The Preface

¹ AS it has been always the fashion of Heretics to pretend [allege] Scriptures, for show of their cause: so has it been also their custom and property to abuse the said Scriptures many ways, in favour of their errors.

²1 One way is, to deny whole books thereof or parts of books, when they are evidently against them. So did (for example) Ebion all S. Paul’s epistles, Manichaeus the Acts of the Apostles, Alogiani S. John’s Gospel, Marcion many pieces of S. Luke’s Gospel, and so did both these and other heretics in other books, denying and allowing what they list [wish], as is evident by S. Irenaeus, S. Epiphanius, S. Augustine, and all antiquity.

³2 Another way is, to call into question at the least and make some doubt of the authority of certain books of holy Scriptures, thereby to diminish their credit. So did Manichaeus affirm of the whole New Testament, that it was not written by the Apostles: & peculiarly of S. Matthew’s Gospel, that it was some other man’s under his name: and therefore not of such credit, but that it might in some part be refused. So did Marcion & the Arians deny the epistle to the Hebrews to be S. Paul’s, Epiphan. li. 2. haer. 69: Euseb. li. 4. hist. c. 27. & Alogiani the Apocalypse to be S. John’s the Evangelist. Epiph. & August. in haer. Alogianorum.

⁴3 Another way is, to expound the Scriptures after their own private conceit and fancy, not according to the approved sense of the holy ancient fathers and Catholic Church. So did Theodorus Mopsuestites (Act. Synod. 5.) affirm of all the books of the Prophets, and of the Psalms, that they spake not evidently of Christ, but that the ancient fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings unto Christ which were spoken of other matters. So did all heretics, that would seem to ground their heresies upon Scriptures, & to avouch them by Scriptures expounded according to their own sense and imagination.

⁵4 Another way 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 sundry places, and the Nestorians in the first epistle of S. John, and especially Marcion, who was therefore called, Mus Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, because he had gnawn (as it were) certain places with his corruptions, whereof some are said to remain in the Greek text until this day.⁶

⁷5 Another way is, to make false translations of the Scriptures for the maintenance of error and heresy. So did the Arians (as S. Jerome notes in 26. Esa.) read and translate Proverb. 8. Dominus creauit me in initio viarum suarum. that is, The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways, ⁸ so to make Christ the wisdom of God, a more [mere] creature. S. Augustine also li. 5. Cont. Julian. c. 2. notes it as the interpretation of some Pelagian Gen. 3. Fecerunt sibi vesti menta, for, perizómata or campestria. that is, They made themselves garments. whereas the word of the Scripture is, breeches or aprons proper & peculiar [particular] to cover the secret parts. Again, the self same Heretics did read falsely Ro. 5.⁹ Regnauit mors ab Adam vsque ad Moysen etiam in eos qui peccauerunt in similitudinem praeuaricationis Ada, that is, Death reigned from Adam to Moses even on them that sinned after the similitude of the prevarication [transgression] of Adam, to maintain their heresy against original sin, that none were infected therewith, or subject to death & damnation, but by sinning actually as Adam did. Thus did the old Heretics.

6 What these of our days? Is it credible that being so well warned by the condemnation and detestation of them, they also would be as mad and as impious as those? Heretics (gentle Reader) be always like Heretics, and howsoever they differ in opinions or names, yet in this point they agree, to abuse the Scriptures for their purpose by all means possibly. I will but touch four points of the five before mentioned, because my purpose is to stay upon the last only, and to decipher their corrupt translations.¹⁰ But if I would stand upon the other also, were it not easy to show the manner of their proceeding against the Scriptures to have been thus: to deny some whole books and parts of books, to call other some [some others] into question, to expound the rest at their pleasure, to pick quarrels to the very original and Canonical text, to fester and infect the whole body of the Bible with cankered [corrupted] translations?

7 Did not Luther deny S. James’s epistle and so contemn it that he called it an epistle of straw, & not worthy of an Apostolical spirit? Must I prove this to M. Whitaker, who would never have ¹¹ denied it so vehemently in the superlative degree for shame, if he had not thought it more shame to grant it? I need not go far for the matter: Ask M. Fulke,¹² and he will flatly confess it was so. Ask Calvin in arg. ep. Jacobi. ask Flaccus Illyricus, in argum. ep. Jacobi. and you shall perceive it is very true. I will not send you to the Catholic Germans and others, both of his own time and after, that wrote against him in the question of justification: among whom not one omits this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of that Arch heretic.

8 To let this pass: Toby, Ecclesiasticus, & the Maccabees are they not most certainly rejected? And yet they were allowed and received for Canonical, by the same authority that S. James’s epistle was. This epistle the Calvinists are content to admit, because ¹³ so it pleased Calvin: those books they reject, because so also it pleased him. And why did it so please Calvin? Under pretence forsooth that they were once doubted of, and not taken for Canonical. But is that the true cause indeed? How do they then ¹⁴ receive S. James’s epistle as Canonical, having been before doubted of also, yea (as ¹⁵ they say) rejected?

9 Mark gentle Reader for thy souls sake, and thou shalt find, that heresy and only heresy is the cause of their denying these books: so far, that against the orders and Hierarchies and particular patronages of Angels, one of them writes thus in the name of the rest,¹⁶ We pass not for that Raphael of Toby, neither do we acknowledge those seven Angels which he speaks of. All this is far from Canonical Scriptures that the same Raphael records, and savours I know not what superstition. Against free will thus: I little care for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I believe free will, though he affirm an hundred times, That before men is life and death. And against prayer for the dead, and intercession of Saints, thus: As for the book of the Maccabees, I do care less for it than for the other. Judas’ dream concerning Onias I let pass as a dream. This is their reverence of the Scriptures which have universally been reverenced for Canonical in the Church of God above 1100 years, Conc. Carth. 3. and particularly of many fathers long before. August. de doct. Christ. lib. 2 ca. 8.

10 As for parts of books do they not reject certain pieces of Daniel and of Esther, because they are not in the Hebrew, which reason S. Augustine rejects: or because they were once doubted of by certain of the fathers? By which reason some part of S. Mark and S. Luke’s Gospel might now also be called in controversy, specially if it be true which M. Whitaker by a figurative speech more than insinuates, That he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit, ¹⁷ should by time win authority. Forgetting himself by & by, and in the very next lines admitting S. James’s epistle (though before doubted of) for Canonical Scriptures.¹⁸ unless they receive it but of their courtesy, and so may refuse it when it shall please them, which must needs be gathered of his words, as also many other notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumb blanks. Which only to note, were to confute M. Whitaker by himself, being the Answerer for both Universities.

11 For the second point, which is not the gross denial of books, but yet calling of them in question, moving scruples about them, & diminishing their authority and credit, I will go no further than to S. Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews,¹⁹ which I will not ask why they doubt of, or rather think it not to be S. Paul’s, for they will tell me, because it was once in doubt (not considering that it was in like manner doubted whether it were Canonical, & yet they will not now deny but it is Canonical) but I must ask them and request them to make a reasonable answer, why in their English Bible of the year 1579 and 1580 they presume to leave out S. Paul’s name out of the very title of the said epistle, which name is ²⁰ in the Greek, and in Beza’s Latin translation, both which they profess to follow. See the title of the new Test. An. 1580. Does not the title tell them that it is S. Paul’s? Why seek they further: or why do they change the title, striking out S. Paul’s name, if they meant to deal simply and sincerely? And what an heretical peevishness is this, because Beza tells them of one obscure Greek copy that has not Paul’s name, and only one: that they will rather follow it than all other copies both Greek and Latin? I report me to all indifferent [impartial] men of common sense, whether they do it not to diminish the credit of the epistle.

12 I know very well that the authority of Canonical Scripture stands not upon the certainty of the author, but yet to be Paul’s or not Paul’s, Apostolical or not Apostolical, makes great difference of credit and estimation. For, what made S. James’s epistle doubted of sometime, or the second of S. Peter, and the rest, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles? This Luther saw very well, when he denied S. James’s epistle to be James the Apostle’s writing: If titles of books be of no importance, then leave out Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, leave out Paul in his other epistles also, and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old Heretics: and if the titles make no difference, urge no more the title of the Apocalypse, S. John the Divines, as though it were not S. John’s the Evangelists, and you shall much displeasure some Heretics now a days. Briefly, most certain it is, and they know it best by their own usual doings, that it is a principal way to the discredit of any book to deny it to be that authors, under whose name it has been received.

13 But I come to the third point of voluntary expositions of the Scripture, that is when every man expounds according to his error & Heresy. This needs no proof, for we see it with our eyes. Look upon the Calvinists and Puritans at home, the Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists abroad: read their books written vehemently, one sect against another: are not their expositions of one and the same Scripture as diverse and contrary, as their opinions differ one from another? Let the example at home be, their controversy about the distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees, Arch-bishop, Bishop, and minister: the example abroad, their divers imaginations & phantasies upon these most sacred words, Hoc est corpus meum.

14 And if you will yet have a further demonstration, this one may suffice for all. They reject Councils, and Fathers, and the Catholic Churches interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God’s word, and whether it be agreeable or no that Luther shall judge for the Lutherans, Calvin for the Calvinists, Cartwright for the Puritans, and another for the Brethren of love: briefly ²¹ themselves will be judges both of Councils and Fathers whether they expound the Scriptures well or no, & every youth among them upon confidence of his spirit and knowledge will saucily control [refute] not only one but all the fathers consenting together, if it be against that which they imagine to be the truth.

15 Whereupon it rises that one of them defends this as very well said of Luther,²² that he esteemed not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustines, Cyprians, Churches, against himself. And another very finely and figuratively, (as he thought) against the holy Doctor and Martyr S. Cyprian affirming that the Church of Rome can not err in faith, ²³ says thus: Pardon me Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that believing thee, I should not believe the Gospel. This is that which S. Augustine says of the like men,²⁴ dulcissimè vanos esse, non peritos sed perituros, nectam disertos in error, qua desertos a veritate. And I think verily that not only we, but the wiser men among themselves smile at such eloquence, or pity it, saying this or the like most truly,²⁵ Prodierunt orators noui, stulti adolescentuli.

16 The 4 point is, of picking quarrels to the very original text: for alter & change it I hope they shall not be able in this watchful world of most vigilant Catholics. But what they would do, if all Bibles were only in their hands and at their commandment,²⁶ guess by this: that Beza against the evidence of all copies both Greek and Latin, (In his Annot. upon the new Test. Set forth in the year 1556.) thinks πρῶτος is more than should be in the text Mat. 10: & τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον Luc. 22. and προσκυνεῖν αὐτοῖς Act. 7: the first, against Peter’s supremacy: the second, against the real presence of Christ’s blood in the B. Sacrament: the third, against the making of whatsoever images, whether they be adored or no. Thus you see how the mouse of Geneva (as I told you before of Marcion the mouse of Pontus) nibbles and gnaws about it, though he can not bite it of altogether.

17 He does the like in sundry places which you may see in his Annotations Act. 7. v. 16. Where he is saucy against all copies Greek and Latin to pronounce corruption, corruption, avouching and endeavouring to prove that it must be so, and that with these words. To what purpose should the Holy Ghost, or Luke, add this? Act. 8. v. 26. But because those places concern no controversy, I say no more but that he bites at the text, and would change it according to his imagination, if he might: which is too proud an enterprise for Beza, and small reverence of the holy Scriptures, so to call the very text into controversy, that whatsoever pleases not him, crept out of the margin into the text, which is his common and almost his only conjecture.

18 He bites sore at the word ἀνατολή Luc. 1. v. 78. and will not translate that,²⁷ but the Hebrew word of the Old Testament. But at ὠδῖνας (Act. 2. v. 24.) much more, & at ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε (Act 7. v. 14.) exceedingly: but yet after he has said all that he could against it, he concludes, that he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon conjecture to change anything. And therefore all this is gnawing only.²⁸ but in the 3 of Luke he makes no conscience at all, to leave out these words vers. 36, Qui fuit Cainan, not only in his own translation, but in the vulgar Latin which is joined therewith, saying in his Annot. Non dubitauimus expungere, that is, We doubted not to put it out: & why? By the authority of Moses Gen. 11. Whereby he signifies that it is not in the Hebrew Gen. 11. where this posterity of Sem is reckoned: and so to maintain the Hebrew verity (as they call it) in the Old Testament he cares not what become of the Greek in the New Testament: which yet at other times, against the vulgar Latin text, they call the Greek verity, and the pure fountain, and that text whereby all translations must be tried.

19 But if he have no other way to reconcile both Testaments, but by striking out in the Greek of the new, all that agrees not with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, then let him alter and change so many words of our Saviour himself, of the Evangelists, and of the Apostles, as are cited out of the Old Testament, and are not in Hebrew. Which places they know are very many, & when need is, they shall be gathered to their hands. Let him strike out (Mat. 13. v. 14, 15. & Act. 28. v. 26, 27) the words of our Saviour and S. Paul,²⁹ cited out of Isaiah, because they are far otherwise in the Hebrew. Strike out of the epistle to the Galatians these words, upon a tree: because in the Hebrew it is only thus. Cursed is he that is hanged. Deut. 21 in fine. Yea strike out of David’s Psalms that which concerns our redemption upon the Cross much nearer, They have pierced my hands & my feet, Ps. 21. because in the Hebrew there is no such thing. Let them control the Apostle,³⁰ Eph. 4, for saying, dedit he gave gifts: because it is both in the Hebrew and Greek, (Psal. 67) Accepisti, thou tookest gifts. and (Hebr. 10) for, corpus aptasti, let them put, aures perforasti, because it is so in the Hebrew Psal. 40. To be short, if all must be reformed according to the Hebrew, why does he not in S. Stephen’s sermon cut off the number of five souls from seventy five, because it is not in the Hebrew?

20 Must such difficulties and diversities be resolved by chopping and changing, hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scripture? See into what perplexities wilful heresy and arrogance has driven them. To discredit the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible, and the fathers expositions according to the same (for that is the original cause of this) and besides, that they may have always this evasion, It is not so in the Hebrew, it is otherwise in the Greek, and so seem jolly fellows and great clerks [scholars] unto the ignorant people, what do they? They admit only the Hebrew in the old Test. And the Greek in the new, to be the true and authentical text of the Scripture. Whereupon this follows, that they reject, and must needs reject the Greek of the old Test. (called the Septuaginta) as false, because it differs from the Hebrew.³¹ Which being rejected, thereupon it follows again, that wheresoever those places so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ or the Evangelists & Apostles, there also they must be rejected, because they disagree from the Hebrew. And so yet again it follows, that the Greek text of the New Testament is not true, because it is not according to the Hebrew verity: and consequently the words of our Saviour, and writings of his Apostles must be reformed (to say the least) because they speak according to the Septuaginta, and not according to the Hebrew.

21 All which must needs follow, if this be a good consequence, I find it not in Moses, nor in the Hebrew, therefore I stroke it out, as Beza does and says concerning the foresaid words, Qui fuit Cainan. This consequence therefore let us see how they will justify: and withal let them tell us, whether they will discredit the New Testament, because of the Septuaginta, or credit the Septuaginta, because of the New Testament, or how they can credit one, & discredit the other, where both agree & consent together: or, whether they will discredit both, for credit of the Hebrew: or rather, whether there be not some other way to reconcile both Hebrew and Greek, better than Beza’s impudent presumption. Which if they will not maintain, let them flatly confess that he did wickedly, and not (as they do) defend every word and deed of their Masters, be it never so heinous, or salve [patch up] it at the least.

³²22 Alas how far are these men from the modesty of the ancient fathers, who seek all other means to resolve difficulties, rather than to do violence to the sacred Scripture, and when they find no way,³³ they leave it to God. S. Augustine concerning the difference of the Hebrew and the Greek, says often to this effect, that it pleased the Holy Ghost to utter by the one, that which he would not utter by the other. And S. Ambrose thus,³⁴ We have found many things not idly added of the 70 Greek interpreters. S. Jerome, though an earnest patron of the Hebrew (not without cause,³⁵ being at that time perhaps the Hebrew verity indeed) yet gives many reasons for the differences of the Septuaginta, and concerning the foresaid places of S. Luke, he does give a reason thereof,³⁶ both for the 70, and for the Evangelist that followed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them by the authority of Moses (as Beza speaks) that is, by the Hebrew. Others say concerning Cainan, that Moses might leave him out in the Genealogy of Sem, by the instinct of the same Spirit,³⁷ that S. Matthew left out three kings in the genealogy of our Saviour. Where if a man would control the Evangelist by the Hebrew of the Old Testament that is read in the books of the kings, he should be as wise and as honest a man as Beza.³⁸ Lastly, Venerable Bede thinks it sufficient in this very difficulty of Cainan, to marvel at it reverently, rather than to search it dangerously. And thus far of picking quarrels to the original text, and their good will to alter and change it as they list, if they might be suffered.

³⁹23 Which also may be proved by all their false translations (being the principal point I mean to speak of) most evidently. For as now they translate falsely to their purpose, because they can not alter the text: so would they, if it were possible, have the text agreeable to their translation. For example, he that translates, ordinances, when it is in the original Greek text, justifications, and, traditions, he would rather that it were, ordinances, also in the Greek: but because he cannot bring that about, he does at the least what he can, to make the ignorant believe it is so, by so translating it.

24 And this of all other is the most fine and subtle treachery against the Scriptures, to deceive the ignorant readers withal,⁴⁰ (which S. Paul calls the secret things of dishonesty, and adulterating of the word of God, as it were mingling water with wine like false vintners [wine-sellers]) when they give them for God’s word, & under the name of God’s word, their own words, and not God’s, forged and framed, altered and changed, according to differences of times, and variety of new opinions, and diversity of humors and spirits, diversely and differently, one Heretic not only correcting his fellow every day,⁴¹ but one eagerly refuting and resolving another.⁴² Bucer, and the Osiandrians and⁴³ Sacramentaries against Luther for false translations: Luther against Munster, Beza against Castaleo, Castaleo against Beza, Calvin against Servetus, Illyricus both against Calvin and Beza: The Puritans control the grosser Calvinists of our Country, yea the later translations of the self same Heretics control the former exceedingly, not only of oversights, but of wilful falsifications, as it is notorious in the ⁴⁴ later editions of Luther and Beza, and in our English Bibles set forth in divers years, from Tyndale their first translator until this day:⁴⁵ yea (which is more) the English translators of Beza’s New Testament, control him and his translation which they protest to follow,⁴⁶ being afraid sometime and ashamed to express in English his false translations in the Latin.

25 But in this Catalogue of dissentious falsifiers and disagreeing translators,⁴⁷ I will not greatly rip up old faults neither abroad, nor at home. I leave Luther’s false translations into the German tongue,⁴⁸ to the credit of Staphylus, Apolog. part. 2. and Emserus. praef. Annot. in no. Test. Luth. and other German writers of his own time, that saw them and read them, and reckoned the number of them in the New Testament only, about⁴⁹ 1,400 heretical corruptions: I leave Calvin’s and Beza’s french corruptions, to so many worthy men as⁵⁰ have noted them in their french books against the said heretics: Tyndale’s and his companions corruptions in their first English bible, to our learned countrymen of that age, & namely to the right Reverend Father and Confessor Bishop Tonstal, who in a sermon openly protested that he had found in the New Testament only, no less than two thousand. If we know it not, or will not believe it,⁵¹ strangers in their Latin writings testify it to the world.

⁵²26 But I omit these as unknown to our country, or to this age, and will deal principally with the English translations of our time, which are in every man’s hands within our country the corruptions whereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the Annotations upon the late new English Testament Catholicly translated & printed at Rhemes, so by occasion thereof, I will by God’s help, to the better commodity [benefit] of the reader, and evidence of the thing, lay them closer together, and more largely display them, not counting the number, because it were hard, but esteeming the weight & importance of so many as I thought good to note, specially in the New Testament. Where I have to advertise [notify] the Reader of certain special things, which he must observe.

⁵³27 First, that in this book he may not look for the proof or explication & deciding of controversies, Which is done in the Annotations upon the New Testament, but only the refuting or controlling of their false translations concerning the said controversies, which is the peculiar argument of this treatise.

28 Secondly, that we refute sometime one of their translations, sometime another, and every one as their falsehood gives occasion. Neither is it a good defense for the falsehood of one, that it is truly translated in another: the reader being deceived by any one, because commonly he reads but one. Yea one of them is a condemnation of the other.

29 Thirdly, that we speak indifferently against Protestants, Calvinists, Bezites, and Puritans, without any curious distinction of them, being all among themselves brethren and pew fellows [companions], and sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or less corrupting the holy Scriptures.

30 Fourthly, that we give but a taste of their corruptions, not seeing so far, nor marking also narrowly and skilfully, as themselves know their own subtleties and meanings, who will smile at the places which we have not espied [detected].

31 Fifthly, that the very use and affectation of certain terms, and avoiding other some, though it be no demonstration against them, but that they may seem to defend it for true translation, yet was it necessary to be noted, because it is & has been always a token of heretical meaning.

32 Sixthly, that in explicating these things, we have endeavoured to avoid (as much as was possible) the tediousness of Greek & Hebrew words. Which are only for the learned in these tongues, and which made some little doubt whether this matter (which of necessity must be examined by them) were to be written in English or no, but being persuaded by those (who themselves have no skill in the said tongues) that every reader might reap commodity thereby, to the understanding & detesting of such false and Heretical translations, it was thought good to make it vulgar and common to all our dear country men, as the New Testament itself is common, whereof this Discovery is as it were an handmaid, attending thereupon for the larger explication and proof of corruptions there briefly touched, and for supply of other some not there mentioned.

33 Seventhly, that all the English corruptions here noted and refuted, are either in all or some of their English bibles printed in these years, 1562, 1577, 1579. And if the corruption be in one Bible, not in another, commonly the said Bible or bibles are noted in the margin: if not, yet sure it is that it is in one of them, and so the reader shall find it, if he find it not always in his own Bible. And in this case the reader must be very wise and circumspect, that he think not by and by we charge them falsely, because they can show him some later edition that has it not so as we say, for it is their common and known fashion, not only in their translations of the Bible, but in their other books and writings, to alter and change, add and put out, in their later editions, according as either themselves are ashamed of the former, or their scholars that print them again, dissent and disagree from their Masters. So has Luther’s, Calvin’s, and Beza’s writings and translations been changed both by themselves and their scholars in many places, so that Catholic men when they confute that which they find evident faults in this or that edition, fear nothing more than that the reader has some other edition, where they are corrected for very shame, and so may conceive that there is no such thing, but that they are accused wrongfully. For example. Call to mind the late pretended conference in the tower,⁵⁴ where that matter was denied and faced out for Luther’s credit, by some one book or edition of his, which themselves, and all the world knows was most truly laid to his charge.

34 Eighthly, in citing Beza, I mean always (unless I note otherwise) his Latin translation of the New Testament with his annotations adjoined thereunto, printed in the year 1556.

⁵⁵35 Lastly and principally is to be noted that we will not charge them with falsifying that which indeed is the true and authentical Scripture, I mean the vulgar Latin Bible, which so many years has been of so great authority in the Church of God, and with all the ancient fathers of the Latin Church, as is declared in the preface of the New Testament: though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, only in favour of his heresies did wilfully forsake it, so the rest followed and do follow him at this day, for no other cause in the world but that it is against them. & therefore they inveigh against it,⁵⁶ and against the holy Council of Trent for confirming the authority thereof, both in their special treatises thereof, and in all their writings, where they can take any occasion.

36 And concerning their wilful and heretical avoiding thereof in their new translations, what greater argument can there be than this, that Luther, who before always had read with the Catholic Church and with all antiquity, these words of S. Paul,⁵⁷ Have not we power to lead about A WOMAN A SISTER, as also the rest of the Apostles? and in S. Peter, these words, Labour that BY GOOD WORKS you may make sure your vocation and election: suddenly, after he had contrary to his profession taken a wife (as he called her) and preached that all other votaries might do the same, and that faith only justified, good works were not necessary to salvation: suddenly (I say) after he fell to these heresies, he began to read and translate the former Scriptures accordingly, thus: Have not we power to lead about a SISTER A WIFE, as the rest of the Apostles? and, Labour that you may make sure your vocation and election: leaving out the other words, by good works. And so do both the Calvinists abroad, and our English Protestants at home read and translate at this day, because they hold the self same heresies.

37 So do they in infinite places alter the old text, which pleased them well before they were Heretics, and they do it with brazen faces, and plain protestation, having no shame nor remorse at all, in fleeing from that which all antiquity with one consent allowed and embraced until their unhappy days. Which though it be an evident condemnation of their novelties in the sight of any reasonable man that has any grace, yet as I began to admonish thee (gentle Reader) we will not charge them for altering the ancient approved Latin translation, because they pretend to follow the Hebrew and Greek, and our purpose is not here, to prove that they should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that now is, before the ancient approved Latin text, which is done briefly already in the preface to the New Testament.

⁵⁸38 Neither will we burden them, for not following the vulgar Latin text, when the same agrees with most ancient Greek copies: which notwithstanding is great partiality in them, & must needs be of an heretical wilful humor, that among the Greek copies themselves, they reject that which most agrees with the vulgar Latin text, in places of controversies. Yet will we not I say, neither in this case, lay falsehood and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to translate the common Greek text of the New Testament, that is one certain copy, but here at the least let them show their fidelity, & that they be true and exact translators, for here only shall they be examined and called to account.

⁵⁹39 And if they follow sincerely their Greek and Hebrew text, which they profess to follow, and which they esteem the only authentical text, so far we accuse them not of heretical corruption. But if it shall be evidently proved, that they shrink from the same also, and translate another thing, and that wilfully, and of full intention to countenance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the Scriptures to speak as they list: then we trust, the indifferent reader for his own souls sake, will easily see and conclude, that they have no fear of God, no reverence of the Scriptures, no conscience to deceive their readers: He will perceive that the Scriptures make against them, which they so pervert and corrupt for their purpose: that neither the Hebrew nor Greek text is for them, which they dare not translate truly and sincerely: that their cause is naught, which needs such foul shifts: that they must needs know all this, and therefore do wilfully against their conscience, & consequently are obstinate Heretics.

40 And the more to understand their misery & wretchedness, before we enter to examine their translations, Mark & gather of all that which I have said in this preface, their manifold flights & jumps, from one shift to another, & how Catholic writers have pursued and chased them, & followed them, and driven them even to this extreme refuge and seely [feeble] covert [shelter] of false translation, where also they must of necessity yield, or devise some new evasion, which we can not yet imagine.

⁶⁰41 First we are wont to make this offer (as we think) most reasonable and indifferent: that forasmuch as the Scriptures are diversely expounded of us and of them, they neither be tied to our interpretation, nor we to theirs, but to put it to the arbitrament and judgement of the ancient fathers, of general Councils, of universal custom of times and places in the Catholic Church. No, say they, we will be our own judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans: Calvin, if we be Calvinists: and so forth.

42 This being of itself a shameless shift, unless it be better coloured, the next is to say, that the Scriptures are easy and plain & sufficient of themselves to determine every matter, and therefore they will be tried by the Scriptures only. We are content, because they will needs have it so, and we allege unto them the books of Toby, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees. No, say they: we admit none of these for Scripture. Why so? Are they not approved Canonical by the same authority of the Church, of ancient Councils and fathers, that the other books are? No matter, say they, Luther admits them not, Calvin does not allow them.

43 Well, let us go forward in their own dance. You allow at the least the Jews Canonical books of the Old Testament, that is, all that are extant in the Hebrew Bible: and all of the New Testament without exception. Yea, that we do. In these books then, will you be tried by the vulgar ancient Latin Bible, only used in all the west Church above a thousand years? No. Will you be tried by the Greek Bible of the Septuaginta interpreters, so renowned and authorised, in our Saviour’s own speeches, in the Evangelists and Apostles writings, in the whole Greek Church evermore? No. How then will you be tried? They answer, Only by the Hebrew Bible that now is, and as now it is pointed with vowels. Will you so? And do you think that only, the true authentical Hebrew which the Holy Ghost did first put into the pens of those sacred writers? We do think it (say they) and esteem it the only authentical and true Scripture of the Old Testament.

44 We ask them again, what say you then to that place of the psalm,⁶¹ where in the Hebrew it is thus, As a lion my hands and my feet: for that which in truth should be thus, They digged or pierced my hands and my feet: being an evident prophecy of Christ’s nailing to the Cross. There indeed (say they) we follow not the Hebrew, but the Greek text. Sometime then you follow the Greek and not the Hebrew only. And what if the same Greek text make for the Catholics, as in these places for example, I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications for reward: and, Redeem thy sins with alms: might we not obtain here the like favour at your hands for the Greek text, specially when the Hebrew does not disagree? No, say they, nor in no other place where the Greek is never so plain, if the Hebrew word at the least may be any otherwise interpreted, and draw on to another signification.

45 We reply again and say unto them, why, Is not the credit of those Septuaginta interpreters, who themselves were Jews, and best learned in their own tongue, and (as S. Augustine often, and other ancient fathers say) were inspired with the Holy Ghost, in translating the Hebrew bible into Greek: Is not their credit (I say) in determining and defining the signification of the Hebrew word, far greater than yours? No. Is not the authority of all the ancient fathers both Greek and Latin, that followed them, equivalent in this case to your judgement? No, say they, but because we find some ambiguity in the Hebrew, we will take the advantage, and we will determine and limit it to our purpose.

46 Again we condescend [yield] to their wilfulness, and say: what if the Hebrew be not ambiguous, but so plain & certain to signify one thing,⁶² that it can not be plainer? As, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell, which proves for us, that Christ in soul descended into Hell. Is not the one Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin, the other as proper and usual for Hell, as Infernus in Latin? Here then at the least will you yield? No, say they, not here neither. For Beza tells us that the Hebrew word, which commonly and usually signifies, soul, yet for a purpose, of a man will strain it, may signify, not only body, but also, carcass and so he translate that. But Beza (say we) being admonished by his friends, corrected it in his later edition. Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his opinion concerning the Hebrew word, as himself protests.

47 Well then, does it like you to read thus according to Beza’s translation, Thou shalt not leave my carcass in the grave? No, we are content to alter the word carcass (which is not a seemly word for our Saviour’s body) and yet we are loth to say soul, but if we might, we would say rather, life, person, as appears in the margin of our Bibles. But as for the Hebrew word that signifies Hell, though the Greek and Latin Bible throughout, the Greek and Latin fathers in all their writings, as occasion serves, do so read it and understand it, yet will we never so translate it: but for Hell, we will say grave, in all such places of Scripture as might infer Limbus patrum, if we should translate, Hell. These are their shifts, and turnings, and windings, in the Old Testament.

48 In the New Testament, we ask them, will you be tried by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole Church? No, but we appeal to the Greek. What Greek, say we, for there be sundry copies, and the best of them (as Beza confess) agree with the said ancient Latin. For example in S. Peter’s words,⁶³ Labour that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election. does this Greek copy please you? No, say they: we appeal to that Greek copy, which has not those words, by good works, for otherwise we should grant the merit and efficacy of good works toward salvation. And generally to tell you at once, by what Greek we will be tried, we like best the vulgar Greek text of the New Testament, which is most common and in every man’s hands.

49 Well, say we, if you will needs have it so, take your pleasure in choosing your text. And if you will stand to it, grant us that Peter was chief among the Apostles, because your own Greek text says, The first, Peter. No, says Beza:⁶⁴ we will grant you no such thing, for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter’s primacy. Is it so? Then you will not stand to this Greek text neither. Not in this place, says Beza.

50 Let us see another place. You must grant us (say we) by this Greek text, that Christ’s very blood which was shed for us, is really in the chalice, because S. Luke says so in the Greek text. No, says Beza, those Greek words came out of the margin into the text, & therefore I translate not according to them, but according to that which I think the truer Greek text, although I find it in no copies in the world, and this his doing⁶⁵ is maintained & justified by our English Protestants in their writings of late.

51 Well yet, say we, there are places in the same Greek text, as plain for us as these now cited, where you can not say, it came out of the margin, or,⁶⁶ it was added falsely to the text. As, Stand and hold fast the traditions &c. by this text we require that you grant us traditions delivered by word of mouth, as well as the written word, that is, the Scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greek word signifies tradition as plain as possibly, but here and in the like places, we rather translate it, ordinances, instructions, and what else soever. Nay, Sirs, say we, you can not so answer the matter, for in other places, you translate it duly and truly, tradition: and why more in one place than in another? They are ashamed to tell why, but they must tell, and shame both themselves and the Devil, if ever they think it good to answer this treatise, as also why they changed congregation, which was always in their first translation, into Church, in their later translations, & did not change likewise ordinances into traditions, Elders into Priests.

52 The cause is, that the name of Church was at the first odious unto them, because of the Catholic Church which stood against them: but afterward this name grew into more favour with them, because of their English Church, so at length called and termed. But their hatred of Priests and traditions continues still, as it first began, and therefore their translation also remains as before, suppressing the names both of the one and of the other. But of all these their dealings they shall be told in their several chapters and places.

53 To conclude as I began, concerning their shifts, and jumps, and windings, and turnings every way, from one thing to another, till they are driven to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions and false translations: consider with me in this one case only of traditions, as may be likewise considered in all other controversies, that the ancient fathers, councils, antiquity, universality, & custom of the whole Church allow traditions: the canonical Scriptures have them, the Latin text has them, the Greek text has them: only their translations have them not. Likewise in the Old Testament, the approved Latin text has such and such speeches that make for us, the renowned Greek text has it, the Hebrew text has it: only their translations have it not.

These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful, and which shall be examined & discussed in this book.