man so learned, hauing good greeke copies, & folowing them exactly and vvith such religion let now any Protestant oppose any of his nevv translators, whom by manifold reasōs, trials and experiments, I can not dis¦proue and plainly shevv, that for one error of our interpreter, he hath at least a score. And in reason hovv can it be othervvise, vvhereas they al being here••ikes, and ech addicted to some peculiar sect (sauing Erasmus, vvho notvvithstanding vvas far out of the vvay) and therefore full of pride, arro∣gancie,

selfvvil, and geuen to that par∣tial humor vvhereof his heresie most consisted, drew al places, especially in∣different, to serue that veyne. Luthers excellencie in interpreting, is of the greatest number of Protestāts thought very singular, so as not only the Lu∣therans but euen the Zuinglians geue him great praise, as vve learne by Slei∣dan. Habemus sacra biblia (saith Brentius in the Apologie of the Wirtenberg Cō∣fession) a Luthero in Germanicam linguam diuino beneficio tā perspicue cōuersa &c. vve haue the holy bibles through the great bènefite of God turned by Luther in to the Germain tonge so clearely, that his translatiō yeldeth to none, ether greeke or latin. Yet hovv elegāt and sincere a translator he vvas, vve may coniecture by Emserus, vvho ga∣thered out of his translation Fourteene hundred fovvle lyes and falsifications. But because the authoritie of this man being a catholike vvayeth not much with M.W. and to vvrite out those lyes vvere to fil vp a good booke, vvhich I am not disposed to do at this time, to make short worke, both in this & the rest I wil stay my self vpon the authoritie of such men, as I knovv M. VV. honoreth for singular instruments of the Lord

in setting forth the gospel, such as he vvel knovveth, speake not of partia∣litie but of conscience. And vvho can iudge of Luther better then his coa∣postle Zuinglius, vvho is so far of from approuing his translation, that he ac∣counteth him a fovvle corrupter and horrible falsifier of scripture to make them serue his heretical fansies, and in that kinde reckeneth him for a very Arrian and Marcionite. Thus he vvriteth. Thou doest corrupt (Luther) & ad∣ulterate the vvord of God, folovving herein the Marcionites and Arrians, vvho of old vvere vvont commōly to raze out of the scrip∣tures such places as seemed to be against their doctrine. This fault he exemplifieth in Luthers translation thus. VVhereas these vvords of Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Iohn 6. he should haue translated thus, That flesh profiteth nothing, there he leaft out the Ger∣mane article, (das, that) ansvvering the greeke article (••) to the intent those vvordes should not precisely and determinately be re∣ferred to the self same flesh, of vvhich Christ had spoken a litle before, and spake of stil, for thus he translated it &c. And after many vvordes spent against Luther for his malitious vvickednes, he thus conclu∣deth. See hovv thy case standeth Luther,

that in the eyes of al men thou art seene to be a manifest and common corrupter, and per∣uerter of the holy scripture, vvhich thing thou canst neuer denie before any creature. Hovv much are vve ashamed of thee, vvho hetherto haue esteemed thee beyonde al mea∣sure, and novv trye thee to be such a false fellovv. Betvvene vvhich tvvo (most excellent Apostles of the english con∣gregation) thus chiding, I knovv not who is of vs, more to be abhorred and detested. whether Luther, vvho plai∣eth the part of an Arrian and Marcio∣nite in mangling & defacing the scrip∣tures, or Zuinglius vvho so eagerly striueth to proue that the flesh and hu∣manitie, and consequently the incarna∣tion of our most blessed Sauiour is vvorth nothing.

But to let that passe, and proceede to talke of our translators, M. W. be∣cause he is a Zuinglian, therefore by likelihode reckeneth thē for more ex∣quisite in geuing forth their testamēts. Graunt that be so in the iudgment of him and his companions: hovv can vve be induced so to thinke of them, vvhereas Luther their common father, holdeth them for most ignorant and foolish, & (to vse his ovvne vvords) as

senselesse and brutish, as is any stocke or beast, in geuing the true sense of the scripture. who calleth them commonly touching d••uinitie and matters theolo∣gical, stultos, srolidos, stupi••os, stipites, asinos, truncos, antichristos, impost••res, stipites, asi∣nino intellectu, and so forth many like raylinges vnworthy to be heard amōgst the vilest creatures that liue, much lesse amongst two such Arch apostles, had they in them any parcel, I wil not say of Apostolike or Christian, but of ciuil or humaine grauitie. But I wil discend vnto some of their particular Testa∣ments set forth by Zuinglians, to find out if it may be, one whic•• may be pre∣ferred before our commō. That which was set forth by Oecolampad us (as I suppose) and the Diuines of Basi••e, is of many vvel allovved. And vvil you haue vs refuse our old, a••d take that? but Beza chargeth vs in any case not to do so, and geueth his rea••on, because that Basile tr••nslatio•• is in multis locis im∣pia, & a spiritus sancti sententia prors••s discrepans, In many places vvicked, and alto∣gether dis••greing from the mind of the holy Ghost. Wil you vvishe vs rather to take Castalio, vvhom D. Humfrey matcheth vvith the best, and praiseth his bible

as most painfull, most diligent, most thorougly conferred, examined, sifted, and polished? and Conradus Gesnerus simply pre∣ferreth it before al, as the best that vvas euer yet set out by the Protestants. Vertit biblia (saith he) ita diligenter ac sū∣ma fide ad hebraica & graeca exemplaria &c. vt omnes omnium versiones hactenus aeditas longo post se interuallo reliquisse videatur. Cast alio bath translated the bible so dili∣gently, and vvith so singular fidelitie accor∣ding to the hebrevv and greeke, that he see∣meth far to haue surpassed al trāslations of al mē vvhat so euer haue hetherto bene set forth. Yet this notvvithstanding, vve can not possibly so esteeme of it, considering that Beza in so many places of his notes condēneth it not only for false, corrupt & peruerse, but also for pestilēt, sacrile∣gious Ethnical, & Turkish, such a one as cōtaineth the very seede, & laieth open the high vvay to manifest Apostasie frō Christ. To come neerer home, Caluin I suppose by M. W. iudgment should succede in place of our olde. but so should vve make as euil a chaunge as if vve tooke any yet mencioned. For Caluin vvhatsoeuer grace or good qualitie othervvise he had, vvas as savvcie and malapert in altering the

text of scripture as any of his felovv sectaries. so vvriteth of him, his ovvne brother Carolus Molineus. Caluinus in sua harmonia textum euangelicum desui∣tare facit sursum versum, vt res ipsa indicat, vim infert literae euangelicae, et illam in mul tis locis transponit, et insuper addit literae. Caluin in his harmony (which is the very letter of his translation) maketh the text of the gospel to leape vp and dovvne, as the thing it self shevveth. He vseth violence to the letter of the gospel, and in many places cleane transposeth it, and besides this he addeth to the text. that is, he geueth vs a text of his ovvne making.

What remaineth for vs to do now, but to sticke to our old, seing the Pro∣testants them selues thus disswade vs from taking any new? But there remai∣neth yet one sure felow whom I sup∣pose M. W. could be content to sub∣stitute in place not only of our aunci∣ent edition, but of Luther, Occolam∣padus, Castalio, yea and Caluin him self, that is Theodore Beza, whom the english congregation seeme most to folow. But he must tel vs what testa∣ment? of what yere? of what date? be∣cause certaine it is, that the first editi∣ons

d••ffer notoriously from the middle and the middle from the later, as hath bene touched before, & of al testamēts set forth by any her••t••ke, no one hath bene more refuted & cōuinced of fowle and wilfull corr••ptions▪ and that by the ver••e heretikes them selues, then those of Bezaes. witnesses whereof are (besides Catholike vvriters noted be∣fore) Selneccerus the Germane, and the Vniu••rsitie of Iena, Se••astianus Casta••io in a vvhole booke, and Caro∣lus Molineus in v••rie many places of his not••s vpon the nevv testament vvhich he set forth. VVhere often times he reprehendeth Caluin and Beza. often times of Beza he saieth, that he, de facto mutat textum. Altereth the text not only in sense, but in the verie word and letter. Againe, Theod. Beza Mat. 10. v. 10. & Luc. 9, 3. defac∣to mu••at textum, vt hos ita conciliet. Sed non p••acet mutari textum qui ab omnibus et antiquis et recētioribus doct••ribus retinetur, quum sacile cōciliari possint. Beza in S. Mat∣thevv chap. 10. v. 10. and S. Luke chap. 9. v. 3. actually changeth the text, so to make a reconciliation betvvene the euangelists. But I like not that, so to change the text vvhich is retained of al doctors both old and

nevv, and othervvise they may vvel be recō∣ciled. and whether they may or may not surely that is a very mad way of recon∣ciliation. And commonly that writer preferreth our vulgar editiō, before Erasmus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurine trās∣lation, Pagnines, etiam Iohannis Caluini et omnibus aliis, yea bef••re Iohn Caluins to, and all other. And in the same place. Here Erasmus did vvel to folovv the old edition, and it had bene better for Beza to haue done so to. And againe, Peccat Beza antiquam versionem mutans, Iohānis 3. v. 19 et 43. And the like is very common in Castalio, Beza malè reprehendit veterem interpretem. Melius transtulerat vetus inter∣pres. Iniustè reprehendit veterem interpre∣tem &c. vniustly and vvith out cause Beza reprehendeth the old interpreter. The old in∣terpreter had translated it better before. And touching Beza he saith, that to note al his errors committed in translating the new testament, Opus esset nimis magno l••bro, It vvould require a very great booke. And hauing noted certaine faultes of Beza committed only in the first ten chapters of S. Matthew, thus he con∣cludeth. In his decem Matthaei capitibus (in quibus tamē plurimae quae merito reprehēdere potuissem praetermisi) quam prolixum passem

&c. I trust I haue shevved sufficiently by these ten chapters of S. Matthevv (in vvhich notvvithstanding I haue omitted very ma∣ny things vvhich iustly I might haue repre∣hended) vvhat a long register of his errors I could gather out of his vvhole vvorke. For this is true, that oft times he erreth not only in vvords (vvhich is not so daungerous, and might be tolerated) but also in things, and the same most vvaightie: and oft times he en∣forceth by vvrithing not the sentences only, but also the vvords of the holy vvriters to serue his error. So Iohn 1. v. 12. he corrupteth a most not able place and of greatest moment touching freevvil &c. And in fevv to speake al (for I should vvrite out vvhole treatises & bookes, if I vvould shew the vile abusing of scripture com∣mitted by that vvretch of damnable memorie, vvhom our english Protes∣tantes cheefely extolle, as by M. VV. vve learne) thus much Castalio noteth and shevveth by manifolde examples, that Beza then principally laboureth in peruerting the scripture, vvhē it ap∣pertaineth most to the benefite & vertue of Christs passion and our redemption. Thus he vvriteth vpon the 6. chapter to the Romanes, and these vvordes of our latin text, Vt destruatur corpus peccati,

in the english translation, That the body of sinne may be destroyed, both agreing ex∣actly with the greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Beza (saith Castalio) turneth the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eneruetur, may bevvea∣kened, and reprehendeth the old interpreter, Erasmus, and me, for translating, may be des∣troyed. for this honest man, vvil not haue sinne to be distroyed by Christ, but only weake¦ned, vvherein he doth plainely diminish the benefite bestovved vpon vs by Christ, Id quod multis aliis in locis eum facere animad∣uerti. vvhich thing I finde him to do in many other places.

I wil not bestowe time in disprouing our english bibles, which for the most part are nothing but corrupt gutters, flowing from these forenamed corrupt and stinking lakes. Yet if otherwise any man list to disproue them al and sin∣gular, there is nothing more facile & easie. For whereas in our time since the gospel (as they cal it) began in our country, we haue had three kinde of diuers bibles, vnder kinge Henrie, kinge Edwarde, and the Q. Maiestie that now is, king Henries bibles as cor∣rupt, were corrected by king Edwarde & the duke of Somersets appointmēt, as by comparing them is easie to see

and the Protestants I thinke wil not d••••y Eduardus sextuo (saith D. Hum∣frey) procerum consi••is, et suasu episcopo∣rum, biblia emitti curauit castigatiora et purgatiora, ac legi publicè et omnibus in templis baberi mandauit. King Edvvard by the aduise of his noble men, and m••t••on of his bishops, caused the bibles to be set forth more corrected (then vvere his fathers) and more purged of faults, and commaunded the same to be read publ••kly, and to be had in al churches. Next, that the bible set forth by the Quenes authoritie, correct those of king Edward, is shewed in many pla∣ces of the Discouerie, & requireth for proofe, no more but that the reader cō∣fer one or other epistle of S. Paule, for examples sake that to the Romanes, in The nevv testamēt of our Sauiour Iesu Christ, faithfully translated out of the greeke, and perused by the cōmaundement of the Kings M. & his honorable councel & by thē autorized, & printed••ly R••ch. Iugge, with the same epistle in The nevv testament of our lord Ie∣sus Christ, translated out of greeke by Theodo∣re Beza, and englished by L.T. and printed by Christofer Barker the yere 1580. Cum gratia et pri••ilegio. and now that al these are very falsely translated, and the best con••aine wicked, and horrible, and ethnical errors, this hath bene shewed

before at large by manifest demonstra∣tion, and the confession of our aduer∣saries them selues, and so no waies are they to be opposed to our bibles.

And what can M.W. now say against vs? or whom would he haue vs to fo∣low? Perhaps his last counsel is that at least we should our selues fall to trans∣late, and so accordinge to the original greeke, fashion our selues a new testa∣mēt, seing we can like none of theirs. But nether may we thus do. First, be∣cause we beleeue our testament to be truer then the common greeke copies now extant, wherein as he seeth we stand, and that not without reason. Secondarily, because we are perswa∣ded that had we true originals, we could neuer make a translatiō in these partial times, more sincere, vpright, indifferent, and freer from reprehensiō then is this which we haue already.

Finally and for a conclusion, let the Christian reader note this, that where∣as commonly euerie secte of our ad∣uersaries, in wordes & general termes findeth fault with our translation, few or none of them shew any error or fault in particular, but lightly there is some one of their owne brethren

which standeth with vs in defense of our testament against that reprehen∣der, which no doubt proceedeth of the manifest sinceritie which our trās∣lator vsed, and the inuincible force of truth which so breaketh forth in des∣pite of her aduersaries. Laurentius Valla first of al carped at out common edition, but his rashnes is iustly repro∣ued by Erasmus, Bullingere, Beza, and sundrie others. Erasmus next fel in to that veyne, but how vnreasona∣bly let Beza speake. Quam immeritò (saith he) multis in locis reprehendit Eras∣mus ve••erem interpreteni tanquam a graecis dissentientem? Hovv vniustly in many pla∣ces doth Erasmus reprehend the old interpre∣ter as dissenting from the greeke? Then came Luther for the Lutherans, and Castalio and some other for the Zuin∣glians, and euerie one had some tooth against our interpreter. But both in particular, Beza doth iustifie those pointes, which they accounted erro∣neous, as may be seene in verie many places of his notes, and in general, pre∣ferreth him before any interpreter that he euer sawe. Vulgatam aedu ionem (saith he) maxima ex parte amplector, & caeteris omnibus antepono. The vulgar editi∣on

I embrace for the greatest parte, and pre∣fer it before all other vvhatsoeuer. There remaine only certaine faultes which Beza imagineth, & which in his notes sometime he reprehendeth, but they for the greater number, and such as be ought worth, are so wel defended by Castalio, and Carolus Molineus (to let passe our owne writers) that if M. W. would gather in to a heape al the faultes which are obiected against our testament, and afterwardes take away those which are to be taken away by the iudgment of Beza, of Caluin, of Castalio, of Molineus, and such other Protestan••s who haue set forth their owne new translations against others of their brethren, I weene the number remaining would be so smale, that it would shame M. W. him self as ob∣stinate as he seemeth, to compare with that, any of their English testa∣ments which soeuer is most exquisite.

Wherefore to cōclude this, as before touching the hebrew, so here touching the greeke, and al other translatiō, the reader may see a few rea••ons amongst infinite, vvhy the holy Councel of Trent hauing in it multitude of ex∣cellēt godly & learned men (with whō

to compare any, or al these diuided and scattered sinagoges of Lutherans, Zuinglians, Anabaptistes, or such like, were impietie and sinne before God, and intollerable iniurie before man) decreed as in the Canōs we reade tou∣ching the old auncient translation. which decree standeth vpon many cleare and most euident reasons, whe∣ther we compare it with the hebrew and greeke now extant, or with any of these new heretical versiōs, be it of Lu∣ther, of Oecolāpadius, of Basile, of Ge∣neua, of Caluin, of Castalio, of Beza, of Molineus, of the English after King Henries allowance, or King Edwardes, or that which the english congregation now best alloweth, which of al other is the vvorst, most contaminate, and most dravveth to Paganisme and Atheisme, as hath bene shevved. And that vve es∣teeme more of our old translator then any of these, not only reason, experien∣ce, conscience, diuinitie and humanitie requ••reth vs so to do, not only our duety to the Church of God, our ho∣nour to our holy and learned forefa∣thers, our faith in Christs promise & assured confidence of the assistance of his holy Spirit requireth the same, but

also in this our opinion vve are vvar∣ranted by the manifest approbation of our most capital enemies, those that haue some learning more then the rest, of Luther, of Zuinglius, Castalio, Beza, Molineus, D. Humfrey & others, vvhō M. VV. dare not controle (as I suppose) hovv vvel soeuer othervvise he thinke of him self.

And novv may I vvith more facilitie ansvvere his secōd reason, and vvhere∣in for some part I grounde the exact perfection of our latin translation, & affirme, that howsoeuer some smale fault may be found in it, absolutely it hath no error, ether touching doctrine or touching maners. For vvhy should I not so gather, when as I see the aduer∣sarie being so eager, yet with al his search and studie findeth one only fault in it. whiche I wil set downe in his owne wordes, because I wil not di∣minish the force of his argument. Very absurdly haue you done (saith he) vvhen in translating the testament in to English, you had rather fol••vv the latin translation then the greeke original, and that so obstinatly that although al the greeke examples reade othervvise then is in your vulgar editiō, yet you prefer that before them al. I vvil geue

you one example. In 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. Paule saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This parcel in your translation is omitted. for vvhat reason? because it is not in the latin vulgar edition as they cal it. But it is in the greeke exemplars, & in the most auncient edition Siriake. and vvhat if Hierom read it not? yet Chrysostome and Ambrose him self read it, vvhich men vvhereas they liued vvith Hierom, hereof it folovveth assuredly, ether that Hierō dealt not faithfully here, or that his version vvas corrupted aftervvards. vnto which thus I answere.

[ 1] First, that this omiss••on if it be any, could not proceede of malice or set purpose, for so much as there is no losse or hinderance to any part of doc∣trine by reading as we reade. for the self same thing is most clearely set downe in the verie next lines before. for thus stande the wordes. This corruptible must doe on incorruption, and this mortal, im∣mortalitie. And vvhen this (corruptible hath done on incorruption, and this) mortal hath done on immortalitie. where thou seest the words which I haue put downe inclo∣sed within the parenthesis to be con∣tained most expressely in the sentence going before, which is in al our testa∣ments, so that there is no harme or daū∣ger

ether to faith, doctrine, or maners, if it be omitted.

[ 2] Secondarely, if we prefer our latin edition before the greeke, and thinke that peece repeated, not to be of the text, what reason we haue so to do, hath bene shewed in part, and Beza by his exam∣ple iustifieth our doing. For so him self doth more thē once. vpon S. Luke he thus writeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Omnia quae vidi exemplaria ita scriptum habent. Al the greeke examples vvhich I haue seene, reade so. But the old interpreter readeth other∣vvise, et rectius vt opinor, and better as I suppose. Againe in the same gospel. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Haec verba deerant in omnibus ve∣tustis cod••cibus, quae tamen prorsus videntur requiri. These vvordes vvanted in al the old (greeke) bookes, vvhich for al that seeme ne∣cessarie. And therefore he supplieth his text vvith them out of our translatiō, and so do the english translators, who seldome depart frō him but like good scholers turne in to english, his latin.

[ 3] Thirdly, that it was of old in some greeke copies as we reade, is plaine by S. Hier. who translated thus. And why should M. W. suspect any vnfaithful∣nes in him, seing he put the self same wordes and sense in the next line im∣mediatly

going before? and that it was not corrupted since, appeareth by the common reading of most men in al later ages. And how vnlearnedly ar∣gueth he against S. Hierom from the authoritie of S. Ambrose and S. Chry∣sos••ō reading otherwise? Must there∣fore S. Hierom be vnfaithful, or the Church after him, because S. Chrysos∣tom or S. Ambrose haue those few vvordes more then he? vvhy may he not far more reasonably, more like a logician and like an honest man to in∣uent an other part and make a better diuision, that ether S. Hierom dealt not faithfully, or els his greeke copies had not that peece repeated, vvhich I thinke to be most true & certaine.

[ 4] Againe vvhy should he rather cor∣rect S. Hierom by S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose, then contraryvvise th••m by S. Hierom? vvhereas by common intendement and probabilitie, S. Hie∣rom framing a publike translation for the Church by supreme authoritie, had more varietie of copies and examined the same more narrowly, then doth or∣dinarily any other, vvho expoundeth the scripture, ether by vvay of home∣lies to the people, as doth S. Chrysos∣tome,

or by vvay of commentarie, as doth S. Ambrose. And truely writeth Beza, that whosoeuer by such autho∣ritie of one or other father, would go about to alter the ordinary trāslation, except he vse an other maner of iudg∣ment, wisdome, and diligence, then we see vsed by our aduersaries, he wil rather corrupt the scripture then cor∣rect it. And his reason is very good & pregnant. Neque enim (saith he) scripto∣res illos seu graecos seu latinos, existimandum est quoties locum aliquem citarint, toties vel libros inspexisse vel singula verba nume∣rasse. For it is not to be supposed, that those vvriters ether greeke or latin, vvhen they had to cite a place, alvvaies ether vevved the booke, or numbred the vvords. For this had bene a matter of infinite labour & not necessarie &c. To which infinite la∣bour notwithstanding, and vewing the booke, & numbring the words S. Hier. in his translatiō was of necessitie boūd, as was nether S. Amb••n or S. Chrisost.

And yet S. Chrysostome maketh li∣tle for you, if you compare wel his owne discourse and text together. Nay he maketh cleane against you and approueth our reading. For though he haue those wordes in the second place

yet he hath them not in the first, and repeateth them not, but only once rea∣deth them in his text according to our latin. And therunto agreeth his com∣mētarie, & therfore qu••te ouerthrow∣eth ••l that you vvould build vpon his credite. Thus they stande in him. For this corruptible must do on incorruption. And vvhen this corruptible shal do on incorruptiō & this mortal immortalitie, thē shal be fulfil∣led &c. And whereas you adde that S. Ambrose readeth as you do, you must pardon me, if I beleeue mine owne eyes better then your reporte. Cer∣t••inely S. Ambrose in his commenta∣rie vppon that place readeth as we do. So readeth S. Austin de ciuitate Dei, cited by S. Bede in his commentarie vpon the same chapter, though S. Aus∣tin reade also as M. VV. would haue it according to the greeke. And with S. Bede, and after S. Bede so reade the rest of the Catholike interpreters and doctors, Haymo, Anselmus &c.

[ 5] Farthermore in this verie place as I thinke▪ most appeareth the sinceritie of our latin translatiō. For as we keepe our text according as S. Hierom and the Church then deliuered it, so not∣withstanding because the words ob••oc¦ted

by M. W. are in the auncient greeke example whereof the church hath due regarde, the same particle is added commonly in the margent of euerie latin testamēt which the Church vseth, as may be seene in diuers prints of Paris, Louane, and other catho∣like Vniuersities. And if there be any fault in our english translation, it is this, that this parcel was not added in the margēt, as it was in the latin which we folowed.

Wherefore this proueth no corrup∣tion but rather great fidelitie in our latin testament, that it agreeth with S. Hierom, & consequently the greeke examples which he interpreted, with S. Ambrose, S. Austin, S. Bede, Haymo, S. Anselmus, and the rest of the latin writers, which in a matter not doubtful, and otherwise in no respect preiudicial to any veritie of Christian profession, are of that authoritie that Beza him self in this case would not disallow our doing. and M.VV. him self also in iustifying his english trans∣lations for pure and perfit, doth con∣sequently approue and iustifie ours, & so an••wereth ••im self in this obiection. for the later clause before noted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the lord said, they haue ad∣ded to their english testaments after Beza vpon the only authorite of our latin against al the auncient greeke, (albeit now it is thrust in to the cōmon greeke prints of Geneua, Basile & Zu∣ricke) & therefore he should not be offē∣ded if we attribute so much to our tes∣tament who professe to honour it, se∣ing he & his felowes do as much, who professe a perpetual hatred against it.

And this I trust may suffice for these few words, to quitte our testament of any faulte, considering that first they cōcerne not any controuersie: thē, that the sense of it is in worde and deed fully & euidētly cōprised in the same place. againe if we preferred our latin before al greeke, we do no more then doth Beza, then doth M.W. then do al the English and Scottish congregations in their owne pure and immaculate bi∣bles. Last of al, our reading is cōfirmed not only by al the later ages of the church, these seuen or eight hundred yeres, as by S. Anselmus, Haimo, S. Bede and others, nether only by the more aunciēt latin fathers, S. Austin, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, but also it was ac∣cording

to the greeke copies which S. Hierō had & the same agreing in sub∣stāce with S. Chrysostome & no doubt many other, and therf••re hath suffi∣ciēt ground to defend it self: although vve confesse the other reading to be vsed of many fath••rs, which vve there∣fore mislike not, & yet rash••y presume not to thrust it in to our text. And this is the only fault and yet al the faultes vvhich M.VV. findeth in our latin tes∣tament.

The rest, he supplieth vvith a lustie bragge, that there are at the least, Six hundred other, vvherein against the faith of al the greekes and their perpetual cōsent, the errors of the latin trāslatiō are retained of vs. Of which reckning, I dare at first with∣out any farther stay, strike out fiue hū∣dred & yet the sūme vvhich remaineth is sufficiēt to conuince him of a maine lye. But for a farther refutation, he tur∣neth vs ouer to Benedictus Arias Montanus a good priest, one that ser∣ueth in the Catholike Kinges court, and submitteth al his labours to the iudgmēt & censure of the Vniuersitie of Lo••ane, and therefore very vnlike it is that ether he vvil bestovv so vn∣fruitefully his labours, as to vvrite a∣gainst

the Sacred Tridētine Coūcel, or that that Vniuersitie vvil approue his endeuours if he should so heretically employ thē. & whatsoeuer shal become of him hereafter, in his hebrew bibles alreadie set forth, we see that in the places before noted, he altereth not the latin according to the hebrew, but letteth it stand as autentical. VVhat speake I of him a catholike man and a priest, whereas your selues though o∣therwise most obstinate and stonie har∣ted against the truth, yet dare not alter it according to the hebrew, but leaue it as you found it in our bibles.

And therefore why you cal vs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bible-beaters, I wonder, and muse what brainsicke conceite you haue therein, or what reason moueth you thus to raile. Because we defend the sinceritie of our bibles against your peeuish, and vnlearned, and fantas∣tical, and contemptible talking (for what one tolerable argument bring you?) because we defend the inheri∣tance left vs by our forefathers, be∣cause we prefer the Church & Spouse of Christ before the sinagoge of the Iewes, because at their wicked appoint¦ment vve vvil not raze out so many

places touching our Sauiours honour and the truth of our religion, is this the cause why your wisedome ter∣meth vs Bible-beaters? Nay let the rea∣der consider, and the world iudge, whether sith Christs time or be∣fore Christs time, there were euer any beaters and circumciders, and gel∣ders, and manglers, and defacers, and corrupters of those holy bookes com∣parable to you and your sect. Who haue rent out of the bible so many partes which our auncient fathers deliuered vs, and we hold fast as sacred and canonical. Who haue reiected out of the old testament so many entier books as I haue noted in the begin∣ning, the prophecie of Baruch, the storie of Iudith, of Tobias, of Hester, of the Machabees and Ecclesiasticus: who in the new testament haue cut out S. Paules epistle to the hebrews, S. Iames, one of S. Peters, two of S. Iohns, S. Iude and the Apocalips, and the whole gospel of S. Luke. who in those other which you pretend to keepe, haue lopt of great peeces, so many as plea∣sed your arrogant and heretical spirit, peeces of S. Iohns gospel, peeces of the prophete Ieremie, peeces of the

prophete Daniel, peeces of the booke of Cronicles or Paralipomenō, besides many lesser parcels, pared away both in the epistles and gospels, and al the rest by your trāslations miserably cor∣rupted. Who by the same reason & au∣thoritie by which you iudge and con∣demne these bookes, geue like autho∣ritie & libertie to euerie phantastical minister to contemne and condemne the rest. For thinke you a lying reason may not be found against the gospel of S. Iohn, as wel as against the gospel of S. Luke? Or may not a man pretend as good arguments of humane spirit to be in the second epistle to the Corin∣thians, or to Philemon, as in that of S. Iames, or to the hebrewes? Or may M. VVilliam Charke oppose him selfe a∣gainst the vniuersal Church of Christ by the mouth of those most holy and Apostolical fathers gathered together in the great Coūcel of Nice, acknow∣ledging for Canonical the booke of Iu∣dith, and may not any other minister of like qualitie and learning do so by like example? Because the booke of Tobie maketh expressely for the patro∣nage of angels, may you say disdain∣fully, VVe passe not for that Raphael men∣tioned

in Tobie, nether acknovvledge vve those seuen angels vvhereof he maketh men∣tion. Al that differeth much from Canonical scriptures which is reported of that Raphael, and sauoureth of I knovv not vvhat super∣stition. Nether vvil I beleeue free vvil al∣though the booke of Ecclesiasticus affirme it a hundred times &c. and may not a Lu∣theran, an Anabaptist, a Suinkseldian say the like with as good countenance against other partes of scripture, which stand as plainly against their concea∣ued heresies? Is Beza to be allowed, pronouncing peremptorily touching the storie of the aduouterous woman in the 8. of S. Iohn, vpon the diuersitie which is in the greeke writers and tes∣taments, that so great difference he found in that narration, that he doubteth altoge∣ther of the vvhole storie, which is as much as to take from it vtterly al authoritie Canonical, and is not euerie man els to be allovved, vpon like vvarrant ge∣uing like censure vpon other partes of scriptures? Reade S. Hierom vvriting to Edibia, and see vvhether a part of S. Markes gospel may not by like reason be called in question: yea reade Be∣zaes notes vpon the sixt chapter, the 18. and 19. of S. Iohn, and 22. of S. Luke

& see vvhether that diuine sermon of our Sauiour and his very passion by such argument ought not so to be cut out of the testament. The like is to be said of verie many places of S. Matthew and S. Paules epistles. Then iudge thou Christian reader whether these mē be not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bible-beaters, or rather in deede, bible murtherers. For the first presupposeth the hauing of a bible, whereas they haue none. For that which they cal their bible and word of God, is in deede no word of God, no bible at al. For how can a mā cal that the bible and word of God, vvhich hath in it so many foule and fil∣thie corruptions, so many vvicked, Ethnical, and Iudaical errors, as I be∣fore haue noted in their bible by con∣fession•• of their ovvne brethren. Is that the bible of God, vvhich hath in it so many places maliciously peruerted against the eternal truth and testamēt of God? Can vve call him a man vvhom vve see to lacke head, hand, foote, hart, and other principal and essential partes of humane nature? and hovv then is that a bible that lacketh (for canonical) the vvritinges of so ma∣ny Prophetes, Apostles, and Euange∣listes

S. Luke, S. Paule, S. Iames, S. Peter, S. Iohn, S. Iude some of which no bible euer vvanted since Christs time, nor can vvant, remaining a bible. The rest vvere euer true scriptures, though not euer in al places so accoū∣ted, as nether was the Godhead of our Sauiour, the dignitie and office of his Apostles, of al and alwaies at first ac∣knowledged. But al haue bene so ac∣counted for these thousand yeres and more, by general & prouincial coun∣cels, the great and Apostolike councel of Nice, of Laodicea, of Carthage, by the supreme pastors of Christs church, by the general consent of the same Catholike Church in most times & a∣ges. These mē therefore (good reader) folowing the steppes of their old fa∣thers Marcion, Cerdon, Carpocrates, the Arrians and Manichees, despising and reiecting so many bookes of sctip∣ture, are in deede not beaters, but mā∣glers and defacers, and extreme mur∣therers of the bible. And that not only for this plaine and euident reason now geuen, but also for their prophane & irreligious varietie of translations, whereof now in the last part I haue to speake.

Notes

• The preface of the new testament.
• Reasons to iustifie the latin testa∣ment, in cō∣parison of the Greeke.
• Beza in prae∣fat. noui te∣stamenti anno 1556.
• The greeke printes now in vse are not sufficiēt to disproue the Latin testament.
• Beza in Ioā, ca. 7. v. 53.
• Veteres illi reiecerunt.
• Beza doub∣teth of a part of S. Iohns gos∣pel.
• Bez. ad Eph. 3. vers. 14.
• In graecis no extat.
• Additions rashly made to the gree∣ke.
• Ioan. 8. v. 59
• Beza in Ioā. cap. 8. v. 59.
• Of the yere 1561. 1562. 1577. 1579.
• No certain∣tie in the English translations
• anno 1580.
• Scripture made Cano∣nical & not Canonical according to Bezaes fansie.
• Of the yere 1556.

  Of the yere 1565.
• Eras. in An∣not.
• Bulling. de∣cade 5. ser••. 5.
• Assuere suas nuga••.
• Parcels of importance heretically leaft out of the greeke.
• Before cap. 10. pa. 248 Luc. 1. v. 35.
• Carol. Mo∣lin. in nou. testament. part. 1.
• See the greeke testa¦ment of Ba∣sil print of the yere 1536. 1540. 1543. Zuri••. 1547. Gene∣ua 1565. 1576.
• Beza in tes∣tamēt. 1556. in Luc. 1. vers. 35.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Beza furthe¦reth the A∣nabaptistes against Christs in∣carnation of the bles∣sed Virgin.
• C••rol Mol. in testamēt. par. 64.
• Mar. 11. v. 26
• Beza in illū locum.
• Illyric. in clau. par. 1. praefat.
• If S Hier & the Church in his time were desti∣tute of these helpes, is Illyricus & the rest of that cru•• furnished with them?
• Religious sinceritie principally to be regar∣ded in an interpreter of the scri∣pture.
• Our old in∣terpreter had varietie & choise of good gree∣ke copies.
• Pag. 362.
• Beza in Mar. ca. 1. vers. 2.
• Hiero. de optimo ge∣nere inter∣pretādi. c. 3. Augu. quest. 57. vet. & nou. test. Epiph. cōtra haereses. li. 2 Chrisost. ca. 1. Marci.
• Bez. in Luc. cap. 8. v. 54.
• The religi∣ous fidelitie & sinceritie of our old interpreter▪
• Beza in 1. c. Lucae v. 1.
• Molin par. 30.
• Humfred. de ratione in∣terp lib. 1. pag. 74,
• Humfred. ibid. pa. 175.
• Protestant translators of the new testament al partial, in fauour of their seue∣ral heresies, and so al false & cor∣rupt.
• Sleid. li. 17. in fine.
• Brent. in A∣polog. conf. Wirten. cap. de horis ca∣nonicis.
• Bey viert∣z••hin hun∣dert ketzer∣lycher lugē. Lindan. du∣bitant. dial. 1. pa. 79.
• Luthers trās∣lation ful of corruption, in fauour of Luthera∣nisme.
• Zuing. to. 2. ad Luther. lib. de sacra∣mēto fo. 412
• Ibid. fo. 143
• Manifestus & publicus sacrae scrip∣turae corrup¦tor & adul∣terator.
• Two fitte A∣postles for such a church as they erected
• No transla∣tion of scri∣pture made by a Zuin∣glian▪ can possibly be good.
• Ibid. apud Zuingl. fol. 388.389.
• Particular translations of diuers protestātes.
• The transla∣tion of Ba∣sile wicked.
• Bez. in resp. ad defens. & respōsio. Castalion.
• Humfred. de rat. inter∣pret. li. 1▪ pa 62 63.189.
• Gesner. in Bibliotheca Sebastia. Castalio.
• Beza in test. an. 1556. in praefat. & in Mat. c. 3. 1. Cor 1. Mat. 4. Luc. 2. Act. 8. & 10.
• The transla∣tion of Ca∣stalio, Ethni¦cal,
• Caluin in his transla∣tiō, altereth and addeth to the text of the gos∣pel.
• Carol. Mol. in sua trans. testam. noui parte 11. fo. 110.
• Bezaes trās∣lation more disagreing from it self and worse then any of the rest.
• Before c. 10.
• Carol. Moli. in testam. part 8 13.14 21.23.
• Part. 26.30.40.64.
• Part. 64.65.66.74.99.
• A prety way to rocōcile places that seeme to disagree.
• Molin. in Luc. 17.
• Our old translation better then al Protestāt translations Carolus ••o¦lincus.
• Vide ibi. in Ioan. 7. v. 35.
• Castalio in defens. pag. 179.174.18••.183.188.198.202.206.213.
• Castal. de∣fens. trans. pag. 176.
• Ibi. pag. 182 183.

  Bezaes in∣numerable corruptions in the new testament.
• Before c. 10.
• Beza then especially corrupteth the text, when he thereby may most dishonour Christ.
• Rom. 6. v. 6.
• Castalio vbi sup. pa. 192.
• English trā∣slations set forth in schisme, al faultie.
• King Hen∣ries bibles.
• King Ed∣wardes.
• Humfred. de sat inter. li. 3. pa. 523.
• The bibles set forth in our time.
• The yere when it was printed, is not put in the print.
• Before c. 11.
• Not possi∣ble to put forth any translation more indif∣ferent then our aunciēt.
• Note this.
• Few faultes are foūd by any protes∣tants in our old transla∣tion, which, by other Protestants are not iust¦sied.
• Bulling. de∣cad. 5. serm. 5.
• Bez. in prae∣fatio. noui testamenti an. 1556.
• Supra. Our old translation better then any of the protestants▪ Beza.
• The Coun∣cel of Trēt.
• The later translatiōs of heretiks as likewise al other their proce∣dings, are worse then the former, according to S. Pauls prophecie, proficiētes in peius. 2. Timo. c. 3. v. 13.
• In appro∣uing our old transla∣tion, we are warranted by the Pro∣testants thē selues.
• Pa. 17.18. M. W argu∣mēt against the old trās∣lation.
• The an∣swere.
• 1. Cor. 15. v. 53.54.
• Beza in Luc. ca. 20. v. 28.
• Beza praefer¦reth our la∣tin transla∣tion before al greeke examples.
• Ibi. c. 7. v. 31
• Testament of the yere 1577, 1579. and 1580. & the Scottish great bible of the yere 1579.
• S. Hieroms translatiōs more autē∣tical then the reading of many doc¦••ora.
• Beza in prae∣fat. nou•• te∣stamen. an. 1565.
• S. Chrys iu¦stifieth our latin rea∣ding.
• Chrysost. in 1. Cor. ho. 15
• S. Ambrose vntruly ci∣ted.
• Ambros. in 1. Cor. 15.
• Beda in 1. Cor. ca 15.
• pag. 18.
• pag. 20. Benedictus Ar••as Mon∣tanus a Catholike priest.
• Bible-bea∣ters.
• Neuer since Christes ty∣me were there such manglers & defacers & corrupters of the bible as are the protestātes of our age.
• See exam∣ple before pag. 288
• The protes∣tāts lay the way open for any man to deny the scripture at his pleasure
• Hier. prefat. in Iudith.
• M. Charke hath a dee∣per insight in scripture, then al the bishops & fathers of the great Nicene Councel.
• Whit. cōtra Camp. pa. 17
• Light reasōs to disautho∣rize recea∣ued parts of scripture.
• Before pag. 364.
• S. Hier. ad Edibiam quaest. 3.
• Beza in Ioā ca. 6.18. & 19 & Luc. 22.
• The prote∣states bible is no more a bible, then a headles mā is a man.