Answer.

HEre is an vncertaine assertion, and a foolish reason. For although I grant the said translation to be ancient, yet to be so old as they affirme, I suppose it wil be hard for al the Rhemish rout of Iesuits plainly to prooue. Tertulli­an, who liued somwhat aboue 200. yeeres after Christ, doth not follow it, neither hath any steps of it in the places which he alledgeth. Cyprian, who liued about the yéere of Christ 284. doth not at all vse it. Hilarius, Hierom, and Augustine in their allegations of the Scriptures dissent from it. But to omit to speake any more of the antiquitie of it: what a foolish reason is this; It is 1300. yéeres old, ther­fore true and vncorrupt. The Gréeke translations of the Septuaginta interpretors, of Symmachus, Aquila, and The­odotion were ancient, yet euen in S. Hieroms time wan­ted not many and great corruptions. The Latin translati­ons (which in S. Hieroms and Augustines daies were ma­ny) were euen then very corrupt, as héerafter I wil (by Gods [Page 2] grace) out of S. Hierom declare. Or what a fond reason is this: It is 1300. yéeres old, therefore to be preferred before the Gréeke, which being the originall is aboue 1500. yéeres old. So that if this matter be to be measured by antiquitie, the Gréeke were to be preferred, and this Latin translation not to be followed.

Answer.

THis is but a popish and foolish opinion, void of all pro­babilitie and truth: for proofe whereof I will first al­ledge the saying of that learned man Erasmus Rote­rodamus, which I doubt not, but with all wise and learned men will counteruaile our Rhemish Iesuits, and all their adherents.Erasmus epist. N. amico ex a­ninco dilecto. Who in an Epistle writeth thus: Ceu confessum assumit, hanc Noui Testamenti translationem qua vulgò vtimur esse Hieronimi, cum eam constet nec esse Cypriani, nec Hilarij, nec Ambrosij, nec Augustini, nec Hieronimi cùm is diuersa legat: mul­tò minùs eam quam emendasse testatur, cùm in hac deprehendan­tur, quae ille damnat, non solùm quantum ad verba, verùm etiam quantum ad sententiam. That is: He taketh it as granted, that this translation of the new Testament, which we do com­monly vse is Hieroms, whereas it is certaine, that it is nei­ther Cyprians, nor Hilaries, nor Ambroses, nor Augu­stines, nor Hieroms, forasmuch as he dissenteth from it, and much lesse to be that which he testifieth that he corrected, sée­ing there be found in this which he condemneth, not onely as touching the words, but also the sense and meaning. Héere Erasmus flatly affirmeth, that this common Latin translati­on, was neither made by Hierom, nor is that which he at the request of Damasus corrected. And to prooue both the truth of Erasmus assertion, and the falshood of our Iesuits receiued opinion, I will set downe a few places, wherein Hierom not onely dissenteth from it, but also findeth fault with it. In [Page 3] his first booke against Iouinian he writeth thus:Hierom. lib. 1. aduersus Ioui­nianum. Ita tamen si ipsos filios erudiret in fide & dilectione & in sanctificatione & pu­dicitia. Non enim (vt malè habetur in Latinis codicibus) Sobrietas est legenda, sed castitas, id est, [...]. That is: Yet so if she instruct hir children in faith and loue, and in sanctification and chastitie: for it is not to be read Sobrietas, sobrietie (as it is euill translated in the Latin bookes) but Castitas, chastitie: for that is [...]. Againe in the same booke: Sobrium (siue vt melius in Graeco dicitur) vigilātem, id est, [...]. pudicum, hoc enim significat [...]. That is: Sober, or as it is better in the Gréek watchfull, for that doth [...] signifie; chaste, for that doth [...] signifie. And againe in the same booke: Non plus sapere quàm oportet sapere, sed sapere ad pudicitiam, non ad sobrietatem, vt male in Latinis legitur, sed sapere inquit ad pudicitiam. That is: Not to be wise aboue that ye ought to be wise, but to be wise vnto chastitie, not vnto sobrietie, as it is euill translated in the Latin bookes, but, saith he, to be wise to chastitie. In all these places Hierom misliketh and condemneth that which is in our Latin common translation. And although I confesse that he to helpe his cause, doth without sufficient cause find fault in these places with the said translation, for that the words [...] and [...] do more properly and apt­ly signifie Sobrietie and Sober, than chastitie and chaste: as also Erasmus in his Scholies in these words doth shew:Erasmus in Scholijs in lib. 1. aduersus Ie­uinianum. Torquet nonnihil hunc locum Hieronimus ad commoditatem cau­sae suae: nam hie certè magis quadrat vertere modestiam vel so­brietatem quàm pudicitiam, [...], id est, ad hoc vt sobrij sint & modesti, non insolentes & elati. That is, Hierom some­what wresteth this place to the commoditie of his cause: for surely it is more fit to translate it modestie or sobrietie than chastitie, that they should be sober and modest, not insolent and proud: yet it is sufficient for me, that he misliketh and findeth fault with that which is in our common Latin trans­lation: which is a plaine proofe that this was not his, for then he would otherwise haue translated it. Hierom also findeth fault with the vulgar translation of that place of S. Paule, Galat. 5.9. in these words:Hierom. in e­pist. ad Galat. cap. 5. Malè in nostris codicibus habetur: Modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit: & sen­sumpotiùs interpres suum, quàm verba Apostoli transtulit. That [Page 4] is, It is euill translated in our Latin bookes, Modicum fer­mentum totam massam corrumpit: and the interpretor hath translated rather his owne meaning, than the words of the Apostle. And there he doth translate it otherwise: Modicum fermentum totam conspersionem fermentat. But what néede I to busie my selfe in seeking mo places where S. Hierom fin­deth fault with that which is in the vulgar Latin translati­on, séeing that Andradius the Spanish Iesuit hath eased me of that labour, who hath piked out and produced a number of places, in the which Hierom misliketh that which is in the said translation.Andr. defens. Tri­dent. fidei▪ fol. 411. Andradius liking of them that require more diligence and plainnes in the said old translator, writeth thus: Nàm dum vel Graecorum dicendi rationi nimium adhaeres­cit, &c. That is, For whilest he either doth too much cleaue to the Gréeke phrase, or is not diligent inough in weighing the Latin and Greeke words, he becommeth somtime ouer obscure, and doth not sufficiently expresse the force and pow­er of the sentences. The which although I could make ma­nifest by many examples, yet I will produce some of those which S. Hierom noteth, that by reason of the authoritie of that most holy father, they may with all men be subiect to lesse enuie. In the Epistle to the Galathians (saith he) it is euill translated in Latin, Euacuati estis à Christo, where it should be said, In Christi opera cessastis, the which the force of the Gréeke word [...] doth most expresse, which signifieth to abolish, to make vaine and frustrate. In his commentarie also vpon the Epistle to the Ephesians, he findeth fault with the old translator for translating the Gréeke word [...], ar­maturam, id est, armor, whereas it signifieth all furniture of armor, or whole armor. And expounding that saying of S. Paule, Tit. 2. Vt mundaret sibi populum acceptabilem, he doth at large accuse the drowsie negligence of the Latin interpretors, for translating the word, [...] acceptabilem, which signifieth ex­cellent,Alledged be­fore. speciall, and chiefly peculiar. And disputing against Iouinian of chastitie, in the first epistle to Timothie (saith he) it is not to be read, as it is euill in the Latin bookes, Si permanserint in fide cum sobrietate, He meaneth Erasmus, as is before alled­ged. sed cum castitate, id enim est [...]. although there be learned men which prefer héerein the vulgar translator before Hierom, who do thinke [...] [Page 5] to be as it were [...], that is, the soundnes or pre­seruation of wisedome, as it is in Plato, wherevnto is oppo­sed [...], that is, madnes. And in his first booke against the Pelagians, he saith: The simplicitie of the Latin translator doth count among the properties and duties of a Bishop, that he be docibilis, that is, docible, whereas Paule calleth a Bishop [...], that is, apt and méete to teach, the which word the same interpretor in the first Epistle to Timothie doth translate not very fitly, Doctorem, that is, a teacher, whereas many do so vnwoorthily performe the dutie of tea­ching, that they séeme to be apt and fit to execute no dutie. But Paul (saith he) doth not onely thinke, that it is the part of a Bishop to performe vnto the Church that great dutie of teaching, but also that he ought to be furnished with excel­lent gifts and helps to teach. It were long to handle all the places, in which not only Hierom, but also other very godly men require diligence in the vulgar translator. Hitherto An­dradius the Spanish Iesuit. By the which it may plainly appéere, both that this vulgar Latin translation was not Hieroms, for that he doth so much mislike it, and find fault with it: and also what iarre in iudgement there is in this matter betweene our English Rhemish Iesuits, who héere iudge it to be S. Hieroms, and this Spanish Iesuit that doth denie it. By this I doubt not, but it doth most euidently appéere, how false this second assertion of the Iesuits is, and that this common Latin translation, was neither by S. Hie­rom translated, nor that which he corrected. Whereunto I will adde further a saying or two of Erasmus, who writeth thus:Erasmus in Scholijs in Hieronimum ad Algasiam. Multò rectius haec vertit Hieronimus, quàm habet vulgata aeditio. That is, Hierom doth much better translate this, than our vulgar edition hath it, meaning that in 2. Thes. 2. where S. Paul speaketh of the man of sin, and sonne of perdition, &c. where no doubt if this had béene Hieroms translation as the Iesuits would haue it, he would as well haue translated it in the text, as he alledged it in his booke. Againe, Erasmus writeth thus of Hierom:Erasmus in Scholijs in e­pist. Hieron. ad Pamma­chium. Apertè damnat superiorem translati­onem qua nos tamen maxima ex parte vtimur. That is, He plain­ly condemneth the former translation, which we yet for the most part vse: meaning this old common translation, the [Page 6] which he saith Hierom doth condemne.

But if I should grant our Iesuits that this were either translated or corrected by Hierom, which they will neuer be able to prooue, and by that which I haue said, is apparantly false, what haue they then gained? Doth it therefore follow bicause it was either truly translated, or faithfully corrected by S. Hierom then, therefore it is true, sincere, and void of corruption now? S. Hierom himselfe complaineth of the great corruption of the Latin translations in his daies, the which yet came not so much by the translators, as by the negligent writers out of the bookes, and presumptuous cor­rectors, or rather corruptors, as most plainly appéereth by Hierom himselfe in many places, whereof I will set downe some.Hieronimus praefatione in Iosue. In his preface before Iosue he writeth thus: Maximè cùm apud Latinos tot sunt exemplaria, quot codices: & vnusquis­que pro arbitrio suo, vel adderit vel subtraxerit quod ei visum est. That is, séeing with the Latins there be as many examples or copies as books, and that euery one according to his owne will hath added and taken away as pleased him. And againe he writeth thus:Hieronimus ad Marcellum som. 3. Vt aliquid de Dominicis verbis aut corrigen­dum putauerimus, aut non diuinitùs inspiratum: sed Latinorum co­dicum vitiositatem, quae ex diuersitate librorum omnium compro­batur, ad Graecam originem (vnde & ipsi translata esse non dene­gant) voluisse reuocare. Quibus si displicet fontis vnda purissimi, coenosos riuulos bibant. That is, I do not thinke that the Lords words are to be corrected, or that they were not inspired of God: but I go about to correct the falsenes of the Latin bookes, the which is plainly prooued by the diuersity of them, and to bring them to the originall of the Gréeke (from the which they do not denie that they were translated) who if they mislike the water of the most pure fountaine, they may drinke their mirie puddles, meaning of the Latin. Last­ly, S. Hierom in the same place héere alledged by the Iesuits hath these words:Hieronimus ad Damasum praefatione in 4. Euang. Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhi­benda, respondeant quibus? Tot enim sunt exemplaria penè quot codices. Sin autem veritas est quaerenda de pluribus, cur non ad Graecam originem reuertentes, ea quae vel à vitiosis interpretibus malè reddita: vel à praesumptoribus imperitis emendata peruer­sius, vel à librarijs dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata corri­gimus? [Page 7] That is, If we must beléeue the Latin examples, let them tell vs which? for there be as many diuers copies as bookes. But if they thinke that the truth is to be sought out of the greater part, why do we not returne to the Gréeke ori­ginall, and correct these things which either vnskilfull tran­slators haue ill translated, or of ignorant presumptuous per­sons haue béene foolishly amended, or of negligent writers haue béene either added or altered? By these and many such other places it doth appéere, how corrupt the Latin bookes of the new Testament were in those daies, which faults yet were most specially to be attributed to negligent writers. And if in those learned times of the primitiue Church, in which so many learned and godly fathers liued, such mani­fold grosse and great corruptions crept into the Latin bookes of the Bible, what may we thinke of these latter times, in which all good learning was lost; and blindnes, ignorance, and barbarousnes haue raigned? Is it to be maruelled, though infinite great corruptions haue come into the Latin copies of the Testament? specially séeing the same were much written and copied out by blinde ignorant Moonks, who all in a maner were so vnlearned, that it became a pro­uerbe, Monacho indoctior, that is, More vnlearned than a Moonke. By whose meanes such good authors as were most occupied and written out, were most corrupt, as Ludouicus Viues doth iustly complaine in these words:Ludouicus Vi­ues de caus. corrupt. arti­um. fol. 13. Videmus vt quis­que veterum scriptorum hijs quingentis annis in studiosorum mani­bus versatus est, ita ad nos venisse corruptissimos, vt Plinium, Se­necam, Hieronimum, Augustinum, Aristotelem. Puriores sunt atque integriores qui in vetustis Bibliothecis situ & puluere latu­erunt obsessi. That is, We sée how that as euery one of the old writers were these 500. yéeres most occupied in students hands, so they haue come most corrupt vnto vs, as Plinie, Se­neca, Hierom, Augustine, & Aristotle. And that they haue remained more pure and perfect, which haue lien in old li­braries in dust and filth. By which reason of Viues it may be gathered, that the Gréeke text of the Testament hath conti­nued the more sound and sincere, bicause by reason of the ig­norance of that toong, it hath béen lesse occupied, and seldomer in the vnwashen hands of those ignorant and filthy Moonks. [Page 8] Héereby also it appéereth, that if this vulgar translation had béene of S. Hieroms either translation or correction, it doth not follow, that it is now sound and sincere. But forasmuch as there be many faults and corruptions in it (as by Gods grace héereafter shall be shewed) we ought (according to the iudgement of S. Hierom) returne to the originall of the Gréeke, and thereby correct them. The which our Rhemish and Romish Iesuits refusing to do, in forsaking the water of the most pure fountaine of the original Gréeke: we are con­tent they drinke (to vse S. Hieroms words) the mirie pud­dles of the Latin.Ad Marcellum.

Finally, whereas our Iesuits would make their simple readers beléeue, that Damasus had such supreme power as is now by the Bishop of Rome claimed, by calling him Pope, and by shewing that S. Hierom by his appointment did correct the Latin copies: I thinke it not vnfit nor imper­tinent to set downe the opinion of Erasmus in this matter, who as he was excellently learned, so is he not to be counted as partiall.Erasmus in e­pist. amico ex animo dilecto. He in the Epistle before alledged, speaking of this matter hath these words: Quanquam hoc negotij non iniungit Damasus tanquam summus orbis Pontifex, quod an fuerit in me­dio relinquo: certè nomen hoc nondum illis temporibus erat audi­tum, quantum ex veterum omnium scriptis licet colligere, sed in­iungit tanquam Romanus Pontifex Hieronimo hactenus Romano, quòd illic & baptizatus sit, & presbyteri consecutus honorem. That is, Although Damasus do not inioine this busines, as the chéefe Bishop of the world, the which whether he were or not, I will not define: surely this name in those daies was not as yet heard of, as far as we may gather by the writings of all the ancient fathers: but he doth inioine it as Bishop of Rome to Hierom hitherto a Roman, bicause both there he was baptized, and obtained the degrée and dignitie of priesthood. And as for the name Pope, in those daies it was a title not peculiar to the Bishop of Rome (as now they haue made it) but common to euery Bishop. Saint Hierom cal­leth both S. Augustine Bishop of Hippo in Afrike, and Epi­phanius Bishop of Salamine in Cyprus Pope. The elders and deacons of Rome called Cyprian Bishop of Carthage Pope. Thus I trust I haue sufficiently discouered the insuf­ficiencie [Page 9] of this second reason, and plainly prooued that there is no probabilitie in this opinion, and that this vulgar Latin translation, which our Rhemists haue followed, is not that which S. Hierom either translated or corrected. Now let vs examine the third reason.

Answer.

THere is no consequence in this consequence. For the antecedent not being true (as I haue before sufficient­ly prooued) the consequence non consequitur. Indéede Augustine doth commend Hieroms translation of the Gos­pell out of the Gréeke: but that this which you follow is not that, I haue before plainly prooued. And if it were, yet it might since be corrupted, as I haue before shewed. And that it hath béene fowly corrupted, shall héerafter (Christ willing) euidently appéere. But whereas Augustine commendeth Hieroms translation out of the Gréeke: this doth make a­gainst you, who refuse the Gréeke, and translate out of the Latin: which neither Hierom would do, nor Augustine commend.

Answer.

THere is small reason in this reason, why this Latin translation should be preferred and followed before the Gréeke. First, for that the Gréeke fathers haue followed the Gréeke originall, and not this Latin, from the which generally they do dissent, as shall héereafter be shew­ed. [Page 10] Secondly, the most ancient Latin fathers do not follow it, as Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilarie, and Hierom commonly in citations and allegations of places dissenteth from, yea and findeth fault with it (as hath béene shewed:) Ambrose and Augustine although they séeme more to incline vnto it, yet very oft they leaue it, and differ from it. Therefore the Gréeke fathers generally dissenting from it, and the most ancient Latin fathers hauing no footsteps of it, and the other fathers often going from it: there is (as I said) small reason why it should now be counted autentical, & be preferred and folowed before the original of the Gréeke. As for the Church seruice, it was in the primitiue Church in that language, which of the people was vnderstood. And where it was in Latin, it was there where the people by reason of the Ro­man empire vnderstood latin, as appéereth by S. Augustines sermons, and other authors. As touching your popish seruice full of idolatrie & superstition, and vsed in a strange toong vn­knowen to the people,1. Cor. 14. contrarie to the expresse word of God, as we care not what translation it hath followed, so we thinke the most corrupt most méete for it.

Answer.

THe decrée of some more ancient Councell in this mat­ter, if any could be had, as none would be found, might haue stood you in far greater stead. For howsoeuer this Tridentine conuenticle (as euen Henrie 2. the French king termed it) moue you, surely it is of small force to per­suade vs. We little care what it hath héerin determined, be­ing called togither and gouerned by the Pope, whom we iustly accuse to be the Archenimie of God, whereof you all [Page 11] shall neuer be able to excuse him, and consisting of about 40. blind Bishops his sworne seruants. This cursed conuenticle or Councell we no more estéeme, than the godly fathers e­stéemed the Councels of Ariminum, Tyre, Ephesinum 2. and such others. And when you and all your adherents shall be able to prooue the canons of that Tridentine Councell to be grounded vpon the foundations of the Prophets and Apo­stles, and agréeable with Gods blessed word, then will we acknowledge the truth of this constitution: In the meane time we will not maruell if a corrupt Councell maintaine a corrupt translation.

Answer.

HEre be bare and naked assertions without any proofe: which may as well be denied of vs as affirmed by them. And therefore this I say, that the translations of Erasmus and Beza be as graue, of as great maiestie, as sincere, and as little partiall, as is the common Latin. And in some part to prooue this my affirmation, this I say, that that translation which hath many both barbarous phrases, and grosse soloecismes, is not to be counted so graue, maiesti­call, and sincere: but this vulgar translation, which they magnifie, hath many such: ergo it is not so graue, &c. Some few for example I will shew, to alledge all were infinite. What grauitie and sinceritie is in these words:Matth. 20.2 [...] Principes gentium dominantur eorum: where the masculine gender is put for the feminine, eorum for earum, and the genitiue case for the datiue, contrarie to the rules of Grammar, and so false Latin committed. Or in these words:Matth. 6.26. Nònne vos magis plures estis illis. Or these:Hebr▪ 2.9. Eum qui modico quàm Angeli mino­ratus est. Or these: Memorari testamenti sui sancti. Or these:Luc. 1.72. [Page 12] Vir timoratus secundum legem. Act. 22.12. Matt. 24.6. Luc. 21.38. Or these: Opiniones praeliorum. Or, Populus manicabat ad eum in templo. Many such other and woorse might be alledged, wherein I suppose no wise and learned man will thinke any grauitie, maiestie, or sinceritie to be. As touching partialitie whatsoeuer you pretend, yet if you in your consciences did not iudge it to be more partiall and fauorable for your doctrine, you would neuer preferre it before the originall of the Greeke contrarie to the iudge­ment of the ancient fathers, and of the best learned of your owne side lately and as yet liuing.Lud. Viues. Arius Mo [...]t. And that you do know it to be more partiall for you than the Grooke, I will prooue by a few examples which may serue for many. Iohn. 14. v. 26. The common Latin translation hath it thus: Suggeret vobis omnia quaecun (que) dixero vobis, which you thus finely translate: Shall suggest vnto you all things whatsoeuer I shall say vnto you. Where you know the Gréeke hath [...]. all things which I haue said or spoken vnto you. Is not this translation of yours more partiall to maintaine the traditi­ons of your church, and decrées of Popes and Councels, than the originall of the Gréeke? In the 10. of Luke, vers. 35. the vulgar Latin translation hath it thus: Et quodcunque supere­rogaueris, ego cùm rediero, reddam tibi: which you haue tran­slated; Whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate, &c. doth not this make more for your works of supererogation (which I may well call supererrogant works) than the Gréeke, which is: Whatsoeuer thou spendest more, &c. In the 13. to the He­brewes, vers. 16. the Latin translation is thus: Talibus enim hostijs promeretur Deus, which fond translation, you more fondly and foolishly translate thus: For with such hosts God is promerited. Doth not this make more for your doctrine of Merits than the fountaine of the Gréeke? which is, [...]. That is, With such sacrifices God is de­lighted or well pleased. And for defence of the same doctrine of Merit, doth not the omitting of those words, Rom. 11.6. serue to your purpose? But if it be of works, it is no more grace: or els were worke no worke. Doth not, I say, the dashing out of these words in the text well serue your turne? The which notwithstanding be found in al Gréeke copies, in the ancient Syrian translation, in Chrysostom, and other fathers. And [Page 13] to the maintenance of the same doctrine, may not that which is in your vulgar translation, Philip. 1.28. be more fitly ap­plied than the Gréeke? Will you not thereof better gather, that the suffering of afflictions is a cause of saluation,Causa. than of the Gréeke which saith, [...]. it is a declaration or token of sal­uation, whereunto the children of God do passe through ma­nifold tribulations? Doth not the Latin vulgar translation in the 5. to the Ephesians: Sacramentum hoc magnum est: This is a great sacrament, stand you in better stead to prooue Mariage one of your seuen sacraments, than the Gréeke? [...]. That is, This is a great mysterie or se­cret, which S. Paul speaketh and meaneth of Christ and his Church. Sundrie such other examples might be alledged, but these at this time shall suffice to shew, that whatsoeuer you say in word, or pretend in shew, it is the partialitie it sée­meth to beare to your doctrine, that mooueth you to follow it, and to prefer it before the fountaine of the Gréeke: the which how absurd it is shall héerafter be shewed.

Answer.

WE do not mislike it for the simplicitie of phrase: for such is the Gréeke wherin the Apostles wrote, being far from the swelling eloquence of profane orators. Where vnder the low simplicitie of phrase, we be­hold the mightie maiestie of Gods spirit: but bicause in some places it is barbarous, and in very many places is not (as [Page 14] you say) exact and precise acording to the Gréeke, but dissen­teth from it, and is euen contrarie to it. As for example, 1. Pet. 2.23. Tradidit iudicanti se iniustè, which you translate: He deliuered himselfe to him that iudged him vniustly; wheras you know it is in the Gréeke, [...]. That is, He committed himselfe (or his cause) to him that iudgeth iustly. Now betwéene iudging iustly, as it is in the Gréeke, in the ancient Syrian translation, and in Oecume­nius the Gréeke scholiast, and iudging vniustly, as it is in the Latin and your English, there is no exact nor precise agrée­ment, but a plaine contradiction. So in the 1. Cor. 15.51. in the vulgar Latin translation it is thus: Omnes quidem resur­gemus, sed non omnes immutabimur, which you translate thus: We shall all indéed rise againe, but we shall not all be chan­ged. Wheras it is in the Gréeke, as we haue translated: We shall not all sléepe, but we shall al be changed. And that other is so far from being exact and precise according to the Gréeke, that S. Hierom writeth, it was not at all in the Gréeke co­pies:Hieron. Minerio & Alexand. in fine. In Graecis codicibus non haberi. The which also prooueth this not to be S. Hieroms translation, nor that which he cor­rected. In the 5. of Marke, vers. 35. and Luke 8. vers. 49. in the Latin translation thus: Veniunt ad Archisynagogam. That is, They came to the Archsynagog: wheras it is in the Gréeke, [...]. That is, From the Archsynagog or ruler of the Synagog: meaning from his house. A like error there is in most of your Latin copies. Iohn 18.28. Adducunt ergo Ie­sum ad Caiapham in praetorium. That is, They brought Iesus to Caiphas into the iudgement hal: where it is in the Gréek, From Caiaphas. Luke 11.52. The old Latin translation is thus: Coeperunt Pharisaei & legis periti grauiter insistere, & os eius opprimere de multis: which last words you translate thus: To stop his mouth about many things. Wheras the Gréeke [...], signifieth, To prouoke him to speak of many things, as Erasmus out of Theophylactus and Beza do prooue, and I will héerafter more largely shew, as also the words following do plainly declare. Act. 4. vers. 21. The said Latin translation is thus: Quia omnes clarificabant id quod factum fuerat, in eo quod acciderat: the which barbarous and false translation, you fondly translate thus: Bicause all glo­rified [Page 15] that which had béene done, in that which was chanced. Where the Greeke is: [...]. That is, For all glorified God for that which was done. 1. Cor. 6.20. The common Latin translation is thus: Empti enim estis praetio magno: glorificate & portate Deum in corpore vestro, which you translate in this sort: For you are bought with a great price: glorifie and beare God in your bodie. Where you dis­sent from the Gréeke, in adding this word, Beare, and in o­mitting all these words: And in your spirit, which are Gods. By these places which I haue set downe, to omit infinite o­thers, it sufficiently appéereth how true it is, that you say, it is so exact and precise according to the Gréeke. The falsenes of which shameles assertion may also sufficiently be conuin­ced, by at least an hundred places, where that is in the said translation omitted, which is extant in the Gréeke. For ex­ample sake I will set downe one notorious place, where the perfect praier which our Lord Iesus hath taught vs, is most miserably mangled, and curtalled, and made imperfect. In the 11. of Luke, all these things be left out of that holie and heauenly praier. First this word Our. Secondly, these words: Which art in heauen. Thirdly, these: Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heauen. Fourthly, these: But deliuer vs from euill. Thus we sée how far this old translation in this short praier is from exact and precise following the Gréeke: and thereby plainly perceiue what brasen browes our Rhemish Iesuits haue, who affirme it so to be, and to follow it more exactly than the Protestants translations: wherin as they say most vntruly (as may appéere by the places before alledged, and many others which shall be héerafter produced) so I verily thinke they write it contrarie to the testimonie of their own conscience. Yet to prooue this shameles assertion they alledge two examples: the one, Tit. 3.14. Curent bonis operibus praeesse, [...], which they say, we translate, to maintaine good works. And I beséech you, gentle Iesuits, shew vs why it may not so be translated? Doth not [...], and namely with a genitiue case, as héere S. Paul vseth it, signifie to maintain?Demost. in Timo­cra. Badaeus tran­slateth it: Iura vestra tueri & defensitare. Com­ment. pag. 256. When Demosthenes saith: [...], is it not, and ought it not to be translated, to maintaine your right? And euen so why may not these words of S. Paul [...] [Page 16] [...] be in like maner translated, to maintaine good works? What absurd sense or false doctrine is in these words? And whereas the Latin translateth it, Praeesse bonis operibus, and you translate it to excell in good works, although I mislike not of it, for that the sense is good: yet you may know, that it is not the propertie of the Gréeke phrase, for then it should be in the datiue case, [...], and not in the genitiue, as S. Paul twise héere hath it, vers. 8. & 14. But whether it be translated, to excel in good works, as you do, or to maintaine good works, as you say our Bibles haue it: or to shew foorth good works, as it is in those English Testaments which I haue séene, it maketh no great matter, neither any but vaine cauillers (such as our Iesuits shew themselues to be) will find so great fault with it. If I were disposed so narrowly to examine the old translation, I dare vndertake to find a 1000 places in the Bible more vnproperly translated in Latin, than either of these which you alledge, is in English. But let vs come to your second cauillation, where you find fault for translating the Gréeke word [...], which in your La­tin is Initiauit, Hebr. 10.20. by this word Prepared. Our translation of that place is thus: Séeing therefore brethren, that by the blood of Iesus we may be bold to enter into the holie place by the new and liuing way, which he hath prepared for vs through the vaile, that is, his flesh, &c. What matter is héere amisse, that troubleth so much your quiet minds? Forsooth you say the word, Prepared, doth not so exactly agrée with the Gréeke, as doth Initiauit. What then? doth the old Latin more exactly followe the Gréeke generally, if héere in this place the Latin word do more aptly expresse the Gréeke, than the English? that doth not follow. But if we examine the etymologie, propertie, and signification of the words, I cannot sée, but our English doth as well answer to the Gréek as that Latin. For [...] is to renew, to make new or fresh. And although Initium do signifie a beginning, yet Initio doth not properly signifie to begin, to make new, or fresh; for that doth Innouo: but to instruct, to dedicate, to enter into. And therefore I sée no cause why the word, Prepared, may not as well answer the Gréeke, as the Latin Initiauit. Sure I am it neither goeth far from the signification of the word, nor mea­ning [Page 17] of the matter. But this being onely a friuolous cauill, I will omit it, being glad, that you can find no greater disa­gréeing in our translations from the Gréeke, than these.

And whereas you would commend the Latin for exactly following and kéeping these words, Iustifications, Traditi­ons, Idola, &c. I answer, that as yet you neither haue, nor euer will be able to prooue, that our translations haue not truly expressed the sense of the Gréeke in all these words: so do some of them as much retaine the last, translating [...], I­dols, as doth the Latin. For whereas you mislike that wée translate the Gréeke word [...], Image, and not Idoll, doth not your Latin often translate it Simulacrum, which (I pray you) what doth it else signifie but an image? As that place whereof Master How lets friend so much complaineth. 1. Iohn 5.21. [...]. which in the vul­gar Latin is thus: Filioli, custodite vos à simulacris, which how is it to be translated in English, but thus; Little children, kéepe your selues from images. For what is the English of Simulacrum, but an Image? If you say, Idoll, I say that that is rather the Gréeke of it than the English. And therfore you do nothing but wrangle and cauil, when you find fault with translating of [...], Image, as I doubt not, but by others hath and will be more largely prooued. In like maner, Act. 7.41. and Apocal. 9.20. the vulgar interpretor translateth the same word [...], Simulacrum, which doth signifie nothing els but an Image. And to prooue that [...] in Gréeke may be translated an Image in English, it may appéere by the e­timologie which Tertullian maketh of it, in these words: Ad hoc necessaria est vocabuli interpretatio, Tertullianus lib. de Idola­latria. [...] Graecè formam sonat, ab eo per diminutionem [...] diductam aequè apud nos for­mulam fecit. Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici ex­poscit. Inde Idololatria omnis circaidolum famulatus & seruitus. That is, Héereunto is necessarie the interpretation of the word, [...] in Gréeke signifieth a forme or image: and there­of by diminution is [...] deriued, which in like maner sig­nifieth a little forme or image. Therefore euery forme requi­reth to be called Idolum. And thereupon Idolatrie is all that seruice and worship which is done about euerie Idoll. Doth it not héerby plainly appéere, that [...] signifieth the forme, [Page 18] shape, or image of any thing, and therefore may well so be translated:Answer to Greg. Martin fol. 7. as also my learned brother D. Fulke hath lear­nedly shewed.

Answer.

IF Master Beza and others thinke reuerently of the old translator, they do as becommeth good and godly men to do, in accepting thankfully and in good part the labors of good men in so good a worke, as is the translating of the bles­sed word of God, for the instruction and comfort of Gods peo­ple: and passing by, and by charitie couering some faults that haue escaped. But it is the propertie of wicked men, and enimies to Gods truth, rather to cauill and carpe, to raile at and reuile good men laboring in this sort in Gods vineyards than either charitably to couer faults, or louingly to amend them themselues. So S. Hierom when he was raised vp of God, and prouoked by Damasus Bishop of Rome, to tran­slate the holy Scriptures faithfully out of Hebrew & Gréeke into Latin, how was he handled of many? Forsooth railed vpon very miserably, as in infinite places of his Prefaces and Epistles doth appéere.Hier. ad Dom­nion. et Rog. in Esdr. & Neh. For example I will set downe one or two: Legite de hijs exemplaribus, quae nuper à nobis edita, maledicorum quotidie linguis confodiuntur. That is, Read those copies which I haue lately set foorth, and are daily thrust throw with the toongs of railers and euill speakers. Againe: Sicubi ergò aeditio men à veteribus discreparit, Hieronimus Sophro. interroga quemli­bet Hebraeorum & liquidò peruidebis me ab aemulis frustra lacera­ri, qui malunt contemnere videri praeclara, quàm discere. That is, If my edition differ from the old, aske any Hebrew and Iew, and thou shalt plainly perceiue, that I am without cause torne in péeces of my aduersaries, who would rather séeme to despise good things, than to learne any thing. Thus [Page 19] was S. Hierom for translating the holy Scriptures vsed. And was not that learned man Erasmus Roterodamus for his godly paines, in translating the new Testament, in like maner intreated? Being railed vpon by Lea in England, by Natalis Bedda in France, by Stunica in Spaine, and infi­nite other vnlearned Moonks and Friers, as Erasmus him­selfe doth declare in an Epistle to Mosellanus, Epist. lib. 6. where he sheweth, that a Carmelite Frier being a Doctor, in a pub­like sermon charged him there present, with sinne against the holie Ghost, for altering some things in the new Testa­ment, otherwise than was in the old translation. And ano­ther cried out for the same cause, that the comming of Anti­christ was at hand. And when Erasmus vrged him to shew one place in the Testament that did offend him: he said plainly, that he had neither read nor séene it. And euen so Master Beza and our godly countrimen, succéeding those godly learned fathers, in their godly labors, be in like sort handled by our Rhemish Iesuits in this Testament, and by Gregorie Martin in his booke intitled A Discouerie, wher­in he too much discouereth his owne folly, and the melancho­lie of his stomacke, in railing vpon them so rudely, or rather despitefully, who haue woorthily labored in bringing to light the light of Gods blessed word. Thus we sée how Satan by his imps and ministers, rageth against those that take pains to translate the holy Scripture: which is the sword that doth foyle him, the hammer that beateth downe his house, the light that driueth away his darknes: which also conuer­teth the soule, lighteneth the eies, reioiceth the hart,Psal. 19. and ma­keth vs circumspect in all our waies. But if they do not vn­fainedly repent this their rude railing, and reuiling of Gods faithfull seruants, let them be assured, that they shall fall in­to the clawes of him that is indéed [...], a railer, a slande­rer, and a false accuser of Gods Saints.

As touching my iudgement of the old translation of the new Testament, I say as S. Hierom somtime said to such superstitious admirers of the old translation that then was, as our Romish Papists be now.Hieronimus praefa. in lib. Iosue. Quòd si vetus eis tantum in­terpretatio placet, quae & mihi non displicet, & nihil extra recipien­dum putant, &c. That is, But if the old translation onely [Page 20] please them, which displeaseth not me, and they thinke no­thing els to be receiued, &c. Euen so say I to them now, that stand so much vpon the old translation: I do not generally disallow it, nor condemne it, although some faults haue béen both by the translator committed, and afterwards by negli­gence crept into it, which are not malitiously to be railed at, but charitably in the feare of God to be reformed. But wher­as you say Master Beza preferreth it before all the rest in his Preface before the Testament, 1556. you do misreport him: for he doth not in that Preface prefer it before all the rest, whereof he maketh no comparison, but onely defendeth it against Erasmus in some places, which he thought that he found fault with it, without sufficient cause. You cannot be ignorant, that Master Beza in that Preface affirmeth, be­sides manifold faults crept in by the writers,Beza his words. it doth often dissent from the Gréeke, interpret many things obscurely, adde some things, and omit others. And wheras you further alledge, that in his Annotations vpon Luke he saith, the old translator translated very religiously, he did (as I haue be­fore declared) reuerently thinke of him, who (no doubt) was a godly man, and tooke godly paines in setting foorth Gods holie word, to the benefit of his Church. Yet you know, that euen in that very place, Master Beza sheweth some imper­fection in him. For these be his words, out of which you haue culled your testimonie:Beza in Anno­tat. in Luc. v. 1. [...]. Vetus autem interpres quamuis alioqui videatur summa religione sacros libros interpretatus, tamen quae significatio sit horum vocabulorum non videtur cognouisse, ne dum vt vim illorum intellexerit. That is, But the old interpretor although otherwise he may séeme very religiously to haue translated these holy bookes, yet it appéereth, that he did not know what is the signification of these words, much lesse that he vnderstood the force and power of them. And how iustly héere he findeth fault, any that is indued with any knowledge in the toongs, and not blinded with malice may plainly perceiue. Therefore, although Master Beza reue­rently iudged of him, yet he did not thinke him to be with­out his faults, which are charitably to be corrected and refor­med, as he doth, and not malitiously to be carped and reproo­ued, as is our Iesuits and Greg. Martins maner. It is not [Page 21] also to be thought, but that most of those faults and corrupti­ons, which be now in the text, were not committed at the first by the translator, but haue crept in since, either (as S. Hierom saith) by negligent writers, and copiers out of the bookes: or by presumptuous and ignorant correctors, &c. which are not to be imputed vnto him. Lastly, I say the que­stion is not so much, which is the best translation, or whe­ther it be better than the rest: but whether it is to be prefer­red before the originall Gréeke: which héereafter is to be dis­cussed.

Answer.

HEre in this 9. reason, you complaine of the diuersitie and dissention of other translations, by reason wher­of, we should for the preseruing of vnitie of faith, if the world should long continue, receiue the decrées of Coun­cels, [Page 22] as you imagine, and make Luther to affirme. Why? may not vnitie of faith stand with diuersitie of translations? There were in the primitiue Church fower seuerall Gréeke translations of the old Testament. The first of the seuentie interpretors, second of Simmachus, third of Aquila, fourth of Theodotion: and yet there was vnitie of faith in the true Church: or whatsoeuer diuersitie of doctrine there was, I thinke you cannot prooue, that it came of the diuersitie of translations. There were in the Latin Church very many diuers translations, as S. Augustine in these words shew­eth:August. lib. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 11. Qui enim Scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verte­rint numerari possunt: Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. That is, For they that haue translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew toong into the Gréeke may be numbred: but the La­tin translators cannot. Héere you sée that S. Augustine affir­meth, the Latin translators of the Scriptures to haue béene so many, that they could not be numbred: yet he was so far from our Rhemists opinion, that they bred diuersitie of doc­trine,August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 12 that he thought the same profitable, especially for them which wanted the knowledge of the originall toongs: foras­much as that which is obscure in one, may be made manifest by another. And if there may be diuersitie of expositions of one place of Scripture without breach of vnitie of doctrine, why may not some diuersitie of translations stand with vni­tie of faith and doctrine? Héerof S. Augustine writeth thus: Quos necesse est etiamsi rectae atque vnius fidei fuerint, August. epist. ad Hieron. varias pa­rere in multorum locorum obscuritate sententias: quamuis nequd­quam ipsa varietas ab eiusdem fidei vnitate discordet, sicut etiam vnus tractator secundum eandem fidem aliter atque aliter eundem locum potest exponere, quia hoc eius obscuritas patitur. That is, Who must néedes, although they be of one true faith, bring foorth by reason of the obscuritie of many places diuers opi­nions and iudgements: albeit the same diuersitie doth no­thing at all differ from the vnitie of one faith: as also one ex­pounder agréeably to one faith, may diuersly expound one place,Chrysostom. in Gen. hom. 37. bicause that the hardnes thereof requireth the same. So saith Chrysostom: Talis enim Scripturae mos est, vt in pau­cis verbis plurima saepè multitudo sensuum inueniatur. That is, Such is the maner of the Scripture, that in few words a [Page 23] very great multitude of senses or expositions may be found. And therefore as there may be diuers expositions of places of the Scriptures, which may all agrée with the analogie and proportion of faith: euen so may there be in translations diuersitie in words and phrases, without dissention in doc­trine, or breach of faith. I write not this, that I allow the itching ambition of some (of whom Master Beza doth iustly complaine) who without sufficient knowledge in the toongs, and sound iudgement, take ouer rashly vpon them to trans­late that blessed booke of the holy Scriptures, which ought not to be handled with vnwashen hands, but with all reue­rence and fidelitie in the feare of God ought to be dealt in. Neither do I thinke but that it were very expedient and profitable for the Church of Christ, that in euery toong there were one as exact and absolute translation, as might be a­gréed vpon, which should either onely or principally be fol­lowed. The which if it cannot be procured, I say that vnitie of faith may as well agrée with diuersitie of translations: as there might and would be diuersitie of doctrine through the malice of Satan, and weaknes of mans iudgement, though there were but one onely translation. And therfore I thinke you rather sucke that out of your owne fingers, than find it in Luthers works, in such sense and sort as you expresse it. And thereupon haue noted no place in his writings where it is to be found, but onely refer vs to a place of Coclaeus, who being a professed and malitious enimie to Master Lu­ther, of what weight and force his report is to be accounted, let the indifferent Reader iudge. But whereas you charge Master Bezas translation so much estéemed of vs, to go so wide from the Gréeke, and meaning of the holy Ghost, that we dare not (as you say) follow it: I answer, that as we re­uerence the man for his great gifts of learning, and woorthi­ly estéeme his godly and learned labors, in translating faith­fully the Testament of Iesus Christ: so neither he doth re­quire, nor we iudge our selues to be bound in all things abso­lutely without exception to follow him. He is a man and may erre, and as we thankfully to Gods glorie acknowledge that he hath euen hit the marke in many: so we doubt not, but he might misse it in some, and peraduenture so hath [Page 24] done, not in substance of doctrine, but in some proprietie of words and phrases. Howbeit whereas you so maliciously and falsely accuse him to haue gone so far from the Gréeke, and meaning of the holy Ghost, let vs sée your proofes. You alledge héere but two places: the one Luc. 3. v. 36. the lea­uing out of the name Cainan, which we haue put in. This is a great matter whereat you make such a tragicall exclamati­on in your marginall note vpon that place, which is but the leauing out of one name, whereas both in the old Latin, and your owne new English, there are left out not onely words, but also sentences in at least an hundred places. Thus you can straine a gnat, and swallow a camell: sée a mote in your brothers eie, and not behold a great beame in your owne. Touching the matter it selfe, which concerneth neither faith nor doctrine: Master▪ Beza hath not without great and good cause omitted the said name of Cainan: partly bicause it is not in the Hebrew, Genes. 11. nor in the booke of Chro­nicles,Genes. 11.12. 1. Chron. 1.18. where the same Genealogie is set out: and partly for that it is not expressed, but omitted in one most ancient Gréeke and Latin copie, that of late yéeres came to his hands, which he hath sent to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge there to be kept, and is there reserued. Whereupon Master Beza vpon good warrant hath omitted that name. And if we had had intelligence of that ancient Gréeke and Latin copie, we would not haue doubted to haue followed him. But whether it be expressed or omitted, it is a matter of no great moment, and concerneth no point of doctrine. Beda hauing shewed, that in the veritie of the Hebrew, the name of Cainan is in both those places of the old Testament left out, and that S. Luke alledged it (as he thought) out of the Septuaginta in­terpretors,Beda in Luc. 3. standeth in a mammering at the matter, and writeth thus: Sed quid horum sit verius, aut si vtrumque verum esse possit Deus nouerit. That is, But whether of these rea­dings be the truer, or whether both be true, God knoweth

The second place wherein you charge Master Beza with disagréeing from the Gréeke, and vs with dissenting from him, is Act. 1. v. 14. He translating: Cum vxoribus; With the wiues, and we according to the old Latin, With the women. Wherein you do but cauill, according to your accustomed [Page 25] maner, and find a knot in a rush. Doth not the Gréeke word [...] signifie indifferently both a woman in respect of hir sex, & a wife in respect of hir calling? S. Hierom can teach you this in these words:Hieron. lib. 1. aduersus Io­uinianum. Numquid non habemus potestatem mulieres vel vxores circumducendi (quia [...] apud Graecos vtrumque signifi­cat) sicut caeteri Apostoli & Cephas? &c. That is, Haue we not power to lead about, women or wiues (for the Gréeke word [...] doth signifie both) as the other Apostles and Cephas? &c. Héere S. Hierom doth not only flatly affirme, that the word [...] (which S. Luke in this place, which you alledge, Act. 1.14. doth vse) signifieth both a woman and wife: but also sheweth, that that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 9.5. may be tran­slated either women or wiues. And in his booke against Hel­uidius, he doth translate it wiues.August. de opere Monacho. cap. 4. The which also S. Augu­stine doth affirme, that som translated in that place Wiues. Therefore I beséech you, why may not this place in the Acts in like maner be translated either women or wiues, with­out going so wide from the Gréeke, and meaning of the holy Ghost, as you complaine on? Doth your old translator, tran­slating Act. 21.5. the very same two Gréeke words [...] (which be héer in this place vsed) Cum vxoribus, and you, with their wiues, go so wide from the Gréeke? Or doth Master Beza go wide from the Gréeke translating the same Gréeke words, with the very same Latin words, as the old interpre­tor doth, and he néere vnto the same? But you will say,Act. 1.14. the sense of this place requireth to be translated Women, and not wiues: and the sense of the other, Act. 21.5. Wiues, and not women. Then it followeth by your owne confession, that Master Beza hath not gone wide from the signification of the word, howsoeuer he haue gone from the sense of the place, and meaning of the matter. But if you examine that with an indifferent eie, there may as good reason be yéelded for the translating of it Wiues, as Women: as appéereth by the reasons which Erasmus and Beza do bring. Erasmus in his Annotations saith, it may be either way translated, his words be these: Accipi potest & cum vxoribus, propterea quòd separauit Mariam à mulieribus. That is, It may be taken,Erasmus in An­notat. and with their wiues, bicause he did separate Marie from the wo­men. And euen so Master Beza saith in his Annotations, [Page 26] that it may be translated either Wiues or Women: but he preferred the former: bicause the Apostles wiues were to be confirmed, who partly should be companions of their tra­uels, and partly should patiently abide their absence at home. But whether it be translated Women or Wiues, it maketh no matter, the Gréeke word will indifferently beare both. God be thanked that our Rhemish and Romish Ie­suits can alledge no greater disagréement in Bezas and our translations from the Gréeke: The which may be a good and sufficient testimonie, euen to the simple and vnlearned, of the soundnes and sinceritie of them. But I am ashamed to persist any longer in confuting these friuolous follies and cauillations.

Answer.

THe tenth and last reason that hath mooued our Rhe­mish Runnagates to translate rather out of the olde Latin than the Gréeke, is a very strange paradoxe, that the vulgar Latin translation, is not onely better than al other translations, but than the Gréeke it selfe when they differ. This I count and call a strange paradoxe, bicause it is contrarie not onely to the generall iudgement of the ancient fathers and learned writers (as héerafter shall appéere:) but also to the common course of all learning. For whereas in all other authors and writings, the originall languages, where­in the authors did first write themselues, are preferred be­fore all translations, as in Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, De­mosthenes, Homer, Galen, Euclyde, &c. and al translations are examined and reformed by the said originals: now by our Iesuits new Diuinitie, onely the Testament of Iesus Christ, written in Gréeke by his blessed Apostles, through the inspiration of Gods holie spirit, must come behind the Latin translation, translated we know not when, nor by whom. [Page 27] The Latin must not now be examined by the Gréeke (as S. Hierom, Erasmus, and other learned men haue labored to do) but the Gréeke by the Latin: for it is, they say, the better; and it is méete that the woorse be reformed by the better. Now bicause héere is the principall controuersie in this mat­ter, and héereupon depend all the diuersities that be in the English translation of the Iesuits fetched from the Latin, and ours deriued from the Gréeke: (for if the Gréeke, wher­in they cannot denie but the Apostles did write, be general­ly to be preferred before that old Latin, then ours is true, and theirs false: if otherwise the Latin be more sound and sin­cere than the Gréeke, then is theirs true, and ours false) let vs therefore somewhat more exactly examine this matter, and weigh our Rhemists reasons which mooue them to broach abrode this new doctrine and strange opinion. And although that which I haue said, may to any reasonable man séeme sufficient, that it is contrarie to all reason and all lear­ning: yet bicause our Iesuits would séeme greatly to depend vpon the Doctors, and to carrie all their annotations, and guilefull gloses in this Testament, vnder the visor of some father, let vs sée what the Latin godly and ancient fathers say in this matter. For to them in this point I must special­ly appeale, and not to the Gréeke fathers, who followed the fountaine of the Gréeke, and medled not with translations, as streames flowing from it. And after I will come to other learned men, and euen such as misliked not the Romish religion. S. Hierom who was not onely excellently learned in the thrée learned languages, but also greatly occupied in translating the whole Bible out of the Hebrew and Gréeke (as before appéereth) writeth thus:Hieronimus aduersus Hel­uidium. Non necesse est nunc de ex­emplarium varietate tractare, cùm omne & veteris & nouae Scripturae instrumentum in Latinum sermonem exinde transla­tum sit, & multò purior manare credenda sit fontis vnda quàm riui. That is, I néed not now to intreat of the varietie of the copies or examples (meaning the Latin) séeing that the whole instrument of the old and new Scripture was from thence translated into the Latin toong, and the water of the fountaine is thought to flow more pure than that of the ri­uer or streame. In these words S. Hierom doth not onely [Page 28] affirme the Latin to be translated dut of the Gréeke, but also the Gréeke to be more pure than the Latin, as the water of the fountaine is more cleane and swéete than that in the streame or riuer,Hieronimus ad Lucinium. according to the old true saying: Dulcius ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae. Againe, the same Hierom saith: Vt e­nim veterum librorū fides de Hebraeis examinanda est, ita nouorū Graeci sermonis normam desiderat. That is, As the truth of the books of the old Testament is to be examined by the Hebrew: so the bookes of the new Testament require the triall of the Gréeke.Hieronimus Suniae & Fre­tellae. Againe he writeth thus: Sicut autem in nouo Testa­mento si quando apud Latinos quaestio exoritur, & est inter exem­plaria varietas, recurrimus ad fontem Graeci sermonis quo nouum scriptum est instrumentum: ita in veteri Testamento, si quando inter Graecos Latinósque diuersitas est ad Hebraicam recurrimus veritatem: vt quicquid de fonte proficiscitur, hoc quaeramus in ri­uulis. That is, As in the new Testament if there arise any questions among the Latins, and there be varietie among the copies, we returne vnto the fountaine of the Gréeke toong in the which the new Testament was written: so in the old Testament if at any time there be diuersitie among the Greekes and Latins, we returne vnto the Hebrew veritie, that whatsoeuer floweth from the fountaine, we may séeke the same in the streames. Infinite such other places there be in S. Hierom both in his Prefaces, Epistles, and other works: and those also which before I haue in the beginning set downe, do plainly declare S. Hieroms iudgement héerin, and that he thought it most absurd to prefer the Latin before the Gréeke, as our Rhemish Iesuits are not ashamed for to do. Now let vs heare what S. Augustines opinion was, who although he were vtterly ignorant in the Hebrew▪ and as it is thought had no great knowledge in the Gréeke, writeth thus:Augustinus de ciuitate Dei, lib. 15. cap. 13. Ei linguae potius credatur, vnde est in alia per interpretes fa­cta translatio. That is, We ought rather to beléeue that toong, from the which it is by interpretation deriued into another. Againe:August. in Psal. 38. Sed quia non sunt loquelae neque sermones quorum non audiantur voces eorum, exponit sequentem lingua praecedens, & fit certum in alia, quod erat ambiguum in alia. That is, But bicause there are no languages nor toongs, where their words be not heard, the former toong expoundeth the later, and it is made [Page 29] plaine in one, which was doubtfull in another. Againe:August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 12. Quis interpretum vera sequutus sit, nisi exemplaria linguae praecedentis legantur, incertū est? That is, Which of the interpretors hath folowed the truth, vnles the examples of the former toong be read, it is vncertaine? Againe: Libros noui Testamenti, Ibid. cap. 15. si quid in Latinis varietatibus titubat, Graecis cedere oportere non est dubiū. That is, It is not to be doubted, but that the bookes of the new Testament, if that there be any doubt in the varieties of the Latin, ought to giue place vnto the Gréeke. The like he affirmeth, Sermone Domini in monte, lib. 1. August. epist. 59. And in his Epi­stles he writeth thus: Secundum Graecum eloquium discernenda sunt: nam nostri interpretes vix reperiuntur qui ea diligenter & scienter transferre curauerint. That is, These words are to be discerned by the Gréeke toong: for we can hardly find of our translators that haue béene carefull to translate this exactly and cunningly. He meaneth of the distinguishing those words, Praiers, Supplications, and intercessions, 1. Tim. 2.1. And how we ought to deale when there be any varieties in the bookes and copies of the Scriptures, S. Augustine gi­ueth vs this counsell:August. lib. 11. contra Faustū Manich. cap. 2 Ita si de fide exemplarium quaestio verte­retur, sicut in nonnullis quae & paucae sunt & sacrarum literarum studiosis notissimae sententiarum varietates, vel ex aliarum regio­num codicibus vnde ipsa doctrina commeauit, nostra dubitatio diju­dicaretur: vel si ibi quoque codices variarent, plures paucioribus, vel vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur. Et si adhuc esset incer­ta varietas, praecedens lingua, vnde hoc interpretatum est, consule­retur. Hoc modo quaerunt, qui quod eos mouet in Scripturis tanta autoritate firmatis inuenire volunt, vt habeant vndè instruantur, non vnde rixentur. That is, So if there be any question tou­ching the truth of the copies or examples of the Scripture, as in some there be varieties of sentences, which both be few, and also well knowen to those that be studious in the holie Scripture, then our doubt is to be iudged either by the books of other countries, from whence the doctrine came vnto vs: or if there also the bookes differ, then the mo be to be prefer­red before the fewer, and the more ancient before the later. And if as yet there remaine a doubtfull varietie, the former toong, from whence it was translated, should be conferred with. In this sort do they séeke, which would find in the holy [Page 30] Scriptures, confirmed by so great authoritie, that which troubleth them, that they may haue wherewith they may be edified and instructed, and not wherewith to wrangle and raile. This is the good counsell of that good father, the which our Rhemish Iesuits not following, it séemeth, and by their writings it plainly appéereth, that in this edition of the Te­stament, they séeke rather to wrangle and raile, than either to be instructed themselues,Ambros. de in­carnat. verbi, cap. 8. or to profit Gods people. Saint Ambrose also preferreth the Gréeke text in these words: Ita enim inuenimus in Graecis codicibus quorum potior autoritas est. That is, For so we find it in the Gréeke bookes, whose auto­ritie is better. Tertullian also preferreth the Gréeke in these words:Tertullianus lib. 2. aduersus Marcionem. ‘In primis tenendum quod Graeca Scriptura signauit, affla­tum nominans non spiritum. Quidam enim de Graeco interpretan­tes, non recogitata differentia, nec curata proprietate verborum pro afflatu spiritum ponunt, & dant haereticis occasionem Spiritum Dei infussandi, id est, ipsum Deum.’ That is, Especially we must hold that which the Scripture in Gréeke hath set downe, na­ming afflatum, that is, breath or wind, and not spirit. For some translating from the Gréeke, and not considering the difference, nor regarding the propertie of the words, haue for breath put spirit, and giue occasion to heretikes to attri­bute sinne to the spirit of God, that is, to God himselfe.

By these sayings of these ancient fathers it may suffici­ently appéere, what was their iudgement concerning the o­riginall text of the holie Scripture, and how far they were from this absurd assertion of our Rhemish Iesuits in prefer­ring the troubled streame of their Latin translation before the pure fountaine of the Gréeke. Now I will set downe the iudgement of some later writers, and such as were no ad­uersaries, but fauorers of the Romish religion. Ludouicus Viues in his Commentaries vpon S. Augustine De ciuitate Dei, Ludouicus Vi­ues in Aug. de ciuitate Dei, lib. 15. cap. 13. vpon those words of Augustine before alledged: Ei lin­guae potius credatur, &c. writeth thus: ‘Hoc ipsum Hieronimus clamat, hoc ipsa docet ratio. Et nullus est saniore iudicio qui repug­net. Sed frustra consensus bonorum ingeniorum hoc censet. Nam rigidus stupor velut moles opponitur. Non quia isti inscij sunt ea­rum linguarum, nam nec Hebraicè sciebat Augustinus, & Graecè minus quàm mediocriter. Sed non est in hijs ea modestia animi quae [Page 31] in Augustino. Hic vndiquaque paratus erat doceri, isti nusquam volunt doceri, vbique docere quod ignorant.’ That is, This Hie­rom earnestly (vz. that more credit and autoritie be giuen to the Hebrew in the old, and Gréeke in the new Testament, than to any translations) this reason it selfe teacheth. And there is none of any sound iudgement, that will denie the same. But in vaine doth the consent of good wits thus thinke. For stiffe sturdines as a bulwarke is set against it. The which they do not, bicause they be ignorant of those toongs. For neither S. Augustine did vnderstand the Hebrew any thing, and but meanly the Gréeke. But there is not in these men that modestie of mind which was in Augustine. He was readie and willing any waies to be taught: these men will neuer be taught, but will alwaies teach that which they do not vnderstand. Hitherto Lud▪ Viues.

Erasmus also who too much continued vnder the obedience of the Romish church, writeth thus:Erasmus in prae­fatione in Anno­tat. Noui Test. Testamentum quod vo­cant Nouum, &c. That is, The new Testament as they call it, we haue recognised with as great, both diligence as wée might, and faithfulnes as we ought, and that first according to the truth of the Gréeke, whereunto for to flie, if any doubt fall out, not onely the examples of famous Diuines do coun­sell vs, but also Hierom and Augustine do often bid vs, and the very decrées of the Bishops of Rome do command vs.