A discouerie of the manifold corruptions of the Holy Scriptures by the heretikes of our daies specially the English sectaries, and of their foule dealing herein, by partial & false translations to the aduantage of their heresies, in their English Bibles vsed and authorised since the time of schisme. By Gregory Martin one of the readers of diuinitie in the English College of Rhemes.

THE PREFACE CONTEINING FIVE SVNDRIE ABVSES OR CORRVPTIONS OF HOLY Scriptures, common to al Heretikes, & agreing specially to these of our time: vvith many other necessarie aduertise∣ments to the reader.

* 1.1AS it hath been alvvaies the fashiō of Heretikes to pretēd Scriptures, for shevv of their cause: so hath it been also their custom and pro∣pertie to abuse the said Scriptures many vvaies, in fauour of their er∣rours.

* 1.21 One vvay is, to deny vvhole bookes thereof or partes of bookes, vvhen they are euidently a∣gainst them. So did (for example) Ebion al S. Paules epistles, Manicheus the Actes of the Apostles, Alo∣giani S. Iohns Gospel, Marcion many peeces of S. Lukes Gospel, and so did both these and other he∣retikes in other bookes, denying and allovving vvhat they list, as is euident by S. Ireneus, S. Epipha∣nius, S. Augustine, and al antiquitie.

* 1.32 An other vvay is, to call into question at the least and make some doubt of the authoritie of certaine bookes of holy Scriptures, thereby to di¦minish their credite. so did Manicheus affirme of

the vvhole nevv Testament, that it vvas not vvrit∣ten by the Apostles: & peculiarly of S. Matthevves Gospel, that it was some other mās vnder his name: and therfore not of such credite, but that it might in some part be refused. so did Marciō & the Ariās deny the epistle to the Hebrues to be S. Paules, Epiphan. li. 2. haer. 69: Euseb. li. 4. hist. c. 27. & Alo∣giani the Apocalypse to be S. Iohns the Euāgelist. Epiph. & August. in haer. Alogianorum.

* 1.43 An other way is, to expound the Scriptures after their ovvne priuate conceite and phantasie, not according to the approued sense of the holy auncient fathers and Catholike Church. so did Theodorus Mopsuestites (Act. Synod. 5.) affirme of al the bookes of the Prophets, and of the Psalmes, that they spake not euidently of Christ, but that the auncient fathers did voluntarily dravv those sayings vnto Christ vvhich vvere spoken of other matters. so did al heretikes, that vvould seeme to groūd their heresies vpon Scriptures, & to auouch them by Scriptures expounded according to their ovvne sense and imagination.

* 1.54 An other vvay is, to alter the very original text of the holy Scripture, by adding, taking away or changing it here and there for their purpose. so did the Arians in sundrie places, and the Nestoriās in the first epistle of S. Iohn, and especially Mar∣cion, vvho was therfore called, Mus Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, because he had gnavven (as it vvere) certaine places vvith his corruptions, whereof some are said to remaine in the Greeke text vntil this day.* 1.6

* 1.75 An other way is, to make false translations of the Scriptures for the maintenance of errour and heresie. so did the Arians (as S. Hierom noteth in 26. Esa.) read and translate Prouerb. 8. Dominus crea∣uit me in initio viarum suarum. that is, The Lord crea∣ted

me in the beginning of his vvaies,* 1.8 so to make Christ the vvisedom of God, a more creature. S. Augustin also li. 5. Cont. Iulian. c. 2. noteth it as the interpre∣tation of some Pelagian Gen. 3. Fecerunt sibi vesti menta, for, perizómata or campestria. that is, They made them selues garments. whereas the vvord of the Scrip∣ture is, breeches or aprons proper & peculiar to co∣uer the secrete partes. Againe, the self same Hereti∣kes did reade falsely Ro. 5.* 1.9 Regnauit mors ab Adam vsque ad Moysen etiā in eos qui peccauerūt in similitudinē praeuaricationis Adae, that is, Death reigned from Adam to Moyses euen on them that sinned after the similitude of the preuarication of Adam, to maintaine their he∣resie against original sinne, that none vvere in∣fected therewith, or subiect to death & damnatiō, but by sinning actually as Adam did. Thus did the old Heretikes.

6 what these of our daies? is it credible that being so vvel vvarned by the condemnation and detesta∣tion of them, they also vvould be as mad and as impious as those? Heretikes (gentle Reader) be alvvaies like Heretikes, and hovvsoeuer they differ in opinions or names, yet in this point they agree, to abuse the Scriptures for their purpose by al meanes possibly. I vvil but touche foure points of the fiue before mentioned, because my purpose is to stay vpon the last only, and to discipher their corrupt translations.* 1.10 But if I vvould stand vpon the other also, vvere it not easy to shevv the maner of their proceding against the Scriptures to haue been thus: to deny some vvhole bookes and parts of bookes, to call other some into question, to ex∣pound the rest at their pleasure, to picke quarels to the very original and Canonical text, to fester and infect the vvhole body of the Bible vvith cankred translations?

7 Did not Luther deny S. Iames epistle and so contemne it that he called it an epistle of stravv, & not vvorthie of an Apostolical spirit? must I proue this to M. Vvhitakers, vvho vvould neuer haue ** 1.11 denied it so vehemently in the superlatiue degree for shame, if he had not thought it more shame to graunt it? I neede not goe far for the matter: Aske M. Fulke,* 1.12 and he vvil flatly confesse it vvas so. Aske Caluin in arg. ep. Iacobi. aske Flaccus Illyri∣cus, in argum. ep. Iacobi. and you shal perceiue it is very true. I vvil not send you to the Catholike Germans and others, both of his ovvne time and after, that vvrote against him in the question of iu∣stification: among vvhom not one omitteth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the con∣fusion of that Arch heretike.

8 To let this passe: Tobie, Ecclesiasticus, & the Machabees are they not most certainely reiected? and yet they vvere allovved and receiued for Ca∣nonical, by the same authoritie that S. Iames epistle vvas. This epistle the Caluinists are content to admit, because ** 1.13 so it pleased Caluin: those bookes they reiect, because so also it pleased him. And vvhy did it so please Caluin? vnder pretence for∣sooth that they vvereonce doubted of, and not taken for Canonical. but is that the true cause in deede? Hovv do they then ** 1.14 receiue S. Iames epistle as Canonical, hauing been before doubted of also, yea (as ** 1.15 they say) reiected?

9 Marke gentle Reader for thy soules sake, and thou shalt finde, that heresie and only heresie is the cause of their denying these bookes: so far, that against the orders and Hierarchies and particular patronages of Angels, one of them vvriteth thus in the name of the rest,* 1.16 Vve passe not for that Raphael of Tobie, neither do vve acknovvledge those seuen Angels vvhich he speaketh of. al this is far from Canonical Scrip∣tures

that the same Raphael recordeth, and sauoureth I vvot not vvhat superstition. Against free vvil thus: I litle care for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither vvil I be∣leeue free vvil, though he affirme an hundred times, That before men is life and death. And against praier for the dead, and intercession of Saincts, thus: As for the booke of the Machabees, I do care lesse for it then for the other. Iudas dreame cōcerning Onias I let passe as a dreame. This is their reuerence of the Scriptures vvhich haue vniuersally been reuerenced for Canonical in the Church of God aboue 1100 yeres, Conc. Carth. 3. and particularly of many fathers long before. August. de doct. Christ. lib. 2 ca. 8.

10 As for partes of bookes do they not reiect cer∣taine peeces of Daniel and of Hester, because they are not in the Hebrue, vvhich reason S. Augustine reiecteth: or because they vvere once doubted of by certaine of the fathers? by vvhich reason some part of S. Marke and S. Lukes Gospel might novv also be called in controuersie, specially if it be true vvhich M. Vvhitakers by a figuratiue speache more then insinuateth, That he can not see by vvhat right that vvhich once vvas not in credite,* 1.17 should by time vvinne authoritie. Forgetting him self by & by, and in the very next lines admitting S. Iames epistle (though before doubted of) for Canonical Scriptures.* 1.18 vnles they receiue it but of their courtesie, and so may refuse it vvhen it shal please them, vvhich must needes be gathered of his vvordes, as also many other notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumme blāckes. Vvhich only to note, were to con∣fute M. whitakers by him self, being the Ansvverer for both Vniuersities.

11 For the second point, vvhich is not the grosse denial of bookes, but yet calling of them in que∣stion, mouing scruples about them, & diminishing their authoritie and credite, I vvil goe no further

then to S. Paules epistle to the Hebrues,* 1.19 vvhich I vvil not aske vvhy they doubt of, or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules, for they vvil tel me, because it vvas once in doubt (not considering that it vvas in like maner doubted vvhether it vvere Canoni∣cal, & yet they vvil not novv deny but it is Cano∣nical) but I must aske them and request them to make a reasonable ansvver, vvhy in their English Bible of the yere 1579 and 1580 they presume to leaue out S. Paules name out of the very title of the said epistle, vvhich name is ** 1.20 in the Greeke, and in Bezas Latin translation, both vvhich they professe to folovv. See the title of the new Test. an. 1580. Doth not the title tel them that it is S. Paules? vvhy seeke they further: or vvhy do they change the title, striking out S. Paules name, if they meant to deale simply and sincerely? and vvhat an heretical peeuishnes is this, because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greeke copie that hath not Paules name, and onely one: that they vvil rather folovv it then al other copies both Greeke and Latin? I report me to al indifferent men of common sense, vvhether they do it not to diminish the credite of the epistle.

12 I knovv very vvel that the authoritie of Ca∣nonical Scripture standeth not vpon the certaintie of the author, but yet to be Paules or not Paules, Apostolical or not Apostolical, maketh great dif∣ference of credite and estimation. For, vvhat made S. Iames epistle doubted of sometime, or the secōd of S. Peter, and the rest, but that they vvere not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles? This Luther savv very vvel, vvhen he denied S. Iames epistle to be sames the Apostles vvriting: If titles of bookes be of no importāce, then leaue out Mat∣thevv, Marke, Luke, and Iohn, leaue out Paul in his other epistles also, and you shal much pleasure

the Manichees and other old Heretikes: and if the titles make no difference, vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse, S. Iohn the Diuines, as though it vvere not S. Iohns the Euangelistes, and you shal much displeasure some Heretikes novv a daies. breefely, most certaine it is, and they knovv it best by their ovvne vsual doings, that it is a principal vvay to the discredite of any booke▪ to deny it to be that authors, vnder vvhose name it hath been receiued.

13 But I come to the third point of volūtarie ex∣positions of the Scripture, that is vvhen euery man expoūdeth according to his errour & Heresie. This needeth no proofe, for vve see it vvith our eies. Looke vpon the Caluinists and Puritanes at home, the Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Caluinists abrode: read their bookes vvritten vehemently, one sect against an other: are not their expositions of one and the same Scripture as diuerse and contrarie, as their opinions differ one from an other? Let the example at home be, their controuersie about the distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees, Arch-bishop, Bishop, and minister: the example abrode, their diuers imaginations & phantasies vpon these most sacred vvordes, Hoc est corpus meum.

14 And if you vvil yet haue a further demonstra∣tion, this one may suffice for al. They reiect Coun∣cels, and Fathers, and the Catholike Churches in∣terpretation, vnles it be agreable to Gods vvord, and vvhether it be agreable or no that Luther shal iudge for the Lutherans, Caluin for the Caluinists, Cartvvright for the Puritanes, and an other for the Brethren of loue: breefely ** 1.21 them selues vvil be iudges both of Councels and Fathers whether they expound the Scriptures vvel or no, & euery youth among them vpon confidence of his spirit and knovvledge vvil saucily controule not onely one

but al the fathers cōsenting together, if it be against that vvhich they imagine to be the truth.

15 Vvherevpon it riseth that one of them defen∣deth this as very vvel said of Luther,* 1.22 that he esteemed not the vvorth of a rush a thousand Augustines, Cyprians, Churches, against him self. And an other very finely and figuratiuely, (as he thought) against the holy Doctor and Martyr S. Cyprian affirming that the Church of Rome can not erre in faith,* 1.23 saith thus: Pardon me Cyprian, I vvould gladly beleeue thee, but that belee∣uing thee, I should not beleeue the Gospel. This is that vvhich S. Augustine saith of the like men,* 1.24 dulcissimè vanos esse, non peritos sed perituros, nectam disertos in errore, quā desertos a veritate. And I thinke verily that not only vve, but the vviser men among them selues smile at such eloquence, or pitie it, saying this or the like most truely,* 1.25 Prodierunt oratores noui, stulti adolescentuli.

16 The 4 point is, of picking quarels to the ve∣ry original text: for alter & change it I hope they shal not be able in this vvatchful vvorld of most vigilant Catholikes. But vvhat they vvould doe, if al Bibles vvere only in their handes and at their commaundement,* 1.26 ghesse by this: that Beza against the euidence of al copies both Greeke and Latin, (In hís Annot. vpon the new Test. set forth in the yere 1556.) thinketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is more then should be in the text Mat. 10: & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luc. 22. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 7: the first, against Peters su∣premacie: the second, against the real presence of Christs bloud in the B. Sacrament: the third, against the making of vvhatsoeuer images, vvhether they be adored or no. Thus you see hovv the mouse of Geneua (as I told you before of Marcion the mouse of Pontus) knibbleth and gnavveth about it, though he can not bite it of altogether.

17 He doth the like in sundrie places vvhich you may see in his Annotations Act. 7. v. 16. Vvhere he is saucie against al copies Greeke and Latin to pro∣nounce corruption, corruption, auouching and endeuouring to proue that it must be so, and that vvith these vvordes. To vvhat purpose should the holy Ghost, or Luke, adde this? Act. 8. v. 26. But because those places concerne no cōtrouersie, I say no more but that he biteth at the text, and vvould change it ac∣cording to his imagination, if he might: vvhich is to proud an enterprise for Beza, and smal reue∣rence of the holy scriptures, so to call the very text into controuersie, that vvhatsoeuer pleaseth not him, crept out of the margent into the text, vvhich is his common and almost his only con∣iecture.

18 He biteth sore at the vvord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luc. 1. v. 78. and vvil not trāslate that,* 1.27 but the Hebrue word of the old Testament. but at 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Act. 2. v. 24.) much more, & at 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Act 7. v. 14.) ex∣cedingly: but yet after he hath said al that he could against it, he concludeth, that he durst not, and that he had a conscience, vpon coniecture to change any thing. And therfore al this is gnavving only.* 1.28 but in the 3 of Luke he maketh no conscience at al, to leaue out these wordes vers. 36, Qui fuit Cainan, not only in his owne translation, but in the vulgar Latin vvhich is ioyned therewith, saying in his Annot. Non dubitauimus expungere, that is, Vve doubted not to put it out: & vvhy? by the authoritie of Moyses Gen. 11. Vvhereby he signifieth▪ that it is not in the Hebrue Gen. 11. vvhere this posteritie of Sem is reckened: and so to mainteine the Hebrue veritie (as they call it) in the old Testament he ca••••th not vvhat become of the Greeke in the nevv Testament: vvhich yet at other times, against the vulgar Latin

text, they call the Greeke veritie, and the pure fountaine, and that text vvhereby al translations must be tried.

19 But if he haue no other vvay to reconcile both Testaments, but by striking out in the Greeke of the new, al that agreeth not vvith the Hebrue of the old Testament, then let him alter and chāge so many wordes of our Sauiour him self, of the Euangelistes, and of the Apostles, as are cited out of the old Testament, and are not in Hebrue. Vvhich places they know are very many, & when neede is, they shal be gathered to their handes. Let him strike out (Mat. 13. v. 14.15. & Act. 28. v. 26.27) the vvordes of our Sauiour and S. Paul,* 1.29 cited out of Esay, because they are far otherwise in the He∣brue. Strike out of the epistle to the Galatiās these vvordes, vpon a tree: because in the Hebrue it is on∣ly thus. Cursed is he that is hanged. Deut. 21 in fine. Yea strike out of Dauids Psalmes that which con∣cerneth our redemption vpon the Crosse much neerer, They haue pearced my handes & my feete, Ps. 21. because in the Hebrue thére is no such thing. Let them cōntroule the Apostle,* 1.30 Eph. 4, for saying, dedit he gaue giftes: because it is both in the Hebrue and Greeke, (Psal. 67) Accepisti, thou tookest giftes. and (Hebr. 10) for, corpus aptasti, let them put, aures per∣forasti, because it is so in the Hebrue Psal. 40. To be short, if al must be reformed according to the He∣brue, vvhy doth he not in S. Steuens sermon cut of the number of fiue soules from seuentie fiue, because it is not in the Hebrue?

20 Must such difficulties and diuersities be re∣solued by chopping and changing, hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scripture? See in∣to vvhat perplexities wilful heresie and arrogācie hath driuen them. To discredite the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible, and the fathers expositiós

according to the same (for that is the original cause of this) and besides, that they may haue al∣waies this euasion, It is not so in the Hebrue, it is other∣vvise in the Greeke, and so seeme ioly fellowes and great clerkes vnto the ignorant people, what doe they? they admit only the Hebrue in the old Test. and the Greeke in the nevv, to be the true and au∣thentical text of the Scripture. Vvherevpō this fo∣lovveth, that they reiect, and must needes reiect the Greeke of the old Test. (called the Septuaginta) as false, because it differeth frō the Hebrue.* 1.31 Vvhich being reiected, therevpon it folovveth againe, that wheresoeuer those places so disagreing from the Hebrue are cited by Christ or the Euangelistes & Apostles, there also they must be reiected, because they disagree from the Hebrue. and so yet againe it folovveth, that the Greeke text of the nevv Tes∣tament is not true, because it is not according to the Hebrue verítie: and consequently the wordes of our Sauiour, and vvritings of hís Apostles must be reformed (to say the lest) because they speake according to the Septuaginta, and not according to the Hebrue.

21 Al which must needes folow, if this be a good consequēce, I finde it not in Moyses, nor in the Hebrue, therfore I strooke it out, as Beza doth and saith con∣cerning the foresaid vvordes, Qui fuit Cainan. This consequence therfore let vs see hovv they vvil iu∣stifie: and vvithal let them tel vs, vvhether they vvil discredite the nevv Testament, because of the Septuaginta, or credite the Septuaginta, because of the nevv Testamēt, or hovv they cā credite one, & discredite the other, vvhere both agree & consent together: or, vvhether they vvil discredite both, for credite of the Hebrue: or rather, whether there be not some other way to reconcile both Hebrue and Greeke, better then Bezas impudent presum∣ption.

Vvhich if they vvil not mainteine, let them flatly confesse that he did vvickedly, and not (as they doe) defend euery vvord and deede of their Maisters, be it neuer so heinous, or salue it at the least.

* 1.3222 Alas hovv far are these men from the mo∣destie of the auncient fathers, vvho seeke al other meanes to resolue difficulties, rather then to doe violence to the sacred Scripture, and vvhen they finde no vvay,* 1.33 they leaue it to God. S. Au∣gustine concerning the difference of the Hebrue and the Greeke, saith often to this effect, that it pleased the holy Ghost to vtter by the one, that vvhich he vvould not vtter by the other. And S. Ambrose thus,* 1.34 Vve haue found many things not idly added of the 70 Greeke interpreters. S. Hierom, though an earnest patrone of the Hebrue (not vvithout cause,* 1.35 being at that time perhaps the Hebrue veritie in deede) yet giueth many reasons for the diffe∣rences of the Septuaginta, and concerning the foresaid places of S. Luke, he doth giue a reason thereof,* 1.36 both for the 70, and for the Euangelist that folovved them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controuling them by the authoritie of Moyses (as Beza speaketh) that is, by the Hebrue. Others say concerning Cainan, that Moyses might leaue him out in the Genealogie of Sem, by the instinct of the same Spirit,* 1.37 that S. Matthevv left out three kings in the genealogie of our Sauiour. Vvhere if a man vvould controule the Euangelist by the Hebrue of the old Testament that is read in the bookes of the kings, he should be as vvise and as honest a man as Beza.* 1.38 Lastly, Venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient in this very difficultie of Cainan, to maruel at it reuerently, rather then to searche it dangerously. And thus far of picking

quarels to the original text, and their good vvil to alter and change it as they list, if they might be suffered.

* 1.3923 Vvhich also may be proued by al their false translatíons (being the principal point I meane to speake of) most euidently. For as novv they trans∣late falsely to their purpose, because they can not alter the text: so vvould they, if it vvere possible, haue the text agreable to their translation. For ex∣ample, he that translateth, ordinances, vvhen it is in the original Greeke text, iustifications, and, traditions, he vvould rather that it vvere, ordinances, also in the Greeke: but because he cannot bring that about, he doth at the least vvhat he can, to make the igno∣rant beleeue it is so, by so translating it.

24 And this of al other is the most fine and subtil treacherie against the Scriptures, to deceiue the ignorant readers vvithal,* 1.40 (vvhich S. Paul calleth the secrete things of dishonestie, and adulterating of the vvord of God, as it vvere mingling vvater vvith vvine like false vinteners) vvhen they giue them for Gods vvord, & vnder the name of Gods word, their ovvne vvordes, and not Gods, forged and framed, altered and changed, according to diffe∣rences of times, and varietie of nevv opinions, and diuersitie of humors and spirits, diuersely and dif∣ferently, one Heretike not only correcting his fel∣lovv euery day,* 1.41 but one egrely refuting and resol∣••ing an other.* 1.42 Bucer, and the Osiandrians andc 1.43 Sacramentaries against Luther for false transla∣tions: Luther against Munster, Beza against Casta∣leo, Castaleo against Beza, Caluin against Seruetus, Illyricus both against Caluin and Beza: The Puri∣tanes cōtroule the grosser Caluinistes of our Coun∣trie, yea the later translations of the self same He∣retikes controule the former excedingly, not only of ouersights, but of vvilful falsifications, as it is

notorious in the ** 1.44 later editions of Luther and Beza, and in our English Bibles set forth in diuers yeres, from Tindal their first translatour vntil this day:* 1.45 yea (vvhich is more) the English trāslatours of Bezas nevv Testament, controule him and his translation vvhich they protest to folovv,* 1.46 being afraid sometime and ashamed to expresse in En∣glish his false translations in the Latin.

25 But in this Catalogue of dissentions falsifiers and disagreing translatours,* 1.47 I vvil not greatly rippe vp old faultes neither abrode, nor at home. I leaue Luthers false translations into the German tongue,* 1.48 to the credite of Staphylus, Apolog. part. 2. and Emserus. praef. Annot. in no. Test. Luth. and other German vvriters of his ovvne time, that savv them and readde them, and reckened the nūber of them in the nevv Testamēt only, about* 1.49 1400 heretical corruptions: I leaue Caluins and Bezas frenche corruptions, to so many vvorthie men as* 1.50 haue noted them in their frēche bookes against the said heretikes: Tindals and his companions corruptiōs in their first English bible, to our learned coūtrie∣men of that age, & namely to the right Reuerend Father and Confessor Bishop Tonstal, vvho in a sermon openly protested that he had found in the nevv Testament only, no lesse then two thousand. If vve knovv it not, or vvil not beleeue it,* 1.51 stran∣gers in their Latin vvritings testifie it to the vvorld.

* 1.5226 But I omit these as vnknovven to our coun∣trie, or to this age, and vvil deale principally vvith the English translations of our time, vvhich are in euery mans handes vvithin our countrie the cor∣ruptions vvhereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the Annotations vpon the late nevv English Testament Catholikely translated & prin∣ted at Rhemes, so by occasion thereof, I vvil by

Gods help, to the better cōmoditie of the reader, and euidence of the thing, lay them closer toge∣ther, and more largely display them, not counting the number, because it vvere hard, but esteeming the vveight & importance of so many as I thought good to note, specially in the nevv Testament. Vvhere I haue to aduertise the Reader of certaine special things, vvhich he must obserue.

* 1.5327 First, that in this booke he may not looke for the proofe or explication & deciding of contro∣uersies, Vvhich is done in the Annotations vpon the new Testament, but only the refuting or con∣trouling of their false translations concerning the said controuersies, vvhich is the peculiar argume•••• of this treatise.

28 Secondly, that vve refute sometime one of their translations, sometime an other, and euery one as their falshod giueth occasion. Neither is it a good defense for the falshod of one, that it is truely translated in an other: the reader being de∣ceiued by any one, because commonly he readeth but one. Yea one of them is a cōdemnation of the other.

29 Thirdly, that we speake indifferently against Protestants, Caluinistes, Bezites, and Puritans, vvithout any curious distinction of them, being al among them selues brethren and pew fellowes, and sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or lesse corrupting the holy Scrip∣tures.

30 Fourthly, that we giue but a tast of their cor∣ruptions, not seing so far, nor marking also nar∣rowly and skilfully, as them selues knovv their ovvne subtelties and meanings, vvho vvil smile at the places vvhich we haue not espied.

31 Fifthly, that the very vse and affectation of certaine termes, and auoiding other some, though

it be no demonstration against them, but that they may seeme to defend it for true trāslation, yet was it necessarie to be noted, because it is & hath been alvvaies a token of heretical meaning.

32 Sixtly, that in explicating these things, vve haue endeuoured to auoid (as much as vvas possi∣ble) the tediousnes of Greeke & Hebrue vvordes. vvhich are only for the learned in these tongues, and vvhich made some litle doubt vvhether this matter (vvhich of necessitie must be examined by them) vvere to be vvritten in English or no. but being persuaded by those (vvho them selues haue no skill in the said tōgues) that euery reader might reape commoditie thereby, to the vnderstanding & detesting of such false and Heretical translations, it vvas thought good to make it vulgar and com∣mon to al our decre countrie men, as the nevv Te∣stament it self is cōmon, vvhereof this Discouerie is as it vvere an handmaid, attending therevpon for the larger explication and proofe of corrup∣tions there breefely touched, and for supplie of other some not there mentioned.

33 Seuenthly, that al the English corruptions here noted and refuted, are either in al or some of their English bibles printed in these yeres, 1562. 1577.1579. And if the corruption be in one Bible, not in an other, commonly the said Bible or bibles are noted in the margent: if not, yet sure it is that it is in one of them, and so the reader shal finde it, if he finde it not alvvaies in his ovvne Bible. And in this case the reader must be very vvise and circū∣spect, that he thinke not by and by vve charge them falsly, because they can shevv him some later edition that hath it not so as vve say, for it is their common and knovven fashion, not onely in their translations of the Bible, but in their other bookes and vvritinges, to alter and change, adde and put

out, in their later editiōs, according as either them selues are ashamed of the former, or their scholers that print them againe, dissent and disagree from their Maisters. So hath Luthers, Caluins, and Bezas vvritinges and translations been changed both by them selues and their scholers in many places, so that Catholike men when they cōfute that which they finde euident faultes in this or that edition, feare nothing more then that the reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very shame, and so may conceiue that there is no such thing, but that they are accused vvrongfully. for example. Call to minde the late pretended confe∣rence in the tower,* 1.54 where that matter vvas denied and faced out for Luthers credite, by some one booke or edition of his, vvhich them selues, and al the vvorld knoweth was most truely laid to his charge.

34 Eightly, in citing Beza, I meane alvvaies (vn∣les I note othervvise) his Latin translation of the nevv Testament vvith his annotations adioyned therevnto, printed in the yere 1556.

* 1.5535 Lastly and principally is to be noted that we wil not charge them vvith falsifying that vvhich in deede is the true and authentical Scripture, I meane the vulgar Latin Bible, vvhich so many ye∣res hath been of so great authoritie in the Church of God, and with al the auncient fathers of the Latin Church, as is declared in the preface of the Nevv Testament: though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, only in fauour of his heresies did vvilfully forsake it, so the rest folowed and do folovv him at this day, for no other cause in the vvorld but that it is against them. & therfore they inueigh against it,* 1.56 and against the holy Councel of Trent for confirming the authoritie thereof, both in their special treatises thereof, and in al their

vvritinges, vvhere they can take any occasion.

36 And concerning their vvilful and heretical auoiding thereof in their nevv translations, vvhat greater argumēt can there be then this, that Luther, vvho before alvvaies had readde vvith the Gath. Church and vvith al antiquitie, these vvordes of S. Paul,* 1.57 Haue not vve povver to leade about A WOMAN A SISTER, as also the rest of the Apostles? and in S. Peter, these vvordes, Labour that BY GOOD WORKES you may make sure your vocation and ele∣ction: sodenly, after he had cōtrarie to his profession taken a vvife (as he called her) and preached that al other votaries might do the same, and that faith only iustified, good vvorkes vvere not necessarie to saluation: sodenly (I say) after he fell to these he∣resies, he began to reade and translate the former Scriptures accordingly, thus: Haue not vve povver to leade about a SISTER A WIFE, as the rest of the Apostles? and, Labour that you may make sure your vo∣cation and election: leauing out the other vvordes, by good vvorkes. And so doe both the Caluinists abrode, and our English Protestants at home reade and translate at this day, because they hold the self same heresies.

37 So doe they in infinite places alter the old text, vvhich pleased them vvell before they vvere Heretickes, and they doe it vvith brasen faces, and plaine protestation, hauing no shame nor remorse at al, in fleeing from that which all antiquitie with one consent allovved and embraced vntil their vnhappie daies. Vvhich though it be an euident cōdemnation of their nouelties in the sight of any reasonable man that hath any grace, yet as I began to admonish thee (gentle Reader) vve vvil not charge them for altering the auncient approued Latin translation, because they pretend to folovv the Hebrue and Greeke, and our purpose is not

here, to proue that they should not folovv the Hebrue and Greeke that now is, before the aun∣cient approued Latin text, which is done breifely already in the preface to the nevv Testament.

* 1.5838 Neither vvil vve burden them, for not fo∣lovving the vulgar Latin text, vvhen the same a∣greeth with most auncient Greeke copies: vvhich notvvithstāding is great partialitie in them, & must needes be of an heretical vvilful humor, that amōg the Greeke copies them selues, they reiect that vvhich most agreeth vvith the vulgar Latin text, in places of controuersies. Yet vvil vve not I say, neither in this case, lay falshod and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to translate the common Greeke text of the nevv Testament, that is one certaine copie, but here at the least let them shevv their fidelitie, & that they be true and exacte translatours, for here onely shal they be examined and called to account.

* 1.5939 And if they folovv sincerely their Greeke and Hebrue text, vvhich they professe to folovv, and which they esteeme the only authentical text, so far vve accuse them not of heretical corruption. but if it shal be euidētly proued, that they shrinke from the same also, and translate an other thing, and that vvilfully, and of ful intention to counte∣nance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the Scriptures to speake as they list: then vve trust, the indifferēt reader for his ovvne soules sake, vvil easily see and conclude, that they haue no feare of God, no reuerence of the Scriptures, no conscience to deceiue their readers: He vvil per∣ceiue that the Scriptures make against them, vvhich they so peruert and corrupt for their purpose: that neither the Hebrue nor Greeke text is for them, vvhich they dare not translate truely and sincerely: that their cause is naught, which needeth such foul

shiftes: that they must needes knovv al this, and therfore doe vvilfully against their conscience, & consequently are obstinate Heretikes.

40 And the more to vnderstand their miserie & vvretchednes, before vve enter to examine their trāslations, marke & gather of al that vvhich I haue said in this preface, their manifold flightes & ium∣pes, from one shift to an other, & hovv Catholike writers haue pursued and chased them, & folovved them, and driuen them euen to this extreme refuge and seely couert of false translation, vvhere also they must of necessitie yeld, or deuise some nevv euasion, which vve can not yet imagin.

* 1.6041 First we are vvont to make this offer (as we thinke) most reasonable and indifferent: that foras∣much as the Scriptures are diuersely expounded of vs and of them, they neither be tied to our inter∣pretation, nor vve to theirs, but to put it to the ar∣bitrement and iudgement of the auncient fathers, of general Councels, of vniuersal custom of times and places in the Catholike Church. No, say they, vve wil be our ovvne iudges and interpreters, or folow Luther, if we be Lutherans: Caluin, if we be Caluinistes: and so forth.

42 This being of it self a shameles shift, vnles it be better coloured, the next is to say, that the Scriptures are easie and plaine & sufficient of them selues to determine euery matter, and therfore they wil be tried by the Scriptures only. we are cōtent, because they wil needes haue it so, and vve alleage vnto them the bookes of Toble, Ecclesiasticus, Ma∣chabees. No, say they: we admit none of these for Scripture. Vvhy so? are they not approued Cano∣nical by the same authoritie of the Church, of aun∣cient Councels and fathers, that the other bookes are? No matter, say they, Luther admitteth them not, Caluin doth not allovv them.

43 Vvel, let vs goe forvvard in their ovvne daunce. You allow at the least the Ievves Cano∣nical bookes of the old Testament, that is, al that are extant in the Hebrue Bible: and al of the new Testament vvithout exception. Yea, that we doe. In these bookes then, wil you be tried by the vul∣gar auncient Latin Bible, only vsed in al the vvest Church aboue a thousand yeres? No. Vvil you be tried by the Greeke Bible of the Septuaginta inter∣preters, so renovvmed and authorised, in our Sa∣uiours ovvne speaches, in the Euangelistes and Apostles writings, in the whole Greeke Church euermore? No. How then wil you be tried? They ansvver, Only by the Hebrue Bible that now is, and as novv it is pointed with vovvels. Vvil you so? and do you thinke that only, the true authen∣tical Hebrue which the holy Ghost did first put into the pennes of those sacred writers? Vve do thinke it (say they) and esteeme it the only authen∣tical and true Scripture of the old Testament.

44 Vve aske them againe, what say you then to that place of the psalme,* 1.61 where in the Hebrue it is thus, As a lion my handes and my feete: for that which in truth should be thus, They digged or pearced my handes and my feete: being an euident prophecie of Christs nailing to the Crosse. There in deede (say they) we folow not the Hebrue, but the Greeke text. Sometime then you folow the Greeke and not the Hebrue only. And what if the same Greeke text make for the Catholikes, as in these places for example, I haue inclined my hart to keepe thy iustifica∣tions for revvard: and, Redeeme thy sinnes vvith almes: might we not obtaine here the like fauour at your hands for the Greeke text, specially when the He∣brue doth not disagree? No, say they, nor in no other place vvhere the Greeke is neuer so plaine, if the Hebrue word at the least may be any other∣wise

interpreted, and draw on to an other signifi∣cation.

45 Vve replie againe and say vnto them, vvhy, Is not the credite of those Septuaginta interpre∣ters, vvho them selues vvere Ievves, and best lear∣ned in their owne tongue, and (as S. Augustine often, and other auncient fathers say) vvere inspi∣red vvith the holy Ghost, in translating the He∣brue bible into Greeke: Is not their credite (I say) in determining and defining the signification of the Hebrue vvord, far greater then yours? No. Is not the authoritie of al the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latin, that folovved them, equiualent in this case to your iudgement? No, say they, but because vve finde some ambiguitie in the Hebrue, we wil take the aduantage, and we wil determine and limite it to our purpose.

46 A gaine vve condescend to their vvilfulnes, and say: vvhat if the Hebrue be not ambiguous, but so plaine & certaine to signifie onething,* 1.62 that it can not be plainer? As, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hel, vvhich proueth for vs, that Christ in soule descended into Hel. Is not the one Hebrue vvord as proper for soule, as anima in Latin, the other as proper and vsual for Hel, as Infeunus in Latin? Here then at the least vvil you yeld? No, say they, not here neither. for Beza telleth vs that the Hebrue vvord, vvhich commonly and vsually signifieth, soule, yet for a purpose, of a man vvil straine it, may signifie, not only body, but also, car∣cas and so he translate that. But Beza (say vve) being admonished by his frendes, corrected it in his later edition. Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his opinion concerning the Hebrue word, as himself protesteth.

47 Vvel then, doth it like you to reade thus ac∣cording to Bezas translation, Thou shalt not leaue my

carcas in the graue? No, we are content to alter the word carcas (which is not a seemely word for our Sauiours body) and yet we are loth to say soule, but if we might, we vvould say rather, life, person, as appeareth in the margent of our Bibles. but as for the Hebrue word that signifieth Hel, though the Greeke and Latin Bible through out, the Greeke and Latin fathers in al their writinges, as occasion serueth, do so reade it and vnderstand it, yet wil we neuer so translate it: but for Hel, we vvil say graue, in al such places of Scripture as might inferre Limbus patrum, if we should translate, Hel. These are their shiftes, and turninges, and windinges, in the old Testament.

48 In the new Testament, we aske them, wil you be tried by the auncient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole Church? No, but we appeale to the Greeke. Vvhat Greeke, say we, for there be sundrie copies, and the best of them (as Beza confesseth) agree with the said auncient Latin. for example in S. Peters wordes,* 1.63 Labour that by good vvorkes you may make sure your vocation and election. doth this Greeke copie please you? No, say they: we appeale to that Greeke copie, which hath not those wordes, by good workes, for othervvise we should graunt the merite and efficacie of good workes tovvard saluation. and generally to tel you at once, by what Greeke we wil be tried, we like best the vulgar Greeke text of the new Testament, which is most common and in euery mans handes.

49 Vvel, say we, if you wil needes haue it so, take your pleasure in choosing your text. and if you wil stand to it, graunt vs that Peter was cheefe among the Apostles, because your ovvne Greeke text saith, The first, Peter. No, saith Beza:* 1.64 we vvil graunt you no such thing, for these wordes were

added to the Greeke text by one that fauoured Pe∣ters primacie. Is it so? then you wil not stand to this Greeke text neither. Not in this place, saith Beza.

50 Let vs see an other place. You must graunt vs (say we) by this Greeke text, that Christs very bloud which was shed for vs, is really in the cha∣lice, because S. Luke saith so in the Greeke text. No, saith Beza, those Greeke wordes came out of the margent into the text, & therfore I trāslate not according to them, but according to that which I thinke the truer Greeke text, although I finde it in no copies in the world, and this his doing* 1.65 is mainteined & iustified by our English Protestants in their writinges of late.

51 Vvel yet, say we, there are places in the same Greeke text, as plaine for vs as these novv cited, where you can not say, it came out of the margent, or,* 1.66 it was added falsely to the text. As, Stand and hold fast the traditions &c. by this text we require that you graunt vs traditions deliuered by word of mouth, as wel as the vvritten word, that is, the Scriptures. No, say they, we knovv the Greeke word signifieth tradition as plaine as possibly, but here and in the like places, we rather translate it, ordinances, instructions, and what els soeuer. Nay Sirs, say vve, you can not so ansvver the matter, for in other places, you translate it duely and truely, tradition: and vvhy more in one place then in an other? They are ashamed to tel vvhy, but they must tel, and shame both them selues and the Diuel, if euer they thinke it good to ansvver this treatise, as also why they changed congregation, which vvas alvvaies in their first translation, into Church, in their later translations, & did not change likevvise ordinances into traditions, Elders into Priests.

52 The cause is, that the name of Church was at the first odious vnto them, because of the Catho∣like Church which stoode against them: but after∣ward this name grevve into more fauour vvith them, because of their English Church, so at length called and termed. but their hatred of Priests and traditions continueth still, as it first began, and therfore their translation also remaineth as before, suppressing the names both of the one and of the other. But of al these their dealings they shal be told in their seueral chapters and places.

53 To conclude as I began, concerning their shiftes, and iumpes, and vvindinges, and turninges euery way, from one thing to an other, til they are driuen to the extreme refuge of palpable corrup∣tions and false translations: consider vvith me in this one case only of traditions, as may be likevvise considered in al other controuersies, that the aun∣cient fathers, councels, antiquitie, vniuersalitie, & custom of the vvhole Church allovv traditions: the canonical Scriptures haue them, the Latin text hath them, the Greeke text hath them: only their translations haue them not. Likevvise in the old Testament, the approued latin text hath such and such speaches that make for vs, the renovvmed Greeke text hath it, the Hebrue text hath it: only their translations haue it not.

These are the translations vvhich vve cal he∣retical and vvilful, and vvhich shal be examined & discussed in this booke.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Heretikes fiue vvaies specially a∣buse the Scriptures.
• * 1.2

  1 Denying certaine bo∣okes or par∣tes of bo∣okes.
• * 1.3

  2 Doubting of their au∣thoritie, and calling them into questiō
• * 1.4

  3 Voluntarie expositions according to euery ones fansie or he∣resie.
• * 1.5

  4 Changing some vvor∣des or sen∣tēces of the very origi∣nal text. Tertul. cont. Marcio. li. 1. in princ.
• * 1.6

  Tertull. li. 5.
• * 1.7

  5 False and heretical translation.
• * 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, possedit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.9

  Aug. ep. 89. & lib. 1. de pec. mer. ca 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.10

  That the Protestants and Calui∣nistes vse the foresaid fiue meanes of defacing the Scriptu∣res.
• * 1.11

  Cont. rat. Edm. Camp. pag. 11.
• * 1.12

  Retent. pag. 32. dist. of the Rocke p. 307. Luther. in nouo Test. Germa. in Pref. Iacob.
• * 1.13

  Cōc. Carth. 3 can. 47.
• * 1.14

  Argum. in ep. Iac.
• * 1.15

  Vvhitak. p. 10. ibid.
• * 1.16

  ibid. p. 17. M Whitak. by these vvordes cō∣demneth their ovvne Seruice bo∣oke, which appointe••h these bookes of Tobie & Ecclesiasti∣cus, to be readde for holy Scrip∣ture, as the other. Do they readde in their Churches Apocryphal and super∣stitious bo∣okes for ho∣ly Scripture? or is he a Puritane, that thus disgraceth their order of daily Seruice?
• * 1.17

  pag. 10.
• * 1.18

  M. Vvhitak. booke.
• * 1.19

  In the argu∣ment Bib. an. 1579.
• * 1.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.21

  Vvhitak. pa. 17. & 120.
• * 1.22

  lb. pag. 101.
• * 1.23

  Praef. ad 6 theses Oxon pag. 25.
• * 1.24

  Li. Confess. 1. ca. 14. li. 7. c. 20.
• * 1.25

  Cicero de Senect.
• * 1.26

  Beza the mouse of Geneua, gnavveth the text of Scripture.
• * 1.27

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.28

  no. Test. an. 1556. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beza recon∣cileth the Greeke text of the nevv Testament vvith the Hebrue text of the old, by putting out of the Greeke text so much as pleaseth him.
• * 1.29

  Esa. 6, 9.10. Gal 3, 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.30

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.31

  Their per∣plexitie in defending both the he∣brue text of the old Tes∣tament, and Greeke text of the new.
• * 1.32

  Hovv the fa∣thers recon∣cile the said Hebrue and Greeke.
• * 1.33

  Li. 18. de Ci∣uit c. 43. 2 Lib. de Doct. Chr. c. 15.
• * 1.34

  Hexam. li. 3. cap. 6.
• * 1.35

  In Prooem. li. Paralip.
• * 1.36

  Cōment. in 28. Esa. and in quaestion. Hebrai.
• * 1.37

  Mat. c. 1.
• * 1.38

  Praef. in Act. Apost.
• * 1.39

  The 5. abuse of Scriptu∣res, Corrupt translation. vvhich is the argumēt and purpo∣se of this booke.
• * 1.40

  2 Cor. 4.
• * 1.41

  The Here∣tikes dissen∣sion about their trans∣lations.
• * 1.42

  Dial. cont. Melancth. Lind. dubit. pag. 84, 96.98.
• c 1.43

  See Zuingl. resp. 1. and Confess. Ti∣gurinorum.
• * 1.44

  ibid. pag. 83.97.
• * 1.45

  The nevv Test. of the yere 1580.
• * 1.46

  Luc. 3, 36.
• * 1.47

  Act. 1, 14, & 2, 23. Act. 3, 21.
• * 1.48

  The Germā, Frenche, and English cor∣ruptions of the nevv Testament
• * 1.49

  See Lind. Dubit. p. 84 85, &c.
• * 1.50

  Vigor and the rest.
• * 1.51

  Lind. dub. pag. 98.
• * 1.52

  The authors intēt in this booke.
• * 1.53

  Certaine ad∣uertisemēts to the Rea∣der.
• * 1.54

  Touching S. Iames epistle.
• * 1.55

  Vve charge them not with forsa∣king the old approued Latin text, though it be an il signe, & to their e∣uident con∣fusion.
• * 1.56

  Kemnitius. Caluin.
• * 1.57

  1 Cor. 9. Mulicrem sororem. 2 Pet. 1.
• * 1.58

  Vve charge them not vvith forsa∣king the Greeke co∣pies that agree vvith the aunciēt approued Latin text, though this be a signe of their incre∣dible partia∣litie.
• * 1.59

  Vve charge them for forsaking & false transla∣ting their ovvne He∣brue and Greeke text.
• * 1.60

  The diuers shiftes and flightes that the Prote∣stants are driuen vnto by the Ca∣tholikes, as it vvere the iumpes and turnings of an hare be∣fore the boundes.
• * 1.61

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

  Psal. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.63

  2 Pet. ca. 1.
• * 1.64

  Mat. 10.
• * 1.65

  See chap. 1. nu. 37. chap. 17. nu. 11.
• * 1.66

  2 Thess. 2.