4 OS, c La


qd = 3



Heretikes of our daies, fpecially the Englifh Sectaties ; and of their foule dealing herein, by partial & falfe rranfz lationsto the aduantage of their here- fies, in their Englifh Bibles vfed and "€ authorifed fince the time of Schifme, ?

By Grecory MARTIN one of the readers of Diuiniticin the ENGz1sH COLLEGR OF RHEMES.

i Cot x | mel

Non fumus ficut pluvimi, adulterantes verbum Dri, fed

- ex finceritate fed. [jut ex Deo, coram Deo,tn Chrifte loquimur.

That is, VVe are notas very many,adulterating the word

of God, but of finceritic, & as of God, before God,in Chrift vve fpcake.

Printed at R H E.M E'S; a By John Fogny. I]


1$ 92

Pasir tteptuc. BOR LL e C



CORRVPTIONS OF. HOLY Scriptures , common το al Heretikes, & agreing {pecially to thefe of our time: vvith many other neceffarie aduertife= ments to the reader.

$5 it hath beenalvvaies the fal bid weretikes ὥς μὰ H erctikesto pretéd Scriptures, fiue vvaies WW for Chevy of their caufe: fo hath fPecially a- Mi: 1n i bufe the jy it been alfo their cuftom and PYO* scriptures, pertie to abufe the faid Scriptures aj Many vyaies,in fauour of their cr-

1 Onevvay is, to.deny vvhole boo

kes thereof; Denying or partes of bookes, vvhen they are euidently a= certaine bo-

gainftthem.So did(for example)Ebion al S. Paules pire vibes epiltles, Manicheus the A Ges ofthe Apoitles, Alo- ae giant $. Iohns Gofpel, Marcion ma ny peeces df S.

Lukes Gofpel, and fo did both thefe and other he-

retikes in other bookes , denying and allovving

vvhat they lift,as is euident by § Ireneus, S. Ep1pha-

nius, $, Augultine,and al antiquitie. 2 An other vvay is,to call into queftion at the 2 Doubting leatt and make fome doubt of the authoritie - of ett au- certaine bookes of holy Scriptures, the

j reby todi calling them minifh their credite. {ο did Manicheus

affirme of into queltié a ij the

thoriti¢ and

"qhe Preface

the vvhole nevv Teftament,that it vvas not vvrit- ten by the Apoftles:& peculiarly of S. Matthevves Gofpel,thatit wasfome other más vnder his name: and therfore not of fuch credite,but that it might in fomc part be rcfufzd.fo did Marcio & the Arias deny theepiftlerothe Hebrues. tobe S. Paules, Epiphan. li. 2.hzr. 69. Eufeb.]i. 4. hift.c.27.2& Alo- giani the B potato to be S, Iohnsthe Euagelift. Epiph.& Auguft.in her.Alogianorum. An other way is, to expound the Scriptures 3 Voluntatie 56 oy their ovvne priuate conceite and phantafie, expolinons accordingto NOt according to the approued fenfe of the holy euery ones. auncient fathers and Catholike Church. fo did fantie ος he- Theodorus Mopfueftites( AG. Synod.s.)affirme of nut. al the bookes of the Prophets,and of the Pfalmes, that they fpakenot euidently of Chrift, but that the auncient fathers did voluntarily Mite thofe fayings vnto Chrift vvhich yvere {poken of other mattcrs.fo didal heretikes, that vvould feeme to groud their herefies vpon Scriptures, & to auouch them bv Scri iptures expounded according to their ovyne fenfe and imagination, 4 Changing «4 = Another vvay 1s,toalter the very original fome YY9*- text of the αν Scripture, by adding,taking aw ay

a ae the or chaneing it here and there for their purpofe, fo


very otivi- Gid-the Bii rosa fundric places, and the Neftorias o

nalrext.. inthe firít epiftle of 5, Iohn, and efpecially Mar-

Tertul.cobt* eign vvho wastherfore ed , Mus Ponticus ,the

Marcio: lit 5 cfe of Pontus , becaufe he had gnavven (as it

ig vvere) certaine places vyith his corruptions,

Fertull. lis. whereof fome are faidto remaine in the Greeke text vntil this day.

Another way is,to make falfe tranflations of pra and | the Scriptures forthe maintenance of crrour and heretical tranflation. herefic.fo did the Arians (as §. Hierom noteth in

46. fa.) read and tranilate Proucrb $. Dominus crea- sit me in initio viarum fuarum.that is, The Lord crea- ted

To the Reader.

sed me in the beginning of bis vvaies,fo to make C hrift expres the vvifedom of God,a.mere creature. S. Auguftin poffit. alfo li.5. cont. [ulian. c.2. noteth 1t as the interpre- $3330 tation of fome Pelagian Gen.3. Fecerunt fibi vef euo menta, tor, perisomata or campeftria.that is, They made riter them felues garments. wr hercas the vvord of theScrip- ture i¢,Lreeches or aprons proper &peculiarto co- 5*3 uer the fecrete partes. Againe,thc felf fame Hereti- kes did readefalfely Ro.5. Regunawit mors 4b Adam aT up v[que ad Moyfen etia un eos qui peccaucriit in fimilitudine pec mer. pranarscationis Ada,that 1s, Death reigned from A dam cau.

to Moyfes even on themthat finned after the fimilitude On mug un of the prewarication of Adam, to maintaine their Ώου gus. refie againft original finne, that none vvere in- G fe&ed therew ith,or fübic& to death ὃς damauatió, THESE: but by finning a&ually as Adam did. Thus did the

old Heretikes.

6 whatthefe of our daies?is it credible that being

fo vvel vvaracd by the condemnation and detefta-

tion of them, they alfo vvould be as mad and as

impious as thofe ¢ Heretikes (gentle Reader) be

aly vaies like Heretikes,and hovvfoeuer they differ

in opinions or names, yet in this point they agree,

to abufe the Scriptures for their purpofe by al

meanes pofsibly.I vvil but touche foure points of

the fiue before mentioned, becaufe my purpofe is

to ftay vpon the laft only,and to difcipher their corrupttranílations. But if I vvould ftand ypon That the the other alfo,vvere it not eafy to fhevv the mancr Proteftants of their proceding againft the Scriptures to haue ki Poe: been thus: to deny fome vvhole bookes and parts die tocefuid of bookes,to call other fome into queltion , to ex- fiue meanes pound thereft at their pleafure,to picke quarels to of ees the very original and Canonical text, to tefter and vu HP infc& the vvhole body of the Bible vvith cankred tranflations?

aiij ^ Did

NN SOS} \ \\ vm

/ S






Retent. pag.

32.dift. of the. Rocke p.307.

Luther. in nouo Tett. Germa. in

Pref. lacob. β

Cóc. Carth. 3 cin.47.

Árgum.in €p. Tac,

Vvhitak. p.10-



ibid.p.r7. M. Whicak. by thef? vvordes có- démneth

Y be Preface. ¥ Did notLuther deny S. Iames epiftle and fo

contemne it that he called ican epiftle offtravv , & not vvorthie of an Apoftolical fpirit?muft I proue this to M. Vvhitakers , vvho vvould neuer haue *denied it fo vehemently in the fuperlatiue degree for fhame , if he had not thought it morc fhame to

. 4 * e graunt it? I ncede not goe far for the matter: Af ke

M. Fulke, and he vvil flatly confeffe it vvas fo. Afke Caluin in arg. ep. lacobi. af ke Flaccus Illyri- Cus , #4 argum. ep. Iacobi. and you fhal perceiue it is very truc. I vvil not fend you to the Catholike Germans and others, both ofhis οννΏς time and after, that vvrote againit him in the queftion of iu- ification : among vvhom not one omitteth this, being athing fo famous and infamous to the con- fufion of that Arch heretike. 8 To let this paife: Tobie, Ecclefiafticus , & the Machabees are they not moft certainely reie&ed? and yet they vvere allovved and receiued for Ca- nonical,by the fame authoritie that S. lames cpiftlé vvas. This epiftle the Caluinifts ate content to admit,becaufe * fo it pleafed Caluin: thofe bookes they τείεξὲ, becaufe fo alfo it pleafed him. And vv hy did it fo pleafe Caluin? vnder pretence for- footh that they vvereonce doubted of,and not taken for Canonical. but is that the true caufe in deede? Hovv do they then*receiuc S. Tames epiftle as Canonical, hauing been before doubted ofalfo, yea (as* they fay) reietted? ο Marke gentle Reader for thy foules fake and thou fhalt finde,that herefie and only herefie is the caufe 'of their denying thefe bookes : fo far , that againft the orders and Hierarchies and particular patronages of Angels,one of them vvriteth rhusin the name ofthe reft, ve paffe not for that Raphael of Tobie, neither do vve acknovvledge tbofefenen Angels vybicb be fpealetb of. al ibis isfar from Canonical Scrip - tures

To tbe Reader.

tures, that the fame Raphael recordeth , and fauouyetb 1 their pL vvot not vybat fuperflition. Againft frec vvil thus: ος Ptr I litle cave for the place of Ecclefiallicus , neither vvil 1 be. appoinich

leeue free vil, though be affirme an bundred times, That thefebookes before men is life and death. And againft prater for the hup dead, and interceffion of Sain&s, thus: As fur tbe ης ed Da

booke of the Machabees, 1 do care leffe for st then for the readde for

other. Vidas dreame cocerning Onias i let paffe asadveame. holy Scrip. This is their reuerence of the Scriptures vvlich EE haue vniuerfally been reucrenced for Canonical in they readde theChurch of God abouc roo yeres,Conc.Carib; 3. in their

^ οφ” and particularly of many fathers long before, PU Auguft. de dofd. Chrift. lrb.2 ca.8, aic

1o As for partes of bookes do they notreie& ccr- piios; bo-

taine pecces of Daniel and of Hefter , becaufe they okes for ho«

are not in the Hebrue, vvhich reafon S, Auguftine ly Senpture? : «5 rorié he a

reiccteth : or becaufe they vverc once daubrew of Püritane

‘by certaine ofthe fathers: by vvhich reafonfome that thus art of s. Marke and S. Lukes Gofpel might novy difgraceth *

alfo be called in controuerfie, {pecially if tt be true one

vvhich M, Vvhitakers by a figuratiue {peache more Ra mud

then infinuateth, T har be can not fee by vvbat right that

vvbich once wvas not in credite , fhould by time wvinue pag 10.

authoritte. Forgetting him felf by & by, and in the

very next lines admitting 5. Tames epiltle (though M. Vvhital

before doubted of for Canonical Scriptures. vnlcs bo pes

they receiue it but of their courteíie , and fo may

refufe it vvhen it fhal pleafe them , vvhich muit

needes be gathered of his vvordes , as alfo many

other notorious abfurdities , contradictions, and

dumme bláckes. Vvhich only to note, were tocon-

fute M. whitakers by him felf,being the Anfvvercr

for both Vniuerfities,

1i Forthefecond point, vvhich is not the groffe

denial ofbookes, but yet calling ofthem in que-

fion, mouing fcruples about them,& diminifhing

their authoritie and credite , 1 vvil goe no further

a ij then


In the argu- ment Bib.

an, 1579+


W «voc eCpapoug emISDAM


The Prefabe

then to S. Paules epiítle tothe Hebrues, vvhich T vvil not af ke vvhy they doubt of, or rather thinke it not to be S, Paules, forthey vvil tel me, becaufe it vvas once in doubt (aot confidering 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 muft af kc them and requeft them to make a rezfonable anfyver , vvhy in their Englifh Bible of the yere 1579 and 1580 they pre{ume to leaue out 5, Paules name out ofthe very title of the faid epiflle, vvhich name is * in the Grecke , and in Bezas Latin tranflation , both vvhich they profefle to folovv . Seethe title of the new Teft.an. 1580. Doth not the title tel them that itis S. Paulesivvhy feeke they further: or vvhy do they change the title, {triking out S. Paules name, ifthey meant to deale fimply and fincerely ? and vvhat an heretical pecuifhnes isthis,becaufe Beza telleth them of one obfcure Grecke copie that hath not Paules name, and onely one: that they vvil rather folovv it,then al other copies both Grecke and Latin? Ireport me to alindifferent men of common fenfe , vvhether they do it not to diminifh the credite of the epiftle. tz Lknovv very vvel that theauthoritic of Ca- nonical Scripture ftandeth not vpon the certaintie of the author, but yct tobe Paules or not Paules, Apoftolical or not Apoftolical, maketh great dif. fereace of crediteand cítimation. For,vvhat made 5. lames cpiftic doubted of fometime,or the fecód of $. Peter, and the reft , but that they vvere not thought to be the cpiftles of thofe Apoftles ¢ This Luther {ανν very vvel, yvhen he denied 5. Tames epiftle to be famesthe Apoftles vvriting. {f titles of bookes be of no importice, then leauc out Mat- theve, Marke, Luke , and lohn, leaue out Paulin his other epifties alfo, and you fhal much pleafure the

To the Reader.

the Manichces and other old Heretikes: and ifthe titles make no difference, vrge no more the title of the Apocalypfe, 5. Toba tbe Diuines, as though it vverenot S. [ohnsthe Euangeliftes ,and you {hal much difpleafure fome Heretikes novv a daies, breefcly, mott certaine itis, and they knovv itbett by their ovvne víual doings, that it isa principal vvay tothe difcredite of ay booke , to deny it to be that authors, vnder vvhofe name it hath been receiued. . i

15 But Icometothe third point of volütarie ex- pofitions of the Scripture, that is vvhen euery man expotideth according to his errour & Herefie. This needeth no proofe, for vve fee 1t vvith our eles. Looke vpon the Caluinifts and Puritanes athome, the Lutherans , Zuinglians, and Caluinifts abrode: read their. bookes vvritten vehemently ;'oncfe& againft an other : are not their expofitions of one and the fame Scriptureas diuerfe and contrarie, as their opinions differ one from an other* Letthe example at home be, their controuerfie aboutthe diftin&ion of Ecclefiafiical degrees, Arch-bifhop, Bifhop, and miniller : the example abrode, their

diuers imaginations & phantafies vponthete moft :

facred vvordes, Hoc ii corpus meum.

14 Andifyouvvil yet hauea further demonftra- tion, this one may fufficeforal; They reie& Coun- cels, and Fathers, andthe Catholike Churches in: terpretation , vnles-it be agreableto Godsvvord,

and vvhether ft be agreable or no, that Luther fhal .

iudge forthe Lutherans, Caluin forthe Caluinifts, Cartvvright forthe Puritanes, andan other forthe Brethren of lone: breefely *them felues vyil be iudges both of Councels and Fathers whether they expound the Scriptures vvel orno, & euery youth among them vpon confidence of his fpirit and knovvledge vvil faucily controule not oncly one


V vhitak. pa. t UR 17, & 120- ; mu

Tbe Preface

but al the fathers cófenting together, ifit be againft that vvhich they imagine to be the truth. )$" Vvhercvpon it rifeth that one of them defen- [b. pag. τοι) deth this as very vvel faid of Luther, rhat be eflcemed | not the vvorth of avuf b a thonfand Auguflincs, Cyprians, | Churches, againfl bim felf. And an other very finely and figuratiucly, (as he thought) againft the holy Pref. ade} Do&or and Martyr S. Cyprian affirming that the thefes Oxon Church of Rome cannot erre in faith, faith thus: Pardon pag-2s. (me Cyprian, Lvvould gladly beleeue thee, but that belee- ume thee, Y f bould not beleewe the Gofpel.. This is that Li. Confeff. vyhich S. Auguftine faith of the like men, dulcifsime Ae ha vanos effe , non peritos fed perituros , nectam difertos in SU. errore , qua defertos a veritate, And Uthinke verily thacnot only vve, butthe vvifer men among them felucs {mile at fuch cloquence, or pitieit, faying J Cicero de. this orthe like mofl truely, Prodierunt oratores nou, oo adolefcentuls flulte adolefcentuls, 16 The 4 point is,of picking quarels to the ve- ry original text: for alter & change it [ hope they fhal not beable in this vvatchful vvorld of mott vigilant Catholikes, But vvhat they vvould doe, if Beza the 2! Bibles vvere only in their handes and attheir moufe of . commaundement,glieffe by this : that Beza againft Geneva, the euidence of al copiesboth Grecke and Latin,

ο (In his Annot. vpon the new Teft.fet forth in the

Scripture. yere 1556) thinketh aexlos, is more then fhould be in the text Mat.1o : & 7 ἐκχέωθμκνοῦ Luc,22. and amegonuvery atuloie AG.7 : the firft, againft Peters fu.

remacie: the fecond,againft the real prefence of Chrifts bloud in the B. Sacramentithe third, againft the making of vvhatfoeuer images, vvhcther they be adored orno.Thus youfee hovv the moufe of Gencua ( as I told you before of Marcion the moufe of Pontus ) knibblethand gnavveth about it,though he can not bite it of altogether.

5 He

To tbe Reader.

17 Hedoth thelike in fundric places vvhich you may fee in his Annotations AG. 7. v.16. Vvherehe is [aucie againft al copies Greckc and Latin to pro- nounce corruption, corruption , auouching and endeuouring to proue that it muftbe fo, and that vvith thefe vvordes, To vvbat purpofe vould the holy Ghoft,or Lue adde this? a&.8.v.26.But becaufe thofe places concerne no cétrouertie, I fay no more but that he biteth at thetext,and vvould change itac- cording to his imagination,if he might: vvhich is to proud an enterprife for Beza, and {mal reue- rence of the holy fcriptures, {6 to call the very text into controucrfie , that vvhatfocuer pleafeth nothim, crept out of the margent into the text, vvhich is his common and almoft his only con- iccture. ;

18 Hebitcth foreot the vvord ἄγα]ολὴ Luc.1. v. i 78.and vvil not traflate that,but the Hebrue word nos

of the old Teftament. but at ὠδίνας(Α 8. 2. V.24-)

much more,& at door. mile (A&.7.v. 14. )ex- cedingly:but yet after he hath faid al that he could againlt 1t,he concludeth, that be durft not ,and that be bad a confitence , vpon conietture to change any thing. And therfore al this is gnavving only. but inthe Νο, eft. 3 of Luke he maketh no confcience at al , to leaue an. 1556. out thefe w ordes verf.36, Out fuit Cainan,not only ποὺ xajyav. in hisowne tranílation ; but in the vulgar Latin Beza recon- vvhich is ioyned therewith, fayingin his Annot. ded the Non dabitauimus expangere,that is, V ve doubted not to oF the ae put it out: & yvhy iby the 4utboritie of Moyfes Gen. 11. Teftament Vvhereby he fignificth,that it is not in the Nebrue vvith, the Gen.tr. vvhere this poftcritie of Sem is reckened: Bens and foto mainteine the Hebrue veritie (asthey by puuing. call it) in the old Teftament he careth not vvhat out of the become of the Greeke in the πονν Teftament; Grecke text vvhich yet at other times,againft the vulgar Latin SR. jl text, him.

Efa. 6,9.10. Gal. 3.13. πεις κρεµα- pero Gu Foro.


ἔλαζες pre? {DIR "es i" | ;

The Preface

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

19 Butif he haue no other vvay to reconcile both Teitaments,but by ftriking out inthe Greeke of the new ,al that agreeth not vvith the Hebrue of the old Teftament,then let him alter and chage fo many wordes of our Sauiour him fel£, of the Euangeliftes,and of the Apoftles, as, are cited out of the old Teftament, and are not in Hebrue. Vvhich places they know are very many, & when neede is,they {hal be gatheredto their handes. Let him ftrike out ( Mat. 13.v.14.1$.& AG.28.v. 26.17 ) the. vvordes of our Sauiour and $. Paul, cited out of Efay,becaufe they are far otherwife in the He- bruc.Strike out of the epiftleto the Galatiás thefe vvordes,vpon «tree : becaufe in the Hebrue it is on- ly thus. Cur fed is be that is hanged. Deut, x1. in fine. Y ea ftrike out of Davids Pfalmes that which con- cerneth our redemption vpon the Croffe much neerer,rhey haue pearced my bandes et my feete, Put. becanfe inthe Hebruethére isnofuch thing. Let them cóntroulethe Apoftle, Ephe4,for fayidg,dedzt be gawe giftes : becaufe itis both inthe Hebruc and Greeke, (Pfal..67):Accepifli, thou tookeft gifies. and (Hebr, ro) for, corpus apta[H, let them put, aures per- fovafti,becaufe itis fo 1n che Hebrue fal. 40. To be

"5 {hort ,ifal mutt be reformed according tothe He- ** brue, vvhy doth he notin 5. $teuensfermon cut

ofthe number of fiue foules from feuentie fiue, becaufe itis not in the Hebrue? |

20. Muft fuch difficulties and diuerfities be re- folued'by choppingand changing, hacking and hewing the facred text of holy Scripture? Sec in- to vvhat perplexities: wilful herefic and arrogácie hath driuen them. To difcredite the vulgar Latin tranflation of the Bible,andthe fathers expotitiós accor-

Totbe Reader.

according to the fame ( forthatis the original caufe of this) and befides, that they may haue al- w ates this euafion,Ir is not foin the Hebrue,it i5 oiber- wvift in tbe Grecke, and fo {εεπιέ ioly fellowes and great clerkes vnto the ignorant people, what doc they? they admironly the Hebruc in the old Teft. andthe Greeke in the nevv,to be the true and au- thentical text of the Scripture. V vherevpó this fo- lov veth,that they reiect,and muft needes reíe& the Grecke of the old Teft.( called the Septuaginta) as falfe,becaufe it differ eth fré the Hebrue. Vvhich

Their per-

being reicCted,therevpon it folovveth againe,that plexitie in

wherefoeuer thofe places fo difagreing from the Hebrue are cited by Chrift or the Euangeliftes & Apoftles,there alfo they muft be reie&ed , becaufe


both the he- brue text of the old Tef-

they difagree from the Hebrue. and fo yet againe tament, and

it folovveth,that the Greeke text ofthe πενν Tet tament is not truc, becaufe itis not according to the Hebrue veritie: and confequently the wordes of our Sauiour,and vvritings of his Apoftles muft be reformed (το {αγ the. left)becaufe they fpeake according to the Septuaginta, and not according to the Hebrue. ©

21 Al which muft necdes folow if thisbea good confequéce, I findeit not in Moyfes,nor in tbe Hebrue, therfore I (lrooke it owt, as Beza dothand faith con- cerning the forefaid vvordes, Qui fuit Cainan. This confequence therfore let vs fee hovv they vvil iu- füfie : and vvithalletthem tel vs, vvhether the vvil difcredite thenevv Teftament,becaufe of the Scptuaginta,or credite the Septuaginta,becaufe of the nevv Teftamét,or πουν they credite one,& difcredite the other,vvhere both agree & confent together: or,vvhether they vvil difcredite both, for credite of the Hebrue:or rather, whether there be not fome other way torcconcileboth Hebrue and Grecke , better then Bezas impudent prefum-


Greeke text of thenew,

The Preface

ption. Vyhich if they vvil not mainteine, let them flatly confeffe that he did vvickedly , and not ( as they doc) defend euery vvordand deede of their Matfters, be it neuer fo heinous, or falue itat the leaft. How the fa 22 Alas πονν far are thefe men from the mo- thers recon- deíftie of the auncient fathers, and from the hum- cile the ni ble fpiritof obedient Catholikes, vvho fecke αἱ nS ane other meanes to refolue εν μη: rather then τὸ ' . doe violence to the facred Scripture, and vvhen Li.18-de Ci- they finde no vvay , i: leaueitto God, S. Au- Leathe gufline concerning the difference of the Hcbrue s ην andthe Greeke , faith often tothis effe&, tharit C. 15, pleafed the holy Ghoft to vtter bythe one , that vvhich he vvould not vtter by the other. And $. Hexam,li.3. Ambrofe thus, V vebanue found many things not idly cap.6. added of tbe 70 creche i interpreters S. Hierom,tbough an earneft patrone of the Hebrue (not vvithout caufe,being at that time perhaps the Bebrue veritie in deede) yet giucth many reafons for the diffe- rences jd Septuaginta ; and concerning the forcfaid places of $. Luke , he doth iind arcafon Cóment. in 18. EG. and thereof, both forthe 7o, and for the 1angelift in queftion, that RE HE them, neither doubting of the truth Ἠευταί, thereof, nor controuling them by the autboritieo Moyfes (as Beza fpcaketh) that is, by the Hebrue. Others fay concerning Cainan that Moyfesmight Ieaue him out in the "Genealogie of Sem, byt the inftin& ofthe fame Spirit, that S. M ache v left out three kings inthe genealogie of our Sauiour, Vvhere ifa man vvould controule the Euangelift by the Hebruc ofthe old T'eftament that isrcad in the bookes ofthe kings, he fhould beas vvife and PrzfinAA. as honeft a man as Beza. Laftly, Vencrable Bede Apoft. thinketh it fufficient in this very difficultie of Cainan, to maruel at it rcuerently , rather then to Ísarche 4i dangeroufly, And thus far of picking quarels

In Proem. li.Paralip.


To the Reader,

quarels to the original text, and their good vvilto alter and change it as they lift, if they might be fuffered, 23 Vvhich alfo may be proued by al their falfe Thes.abute tranflations (being the principal point Í meaneto 9f Seriptu- {peake of) moft euidently. For as noyy they tranf- Med cd late falfely to their purpofe, becaufe they can not yyhich is alterthe text: fovyould they, ifitvvere pofiible, the argumét haue the textagreabletotheirtranílation. For cx- "A P ample, he that tranflateth, ordinances, vv hen it is in wie) y! the original Greeke text zuflifications,and traditions, he vvould rather that it vvere, ordinances, alo in the Greeke:but becaufe he cannot bring that about, he doth at the leaft yvhat he can ,to make thei rant belecue it isfo, by fotranflating it. 24 And this of al other isthe moft ineand fubtil treacherie againft the Scriptures , to deceiue the ignorant readers vyithal, (vvhich S. Paul calleth 2 Cor, 4. the fecrete things of difboneftie, and 4dulteretmg of the vvord of God , as it vyere mingling vvatcr vvith vvine like falfe vinteners) vvhen they giue them for Gods vvord, & vnder the name of Gods word, their ovvne yvordes, and not Gods ; forged and

ΐ framed , altered and changed, according to diffe- rences of times, and varictic ofnevy Opinlons,and diuerfitie ofhumors and fpirits, diuerfely and dif. fcrently, one Heretike not only corre&ing his fel- τα δν Ἰονν euery day, butone egrely refuting and refcl- ne AH ling an other, * Bucer, and the Ofrandrians and their trant. Sacramentaries againft Luther for falfe traníla- lations, tions: Luther againft Munfler , Beza againft Cafta- Nest leo, Caftaleo againít Beza, Caluin againft Seructus, Lind: Hb Mlyricus both againft Caluin and Beza ; The Puii- pag. 94,56. tanes cótroulethe groffer Caluiniftesof our Coun- 58. trie, yeathe later tranflations ofthe felf fame He- pus Zuingl. retikes controule the former excedingly, not only coven’

. à Tone μπι Y Confeft. Ti- οἱ ouerfights, but of vvilful falfifications , asit 1s gurinorum.



The Preface

ibid.pag.33. notorious in the * later editions of Luther and Tr Béza,and in our Englifh Bibles fet forth in diuers yeres,from Tindal their firft tranflatour vntil this The πονν | day: yea ( vvhich is more) the Englífh traflatours Teft. of the of Bezas nevv Teftament , controule him and his PN 1589. trapflation vvhich they proteft to folcvy, * being uc,3,364 e. . ΝΕ me | afraid fomctime and af hamed το expreffe in En- Aart glifh his falfe tranflations in the Latin. 1,14, & : : 22) AG AR θεμα this Caralogue of diffentions falfifiers $T and difagreing tranflatours, I vvil not greatly rippe vp old faultes neither abrode,nor at home. I The Germa, leaue Luthers falfe tranflations into the German Frenche,and tongue,to the credite of $taphylus, Apolog.part.2. Engli(h cor. and Emferus,praf.Annot. 2 no. Tefl. Luth. deser ΑΡΗΣ 9! German vvriters of his ovvne time,that {ανν them Teftament. and readde them,and reckened the nüber of them * See Lind. jn thenevy Teftamét only,about * 1400 heretical DubitP-$4 corruptions : Ileaue. Caluins and Bezas frenche

$C. E ; οι corruptions, to fo many vvorthie men as*haue thereft. | noted them in their fréche bookes againft the faid

heretikes : Tindals and his companions corruptiós in their firft Englifh bible,to our learned coütrie- men of that age, & namely to theright Reuerend Fatherand Confeflor Bifhop Tonttal, vvho in a fermon openly protefted that he had found in the nevv Teftament only,no lefle then two thoufand, *Lind.pub. If vve knovv it not,or vvil not beleeuc it,* ftran- pag.98. gers in their Latin vvritings teflihe it to the vvorld. 16. But Loniitthefeasvnknovven toour coun- The authors " : Jurys 3 intét in this tric,or to thisage,and vvil deale principally vvith booke. the Englifh tranflations of our timejvvhich are in euery mans handes vvithin our countrie.the cor- ruptions vvhcreof,as thevare partly touched here andthere in the Annotations vpon the late nevy Enelifb Teftament Catholikely tranflated & prin- tcd at Rhemes, fo by occafion thereof, I vvil by Gods

Tothe Reader,

Gods help,to the better cómoditie of the reader,

and euidence of the thing, lay themclofer toge.

ther,and morc larg ely.difplay them,not counting

the number ,becaufe it vvere hard, but efleeming

the vveight & importance of fo many as {thought

good to note, {pecially in the nevv Teftament,

Vvhere { haue to aduertife the Reader of certaine

{pecial things, vvhich he muft obferue. ow s η Ma 1 Certaine ad.

27 ΕΙ, chatin this booke he may uot looke ο siemens

the proofe or explication & deciding of contro- to the Rea

ucriies, Vvhich isdone in the Annotations vpon der,

thenéw Teftament, but only the refuting or con-

trouling of theirfalfé tranflations concerning the

faid controuerfies, ywhich is the peculiar argum.

of tliistreatifc.

28 "Secondly; that yve refute fomctime one ot

their tranilations , fometime an other,’ and euery

one ds their falfhod giueth occafion. Neither is it

a'good'defenfe for the falthiod of one, that it is

trucly tranflated in other : the reader being de-

ceiued by any one, becaufe commonly he readeth

but che, Yea one of them i$á códe mnatión of the

other. oy ag Pp ME

19. Thirdly that we peake indifferently againft

Proteftants, Caluiniftes, Bezites, and Puritans,

vvithoutátiy curious diftin&ion of them , being

alamong them feluesbretliren and pewfello wes,

and fometime the one fort of them , fometiine the

otlter} "hore orleffe corrupting the. holy $crip- ,

tutes, nz

30' ^ Bourthly,that we eiue buta taftoftheir cor-

ruptions;not feing fo far nor markitig alfo nar-

rowlyand fkilfully:, às thiéin felues knoyy their

ovvacifubtelties and meanings, vvho vil fmile at

theplacesyvhich we hate not efpied. ^

3r; oBifthly; thatthé very vfeand atfc&ation of

certainetermes;and auoiding other fome, though

OS OBA Kit be

| Diis 2D!

The Preface.

it be no demonftration againft them, but that they may fecme to defend it for true tráflation,yct was it neceflaric to be noted, becaufe it is & hath been alvvaiesatoken of heretical meaning.

3& Sixtly, that in explicating thefe things, vve hauc endeuoured to auoid ( as much as vvas poffi- ble) the tediou{nes of Greeke & Hebrue vvordes, yvhich are only forthe learned in thefe tongues, and yvhich made fome litle doubt vvhether this matter ( vvhich of neceffitie muft be examined by them ) vveretobe vvritten in Englifh or no. but being perfuaded by thofc ( vvho them felues haue no tial in the faid tógues)that euery reader might reape commoditie thereby,to the vnderftanding & detefting of fuch falfe and Heretical tranflations, it vvasthought good to make it vulgar and com- mon to al our decre countrie men,asthe nevv Te- ftament it felf is cOmon,vvhereof this Difcouerie isasitvvere an. handmaid , attending therevpon forthe larger explication and proofe of corrup- tionsthere breefely touched , and for fupplie of other fome not there