Is altering and revising English Bibles wrong? In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators noted that the Roman Catholics criticized Protestants for "altering and amending our translations so often." Thomas Fuller observed that Catholics asked: "Was their translation good before? Why do they amend it?" (CHURCH HISTORY OF BRITAIN, Vol. V, p. 407). In his 1582 book, Gregory Martin, a Roman Catholic, condemned the early English translations with this accusation: "How is it ... that in your later English bibles you change your former translation from better to worse?" (FULKE, A DEFENCE, p. 323). Martin claimed that "books which were so translated by Tyndale and the like, as being not indeed God's book ...or scripture, but the devil's word" (p. 228). Martin argued that present translations must be evaluated or judged by the ancient Latin Vulgate translation that had been used by the Roman Catholic Church for over 1,000 years. On the other hand, the KJV translators argued that it was good to revise and to attempt to improve earlier translations of God's Word. They acknowledged that such attempts were often incorrectly viewed with suspicion and jealousy; and that they would be accused of changing and correcting sacred Scripture, but they nevertheless contended that revision was necessary. In their preface, they wrote: "If anything be halting, or superflous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place."