Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 12

Answer to Reynolds Book · Chapter 12

p. 227CHAP. 12.

Concerning the Latine Bible, which the aduerſaries maintaine to be more ſincere, then the Hebrewe now extant.

A Man would thinke that common reaſon,pag. 281. &c. and ſome regard of learned iudgements might more preuaile which our aduerſaries, then that they ſhould openlie defend ſo foule an aſſertion, as in this Chapter Master Rainolds taketh vponupon him to maintaine by warrant of the Tridentine aſſemblie, that the vulgar latine tranſlation is more ſincere then the Hebrewe and Greeke text of ſcripture. For though he adde this exception, in ſundrie places, yet their meaning is, that not onelie in certaine places, but generallie their latine Bibles are more pure and incorrupt then the Hebrew and Greeke text, becauſe vniuerſallie in their tranſlation they pretend to follow the latin, & not the Hebrew of the olde Teſtament, nor Greeke of the new: and ſo was it in their aſſemblie of p. 228Trente decreede. Admit this were true, that you entend here to prooue, doth it follow therefore that the Latine Bible is wholly to be preferred before the Hebrew & Greeke?Though the hebrew …ext were in ſome places not ſo pure as the latin: tranſlatiō yet might not this be a good reaſon to prefer the tranſlation before the text generallie. to be onelie followed in tranſlations? to be vſed onelie in all diuinitie excerciſes? If the latine were in ſome places purer then the Hebrew, might not yet the Hebrew be in many moe purer and ſincerer then the Latine? Then this is but a ſlender ſhift, to pretend more purenes in the Latine in diuerſe places, then in the originall text, and hereupon to thruſt the text behinde the tranſlation: which is more fooliſh & vnreaſonable, then to make the Ladie walke one foote like a ſeruant, and ſet her handmaide one horſebacke, becauſe perhaps the ſeruant is thought in ſome things to be more excellent then her miſtreſſe.

Lucas Brugenſis, Freneiſ. Lucas in Epiſt. ad Serletum.a man of your owne houſholde, and one that hath taken much paines. to correct your Latine tranſlation, confeſſeth, that manie faultes hauehave crepte into the ſame by diuers occaſions: which, he ſaith, is no maruell, ſeeing the like hath fallen out in the verie fountaine it felfe, as it is plaine in the new Teſtament in Greeke. For (ſaith he) of the olde in Hebrew, I will ſpeake p. 229nothing: not daring to affirme, that ſuch faultes hauehave taken place in the hebrew text of the olde Teſtament. But you are bolde blindelie and bluntlie to auouch that both theſe fountaines are not onelie corrupted, but more corrupted alſo then your tranſlation, which Lucas was afraid and aſhamed once to inſinuate. Your reaſons, if you bring anie, ſhal in their ſeueral places following be examined but good reaſon for your defence in this behalfe, am I aſſured can none be brought.

Three things the Reader muſt cary in minde at your requeſt. Firſt, 1that we pretending to tranſlate after the Greeke and Hebrew, in ſundrie places ſwarue from the Greeke and Hebrewe, as you prooue by diuers examples out of Maſter Martine. Secondlie, 2that our departing from the Greeke, is alwaies in matter of controuerſie. Thirdlie, 3that you decline not from the Greeke, or Hebrewe, becauſe it more harmeth your cauſe then the Latine, but for other cauſes. Whatſoeuer Gregorie Martine, to whome you referre your ſelfe, hath written of theſe points, it hath beene alreadie confuted, and yet ſtandeth confuted; and therefore no p. 230more needeth to be anſwered. What cauſes moued you to preferre the latine before the Hebrew or Greeke, it ſhall appeare in place: reaſons I know are rendred in the preface of your tranſlation by your Remiſh tranſlatours, but ſuch as any man of skil and knowledge maie eaſilie eſpie to be ſimple ſhiftes and pretences onelie to ridde your ſelues from the originall text of ſcripture,The papiſts condemne the Originall text and defende the vulgar tranſlation, becauſe that ſerueth their turne nothing ſo wel in ſhew as this. which is far more expreſſe and pregnant againſt your doctrines then the latine tranſlation. Which though M. Rainolds here cloſelie denieth, yet in examples euerie where maie be ſeene, and ſome I will ſett downe, partlie for M. Rainolds ſake, and partlie to ſhew I hauehave no neede of his excuſe from a lie.

In the 14. Chapter of S. Iohns goſpell ver. 26. where our ſauiour Chriſt telleth his Apoſtles, The holie ghoſt ſhall bring into your remembrance, whatſoeuer I hauehave ſaid to you, the Remiſh tranſlators hauehave made him thus to ſpeake, ſhall ſuggeſt vntounto you all things, whatſoeuer I ſhall ſaie to you, according to the latine vulgare, that it might be more eaſilie ſuppoſed, whatſoeuer the Church ſhould afterwardes determine, is from inſpiration of the holie ghoſt.

p. 231Epheſians Chapter. 2. verſ. 10. the Apoſtle in the Greeke writeth that we are created in Chriſt vntounto good workes: you tranſlate after your latine, in good workes. This corruption is aduantage to your doctrine of good workes.

In the ſame epiſtle Chapter. 5. verſ. 32. you translate this is a great ſacrament, to make men think that the ſcriptures affirme mariage to be a ſacrament of the Church: whereas if you had truelie translated it according to the Greeke, This is a great myſterie, the occaſion of that ſurmiſe had bene remoued. In the epiſt. to the Pihl. Chap. 1. v. 27. the greeke word, which ſignifieth a ſigne, or token, or proofe, is in your latine vulgare translated a cauſe: and this translation do you keepe, the rather thereby to induce your readers to beleeue, that as the malitious dealing of wicked aduerſaries againſt the godlie maie truelie be ſaid to be the cauſe of their perdition, ſo likewiſe the patience of the godlie is a cauſe of their ſaluation: whereas the Apoſtle onelie ſaieth in this place, that the raging of the enemies againſt the Church is a manifeſt argument of their condemnation, and the conſtant ſuffering of the godly is a certaine p. 232ſigne and teſtimony of their ſaluation, who ſeeth not herein what cauſe you had to like better of the latine tranſlation, then of the originall text?

Luke Chap. 10. v. 35. the words are in the Greeke, whatſoeuer thou ſpendeſt more: which you tranſlate, whatſoeuer thou ſhalt ſupererogate. This corruption maketh ſome ſhewe for your workes of ſupererogation.

Luke Chap. 1. v. 48. the bleſſed virgine ſaith, God hath looked on the lowe eſtate of his handmaid: you tranſlate, the humilitie of his handmaid. This corruption helpeth your doctrine of merites. So an other corruption in the ſame Chapter, v. 28. tending to the ſame purpoſe, where you hauehave tranſlated, Haile full of grace: the Greeke and originall texte hath onelie, Haile thou freelie beloued. In the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes, chap. 13. v. 16. you tranſlate, with ſuch hoſtes god is promerited: which is both a fonde and falſe tranſlation, the Greeke words being, with ſuch ſacrifices God is delighted, meaning almes and diſtribution.

In the ſecond Ep. of S. Peter Chap. 1. v. 15. you hauehave ſtrangely tranſlated the Apoſtles words, I will doe my diligence, you to hauehave often after my deceaſe alſo, that you may keepe p. 233a memorie of theſe thinges, and vponupon this diſordered tranſlation you hauehave made a long note of Peters care and protection of the Church after his death: whereas the Apoſtle in his owne wordes ſaith no more, but that he would endeuour dailie, that they alſo might hauehave remembrance of thoſe things after his departure. A pretie ſleight in tranſlating for aduantage, where the Apoſtle ſaieth, he would endeuour that they might remember thoſe thinges after his deceaſe, to make him ſaie, that he would hauehave them in remembrance after his deceaſe; and then of this falſe tranſlation to note what a paſtorall care S. Peter hath for the Church after he was deceaſed. In the epiſtle of S. Paule to the Romanes chap. 11. v. 6. the common tranſlator hath left out this whol ſentence together, But if it be of workes, it is no more grace: or els were worke no more worke: and theſe wordes hauehave you alſo in your Engliſh tranſlation cleane omitted, as though they were no parte of ſcripture, being the Apoſtles vndouted words no leſſe, then the other that went before. What cauſe was there of this dealing, but onelie to ſmother that cleere oppoſition between merite and grace, which the Apoſtle hath p. 234in his owne words declared, if he might be ſuffered to ſpeake all.

A number ſuch places could I alledge, where the vulgar tranſlation, differing and ſwaruing from the vndoubted originall text, is by you followed, becauſe it carieth ſome ſound and ſhewe of your opinions and errors. Manie excuſes may you make for your ſelues, & your tranſlatours hauehave in their preface handſomely laid out their excuſes, (which I doubt not ſhal be weied and examined throughlie) but ſoone may anie man perceiue, what cauſe indeede moued you to be ſo friendlie to the tranſlation, and ſoe harde to the text: becauſe the texte doth plainlie diſcouer your nakednes, the tranſlation bringeth ſome ſmall ragges to hide it.

Before you anſwere my arguments alledged for defenſe of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte,pag. 285. you ſet downe certaine words of mine, wherein I ſeeme (you ſay) to auouch, that onelie to be the worde of God, which is written in the language, wherein firſt the holie ghoſt by the Prophets and Apoſtles vttered it.No cauill ſo ſimple which M.R. will not vſe. My words are plaine, Maſter Rainolds, my meaning cannot ſeeme ambiguous: you ſeeke not p. 235for truth, but for a cauill. The word of God I know maie be vttered in other languages, then wherein firſt it was by writing deliuered to the Church: and tranſlations agreeing with the originall texte are the word of God. For Gods worde is not the language, but the doctrine. Howbeit tranſlations ſet forthe by ſundrie perſons are ſo farre forth onelie the word of God, as they faithfully expreſſe the meaning of the Authenticall text, the which being written by the Prophets and Apoſtles, choſen inſtruments for that purpoſe, is wholly and vndoubtedlie the worde of God. Then it may worthelie be wondered at in you, whoe taking vponupon you to tranſlate the new teſtament into engliſhe, hauehave not tranſlated the text of the Apoſtles and Euangeliſts, but the tranſlation of S. Ierome or ſome other, you know not whome: which tranſlation in verie manie places is corrupte, and therefore in thoſe places cannot be the word of God. Religion and reaſon would hauehave required that in tranſlating the ſcriptures you ſhould hauehave followed the originall fountaines,Abſurd to tranſlate a tranſlation of Scriptures rather then the fountaines. yea although the latine tranſlation hadde bene much perfecter and purer then it is: how p. 236much more ought you to hauehave ſoe done, ſeing it be wrayeth ſoe manifeſt and manifold corruptions as it doeth?

But your reaſons,pag. 287. whereby you labour to iuſtifie your doing in this behalfe, muſt be examined.M.R. reaſons, why they might tranſlate according to a tranſlation, anſwered. Our Sauiour, the Euangiliſts, & Apoſtles (you ſay) cited places of the old teſtament, not according to the Hebrew, but according to the Septuagints. Firſt, Maſter Rainolds, your compariſon is not equall. What are ye to Chriſt, to his Euangeliſts, and Apoſtles? will you be bolde to take as much vppon you, as they might? herein doubtles you hauehave not ſo wiſelie be thought your ſelfe. Then, ſhew if you can a place alledged by our ſauiour Chriſt, or anie Euangeliſt, or Apoſtle, ſwaruing in ſenſe from the Hebrew. They cite not alwaies the words, but they keepe moſt truelie the ſenſe and meaning euer more. Laſtlie it is one thing to tranſlate the ſcripture, and an other to cite a place of ſcripture. In citing a place, it is ſufficient to obſerue the true meaning, in tranſlating it is neceſſarie to keepe the wordes, as neare as maie be. Our ſauiour, his Euangeliſts and Apoſtles were no tranſlatours of ſcripture: but they truelie deliuered the ſenſe of p. 237ſuch places, as they alledged out of ſcripture.

The Apoſtle (you ſay) alledging a place out of the pſalme,Pſa. 19.5.Ps 19:5 Their ſound is gone into all the earth, followed not the Hebrew. Firſt I anſwere, the ſenſe is all one,Rom. 10.18.Rom 10:18 whether you tranſlate, their ſound or their line is gone forth: ſecondlie Iohn Iſaac can tell you,Contra Lindā. lib. 3. p. 148. that the hebrew word Kau muſt ſignifie not onelie a line, but alſo as much as Kol, a ſound: which if it be ſo,Act. 13.41.Acts 13:41 then hath the Apoſtle kept the verie word. The place in the Actes which S. Paul citeth out of the Prophet Habacuc, hath no difference in ſubſtance. The Prophet ſaith, Behold among the Gentiles, &c. The Apoſtle citeth the place thus,Habac. 1.5. Behold ye ſcorners. Howſoeuer ſome diuerſitie maie appeare in the wordes, the purpoſe of the Prophet and Apoſtle is all one: and this was the thing which the Apoſtles regarded in alledging authorities out of the old Teſtament.

Your third example in Saint Iames ſheweth,Iam. 4.6.Jas 4:6 that the Apoſtle cited the words of the Greeke, & not of the hebrew: which is graunted to be oftentimes in the new Teſtament vſed. But to alledge the ſenſe of a place, & therin to follow ſome tranſlation, p. 238is another thing, then to tranſlate the text it ſelfe. The Hebrew text is to this ſenſe, He mocketh the mockers, and giueth grace to the meeke: Pron. 3.34.Saint James rehearſeth the wordes thus, God reſiſteth the proud, and giueth grace to the humble. The ſenſe is not altered, ſeeing theſe mockers are the proude men of this world, and God mocketh them, when he reſiſteth them.

But tell me now, whether you think the Hebrew in theſe places to be corrupt, or no. I think you dare not ſo affirme, ſeeing your latine vulgar, which you account authenticall, agreeth with the Hebrew, for the two laſt places. Then what is your argument out of theſe examples? gladly would I vnderſtand, if you could tell. That Chriſt and the Apoſtles cited places out of the olde teſtament according to the Greeke,HaueHave an eie to M.R. concluſion, and it ſhal appeare he ſpeaketh beſide the purpoſe. was it becauſe the Hebrew was contaminated, as you ſpeake? If it were, then muſt you confeſſe your latine tranſlation, which you ſo much eſteeme to be full of corruption. Would you tranſlate theſe places according to the Greeke, becauſe you finde them cited by the Apoſtles according to the Greeke? Expound your dreame, Maſter Rainolds your, ſelfe, and p. 239tell vsus what you ſaw. Caluine you charge for cutting the place of Iames cleane awaie. Lay not the Printers fault vppon Caluine. If he had meant, as you ſurmiſe, he would hauehave cut the ſame ſentence out in Saint Peter alſo. But there you hauehave it ſet downe in the text, and expounded in the commentary.

Your ſppoſes hauehave ſmall weight to ground an argument vponupon:pag. 290. you may deuiſe and imagine any thing what you liſte. EueryEvery canonicall booke of the olde teſtament is extant in the ſame language wherin it was written. As for your bookes of Tobie, Iudith, Machabees, it is no matter in what tongue, or by whome they were ſet forth. That S. Matthewe writ his Goſpell in Hebrew, is affirmed, I graunt, by auncient fathers, but affirmed onelie, not prooued: and arguments there be manie to the contrarie. But admit that ſo it were: the Greeke was ſet forth in the Apoſtles daies, as the ſame authors confeſſe, and by them commended to the Church, as the true and authenticall hiſtory written by S. Matthewe, and of vsus is ſo to be accounted. As for the Hebrew of that Goſpell now extant, your ſelfe beleeue not, I thinke, it is the ſame, p. 240that, Saint Matthew writ, if he writ anie at all in Hebrue. Looke now to the force of this ſuppoſition a litle better your ſelfe, & if you hauehave grace to conſider it aright, which you ſaie is wanting in me, you will confeſſe it prooueth nothing.

My words by you tranſlated I acknowledge:pag. 291. &c. out of which three things you note. 1Firſt that I confeſſe you refuſe not the fountaines, but becauſe you thinke them to be corrupt: which yet is not by me any where confeſſed. The fountaines indeed you refuſe, and of this refuſall the reaſon you pretend to be, that they are corrupt. Yet thinke I not, that ſo you are in trueth perſwaded, it being contrarie to all reaſon, that the tranſlation generallie ſhould be more pure and incorrupt, then the fountaine it ſelfe, from whence it is deriued.

Secondlie, 2that I affirme you thus to ſay becauſe the fountaines be not ſo commodious for you, as the tranſlation. This to be the true cauſe in deede any man may ſoone perceiue, that throughlie & indifferentlie conſidereth your dealing: & this in ſome examples I hauehave alreadie ſhewed, and can more at large declare, when occaſion ſhall require. 3Thirdlie that I tell you the p. 241fountaines are more pure and holeſome, then the latine edition. Verilie this I beleeue, and this can I prooue, and this ſhal in the diſcourſe following appeare, whatſoeuer you hauehave alledged, or can alledge to the contrarie.

In your entrie to the queſtion you thinke to gaine credit to your vulgare tranſlation by S. Ieromes authoritie,pag. 294. who was requeſted by Damaſus Biſhop of Rome to correct the latine tranſlation of the new Teſtament.Hier. in prefat, in nonū Teſt. S. Ierome I reuerence, Damaſus I commend, the worke I confeſſe to be godlie & profitable to the Church. But if Ierome or Damaſus maie bring anie waight of commendation to your latine tranſlation, how much more ought we to hauehave in high and holie reuerence the Hebrewe and Greeke text, which was written, not by Ierome, or anie ſuch father of meane credite, but by the Prophets, by the Apoſtles and Euangeliſts, not at the requeſt of Damaſus, or other like Biſhop, but by commaundement from God, and direction of the holie Ghoſt? S. Ierome tooke paines at Damaſus requeſt in the foure Euangeliſts: of his owne accord in manie bookes of the olde Teſtament: but this maketh nothing for your aſſertion, p. 242but much rather againſt it. For of this it plainlie appeareth at the firſt to euerie one, that in S. Ieromes daies, the vulgar tranſlations were greatlie corrupted, and that S. Ierome reformed the ſame by the Hebrew and Greeke text,In S. Ieromes daies the Hebrewe and Greeke text acknowledged more ſincere then all tranſlations. which argueth that the text was in thoſe daies generallie without contradiction acknowledged to be purer then all tranſlations whatſoeuer. Then if ſuch corruption crept into the Hebrewe and Greeke texte, as you affirme, it was after S. Ieromes daies: but when & in what manner, you cannot tell. Againe that you ſaie this edition of S. Ierome was by Damaſus ſupreame authoritie commended to the Church, maie eaſilie be diſprooued: or if he laboured to hauehave it in the Latine Churches receiued, yet could he not bring it to paſſe.Ieromes tranſlation not eſpeciallie vſed in the Roman Church for two hundred yeares after Ierome. Greg. in. epiſt. ad Leand. For both other Churches vſed it not, and in the Church of Rome it was not in anie ſingular eſtimation for the ſpace of two hundred yeares after S. Ierome, and Damaſus, as we may vnderſtand by S. Gregorie, whoe writeth, that in his daies the Romane Church vſed two tranſlations, an old and a new. This newe is the ſame, which now is called the olde. The name of High Prieſt, if you thinke it maketh anie thing p. 243for the Popes ſupreame authoritie, you are abuſed through your owne ignorance. It was a name belonging as well to euerie Biſhop, eſpeciallie of the chiefe Churches, as to Damaſus. But of ſuch ſpeaches you can be content to take aduantage to the abuſing of the ſimple.

Foure thinges doe you propound to your ſelfe to prooue, concerning your vulgar tranſlation: Firſt, 1that I hauehave ſaide nothing to purpoſe againſt it. Second, 2that it is purer then the fountaines. Third, 3that although it hath ſome ſmall faults, yet abſolutelie it hath no errour touching either doctrine or manners. Laſt, that to refuſe it, and appeale to the Greeke and Hebrewe, is the highe waie to deniall of all faith, to Apoſtaſie and Atheiſme. Theſe thinges Maſter Rainolds hath thus deuided not amiſſe: now let vsus examine his proofes of theſe points for performance of his promiſe.

1Firſt you ſaie that in commending the fountaines ſo much,pag. 297. I have ſpoken nothing againſt you, but rather much and all againſt my ſelfe. If you can make your ſaying good herein, we ſhall hauehave cauſe much to commend your witt and learning. The p. 244reaſon that you hauehave brought, is by you vttered in theſe words following. For if the fountaines were ſo pure in the times of S. Ierome and S. Ambroſe, and the Church then troubled with great diuerſitie of their Latine Bibles, reformed one to the puritie of the fountaines and originals, and we now finde thoſe fountaines and originals differing from that reformed bible, whie ſhall we not conclude, that the fountaines hauehave in the meane ſeaſon bene corrupted? And what cauſe hauehave you thus to conclude? where hauehave you learned to make ſuch concluſions? thinke you that this concluſion is ought worth? Let vsus waie it a litle together, Maſter Rainolds, and then ſhall we better eſteeme the value of it. Firſt you graunt the fountains were pure in S. Ierome and S. Ambroſe daies: the tranſlations corrupt. Doubtles it greeueth you to confeſſe thus much, but the neceſſitie of confeſſing the ſame enforced you. Then foure hundred yeares after Chriſt by M. Rainolds confeſſion the fountaines of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte were pure,The fountaines of the Hebrew and Greeke text pure for the ſpace of four hundred yeares after Chriſt by the aduerſaries confeſſion. and all tranſlations were reformed by them. Now let vsus knowe ſome certentie of the great alteration that followed. What cauſe was there that the fountaines and originals remained p. 245pure ſo long, and then after began to be ſo ſhamefullie and vniuerſallie corrupted? Againe, what was the cauſe that the latine tranſlations were ſo greatly corrupted for ſo long a ſpace, and neuer ſince could be corrupted? Tell vsus ſome truth, ſhewe ſome reaſon, alledge your authorities, ſpeake to purpoſe, and leaue theſe vntoward preſumptions. The ſame meanes that kept the text pure all that while, whie might it not continew in times following? if you laie the fault of corrupting the fountaines vponupon the Iewes, as you doe, were there no Iewes in the world, for the ſpace of foure hundred yeares after Chriſt, or were they either vnwilling or vnable to attempt ſuch a matter? it cannot be denied, but that within the compaſſe of thoſe yeares the Iewes had as great opportunities and greater, to hauehave performed ſo wicked an enterpriſe, then ſince that time can be deuiſed. Their malice againſt Chriſtian religion was no leſſe then, the number of their learned Rabbines was as great then, the troubles of the Church of Chriſt by reaſon of the great and general perſecutions, gaue better occaſion to them then: therefore if this corruption hath thus mightilie preuailed p. 246in the text, may it pleaſe you to enforme vsus how and when it began: which requeſt ought not in anie wiſe ſeeme vnreaſonable vntounto you. For if you maie demaund of vsus the time wherein corruption beganne to enter into the Church, and otherwiſe wil not beleeue vsus that there is anie in the Church, may not we likewiſe require of you by as good reaſon, what time this foule corruption, wherof you ſpeake, firſt began to ſeaſe vponupon the texte of ſcripture? and if you cannot tell, how may you looke to be herein beleeued? The Iewes muſt be charged for all, and the hatred which the Iewes beare to our religion, muſt be an argument that now all is corrupted in the Hebrew.

Saint Ierome ſaide he was aſhamed to ſee the Chriſtians thus vnworthily and vntrulie charge the Hebrew veritie with corruption:H…eron in. c. 17. Ierem. And ſo may we alſo trulie ſaie, that it is a ſhame for theſe men to ſlaunder the Hebrew texte, and to accuſe the Iewes of that fault, whereof they are not guiltie, for ought that can be prooued in this behalfe againſt them.Auguſt. de civit, Dei. lib. 15. cap. 13. And S. Auguſtine entreating at large of a place, read otherwiſe in the Greeke and Latine tranſlations, p. 247then in the Hebrew text, not onelie diſchargeth the Iewes from all ſuſpicion of corrupting their bookes, but giueth this rule, that whenſoeuer there is found any variety or difference in the texts, we ſhould geue greateſt credit to that tongue, out of which the interpreters hauehave made their tranſlation. VponUpon which place Lewes Viues writeth thus,Ludou, Viues ibid. This ſame doth Ierome auouch, and this reaſon it ſelfe teacheth: there is none of ſound iudgement that thinketh otherwiſe. But in vaine doth the conſent of good witts thus thinke. For ſtout ſenſleſnes, as it were an hil, is oppoſed against it: not becauſe theſe men are ignorant of thoſe tongues, (for Auguſtine knew not the Hebrew & the Greeke, but meanlie) but there is not in theſe men that modeſtie of minde, that was in Auguſtine. He was readie to be taught of all: they will neuer learne but alwaies teach that they know not. Thus hath Viues wtitten of you Maſter R. and ſuch abſurd and ſenſles fellowes as you, that againſt reaſon and truth will defend your tranſlations, although differing neuer ſo much from the originall tongues, becauſe you are too ſtout, and want modeſtie.

And for the Iewes thus much may be p. 248anſwered, that howſoeuer they miſlike and hate our religion, yet the text of holy ſcripture they hauehave euermore, and yet ſtill doe keepe moſt religiouſlie and carefullie. Which may appeare, for that there be,Ioan. Iſaac. Contra Lindan. lib. 2. pa. 77. as Ioannes Iſaac, a learned Iewe, writeth, aboue two hundred arguments againſt the Iewiſh opinions more euident and expreſſe in the Hebrew text of the old teſtament, then they be in the latine tranſlation. And ſo likewiſe ſaith Andradius,Andrad. lib. 4. Defenſ. Trident. that they, which holylie and religiouſlie handle the Hebrew text, finde therein farre more not able teſtimonies of Chriſt, then in the Latine and Greeke copies. which alſo Saint Ierome long ſince hath witneſſed,Hier. epiſt. 74. ad. Marcell. ſaying, that when he of purpoſe compared the Hebrew text with a Greeke tranſlation, to ſee whether the Iewes had not chaunged ſome thing in the Hebrew bookes through enuie that they bare to Chriſt, he found therein much more for confirmation of Chriſtian faith: which could not hauehave beene ſo, if the Iewes had of malice to Chriſt corrupted their Bibles, as now is by our aduerſaries vntruly ſurmiſed.

What madnes then ſhould driue them to corrupt the text, to no hindrance of our p. 249religion, to no furtherance of theirs? who doubteth, but if they had meant ſuch a thing, they would hauehave practiſed their skill in thoſe places eſpeciallie, that doe moſte directlie concerne the Goſpell of Chriſt, which being otherwiſe, your coniecture of the Iewes dealing about the Hebrew text is fooliſh, and falſe.

You declame againſt the ignorance and reprobate minde of the Iewes: you ſet forth the promiſes made to the Church, of hauing alwaies the truth. And thinke you that this maketh anie thing for you? Do theſe promiſes of gods ſpirit and truth made to the Church belong onelyonly to the latine Church? are they included onelie in the latine tranſlation? What ſhall become then in your iudgement of ſo manie Churches in Greece, in Armenie, in Arabie, in all places of the world, that hauehave no skill of your latine Bibles? HaueHave they no ſpirit, no ſcripture, no truth? doth your Tridentine decree appertaine vntounto them alſo of vſing onelie the latine text in ſermons, in lectures, in expoſitions, in diſputations? what meane you to talke in this manner?

You ſay, God hath promiſed the Church, p. 250that ſhe ſhall be a faithfull and perpetuall obſeruer of his word and teſtament, that is, according to your new commentarie, that the Church ſhal loſe the pure fountains of the Hebrew text, but ſhal keepe a pure tranſlation for euer. And ſee you not the vanity of this deuiſe? Confeſſed you not euen now, that in Damaſus daies all the latine tranſlations were corrupt, wherupon S. Ierome was intreated to take vponupon him a labour of correcting them all? Was not the promiſe, whereof you ſpeake, made to the Church,M.R. dreams hang not handſomelie together. before S. Hierome ſet forth his correction? and yet the Churches latine tranſlations were, as your ſelfe confeſſe, in his time full of diuerſities and corruptions. Then if the Bibles in latine were ſo much corrupted, before S. Hierome, by your own confeſſion, notwithſtanding the promiſe that God made the Church of keeping his word and teſtament, can you by this argument prooue, that by force of this promiſe the latine Bibles hauehave not bene corrupted ſince Saint Ieromes time, and the Hebrew hauehave?Auguſt. epiſt. 58. ad quaeſt. 2. S. Auguſtine ſaith it came to paſſe by Gods ſpecial prouidence that the Iewes being ſo continuallie toſſed to and fro, and ſtill continuing their hatred againſt p. 251our ſauiour Chriſt, yet kept the holy ſcriptures, that the truth of Chriſts Goſpel might ſo much the more be approoued amongſt all men, becauſe it receiued ſo ſure & weightie teſtimonies of the moſt malitious enemies. And to this purpoſe he applieth the verſe of the Pſalme, Lord kil them not, leſt they forget thy lawe, but ſcatter them.

Furthermore, al that you can ſay againſt the malice, falſhoode, and ignorance of the Iewes, nothing toucheth the new teſtament: for corruption whereof in the originall Greeke, I maruaile what you can deuiſe, ſeeing it was kept not in the cuſtody of Iewes, or paganes, but of moſte Godly and learned Chriſtians. Yet doe you reprooue it alſo, as well as the Hebrew, of the olde teſtament. what reaſon hauehave you M. Rainolds ſo to doe? was it alſo corrupted ſince S. Ieromes time, as you ſaid of the other? The commentaries and writings of the Greeke fathers wil eaſily conuince you if ſo you ſay. For the text that we hauehave, is the ſame which they followed, expounded, and ſet downe in their writings, except there be in ſome fewe places ſome ſmall difference of reading. If the latine Church had any promiſe to keepe Gods truth and p. 252teſtament in a latine tranſlation, will you denie that the Greeke Church had not the ſame promis to keepe it in the originall text? while you ſeeme to auouch the truth of gods promis toward the latine Church, as though you cared nothing how the Lord dealt with others, ſo he kept touch and couenant with yourſelues, you make him by your argument to be vnfaithful toward the Church of Greece, and all other Churches els in the world. Thus are you driuen into abſurdities and contradictions, as needes you muſt, when you mainetaine willfullie ſuch falſe aſſertions, as theſe.

That Caluine affirmeth the Romane Church to hauehave bene more conſtant,Pag. 300. and leſſe giuen to nouelties then the Eaſt Churches, whereby ſhe obtained greater fame and credit, then the reſt, nothing concerneth this matter. For though it be graunted the Grecians were more factious for the moſt part and wauering, then the Romanes, yet might they retaine the original text of ſcripture, as faithfullie as they. No people ſo froward, ſo malitious, ſo preſumptuous, ſo contentious, ſo hard to be brought vnderunder the obedience of gods p. 253lawes, as the Iewes, and yet for all this peruerſe diſpoſition in them, it is moſte certaine, that they had euermore, and hauehave ſtill the bookes of ſcripture in higheſt reuerence,The Iewes alwaies moſt dilingent in keeping their Bibles from corruption. and keepe them with greateſt diligence, ſo as they would not alter one letter in them for all the world. And notwithſtanding the Romanes greater conſtancie and ſtaiednes then the Grecians, yet were the latine Bibles in S. Hieromes time, more corrupt for the new teſtament, then the Greeke fountaines were. Which maie be vnderſtood vndoubtedlie thereof, for that in anie controuerſie about the latine tranſlation, they alwaies had recourſe to the Greeke copies, and hauehave preſcribed the ſame rule to be followed continuallie: and Saint Hierome himſelfe reformed the latin tranſlations according to the Greeke then extant, & read in the Greeke Churches. Thus then you maie perceaue, that to be conſtant in the profeſſion of Gods trueth, and to be carefull to keepe the text of ſcripture from corruption, are two diuerſe things: which you might hauehave ſoone conſidered, if you had but looked backe to that your ſelfe hauehave written before. For theſe are euen the ſame Grecians, whoſe p. 254exemplars Saint Ierome followed in correcting the Euangeliſts, and which he calleth waters of the moſte pure fountaine, and ſundrie wiſe commendeth.Hieron. Marcellae.

2For proofe that the Hebrew fountaines are by the Iewes corrupted,pag. 303. &c. you bring vsus forth a place out of the prophet Eſaie, Chap. 9. Firſt in that I ſay the Iewes hauehave not corrupted the hebrew text, I ſay no other thing, then that which the moſte learned Papiſts of all times hauehave affirmed:M.R. in this controuerſie hath his maſter papiſts aduerſaries to him, namelie. Iſaac, Clarius, Valla, Andradius, Montanus, Lucas, Bellarmine, and manie moe. and that by the ſame argument, which my ſelfe vſed, that then this corruption moſte certainelie would hauehave appeared in thoſe places that directlie concerne our Sauiour Chriſt: amongſt the which this that you mention here is notable: And although I wil not deny but that the Iewes might hauehave ſome purpoſe to wreſt it from the ſenſe, that it might be aplied to any rather, then to Chriſt, yet the corruption is not ſo greate as you would hauehave it ſeeme, conſiſting not in change of any letter, but only of the pointes. The letters remaining without alteration, whatſoeuer is amiſſe in the pointes, may eaſilie be corrected. Furthermore if we reade the word with the ſame pointes, which now it p. 255commonly hath in the Hebrew Bibles, whereby the verbópaſſiue is turned into an actiue, yet the place notwithſtanding prooueth inuinciblie the Diuinitie of our Sauiour Chriſt. For as well doth it confirme this doctrine, if we read,Vajikrae. & vocabit, that is, God the father ſhall call his name wonderfull, &c, as if we read,Vajikkare. vocabitur, his name ſhall be called wonderfull. Although, you that take vponupon you ſuch profound knowledge and cunning in the Hebrew language, ſhould not hauehave beene ignorant that this is the phraſe of that tongue. That the Iewes refer the laſt name onelyonly, which is the Prince of peace, Sar-shaelom.to the Childe borne, all the reſt going before to God him ſelfe, this I graunt to be a malitious conſtruction of the wordes, but no corruption of the text. One thing is it to expound the wordes in a wronge ſenſe, an other to falſifie the wordes. You hoped no doubte to hauehave gained much more by this place, then will any waies be yelded vntounto you: for that you adde of the Churches authoritie, which you call the ſupreame grounde and ſtay, is nothing worth, being an olde worne and waſted ſentence, brought in raſhelie without credite or p. 256countenaunce. The wordes are plaine of them-ſelues and hauehave in them authoritie and ſtay ſufficient to prooue the trueth of Chriſts diuinitie, and to confute the enemies thereof.

An other ſuch place you obiecte out of the Prophet Ieremie, pag. 306.Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that ſome corruption hath bene committed either in letter or poynt, may be imagined, but cannot by euident demonſtration be prooued.ijcro. What mooued S. Ierome to tranſlate thus, vocabunt eum, They ſhall call him, I will not diſpute. The reaſon might be in the variety, and incertentie of poynts, or in the ambiguous acception of the word. But becauſe M. Rainolds chargeth the Iewes with ſo foule a corruption of this place, only to diſcredite the diuinitie of our Sauiour Chriſt, he muſt remember, that the Seuentie interpreters tranſlated it in the ſingular number, according to the Hebrewe now extant,In comment. ad Hier. ca. 23. as S. Ierom alſo maketh mention, yet were they neuer chalenged for partial interpretation of the ſcriptures, being (as many write) wonderfullie aſſiſted & gouerned in that work, and not ſmallie had of auncient time in regard. And this was long before our ſauiour p. 257Chriſt was come in the fleſh, and therefore vndoubtedlie the place was not corrupted by the Iewes for ſuch a cauſe as you imagine, vnleſſe you will ſaie the Iewes in hatred of Chriſt corrupted the Bible diuerſe hundred yeares before Chriſt was borne, and before they had cauſe to conceiue any malice or diſpleaſure againſt our ſauiour Chriſt. And ſo your Lyranes ſurmiſe is plainelie diſprooued, in which you reſt your ſelfe, as in a certaine veritie, and vponupon his worde are boulde to pronounce ſentence againſt the poore Iewes for committing a crime, which by cleare euidence of greater authoritie they are not guilty of. Neither maketh it leſſe for Chriſts diuinitie, to read it, vocabit, He ſhall cal him, that is, God the father, or, euerie faithful man ſhal call him, The Lord our righteouſnes: then if we reade, vocabunt, They ſhall call him the Lord our righteouſnes. And Saint Hierome (as you might hauehave ſeene, had you looked on the place your ſelfe) tranſlateth the text after this manner, Et hoc eſt nomen, quo vocabunt eum (ſine vocabit eum) Dominus iuſtus noſter, wherein he ſheweth plainelie there is no ſubſtance of matter more in the one, then the other. If this be ſo ſhameful p. 258& ſo notable a corruption, as you in countenaunce and ſhew pretende, S. Hierome was greatly ouerſeene, that not onelie gaue no warning thereof in his Commentarie, but vſed the ſame alſo in the text it ſelfe. But what wil you ſay to thoſe learned men, whoe hauing more skill in the Hebrew tongue then you, Maſter Rainolds, or els your Lyra, thoug a Iewe borne, hauehave tranſlated the word as it is now read in the hebrew Bibles, no otherwiſe then your ſelues would hauehave it to be tranſlated. I meane Arias Montanus and Vatablus, as in their tranſlations you may finde: whoe if they hauehave rightelie and well tranſlated the worde, then may you ſee, that no ſuch wickedneſſe hath bene practized in this place, as you hauehave fathered vpō the Iewes. And furthermore compare an other like place in the ſame Prophet, Chap. 33. v. 15. Where this worde is vſed in the ſingular number without controuerſie, the Prophet ſpeaking againe of the ſame matter, and almoſte whollie in the ſame wordes. Thus you may vnderſtand that the integritie of this place may be auouched, and the Iewes deliuered from your vniuſt accuſation many waies.

p. 259One example more you giuegive mean an other kinde,Pag. 310. wherein no kinde of corruption appeereth at all. In the Prophet Eſay chap. 53. verſ. 8. the old latine tranſlation ſtandeth thus, propter ſcelus populi mei percuſſi eum, For the ſinne of my people hauehave I ſmitten him. The Hebrew text is ſomething otherwiſe,Miphshahh … mi negahh lamo. propter defectionem populi mei plaga ipſi, that is, For the tranſgreſſion of my people was he plagued. Your ſelfe confeſſe there is agreement in the ſenſe, as indeed euerie one maie ſee: yet by and by, as a man without memorie or reaſon, you ſaie the ſenſe is inuerted, & greatlie altered. Something would you gladlie ſaie, but nothing to purpoſe can you ſaie. The ſenſe in the Hebrew now extant, agreeing ſo fullie with the tranſlation of S. Ierome, which you hold as authenticall, and conſonant to the veritie of the auncient Hebrew Bibles, how can you probablie charge the Iewes with corruption of this place, there being no difference, and therefore no corruption in the ſenſe, by your owne confeſſion? If they corrupted the text, it was becauſe they would corrupt the ſenſe: but here the ſenſe runneth as pure and clear in the Hebrew, as in the Latine: therefore this text is not corrupted p. 260by the Iewes.

What Luther hath written of the Iewes and Rabbines endeauour in this behalfe, maketh nothing for your aduantage. Yet as though it had bene by plaine demonſtration declared, that the bibles are corrupted by them, M.R. taketh vponupon him now to ſhew the ſorts and manners of their corruption.

And two he noteth:Pag. 314. 1the firſt is, by plaine alteration of points, letters, and ſyllables: 2the ſecond, by deuiding words, which by the Prophets were ioyned together. And that you maie knowe he hath plentifull ſtore and varietie of examples, Sernetus is alledged, neither Iewe nor Rabbine, whoe by diuiding a texte of the Apoſtle in the Greeke, corrupted the ſenſe. Thus trimlie can M. R. prooue the matter he goeth about, although he ſpeake neuer a word to the queſtion. The controuerſie is whether the Iewes hauehave thus corrupted the Hebrew Bibles: M.R. alledgeth an example, wherein Seruetus of late thus corrupteth the Greek Teſtament. No man now can ſaie, but he hath wel performed his parte, & prooued inuincibly both manifeſt corruption in the Bibles, and ſhewed alſo the manners thereof. More perhaps anon will come to his p. 261hands: for as yet nothing hath he found.pag. 316.

*M.R. ſaith he could note ſundrie other particular errors in the Hebrew, but that he wanteth a peece of that inſolent vaine, which manie of his aduerſaries hauehave. If he wanted nothing els, he need not greatlie to complaine: but doubtles much greater want hath he of truth and learning, then inſolencie. One thing here he confeſſeth which the Reader maie remember,M. Rain, hath made a notable confeſſion againſt himſelfe. that howſoeuer ſome groſſe errors hauehave crept into the fountaines and originals, yet commonlie, and for the moſt parte the text is true and ſincere. Thus M.R. hath voluntarilie proteſted for the Hebrewe and Greeke text. And are there no groſſe errors in your latine tranſlation, or not ſo manie as in the fountaines? it ſhall be prooued there are not onelie groſſer faults in yo… tranſlation, but alſo moe manifeſt corruptions, then you can imagine in the text.

In that you demaund,pag 317. what reaſon I hauehave to thinke the Hebrew text ſo pure, I anſwere, the care which God hath for the truth of his worde, and the diligence of them, to whoſe cuſtodie the ſame was committed. Againſt this reaſon you argue, but without a good argument. That diuerſe bookes of ſcripture hauehave periſhed, is not denied. But p. 262the Canon of ſcripture being after the captiuitie gathered by Ezra, and other Prophets, and deliuered to the Church, that ſince that time anie parcell hath bene loſt, you cannot prooue. And thoſe that are loſt of which you recken ſome, in ſome you are deceiued, they are wanting without anie loſſe or decaie of neceſſarie doctrine for the Church in thoſe times, wherein they were not extant. And that the Iewes hauehave bene more diligent to keepe their Bibles from corruption, then Chriſtians hauehave bene to keepe their tranſlations ſincere, who can doubt, conſidering that in S. Ieromes daies the common tranſlations were moſte faultie, as himſelfe is a witneſſe, but the Hebrew text remained true, ſincere, incorrupt, and was a rule to follow in reforming the tranſlations vſed in the Church? And your ſelfe euen now confeſſed of your owne good accord, that the Hebrewe text was for the moſte parte and commonlie voide of all corruption: which being true, ſheweth a wonderfull prouidence of the Lord watching ouer the bookes of his heauenlie word, to defend them from ſuch infections, as otherwiſe through negligence and malice of men they were ſubiect vntounto.

p. 263Now if the Iewes were either ſo negligent, or ſo malitious, as you imagine, and the Chriſtians ſo carefull for preſeruation of the Bible, how then came it to paſſe, that in the Hebrew copies was found ſo great truth & ſinceritie, in the common tranſlations ſuch notorious errors & corruptions,Andrad. Defenſ. Concil. Trident. lib. 4. and that for ſo many hundred yeares after Chriſt? Andradius a doctor of your owne ſchools, & a great maſter in your Romane ſynagogue, hath tolde you alreadie, that you hauehave herein vnaduiſedlie & fooliſhlie deemed, that therfore more credit is to be giuen to the latin edition, then to the Hebrewe bookes, for that theſe were corrupted through the treacherie of the Iewes: & ſaith, you cannot either note the time, or deſcribe the authors of that hainous fact, or aſſigne the place, or ſhew ſuch other circumſtances, which might conuict the Iewes of this ſacrilege, & that therfore the whol matter hangeth vponupon bare ſuſpiciō, for which we ought not to charge in this manner the holie bookes of the hebrewes, ſo auncient, ſo commended by our elders, ſo renoumed by teſtimonies of al ages.pag. 320.

2The likenes of ſome Hebrew letters betweene themſelues hath beene a cauſe, p. 264I graunt, of ſome corruption in the Bible, but that not greate, and ſuch as hath hapned of negligence, rather then purpoſe, and may eaſelie both be eſpied, and amended, and nothing ſo groſſe or common, as in your latine Bibles may be ſeen. Is it reaſon, thinke you, that for as much as ſome letters hauehave bene miſtaken in the Hebrew, therefore the wholl text ſhould be condemned? Is there not ſuch miſtaking of letter for letter, & word for word in the latine vulgare tranſlation? who knoweth not there is? ſhall we then vſe your argument againſt the tranſlation, which you hauehave deuiſed againſt the fountaine? There is no reaſon to the contrarie. For if diligence hath bene beſtowed in purging and reforming ſuch errors of the tranſlation,More reaſon had it bene for the Councel of Trent to hauehave taken order that the fountaines might be clenſed, if there be in them anie fault, then the latine tranſlation. why may not the ſame be done in reſtoring the originall text to the naturall truth and ſinceritie? The errors riſing vponupon the ſimilitude of letters and words, may in the Hebrew, as wel as any other language be corrected. That in theſe examples by you alledged out of the Pſalmes. 100. v. 3. & 59. v. 10. any ſuch errour of miſtaking hath bene committed in the text, would hauehave bene by you more ſubſtantially prooued. p. 265For my part I thinke not, and ſo do the beſt Hebricians that I hauehave read both proteſtants & papiſts. The text in the hebrew is eaſie enough, and yealdeth a true and godlie ſenſe. Your laſt example Gen. 3. v. 15. prooueth no error in the Hebrew, but onelie in your latine tranſlation. The Hebrewe in all the copies olde and new (vnles one wilfullie corrupted by Guido Fabricius) hath one reading, whereby a comfortable promiſſe is ſet forth, that the womans ſeed ſhal bruſe the ſerpents head: your tranſlation containeth groſſe impiety & blaſphemie, referring that moſte excellent worke to the woman, which onelie appertaineth to the ſeed of the woman. About this, you ſaie, the Proteſtants keepe a ſturre. And cauſe, I thinke,M.R. is angry with vsus for making ſturr about the chiefe promiſes of our redemption: Such regarde hauehave the papiſts either of their owne, or of our ſaluation. wherefore ſome ſturre ſhould be kepte: vnles it be no matter, if whatſoeuer belongeth vntounto our ſauiour Chriſt, were applied to the bleſſed virgine his mother, as in this place moſte horriblie, and in the Pſalmes alreadie hath bene notoriouſlie performed by you, in token of your great louelove to our Ladie, but ſmall regarde of our Lorde.

3That we hauehave charged the Apoſtle with anie error, is a bolde & manifeſt vntruth.Pag. 324.Betweene p. 266the Apoſtles citation. 1. Cor. 2. v. 9. & the Prophet Eſayes authoritie Chap. 64. v. 4. there is ſome diuerſity in one word. The Prophet hath, expectanti ipſum, to him that waiteth for him; the Apoſtle, diligentib. ipſum, foreign.to them that louelove him. Which diuerſitie came not through ouerſight or error in the Apoſtle, but either that the Apoſtle, followed the common reading of the Greeke, or, as his manner for the moſte part is, did take the ſenſe, not tying himſelf to the words. For they that louelove God, are ſuch & only ſuch as waite for him: and this waiting for god ariſeth of the louelove of God. You think the Apoſtle & Prophet in theſe words declared the vnſpeakeable ioyes of heauen, which are prepared for the children of God, and therefore you frame an argumente againſt iuſtification by faith,Proude blaſphemies vttered by M.R. againſt Gods word. which you in your accuſtomed ſpirit of blaſphemie call our mathematicall ſolifidian fanſie, becauſe the Apoſtle writeth, that God hath prepared ſo great things for thoſe that louelove him. By the things which the eie hath not ſeene, the eare not heard, the heart not conceiued, is meant the doctrine and myſteries of the goſpell, which the Lord hath reueiled to p. 267ſuch as waite for him, or louelove him. And to let you expound the wordes according to your owne ſenſe, doth this make any thing againſt the doctrine of iuſtification by faith onelie, that God prepareth euerlaſting & inexplicable ioies for thoſe that louelove him? For whome ſhould they be prepared, but for ſuch as indeed louelove him? But is our louelove worthie that rewarde? Is it giuen to ſuch as louelove him, in reſpect, and for the merit of their louelove? This muſt you prooue, if you will refell our doctrine in this behalfe. But this was no matter to be handled in this place. It was a poore glance, and did no harme.

4Here M.R. bringeth in a troupe of authorities together,pag. 326. &c. to prooue that falſe which I hauehave ſaid, and all true that he ſaith; long ſentences are tranſlated out of Caſtalion, D. Humfraie, Pelicane, and Munſter, wherby howſoeuer it fareth with his cauſe, the volume of his booke is well increaſed. For whereto ſerue theſe teſtimonies alledged? That through negligence or ignorance of the writers & printers ſome faultes may be found in the Hebrew Bibles, I thinke there be none that wil denie: but what makeh al this to purpoſe, ſeeing there be a thouſand p. 268times moe ſuch faults in your tranſlations then can be found in the fountaines? your long ſpeaches and diſcourſes either in other mens words, or in your owne, when they come to ſcanning, are ſhort enough, and therefore may in a ſhort anſwere be diſcharged. Your compariſon of Iewes and Proteſtants in rayling at the Pope and Romane Church, I paſſe ouer.

5Two examples Maſter Rainolds willeth me to conſider:pag. 332. One, the greate diuerſitie of reading. That in the text is ſuch diuerſity, I deny. The Iewes may perhaps in their Commentaries be of diuerſe opinions, touching the reading, but in the text litle or no diuerſitie ſhall you finde: in ſo much that Ioannes Iſaac affirmeth,Lib. 2 pag. 69. there is ſoe great conſent and agreement in the Bibles, that no booke of the bible can be ſhewed written with the hand of a Iewe, which either hath any thing that others want, or wanteth any thing that others hauehave. This may plainelie argue an exceading care to keepe their Bibles from all manner of corruption: althoughe this that he writeth may almoſte ſeeme incredible.

An other experiment is, that the Hebrewe printes want ſomething now, which certainelie p. 269was in the firſt originals. Example hereof you bring the pſalme. 144. Which being made according to the Hebrew Alphabete, as diuerſe other are, one verſe is wanting wholly therein, the 14. in number, which ſhould beginne with Nun. What cauſe there was of omitting this Acroſtiche I will not take vponupon me to vnderſtand. It is not of later times corrupted, ſeeing the Chaldee hath not that verſe. And as it is now in the Hebrewe, ſo was it in Saint Ieromes time, and before, when the Hebrewe Bibles were accounted moſt pure: and yet then in the Latine pſalter a verſe was ſupplied. So that howſoeuer the matter ſtande, this prooueth not the tranſlation to be of greater puritie and credit, then the fountaine. Cauſe there was doubtles, why the Prophet left out the order of the letter, but whether ſuch as the Rabbines and Talmud…ſts hauehave deuiſed, I cannot affirme. The like example hauehave you in the. 36. Pſalme of your edition, which being made after the ſame manner of the Hebrew Alphabet, you hauehave not in it the letter Am. Reaſons thereof are alledged both by Iewes, and learned Papiſts; but the place for all that they thinke p. 270not to be corrupted, as you peraduenture will raſhlie pronounce. As for that in the Greeke and Latine of this Pſalme there is a verſe anſwerable, the firſt word whereof in Hebrew beginneth with Nun, Nasman.Fidelis, Dominus, &c. this prooueth not the fountaine to be corrupte or vnperfecte: but the Septuagintes finding no verſe for the letter Nun, and thinking perhaps there was ſome want, repeated the. 17. verſe following, the firſt onelyonly being changed. For this verſe ſupplied by them, and the other following, is al one, excepting onelyonly the firſt worde. It ſeemeth not that the Prophet was altogeather ſo curious to keepe the order of letters, that if any be wanting in a Pſalme of that kinde, we ought therefore to ſuſpecte corruption in the Hebrew. In the Pſalme. 25. no verſe beginneth with Vau: and two beginne with Reſh: and two with Pe. Wherefore you ſee how litle proofe of corruption this reaſon maketh, whatſoeuer you in your ignorance eſteeme of it.

That which Maſter Rainolds hetherto hath ſaide, as though it were greatly to purpoſe,Pag. 333. and worthie to be remembred, he gathereth now into certaine concluſions, p. 271and as the ſmith, he beateth ſtil vponupon the ſame anuill. I hauehave alreadie anſwered enoughe to the wholl: If any thing further be offered in this repetition, it ſhal be hand led. Firſt it is neither Iudaical, nor iniurious to the Church, to thinke more reuerentlie of the Hebrew fountaines, then the latine tranſlation, as hath beene ſhewed. Yea abſurde and vnlearned is it to preferre the tranſlation before the text, vponupon certaine (I know not what) blinde ſurmiſes. Secondlie, if the hereſie of the Arrians corrupted the Latine Bibles, as you imagine, whereupon they needed ſuch correction and reformation by Saint Ierome, how came it to paſſe, that the Greeke tranſlation of the ſeuentie, and the Greeke of the new teſtament, was not by that meanes much more corrupted, for ſo much as that hereſie preuailed much more in the Greeke then in the latine Churches? why notwithſtanding this hereſie, doe the fathers appeale to the Greeke fountaines of the new teſtamēt, & by them amend their tranſlations? The Arrians would hauehave corrupted the ſpring rather, then a ſtreame: and Saint Ierome had more cauſe in reſpect of them to ſuſpecte the Greeke, then the p. 272latine. Whereby it is plaine that your geaſſe of the latine tranſlations, being troubled and corrupted by the Arrians, is vaine, and nothing but a geaſſe at all aduenture. That you ſay the Canon of the ſcripture in thoſe daies, was not by generall authoritie confirmed and receiued, though it be greate vntrueth, yet for as much as it pertaineth not directly to the matter, I will not ſtand vponupon it.

Two authorities M. R. alleadgeth out of the commentaries of S. Hierome vponupon the epiſtle to the Galathians. The Apoſtle in the 3. Chap. citeth two teſtimonies out of Deuteronomie, not altogether according to euerie word in the Hebrewe text. Saint Ierome among other reaſons hereof vſeth that for one, that the Iewes perhaps hauehave changed ſomething in their originals. If the Apoſtle had alwaies bound him-ſelfe to the wordes, in rehearſing authorities out of the olde teſtament, this reaſon had beene of waight: but ſeeing the Apoſtle Saint Paul and other Apoſtles vſe not preciſelie to recite the words of the text, but the ſence, Saint Ierome had no cauſe to ſuſpecte ſuch a matter in theſe places. For compare the … p. 273Prophets and Apoſtles wordes together, and no difference in, ſenſe ſhall ye finde. Deuteronomie Chap. 27. v. 26. the words ſtand thus in the Hebrewe; Accurſed is whoſoeuer performeth not the wordes of this lawe to doe them. The Apoſtle to the Galat. chap. 3. v. 10. alledgeth them thus, Accurſed is euerie one that abideth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to doe them. Here you hauehave moe words, I graunt, but what diuerſitie is there in the ſenſe? againe Deuter. Chap. 21. v. 23. the wordes are theſe, Accurſed of God is he that is hanged. Saint Paul Galat. Chap. 3. v. 13. alledgeth the words thus, Accurſed is eueryevery one that is hanged on a tree: in wordes a litle alteration, in matter & meaning none at all.

3That the Hebrewe was corrupted either before S. Ierome, or ſince,Pag. 336. in ſuch manner as you pretend, when wil you prooue vntounto vsus M.R? hetherto nothing hauehave you done, as plainlie appeareth, & now are you ſpent almoſte, ſo that litle more maie be looked for at your hands. Concerning points, prickes, diſtinctions, reſemblance of letters, malice of the Rabbines, and ſuch like coniectures, I hauehave before anſwered. And laſtlie touching the confeſſion of ſome p. 274Proteſtants, hath bene declared it maketh litle to your purpoſe.

Here M.R. anſwereth a queſtion, which reaſonablie is demaunded,Pag. 339. namelie, when theſe corruptions came into the Hebrewe Bibles? that is, whether before Chriſts time, or betweene that and S. Ieromes time, or ſince? 1He anſwereth as one nothing affraid, that the Hebrewe was corrupted before Chriſt, 2more after Chriſt vntill S. Ieromes age, 3and moſte from S. Ierome ſince. Theſe parts are handled by Maſter R. ſeuerallie.

1Firſt that the Bible was corrupted before the time of our ſauiour Chriſt, what cauſe hauehave we to thinke, eſpeciallie ſeeing our ſauiour Chriſt neuer once chargeth the Iewes with any ſuch corruption? M. Rainolds ſaith, it might be that Chriſt obiected the ſame vntounto them, although not recorded in the Teſtament. Remember then that this be put amonge the traditions vnwritten of your Church: and ſo you neede not to ſeeke for other anſwere, as you doe. Yet our ſauiour Chriſt when he ſaith, ye hauehave hearde it ſaide, thou ſhalt louelove thy neighboure, Mat. 5.43.Matt 5:43and hate thine enemie, accuſeth not the Scribes and Phariſies, for corrupting the letter of the text, by adding p. 275therunto the ſecond member, but for gathering out of the text wicked doctrine, that for ſo much as we are commaunded to louelove our neighbour, (that is, as they expounded it, our friende) therefore we are licenſed to hate our enemie. This falſe expoſition of the ſcripture, not corruption of the text, doth Chriſt correct. For that in wicked Manaſſes daies diuerſe books were loſte, I hauehave before anſwered: If Chriſt reprooue not the Iewes therefore, no maruell, ſeeing that loſſe was not through their negligence, but many hundred yeares before: yet maintenance of open corruption in the text had deſerued in them ſharpe reproofe, although them ſelues had not bene the firſt authores of that corruption.

S. Auguſtine in manie places by occaſion, ſpeaketh of difference betweene the Hebrewe text, and the tranſlation of the 70. interpreters, which he much eſteemed, euen as you do now your latine tranſlation. Yet in this diuerſity doth he not at anytime accuſe the Hebrew of corruption, but rather imagineth ſome myſterie in the Septuagints tranſlation. Which plainlie prooueth, that the Church beleeued not the Hebrew to be corrupted then. Yea, S. Auguſtine p. 276maketh it a matter, not onelie of great abſurditie,August. de Ciuit. lib. 15. c. 13. but alſo notable impietie to ſay, that the Iewes could conspire together in ſuch ſorte, as that they might, though neuer ſo peeuiſhlie and malitiouſlie bent, corrupt the bookes of Scripture, being ſo manie, and ſo generallie ſpred abroad.

2That more corruption crept into the Bibles after Chriſt,Pag. 340, you prooue by teſtimonie of Iuſtinus Martyr, in his diſputation with Tryphon, wherein he alledgeth three examples of notable corruption committed by the Iewes.A place of Iuſtinus Martyr anſwered. A ſhort anſwere may ſerue. Iuſtinus ſpake of ſuſpicion, more then knowledge, as being not verie skilful in the Hebrewe brewe tongue: & if we diligentlie examine the places, it wil ſone appeere, that no ſuch matter can be proued. The firſt is out of Eſdras Ch. 6: The words are theſe: Eſdras ſpake vntounto the people, this paſcha is our ſauiour and refuge, &c. Now in the hebrew no ſuch wordes are found: no truelie, nor neuer were, which I proue, becauſe they are not in your latine tranſlation. And this againſt you is an argument ſtrong enough, that maintaine your latine text to be the authentical word of God. If anie thing want, it wanteth as much in your latine Bibles, p. 277as in the Hebrew: and ſo no more corruption here in the Hebrew text, then in the latine. Againe, the Greeke now extant hath them not: & whatſoeuer can be ſaid, no more ſhalbe proued againſt the veritie, and ſynceritie of the hebrew fountaines, then of the latine tranſlation in this behalfe, & ſo no aduantage ſhal redownde to your opinion and defenſe.

The ſecond place out of Ieremie the 11. Chap. v. 19. is by your owne confeſſion void of corruption in the hebrew bibles now extant. Your argument for reall preſence out of this place is ſingular. The Prophet you ſaie calleth Chriſts naturall bodie vppon the Croſſe by the name of bread. That is vntrue: he ſpeaketh not of Chriſts bodie, nor of the Croſſe, nor of reall preſence in the ſacrament. And was Chriſts naturall bodie hanging on the Croſſe nothing but bread? was bread crucified for you? Els how maketh this for your reall preſence? A ſtraunge preſence, a goodlie religion, a wonderfull argument.

The laſt place in the 95. pſalme. v. 10. is no otherwiſe in the hebrew now, then not onelie in the Greeke, but in the vulgar latine, and Saint Ieromes tranſlation alſo, p. 278The wordes a ligno, From the woode, your owne fellowes hauehave confeſſed not to be of the hebrew veritie, but of Chriſtian deuotion. Then is it plaine enough, that whatſoeuer Iuſtinus ſuppoſed, the hebrew text was not corrupted: And ſo your argument from Iuſtinus authoritie is ſufficientlie cleared; and it is ſhewed that theſe three examples proue nothing againſt the Hebrew originall text now extant.

3That from S. Ieromes age errors & corruptions hauehave ſtil encreaſed & multiplied,Pag. 345. you affirme to be very probable. This was ſomething faintlie and doubtfullie ſpoken. That it maie ſeeme vntounto you probable, is not ſufficient to cauſe you caſt awaie the Hebrew texte, and take in ſtead thereof a latine tranſlation, which to be ſince S. Ieromes time ſhamefullie corrupted, is not onelie probable, but verie certaine and euident, as ſhal appeere. So although it could be prooued not onelie by probable coniectures, but by cleare and ſubſtantiall demonſtrations, that the Hebrewe Bibles were ſomewhere corrupted; yet for al that, no reaſon hauehave our aduerſaries to make greater account of their latine tranſlation, then of the Hebrew fountaine, ſeeing it may and p. 279ſhall effectuall… be declared, that the ſame vulgare latine tranſlation, which by them is preferred to the rome of the authentical written word of God, before the Hebrew and Greeke originals, is full of groſſe faults, errours, & corruptions. Where I demaund how the Church can ſaie ſhe hath kept faithfullie the word of god, if ſhe hauehave loſt the originall text thereof, Maſter Rainolds anſwereth ſhe hath conſerued the ſcriptures faithfullie, although not in this, or that language. But why in the Latine language more, then in the Hebrewe, Greeke, or anie other, hath ſhe conſerued the ſcriptures? what thinke you of the Greeke Church? Did ſhee loſe the worde of God in her owne tongue, and kept it in the latine? And muſt ſhe nowe, & al other Churces in the world, fetch their text of ſcripture out of the latine tranſlation? muſt onelie latine among them be vſed in ſermons, lectures, diſputations, and all other ſuch exerciſes, as your fathers of Trent in their late meeting hauehave appointed? Or graunt you them rather no vſe of the ſcriptures at all, nor iudge them Chriſtians, becauſe they will not be obedient to your Pope? whatſoeuer you ſaie, no reaſon can p. 280you ſhewe, whie the Church ſhould keepe the word of God and Teſtament of Chriſt her ſpouſe in an other tongue rather, then that wherein it was written and deliuered vntounto her: whie in the latine more, then in ſome other language, and ſpeciallie the Greeke, ſeing that Church euer was larger in number and circuite then the latine, and now not anie latine Church at all in the world remaining? That which followeth in certaine pages, is nothing els but rouing talke, not worthy the reading: where no argument is framed, nor reaſon vſed, no aunſwere can be required.

Gregorie Martin hath his anſwere long agoe:pag. 355. his Diſcouerie is diſprooued, and his obiections refelled throughly orderly, and learnedly. It wil be too greate and troubleſome a worke for you to maintaine that quarel: better it is to leaue it to ſome other, that can doe more therein then your ſelfe, if anie ſuch be amongſt you. As for that notable corruption of great moment and importance by him obiected out of the 22. Pſal. v. 17. read the anſwere. Verie like a letter was miſtaken in the writing and printing, as maie fall out in bookes ſet forth with greateſt diligence and conſcience ſoe Genebrard p. 281your Hebrew profeſſor at Paris imputeth not the corruption of this place to wilfull malice in the Iewes, but to chaunce,Genebrard in Pſalm. 21.Ps 21 by reaſon the two letters were ſoe like: and prooueth by teſtimonie of learned Iewes, that the beſt and trueſt copies had Caaru, Caaru.they digged, not Caari as a Lion, Caari.and that when Caari is written, it muſt be redde Caaru. Who euer denied but ſome fault by this meanes might come into the Bibles,Fortuiò & caſis. ſuch as in your tranſlation are plentifullie found? is this a reaſon then of moment & importance to prooue the Hebrew Bibles ſoe full of corruption & errours, that they muſt be caſt away, & the latine tranſlation Canonized for authenticall ſcripture, and receiued in their place? foreign, and much worſe.

Conſider now & peruſe the ſumme of your wholl diſcourſe.Verie fewe places can the aduerſaries finde in the hebrew text, that maie probablie be once ſuſpected of corruption. Let vsus graunt that theſe by you hetherto rehearſed are indeede corruptions, which yet is plainelie falſe, and not anywaies to be graunted: but let vsus for your cauſe ſuppoſe ſuch a thing. Tell vsus I pray you, how many corruptions hauehave you found? ſcore them vp, and let vsus know the number. with al your skil, labour & conference, yet were you not able to obiect p. 282ten places out of the Hebrew Bibles, which you might probablie charge with corruption. A manifeſt proofe and certaine argument of rare and notable puritie in them, far aboue not onelie the diuerſe tranſlations of olde time, but alſo your vulgare latine edition, which you notwithſtanding boldly, but moſte vntrulie, maintaine to be ſounder and purer then the Greeke text in the new teſtament, and the Hebrew in the olde. Let vsus therefore ſomewhat examine your latine Bibles, whether in them ſuch corruptions may not be found, as you hauehave charged the originall text withall: whereby it ſhall appeere, that there are in your Bibles of the vulgare tranſlation corruptions of all ſorts great plentie, yea almoſte innumerable, & therefore that your argument againſt the fountaines is abſurd,Infinite notorious corruptions in the vulgar latine tranſlation authorized by the Tridentine aſſem blie. and moſte vnreaſonable, to condemne them, becauſe of ſome faultes imagined, whereas you approue a latine edition ten times worſe then you can once with ſhew of trueth ſuſpect them to be.

In the firſt Chapter of Geneſis, v. 30. certaine wordes are wanting in your vulgar Edition,Gen. 1. v. 30.Gen 1:30 which are not onelie in all Hebrewe p. 283bookes, but in the Greeke tranſlation aſo, which is by manie hundred yeares far more ancient then the latine: and therfore if your latine wilbe tried by the verdit of theſe two witneſſes, it ſhalbe conuicted of manifeſt corruption. For where the Prophet Moſes plainlie writeth, that as the Lord had giuen to man for his meat euerie herbe and tree that yeeldeth fruite, ſo he had alſo prouided …uer…e greene herbe to be meat for the beaſts & birds,Col jerck …eſeb. & creeping things, theſe words ſo materiall and neceſſarie are in your latine bookes no where to be found. How can you thinke to excuſe this from corruption.

In the ſecond Chap. v. 8.Gen. 2.8.Gen 2:8 the ſcripture ſaith both in the hebrew and greeke text, that God had planted a garden in the Eaſt, Mikkedent.and ſo is it vnderſtood of the learned writers, that the garden, wherein Adam for a time remained, was ſited in the eaſt: but your tranſlator maketh the Prophet to ſpeake otherwiſe,A Principio. that the Lord God had planted a garden of pleaſure from the beginning. Is this kinde of tranſlating to be allowed in the word of God? I thinke none of ſounde iudgement & good conſcience will ſo eſteeme.

p. 284In the thirde of Geneſ. v. 15. a Capitall and intollerable corruption hath beene committed and ſtill is continued and maintained by you in the wordes,Gen. 3.15.Gen 3:15 wherein the Lord made vntounto man the firſt promiſe of that redemption, which ſhould be wrought by our Sauiour Chriſt, and in which the ſumme of the Goſpell, and all hope of our ſaluation is contained, that the ſeede of the woman ſhould bruiſe the head of the Serpent. For thus ſpeaketh the Lord to the Serpent.H…. I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman, and betweene thy ſeed and her ſeede. He ſhall bruiſe thy head, and thou ſhalt bruiſe his heele. Thus hath the Prophet Moſes reported the wordes of almightie God and ſo hauehave the ſeuentie interpreters tranſlated them according to the Hebrew originall veritie. Which notwithſtanding, in ſteede of He ſhall bruiſe thine heade, foreignyour latine tranſlation hath, Shee ſhall bruiſe thine head, Ipſae.and this, Shee, is meant the bleſſed virgine. A foule, a daungerous, a damnable corruption, thus defended and expounded. Yea the verie enemies them ſelues, that hauehave neuer ſo litle conſcience and feare of God, doe confeſſe that it ought to be redde otherwiſe, p. 285then it is in your latine tranſlation, ſeeing it diſagreeth from the Hebrewe, and ſome auncient copies alſo of the vulgar latine edition hauehave ipſe, Andrad. lib. 4. Defenſ. Trid.and not ipſa. Yet howſoeuer not onlie the Hebrew and Greeke texts lead vsus to the true meaning of Gods promiſe made to mankinde in Ieſus Chriſt, yea and further ſome copies of the vulgar tranſlation agree therewith, neuertheles the Church of Rome (that you may the better perceiue whoſe Church it is) not regarding al this, embraceth, alloweth, maintaineth the euident corruption, as as you may finde not onelie in the Latine bookes of the vulgare edition reformed according to the Tridentine Councels appointment, but alſo in the Catechiſme ſet forth by authoritie of the ſame Councell:Catechiſ. Trident. in artic. Et in Ieſum Chriſtum. and in the bookes of ſundrie Papiſts, that hauehave willinglie ſoulde them ſelues to louelove and defend all Antichriſtes doctrine. In the margent of your Bibles is printed for a faſhion the true reading: howbeit this not onelie excuſeth nothing your willfull maintenance of deteſtable corruption, but may rather make the ſame appeere more odious to all the faithfull. For if you can ſet the true worde in the margent, why p. 286might you not receiue it alſo into the text, but onelie for that you are determined alreadie to be aſhamed of nothing that may any waies bring aduantage to your corruptions, though it be to the certaine & euerlaſting damnation of your ſoules. And what go…lie man ſhall patientlie indure this blaſphemie in your Engliſh tranſalation of the olde teſtament, when it commeth forth? where our comforte and hope hath bene, that he (who is the womans ſeed, our bleſſed Lord and ſauiour Chriſt) ſhould bruiſe the ſerpents head, now we muſt turne it another waie, and ſay thus, ſhe ſhal bruiſe the ſerpents heade. If ſtill you will ſpeake in defenſe of this corruption, you ſhal but barke againſt heauen: it is too manifeſt, too hainous, too impudent.

In the fourth of Geneſ. v. 8.Geneſ. 4.8.Gen 4:8 your latine tranſlation hath theſe wordes, Let vsus goe forth, …odiamur … in Hebr. queſtion.which are not in the Hebrew text, nor yet in the Chaldee paraphraſt: & S. Ierome hath giuen a note vponupon them, that they are ſuperfluous, and ought to be remoued. And in the 15. verſe of this Chapter one Hebrew word,…aken. that ſignifieth wherefore, or doubtles, is vntruelie rendred by your tranſlator thus,Nequaqu… …ra fie… it ſhall not be ſo. For the Lord p. 287ſaid not, that none ſhould kill Kain, but that whoſoeuer killed him, he ſhould be puniſhed ſeuen fold. It maie not be graunted to anie tranſlator of ſcripture thus to thruſt in words at his pleaſure, whereby the ſenſe is manifeſtlie changed.

In the ſixt Chapter and 5. verſe,Gen. 6.5.Gen 6:5 where the Lord complaineth of mans corrupte nature, and ſaith, that the verie frame of the thoughts of his hart is onelie euill alwaies, your tranſlatour hath left out two words of great moment, frame, and onelyonly: jetſee. rak.and ſo like wiſe in the eight Chapter following, verſe 21.Gen. 8.21.Gen 8:21 where againe the Lord ſetteth forth the wickednes of mans corrupt nature and ſaith that the imagination of mans hart is euill, ra….your tranſlator of his owne head hath put into the text a pretie word, and ſoe maketh God to ſpeake otherwiſe then he ſpake,In mala… proua. that it is prone to euill. Who ſeeth not that by this worde is diminiſhed that corruption and ſinfulneſs whereof almightie God accuſeth mankinde, and wherewith he declareth mans hart to be repleniſhed from his infancie? This tranſlation liketh you well, becauſe it doth not ſo fullie bewraie the infection of originall ſinne, as the true text of ſcripture p. 288doth, & therefore not ſo plainlie confuteth your hereſie of freewill in man to pleaſe God before he be regenerate. In the 9.Gen. 9.6.Gen 9:6 Chap. 6. verſe where God ordaineth an euerlaſting law againſt murtherers, that he whoe ſheddeth the blood of man, his blood ſhalbe ſhedde by man, theſe laſte words by man, eſtabliſhing the Magiſtrats authoritie,Baadam. are not expreſſed in your traſlation. This to be a fault of great importance anie man may eaſilie vnderſtand.

To proceede a litle further in this firſte booke of holie ſcripture, and to diſcouer ſome moe groſſe corruptions of your latin tranſlation therein committed, (for I may not ſtand to note euerie petie fault) in the 36.Gen. 36.24.Gen 36:24 Chap. v. 24. the Prophet writeth that Ana the ſonne of Zibeon found mules in the wildernes: but your tranſlator telleth vsus he found warme waters, Haijemim. aquas calidas.and ſo by his great cunning hath turned mules into water. It maie be ſaid there is great likenes between the wordes in Hebrew: which I graunt to be ſo. But this diſchargeth not the tranſlation from a faulte. And howſoeuer thoſe words are like, yet from whence did your tranſlator fetch his other worde, Warme. For though we ſuppoſe the word p. 289may ſignifie water, yet to cal it warme water, is more then can be warranted. In the 41. Chap. v. 54. there paſſed in the former editions of your tranſlation a notablefault,Gen. 41.54.Gen 41:54 which yet of late for verie ſhame hath bene amended by Hentenius of Louaine. For where the Prophet ſpeaking of the generall famine that was ouer all countries, ſaith that in all the land of Egypt was breade, your bookes cleane contrarie to the text and ſtorie reade, that the famine alſo was in all Egypt. And thus hath it gone maine hundred yeares in your Latine Bibles. Nowe at length you hauehave bene content to acknowledge a fault in this place: and whie not as well alſo in others, wherein as euident faults may be found as this? And ſeeing you can be brought to acknowledgement of ſome corruptions in your latine Bibles, by like reaſon you maie be induced alſo to confeſſe moe faults where moe faults may be founde, as there maie full many throughout your whole tranſlation.

In the 49. of Geneſ. v. 22.Gen. 49.22.Gen 49:22 Iacob compareth Ioſeph his ſonne to a fruitfull bough by the well ſide: which wordes in your latine tranſlation are otherwiſe ſet p. 290downe thus, and he is comelie to beholde. If you ſaie that in the ſenſe is no difference, yet you make no ſufficient anſwere:bhalei. bhaijn. Et decorus aſpectu. foraſmuch as tranſlating the text of ſcripture we muſt retaine the verie words as well as we may, and not take libertie of leauing the wordes, becauſe we thinke we ſwarue not from the ſenſe. For the wordes may hauehave ſome other, or farther meaning, then we ſuppoſe, euen in ſuch places as ſeeme to be moſt eaſie. And if you impute this as a fault to vsus in tranſlating, why may not we likewiſe blame your tranſlator for the ſame, who hath ſo much offended therein? But let vsus go on. In the 24. verſe of this Chap. Iacob ſaith of Ioſeph that his armes were ſtrengthned: & in your tranſlation it is as contrarie, as may be, that they were weakned or looſed. Againe in the end of this Chapter a wholl verſe together is omitted by your tranflators. The purchaſe of the field, and the caue that is therein of the children of Heth: of which wordes not one is found in your tranſlation, and ſo where the Chapter contained 33. verſes, your tranſlation hath 32. Tell vsus by what reaſon it was lawful for the author of your tranſlation to put ſo much our of the p. 291text, or for you to allow him in ſo doing.

It were a worke of great labour and length to go through euerie book of ſcripture in this order: and therfore it ſhalbe for our purpoſe ſufficient, of infinite faultes that might be noted booke by booke, Chapter by Chapter, verſe by verſe, to diſcouer onelie certaine, as they come to my hand, ſuch as by reading and conference euerie one may obſerue.

In Exodus the. 15 Chapter. 19. verſe your tranſlator hath committed a double faulte, firſt in tranſlating a word, ſecond in pointing amiſſe. The Prophet ſaith that Pharoes Horſe went with his Charet and Horſemen into the Sea: Sus Parbho.And ſo is it in the Septuagintes tranſlation truelie according to the Hebrew veritie. But thus it ſtandeth in your tranſlation, The Horſeman went in, In…reſſus eſt eques, &c.Pharoe with his Charets and Horſemen, agreeing neither with Greeke, nor Hebrew, nor the right ſenſe.

In the 21. of Exodus 3. verſe,Exod. 21.3.Exod 21:3 a law is ſet downe for hebrew ſeruants, that they ſhould be releaſed of their ſeruice at the end of ſix yeares, and then is further added in what ſorte they ſhould be ſent awaie, namelie that if the ſeruant bring p. 292with him nothing but his owne bodie, Begappo.that is, if he come alone, as the 70. hauehave interpreted the text, hauing no wife, then he ſhould go out himſelfe alone, and not his wife with him, as is in the verſe following expreſſed. Your tranſlator hath miſconſtrued the law, and marred the ſenſe, in turning the hebrew thus,Cum quali veſte intrauerit, cum taliexeat. with what manner of garment he entred, with ſuch let him go out. And ſo alſo in the 10. verſe following, where God commaundeth that if one hath betrothed his maid to his ſonne, and after take him another wife, he ſhall not diminiſh the foode of the former; your tranſlator hath made aother law for this, that he ſhall prouide a mariage for the maideſeruant, Prouidebit puellae nuptias.which is vtterlie from the meaning of the law.

And in the ſeauenth verſe of this Chapter before, he hath alſo miſtaken a plaine lawe concerning maide ſeruants, wherein God forbiddeth to ſend them awaie, after their yeares were out,haehhabadim. as the menſeruants are ſent away: but your tranſlator ſaith ſhe ſhall not goe out, as the maide ſeruants are accustomed to goe out, Sicut ancillae exere conſueuerunt.then which nothing almoſte can be deuiſed more contrarie to the Lawe. in the. 24. Chapter. 11. verſe. p. 293the Prophet ſpeaking of the choſen men of Iſrael that went vp into the mount, and ſawe the Lord, ſaith that God laid not his hand vponupon them: which thing he noteth for a ſpeciall rememberaunce, that althouh they ſawe God, yet becauſe they preſumed not, but obeied the commaundement of God, therefore …o harme befel vntounto them. This in your tranſlation is otherwiſe reported in theſe wordes; Neither laid he his hand vponupon them of the children of Iſaell that had gone backe a farre of. Qui procul receſſerant.Who ſeeeth not a manifeſt difference betweene the true text, and this tranſlation?

In Leuiticus Chap. 4. v. 8.Leuit. 4.8.Lev 4:8 Where is commaunded that the Prieſt ſhall take awaie all the fat of the bullocke that is offered for ſinne, your tranſlator hath thus miſtranſlated the wordes, and the fat of the calfe he ſhall offer for ſinne: Et adipem vituli offeret pro peccato.and ſo partelie by vntrue tranſlation, and partelie by miſplaſing of the wordes, hath whollie corrupted the text. In the 7. Chapter. v. 19.Leuit. 7.19.Lev 7:19 the fleſh that toucheth any vncleane thing is forbidden to be eaten, and muſt be burnt with fire. Then immediatelie it followeth thus in your tranſlation, the vncleane p. 294ſhal eat therof: Iramundus. Mundus.& of late for the vnclean in your reformed editions is put cleane: So your tranſlations affirme that either the vncleane or cleane ſhall eate of the fleſh, which god commaunded to be burnt, and none to eate therof: an euident corruption, by r…aſon of a worde omitted in all your vulgare tranſlations both olde and newe.

In the booke of Numbers Chapter. 4. verſe 46.Num. 4.46.Num 4:46 your tranſlation hath, whome Moſes and Aaron made by name, Fecit. Paekad.in ſtead of this, whome Moſes and Aaron numbred. In the margent indeed of your latter corrected editions there ſtandeth the word to be reckoned, Recenſeri.for no other purpoſe I think, but to be a witnes of corruption againſt your tranſlations. For if that word muſt be ſupplied, and if you ſee and confeſſe your ſelues ſo much, as apprereth, in that you print it in the margent, why might you not wel receiue it into the text it ſelfe? If it hauehave anie right to ſtand in the margent, more right hath it to be admitted into the text.

In Deuteronomie Chapter 4. verſe 33. is a like fault to this,Deut. 4.33.Deut 4:33 but ſomething worſe in your latine tranſlations. Moſes ſaith, did euer people heare the voice of God ſpeaking out of the middes of a fire, p. 295as thou haſt heard, and liued? Ʋajechi. Et vidiſti. Et vixiſti.your tranſlations all hauehave thus, As thou haſt heard and ſeene. In ſome copies you hauehave giuen vsus a marginall correction, but that is not much truer then the corruption of the text, ſaue that this ſpeaketh of liuing, and the other of ſeing. So in the. 15. Chap. 10. v. in ſtead of theſe words, God ſhal bleſſe thee in all thy workes, Mahbaſeca.your tranſlation hath, God ſhal bleſſe thee at al times: firſt taking time In omni temporefor workes, & then leuing out the affix, thine. In the. 33. Chap. 10. v. a worde of waightie and neceſſarie force is omitted by your tranſlator in declaring the office of the Leuites, which eſpeciallie conſiſted in teaching the people the lawe of God: and ſo ſaith the true text.joru. They ſhall teach Iacob thy iudgements, & Iſrael thy Law. But in your latine bookes, the worde that ſignifieth to teach, which was moſte to be reſpected, and whereupon dependeth that which followeth, is both in the text and margent of your tranſlations wanting, and thus ſtand the wordes; They hauehave kepte thy worde, and obſerued thy couenant, thy iudgments O Iacob, and thy law O Iſraell. Now I appeale to the conſcience of all the learned, whether this be not a notorious deprauing of p. 296Gods worde, where it is preſcribed that the Leuites ſhould teach Iacob and Iſraell the iudgements and law of God, to leaue out the worde whereby they were charged to teach: and whereas the dutie of teaching Iacob Gods iudgements, and Iſraell his lawe was laid vponupon them, to make therof an other ſenſe ſo much repugnant, that they hauehave obſerued the iudgements of Iacob, and the lawe of Iſraell.Iudicia tua ô Iacob, & legem tuam ô Iſrael. Ioſ. 11.19.Josh 11:19 Harde it were for any man in tranſlating ſo fewe wordes to make ſo many faultes.

In the booke of Ioſue. Chap. 11. v. 19. the holie ghoſt hath noted, that not one Citie of all the land of Canaan made peace with the children of Iſrael,hishlimah. excepting thoſe Hiuites that dwelt in Gibeon. But your tranſlation telleth an other tale; as contrarie to this as can be tolde, that there was not a Citie, Quae ſe non t…ae deret.which did not yeald it ſelfe to the children of Iſrael. An other reading in your margent of late hath bene deuiſed, and that neither agreeing in trueth with the text, as by comparing the ſame together any man may perceiue.

In the booke of Iudges Chap. 15. v. 14. When the Philiſtines met Samſon being bound,Iud. 15.14.Judg 15:14 the ſcripture recordeth, that the p. 297ſpirit of the Lord comming vponupon him, the cordes that were vponupon his armes becam as flax that is burnt with fire. Your tranſlator in ſteade of flaxe hath put woode, Ligna. Odorem.and for the heate of the fire, or ſome ſuch like worde he putteth the ſmell of the fire. And yet that woode is ſo eaſilie conſumed with the onelie ſmell of fire, I thinke you wil not ſay for maintenance of your tranſlation againſt the originall text. What then remaineth but to confeſſe as needes you muſt, that here hath beene, and is a foule corruption?

In the 1. of Samuel Chap. 9. v. 25. theſe wordes are added to the text,1. Sam. 9.25. Strauit que Saul in ſolario, & dormiuit.1 Sam 9:25 And Saul ſpred vponupon the top of the houſe, and ſlept, there being nothing in the text either of ſpredding or ſleeping, or anie ſuch matter. If therfore you wl be tryed by either hebrew, or Chaldee, or ſundrie exemplares of your latine tranſlation, you ſhall confeſſe a corruption in this place, & ſo in deed you do, but will not yet amend it. How be it better were it not to acknowledge a fault, then acknowledging one, ſtill to retaine the ſame. And in the 19. Chap. 24. v. the ſcripture telleth that Saull put of his cloathes, & prophecied before Samuel, and fel downe naked all that daie and night. So hath the p. 298Hebrewe, ſo the Greeke, and ſo your owne Maſters confeſſe it ſhould be. Which notwithſtanding as it were in open and preſumptuous maintenance of your corruptions againſt the ſinceritie of the text, in your bookes you read thus,Cociuit. and he ſonge naked. This came to paſſe by negligence in the writer, miſtaking one letter for another. But why will ye not be brought in this cleare light of knowledge, whereby ſuch groſſe faults are eaſilie eſpied, to amend your bookes, to remoue the fault, to reſtore the right word to his place? you ſee belike what daunger might enſue of mending anie thing: if once you ſhould beginne, you wiſt not how to make an end, and therefore you are determined to ſturre nothing, for feare you bring downe all vponupon your heades.

In the ſecond of Samuell Chap. 6. v. 12. a number of wordes are added together in your tranſlation,2. Sam. 6.12.2 Sam 6:12 more then can be found in the true text, that Dauid hearing how Obed edom had bene wonderfullie bleſſed by keeping the arke in his houſe,Dixit que Dauid, ibo & reducam arcā cum bene dictione in domum meam. ſaid, I will goe and bring back the arke with a bleſſing into my houſe. Theſe wordes may ſeeme to be fitte for the place, & it may be p. 299ſuppoſed that ſo Dauid either ſpake or thought. But what of that? may we therefore conuaie thus cunninglie into the text of ſcripture whatſoeuer we imagine fitlie to agree therewith? The Hebrew hath no ſuch ſaying, nor the Chaldee, nor yet the Greeke: it is therefore a manifeſt corruption of your tranſlator.

In the firſt of Kinges,1. Reg. 2.28.1 Kgs 2:28 the 2. Chap. & 28. verſ. your tranſlator hath notablie falſified the text, in putting Salomon once for Ioab, and againe by and by for Abſolom, & telling the ſtorie thus: And a meſſenger came to Salomon, that Ioab had declined after Adonia, and had not declined after Salomon. Which is an abſurd tranſlation, hauing no coherence with the ſtorie, and plainlie ſtriuing againſt the text. For thus the words ſhould hauehave bene tranſlated, There came tydinges to Ioab, (for Ioab had declined after Adonia, but had not declined after Abſolom.) He that looketh on the place, ſhall ſtreight eſpie a foull fault in your tranſlation. In the 22. Chap. 26. verſe, of this booke,Filium Amelech. Ioas is called by your tranſlator, the ſonne of Amelech, for the Kings ſonne, by taking the word that ſignifieth in Hebrewe a King, Hammelech.for the proper name of a man.

p. 300The booke of Iob is a pretious parte of holie ſcripture, as it hath bene alwaies eſteemed in the Church of God: and therfore great pitie is it to ſee the ſame ſo miſerablie mangled by your tranſlator, as any of skill may perceiue it to be, if he liſt to take a litle paines in conferring the true fountaine & your tranſlation together. In the 1. Chap. v. 21. theſe words are added to the text,Iob. 1.21.Job 1:21 As it pleaſed the Lord, ſo is it come to paſſe. A godlie ſaying, who can denie? but that may not excuſe your bookes from corruption, vnles it can be ſhewed to be a part of the text, which, I am ſure, it cannot. In the 3. Chapter and laſt verſe, the holy man ſaith,Iob. 3.26.Job 3:26 I had no peace, I had no quietnes, I had no reſt, yet trouble is come, meaning that he liued in continual awe of God & looked narroulie to al his waies, fearing leſt at any time he ſhould prouoke the Lord to bring vponupon him ſome greeuous iudgement, and that now notwithſtanding this endeuour & care, trouble & miſerie was fallen vponupon him. But your tranſlator hath made him ſpeake otherwiſe, HaueHave I not diſſembled? hauehave I not kept ſilence? Nonne diſſimulau…? &c.hauehave I not bene quiet? This tranſlation accordeth not with the wordes, and much leſſe with the ſenſe.

p. 301In the fift Chap. 5. verſe Eliphaz ſaith,Iob. 5.Job 5 that the hungrie ſhal eate vp the harueſt of the vngodlie, and take it from amonge the thornes: but in your tranſlation he ſaith,& ipſum rapi…t armatus. the armed man ſhall take him awaie: which is an other thing, though it be a true thing.

And in the verſe that followeth, v. 6 whereas Eliphaz ſaith, that affliction and miſerie commeth not out of the duſt, your tranſlator hath put an other ſpeach in his mouth,Nihil in ter… ſine cauſa fit. Nothing is done vponupon the earth without a cauſe. Againe in the. 7. verſe he ſaith, v. 7 Man is borne to trauaile, euen as the ſparkes flie vpwarde: your tranſlator ſaith, Man is borne to labour, and the birde to flie, & anis ad volatum.turning the ſparkes (which the Hebrewe termeth the ſonnes of the coles) into a birde. In the. 6. Chap. 1. v. Iob wiſheth, that his griefe were perfectlie weighed: Iob. 6.1.Job 6:1your tranſlator hath added hereto wordes of his owne applying a ſpeach to Iob, which whether he would acknowledge may well be douted, I would my ſinnes were waighed, wherby I hauehave deſerued wrath. v. 16 In the. 16. verſe of this Chapter. Iob compareth his friends whoe had forſaken him, to brookes that paſſe ſwiftlie awaie, which brookes he ſaith, are blackiſhe with yce, and wherein the ſnow is p. 302hidde. Of theſe wordes your tranſlator hath framed a proper ſentence or prouerbe, They that feare the yce, the ſnow ſhal fall vponupon them.Qui timent pruinā, …rruet ſuper eos nix. Iob. 9.12.Job 9:12

In the 9. Chapter he ſhewing at large the wonderfull and omnipotent power of God, ſaith in the 12. verſe, If he take any thing by violence awaie, who ſhall make him reſtore it againe? The author of your tranſlation, not marking well the wordes, hath turned them thus,Si repente ininterroget. quis reſpondebit? If he aske ſuddenlie, who ſhall anſwere him? And in the. 13. Chap. 4. verſe, where Iob calleth his friends Phiſitions of no value, your tranſlator nameth them,Cultores peruerſorum dogmatum. Iob. 14.4.Job 14:4 embracers of peruerſe doctrines. In the 4. verſe of the. 14. Chap. Iob ſaith, who can bring a cleane thing out of filthines? not one: your tranſlation hath theſe wordes, who can make a cleane thing that is conceiued of vncleane ſeed? is it not thou, whoe art alone?

In the 31. Chap. of this booke. 19. v. he ſaith,Iob. 31.19. Si deſpexi pretereuntem eô quôd non habuerit indumentum.Job 31:19 If I hauehave ſeene any periſh for want of clothing, &c. which to be the true reading, is confeſſed by your owne Maſters, and prooued by the Hebrew text. But your tranſlation maketh Iob thus to ſpeake, If I hauehave despiſed him that paſſed by for becauſe hee had no garment. Which, p. 303wordes carie with them an other ſenſe, then the former wil admit. And though in your laſt editions ſome of your reformers hauehave in ſtead of him that paſſed by, placed in the text, him that periſhed, yet this ſalue hath not made the wounde wholl. For firſt you keepe ſtill the worde deſpiſing in ſteade of ſeeing, and further that your vulgare tranſlation ought not to be corrected in that other word, as of late it hath bene, by whoſe authoritie and iudgement ſoeuer, may be knowne by Aquinas and Saint Gregorie, and many moe, whoe in their commentaries vponupon this booke hauehave ſett downe the wordes in ſuch ſorte, as I hauehave rehearſed out of your tranſlation. If this be a fault, as you hauehave graunted, in correcting it in ſome parte, then hauehave your latine Bibles beene faultie this thouſand yeares together: and if you may now by comparing your vulgare latine with the Hebrew reforme this corruption though it be of ſo long continuance, whie may you not as well in all other places, where your tranſlation doth plainely diſagree from the Hebrew, as it doth in a thouſand, fyle it and make it as euen as you can with the Authenticall text?

p. 304In the 33. v. 6. Elihu ſaith to Iob,Iob. 33.6.Job 33:6 for that he had wiſhed to hauehave God anſwere him, beholde I wilbe according to thy word for God. This to be the true meaning, the wordes do ſhew themſelues: and therfore it was a maruel that your tranſlator would turne them thus,Ecce & meſicut & te fecit Deus. Behold, euen me hath God made as thee. And in the 25. v. where Elihu declaring how God dealeth with his children in puniſhing them for a ſeaſon, and afterwardes reſtoring them to health, ſaith thus, his fleſh is made freſh, as in his childhood, your tranſlator hath altered the wordes and the ſenſe in this ſorte, his fleſh is conſumed with puniſhments. Conſumpta eſt earo eiusà ſupplicits.Such faultes as theſe, which are indeede groſſe and great faultes in tranſlating the ſcriptures, is your tranſlation of this booke repleniſhed withall. I hauehave not laboured to note euerie particular fault: for that had bene a buſines too tedious. But of manie I hauehave picked out certaine, whereby the reader maie conceiue what to iudge aright of your wholl tranſlation.

Now let vsus come to the booke of Pſalmes, which of all bookes of ſcripture is in your tranſlation moſt corrupted, ſo as I maie truelie affirme that in ſome p. 305one ſhorte Pſalme in latine moe may be founde, then you ſhall euer finde in the Hebrew text of all the bookes of the Bible. Which came to paſſe by this meanes, for that in S. Ieromes daies the other bookes in the latine tranſlation were corrected according to the Hebrewe, but this booke onelyonly although it needde as much correction as any other,The booke of Pſalmes in the latine vulgar tranſlation moſte corrupt. yet becauſe it was in the corruptions thereof ſo generallie vſed, as it could not be chaunged without much trouble and offenſe in the Church, was not dealt withall by S. Ierome, but ſuffered to remaine as it was, and to carie ſtill about with it thoſe manifolde & greeuous ſores, which ſhoulde with diligence in time hauehave bene cured. This being by the beſt of your owne ſide confeſſed, it is a wonder, that Genebrard your Hebrew Doctor of Paris would labour ſo much with all his wit and cunning to make ſome agreement betwene your tranſlation & the text: wherin as he hath taken verie greate paines, ſo hath he ſhewed himſelfe in manie places altogether ridiculous in deuiſing ſuch ſeelie ſhifts, as he is enforced for ſome ſhew of conſente in the meaning, howſoeuer the wordes ſound moſt diuerſlie. And p. 306when he hath ſearched all the corners of his heade for reaſonable expoſitions, yet is he faine oftentimes to giuegive ouer, and let the wordes quietlie paſſe without his conſtruction. If I ſhould gather and ſet downe in particulare diſcouerie the corruptions of this booke, this onelie worke would be a volume of greater quantitie, then is the Pſalter it ſelfe. Therefore as hetherto I hauehave done, ſo wil I proceed, to take a litle of much, and in certaine euident examples of ſundrie places, ſet before the readers eyes how vnworthie your tranſlation of this booke is to be called by the name of ſo worthie a ſcripture.

In the ſecond Pſalme a text that concerneth our ſauiour Chriſt as notablie as anie almoſt in the olde Teſtament,pſal. 2.12. is ſhamefullie peruerted in your tranſlation. For where the Prophet Dauid exhorteth al to kiſſe the ſonne, Na…heku-bar.that is, to ſubmit themſelues to Ieſus Chriſt, and his goſpell, ſetting forth in theſe wordes a plaine teſtimonie of his Godhead and diſtincte perſon, your tranſlation ſaith no more in this place but onelie thus,Apprehendite diſciplinam. Apprehend diſcipline: which though it be a good admonition, yet is it farre ſhort of the true ſenſe, and excellent p. 307doctrine therein contained. And this maie be an argument of great weight to prooue, that the Iewes are not honeſtly dealt withall by you, in that you accuſe them to hauehave corrupted the Hebrewe text for malice againſt our Sauiour Chriſt. For if they had bene mooued indeed with ſuch a diueliſh intention, would they hauehave ſuffered this text to hauehave ſtoode in ſuch ſinceritie, eſpeciallie hauing ſo great opportunitie to change the words, as was offered vntounto them by the Greeke and latine tranſlations?

In the 3. Pſalme, the Prophet ſaith,pſal. 3.8. Thou haſt ſmitten all mine enemies vponupon the cheeke bone… your tranſlation hath thus,Lechi. thou haſte ſmitten all thoſe that are mine enemies without a cauſe. Sine canſa.Howbeit Genebrarde ſtoutlie defendeth your tranſlation in this place, and obiecteth ignoraunce to thoſe that reprooue it. Let all your Hebricians be iudges, and let Iohn Iſaac a Iewe, and a learned Iewe in that tongue, anſwere Genebrarde. If this had bene ſo cleare a caſe as Genebrarde maketh it, could Iſaac with a number more, as Vatablus, Pagnine, Tremellius, all as good Hebricians as Genebrarde (no diſgrace to him) p. 308hauehave bene ignorant thereof?

In the fourth Pſalme,pſalm. 4.3. being but a verie ſhort one, your tranſlation hath three euident faultes, which cannot by anie ſhift be excuſed reaſonablie. Firſt there is, how long will ye be of a heauie heart, VſUs que quo graui …orde.in ſtead of theſe wordes, how long will ye turne my glorie into ſhame? for this to be the true reading, euen your Genebrard was compelled to acknowledge: and therfore he deuiſeth and imagineth what the Septuagints perhaps followed. And about this place Lind…e hath kept a ſturre, if he might by anie meanes ſaue the credit of your tranſlation. But Iſaac his maſter in the hebrew tongue hath ſufficientlie taken him vp for his dealing herein. v. 8 Againe there is a word in your tranſlation added to the text in the 8. verſe,Olei. as Genebrard confeſſeth, ſaying it was done by the 70. interpreters propheticallie: which yet he cannot prooue, and we wil not graunt.Com…ungimini for ſilete. And before in the 5. verſe is one word put for an other to ſome change of the ſenſe.

In the 12. Pſalme,Pſal. 12.6.Ps 12:6 being according to your editions the 11. (which difference in numbring continueth to the end almoſte, and this maie fuffice to hauehave bene once remembred) p. 309where the Prophet bringeth in the Lord ſpeaking, I will vp, and ſett him at libertie, though he laie a ſnare for him, theſe wordes are thus tranſlated in your latine Pſalter, I will deale boldlie in him: Fiducialiter again in …o.of which wordes Genebrard himſelfe cannot deuiſe a conuenient interpretation, and therefore he wandreth vp and downe, and vaniſheth awaie in the miſt of his owne conceite.

In the fourteenth Pſalme your latine tranſlation hath three wholl verſes together moe,pſal. 14. then are to be found either in the Hebrewe or Greeke: and are taken out of Saint Paul in the third to the Romanes, being gathered by him out of ſeuerall places of the ſcriptures,Hier. in promoe 10. Eſ…i.Isa 1 as Saint Ierome hath noted. But ſome in former times more haſtie then wel aduiſed, ſeeing the Apoſtle alledge ſo long a ſentence together, thought the ſame was written in ſome place of the olde Teſtament, as it was by the Apoſtle recited: and finding it no where, ſupplied it in this place becauſe of ſome wordes, which the Apoſtle there hath rehearſed out of this Pſalme. And thus much do your owne men confeſſe, euen Genebrard him ſelfe, teſtifying p. 310that in the Hebrew now extant nothing is wanting. If then nothing wanteth, as he confeſſeth, is it not a plaine caſe that theſe three verſes ought not to hauehave anie roome in that Pſalme, and therfore that your Pſalter hath in this place more then it ſhould hauehave? which I thinke we maie trulie and properlie call a corruption.

In the 34. Pſalme the Prophet ſaith,pſal. 34.8. that the Angell of the Lord doth pitch his tentes about them that feare him:Choneh. in your tranſlation thus we read, The Angel of the Lord ſhall ſend round about thoſe that feare him,Immittet in circuitu. that is, ſaith Genebrard, his help and defenſe. Well holpen doubtles. Where the text is ſo plaine, to make ſuch a ſimple tranſlation as this, which without ſupplying ſome neceſſarie worde, can hauehave no ſhew of good ſenſe, I know not how it maie be excuſed from a fault. So in the 37. Pſalme where the Prophet teacheth that we ought not to be vnmeaſurablie greeued or diſquieted at the proſperitie of the wicked, and exhorteth vsus to truſt in the Lord,Pſal. 37.3. Paſcere ſide. paſceris in diuitiis eius.Ps 37:3 and to feede, that is, to liue by faith, your tranſlation ſaith thus, Truſt in the Lord, &c. and thou ſhalt be fed with his riches.

p. 311In the 51. Pſalme thus ſpeaketh the prophet in his owne tongue,pſalm. 51.8. behold thou loueſl trueth in the raines, (that is inwardlie in the affections) and haſt made me to vnderſtand wiſdome in ſecrete: but your tranſlator hath geuen vsus an other ſenſe, Behold, thou haſt loued trueth: the vncertaine and ſecret things of thy wiſdome haſt thou made manifeſt vntounto me. If the firſt be a true ſenſe, as it is: the ſecond muſt be reputed, as it deſerueth. In the 62.pſal. 62.5. Pſalme the Prophet ſpeaking of his enemies deuiſing to ouerthrow him if they might, ſaith, They take counſell onelie how to caſt him downe from his dignitie, their delighte is in lies. This conſtruction agreeeth well, this ſenſe is plaine. Now compare here with your tranſlation, and you ſhall ſee that it is moſt fond and diſorderlie. thus it ſtandeth,Veruntamen pretium me… cogitauerunt repellere… curri in ſitt. Notwithſtanding they hauehave thought to put back my price, I hauehave runne in thirſt. Is not this a proper kinde of tranſlation? yet ſomething of late hath it beene corrected in one word, but nothing at all amended in the ſenſe. I hauehave runned, they ſaie, ſhould be changed into they hauehave runned: foreign.wherin they graunt their latine tranſlator was greatlie deceaued in tranſlating the greeke word I hauehave runned p. 312for they hauehave runned: and yet the hebrew word ſignifieth neither of both. But as they acknowledge a fault in this word, ſo when it is thus mended by them, how much neerer are they to the right ſenſe? verelie no thing, or but little: and Genebrard though he make a poore ſenſe of the wordes, yet how his ſenſe agreeth with the hebrew text he cannot declare. Againe in the 9. verſe of this Pſalme the Prophet ſaith, Truſt in him euermore, …ecol hheth hham.O people: your tranſlation hath an other reading thus, Truſt in him all the congregation of the people: Omnis congregatio popul.wherein is a manifeſt diuerſitie. The hebrew no man dare ſaie to be corrupt: then it followeth that the greeke tranſlator deceiued the latine, and was deceiued himſelfe.

In the 65. Pſalme,Pſal. 65.14.Ps 65:14 the laſt verſe, in ſtead of theſe wordes, The paſtures are clad with ſheepe, Induti ſunt ar…tes ouium.The vulgare tranſlation hath thus, The Rammes of the ſheepe are clad. And becauſe this is ſomething obſcure and vnperfecte, therefore Genebrarde expoundeth the matter, and telleth wherewith theſe Rammes are clade, forſooth with ſtore of fine and white wooll. Yet in the text is no mention either of Rammes, or wooll.

p. 313In the 68. Pſalme, the 7. verſe, the Prophet reckneth this amonge the praiſes of the Lord, that he maketh ſuch as are alone and ſolitarie to hauehave a familie, wherein to dwell. Your tranſlation ſpeaketh after an other ſorte, that he maketh thoſe that be of one behauiour to dwell together in a howſe.Vnius …oris. This verelie was not the Prophets meaning. And then it followeth in the Prophets owne wordes, But the rebels (he cauſeth to dwell) in a drie or thirſtie place: which wordes in your vulgare Pſalters are vntounto wardlie tranſlated thus,Similiter eos q…iexaſperant. qui habitant in ſepulchris. Likewiſe thoſe which exasperate, which dwell in graues. And yet hath Genebrade taken ſome paines here to frame a ſenſe in ſome reaſonable conſtruction in this wiſe: Thoſe that exaſperate and prouoke God by their ſinnes, and dwell in the graues of death, God bringeth them forth by his mercifull and mightie hand. Here we hauehave a ſenſe indeede, ſuch as it is, but a ſenſe contrarie to the true & manifeſt wordes of the Prophet. For Dauid declareth how god will punniſh his rebels, by ſetting them in a drie place: Genebrarde by his expoſition hath made the Prophet to promis deliuerance vntounto them from deſtruction. Againe p. 314in this Pſalme, v. 14. Dauid ſaith, though ye hauehave lien among the pots, &c. Your tranſlation hath,Pater …di…s …res. in the middeſt of the clergie, or of the lots. And what ſhould this meane? forſooth Genebrarde ſaith, by Lots is vnderſtood extreame diſtreſſe and daunger, as when the lots are caſt vponupon a mans life. He hath deſerued doubtles greate thankes for his paines, eſpeciallie ſeeing him-ſelfe confeſſeth that this place hath tormented all interpreters, and that vponupon the ſame, as vponupon a gibbet hauehave the wits of all hanged. Now hath Genebrarde taken awaie the gibbet, and releaſed his friends from cruell vexation, and that by chaunging without anie great trouble, pots into lots.

In the 73. Pſalme Dauid declaring the greate proſperitie of the wicked,Pſal. 73.4.Ps 73:4 ſaith in the 4. v. that there are no bandes in their death, or vntill their death: and that their ſtrenghth is luſtie. Looke now vponupon this tranſlation of yours,Non eſt reſpectus morti eorū & firmamentum in plaga …rum. There is no respecte to their death: and there is ſtrength in their ſore, and tell vsus how it accordeth with the text. The wordes are diuerſe, the ſenſe is changed, and therefore the corruption cannot be excuſed.

In the 74.pſal. 74.…. Pſalme the Prophet complaining p. 315of the wicked, ſaith, they hauehave burnt all the ſynagogues of God: which text in your tranſlation is ſtraungelie altered and corrupted in this manner, Let vsus make all the festiuall daies of God to ceaſe. Quieſcere faciamus omnes dies feſtos Dei.Them-ſelues confeſſe the place is not faithfullie tranſlated, by reaſon that the Greeke worde was vtterlie miſtaken of their tranſlator. For where in the Greeke it was tranſlated thus, Let vsus burne, the latine tranſlator not looking ſo narrowlie to his copie as he ought,foreign tooke one letter for an other, & ſo hath giuen vsus another word & an other ſenſe. And notwithſtanding they acknowledge both the corruption & the cauſe therof, yet keepe they ſtil the ſame ſo certaine & cleare a corruption in their Bibles, & vſe it in their Offices, & Breuiaries euen thoſe that were corrected and printed laſt by the Popes commaundement.

In like manner and by like occaſion hath bene committed a fault in the 84. Pſalme,pſal. 84.12. wherein your tranſlation hath theſe words in all your bookes olde and new without any correction:Quia miſericord. & veritatem diligit Deut. Becauſe God loueth merciemercy and trueth: And are not theſe good words? who can ſay otherwiſe? the wordes in deede are good and godlie: but the tranſlation p. 316is nought. For this ſhould the tranſlation of that text hauehave bene, The Lord God is our ſunne and ſhield, as Genebrarde and your owne men cannot denie. In the 88. Pſalme Dauid ſaith, ſhall the deade ariſe and praiſe thee? But your tranſlation is ridiculous, ſhall the Phiſicians raiſe vp? turning deade into Phiſicians, Aut m…dici ſuſcitabunt.and riſing into raiſing. Here Genebrarde to mend al that is amiſſe, hath inuented a new ſenſe thus, ſhall the Phiſicianes raiſe vp, that is, the deade, that they may praiſe thee. Phiſicians are apointed to ſaue aliue, if they can, not to raiſe the dead: for if one be dead, it is to late to call the Phiſician. I maruell he was not aſhamed to make ſo lewde a gloſſe.

In the 92. Pſalme your tranſlation hath plentifull merciemercy, pſal. 92.11. Miſeric…rd. vber…. foreign for foreign.for freſh oile: which errour did grow by miſtaking a Greeke worde that ſignifieth merciemercy, for an other that ſignifieth oile, becauſe they are ſomething like in certaine caſes.

In the 132. Pſalme the Lord ſaith,pſal. 132.15. I will plentfullie bleſſe hir vitailes: in your tranſlation,foreign for foreign. vitailes is turned into widowe. and thus is it reade, I will bleſſe her widowe. This Genebrarde cannot denie to be a fault, and ſheweth how it came, by miſtaking p. 317a word, and not looking to the originall veritie. Yet for all this your bookes are not corrected, but ſtill you keepe and vſe ſuch witles, and palpable faultes in your Bibles: you reade, you ſing, you preach theſe and manie moe the like corruptions for the true word of God, and text of ſcrpiture: you ſee theſe things, and wil not for all that be brought to reforme them.

What can we ſaie or thinke of you, but that you are ſet and reſolute to do amiſſe?

It is a wearines to wade any further: & therefore I will for this booke content my ſelfe with theſe examples and proofes of notable corruption therein committed by your tranſlator, whoſoeuer he was.

And becauſe I hauehave bene alreadie ſomething long, I will be ſhorter in that which followeth, and as it were but glaine one by one, where I might take vp wholl handfulls together.

The booke of Prouerbes hath not eſcaped the foul hands of ſuch corruptors rather then tranſlators, as by manie places of the ſame maie too plainelie be perceiued.Prou. C. 4. in fine. In the latter end of the fourth Chap. a great manie of wordes together are added to p. 318the text, as is acknowledged by the aduerſaries them-ſelues. In the ſixt Chapter the vulgar tranſlation hath, Thou haſt fixed downe thy ſoule with the ſtraunger: Whereas it ſhould be thus,c. 6.1. thou haſt ſhaken handes with the ſtraunger. And after the 11. verſ. a wholl ſentence is thruſt into the text, which ought to hauehave no place therein. Again in the 26. verſe of his Chapter, where Salomon ſaith that by reaſon of a harlot a man is brought to a morſell of bread, the wordes of your tranſlation are theſe, the price of an harlot is ſcarcelie the worth of one loafe: Pretium ſcorti eſt vix vnius panis. c. 7.1.no doubte wiſelie and cunninglie tranſlated. In the 7. Chapter after the end of the firſt verſe is an other addition of a wholl ſentence: and ſo alſo is there in the end of the 9. Chap.C. 9. in fine. And in other places ſundrie moe, not onelie of wordes, but of whol verſes and ſentences: which cannot anie waies be otherwiſe accounted then a thing vnlawfull in Gods word, and by no meanes to be defended.

In the 12. Chap. your tranſlation hath,Prou. 12.29.Prov 12:29 he that neglecteth a loſſe for a friend, is a iuſt man. A wiſe ſaying perhaps. But Salomons ſentence in this place is farre otherwiſe, The iuſt man is more excellent then his neighbour. p. 319In the 16. Chap. a true waight and balance (ſaith the wiſe man) are of the Lord:prou. 16.11. and then immediatlie it foloweth, And all the ſtones or weightes of the bagge are his workes. ſacculi.theſe laſt words are thus tranſlated in your bookes, And all the ſtones of the world are his workes, ſeculi.by a ſmall change of the bagge into the world. This you will ſaie was the writers fault, and not the tranſlators. Verelie ſo I thinke: for no t…anſlator of anie skill could be ſo much deceiued in the Hebrew word. But why then keepe you this corruption ſtill in the text of ſcripture? why will you not amend a fault ſo foule, and ſo ſenſible, that it may be felt with the finger? And thus hath it gone in your bookes of manie hundred yeares, as may appeere by Beda & other latine writers in their commentaries. v. 3 And in the ſame Chapter before, where Salomon exhorteth vsus to caſt or commit our workes vntounto the Lord, Deuolue. Reuela.in your tranſlation we are bid to reueale our workes vntounto the Lord. In the 20. Chapter your vulgare tranſlations hauehave corrupted and falſified a text diuerſely.Prou. 20.25.Prov 20:25 Some copies read thus, It is ruine to a man to call downe the ſaintes: others, to note the ſaintes: others,deuocare. denotare. deuotare. deuorare to vowe the ſaints: others to deuour the p. 320ſaints. And this laſt commeth neereſt to the truth, for Salomon ſaith, indeed, It is a mans ruine, to deuoure a holie or ſanctified thing. Kodesh. prou. 30.33.In the latter end of the 30. Chapter, whereas Salomon ſaith, (he that preſſeth or churneth milke, bringeth forth butter, ſo to preſſe and force wrath, cauſeth ſtrife,) your tranſlator hath tolde vsus a pretie tale in this ſorte, He that preſſeth ſtronglie the pappes to draw forth milke, he bringeth forth butter, which thinge yet I beleeue was neuer ſeene. But ſuch abſurdities in your tranſlation muſt be borne withal. In the laſt Chap. among the other praiſes of a worthy and excellent woman that is one,prou. 31.19. that ſhee putteth hir hand to the wherle: for which your tranſlation ſaith,Ad fortia. ſhee putteth hir hand to valiant things. Such as theſe, be there many faultes in your tranſlation of this booke, which might in all tranſlations deſerue reproofe, and require correction, but moſte of all in the holie ſcriptures of almightie God.

In the booke of the Preacher Salomon ſaith in the verie concluſion,Eccle. 12.14.Eccl 12:14 God will bring euerie worke into iudgement, with euerie hidden thing, whether it be good or euill: your tranſlation goeth ſomething p. 321wide from this true ſenſe, and telleth vsus that God will bring into iudgement all thinges that are done, for euerie error, Pro omni errato. Cant. 1.2. & 4.10. Cant. 2.17.Song 1:2Song 4:10Song 2:17be it good or euill. In the booke of Canticles by miſtaking an hebrew word, your tranſlator hath put thy p…ppes for thy LoueLove diuerſe times. In the 2. Chapter for Bether is put Bethel, and ſo ſtill is it ſtanding in your text, and of long hath ſtood, as appeereth by Gregory & S. Bernard: & yet is it a plaine corruption in the iudgement of al, that can iudge anie thing, inſomuch as Genebrard hath not feared to make a chaunge of the wordes euen in the text it ſelfe, which he hath printed with his annotations. In the 4. Chapter in ſteede of theſe wordes betweene thy looks, Cant. 4.1.Song 4:1your tranſlation hath farre otherwiſe,abſ que eo quod intrinſecus latet. torque. crine. beſides that which lieth hidde inwardlie: and afterward for one chaine of thy neck, it hath one heare of thy neck. All this perhaps in your iudgement ſeemeth little, who hauehave learned more highlie to eſteeme the word of your Pope, then of God, and therfore ſo your Pope may gaine ſomething, or looſe nothing, you care not how corruptlie or ſincerelie Gods word be red and ſet forth amongſt you. But they that conſider how p. 322holie and precious a thing the word of God is, and what charge the Lord hath giuen to keepe it faithfullie, muſt needes confeſſe that theſe are indeed groſſe corruptions, and ought with all diligence to be ſearched, and remooued out of the Scriptures.

The bookes of the holie Prophets allthough they are not ſo generallie and foulie defaced, as ſome other Scriptures, by this corrupt kinde of tranſlating, and by ſuch faultes as hauehave ſince the tranſlation growen by ſundrie meanes, yet are they not in your vulgar edition ſo incorrupt and ſincere, as they ought to be, ſeeing they maie by the authenticall text eaſilie be amended. I might ſet downe ſundrie proofes and teſtimonies of ſuch imperfections, as I hauehave now done in other books. And it were a thing greatlie to be wiſhed, that ſome man of learning and iudgement would throughlie and perfectlie diſcouer the corruptions of this wholl tranſlation: whereby it would fullie appeere what ſhame or trueth there is in the Church of Rome to prefer it before the faithfull originall bookes of holie ſcripture, as it doth now in parte appeere by this that hath p. 323bene before alledged. I verelie am afraid leſt I hauehave alreadie wearied the reader with multitude of examples: and the thing, which I tooke in hand to prooue, I hauehave not onelie in this treatiſe ſufficientlie, but alſo moſte plentifullie performed.

The tranſlation of the new teſtament is ſomething more tolerable in reſpect, then of the old. Yet he that will looke narrowly into the ſame, ſhall finde cauſe and matter enough of complaint againſt either the ignorance, or negligence, or malice of ſome, by whoſe fault it hath bene noe better preſerued in that holie purenes and integritie, which the word of God doth require, and eſpeciallie this ſo ſingular a parte of his word. Wherein alreadie both Valla, and Faber, and Eraſmus, and Beza, and Camerarius, and many mo hauehave laboured to ſhew the errors of that tranſlation, for which their paines as they hauehave deſerued great thankes of all the godlie, ſoe hauehave they receaued much hatred and diſcurteſie at the aduerſaries hands.

For auoiding tedious length, more then were in this anſwere conuenient, I referr the readers for the new teſtament to thoſe learned writers, by peruſing of whome, p. 324and of that which I hauehave gathered here together, and thus particularlie noted, he ſhal manifeſtlie perceiue that in the Romiſh vulgar tranſlation are manifold and almoſte infinite faults of all ſortes, by adding, by omitting, by miſtaking of letters, pointes, ſyllables, and wordes, by wronge interpreting the originall texte. Which faultes they ſhal neuer be hable to approoue or iuſtifie, though they weary themſelues neuer ſo much with traueling and toyling, and ſeeking ſome defenſe. When they hauehave ſaide, what they can ſay for maintenance of theſe corruptions, it ſhall for all that ſtill appeere by all learning and true euidence of reaſon that they hauehave neither the olde nor newe Teſtament in the entire and originall trueth thereof.