this to the former again." * The three translations referred to are, of course, the Great Bible, the Genevan and the Bishops'. Fulke answered him in A Defence of the sincere and true Translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong, against the manifolde cauils, friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie Martin, one of the readers of Popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes etc., London etc., 1583. There is much ability displayed by both, though in most instances Fulke gets the better of his adversary; the two books (which may be read substantially in one, in the Parker's Society edition) shed much light on a large number of passages, as they were understood and interpreted at the time, and are very useful. His defence of the translators of the English is very noble, to wit these passages: "We never go from that text and ancient reading which all the fathers used and expounded; but we translate that most usual text, which was first printed out of the most ancient copies that could be found; and if any be since found, or if any of the ancient fathers did read otherwise than the usual copies, in any word that is in any way material, in annotation, commentaries, readings, and sermons, we spare not to declare it as occasion serveth. . . . . We never flee from the Hebrew and Greek in any place, much less in places of controversy: but we always hold, as near as we can, that which the Greek and Hebrew signifieth. But if in places of controversy we take witness of the Greek or vulgar Latin, where the Hebrew or Greek may be thought ambiguous; I trust no wise man will count this a flight from the Hebrew and Greek, which we always translate aright, whether it agree with the Seventy or vulgar Latin, or no.”† The spirit and manner in which controversies were conducted towards the close of the sixteenth century may be illustrated by a passage which has a direct connection with an alleged interpolation in the Bishops' Bible, and therefore is not out of place here. Martin says: "Again, Saul confounded the Jews, proving (by conferring one scripture with another), that this is very Christ." These words "by conferring one scripture with another," are added more than is in the Greek text; in favor of their presumptuous opinion, that conference of scriptures is enough for any man to understand them, and so to reject both the commentaries of the doctors, and exposition of holy councils, and catholic church: it is so much more, I say, than is in the Greek text, * l. c. pp. 9-11. † pp. 99, 100. and a notorious corruption in their bible, read daily in their churches as most authentical. [The only edition of the Bishops' Bible known to have the obnoxious clause is that of 1584, which Martin could not have used, because he wrote in 1582. There are two editions of the Bible of the year 1577, Jugge's quarto of the Bishops', and Barker's folio of the Genevan. The Genevan has the clause in the margin.] Fulke's answer to the charge is this: "Either you make a loud lie, or else some one print which you have of the Bishops' bible, which you call Bib. 1577, hath put that into the line, that should be the note in the margin. For, of four translations that I have, never a one hath that addition. The Bishops' bible hath that, Chapt. ix. 22, thus: "But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this was very Christ." The Geneva bible thus: "But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, confirming that this was the Christ," where the note in the margin upon the word, "confirming," is this: "proving by the conference of the Scriptures." Thomas Matthew's Bible translateth that verse thus: "But Saul increased in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this was very Christ." Master Coverdale's bible, 1562, hath it thus: "But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this was very Christ." Thus are all our translations without that addition, which, although it is not to be borne in the text, yet is no heretical addition, except you count it heresy to prove a thing by conference of Scripture. The conclusion of the controversy may likewise conclude this chapter on the Bishops' Bible: Martin: "To conclude: are not your scholars, think you, much bound unto you, for giving them, instead of God's blessed word and his holy Scriptures, such translations heretical, judaical, profane, false, negligent, fantastical, new, naught, monstrous? God open their eyes to see, and mollify your hearts to repent of all your falsehood and treachery, both that which is manifestly convinced against you and cannot be denied, as also that which may by some shew of answer be shifted in the sight of the ignorant, but in your consciences is as manifest as the other!" Fulke: "Happy and thrice happy hath our English nation been, since God hath given learned translators, to express in our mother tongue the heavenly mysteries of his holy word, delivered to his church in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Who, although they have in some matters, of no importance unto salvation, as men, been deceived; yet have they faithfully delivered the whole substance of the heavenly doctrine, contained in the holy scriptures, without any heretical translations or wilful corruptions; and in the whole bible, among them all, have committed as few oversights for anything that you can bring, and of less importance, than you have done only in the New Testament; where, beside so many omissions, even out of your own vulgar Latin translation, you have taken upon you to alter that you found in your text, and translate that which is only in the margin, and is read but in few written copies: as for Italia you say Attalia, noted before Heb. xiii., for placuerunt you translate latuerunt, 2 Pet. II., for coinquinationis, which is in the text, you translate coinquinationes, which was found but in one only copy by Hentenius, as the other but one or two of thirty divers copies, most written." * CHAPTER XII. THE RHEMES TESTAMENT AND DOUAY BIBLE. THIS is the Roman Catholic Version of the Scriptures executed by English refugees of the Roman Catholic persuasion in the reign of Elizabeth. The three chief promoters of this translation, referred to in the advertisement to the Douay Bible as tres diversi ejus nationis eruditissimi theologi, are said to have been, on the authority of Possevin,† William Allen, Gregory Martin and Richard Bristow. William Allen who had been canon of York, and principal of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, in the reign of Queen Mary, fled to Louvain, was made successively doctor of divinity, a canon of Cambray and of Rhemes, and bore a prominent part in the establishment of the Romish Seminary for English students at the last place. Bp. Andrewe's says of him: "His forehead was surely flint, and his tongue a razor."‡ *Defense, etc. p. 591. ↑ Ant. Possevini Apparatus Sacer I. 225. Cologne, 1608, fol. Tortura Torti, p. 143. Gregory Martin, already referred to in the chapter on the Bishops' Bible (ad finem), was a native of Maxfield in Sussex, one of the original scholars of St. John's College, Oxford, where he took his M. A. in 1564, and reputed the best Hebrew and Greek scholar of his college. Becoming a pervert to Popery, he went to Douay in 1570, and became a divinity reader in the Seminary at Rhemes. He was the chief translator of the entire Bible, an able controversial writer, and died in 1584, his death, it is said, having been hastened by his incessant toil. Richard Bristow, a native of Worcester, successively M.A. of Christ Church, and Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, abjured Protestantism in 1569, and became a reader of divinity, first at Douay, and then at Rhemes. The notes in the New Testament are said to have been prepared by him, while, Thomas Worthington, also an Oxford man, and afterwards president of the Seminary at Rhemes, is reported to have prepared the annotations and tables for the Old Testament. The New Testament appeared in 1582, in quarto, and its title page reads thus: THE NEW TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST, TRANSLATED FAITHFULLY INTO ENGLISH out of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred vvith the Greeke and other editions in diuers languages: VVith Arguments of bookes and chapters, Annotations, and other necessarie helpes, for the better understanding of the text, and specially for the discouerie of the CORRVPTIONS of diuers late translations, and for cleering the CONTROVERSIES in religion, of these daies: IN THE ENGLISH COLLEGE OF RHEMES. Da mihi intellectum, & scrutabor legem tuam, & custodiam illam in toto corde meo. That is, Giue me vnderstanding, and I vvill search thy lavv, and vvill keepe it vvith my vvhole hart. St. Aug. tract. 2, in Epist. Joan. Omnia, quæ leguntur in Scripturis sanctis, ad instructionem & salutem nostram intentè oportet audire: maximè tamen memoriæ commendanda sunt, quæ aduersus Hæreticos valent plurimùm: quorum insidiæ, infirmiores quosque & negligentiores circumuenire non cessant. That is, Al things that are readde in holy Scriptures, vve must hear with great attention, to our instruction and saluation: but those things specially must be commended to memorie, vvhich make most against Heretikes: vvhose deceites cease not to circumuent and beguile al the vveaker sort and the more negligent persons. PRINTED AT RHEMES, BY JOHN FOGNY. 1582. The Preface, which is quite lengthy, is a document of consummate skill and ingenious special pleading. It makes no reference to the use of the earlier English translations, and contemporary versions, to which the translators of this version were under very great obligations, as will be shown hereafter. This preface treats of three points: 1. Of the translation of Holy Scriptures into the vulgar tongues, and namely into English. 2. Of the causes why this New Testament is translated according to the ancient vulgar Latin text. manner of translating the same. 3. Of the "Now since Luther's revolt also," they say, "diuers learned Catholikes for the more speedy abolishing of a number of false and impious translations put forth by sundry sectes, and for the better preseruation or reclaime of many good soules endangered thereby, haue published the Bible in the several languages of almost al the principal prouinces of the Latin church: no other bookes in the world being so pernicious as heretical translations of the Scriptures, poisoning the people vnder colour of diuine authoritie, and not many other remedies being more soueraine against the same (if it be vsed in order, discretion, and humilitie) then the true, faithful, and sincere interpretation opposed therevnto; "Which causeth the Holy Church not to forbid vtterly any Catholic translation, though she allow not the publishing or reading of any abso |