A DISCOVERIE OF THE MANIFOLD CORRVPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTVRES BY THE Heretikes of our daies, specially the English Sectaries, and of their foule dealing herein, by partial & false trans­lations to the aduantage of their he [...] ­sies, in their English Bibles vsed and authorised since the time of Schisme.

By GREGORY MARTIN one of the readers of Diuinitie in the ENGLISH COLLEGE OF RHEMES.

2 Cor. 2.

Non sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes verbum Dei, sed ex sinceritate sed sicut ex Deo, coram Deo, in Christo loquimur.

That is,

VVe are not as very many, adulterating the word of God, but of sinceritie, & as of God, before God, in Christ vve speake.

Printed at RHEMES, By Iohn Fogny.

1582.

THE PREFACE CONTEINING FIVE SVNDRIE ABVSES OR CORRVPTIONS OF HOLY Scriptures, common to al Heretikes, & agreing specially to these of our time: vvith many other necessarie aduertise­ments to the reader.

Heretikes fiue vvaies specially a­buse the Scriptures. AS it hath been alvvaies the fashiō of Heretikes to pretēd Scriptures, for shevv of their cause: so hath it been also their custom and pro­pertie to abuse the said Scriptures many vvaies, in fauour of their er­rours.

1 Denying certaine bo­okes or par­tes of bo­okes.1 One vvay is, to deny vvhole bookes thereof or partes of bookes, vvhen they are euidently a­gainst them. So did (for example) Ebion al S. Paules epistles, Manicheus the Actes of the Apostles, Alo­giani S. Iohns Gospel, Marcion many peeces of S. Lukes Gospel, and so did both these and other he­retikes in other bookes, denying and allovving vvhat they list, as is euident by S. Ireneus, S. Epipha­nius, S. Augustine, and al antiquitie.

2 Doubting of their au­thoritie, and calling them into questiō2 An other vvay is, to call into question at the least and make some doubt of the authoritie of certaine bookes of holy Scriptures, thereby to diminish their credite. so did Manicheus affirme of [Page]the vvhole nevv Testament, that it vvas not vvrit­ten by the Apostles: & peculiarly of S. Matthevves Gospel, that it was some other mās vnder his name: and therfore not of such credite, but that it might in some part be refused. so did Marciō & the Ariās deny the epistle to the Hebrues to be S. Paules, Epiphan. li. 2. haer. 69: Euseb. li. 4. hist. c. 27. & Alo­giani the Apocalypse to be S. Iohns the Euāgelist. Epiph. & August. in haer. Alogianorum.

3 Voluntarie expositions according to euery ones fansie or he­resie.3 An other way is, to expound the Scriptures after their ovvne priuate conceite and phantasie, not according to the approued sense of the holy auncient fathers and Catholike Church. so did Theodorus Mopsuestites (Act. Synod. 5.) affirme of al the bookes of the Prophets, and of the Psalmes, that they spake not euidently of Christ, but that the auncient fathers did voluntarily dravv those sayings vnto Christ vvhich vvere spoken of other matters. so did al heretikes, that vvould seeme to groūd their heresies vpon Scriptures, & to auouch them by Scriptures expounded according to their ovvne sense and imagination.

4 Changing some vvor­des or sen­tēces of the very origi­nal text. Tertul. cont. Marcio. li. 1. in princ.4 An other vvay is, to alter the very original text of the holy Scripture, by adding, taking away or changing it here and there for their purpose. so did the Arians in sundrie places, and the Nestoriās in the first epistle of S. Iohn, and especially Mar­cion, vvho was therfore called, Mus Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, because he had gnavven (as it vvere) certaine places vvith his corruptions, whereof some are said to remaine in the Greeke text vntil this day.Tertull. li. 5.

5 False and heretical translation.5 An other way is, to make false translations of the Scriptures for the maintenance of errour and heresie. so did the Arians (as S. Hierom noteth in 26. Esa.) read and translate Prouerb. 8. Dominus crea­uit me in initio viarum suarum. that is, The Lord crea­ted [Page]me in the beginning of his vvaies, [...], possedit. [...] so to make Christ the vvisedom of God, a more creature. S. Augustin also li. 5. Cont. Iulian. c. 2. noteth it as the interpre­tation of some Pelagian Gen. 3. Fecerunt sibi vesti menta, for, perizómata or campestria. that is, They made them selues garments. whereas the vvord of the Scrip­ture is, breeches or aprons proper & peculiar to co­uer the secrete partes. Againe, the self same Hereti­kes did reade falsely Ro. 5.Aug. ep. 89. & lib. 1. de pec. mer. ca 11. [...]. Regnauit mors ab Adam vsque ad Moysen etiā in eos qui peccauerūt in similitudinē praeuaricationis Adae, that is, Death reigned from Adam to Moyses euen on them that sinned after the similitude of the preuarication of Adam, to maintaine their he­resie against original sinne, that none vvere in­fected therewith, or subiect to death & damnatiō, but by sinning actually as Adam did. Thus did the old Heretikes.

6 what these of our daies? is it credible that being so vvel vvarned by the condemnation and detesta­tion of them, they also vvould be as mad and as impious as those? Heretikes (gentle Reader) be alvvaies like Heretikes, and hovvsoeuer they differ in opinions or names, yet in this point they agree, to abuse the Scriptures for their purpose by al meanes possibly. I vvil but touche foure points of the fiue before mentioned, because my purpose is to stay vpon the last only, and to discipher their corrupt translations.That the Protestants and Calui­nistes vse the foresaid fiue meanes of defacing the Scriptu­res. But if I vvould stand vpon the other also, vvere it not easy to shevv the maner of their proceding against the Scriptures to haue been thus: to deny some vvhole bookes and parts of bookes, to call other some into question, to ex­pound the rest at their pleasure, to picke quarels to the very original and Canonical text, to fester and infect the vvhole body of the Bible vvith cankred translations?

7 Did not Luther deny S. Iames epistle and so contemne it that he called it an epistle of stravv, & not vvorthie of an Apostolical spirit? must I proue this to M. Vvhitakers, vvho vvould neuer haue *Cont. rat. Edm. Camp. pag. 11. denied it so vehemently in the superlatiue degree for shame, if he had not thought it more shame to graunt it? I neede not goe far for the matter: Aske M. Fulke,Retent. pag. 32. dist. of the Rocke p. 307. Luther. in nouo Test. Germa. in Pref. Iacob. and he vvil flatly confesse it vvas so. Aske Caluin in arg. ep. Iacobi. aske Flaccus Illyri­cus, in argum. ep. Iacobi. and you shal perceiue it is very true. I vvil not send you to the Catholike Germans and others, both of his ovvne time and after, that vvrote against him in the question of iu­stification: among vvhom not one omitteth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the con­fusion of that Arch heretike.

8 To let this passe: Tobie, Ecclesiasticus, & the Machabees are they not most certainely reiected? and yet they vvere allovved and receiued for Ca­nonical, by the same authoritie that S. Iames epistle vvas. This epistle the Caluinists are content to admit, because *Cōc. Carth. 3 can. 47. so it pleased Caluin: those bookes they reiect, because so also it pleased him. And vvhy did it so please Caluin? vnder pretence for­sooth that they vvereonce doubted of, and not taken for Canonical. but is that the true cause in deede? Hovv do they then *Argum. in ep. Iac. receiue S. Iames epistle as Canonical, hauing been before doubted of also, yea (as *Vvhitak. p. 10. ibid. they say) reiected?

9 Marke gentle Reader for thy soules sake, and thou shalt finde, that heresie and only heresie is the cause of their denying these bookes: so far, that against the orders and Hierarchies and particular patronages of Angels, one of them vvriteth thus in the name of the rest,ibid. p. 17. M Whitak. by these vvordes cō ­demneth their ovvne Seruice bo­oke, which appointe [...]h these bookes of Tobie & Ecclesiasti­cus, to be readde for holy Scrip­ture, as the other. Do they readde in their Churches Apocryphal and super­stitious bo­okes for ho­ly Scripture? or is he a Puritane, that thus disgraceth their order of daily Seruice? Vve passe not for that Raphael of Tobie, neither do vve acknovvledge those seuen Angels vvhich he speaketh of. al this is far from Canonical Scrip­tures [Page]that the same Raphael recordeth, and sauoureth I vvot not vvhat superstition. Against free vvil thus: I litle care for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither vvil I be­leeue free vvil, though he affirme an hundred times, That before men is life and death. And against praier for the dead, and intercession of Saincts, thus: As for the booke of the Machabees, I do care lesse for it then for the other. Iudas dreame cōcerning Onias I let passe as a dreame. This is their reuerence of the Scriptures vvhich haue vniuersally been reuerenced for Canonical in the Church of God aboue 1100 yeres, Conc. Carth. 3. and particularly of many fathers long before. August. de doct. Christ. lib. 2 ca. 8.

10 As for partes of bookes do they not reiect cer­taine peeces of Daniel and of Hester, because they are not in the Hebrue, vvhich reason S. Augustine reiecteth: or because they vvere once doubted of by certaine of the fathers? by vvhich reason some part of S. Marke and S. Lukes Gospel might novv also be called in controuersie, specially if it be true vvhich M. Vvhitakers by a figuratiue speache more then insinuateth, That he can not see by vvhat right that vvhich once vvas not in credite, pag. 10. should by time vvinne authoritie. Forgetting him self by & by, and in the very next lines admitting S. Iames epistle (though before doubted of) for Canonical Scriptures.M. Vvhitak. booke. vnles they receiue it but of their courtesie, and so may refuse it vvhen it shal please them, vvhich must needes be gathered of his vvordes, as also many other notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumme blāckes. Vvhich only to note, were to con­fute M. whitakers by him self, being the Ansvverer for both Vniuersities.

11 For the second point, vvhich is not the grosse denial of bookes, but yet calling of them in que­stion, mouing scruples about them, & diminishing their authoritie and credite, I vvil goe no further [Page]then to S. Paules epistle to the Hebrues,In the argu­ment Bib. an. 1579. vvhich I vvil not aske vvhy they doubt of, or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules, for they vvil tel me, because it vvas once in doubt (not considering that it vvas in like maner doubted vvhether it vvere Canoni­cal, & yet they vvil not novv deny but it is Cano­nical) but I must aske them and request them to make a reasonable ansvver, vvhy in their English Bible of the yere 1579 and 1580 they presume to leaue out S. Paules name out of the very title of the said epistle, vvhich name is * [...] in the Greeke, and in Bezas Latin translation, both vvhich they professe to folovv. See the title of the new Test. an. 1580. Doth not the title tel them that it is S. Paules? vvhy seeke they further: or vvhy do they change the title, striking out S. Paules name, if they meant to deale simply and sincerely? and vvhat an heretical peeuishnes is this, because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greeke copie that hath not Paules name, and onely one: that they vvil rather folovv it then al other copies both Greeke and Latin? I report me to al indifferent men of common sense, vvhether they do it not to diminish the credite of the epistle.

12 I knovv very vvel that the authoritie of Ca­nonical Scripture standeth not vpon the certaintie of the author, but yet to be Paules or not Paules, Apostolical or not Apostolical, maketh great dif­ference of credite and estimation. For, vvhat made S. Iames epistle doubted of sometime, or the secōd of S. Peter, and the rest, but that they vvere not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles? This Luther savv very vvel, vvhen he denied S. Iames epistle to be sames the Apostles vvriting: If titles of bookes be of no importāce, then leaue out Mat­thevv, Marke, Luke, and Iohn, leaue out Paul in his other epistles also, and you shal much pleasure [Page]the Manichees and other old Heretikes: and if the titles make no difference, vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse, S. Iohn the Diuines, as though it vvere not S. Iohns the Euangelistes, and you shal much displeasure some Heretikes novv a daies. breefely, most certaine it is, and they knovv it best by their ovvne vsual doings, that it is a principal vvay to the discredite of any booke▪ to deny it to be that authors, vnder vvhose name it hath been receiued.

13 But I come to the third point of volūtarie ex­positions of the Scripture, that is vvhen euery man expoūdeth according to his errour & Heresie. This needeth no proofe, for vve see it vvith our eies. Looke vpon the Caluinists and Puritanes at home, the Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Caluinists abrode: read their bookes vvritten vehemently, one sect against an other: are not their expositions of one and the same Scripture as diuerse and contrarie, as their opinions differ one from an other? Let the example at home be, their controuersie about the distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees, Arch-bishop, Bishop, and minister: the example abrode, their diuers imaginations & phantasies vpon these most sacred vvordes, Hoc est corpus meum.

14 And if you vvil yet haue a further demonstra­tion, this one may suffice for al. They reiect Coun­cels, and Fathers, and the Catholike Churches in­terpretation, vnles it be agreable to Gods vvord, and vvhether it be agreable or no that Luther shal iudge for the Lutherans, Caluin for the Caluinists, Cartvvright for the Puritanes, and an other for the Brethren of loue: breefely *Vvhitak. pa. 17. & 120. them selues vvil be iudges both of Councels and Fathers whether they expound the Scriptures vvel or no, & euery youth among them vpon confidence of his spirit and knovvledge vvil saucily controule not onely one [Page]but al the fathers cōsenting together, if it be against that vvhich they imagine to be the truth.

15 Vvherevpon it riseth that one of them defen­deth this as very vvel said of Luther,lb. pag. 101. that he esteemed not the vvorth of a rush a thousand Augustines, Cyprians, Churches, against him self. And an other very finely and figuratiuely, (as he thought) against the holy Doctor and Martyr S. Cyprian affirming that the Church of Rome can not erre in faith, Praef. ad 6 theses Oxon pag. 25. saith thus: Pardon me Cyprian, I vvould gladly beleeue thee, but that belee­uing thee, I should not beleeue the Gospel. This is that vvhich S. Augustine saith of the like men,Li. Confess. 1. ca. 14. li. 7. c. 20. dulcissimè vanos esse, non peritos sed perituros, nectam disertos in errore, quā desertos a veritate. And I thinke verily that not only vve, but the vviser men among them selues smile at such eloquence, or pitie it, saying this or the like most truely,Cicero de Senect. Prodierunt oratores noui, stulti adolescentuli.

16 The 4 point is, of picking quarels to the ve­ry original text: for alter & change it I hope they shal not be able in this vvatchful vvorld of most vigilant Catholikes. But vvhat they vvould doe, if al Bibles vvere only in their handes and at their commaundement,Beza the mouse of Geneua, gnavveth the text of Scripture. ghesse by this: that Beza against the euidence of al copies both Greeke and Latin, (In hís Annot. vpon the new Test. set forth in the yere 1556.) thinketh [...] is more then should be in the text Mat. 10: & [...] Luc. 22. and [...] Act. 7: the first, against Peters su­premacie: the second, against the real presence of Christs bloud in the B. Sacrament: the third, against the making of vvhatsoeuer images, vvhether they be adored or no. Thus you see hovv the mouse of Geneua (as I told you before of Marcion the mouse of Pontus) knibbleth and gnavveth about it, though he can not bite it of altogether.

17 He doth the like in sundrie places vvhich you may see in his Annotations Act. 7. v. 16. Vvhere he is saucie against al copies Greeke and Latin to pro­nounce corruption, corruption, auouching and endeuouring to proue that it must be so, and that vvith these vvordes. To vvhat purpose should the holy Ghost, or Luke, adde this? Act. 8. v. 26. But because those places concerne no cōtrouersie, I say no more but that he biteth at the text, and vvould change it ac­cording to his imagination, if he might: vvhich is to proud an enterprise for Beza, and smal reue­rence of the holy scriptures, so to call the very text into controuersie, that vvhatsoeuer pleaseth not him, crept out of the margent into the text, vvhich is his common and almost his only con­iecture.

18 He biteth sore at the vvord [...] Luc. 1. v. 78. and vvil not trāslate that, [...] but the Hebrue word of the old Testament. but at [...] (Act. 2. v. 24.) much more, & at [...] (Act 7. v. 14.) ex­cedingly: but yet after he hath said al that he could against it, he concludeth, that he durst not, and that he had a conscience, vpon coniecture to change any thing. And therfore al this is gnavving only.no. Test. an. 1556. [...]. Beza recon­cileth the Greeke text of the nevv Testament vvith the Hebrue text of the old, by putting out of the Greeke text so much as pleaseth him. but in the 3 of Luke he maketh no conscience at al, to leaue out these wordes vers. 36, Qui fuit Cainan, not only in his owne translation, but in the vulgar Latin vvhich is ioyned therewith, saying in his Annot. Non dubitauimus expungere, that is, Vve doubted not to put it out: & vvhy? by the authoritie of Moyses Gen. 11. Vvhereby he signifieth▪ that it is not in the Hebrue Gen. 11. vvhere this posteritie of Sem is reckened: and so to mainteine the Hebrue veritie (as they call it) in the old Testament he ca [...]th not vvhat become of the Greeke in the nevv Testament: vvhich yet at other times, against the vulgar Latin [Page]text, they call the Greeke veritie, and the pure fountaine, and that text vvhereby al translations must be tried.

19 But if he haue no other vvay to reconcile both Testaments, but by striking out in the Greeke of the new, al that agreeth not vvith the Hebrue of the old Testament, then let him alter and chāge so many wordes of our Sauiour him self, of the Euangelistes, and of the Apostles, as are cited out of the old Testament, and are not in Hebrue. Vvhich places they know are very many, & when neede is, they shal be gathered to their handes. Let him strike out (Mat. 13. v. 14.15. & Act. 28. v. 26.27) the vvordes of our Sauiour and S. Paul,Esa. 6, 9.10. Gal 3, 13. [...]. cited out of Esay, because they are far otherwise in the He­brue. Strike out of the epistle to the Galatiās these vvordes, vpon a tree: because in the Hebrue it is on­ly thus. Cursed is he that is hanged. Deut. 21 in fine. Yea strike out of Dauids Psalmes that which con­cerneth our redemption vpon the Crosse much neerer, They haue pearced my handes & my feete, Ps. 21. because in the Hebrue thére is no such thing. Let them cōntroule the Apostle, [...] Eph. 4, for saying, dedit he gaue giftes: because it is both in the Hebrue and Greeke, (Psal. 67) Accepisti, thou tookest giftes. and (Hebr. 10) for, corpus aptasti, let them put, aures per­forasti, because it is so in the Hebrue Psal. 40. To be short, if al must be reformed according to the He­brue, vvhy doth he not in S. Steuens sermon cut of the number of fiue soules from seuentie fiue, because it is not in the Hebrue?

20 Must such difficulties and diuersities be re­solued by chopping and changing, hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scripture? See in­to vvhat perplexities wilful heresie and arrogācie hath driuen them. To discredite the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible, and the fathers expositiós [Page]according to the same (for that is the original cause of this) and besides, that they may haue al­waies this euasion, It is not so in the Hebrue, it is other­vvise in the Greeke, and so seeme ioly fellowes and great clerkes vnto the ignorant people, what doe they? they admit only the Hebrue in the old Test. and the Greeke in the nevv, to be the true and au­thentical text of the Scripture. Vvherevpō this fo­lovveth, that they reiect, and must needes reiect the Greeke of the old Test. (called the Septuaginta) as false, because it differeth frō the Hebrue.Their per­plexitie in defending both the he­brue text of the old Tes­tament, and Greeke text of the new. Vvhich being reiected, therevpon it folovveth againe, that wheresoeuer those places so disagreing from the Hebrue are cited by Christ or the Euangelistes & Apostles, there also they must be reiected, because they disagree from the Hebrue. and so yet againe it folovveth, that the Greeke text of the nevv Tes­tament is not true, because it is not according to the Hebrue verítie: and consequently the wordes of our Sauiour, and vvritings of hís Apostles must be reformed (to say the lest) because they speake according to the Septuaginta, and not according to the Hebrue.

21 Al which must needes folow, if this be a good consequēce, I finde it not in Moyses, nor in the Hebrue, therfore I strooke it out, as Beza doth and saith con­cerning the foresaid vvordes, Qui fuit Cainan. This consequence therfore let vs see hovv they vvil iu­stifie: and vvithal let them tel vs, vvhether they vvil discredite the nevv Testament, because of the Septuaginta, or credite the Septuaginta, because of the nevv Testamēt, or hovv they cā credite one, & discredite the other, vvhere both agree & consent together: or, vvhether they vvil discredite both, for credite of the Hebrue: or rather, whether there be not some other way to reconcile both Hebrue and Greeke, better then Bezas impudent presum­ption. [Page]Vvhich if they vvil not mainteine, let them flatly confesse that he did vvickedly, and not (as they doe) defend euery vvord and deede of their Maisters, be it neuer so heinous, or salue it at the least.

Hovv the fa­thers recon­cile the said Hebrue and Greeke.22 Alas hovv far are these men from the mo­destie of the auncient fathers, vvho seeke al other meanes to resolue difficulties, rather then to doe violence to the sacred Scripture, and vvhen they finde no vvay,Li. 18. de Ci­uit c. 43. 2 Lib. de Doct. Chr. c. 15. they leaue it to God. S. Au­gustine concerning the difference of the Hebrue and the Greeke, saith often to this effect, that it pleased the holy Ghost to vtter by the one, that vvhich he vvould not vtter by the other. And S. Ambrose thus,Hexam. li. 3. cap. 6. Vve haue found many things not idly added of the 70 Greeke interpreters. S. Hierom, though an earnest patrone of the Hebrue (not vvithout cause,In Prooem. li. Paralip. being at that time perhaps the Hebrue veritie in deede) yet giueth many reasons for the diffe­rences of the Septuaginta, and concerning the foresaid places of S. Luke, he doth giue a reason thereof,Cōment. in 28. Esa. and in quaestion. Hebrai. both for the 70, and for the Euangelist that folovved them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controuling them by the authoritie of Moyses (as Beza speaketh) that is, by the Hebrue. Others say concerning Cainan, that Moyses might leaue him out in the Genealogie of Sem, by the instinct of the same Spirit,Mat. c. 1. that S. Matthevv left out three kings in the genealogie of our Sauiour. Vvhere if a man vvould controule the Euangelist by the Hebrue of the old Testament that is read in the bookes of the kings, he should be as vvise and as honest a man as Beza.Praef. in Act. Apost. Lastly, Venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient in this very difficultie of Cainan, to maruel at it reuerently, rather then to searche it dangerously. And thus far of picking [Page]quarels to the original text, and their good vvil to alter and change it as they list, if they might be suffered.

The 5. abuse of Scriptu­res, Corrupt translation. vvhich is the argumēt and purpo­se of this booke.23 Vvhich also may be proued by al their false translatíons (being the principal point I meane to speake of) most euidently. For as novv they trans­late falsely to their purpose, because they can not alter the text: so vvould they, if it vvere possible, haue the text agreable to their translation. For ex­ample, he that translateth, ordinances, vvhen it is in the original Greeke text, iustifications, and, traditions, he vvould rather that it vvere, ordinances, also in the Greeke: but because he cannot bring that about, he doth at the least vvhat he can, to make the igno­rant beleeue it is so, by so translating it.

24 And this of al other is the most fine and subtil treacherie against the Scriptures, to deceiue the ignorant readers vvithal,2 Cor. 4. (vvhich S. Paul calleth the secrete things of dishonestie, and adulterating of the vvord of God, as it vvere mingling vvater vvith vvine like false vinteners) vvhen they giue them for Gods vvord, & vnder the name of Gods word, their ovvne vvordes, and not Gods, forged and framed, altered and changed, according to diffe­rences of times, and varietie of nevv opinions, and diuersitie of humors and spirits, diuersely and dif­ferently, one Heretike not only correcting his fel­lovv euery day,The Here­tikes dissen­sion about their trans­lations. but one egrely refuting and resol­ [...]ing an other.Dial. cont. Melancth. Lind. dubit. pag. 84, 96.98. Bucer, and the Osiandrians andSee Zuingl. resp. 1. and Confess. Ti­gurinorum. Sacramentaries against Luther for false transla­tions: Luther against Munster, Beza against Casta­leo, Castaleo against Beza, Caluin against Seruetus, Illyricus both against Caluin and Beza: The Puri­tanes cōtroule the grosser Caluinistes of our Coun­trie, yea the later translations of the self same He­retikes controule the former excedingly, not only of ouersights, but of vvilful falsifications, as it is [Page]notorious in the *ibid. pag. 83.97. later editions of Luther and Beza, and in our English Bibles set forth in diuers yeres, from Tindal their first translatour vntil this day:The nevv Test. of the yere 1580. yea (vvhich is more) the English trāslatours of Bezas nevv Testament, controule him and his translation vvhich they protest to folovv,Luc. 3, 36. being afraid sometime and ashamed to expresse in En­glish his false translations in the Latin.

25 But in this Catalogue of dissentions falsifiers and disagreing translatours,Act. 1, 14, & 2, 23. Act. 3, 21. I vvil not greatly rippe vp old faultes neither abrode, nor at home. I leaue Luthers false translations into the German tongue,The Germā, Frenche, and English cor­ruptions of the nevv Testament to the credite of Staphylus, Apolog. part. 2. and Emserus. praef. Annot. in no. Test. Luth. and other German vvriters of his ovvne time, that savv them and readde them, and reckened the nūber of them in the nevv Testamēt only, aboutSee Lind. Dubit. p. 84 85, &c. 1400 heretical corruptions: I leaue Caluins and Bezas frenche corruptions, to so many vvorthie men asVigor and the rest. haue noted them in their frēche bookes against the said heretikes: Tindals and his companions corruptiōs in their first English bible, to our learned coūtrie­men of that age, & namely to the right Reuerend Father and Confessor Bishop Tonstal, vvho in a sermon openly protested that he had found in the nevv Testament only, no lesse then two thousand. If vve knovv it not, or vvil not beleeue it,Lind. dub. pag. 98. stran­gers in their Latin vvritings testifie it to the vvorld.

The authors intēt in this booke.26 But I omit these as vnknovven to our coun­trie, or to this age, and vvil deale principally vvith the English translations of our time, vvhich are in euery mans handes vvithin our countrie the cor­ruptions vvhereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the Annotations vpon the late nevv English Testament Catholikely translated & prin­ted at Rhemes, so by occasion thereof, I vvil by [Page]Gods help, to the better cōmoditie of the reader, and euidence of the thing, lay them closer toge­ther, and more largely display them, not counting the number, because it vvere hard, but esteeming the vveight & importance of so many as I thought good to note, specially in the nevv Testament. Vvhere I haue to aduertise the Reader of certaine special things, vvhich he must obserue.

Certaine ad­uertisemēts to the Rea­der.27 First, that in this booke he may not looke for the proofe or explication & deciding of contro­uersies, Vvhich is done in the Annotations vpon the new Testament, but only the refuting or con­trouling of their false translations concerning the said controuersies, vvhich is the peculiar argume [...] of this treatise.

28 Secondly, that vve refute sometime one of their translations, sometime an other, and euery one as their falshod giueth occasion. Neither is it a good defense for the falshod of one, that it is truely translated in an other: the reader being de­ceiued by any one, because commonly he readeth but one. Yea one of them is a cōdemnation of the other.

29 Thirdly, that we speake indifferently against Protestants, Caluinistes, Bezites, and Puritans, vvithout any curious distinction of them, being al among them selues brethren and pew fellowes, and sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or lesse corrupting the holy Scrip­tures.

30 Fourthly, that we giue but a tast of their cor­ruptions, not seing so far, nor marking also nar­rowly and skilfully, as them selues knovv their ovvne subtelties and meanings, vvho vvil smile at the places vvhich we haue not espied.

31 Fifthly, that the very vse and affectation of certaine termes, and auoiding other some, though [Page]it be no demonstration against them, but that they may seeme to defend it for true trāslation, yet was it necessarie to be noted, because it is & hath been alvvaies a token of heretical meaning.

32 Sixtly, that in explicating these things, vve haue endeuoured to auoid (as much as vvas possi­ble) the tediousnes of Greeke & Hebrue vvordes. vvhich are only for the learned in these tongues, and vvhich made some litle doubt vvhether this matter (vvhich of necessitie must be examined by them) vvere to be vvritten in English or no. but being persuaded by those (vvho them selues haue no skill in the said tōgues) that euery reader might reape commoditie thereby, to the vnderstanding & detesting of such false and Heretical translations, it vvas thought good to make it vulgar and com­mon to al our decre countrie men, as the nevv Te­stament it self is cōmon, vvhereof this Discouerie is as it vvere an handmaid, attending therevpon for the larger explication and proofe of corrup­tions there breefely touched, and for supplie of other some not there mentioned.

33 Seuenthly, that al the English corruptions here noted and refuted, are either in al or some of their English bibles printed in these yeres, 1562. 1577.1579. And if the corruption be in one Bible, not in an other, commonly the said Bible or bibles are noted in the margent: if not, yet sure it is that it is in one of them, and so the reader shal finde it, if he finde it not alvvaies in his ovvne Bible. And in this case the reader must be very vvise and circū ­spect, that he thinke not by and by vve charge them falsly, because they can shevv him some later edition that hath it not so as vve say, for it is their common and knovven fashion, not onely in their translations of the Bible, but in their other bookes and vvritinges, to alter and change, adde and put [Page]out, in their later editiōs, according as either them selues are ashamed of the former, or their scholers that print them againe, dissent and disagree from their Maisters. So hath Luthers, Caluins, and Bezas vvritinges and translations been changed both by them selues and their scholers in many places, so that Catholike men when they cōfute that which they finde euident faultes in this or that edition, feare nothing more then that the reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very shame, and so may conceiue that there is no such thing, but that they are accused vvrongfully. for example. Call to minde the late pretended confe­rence in the tower,Touching S. Iames epistle. where that matter vvas denied and faced out for Luthers credite, by some one booke or edition of his, vvhich them selues, and al the vvorld knoweth was most truely laid to his charge.

34 Eightly, in citing Beza, I meane alvvaies (vn­les I note othervvise) his Latin translation of the nevv Testament vvith his annotations adioyned therevnto, printed in the yere 1556.

Vve charge them not with forsa­king the old approued Latin text, though it be an il signe, & to their e­uident con­fusion.35 Lastly and principally is to be noted that we wil not charge them vvith falsifying that vvhich in deede is the true and authentical Scripture, I meane the vulgar Latin Bible, vvhich so many ye­res hath been of so great authoritie in the Church of God, and with al the auncient fathers of the Latin Church, as is declared in the preface of the Nevv Testament: though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, only in fauour of his heresies did vvilfully forsake it, so the rest folowed and do folovv him at this day, for no other cause in the vvorld but that it is against them. & therfore they inueigh against it,Kemnitius. Caluin. and against the holy Councel of Trent for confirming the authoritie thereof, both in their special treatises thereof, and in al their [Page]vvritinges, vvhere they can take any occasion.

36 And concerning their vvilful and heretical auoiding thereof in their nevv translations, vvhat greater argumēt can there be then this, that Luther, vvho before alvvaies had readde vvith the Gath. Church and vvith al antiquitie, these vvordes of S. Paul,1 Cor. 9. Mulicrem sororem. 2 Pet. 1. Haue not vve povver to leade about A WOMAN A SISTER, as also the rest of the Apostles? and in S. Peter, these vvordes, Labour that BY GOOD WORKES you may make sure your vocation and ele­ction: sodenly, after he had cōtrarie to his profession taken a vvife (as he called her) and preached that al other votaries might do the same, and that faith only iustified, good vvorkes vvere not necessarie to saluation: sodenly (I say) after he fell to these he­resies, he began to reade and translate the former Scriptures accordingly, thus: Haue not vve povver to leade about a SISTER A WIFE, as the rest of the Apostles? and, Labour that you may make sure your vo­cation and election: leauing out the other vvordes, by good vvorkes. And so doe both the Caluinists abrode, and our English Protestants at home reade and translate at this day, because they hold the self same heresies.

37 So doe they in infinite places alter the old text, vvhich pleased them vvell before they vvere Heretickes, and they doe it vvith brasen faces, and plaine protestation, hauing no shame nor remorse at al, in fleeing from that which all antiquitie with one consent allovved and embraced vntil their vnhappie daies. Vvhich though it be an euident cōdemnation of their nouelties in the sight of any reasonable man that hath any grace, yet as I began to admonish thee (gentle Reader) vve vvil not charge them for altering the auncient approued Latin translation, because they pretend to folovv the Hebrue and Greeke, and our purpose is not [Page]here, to proue that they should not folovv the Hebrue and Greeke that now is, before the aun­cient approued Latin text, which is done breifely already in the preface to the nevv Testament.

Vve charge them not vvith forsa­king the Greeke co­pies that agree vvith the aunciēt approued Latin text, though this be a signe of their incre­dible partia­litie.38 Neither vvil vve burden them, for not fo­lovving the vulgar Latin text, vvhen the same a­greeth with most auncient Greeke copies: vvhich notvvithstāding is great partialitie in them, & must needes be of an heretical vvilful humor, that amōg the Greeke copies them selues, they reiect that vvhich most agreeth vvith the vulgar Latin text, in places of controuersies. Yet vvil vve not I say, neither in this case, lay falshod and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to translate the common Greeke text of the nevv Testament, that is one certaine copie, but here at the least let them shevv their fidelitie, & that they be true and exacte translatours, for here onely shal they be examined and called to account.

Vve charge them for forsaking & false transla­ting their ovvne He­brue and Greeke text.39 And if they folovv sincerely their Greeke and Hebrue text, vvhich they professe to folovv, and which they esteeme the only authentical text, so far vve accuse them not of heretical corruption. but if it shal be euidētly proued, that they shrinke from the same also, and translate an other thing, and that vvilfully, and of ful intention to counte­nance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the Scriptures to speake as they list: then vve trust, the indifferēt reader for his ovvne soules sake, vvil easily see and conclude, that they haue no feare of God, no reuerence of the Scriptures, no conscience to deceiue their readers: He vvil per­ceiue that the Scriptures make against them, vvhich they so peruert and corrupt for their purpose: that neither the Hebrue nor Greeke text is for them, vvhich they dare not translate truely and sincerely: that their cause is naught, which needeth such foul [Page]shiftes: that they must needes knovv al this, and therfore doe vvilfully against their conscience, & consequently are obstinate Heretikes.

40 And the more to vnderstand their miserie & vvretchednes, before vve enter to examine their trāslations, marke & gather of al that vvhich I haue said in this preface, their manifold flightes & ium­pes, from one shift to an other, & hovv Catholike writers haue pursued and chased them, & folovved them, and driuen them euen to this extreme refuge and seely couert of false translation, vvhere also they must of necessitie yeld, or deuise some nevv euasion, which vve can not yet imagin.

The diuers shiftes and flightes that the Prote­stants are driuen vnto by the Ca­tholikes, as it vvere the iumpes and turnings of an hare be­fore the boundes.41 First we are vvont to make this offer (as we thinke) most reasonable and indifferent: that foras­much as the Scriptures are diuersely expounded of vs and of them, they neither be tied to our inter­pretation, nor vve to theirs, but to put it to the ar­bitrement and iudgement of the auncient fathers, of general Councels, of vniuersal custom of times and places in the Catholike Church. No, say they, vve wil be our ovvne iudges and interpreters, or folow Luther, if we be Lutherans: Caluin, if we be Caluinistes: and so forth.

42 This being of it self a shameles shift, vnles it be better coloured, the next is to say, that the Scriptures are easie and plaine & sufficient of them selues to determine euery matter, and therfore they wil be tried by the Scriptures only. we are cōtent, because they wil needes haue it so, and vve alleage vnto them the bookes of Toble, Ecclesiasticus, Ma­chabees. No, say they: we admit none of these for Scripture. Vvhy so? are they not approued Cano­nical by the same authoritie of the Church, of aun­cient Councels and fathers, that the other bookes are? No matter, say they, Luther admitteth them not, Caluin doth not allovv them.

43 Vvel, let vs goe forvvard in their ovvne daunce. You allow at the least the Ievves Cano­nical bookes of the old Testament, that is, al that are extant in the Hebrue Bible: and al of the new Testament vvithout exception. Yea, that we doe. In these bookes then, wil you be tried by the vul­gar auncient Latin Bible, only vsed in al the vvest Church aboue a thousand yeres? No. Vvil you be tried by the Greeke Bible of the Septuaginta inter­preters, so renovvmed and authorised, in our Sa­uiours ovvne speaches, in the Euangelistes and Apostles writings, in the whole Greeke Church euermore? No. How then wil you be tried? They ansvver, Only by the Hebrue Bible that now is, and as novv it is pointed with vovvels. Vvil you so? and do you thinke that only, the true authen­tical Hebrue which the holy Ghost did first put into the pennes of those sacred writers? Vve do thinke it (say they) and esteeme it the only authen­tical and true Scripture of the old Testament.

44 Vve aske them againe, what say you then to that place of the psalme, [...] where in the Hebrue it is thus, As a lion my handes and my feete: for that which in truth should be thus, They digged or pearced my handes and my feete: being an euident prophecie of Christs nailing to the Crosse. There in deede (say they) we folow not the Hebrue, but the Greeke text. Sometime then you folow the Greeke and not the Hebrue only. And what if the same Greeke text make for the Catholikes, as in these places for example, I haue inclined my hart to keepe thy iustifica­tions for revvard: and, Redeeme thy sinnes vvith almes: might we not obtaine here the like fauour at your hands for the Greeke text, specially when the He­brue doth not disagree? No, say they, nor in no other place vvhere the Greeke is neuer so plaine, if the Hebrue word at the least may be any other­wise [Page]interpreted, and draw on to an other signifi­cation.

45 Vve replie againe and say vnto them, vvhy, Is not the credite of those Septuaginta interpre­ters, vvho them selues vvere Ievves, and best lear­ned in their owne tongue, and (as S. Augustine often, and other auncient fathers say) vvere inspi­red vvith the holy Ghost, in translating the He­brue bible into Greeke: Is not their credite (I say) in determining and defining the signification of the Hebrue vvord, far greater then yours? No. Is not the authoritie of al the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latin, that folovved them, equiualent in this case to your iudgement? No, say they, but because vve finde some ambiguitie in the Hebrue, we wil take the aduantage, and we wil determine and limite it to our purpose.

46 A gaine vve condescend to their vvilfulnes, and say: vvhat if the Hebrue be not ambiguous, but so plaine & certaine to signifie onething,Psal. 15. [...] that it can not be plainer? As, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hel, vvhich proueth for vs, that Christ in soule descended into Hel. Is not the one Hebrue vvord as proper for soule, as anima in Latin, the other as proper and vsual for Hel, as Infeunus in Latin? Here then at the least vvil you yeld? No, say they, not here neither. for Beza telleth vs that the Hebrue vvord, vvhich commonly and vsually signifieth, soule, yet for a purpose, of a man vvil straine it, may signifie, not only body, but also, car­cas and so he translate that. But Beza (say vve) being admonished by his frendes, corrected it in his later edition. Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his opinion concerning the Hebrue word, as himself protesteth.

47 Vvel then, doth it like you to reade thus ac­cording to Bezas translation, Thou shalt not leaue my [Page]carcas in the graue? No, we are content to alter the word carcas (which is not a seemely word for our Sauiours body) and yet we are loth to say soule, but if we might, we vvould say rather, life, person, as appeareth in the margent of our Bibles. but as for the Hebrue word that signifieth Hel, though the Greeke and Latin Bible through out, the Greeke and Latin fathers in al their writinges, as occasion serueth, do so reade it and vnderstand it, yet wil we neuer so translate it: but for Hel, we vvil say graue, in al such places of Scripture as might inferre Limbus patrum, if we should translate, Hel. These are their shiftes, and turninges, and windinges, in the old Testament.

48 In the new Testament, we aske them, wil you be tried by the auncient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole Church? No, but we appeale to the Greeke. Vvhat Greeke, say we, for there be sundrie copies, and the best of them (as Beza confesseth) agree with the said auncient Latin. for example in S. Peters wordes,2 Pet. ca. 1. Labour that by good vvorkes you may make sure your vocation and election. doth this Greeke copie please you? No, say they: we appeale to that Greeke copie, which hath not those wordes, by good workes, for othervvise we should graunt the merite and efficacie of good workes tovvard saluation. and generally to tel you at once, by what Greeke we wil be tried, we like best the vulgar Greeke text of the new Testament, which is most common and in euery mans handes.

49 Vvel, say we, if you wil needes haue it so, take your pleasure in choosing your text. and if you wil stand to it, graunt vs that Peter was cheefe among the Apostles, because your ovvne Greeke text saith, The first, Peter. No, saith Beza:Mat. 10. we vvil graunt you no such thing, for these wordes were [Page]added to the Greeke text by one that fauoured Pe­ters primacie. Is it so? then you wil not stand to this Greeke text neither. Not in this place, saith Beza.

50 Let vs see an other place. You must graunt vs (say we) by this Greeke text, that Christs very bloud which was shed for vs, is really in the cha­lice, because S. Luke saith so in the Greeke text. No, saith Beza, those Greeke wordes came out of the margent into the text, & therfore I trāslate not according to them, but according to that which I thinke the truer Greeke text, although I finde it in no copies in the world, and this his doingSee chap. 1. nu. 37. chap. 17. nu. 11. is mainteined & iustified by our English Protestants in their writinges of late.

51 Vvel yet, say we, there are places in the same Greeke text, as plaine for vs as these novv cited, where you can not say, it came out of the margent, or,2 Thess. 2. it was added falsely to the text. As, Stand and hold fast the traditions &c. by this text we require that you graunt vs traditions deliuered by word of mouth, as wel as the vvritten word, that is, the Scriptures. No, say they, we knovv the Greeke word signifieth tradition as plaine as possibly, but here and in the like places, we rather translate it, ordinances, instructions, and what els soeuer. Nay Sirs, say vve, you can not so ansvver the matter, for in other places, you translate it duely and truely, tradition: and vvhy more in one place then in an other? They are ashamed to tel vvhy, but they must tel, and shame both them selues and the Diuel, if euer they thinke it good to ansvver this treatise, as also why they changed congregation, which vvas alvvaies in their first translation, into Church, in their later translations, & did not change likevvise ordinances into traditions, Elders into Priests.

52 The cause is, that the name of Church was at the first odious vnto them, because of the Catho­like Church which stoode against them: but after­ward this name grevve into more fauour vvith them, because of their English Church, so at length called and termed. but their hatred of Priests and traditions continueth still, as it first began, and therfore their translation also remaineth as before, suppressing the names both of the one and of the other. But of al these their dealings they shal be told in their seueral chapters and places.

53 To conclude as I began, concerning their shiftes, and iumpes, and vvindinges, and turninges euery way, from one thing to an other, til they are driuen to the extreme refuge of palpable corrup­tions and false translations: consider vvith me in this one case only of traditions, as may be likevvise considered in al other controuersies, that the aun­cient fathers, councels, antiquitie, vniuersalitie, & custom of the vvhole Church allovv traditions: the canonical Scriptures haue them, the Latin text hath them, the Greeke text hath them: only their translations haue them not. Likevvise in the old Testament, the approued latin text hath such and such speaches that make for vs, the renovvmed Greeke text hath it, the Hebrue text hath it: only their translations haue it not.

These are the translations vvhich vve cal he­retical and vvilful, and vvhich shal be examined & discussed in this booke.

THE ARGVMENTS OF EVERY CHAPTER, VVITH THE PAGE VVHEReuery Chapter beginneth.

  • CHAP. 1. THAT the Protestants translate the holy Scripture falsel [...] of purpose, in fauour of their heresies, through out [...] controuersies. pag. 2.
  • CHAP. 2 Against Apostolical Traditions. pag. 25.
  • CHAP. 3 Against sacred Images. pag. 32.
  • CHAP. 4 The Ecclesiastical vse of vvordes turned into their original an [...] profane significations. pag. 58.
  • CHAP. 5 Against the CHVRCH. pag. 63.
  • CHAP. 6 Against Priest and Priesthod, Vvhere much also is said of thei [...] profaning of Ecclesiastical vvordes. pag. 72.
  • CHAP. 7 Against Purgatorie, Limbus patrum, and Christs descending in [...] Hel. pag. 98.
  • CHAP. 8 Concerning Iustification, and Gods iustice in revvarding goo [...] vvorkes. pag. 133.
  • CHAP. 9 Against Merites, meritorious vvorkes, and the revvard for th [...] same. pag. 140.
  • CHAP. 10 Against Free vvil. pag. 163.
  • CHAP. 11 For Imputatius iustice against true inherent iustice. pag. 180.
  • CHAP. 12 For Special faith, vaine securitie, and only faith. pag. 187.
  • CHAP. 13 Against Penance and Satisfaction. pag. 196.
  • CHAP. 14 Against the holy Sacraments, namely Baptisme and Confession pag. 213.
  • CHAP. 15 Against the Sacrament of Holy Orders. and for the Mariage o [...] Priests and Ʋotaries. pag. 220.
  • CHAP. 16 Against the Sacrament of Matrimonie. pag. 244.
  • CHAP. 17 Against the B. Sacrament, and Sacrifice, and alians. pag. 249.
  • CHAP. 18 Against the honour of Saincts, namely of our B. LADIE [...] pag. 273.
  • CHAP. 19 Against the distinction of Dulia and Latria. pag. 285.
  • CHAP. 20 Adding to the text. pag. 290.
  • CHAP. 21 Other heretical treacheries and corruptions vvorthie of obseru [...] ­tion. pag. 298.
  • CHAP. 22 Other faultes Iudaical, profane, more vanities, follies, and nouelties pag. 306.

A DISCOVERIE OF THE MANIFOLD CORRVPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTVRES, by the Heretikes of our daies, specially the English Sectaries, & of their foule dealing herein, by partial and false translations to the aduantage of their heresies, in their English Bibles vsed and authorised since the time of Schisme.

CHAP. I. That the Protestants translate the holy Scriptures falsely of purpose, in fa­uour of their heresies.

1 THOVGH this shal euidently ap­peare through out this vvhole booke in euery place that shal be obiected vnto them: yet be­cause it is an obseruation of greatest im­portance in this case, and vvhich stingeth them sore, & toucheth their credite exce­dingly, in so much that one of them setting a good face vpon the matter,Confuta­tion of Io. Hovvlet fol. 35. pag. 2. saith confi­dently, [Page 2]that al the Papists in the vvorld are not able to shevv one place of Scripture mistrāslated wilfully and of purpose: ther­fore I vvil giue the reader, certaine breife obseruations and euident markes to knovv vvilful corruptions, as it vvere an abridge­ment and summe of this treatise.

2 The first marke and most general is: If they translate els vvhere not amisse,Euidēt mar­kes or signes to knovv vvilful cor­ruptions in translating. and in places of controuersie betvvene them and vs, most falsely: it is an euident argument that they doe it not of negligence, or ig­norance, but of partialitie to the matter in cōtrouersie. This is to be seen through the vvhole Bible, vvhere the faultes of their translations are altogether, or specially, in those Scriptures that concerne the causes in question betvvene vs. For other smal faul­tes, or rather ouersightes, vve vvil no fur­ther note vnto them, then to the end, that they may the more easily pardon vs the like, if they finde them.

3. If, as in their opinions & heresies, they forsake the auncient fathers: so also in their translations, they goe from that text & aun­cient reading of holy Scriptures, vvhich al the fathers vsed and expounded: is it not plaine that their translation folovveth the veine and humor of their heresie? And againe if they that so abhorre from the [Page 3]auncient expositions of the fathers, yet if it seeme to serue for them, sticke not to make the exposition of any one Doctor, the very text of holy Scripture: vvhat is this but he­retical wilfulnes? See this 1. chap. nu. 43. ch. 10. nu. 1.2. cha. 18. numb. 10.11. and chap. 19. nu. 1.

4 Againe, if they that professe to translate the Hebrue and Greeke, and that because it maketh more for them (as they say) and therfore in al cōferences and disputations appeale vnto it as to the foūtaine & touch­stone, if they (I say) in translating places of controuersie, flee from the Hebrue and the Greeke, it is a most certaine argumēt of vvil­ful corruption. This is done many vvaies, and is to be obserued also through out the vvhole Bible, and in al this booke.

5 If the Greeke be, Idololatria, and idololátra: [...]. Eph. 5. Col. 3 Bib. an. 1577. and they translate not, Idolatrie, and, idolater: but, vvorshipping of images, & vvorshipper of images, and that so absurdly, that they make the Apostle say, Couetousnes is vvorshipping of images: this none vvould doe but fooles or mad men, vnles it vvere of purpose against sa­cred images. See chap. 3. numb. 1.2.

6 If the Apostle say, A pagan idolater, 1 Cor. 5. and a Christian idolater, by one and the same Greeke vvord, in one and the same mea­ning: [...]. and they translate, A pagan idolater, Bib. an. 1562 & [Page 4]a Christian vvorshipper of images, by tvvo dis­tinct vvordes and diuerse meanings: it must needes be done vvilfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. 3. nu. 8.9.

7 If they trāslate one & the same Greeke vvord, [...] Tradition, vvhensoeuer the Scripture speaketh of euil traditions: and neuer trans­late it so, vvhensoeuer it speaketh of good and Apostolical traditions: their intention is euident against the authoritie of Tradi­tions. See chap. 2. numb. 1.2.3.

Yea if they translate, Tradition, takē in il part, [...]. vvhere it is not in the Greeke: & trās­late it not so, where it is in the Greeke, takē in good part:Col. 2. v. 20. it is more euidence of the foresaid wicked intention. See chap. 2. nu. 5.6.

9 If they make this a good rule, to trans­late according to the vsual signification, and not the original deriuation of wordes, as Beza andPag. 209. M. Vvhitakers doe: and if they translate contrarie to this rule, vvhat is it but vvilful corruption? So they doe in translating, idolum, an image, Presbyter, an elder: and the like. See chap. 4. & chap. 6. nu. 6.7.8. &c. nu. 13. &c.

10 If Presbyter, by Ecclesiastical vse, be ap­propriated to signifie a Priest, no lesse then, Episcopus, to signifie a Bishop, or Diaconus, a Deacon: and if they translate these tvvo [Page 5] [...]ater accordingly, and the first neuer in al the nevv Testament: vvhat can it be but vvilful corruption in fauour of this heresie, [...] That there are no Priests of the nevv Te­stament?Vvhitak. p. 199. See chap. 6. numb. 12.

11 If for Gods altar, they translate, Temple: & for Bels idololatrical table, they translate, altar: iudge vvhether it be not of purpose against our altars, and in fauour of their communion table. See chap. 17. numb. 15.16.

12 If at the beginning of their heresie, vvhen sacred images vvere broken in pee­ces, altars digged dovvne, the Catholike Churches authoritie defaced,Bib. in king Edvv. time. printed a­gaine 1562. the king made supreme head, then their translation vvas made accordingly, and if aftervvard vvhen these errours vvere vvel established in the realme, and had taken roote in the peoples hartes, al vvas altered and changed in their later translations, and novv they could not finde that in the Greeke, vvhich vvas in the former translation: vvhat vvas it at the first but vvilful corruption to serue the time that then vvas? See chap. 3.5. chap. 17. nu. 15. chap. 15. nu. 22.

13 If at the first reuolt, vvhen none were noted for Heretikes and Schismatikes, but them selues, they did not once put the na­mes of Schisme or Heresie in the Bible, but [Page 6]in steede thereof, diuision, and, secte, in so much that for an Heretike, they said, an author of Sectes, Bib. 1562. Tit. 3. vvhat may vve iudge of it but as of vvilful corruption? See chap. 4. numb. 3.

14 If they trāslate so absurdly at the first, that them selues are driuen to change it for shame: it must needes be at the first vvilful corruption. for example, vvhen it vvas in the first, Temple, and in the later, Altar: in the first alvvaies, Congregation, in the later alvvaies, Church: in the first, To the king as cheefe head, in the later, To the king as hauing pree­minence. So did Beza first translate, carcas, and afterward, soule. Which alteration in al these places is so great, that it could not be ne­gligence at the first or ignorance, but a plaine heretical intention. See chap. 17. numb. 15. chap. 5. nu. 4.5. chap. 15. numb. 22. chap. 7. nu. 2.

15 If they vvil not stand to al their transla­tions, but flee to that namely vvhich novv is readde in their churches: & if that vvhich is novv read in their churches, differ in the pointes aforesaid, from that that was readde in their churches in king Edvvards time: & if from both these, they flee to the Geneua Bible, and from that againe, to the other aforesaid: vvhat shal vve iudge of the one or the other, but that al is voluntarie and as [Page 7]they list? See chap. 3. numb. 10.11.12. cha. 10. numb. 12.

16 If they gladly vse these wordes in il part, vvhere they are not in the original text, Procession, shrines, deuotions, excommunicate, images: and auoid these vvordes, vvhich are in the original, Hymnes, grace, mysterie. Sacrament, Church, altar, Priests, Catholike, traditions, iustifications: is it not plaine that they doe it of purpose to disgrace, or suppresse the said things and speaches vsed in the Catholike Church? See chap. 21. numb. 5. & seq. chap. 12. numb. 3.

17 If in a case that maketh for them, they straine the very original signification of the vvord, and in a case that maketh against them, they neglect it altogether: vvhat is this but vvilful and of purpose? See chap. 7. nu. 36.

18 If in vvordes of ambiguous and diuers signification, they vvil haue it signifie here or there, as it pleaseth them: and that so ve­hemently, that here it must needes so signi­fie, and there it must not: and both this, and that, to one end and in fauour of one and the same opinion:Beza in 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. & 9. v. 5. vvhat is this but vvilful translation? So doth Beza vrge [...] to signifie, vvife, and not to signifie, vvife, both against virginitie and chastitie of Priests: and the English Bible translateth accor­dingly.Bib. an. 1579 See chap. 15. nu. 11.12.

19 If the Puritanes and grosser Caluinistes disagree about the translations, one part preferring the Geneua English Bible, the other the Bible read in their Church: and if the Lutherans condemne the Zuinglians & Caluinistes translations, and contrarivvise: and if al Sectaries reproue eche an others translation: Vvhat doth it argue, but that the translations differ according to their di­uers opinions? See their bookes vvritten one against an other.Luc. 3. v. 36. Act. 1. v. 14. c. 2. v. 23. c. 3. v. 21. c. 26. v. 20. 2 Thes. 2. v. 15. &c. 5. v. 6.

20 If the English Geneua Bibles thē selues dare not folovv their Maister Beza, vvhom they professe to translate, because in their opinion he goeth vvide, and that in places of controuersie: hovv vvilful vvas he in so translating? See chap. 12. numb. 6.8. cha. 13. numb. 1.

21 If for the most part they reprehend the old vulgar translation, and appeale to the Greeke: and yet in places of controuersie sometime for their more aduantage (as they thinke) they leaue the Greeke, and folovv our Latin translation: vvhat is it els, but vo­luntarie and partial translation? See chap. 2. nu. 8. chap. 6. nu. 10.21. chap. 7. nu. 39. chap. 10. nu. 6.

22 If othervvise they auoid this vvord, iustificationes, Peza Luc. 1. Ro. 2. Apoc. 19.8. altogether, & yet trāslate it When they can not choose, but vvith a cōmētarie [Page 9]*Beza in c. 19. Apoc. v. 8. that it signifieth good vvorkes that are te­stimonies of a liuely faith: doth not this he­retical commentarie shevv their heretical meaning, vvhen they auoid the vvord al­together? See chap. 8. nu. 1.2.3.

23 Vvhen by adding to the text at their pleasure, they make the Apostle say,Ro. 5. v. 18. No. Test. an. 1580. Bib. 1579. that by Adams offence, sinne came on al men, but that by Christs iustice, the benefite only abounded tovvard al men, not that iustice came on al, vvhereas the Apostle maketh the case alike, vvithout any such diuers additions, to vvit, *Ro. 5. v. 18. that vve are truely made iust by Christ, as by Adam vve are made sinners: is not this most vvilful corruption for their heresie of imputatiue and phantastical iu­stice. See chap. 11. nu. 1.

24 But if in this case of iustification, vvhen the question is vvhether only faith iustifie, & vve say no, hauing the expresse vvordes of S Iames: they say, yea, hauing no expresse scripture for it: if in this case they vvil adde, only, to the very text: is it not most horrible and diuelish corruption? So did Luther, *Ia. 2. v. 24. Ro. 3. v. 28. Luth. tom. 2. fol. 405. edit. Witteb. an. 1551. Whitak. pag. 198. vvhom our English Protestants honour as their father, and in this heresie of only faith, are his ovvne children. See chap. 12.

Their igno­rance of the Greeke and Hebrue ton­gue, or their false & wil­ful transla­tion thereof against their knowledge.25 If these that account them selues the great Grecians & Hebricians of the vvorld, vvil so translate for the aduantage of their cause, as though they had no skil in the [Page 10]vvorld, and as though they knevv neither the signification of vvordes, nor proprietie of phrases in the said languages: is it not to be esteemed shamlesse corruption?

26 I vvil not speake of the German Here­tikes,Brētius Me­lancth. See Linda. Dubi. Dial. 1. c. 12 Psal. 51. vvho to mainteine this heresie, that al our vvorkes, be they neuer so good, are sinne, translated, for Tibi soli peccaui, to the only haue I sinned, [...] Whitak. pag. 198. thus, Tibi solum peccaui. that is, I haue nothing els but sinned: vvhatsoeuer I doe, I sinne: vvhereas neither the Greeke nor the Hebrue vvil possibly admit that sense. Let these passe as Lutherans, yet vvilful corrupters, *Ro. 5, v. 6. and acknovvledged of our English Protestants for their good brethren. But if Beza trāslate, [...], vvhen vve vvere yet of no strength, as the Geneua English Bible also doth in­terprete it, vvhereas euery yong Grecian knovveth that [...] is vveake, feeble, in­firme, and not altogether without strength: is not this of purpose to take avvay mans free vvil altogether? See chap. 10. nu. 13.

27 If Caluin translate,1 Cor. 15. [...]. Non ego, sed gratia Dei quae mihi aderat: may not meane Grecians con­troule him, that he also translateth falsely against free vvil, because the preposition [...] doth require some other participle to be vnderstood, that should signifie a coope­ration vvith free vvil to vvit, [...], vvhich laboured vvith me? See chap. 10. nu. 2.

28 If, vvhen the Hebrue beareth in differēt­ly, to say, Sinne lieth at the doore: and, vnto thee the desire thereof shal be subiect,Gen. 4. v. 7. & thou I halt rule ouer it: an. 1579. the Geneua English Bi­ble translate the first vvithout scruple, & the later not, because of the Hebrue gram­mar: is not this also most vvilful against free vvil? See chap. 10. nu. 9.

29 If Caluin affirme that [...] cannot signifie, propter reuerentiam, Calu. in 5. Hebr. because [...] is not so vsed, and Beza auoucheth the same more earnestly,Bib. an. 1579 and the English Bible translateth accordingly, vvhich may be confuted by infinite examples in the Scripture it self, and is confuted by Illyricus the Lutheran: is it not a signe either of passing ignorance, or of most wilful corruption, to mainteine the blasphemie that herevpon they conclude? See chap. 7. nu. 42.43,

30 If Beza in the self same place contend, that [...] doth not signifie reuerence or pietie, but such a feare as hath horrour and astonishmēt of minde: & in an other place saith of this self same vvord, cleane contra­rie: vvhat is it but of purpose to vphold the said blasphemie? See cha. 7. nu. 39.40.

31 If he translate for, Gods foreknovvledge, Gods prouidence, for soule, carcas, for hel, graue: [...] Act. 2. v. 23. [...]. ibid. v. 27. to vvhat end is this but for certaine here­tical conclusions? And if vpon admonitiō [Page 12]he alter his translation for shame, and yet *Annota. in no. Test. post. edit. protesteth that he vnderstandeth it as he did before, did he not translate before vvil­fully according to his obstinate opinion? See chap. 7.

32 If to this purpose he auouch that,Annot. in Act. 2. v. 24. [...] Sheol, signifieth nothing els in Hebrue but a graue, vvhereas al Hebricians knovv that it is the most proper and vsual vvord in the Scripture for Hel, [...] as the other vvord Keber, is for a graue: vvho vvould thinke he vvould so endanger his estimation in the Hebrue tongue, but that an heretical pur­pose against Christs descending into hel, blinded him? See chap. 7.

33 And if al the English Bibles trāslate ac­cordingly, to vvit, for Hel, graue, vvhere­soeuer the Scripture may meane any lower place that is not the Hel of the damned: and vvhere it must needes signifie that Hel, there they neuer auoid so to translate it: is it not an euident argument that they know very vvel the proper signification, but of purpose they wil neuer vse it to their disad­uantage in the questions of Limbus, Purga­torie, Christs descending into Hel? cha. 7.

34 If further yet in this kinde of contro­uersie, Beza vvould be bold to affirme (for so he saith) if the Grammarians would giue him leaue, that *Annot. in Act. 2. v. 24. [...] Chebel vvith fiue points sig­nifieth, [Page 13] funem, [...] That is, he vvould trās­late, Solutis funibus mor­tis, not, Solu­tis doloribus inferni. no lesse then Chebel vvith sixe points: is he not vvonderfully set to main­teine his opiniō, that wil change the nature of vvordes, if he might, for his purpose?

35 If passiues must be turned into actiues, and actiues into passiues, participles disa­gree in case from their substantiues, or ra­ther be plucked and separated from their true substantiues, soloecismes imagined, vvhere the construction is most agreable, errours diuised to creepe out of the margēt, and such like: vvho vvould so presume in the text of holy Scripture, to haue al Gram­mar, and vvordes, and phrases, and constru­ctions at his commaundement, but Beza & his like, for the aduantage of their cause? See chap. 5. nu. 6. and the numbers next fo­lovving in this chapter.

36 For example S. Peter saith,Act. 3, 21. [...] Heauen must re­ceiue Christ. He translateth, Christ must be conteined in heauen, vvhich Caluin him self misliketh, the Geneua English Bible is afraid to fo­lovv, Illyricus the Lutheran reprehendeth: and yet M. Vvhitakers taketh the aduan­tage of this trāslation,Pag. 43. to proue that Christs natural body is so conteined in heauen, that it can not be vpon the altar. For he knevv that this vvas his marsters purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, vvhen the blinde folovv the blinde, yea rather [Page 14]vvhen they see and vvil be blinde: for cer­taine it is (& I appeale to their greatest Grae­ciās) that howsoeuer it be taken for good in their diuinitie, it wil be esteemed most false in their Greeke scholes both of Oxford and Cābridge: & howsoeuer they may presume to translate the holy Scriptures after this sort, surely no man, no not them selues, would so translate Demosthenes, for sauing their credite and estimation in the Greeke tongue. See chap. 17. nu. 7.8.9.

37 But there is yet vvorse stuffe behind: to vvit, the famous place Luc. 22. vvhere Beza translateth thus, Hoc poculum nouum testamentū per meū sanguinē, qui pro vobis funditur: whereas in the Greeke, in al copies vvithout exception, he confesseth that in true Grammatical con­struction it must needes be said, quod pro vobis funditur, and therfore he saith it is either a plaine soloecophanes, (and according to that presumption he boldly translateth) or a cor­ruption crept out of the margent into the text. And as for the vvord soloecophanes, vve vnderstand him that he meaneth a plaine soloecisme and fault in grammar, & so doth M. Vvhitakers:Pag. 34.35. but M. Fulke saith that he meaneth no such thing,Against D. Sand. Rocke pag. 308. but that it is an ele­gancie and figuratiue speache, vsed of most eloquent authors: and it is a vvorld to see, and a Graecian must needes smile at his de­uises, [Page 15]striuing to make S. Lukes speache here as he cōstrueth the vvordes,See Com. Bud. Figura­ta cōstructio, or, [...]. an elegancie in the Greeke tōgue. He sendeth vs first to Bu­dees cōmentaries, where there are examples of soloecophanes: and in deede Budee taketh the vvord for that vvhich may seeme a soloe­cisme, and yet is an elegancie, and al his examples are of most fine and figuratiue phrases, but alas hovv vnlike to that in S. Luke. and here M. Fulke vvas very fouly deceiued, thinking that Beza and Budee tooke the vvord in one sense: and so taking his marke amisse, as it vvere a counter for gold, vvhere he found soloecophanes in Budee, there he thought al vvas like to S. Lukes sentence, and that vvhich Beza meant to be a plaine soloecisme, he maketh it like to Budees elegancies. Much like to those good searchers in Oxford (as it is said) maisters of art, vvho hauing to seeke for Papistical bookes in a lavvyers studie, and seing there bookes vvith redde letters, cried out, Masse bookes, Masse bookes: vvhereas it vvas the Code or some other booke of the Ciuil or Canon Lavv.

38 This was lacke of iudgemēt in M. Fulke at the least, and no great signe of skill in Greeke phrases, and he must no more call D. Sanders vnlearned for not vnderstāding Bezas meaning, but him self, vvho in deede [Page 16]vnderstood him not. For, if Beza meant that it vvas an elegancie vsed of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplifie of, vvhy doth he say, that he seeth not vvhy Luke should vse soloecophanes, but thinketh rather, it is a corruptiō crept into the margent? Tel vs, M. Fulke vve beseche you, vvhether is the better and honester defense, to say, that it is an elegācie & fine phrase in S. Luke, or to say, it is afault in the text, it came out of the margent, the Gospel is here corrupted. Thinke you Be­za such a foole, that he vvould rather stand vpon this later, if he might haue vsed the former, and had so meant by soloecophanes? yea vvhat needed any defense at al, if it had been an vsual & knovvē elegancie, as you vvould proue it?

39 For you say further, that [...] is takē for [...], & [...] is vnderstood, & that this is a cōmon thing in the best Greeke authors, but you must adde, that the said relatiue must al­waies be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as this speache [...] may be resolued thus. [...], or rather [...]. but that [...], may be resolued, [...], you shal neuer be able to bring one ex­ample, & you vvilfully abuse vvhatsoeuer knowledge you haue of the Greeke tōgue, to deceiue the ignorant, or els you haue no [Page 17]skill at al, that speake so barbarously and rustically of Greeke elegancies. for if you haue skil, you knovv in your conscience, that [...], is as great a soloecisme in Greeke, & no more elegancie, then to say in Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, vvhich in the schole deserueth vvhipping. And yet you aske very vehemently (concerning these vvordes, Hic calix nouum Testamentum in meo san­guine qui pro vobis fundetur:) what meane Gramma­rian vvould referre, qui, to calix, and not to sanguis? I ansvver, that a mere latinist, for ignorance of the Greeke tongue, vvould referre it ra­ther as you say: but he that knovveth the Greeke, as you seeme to doe, though he be a very yong Grammarian, vvil easily see it can not so be referred: as in the like Act. 14. Sacerdos quoque Iouis qui erat ante ciuitatem eorum. Here, qui, is ambiguous, [...]. but in the Greeke vve see that, qui, must be referred to, Iouis, and can not be referred to, Sacerdos.

40 And this is one commoditie among others, that vve reape of the Greeke text, to resolue the ambiguitie that is sometime in the Latin: vvhereas you neither admit the one nor the other, but as you list, neither doth the Greeke satisfie you, be it neuer so plaine and infallible, but you vvil deuise that it is corrupted, that there is a soloecisme, [Page 18]that the same soloecisme is an elegancie, and therevpō you translate your ovvne deuise, and not the vvord of God. vvhich vvhence can it procede, but of most vvilful corrup­tion? See chap. 17. nu. 10.11.12.

41 If in ambiguous Hebrue vvordes of doubtful signification, vvhere the Greeke giueth one certaine sense, you refuse the Greeke, & take your aduantage of the other sense: vvhat is this but vvilful partialitie? so you doe in, Redime eleemosynis peccata tua. Dan. 4. & Inclinaui cor meū ad faciendas iustificationes tuas propter retributionē. Ps. 118 Octon. Nun. Ps. 138. and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus &c. and yet at an other time you folovv the de­termination of the Greeke for an other ad­uantage: as Psal. 98. Adore his footestoole, because he is holy. Whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in our Latin, [...] because it is holy. See cha. 13. nu. 18. chap. 9. nu. 23.24. chap. 18. nu. 1.2. So you flee from the Hebrue to the Greeke, and from this to that againe, from both to the vulgar Latin, as is shevved in other pla­ces: and as S. Augustine saith to Faustus the Manichee,Li. 11. cont. Faust. c. 2. You are the rule of truth: vvhat­soeuer is for you, is true: vvhatsoeuer is against you, is not true.

42 Vvhat shal I speake of the Hebrue par­ticle vau? [...] vvhich (Gen. 14. v. 18) must in no case be translated, because, lest it should proue that Melchisedec offered sacrifice of bread [Page 19]and vvine, as al the fathers expound it: but (Luc. 1. v. 42) vvhere they translate the equiualent Greeke particle [...], there Beza proueth the said particle to signifie, because, Quia benedi­ctus, for, & benedictus fructus ven­tris tui. & translateth accordingly, & the English Be­zites likevvise. I vvil not vrge them vvhy, vve like the sense vvel, and Theophylacte so expoundeth it. but if the Greeke copula­tiue may be so translated, vvhy not the He­brue copulatiue much more, vvhich often in the Scripture is vsed in that sense? See chap. 17. nu. 13.14.

43 But I vvould aske rather,Luc. 1. v. 28. vvhy [...] may not in any case be translated, ful of grace: vvhereas [...] is translated,Luc. 16. v. 20 ful of sores. both vvordes being of like forme and force. See chap. 18. nu. 4.5.

[...]44 Againe, vvhy say they (Hebr. 13) Let your conuersation be vvithout couetousnes, and say not, Let mariage be honorable in al, and the bed vndefiled. both being expressed a like by the Apostle, and by vvay of exhortation, as the rest that goeth before and folovveth? See chap. 15. nu. 15.

45 Are vve to suspicious thinke you?Hebr. 5. v. 7. hovv can feare, be trāslated, that vvhich he feared:Beza. Act. 26. v. 20. 2 Thes. 2 & 3. repentance, them that repent or amend their life: tradition, the doctrine deliuered: temples, shrines: idols, deuotions: euery humane creature, al ordinances of man: foreknovvledge, proui­dence: [Page 20] soul, carcas: hel, graue: altar, temple: table, altar: and such like?

46 Vvhat caused these strange speaches in their English Bibles,Psal. 86, 13. Bib. 1579. Thou shalt not leaue my soul in the graue. Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest graue. A couetous mā is a worshipper of images. By laying on of the hands of the Eldership. Haile freely beloued. SINNE lieth at the doore, and thou shalt rule ouer HIM. Breake of thy sinnes vvith righteousnes. for, Redeeme vvith almes. Ielousie is cruel as the graue. for, as hel. Cant. Cant. 8. Bib. an 1579. The greifes of the graue caught me. Psal. 116. And, God vvil redeeme my soule from the povver of the graue. Psal. 48. O graue I vvil be thy destruction. Os. 13. and such like? vvhat made Caluin so translate into Latin, that if you turne it into English, the sense is, that God povvred vvater vpon vs aboundant­ly,Tit. 3. meaning the holy Ghost: vvhat els but because he vvould take avvay the necessitie of material vvater in Baptisme, as in his commentarie and Bezas, it is euident?

47 I had meant to haue but breifely skim­med ouer these things, but multitude of matter maketh me to long, as it chaunceth to a man that vvadeth through myrie and foule places, and yet the greatest demon­stration that they are vvilful corrupters, is behind, vvhich only I vvil adde, and for the rest, referre the reader to the vvhole booke.

48 Doubt you vvhether they translate of purpose and partialitie, infauour of their opinions? you shal heare them selues say so [Page 21]and protest it. If I dealt vvith Lutherans, this one testimonie of Luther vvere suffi­cient, vvho being asked vvhy he added,Tom. 2. fol. 405. edit. Vvitteb. an. 1551. only, into the text Ro. 3: ansvvered that he did it to explicate the Apostles sense more plainely. that is, to make the Apostle say more plainely, that faith only iustified. and his disciple Illyricus disputeth the matter, that the Apostle saying, by faith vvithout vvorkes, The expres­se testimo­nies of Beza (vvhom the English He­retical trans­latiōs folow herein) that he doth Wil­fully and of purpose trā ­slate against such & such Catholike assertions. saith in deede, only faith. but because I deale rather vvith our English Caluinistes, and Beza is their cheefe trāslatour, & a captaine amōg them, whom they professe to folovv in the title of the new Test. an. 1580, and by the very name of their Geneua Bibles, let vs see vvhat he saith.

49 First concerning, [...], vvhich the vulgar Latin and Erasmus translate, Agite poenitentiam, Repent, or, Doe penance. This inter­pretation (saith he) I refuse for many causes, but for this especially, that many ignorat persons haue taken hereby an occasion of the false opinions of SATISFACTION, vvherevvith the Church is troubled at this day. Loe, of purpose against satisfaction he vvil not translate the Greeke vvord, as it ought to be, and as it is proued to signifie, both in this booke, and in the Annotations vpon the nevv Testament.Mat. 3. v. 8. A litle after speaking of the same vvord, he saith, vvhy I haue chan­ged the name, poenitentia, I haue told a litle before, *Loco supra citato. protesting that he vvil neuer vse those [Page 22]vvordes, but resipiscere, and resipiscentia, that is, amendment of life: because of their heresie, that repentance is nothing els but a mere amendment of former life, without recom­pense or satisfaction or penance for the sinnes before committed. See chap. 13.

50 Againe concerning the vvord, [...]. Iustifica­tions, vvhich in the Scripture very often si­gnifie the commaundements, he saith thus. The Greeke interpreters of the Bible (meaning the Septuaginta) applied this vvord to signifie the vvhole Lavv of God, Luc. 1. v. 6. and therfore commonly it is vvont to be trans­lated vvord for vvord, Iustificationes: vvhich interpreta­tion therfore only I reiected, that I might take avvay this occasion also of cauilling against iustification by faith. and so for, iustificationes, he putteth constituta, Tullies word forsooth, as he saith. Can you haue a more plaine testimonie of his here­tical purpose?

51 Againe, vvhen he had reiected this translation (Act. 2. v. 27) Non derelinques animan meam in inferno, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hel: because (as he saith) herevpon grevve the errours of Christs descending into Hel, of Limbus, and of Purgatorie: at length he concludeth thus, Vvhereas the doubtful iuterpreta­tion of one or tvvo vvordes hath brought forth so many monsters, I chose rather Loe hovv simply: Ani­ma, carcas. Infernus, gra­ue. simply, for foule, to say, carcas, for hel, [...]. Act. 3. v. 21. graue: then to foster these foule errors.

52 Againe, vvhen he had translated for, Vvhom heauen mustreceiue, thus, vvho must be conteined in heauen: he saith, vvhereas vve haue vsed the passiue [Page 23]kinde of speache, rather then the actiue (vvhich is in the Greeke:) vve did it to auoid al ambiguitie. for it is very expedient, that there should be in the Church of God, this perspicuous testimonie, against them, that for as­cending by faith into heauen, so to be ioyned to our head, obstinatly mainteine that Christ must be called againe out of heauen vnto vs. Meaning his presence in the B. Sacrament, & inueighing no lesse against the Lutherans then the Catholikes, as the *Flac. Illyr. Lutherās do here against him for this vvil­ful interpretatiō, & that by Caluins ovvne iudgement, vvho thinketh it a forced trans­lation.

53 But Beza goeth forvvard stil in this kinde. Ro. 5. v. 18. whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of Adams sinne vvhich made vs truely sinners, and of Christs iustice, vvhich maketh vs truely iust: he reiecting it, among other causes vvhy it displeased him, saith: That old errour of the Sophists (meaning Catholikes) vvhich for imputatiue iustice put an inherent qualitie in the place, is so great, and so execrable to al good men, that I thinke no­thing is so much to be auoided as it.

54 These fevv examples proue vnto vs that the Scriptures translated verbatim, exactly, & according to the proper vse and signification of the vvordes, do by the He­retikes confession make for the Catholi­kes, and therfore Beza saith he altereth the vvordes into other: & (I thinke) it may suf­fice [Page 24]any indifferent reader to iudge of his purpose and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs that either allovv him, or folovv him, vvhich are our English Caluinists, and Bezites. Many other vvaies there are to make most certaine proofe of their Wilfulnes, as vvhen *Calu. Heb. 5, 7 & Tit. 3, 6. Beza 2 Thes­sal. 2, 15. & 1, 6. the trāslation is framed according to their false and heretical commentarie: and, When they vvil auouch their translations out of profane vvriters, Homer, Plutarch, Plinie, Tullie, Virgil, and Terence, and reiect the Ecclesiastical vse of vvordes in the Scriptu­res and fathers: vvhich Beza doth for the most part alvvaies. but it vvere infinite to note al the markes, and by these, the vvise reader may conceiue the rest.

55 But vvould you thinke that these men could notvvithstanding speake very gra­uely and honestly against voluntarie and vvilful translations of Scripture, that so notoriously offend therein them selues? Harken vvhat Beza saith against Castaleo and the like:Annot. act. 10. v. 46. The matter (saith he) is novv come to this point, that the traslatours of Scripture out of the Gree­ke into Latin, or into any other tongue, thinke that they may lavvfully doe any thing in translating Vvhom if a man reprehend; he shal be ansvvered by and by, that they doe the office of a manslatour, not that translateth vvord for vvord, but that expresseth the sense. So it commeth to passe, that, vvhiles euery man vvil rather freely folovv [Page 25] his ovvne iudgement, then be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he doth rather peruert many things then [...]ranslate them. Is not this vvel-said, if he had done accordingly? but doing the cleane contrarie, as hath been proued, he is a dis­sembling hypocrite in so saying, & a vvilful Heretike in so doing, and condemned by his ovvne iudgement.

56 But after this general vewe of their wil­ful purpose and heretical intention, let vs examine their false translations more parti­cularly, and argue the case vvith them more at large, & presse them to ansvver, vvhether in their cōscience it be so or no, as hitherto is said: and that by seueral chapters of such CONTROVERSIES as their corruptions concerne: and first of al (vvithout further curiositie vvhence to begin, in cases so in­different) of TRADITIONS.

CHAP. II. Heretical translation of holy Scripture against Apostolical TRADITIONS.

1 THIS is a matter of such impor­tance, that if they should graunt any traditions of the Apostles, and not pretend the vvritten vvord only: they knovv that bySee the an­notations of the nevv Te­stament 2 Thess, 2, 15. such tra­ditions mentioned in al antiquitie, their re­ligion [Page 26]vvere vvholy defaced and ouerthro­vven. for remedie vvhereof, and for the de­facing of al such traditions, they bend their translations against them in this wonderful maner. Vvheresoeuer the Holy, Scripture speaketh against certaine traditions of the Ievves, partly friuolous, partly repugnant to the Lavv of God, there al the English translations folovv the Greeke exactly, [...] ne­uer omitting this vvord, tradition. Contra­rievvise vvheresoeuer the holy Scripture speaketh in the commendation of Traditi­ons, to vvit, such traditions as the Apostles deliuered to the Churche, there al their said trāslations agree, not to folovv the Greeke, vvhich is still the self same vvord, but for, traditions, they translate, ordinances, or instructions. Vvhy so and to vvhat purpose? vve appeale to the vvorme of their conscience, vvhich continually accuseth them of an heretical meaning, vvhether, by vrging the vvord, traditions, vvheresoeuer they are discommen­ded, and by suppressing the vvord, vvhere­soeuer they are commended, their purpose and intent be not, to signifie to the Reader, that al traditions are naught, & none good, al reprouable, none allovvable.

2 For example. Mat. 15. Thus they translate, Vvhy do thy disciples transgresse the TRADITION of the Elders? [...] And againe, Vvhy do you also transgresse [Page 27]the commaundement of God by your TRADITION? And againe, Thus haue you made the commaunde­ment of God of no effect by your TRADITION: here (I vvarant you) al the belles sound tradi­tion, and the vvord is neuer omitted, and it is very vvel and honestly translated, for so the Greeke vvord doth proprely signifie. But novv on the other side, concerning good traditions, let vs see their dealing. The Apostle by the self same vvord both in Greeke and Latin, saith thus:2 Thes. 2. v. 15 [...], tradi­tiones. 2 Thess. 3, 6. Therfore, brethren, stand & hold fast the TRADITIONS vvhich you haue learned either by vvord, or by our epistle. And againe, Vvithdraw your selues from euery brother walking inor­dinatly, & not according to the TRADITION vvhich they haue receiued of vs. 1 Cor. 11, 2. [...]. And againe (according to the Greeke vvhich they professe to fo­lovv:) I praise you brethren, that in al things you are mindeful of me, and as I haue deliuered vnto you, you keepe my TRADITIONS.

3 Here vve see plaine mention of S. Paules traditions, and cōsequently of Apostolical traditions, yea and traditions by vvord of mouth, deliuered to the said Churches vvithout vvriting or Scripture. In al vvhich places looke, gentle reader, & seeke al their English translations, & thou shaltYet M. Fulke saith, it is found there. pag. 153 against D. Sand. Rocke. If he giue not vs an instance. let him giue him self the lie. not once finde the vvord, tradition, but in steede thereof, ordinances, instructions, preachings, institutions, and any vvord els rather then, tradition, in so much that Beza their maister [Page 28]trāslateth it traditam doctrinā, the doctrine deliuered, [...]. putting the singular number for the plural, & adding, doctrine, of his ovvne. so framing the text of holy Scripture according to his false cōmētarie, or rather putting his cōmē ­tarie in the text, & making it the text of Scri­pture. Vvho would thinke their malice and partialitie against traditions vvere so great, that they should al agree vvith one con­sent so duely and exactly in these and these places to cōceale the word, vvhich in other places do so gladly vse it, the Greeke vvord being al one in al the said places?

4 Yea they doe els vvhere so gladly vse this vvord, tradition, vvhen it may tend to the discredite thereof: that they put the said vvord in al their English Bibles, vvith the like ful consent as before, vvhen it is not in the Greeke at al. As vvhen they trans­late thus,Col. 2.20. If ye be dead vvith Christ from the rudiments of the vvorld: [...]. vvhy as though liuing in the vvorld, ARE YE LEDDE VVITH TRADITIONS? & as an otherof the yere 1579. English translation of theirs readeth more heretically, Vvhy are ye burdened vvith traditions? Tel vs sincerely you that pro­fesse to haue skill in the Greeke, & to trans­late according to the Greeke? tell vs vve beseche you, vvhether this Greeke vvord [...] do signifie tradition, and [...], to be ledde or burdened vvith traditions. [Page 29]You can not be ignorant that it doth not so signifie,Col. 2, 14. Ephes. 2, 15. [...]. but as a litle before in the same chapter, & in other places, your selues trans­late [...], ordinances, decrees: so [...], must be (as in the vulgar Latin it is) Quid de­cernitis? Vvhy do you ordaine or decree, or, vvhy are you ledde vvith decrees?

5 Iustifie your translation if you can, either out of Scriptures, fathers, or Lexicon. and make vs a good reason vvhy you put the vvord, traditions, here, [...] they trans­late, ordi­nance: and [...], tradition: cleane con­trarie. vvhere it is not in the Greeke: and vvould not put it in the places before, vvhere you knovv it is most eui­dently in the Greeke. Yea you must tel vs, vvhy you translate for tradition, ordinance, and contrarie for ordinance, tradition: so turning catte in panne (as they say) at your pleasure, and wresting both the one and the other to one end, that you may make the very name of traditions odious among the people, be they neuer so authentical, euen from the Apostles: vvhich your conscience knovveth, and you shal ansvver for it at the dreadful day.

6 Somevvhat more excusable it is, but yet proceding of the same heretical humor, and on your part (that should exactly folovv the Greeke) falsely translated, vvhen you translate in S. Peters Epistle thus:1 Pet. 1, 18. You vvere not redeemed vvith corruptible things from your vaine [Page 30]conuersation receiued by the tradition of the fathers. Vvhere the Greeke is thus rather to be translated, [...]. from your vaine conuersation deliuered by the fathers. but your fingers itched to foist in the vvord, tradition, and for, deliuered, to say, receiued, because it is the phrase of the Catho­like church, that it hath receiued many things by tradition, vvhich you vvould here con­troule by likenes of vvordes in this false translation.

7 But concerning the vvord tradition, you vvil say perhaps the sense thereof is inclu­ded in the Greeke vvord, deliuered Vve gra­unt. but vvould you be content, if vve should alvvaies expresly adde, tradition, vvhere it is so included? then should vve say 1 Cor. 11, 2.Tradidi [...] I praise you that as I haue deliuered you (by tradition,) you keepe my precepts or tradi­tions. And againe v. 23. For I receiued of our Lord, vvhich also I deliuered vnto you (by tradition) &c. And Luc. 1. v. 2. As they (by tradition) deliuered vnto vs, vvhich from the beginning savv &c. and such like, by your example, vve should translate in this sort. but vve vse not this licentious maner in trāslating holy Scriptures, neither is it a translators part, but an interpreters, and his that maketh a commentarie: neither doth a good cause neede other translation then the expresse text of the Scripture gi­ueth.

8 And if you vvil yet say, that our vulgar Latin translation hath here the vvord, tradition: vve graunt it hath so, and therfore vve also translate accordingly. but you pro­fesse to translate the Greeke, and not the vulgar Latin, vvhich you in England con­demne as Papistical, and *Discouer. of the Rocke. pag. 147. say it is the vvorst of al, though *Prefat. in no. Test. 1556. Beza your maister pronoūce it to be the very best: and vvil you not­vvithstanding folovv the said vulgar Latin rather then the Greeke, to make traditions odious? Yea such is your partialitie one vvay, and inconstancie an other vvay, that for your heretical purpose you are content to folovv the old Latin translation, though it differ from the Greeke, & againe an other time you vvil not folovv it, though it be al one vvith the Greeke most exactly. as in the place before alleaged, where the vulgar Latin trāslation hath nothing of traditions, but, Quid decernitis, as it is in the Greeke: you translate, Vvhy are ye burdened vvith traditions? Col. 2, 20.

9 So that a blinde man may see, you frame your translations to bolster your errours & heresies, without al respect of folovving sincerely either the Greeke or the Latin. But for the Latin no maruel, the Greeke at the least vvhy doe you not folovv? [...]. Is it the Greeke that induceth you to say ordināces for traditions, traditions for decrees, ordi­nances [Page 32]for iustifications, Elder for Priest, graue for hel, [...] image for idol? tel vs before God and in your conscience vvhether it be, because you wil exactly folow the Greeke: nay tel vs truely, and shame the Diuel, vvhether the Greeke wordes do not sound and signifie most properly that, vvhich you of purpose vvil not translate, for disaduan­taging your heresies? And first let vs see concerning the question of Images.

CHAP. III. Heretical translation against sacred IMAGES.

1 I BESECHE you vvhat is the next and readiest and most proper English of Idolum, ido­lolatra, [...]. idoloratria? is it not Idol, idolater, idolatrie? are not these plaine English vvordes, and vvel knovven in our language? Vvhy sought you further for other termes and vvordes, if you had meant faithfully? Vvhat needed that circumstance of three wordes for one, vvorshipper of images, Bib. 1577. Eph. 5. Col. 3. and, vvorshipping of images? vvhether (I pray you) is the more natural & conuenient speache, either in our English tōgue, or for the truth of the thing, to say as the holy Scripture doth, Couetousnes is idolatrie, [Page 33]and consequently, The couetous man is an idolater: or as you translate, Couetousnes is vvorshipping of images, and The couetous man is a vvorshipper of images?

The absur­ditie of this translation, A couetous man is a Wor­shipper of images.2 Vve say commonly in English, Such a riche man maketh his money his God: and the Apostle saith in like maner of some, Vvhose belly is their God. Phil. 3. & generally euery creature is our idol, vvhen vve esteeme it so excedingly that vve make it our God. but vvho euer heard in English, that our money, or bellie, vvere our images, and that by esteeming of them to much, vve become vvorshippers of imāges? Among your selues are there not some euen of your Superintendents, of vvhom the Apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their money and belly, by couetousnes & belly cheere? Yet can vve not call you therfore in any true sense, vvorshippers of images, neither would you abide it. You see then that there is a great difference betvvixt idol and image, idolatrie and vvorshipping of images: and euen so great difference is there betvvixt S. Paules vvordes and your translation.

3. Vvil you see more yet to this purpose? In the English Bible printed the yere 1562 you reade thus:2 Cor. 6. Hovv agreeth the Temple of God vvith images? Can vve be ignorant of Satans cogitations herein, that it vvas translated [Page 34]of purpose to delude the simple people and to make them beleeue that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in the chur­ches, vvhich were then in plucking dovvne in England, vvhen this your translation vvas first published in print? Vvhereas in very truth you know, that the Apostle here partly interpreteth him self to speake of men,Salomons Temple did vvel agree vvith ima­ges, but not vvith idols. as of Gods temples wherein he dvvel­leth, partly alludeth to Salomons Temple, vvhich did very vvell agree vvith images (for it had the Cherubins, vvhich vvere the representations of Angels, and the figures of oxen to beare vp the lauatorie) but vvith idols it could not agree: and therfore the Apostles vvordes are these, [...] The brasen serpent, first an image, & lavvful: af­tervvard an idol, and vnlavvful. Hovv agreeth the Temple of God vvith idols?

4 Vvhen Moyses by Gods appointement erected a brasen serpent, and commaunded the people that vvere stung vvith serpents, to behold it, & thereby they vvere healed: this vvas an image only, and as an image vvas it erected and kept and vsed by Gods commaundement.num. 21. but vvhen it grevve to be an idol (saith S. Augustine) that is,Li- 10 de Ci­uit. c. 8. vvhen the people began to adore it as God, then king Ezechias brake it in peeces to the great cōmendation of his pietie and godly zeale.4 Reg. 18. So vvhen the children of Israel in the ab­sence of Moyses made a calfe,Exod. 32. and said, [Page 35] These are thy Gods ô Israel that brought thee out of Aegypt, The molten calfe, an idol. vvas it but an image vvhich they made? vvas that so heinous a matter that God vvould so haue punished them as he did? No they made it an idol also, saying, These are thy gods ô Israel. And therfore the Apo­stle saith to the Corinthians,1 Cor. 10. [...]. Be not idolaters, as some of them. Vvhich also you translate most falsely, Be not worshippers of images, as some of them.

5 Vve see then that the Ievves had images vvithout sinne, but not idols. Againe for hauing idols they vvere accounted like vnto the Gentiles, as the Psalme saith, They learned their workes, and serued their grauen idols. Psal. 164. but they vvere not accounted like vnto the Gentiles for hauing images, vvhich they had in Salomons Temple, and in the brasen serpent.In c. 25. Ezech. The Prote­stants are like to the Ammonites & Moabites. S. Hierom vvriteth of the Ammo­nites and Moabites (vvho vvere Gentiles and Idolaters) that comming into the tem­ple of Hierusalem, and seeing the Angelical images of the Cherubins couering the Pro­pitiatorie, they said, Loe, euen as the Gen­tiles, so Iuda also hath idols of their religiō. These men did put no difference betvvene their ovvne idols, and the Ievves lavvful images. and are not you ashamed to be like to these? They accused Salomons Tem­ple of Idols, because they savv there lavvful images: you accuse the Churches of God of [Page 36]idolatrie, because you see there the sacred images of Christ and his Saincts.

6 But tel vs yet I pray you, doe the holy Scriptures of either Testament speake of al maner of images,The holy Scripture speaketh a­gainst the idols of the Gētiles, not against al­maner of images. or rather of the idols of the Gentiles? your cōscience knoweth that they speake directly against the idols & the idolatrie that vvas among the Pagans and Infidels: frō vvhich as the Ievves in the old Testamēt, so the first Christians in the nevv Testament vvere to be prohibited. but vvil you haue a demonstration that your owne conscience condemneth you herein, & that you apply al translation to your heresie? Vvhat caused you being othervvise in al places so ready to translate, images: yet Esa. 31 and Zachar. 13 to translate, idols, in al your Bibles vvith ful cōsent? Vvhy in these places specially and so aduisedly? No doubt because God saith there, speaking of this time of the nevv Testament: In that day euery man shal cast out his idols of siluer and idols of gold. And, I vvil destroy the names of the idols out of the earth, so that they shal nomore be had in remembrance. In vvhich places if you had trāslated, images, you had made the prophecie false, because images haue not been destroied out of the vvorld, but are, and haue been in Christian countries vvith honour & reuerence, euen since Christes time. Mary in the idols of the [Page 37]Gentiles vve see it verified, vvhich are destroied in al the world so far as Gentilitie is conuerted to Christ.

7 And vvhat vvere the Pagans idols or their idolatrie? S. Paul telleth vs, saying:Ro. 1. They changed the glorie of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, Vvhat vvere the idols of the Pagans. and of birdes and beastes and creeping things: and they serued (or vvor­shipped) the creature more then the creator. Doth he charge them for making the image of man or beast? Your selues haue hangings and clothes ful of such paintings and embrode­rings of imagirie. Where vvith then are they charged? vvith giuing the glorie of God to such creatures, vvhich vvas to make them idols, and them selues idolaters.

8 The case being thus,1 Cor. 5. Bib. 1562. vvhy do you make it tvvo distinct things in S. Paul, calling the Pagans, idolaters: and the Christians doing the same, vvorshippers of images: and that in one sentence, vvhereas the Apostle vseth but one and the self same Greeke vvord in speaking both of Pagans and Christians? It is a maruelous and vvilful corruption, and vvel to be marked, and therfore I vvil put dovvne the vvhole sentence, as it is in your English translatiō. I vvrote to you that you should not companie vvith fornicators: and I meant not at al of the fornicators of this vvorld, either of the couetous, or extortioners, either [...] the idolaters &c. but that ye com­panie not together, if any that is called a brother, be afor­nicator [Page 38]or couetous, or [...]. A VVORSHIPPER or IMAGES, or an extortioner. In the first, speaking of Pagans, your translatour nameth idolater according to the text, but in the later part speaking of Christians, you translate the very self same Greeke vvord, vvorshipper of images. Vvhy so? for sooth to make the rea­der thinke that S. Paul speaketh here, not only of Pagan idolaters, but also of Catho­like Christians that reuerently kneele in praier before the Crosse, the holy Roode, the images of our Sauiour Christ and his Saincts: as though the Apostle had com­maunded such to be auoided.

9 Vvhere if you haue yet the face to deny this your malitious and heretical intent, tell vs, vvhy al these other vvordes are translated and repeated alike in both places, couetous, fornicators, extortioners, both Pagans and Christians: and only this vvord (idolaters) not so, but Pagans, idolaters: & Christians, vvorshippers of images. At the least you can not deny but it vvas of purpose done, to make both seeme al one, yea and to si­gnifie that the Christians doing the foresaid reuerence before sacred images (which you call vvorshipping of images) are more to be auoided then the Pagan idolaters.

Vvhereas the Apostle speaking of Pagans and Christians that committed one and the [Page 39]self same heinous sinne vvhatsoeuer, com­maundeth the Christian in that case to be auoided for his amendement, leauing the Pagan to him self & to God, as hauing not to doe to iudge of him.

10 But to this the ansvver belike vvil be made,W. Fulke, Confut. of Iohn Hovv­let so. 35. as one of them hath already ansvve­red in the like case, that in the English Bi­ble appointed to be read in their churches it is othervvise, and euen as vve vvould haue it corrected: and therfore (saith he) it had been good before vve entred into such beinous accu­sations, to haue examined our groundes that they had been true. As though vve accuse them not truely of false translation, vnles it be false in that one Bible vvhich for the present is read in their churches: or as though it per­tained not to thē hovv their other English Bibles be trāslated: or as though the people read not al indifferently vvithout prohibi­tion, and may be abused by euery one of them: or as though the Bible vvhich novv is read (as vve thinke) in their churches,Bib. 1577. Col. 3. v. 5. haue not the like absurd translations, yea more absurd, euen in this matter of images, as is before declared: or as though vve must first learne what English translation is read in their church (vvhich vvere hard to knovv, it changeth so oft) before vve may be bold to accuse them of false translation: [Page 40]or as though it vvere not the same Bible that Was for many yeres read in their chur­ches, & is yet in euery mans handes, vvhich hath this absurd translation vvhereof vve haue last spoken.

11 Surely the Bible that vve most accuse not only in this point,Bib. 1562. but for sundrie other most grosse faultes and heretical transla­tions, spoken of in other places, is that Bi­ble vvhich vvas authorised by Cramner their Archbishop of Canterburie, and read al king Edvvards time in their churches, & (as it seemeth by the late printing thereof againe an. 1562) a great part of this Queenes reigne. And certaine it is, that it vvas so long read in al their churches vvith this venemous & corrupt translation of images alvvaies in steede of idols, that it made the deceiued people of their secte, to despise, contemne, and abandon the very signe and image of their saluatiō, the crosse of Christ, the holy roode or crucifixe representing the maner of his bitter passion and death, the sacred images of the blessed Virgin Ma­rie the mother of God, & of S. Iohn Euan­gelist, representing their standing by the Crosse at the very time of his Passion.Io. 19. v. 26. in so much that novv by experience vve see the foule inconuenience thereof, to vvit, that al other images and pictures of infamous [Page 41]harlots and Heretikes, of Heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lavvful in England at this day, and their houses, parlours and chambers are garnished vvith them: onely sacred images, and representations of the holy mysterie of our redemption, are estee­med idolatrous, and haue been openly de­faced in most spiteful maner and burned, to the great dishonour of our Sauiour Christ and his Saincts.

12 And as concerning the bible that at this day is read in their churches, if it be that of the yere 1577, it is vvorse sometime in this matter of images, then the other. for vvhere the other readeth,Col. 3. v. 5. Couetousnes, vvhich is vvorshipping of idols: there this later (vvhere­vnto they appeale) readeth thus, Couetousnes, vvhich is vvorshipping of images. and Eph. 5. it rea­deth as absurdly as the other,W. Fulke Confut. fol. 35. A couetous man, vvhich is a vvorshipper of images. Loe this is the English bible vvhich they referre vs vnto, as better translated, and as correcting the fault of the former. But because it is eui­dent by these places, that his also is part­ly vvorse, and partly as il as the other, ther­fore this great cōfuter of M. Iohn Houlet fleeth once more,Fol. 36. Bib. 1579. to the Geneua English Bi­ble, saying, Thus vve reade, and so vve translate: to wit, A couetous person, vvhich is an idolater. Vvhere shal vve haue these good fellovves, and [Page 42]hovv shal vve be sure that they vvill stand to any of their translations? from the first readde in their churches, they flee to that that is now readde, & frō this againe, to the later Geneua English Bibles, neither readde in their churches (as vve suppose) nor of greatest authoritie among them: and vve doubt not but they vvil as fast flee from this, to the former againe, vvhen this shal be proued in some places more false & ab­surd then the other.

13 But vvhat matter is it hovv they reade in their churches, or hovv they correct their former trāslations by the later: vvhen the old corruption remaineth stil, being set of purpose in the toppe of euery doore vvithin their churches, in these vvordes: Babes keepe your selues from images? 1 Io. 5. Vvhy remai­neth that vvritten so often and so conspi­cuously in the vvalles of their churches, vvhich in their Bibles they correct as a fault? their later bibles say, keepe your selues from idols: their church vvalles say, keepe your selues from images. S. Iohn speaking to the late­ly conuerted Gentiles, biddeth them be­ware of the idols from vvhence they vvere conuerted: they speaking to the old instru­cted Christians, bid them bevvare of the sacred image of Christ our Sauiour, of the holy Crucifixe, of the crosse, of euery such [Page 43]representation and monument of Christs passion, and our redemption. And therfore in the very same place vvhere these holy monuments vvere vvont to stand in Ca­tholike times, to vvit, in the roode loft and partition of the Church and chauncel: there now stand these vvordes as confron­ting and cōdemning the foresaid holy mo­numēts, Babes keepe your selues frō images. Vvhich vvordes vvhosoeuer esteemeth as the wor­des of Scripture, and the vvordes of S. Iohn, spoken against Christes image, is made a very babe in deede, and sottishly a­bused by their scribled doores, and false translations, to count that idolatrie, vvhich is in deede to no other purpose then to the great honour of him vvhose image and pi­cture it is.

14 But the gay confuter vvith vvhom I began, saith for further ansvver:W. Fulke. Fo. 35. Admit that in some of our translations it be, Children keepe your selues from images (for so he vvould haue said if it vvere truely printed) Vvhat great crime of corru­ption is here committed? And vvhen it is said a­gaine, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they meane by so translating to make the simple beleeue that idols and images are al one, vvhich is absurd he replieth that it is no more absurditie, then in steede of a Greeke vvord, to vse a Latin of the same signification. [Page 44]And vpon this position he graunteth that according to the propertie of the Greeke vvord a man may say,Gen. 1. [...] God made man according to his idol, and that generally, idolum may as true­ly be translated an image, as Tyrannus a king (vvhich is very true, both being absurd) & here he citeth many authors and dictiona­ries idly, [...] to prooue that idolum may signifie the same that Image.

15 But I beseeche you Sir, if the dictiona­ries tel you that [...] may by the original propertie of the vvord signifie an image, (vvhich no man denieth) do they tel you also that you may commonly and ordina­rily translate it so, as the common vsual si­gnification thereof? or do they tel you that image and idol are so al one, that vvhereso­euer you finde this vvord image, you may truely call it, idol? for these are the points that you should defend in your ansvver. for an example, do they teach you to trans­late in these places thus,Rom. 8. imagini. 1 Cor. 15. imaginem God hath predestinated vs to be made conformable to the idol of his sonne. And againe, As we haue borne the idol of the earthly (Adam:) so let vs beare the idol of the heauenly (CHRIST). And againe, Vve are transformed into the same idol, euen as of our Lordes spirit. 2 Cor. 3. Hebr. 10. And againe, The Lavv hauing a shadovv of the good things to come, not the very idol of the things. And againe, Christ vvho is the idol of the inuisible God? Col. 1. 2 Cor. 4. Is this (I pray you) a true trans­lation? yea, say you, according to the propertie of [Page 45]the vvord: but because the name of idols, in the English tonge, for the great dishonour done to God in vvorship­ping of images, is become odious, no Christian man vvould say so.

16 First note hovv folishly and vnadui­sedly he speaketh here, because he vvould confound images and idols, & make them falsely to signifie one thing: vvhen he saith, the name of idol, is become odious in the English tongue because of vvorshipping of Images, He should haue said, The disho­nour done to God in vvorshipping Idols, made the name of Idols odious. As in his ovvne exāple of Tyrant, and king: he meant to tel vs that Tyrant sometime vvas an vsual name for euery king, and because certaine such Tyrants abused their povver, therfore the name of Tyrant became odious. for he vvil not say (I trovv) that for the fault of kings, the name of Tyrant became odious. Likevvise the Romanes tooke avvay the name of Manlius for the crime of one Mā ­lius, not for the crime of Iohn at Nokes, or of any other name. The name of Iudas is so odious that men novv commonly are not so called. Vvhy so? because he that betraied Christ, vvas called Iudas: not because he vvas also Iscariote. The very name of Mi­nisters is odious and contemptible. vvhy? because Ministers are so levvd, vvicked, & vnlearned, not because some Priests be [Page 46]naught. Euen so the name of idol grevve to be odious, because of the idols of the Gentiles, not because of holy images. For if the reuerence done by Christians to ho­ly images vvere euill, as it is not, it should in this case haue made the name of images odious: & not the name of Idols. But God be thanked, the name of Images is no odious name among Catholike Christians, but onely among heretikes & Imagebrea­kers, such as the second general Councel of Nice hath condemned therfore vvith the sentence of Anáthema. No more then the Crosse is odious, vvhich to al good Chri­stians is honorable, because our Sauiour Christ died on a Crosse.

17 But to omit this mans extraordinarie and vnaduised speaches vvhich be to many and to tedious (as when he saith in the same sentence, Hovvsoeuer the name idol is grovven odious in the English tongue, as though it vvere not also odious in the Latin & Greeke tonges, but that in Latin and Greeke a man might say according to his fond opinion, Fecit ho­nem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places vvhere is imago) to omit these rashe asser­tions I say, and to returne to his other vvordes vvhere he saith, that though the original propertie of the vvordes hath that signification, yet no Christian man vvould say that [Page 47]God made man according to his idol, no more then a good subiect vvould call his lavvful Prince a tyrant. doth he not here tell vs that, vvhich vve vvould haue, to vvit, that vve may not speake or trāslate according to the original propertie of the vvord, but according to the cōmon vsual and accustomed signification thereof? As vve may not translate, Phalaris tyrannus, Phalaris the king, as sometime tyrannus did sig­nifie, and in auncient authors doth signifie: but, Phalaris the tyrant, as novv this vvord tyrannus is commonly taken & vnderstood. Euen so vve may not novv translate, My children keepe your selues from images, as the vvord may and doth sometime signifie ac­cording to the original propertie thereof,ab idolis [...] 1 Io. 5. but vve must trāslate, keepe yourselues from idols, according to the common vse and signifi­cation of the vvord in vulgar speache, and in the holy Scriptures. Vvhere the Greeke vvord is so notoriously & vsually peculiar to idols, and not vnto images: that the holy fathers of the second Nicene Councel (vvhich knevv right vvel the signification of the Greeke vvord, them selues being Graecians) do pronounce Anáthema to al such as interpret those places of the holy Scripture that concerne idols, of images or against sacred images, as novv these Calui­nists do, not onely in their Commentaries [Page 48]vpon the holy Scriptures, but euen in their translations of the text.

18 This then being so, that vvordes must be translated as their common vse and sig­nification requireth,Loco citato fo. 35. if you aske your old question, vvhat great crime of corruption is committed in translating, keepe your selues from images, the Greeke being [...]? you haue ansvvered your self, that in so transla­ting, idol & image are made to signifie one thing, vvhich may not be done, no more then Tyrant and king can be made to signi­fie al one. And hovv can you say then, that this is no more absurditie, then in steede of a Greeke vvord, to vse a latin of the same signification. Are you not here contrarie to your self? Are idol and image, tyrant and king, of one significatiō? said you not that in the English tonge, idol is grovven to an other signification, then image, as tyrant is grovven to an other sig­nification then king? Your false translatiōs therfore that in so many places make idols and images al one, not onely forcing the word in the holy Scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby (as Ephes. 5. & Col. 3) are they not in your owne iudgement very corrupt:Eph. 5. A co­uetous mā is a vvorship­per of ima­ges. and Col. 3. Couetous­nes is Wor­shipping of images. & as your ovvne consciences must confesse, of a malitious intent corrupted, to disgrace thereby the Churches holy ima­ges by pretense of the holy Scriptures that [Page 49]speake onely of the Pagans idols.

19 But of the vsual, and original signi­fication of vvordes (vvhereof you take oc­casion of manifold corruptions) vve vvil speake more anon, if first vve touche some other your falsifications against holy ima­ges: as, vvhere you affectate to thrust the vvord image into the text, vvhen there is no such thing in the Hebrue or Greeke, as in that notorious example 2. Par. 36. (Bib. 1562.) Carued images that vvere laid to his charge. [...]. subaud. [...] Num. c. 22. Againe, Ro. 11. To the image of Baal. and Act. 19. The image that came dovvne from Iupiter. Vvhere you are not content to vnderstand image rather then idol, [...] but also to thrust it into the text, being not in the Greeke, as you knovv very vvel.

20 Of this kinde of falsification is that vvhich is crept as a leprosie through out al your bibles, translating, Sculptile and conflatile, grauen image, molten image, namely in the first commaundement, vvhere you knovv in the Greeke it is idol, & in the Hebrue, [...] such a vvord as signifieth onely a grauen thing, not including this vvord image: and you know that God commaunded to make the images of Cherubins, and of oxen in the Temple, and of the brasen serpēt in the de­sert, and therfore your vvisedomes might haue cōsidered, that he forbadde not al gra­uen [Page 50]images,The mea­ning of the 1. Commaū ­dement con­cerning false gods and grauen idols but such as the Gentiles made and vvorshipped as goddes: and therfore Non facies tibi sculptile, concurreth vvith those vvordes that goe before, Thou shalt haue none other gods but me. For so to haue an image as to make it a god, is to make it more then an image: and therfore, vvhen it is an Idol, as vvere the Idols of the Gentiles, then it is forbid by this commaundement. Other­vvise, vvhen the Crosse stood many yeres vpon the Table in the Queenes Chappel,The Crosse in the Q. Chappel. vvas it against this cōmaundement? or vvas it idolatrie in the Quenes Maiestie & her Counsellers, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of your churche? Or do the Lutherans your puefellowes, at this day commit idolatrie against this commaunde­ment, that haue in their churches the cru­cifixe, and the holy Images of the mother of God,Images in the Luthe­ran Chur­ches. and of S. Iohn the Euangelist? Or if the vvhole storie of the Gospel cōcerning our sauiour Christ, vvere dravven in pictu­res and Images in your churches, as it is in many of ours, vvere it (trovv you) against this commaundement? fye for shame, that you should thus vvith intolerable impu­dencie and deceite abuse and bevvitch the ignorāt people, against your ovvne know­ledge and conscience. For, vvot you not, that God many times expresly forbade the [Page 51]Ievves both mariages and other conuersa­tion vvith the Gentiles, lest they might fall to vvorship their idols, as Salomon did,3 Reg. 11. Ps. 105. v. 35. & as the Psalme reporteth of them? This then is the meaning of the commaundement, neither to make the idols of the Gentiles, nor any other like vnto them, and to that end, as did Ieroboam in Dan and Bethel.Hebr. Teraphim. Marsebah. Temunah. Maschith. Pesel. Tselamim. Tabaith. Hamanim. Saemel. Massecah. Nesachim. Gillulim. Miphletseth Gr. [...] Al image and images, in their trans­lations.

21 This being a thing so plaine as nothing more in all the holy Scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceite and falsehod, for the most part doth translate still, images, images, vvhen the Latin and Greeke and He­brue haue diuers other vvordes, and very seldom that vvhich ansvvereth to image. for when it is image in the Latin, or Greeke or Hebrue textes, your translation is not reprehended: for vve also translate some­times, images, vvhen the text of the holy scripture requiteth it. and we are not igno­rant that there vvere images, vvhich the Pagans adored for their gods: & vve knovv that some idols are images, but not al ima­ges, idols. but vvhen the holy Scriptures call them by so many names, rather then images, because they vvere not onely ima­ges, but made idols: vvhy do your transla­tions, like cuckoes birdes, sound continual­ly, images, images, more then idols, or o­ther vvordes equiualent to idols, vvhich [Page 52]are there meant?

22 Tvvo places onely vve vvill at this time aske you the reason of: first vvhy you translate the Hebrue and Greeke that ans­vvereth to statua, image, so often as you do: Vvhereas this vvord in the said tonges, is taken also in the better part, as vvhen la­cob set vp a stone and erected it for a *Matsebah. [...] title, povvring oile vpon it: and the prophet saith, our Lordes altar shal be in Argypt, and his *Gen. 28. v. 22title beside it. Esa. 19. v. 19. So that the vvord doth signifie ge­nerally a signe erected of good or euil, and therfore might very well (if it pleased you) haue some other English then, image. Vnles you will say that Iacob also set vp an image: &, Our Lordes image shal be in Aegypt: which you will not say, though you might vvith more reason then in other places.

Of the yere 1579.23 Secondly vve demaund, vvhy your very last English Bible hath (Esa. 30, 22:) For tvvo Hebrue vvordes,Pesilim. Massechoth. [...]. vvhich are in Latin Sculptilia and conflatilia, tvvise, images, images: neither vvord being Hebrue for an image: no more then if a man vvould aske, vvhat is Latin for an image, & you vvould tell him sculptile. Vvherevpon he seeing a faire painted image in a table, might hap­pily say, Ecce egregium sculptile. Vvhich euery boy in the Grammar schoole vvould laugh at. Vvhich therfore vve tel you, because vve [Page 53]perceiue your translations en deuour and as it vvere affectat, [...]. Of the yere 1579. to make Sculptile and image al one. Vvhich is most euidently false and to your great confusiō appeareth Abac. 2. v. 13. Vvhere for these vvordes, Quid prodest sculptile, quia sculpsit illud fictor suus conflatile & imaginē falsam? Vvhich is according to the Hebrue and Greeke: your later English trāslation hath, Vvhat profiteth the image? for the maker thereof hath made it an image, and a teacher of lies.

24 I vvould euery common Reader vvere able to discerne your falshod in this place. First, you make sculpere sculptile, no more then, to make an image: Vvhich being absurd you knovv (because the painter or embroderer making an image, can not be said sculpere scul­ptile) might teach you that the Hebrue hath in it no significatiō of image, no more then sculpere can signifie, to make an image: and therfore the Greeke and the Latin precisely (for the most part) expresse neither more nor lesse, then a thing grauē:Sculptile. [...] but yet meane alvvaies by these vvordes, a grauen idol, to vvhich signification they are appropriated by vse of holy Scripture, as Simulacrum idolum, conflatile, and sometime imago. In vvhich sense of signifying I dols, if you also did repeate images so often, although the translation vvere not precise, yet it vvere in some part tolerable, because the sense vvere so: but vvhen you do it to bring al holy images [Page 54]into contempt, euen the image of our Sa­uiour Christ crucified, you may iustly be controuled for false and heretical transla­tors.

25 As in this very place (vvhich is an other fals hod like to the other) conflatile you trans­late image, Abac. 2. as you did sculptile, and so here againe in Abacucke (as before in Esay is noted) for tvvo distinct vvordes, eche sig­nifying an other diuers thing from image, you translate, images, images. Thirdly, for imaginem falsam, a false image, you translate an other thing, vvithout any necessarie pre­tense either of Hebrue or Greeke, auoiding here the name of image, because this place telleth you that the holy Scripture speaketh against false images, or as the Greeke hath, false phantasies, [...] or as you translate the Hebrue, such images as teach lies, representing false Gods vvhich are not, as the Apostle saith, Idolum nihil est, 1 Cor. 8. Act. 19. And, Non sunt Dij qui manibus fiunt. Vvhich distinction of false and true ima­ges you vvil not haue, because you con­demne al images, euen holy and sacred also, and therfore you make the holy Scriptures to speake herein according to your ovvne fansie.

26 Vvherein you procede so far, that vvhen Daniel said to the king,Dan. 14. v. 4. I vvorship not idols made vvith handes ( [...]) you [Page 55]make him say thus, I vvorship not things that be made vvith handes. Bib. 1562.1577. leauing out the vvord idols altogether as though he had said, nothing made vvith hand vvere to be adored, not the Arke, the propitiatorie, no nor the ho­ly Crosse it self that our Sauiour shed his bloud vpon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish & take from it at your pleasure.

27 But concerning the vvord image, vvhich you make to be the English of al the Latin, Hebrue, and Greeke vvordes, be they neuer so many and so distinct, I besee­che you vvhat reason had you to translate [...], images, Sap. 15. v. 13: doth the Greeke vvord so signifie? doth not the sentence fo­lovving tel you that it should haue been translated, grauen idols? for thus it saith, They iudged al the idols of the nations to be Gods. loe your images, or rather loe the true names of the Pagans goddes, vvhich it pleaseth you to call, images, images.

28 But (to conclude this point) you might, and it vvould haue vvel becommed you, in translating or expounding the fore­said vvordes, to haue folovved S. Hierom the great famous translator and interpreter of the holy Scriptures:Comment. in Abac. 2. vvho telleth you tvvo senses of the foresaid vvordes: the one literal, of the idols of the Gentiles: the [Page 56]other mystical, of Heresies and errours. Sculptile, saith he, & conflatile: I take to be peruerse o­pinions, vvhich are adored of the authors that made them. See Arius, that graued to him self this idol, that Christ vvas onely a creature, & adored that vvhich he had gra­uen. behold Eunomius, hovv he molted and cast a false image, and bovved to that vvhich he had molten. Sup­pose he had exemplified of the tvvo con­demned heretikes Iouinian and Vigilātius also: had he not touched your idols, that is, the old condemned heresies vvhich you at this day adore?

29 These onely (I mean heresies & he­retikes) are the idols and idolaters (by the auncient Doctors iudgement) vvhich haue been among Christians, since the idolatrie of the Gentiles ceased according to the prophets.Zach. 13. Therfore S. Hierom saith againe, If thou see a man that vvill not yeld to the truth, Loco citato. but vvhen the falshod of his opinions is once shevved, per­seuereth still in that he began: thou maist aptly say, Spe­rat in figmento suo, Osee 11. and he maketh dumme or deafe idols. And againe, Al Heretikes haue their gods: & vvhat­soeuer they haue forged, they adore the same as sculptile and conflatile: Osee 12. that is, as a grauen and molten idol. And againe, He saith vvel, I haue found vnto my self an idol: For, al the forgeries of heretikes are as the idols of the Gentils: neither do they much differ in impietie, though in name they seeme to differ. In 5. Amos. And againe, Vvhat­soeuer according to the letter is spoken against the idola­trie of the Ievves, do thou referre al this vnto them vvhich vnder the name of Christ vvorship idols, and forging to them selues peruerse opinions, carie the tabernacle of their [Page 57]king the Deuil, and the image of their idols. For they vvorship not an idol, but for varietie of their doctrine they adore diuerse Gods. And he put in very vvell, vvhich you made to your selues: for they receiued them not of God, but forged them of their ovvne minde. And of the idol of Samaria he saith,In 8. Amos. we alvvaies vnderstand Samaria (& the idol of Samaria) in the per­son of Heretikes, the same Prophet saying, VVO BE TO THEM THAT DESPISE SION,c. 6. AND TRVST IN THE MOVNT OF SAMARIA. For Heretikes despise the Church of God, and trust in the falshod of their opinions, erecting them selues against the knovvledge of God: and saying, vvhen they haue diuided the people (by schisme,) vve haue no part in Dauid, nor inheritance in the sonne of Isay.

30 Thus the Reader may see that the holy Scriptures vvhich the Aduersaries falsely translate against the holy images of our Sauiour Christ and his sainctes, to make vs idolaters, do in deede concerne their idols, and condemne them as idolaters, vvhich forge nevv opinions to them selues, such as the auncient fathers knevv not, and adore them and their ovvne sense and interpreta­tion of Scriptures, so far & so vehemently, that they preferre it before the approued iudgement of all the generall councels and holy Doctors, and for maintenance of the same, corrupt the holy Scriptures at their pleasure, and make them speake according [Page 58]to there fansies, as we haue partly shevved, and novv are to declare further.

CHAP. IIII. The ECCLESIASTICAL vse of vvordes turned into their ORIGINAL and PROFANE signification.

1 WE spake a litle before of the double signification of wordes, the one according to the origi­nal propertie, the other accor­ding to the vsual taking thereof in all vul­gar speache and vvriting. These vvordes (as by the vvay vve shevved before vpon occasion of the Aduersaries graunt) are to be translated in their vulgar and vsual signi­fication,Chap. 3. nu. 17.18. See also M. Vvhitaker pag. 209. & the 6 chap. of this boo­ke (nu. 6.7.8. & nu. 13. &c.) much more of this matter. not as they signifie by their origi­nal propertie. As for example: Maior in the original signification is, greater. But vvhen vve say, The Maior of London, novv it is taken and soundeth in euery mans eare for such an Officer: and no man vvill say, The Greater of London, according to the original propertie of it. likevvise Episcopus a Greeke vvord, in the original sense is euery ouer­seer, as Tullie vseth it and other profane vvriters: but among Christians in Ecclesia­stical speache it is a Bishop. and no man vvil say, My Lord ouerseer of London, for [Page 59]my L. Bishop. Likevvise vve say, Seuen Deacons, S. Steuen a Deacon. no man vvill say, Seuen Ministers, S. Steuen a Minister. although that be the original signification of the vvord Deacon▪ but by Ecclesiastical vse & appropriation being taken for a certaine degree of the Clergie, so it soundeth in eue­ry mans eare, and so it must be translated. As vve say, Nero made many Martyrs: not, Nero made many vvitnesses: and yet Martyr by the first originall propertie of the vvord is nothing els but a vvitnes. Vve say Baptisme is a Sacrament: not, Vvashing is a Sacra­ment. Yet Baptisme and vvashing by the first originall propertie of the vvord is all one.

2 Novv then to come to our purpose, such are the absurde translations of the English Bibles, and altogether like vnto these. Namely, vvhen they translate congrega­tion for Church, Elder for Priest, image for idol, dissension for schisme, General for Ca­tholike, secrete for Sacrament, ouer-seer for Bishop,See chap. 15. nu. 18. & 3.4. & chap. 21. nu messenger for Angel, embassadour for Apostle, minister for Deacon, and such like: to vvhat other end be these deceitfull translations but to conceale & obscure the name of the Church and dignities thereof mentioned in the holy Scriptures: to dis­semble the vvord schisme (as they do also [Page 60]*Gal. 5. Tit. 3. 1 Cor. 11. Bib. 1562. Heresie and Heretike) for feare of disgra­cing their schismes and Heresies, to say of Matrimonie, neither Sacrament vvhich is the Latin, nor mysterie which is the Greeke, but to goe as far as they can possibly from the common vsual and Ecclesiastical vvordes,Eph. 5. v. 32. saying, This is a great secrete: in fauour of their heresie, that Matrimonie is no Sa­crament.

3 S. Paul saith as plaine as he can speake,1 Cor. 1. v. 10 I beseeche you brethren, that you all say one thing and that there be no schismes among you. They translate for schismes, dissentions: vvhich may be in profane and vvorldly things, as vvell as in matters of religion. but schismes are those that diuide the vnitie of the Church, vvher­of they knovv them selues guilty. S. Paul saith as plainely as is possible,Tit. 3 [...]. Gal. 5. A man that is an Heretike auoid after the first and second admonition. they translated in their Bible of the yere 1562, A man that is an authour of Sectes. and vvhere the Greeke is, Heresie, reckened among dam­nable sinnes, they say, Sectes: fauouring that name for their owne sakes, and dissembling it, as though the holy Scriptures spake not against Heresie or Heretikes, Schisme or Schismatikes.

4 As also they suppresse the very name Catholike, vvhen it is expresly in the Greeke, for malice tovvard Catholikes and [Page 61]Catholike religion, because they knovv, them selues neuer shal be called or knowē by that name.An. 1562. 1577. And therfore theire tvvo English Bibles accustomed to be reade in theire church (therfore by like most au­thenticall) leaue it cleane out in the title of al those Epistles,Euseb. li. 2. Ec. hist. c. 22 in fine. 1579. which haue been knovven by the name of Catholicae Epistolae euer since the Apostles time: and their later English Bible (dealing somevvhat more honestly) hath turned the word Catholike into General: saying, The General Epistle of Iames, of Peter, &c. As if a man should say in his Creede, I beleeue the general Church, because he vvould not say, the Catholike Church: as the Lutheran Catechismes say for that purpose, I beleeue the Christian Church. Lind. in Du­bitautio. So that by this rule, vvhen S. Augustine telleth that the maner vvas in cities vvhere there vvas libertie of religion, to aske, Qua itur ad Catholicam? Vve must translate it, Vvhich is the vvay to the General? And vvhen S. Hierom saith, If vve agree in faith vvith the B. of Rome, ergo Catholicisumus: vve must traslate it, Then vve are Generals. Is not this good stuff? Are they not ashamed thus to inuert and peruert al vvordes against common sense and vse and reason? Catholike and General or Vniuersal (vve knovv) is by the original propertie of the vvord al one: but accor­ding to the vse of both, as it is ridiculous to say, A Catholike Councel, for a general [Page 62]Councel: so is it ridiculous and impious to say, General for Catholike, in derogation thereof, and for to hide it vnder a bushel.

5 Is it because they vvould folovv the Greeke,Catholica. that they turne [...], general? euen as iust, as vvhen they turne [...] image, [...] instruction, [...] ordi­nance, [...] dissension, [...] sect, [...] secrete, and such like, vvhere they goe as far from the Greeke as they can, & vvill be glad to pretend for ansvver of their vvord, secte, that they folovv our Latin translation. Alas poore shift for them that othervvise pretend nothing but the Greeke, to be tried by that Latin vvhich them selues cōdemne. But vve honour the said text, and translate it sectes also, as vve there finde it, and as vve do in other places folovv the Latin text, and take not our aduantage of the Greeke text, because vve knovv the Latin translation is good also and sincere, and approued in the Church by long antiquitie, and it is in sense al one to vs vvith the Greeke: but not so to them, vvho in these daies of controuersie about the Greeke and Latin text, by not folovving the Greeke, vvhich they professe sincerely to follovv, bevvray them selues that they do it for a malitious purpose.

CHAP. V. Heretical translation against the CHVRCH.

1 AS they suppresse the name, Catholike, euen so did they in their first English bible the name of Church it self: because at their first reuolt & apostasie from that that vvas vniuersally knovven to be the onely true Catholike Church: it vvas a great obiection against their schismatical procedings, and it stucke much in the peoples consciences, that they forsooke the Church, and that the Church cōdemned them. Vvherevpon very vvilely they suppressed the name Church in their English translation, so,Bib. 1562. that in al that Bible so lōg read in their cōgregatiōs, we can not once finde the name thereof. Ludge by these places vvhich seeme of most importance for the dignitie preeminence & authoritie of the Church.

2 Our Sauiour saith,Mat. 16. Vpon this Rocke I vvil build my Church, and the gates of Hel shal not preuaile against it. They make him to say, Vpon this rocke I wil build my cōgregation. Againe,Mat. 18. If he heare not them, tel the Church: and if he heare not the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and as a publicane. they say, Con­gregation. Againe, vvho vvould thinke they vvould haue altered the vvord Church in [Page 64]the epistle to the Ephesians?Eph. 5. their English translation for many yeres redde thus, Ye husbands loue your vviues, as Christ loued the congrega­tion, and clensed it to make it vnto him self a glorious cō ­gregation vvithout spot or vvrinkle. And, This is a great secrete, but I speake of Christ and of the congregation. And to Timothee, The house of God, vvhich is the congregation of the liuing God, 1 Tim. 3. the pillar and ground of truth. Here is no vvord of Church, vvhich in Latin and Greeke is, Ecclesia Dei viui, columna & firmamentum veritatis. Likevvise to the Ephe­sians againe, He hath made him head of the congrega­tion, Eph. 1. vvhich is his body. And to the Hebrues they are al bold to translate:Heb. 12. v. 23 The congregation of the first-borne, vvhere the Apostle nameth hea­uenly Hierusalem, the citie of the liuing God, &c.

3 So that by this translation, there is no more Church militant and triumphant, but congregation, and he is not head of the Church, but of the congregation: and this congregation at the time of the making of this trāslation, vvas in a fevv nevv brethren of England, for vvhose sake the name Church vvas left out of the English Bible, to commend the name of congregation aboue the name of churche. vvhereas S. Au­gustine telleth them,In ps. 81 in ioitio. [...]. that the Ievves Syna­gogue, vvas a congregation: the Church, a conuocation: and that a congregation, is of beasts also: a conuocation, of reasonable [Page 65]creatures onely: and that the Ievves con­gregation is sometime called the Church, but the Apostles neuer called the Church, Congregation. do you see then vvhat a goodly change they haue made, for Church, to say cōgregation: so making them selues a very Synagogue, & that by the propertie of the Greeke vvord, vvhich yet (as S. Augustine telleth them most truely) signifieth rather a conuocation?

4 If they appeale here to their later trans­lations, vve must obtaine of them to con­demne the former, and to confesse this vvas a grosse fault committed therein. and that the Catholike Church of our contrie did not il to forbid and burne suche bookes vvhich vvere so translated by Tyndal and the like, as being not in deede Gods booke, vvord, or Scripture, but the Diuels vvord. Yea they must confesse, that the leauing out of this vvord Church altogether, vvas of an heretical spirit against the Catholike Ro­mane Church, because then they had no Caluinistical church in any like forme of religion and gouernement to theirs novv. Neither vvil it serue them to say after their maner, And if a man should translate Ecclesiam, congregation: this is no more absurditie, then in steede of a Greeke vvord, Confut. of M. Houlet so. 35. to vse a Latin of the same signification. This (vve trovv) vvil not suffise [Page 66]them in the iudgement of the simplest in­different Reader.

5 But, my Maisters, if you vvould confesse the former faults and corruptions neuer so plainely, is that ynough to iustifie your corrupt dealing in the holy Scriptures? Is it not an horrible fault so vvilfully to falsifie and corrupt the vvord of God vvritten by the inspiration of the holy Ghost? May you abuse the people for certaine yeres vvith false translations, and aftervvard say, Lo vve haue amended it in our later trans­lations?See his nevv Test. in La­tin of the yere 1556, printed by Robert Ste­uen in fol. Act. 2. v. 27. Then might the Heretike Beza be excused for translating in steede of Christs soul in hel, his carcas in the graue. and because some freende told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in the later editions, he should neuerthelesse in your iudgemet, be counted a right honest man. No (be ye sure) the dis­crete Reader can not be so abused, but the vvil easily see, that there is a great difference in mending some ouersightes vvhich may escape the best men: & in your grosse false translations, vvho at the first falsfie of a prepensed malice, and aftervvards alter it for very shame. Hovvbeit, to say the truth, in the cheefest and principal place that con­cerneth the Churches perpetuitie and stabi­litie, you haue not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before, and [Page 67]is at this day readde in your churches thus, Vpon this rocke 1 vvil build my congregation. Mat. 16. v. 18. Bib. 1577. Can it be vvithout some heretical subreltie, that in this place specially and (I thinke) only you change not the vvord congregation into Church? Giue vs a reason & discharge your credite.

6 Vvhat shal I say of Beza, vvhom the English bibles also folovv, translating actiuely that Greeke vvord, (vvhich in common vse, & by S. Chrysostoms and the Greeke Doctors exposition is a plaine pas­siue) to signifie, as in his Annotations is cleere, that Christ may be vvithout his Church, that is, a head vvithout a body. The vvordes be these in the heretical tran­slation,Eph. 1. v. 21.23. [...]. He gaue him to be the head ouer al thinges to the Church, vvhich (Church) is his body, the fulnes of him that filleth all in all. S. Chrysostom, saith Beza, (he might haue said al the Greeke & Latin auncient fathers) taketh it passiuely, in this sense, that Christ is filled al in al, be­cause all faithful men as members, and the vvhole Church as the body, concurre to the fulnes and accomplishmēt of Christ the head. But this (saith he) seemeth vnto me a for­ced interpretation. Vvhy so beza?

7 Marke his Doctors vvhom he oppo­seth to the fathers both Greeke and Latin. Because Xenophon (saith he) in such a [Page 68]place, and Plato in such a place, vse the said Greeke word actiuely. Iomit this miserable match, & vnvvorthie names of Xenophon & Plato in trial of S. Paules wordes, against al the glorious Doctors: this is his common custom. I aske him rather of these his owne doctors, hovv they vse the Greeke vvord in other places of their vvorkes? hovv vse they it most cōmonly? yea how do al other Greeke vvriters either profane or sacred vse it? Vvhat say the Greeke readers of al vniuersities? Surely not only they, but their scholers for the most part, can not be igno­rant, [...] that the vse of this vvord and the like, is passiue, though sometime it may also si­gnifie actiuely: but that is so rare in compa­rison of the other, that no man lightly vvil vse it, and I am vvel assured it vvould be counted a fault and some lacke of skill, if one novv in his vvritinges that vvould ex­presse this in Greeke, God filleth al thinges vvith his blessing, should say, [...]: and The vvine filleth the cuppe, [...]. Aske them that haue skill, and controule me. Contrarievvise, if one vvould say pas­siuely, Al thinges are filled vvith Gods blessing, The cuppe is filled vvith vvine, Such a prophecie is fulfilled, Vvhat meane Graecian vvould not say, as S. Chrysostom here expoūdeth this vvord, [...], vsing it passiuely?

8 Yet (saith Beza) this is a forced inter­pretation, [Page 69]because Xenophon forsooth & Plato (once perhaps in al their vvhole vvorkes) vse it othervvise. O heretical blindnes or rather stubburnenes, that cal­leth that forced, vvhich is most common and vsual: and seeth not that his ovvne translatiō is forced, because it is against the common vse of the vvord. but no maruel. For he that in other places thinketh it no forced interpretation,Recipere. to translate [...], to be conteined, Vvhich neither Xenophon, nor Plato, nor any Greeke author vvill allovv him to doe, and [...], carcas, and [...],Animam. Prescientiā. Poenitentiā. pouidence, and [...], them that amend their liues, may much more in this place dissemble his forced interpretation of [...]. But vvhy he should call S. Chrysostoms inter­pretation forced, vvhich is the common & vsual interpretation, that hath no more rea­son, then if a very theefe should say to an honest man, Thou art a theefe, and not I.

9 Is it forced Beza, that Christ is filled al in al by the Church? doth not S. Paul in the very next vvordes before, call the Church the fulnes of Christ, saying,Eph. 1. Vvhich is the fulnes of him that is filled al in al? If the Church be the fulnes of him, then is he filled or hath his fulnes of the Church, so that he is not a maimed head vvithout a body. This would S. Paul say, if you vvould giue him leaue, and this he doth say, vvhether you vvill or [Page 70]no. But vvhat is the cause that they vvil not suffer the Apostle to say so? because (saith Beza) Christ needeth no such complement. And if he neede it not, then may he be vvithout a Church, and consequently it is no absurditie, if the Church hath been for many yeres not only inuisible, but also not at all. Vvould a man easily at the first ima­gine or conceiue that there vvere such se­crete poison in their translation?

10 Againe, it commeth from the same puddle of Geneua,Bib. 1579. that in their bibles so called, the English Bezites translate against the vnitie of the Catholike Church. For vvhereas them selues are ful of sectes and dissensions, and the true Church is knovv­en by vnitie, and hath this marke giuen her by Christ him self,Cant. 6. v. 8. [...] in vvhose person Salo­mon speaking saith, Vnaest columba mea, that is, One is my doue, or, My doue is one. therfore in steede hereof, the foresaid bible saith, My doue is alone: Neither Hebrue not Greeke vvord hauing that signification, but being as proper to signifie one, as Vnus in latin.

11 But vve beseeche euery indifferent Reader, euen for his soules health to con­sider that one point specially before men­tioned of their abandoning the name of Church for so many yeres out of their En­glish Bibles: thereby to defeate the stron­gest [Page 71]argument that might and may possibly be brought against them and all other He­retikes: to vvit, the authoritie of the Church vvhich is so many vvaies and so greatly recommended vnto all Christians in holy Scriptures. consider (I pray you) vvhat a malitious intētion they had herein. First, that the name Church should neuer found in the common peoples eares out of the Scriptures: secondly, that as in other things, so in this also it might seeme to the ignorant a good argument against the au­thoritie of the Church, to say, Vve sinde not this vvord (Church) in al the holy Scriptures. For as in other articles they say so, because they finde not the expresse word in the holy scripture, so did they vvell prouide, that the vvord (Church) in the holy Scriptures should not stay or hinder their schismaticall and here­ticall procedings, as long as that vvas the onely English translation, that vvas read and liked among the people; that is, so long till they had by preaching taken avvay the Catholike Churches credite and authoritie altogether, among the ignorant by oppo­sing the Scriptures therevnto, vvhich them selues had thus falsely translated.

CHAP. VI. Heretical translation against PRIEST and PRIESTHOD.

1 BVT because it may be, they vvill stand here vpon their later trans­lations, vvhich haue the name Church, (because by that time they savv the absurditie of changing the name, & now their number vvas increased, & thēselues began to chalēge to be the true Church, though not the Catholike: and for former times vvhen they vvere not, they deuised an inuisible Church) If then they vvill stand vpon their later trāslations, and refuse to iustifie the former: let vs demaund of them concerning al their English trans­lations, vvhy and to vvhat end they sup­presse the name Priest, translating it Elder, in al places vvhere the holy Scripture vvould signifie by Presbyter and Presbyterium, the Priests and Priesthod of the nevv Testament?

2 Vnderstand gentle Reader, their vvylie pollicie therein is this. To take avvay the holy sacrifice of the Masse, they take avvay both altar and Priest, because they knovv right vvell that these three (Priest, sacrifice, and altar) are dependents and consequents one of an other, so that they can not be se­parated. If there be an external sacrifice, [Page 73]there must be an external Priesthod to offer it, an altar to offer the same vpon. so had the Gentiles their sacrifices, Priests, and altars: so had the Ievves: so Christ him self being a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec, had a sacrifice, his body: and an altar, his Crosse: vpon the vvhich he of­fered it. And because he instituted this sa­crifice to continue in his Church for euer in commemoration and representation of his death, therfore did he vvithal ordaine his Apostles Priests at his last supper, there & then instituted the holy order of Priest­hod and Priests (saying, hocfacite, Doe this: Luc. c. 22. v. 19.) to offer the self same sacrifice in a mystical and vnblouddy maner, vntil the vvorldes end.

3 To defeate al this and to take avvay all external Priesthod and sacrifice, they by corrupt translation of the holy Scriptures, make them cleane dumme as though they had not a word of any such Priests or Priest­hod as vve speake of. Their Bibles (vve graunt) haue the name of Priests very often, but that is vvhen mention is made either of the Priests of the Ievves, or of the Priests of the Gentiles (specially vvhen they are re­prehended and blamed in the holy Scrip­tures) and in such places our Aduersaries haue the name Priests in there translations [Page 74]to make the very name of Priest odious amonge the common ignorant people. Againe they haue also the name Priests, vvhen they are taken for all maner of men, vvomen, or children, that offer internal and spiritual sacrifices, vvhereby our Aduersa­ries vvould falsely signifie that there are no other Priests,Vvhitakers. p. 199. as one of them of late freshly auoucheth, directly against S. Augustine, vvho in one breife sentence distinguisheth Priests proprely so called in the Church, and Priests as it is a common name to al Christians. Lib. 20 de Ciuit. Dei cap. 10. This name then of Priest & Priesthod pro­prely so called (as S. Augustine faith, which is an order distinct from the laitie & vulgar people, ordained to offer Christ in an vn­bloudy maner in sacrifice to his heauenly father for vs, to preach and minister the Sa­craments, & to be the Pastors of the people) they vvholy suppresse in their translations, and in al places vvhere the holy Scripture calleth them, Presbyteros, there they neuer translate Priests, but Elders. and that they do obserue so duely and so vvarily and vvith so full and generall consent in al their En­glish Bibles as the Puritans do plainely cō ­fesse,See the puri­tans replie. pag. 159. and vvhitgifts defence against the Puritans pag. 722. & M. vvhitgift denieth it not, that a man vvould vvonder to see hovv carefull they are, that the people may not once heare [Page 75]the name of any such Priest in all the holy Scriptures.

4 As for example in theire translations. vvhen there fel a questiō about circūcision, They determined that Paul and Barnabas should goe vp to Hierusalem vnto the Apostles and ELDERS, [...]. Presbyteros. about this question. Act. 15. And againe, They vvere receiued of the The later Bibles read Church. congregation and of the Apostles and ELDERS. Againe, The Apostles & Elders came together to reason of this matter. Againe, Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders vvith the vvhole cōgregation to send &c. Againe, The Apostles and Elders and brethren send greating &c. Againe, They deliuered them the decrees for to keepe, that vvere ordained of the Apostles and ELDERS.Act. 16. If in al these places they had translated Priests (as in deede they should haue done according to the Greeke vvord) it had then disaduanta­ged them this much, that men vvould haue thought, both the dignitie of Priests to be great, & also their authoritie in Councels, as being here ioyned vvith the Apostles, to be greatly reuerenced & obeied. To keepe the people from all such holy and reuerent cogitatiōs of Priests, they put Elders, a name vvherevvith our holy Christian forefa­thers eares vvere neuer acquainted, in that sense.

5 But let vs goe forvvard. Vve haue heard often & of old time, of making of Priests: and of late yeres also, of making Ministers: but did ye euer heare in al England of ma­king [Page 76]Elders? Yet by these mens translations it hath been in England a phrase of Scrip­ture this thirtie yere: but it must needes be very strāge, that this making of elders hath not al this vvhile been practised & knovvē, no not among them selues in any of their churches vvithin the realme of England. To Titus they make the Apostle say thus,Tit. 1. For this cause left I thee in Creta, that thou shouldest or­daine ELDERS in euery citie, [...]. Presbyteros &c. Againe of Paul and Barnabas: Vvhen they had ordained Elders by election, in euery Bib. an. 1562. congregation. Act. 14. If they had said plainely as it is in the Greeke, & as our forefathers vvere vvont to speake, and the truth is: Titus vvas leaft in Creta to ordaine Priests in euery citie: and, Paul and Barnabas made Priests in euery Church: then the people vvould haue vnderstood them: they know such speaches of old, and it had been their ioy and com­fort to heare it specified in holy Scriptures. Novv they are told another thing, in such nevvnesse of speaches and vvordes, of El­ders to be made in euery citie & congrega­tion, and yet not one citie nor cōgregation to haue any Elders in all England, that vve knovv not vvhat is prophane noueltie of vvordes,1 Tim. 6. vvhich the Apostle vvilleth to be auoided, if this be not an exceding profane noueltie.

6 That it is noueltie to all English Chri­stian eares, it is euident. And it is also pro­fane, [Page 77]because they do so English the Greeke vvord of ordaining (for of the vvord Presby­ter vve vvill speake more anone) as if they should trāslate Demosthenes, [...] Act. 14. or the lawes of Athens concerning their choosing of Magistrates, vvhich vvas by giuing voices vvith liftīg vp their hands. so do they force this vvord here, to induce the peoples e­lection, & yet in their churches in Englād the people elect not ministers, but their bishop. vvhereas the holy Scripture saith, [...]. they ordained to the people: and vvhat­soeuer force the vvord hath, it is here spo­ken of the Apostles, and pertaineth not to the people, [...] Tit. 1. and therfore in the place to Ti­tus it is another vvord vvhich cannot be forced further, then to ordaine & appoint. And they might knovv (if malice and He­resie vvould suffer them to see and confesse it) that the holy Scriptures, and fathers, and Ecclesiastical custome, hath dravven this & the like wordes from their profane & com­mon signification, to a more peculiar and Ecclesiastical speache: as Episcopus, an ouerseer in Tullie, is a Bishop in the nevv Te­stament.

7 And concerning [...] vvhich vve novv speake of, S. Hierom telleth them (in c. 58. Esai.) that it signifieth Clericorum ordina­tionem, that is, geuing of holy orders, vvhich is done [Page 78]not onely by praier of the voice, Greg. Naziā. in titul. Ser. 1.4.5. [...]. and, [...]. Ignat. ep. 10. saith of Bis­hops, [...] but by imposition of the hand: according to S. Paul vnto Timothee, Manus citò nemini imposueris. Impose or put hands quickly on no man that is, be not hastie or easie to giue ho­ly orders. Where these great etymologistes, that so straine the original nature of this vvord to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learne an other Ecclesia­stical etymologie thereof, as proper and as vvel deduced of the vvord as the other, to vvit, putting forth the hand to giue orders: & so they shal finde it is al one with that vvhich the Apostle calleth imposition of hands, 1 Tim. 4. 2 Tim. 1: and consequently, for, ordai­ning Elders by election, they should haue said, or­daining or making Priests by imposition of hands: as els vvhere S. Paul, 1 Tim. 5. and the Actes of the Apostles (Act. 6. and 13.) do speake in the ordaining of the seuen Deacons and of SS. Paul and Barnabas.

8 But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the Greeke vvord [...] in al the nevv Testament, as if it had the old profane signification still, & vvere indifferent to signifie the auncients of the Ievves, the Senatours of Rome, the elders of Lacedemonia, and the Christian Clergie. in so much that they say, [...] Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church: Act. 20, and yet they vvere such as had their flockes, & cure [Page 79]of soules, as follovveth in the same place. They make S. Paul speake thus to Timo­thee, [...] Neglect not the gift (so they had rather say then grace, Bib. 1579.1577. lest holy orders should be a Sa­crament) giuen thee vvith the laying on of the hands of the Eldership. or, by the authoritie of the Eldership. 1 Tim. 4. [...] Presbyterij. Vvhat is this companie of Elder­ship? Somevvhat they vvould say like to the Apostles word, but they vvil not speake plainely, lest the vvorld might heare out of the Scriptures, that Timothee vvas made Priest or Bishop euen as the vse is in the Catholike Church at this day.ca. 3 in the yere 436. Vvhere S. Augustine vvas present and subscri­bed. let the 4 Councel of Carthage speake for both par­tes indifferently, and tell vs the Apostles meaning, A Priest vvhen he taketh his orders, the Bis­hop blessing him and holding his hand vpon his head, let all the Priests also that are present, hold their hands by the Bishops hand vpon his head. So doe our Priests at this day, vvhen a bishop maketh priests: & this is the laying on of the hands of the companie of Priests, vvhich S. Paul spea­keth of, and vvhich they translate, the compa­nie of the Eldership. Onely their former transla­tion of 1562 in this place (by vvhat chance or consideration vve knovve not) let fall out of the penne, by the authoritie of Priesthod.

9 Othervvise in all their English Bibles all the belles ring one note as, The Elders that rule vvell, are vvorthie of double honour. And, Against [Page 80]an Elder receiue no accusation, but vnder tvvo or three vvitnesses. [...]. lib. 3. de Sa­cerdotio. 1 Tim. 5. And, If any be diseased among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray ouer him, and anoynt him vvith oile, &c. Iacob. 5. Vvhereas S. Chrisostom out of this place proueth the high dignitie of Priests in re­mitting sinnes, in his booke entitled, Of Priesthod, [...]. vnles they vvill translate that title also, Of Eldership. Againe they make S. Peter say thus: The Elders vvhich are among you, I exhort vvhich am also an Elder, feede ye Christes flocke, as much as lyeth in you, &c. 1 Pet. 5.

S. Hierom readeth, Pre­sbyteros ego compresbyter. Ep. 85. ad Euagr. & in 1 ad Gal: pro­uing the di­gnitie of Priests. and yet in 4 Gal. he readeth according to the vul­gar Latin text, Seniores in vobis rogo consenior & ipse. Vvhere­by it is eui­dēt, that Se­nior here & in the Actes is a Priest, & not cōtrarie, Presbyter, an elder.10 Vvhere if they vvill tell vs (as also in certaine other places) that our Latin translation hath Seniores and maiores natu: vve tel them, as heretofore vve haue told them, that this is nothing to them, vvho professe to translate the Greeke. Againe vve say that if they meant no vvorse then the old La­tin translatour did, they vvould be as in­differēt as he, to haue said sometime Priests and Priesthod, vvhen he hath the vvordes Presbyteros and Presbyterium: as vve are indiffe­rent in our translation, saying Seniors and Auncients, vvhen vve finde it so in our La­tin: being vvell assured that by sundrie vvordes he meant but one thing, as in Greeke it is but one, and as both Erasmus, and also Beza him self alvvaies translate it, keeping the name Presbyter and Presbyteri: of vvhō by reason they should haue learned, [Page 81]rather then of our Latin trāslatour, vvhom othervvise they cōdemne. And if they say, they do folovv them, and not him, because they trāslate not Senior and maior natu, but the vvord Presbyter or [...], an Elder, in al places: vve tell them, and herein vve con­uent their cōscience, that they do it to take avvay the external Priesthod of the nevv Testament, & to suppresse the name Priest, against the Ecclesiastical, and (as novv since Christ) very proper and vsual signification thereof, in the nevv Testament, councels, & fathers, in al common vvriting and spea­king: specially the Latin Presbyter, vvhich grevve to this signification out of the Greeke in the foresaid places of holy Scri­pture.

11 In so much that immediatly in the first Canons and Councels of the Apostles and their successors, nothing is more common then this distinction of Ecclesiastical de­grees and names, Si Episcopus, vel Presbyter, See can. A­post. Conc. 1 Nic. Epistol. Ignat. Conc. Carth. 4. vel Diaconus &c. If any Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon do this or that. Vvhich if the Protestants or Caluinists vvil translate after their maner thus, If a Bishop, or Elder, or Deacon &c: Beza in 1 Pet. 5. they do against them selues, vvhich make Presbyter or Elder a common name to all Ecclesiastical persons: & not a peculiar degree, next vnto a Bishop. So that either they must con­demne [Page 82]al antiquitie for placing Presbyter in the second degree after a Bishop, or they must translate it Priest as vve doe, or they must make Elder to be their second degree, and so put Minister out of place.

12 And here vve must aske them, hovv this name Minister came to be a degree distinct from Deacon, [...] Diaconus. vvhereas by their ovvne rule of trāslation, Deacon is nothing els but a minister: and vvhy keepe they the old & vsual Ecclesiastical name of Deacon in translating Diaconus, 1 Tim. 3. Bib. 1577.1579. and not the name of Priest, in translating Presbyter? doth not Priest come of Presbyter as certainely and as agrea­bly as Deacon of Diaconus? Prebstre. Prete. doth not also the french and Italian vvord for Priest come directly from the same? vvill you alvvaies folovv fansie and not reason, do vvhat you list, translate as you list, and not as the truth is, and that in the holy Scriptures, vvhich you boast and vaunt so much of? Because your selues haue them vvhom you call Bi­shops, the name Bishop is in your English Bibles, vvhich othervvise by your ovvne rule of trāslation, should be called an Ouer­seer or Superintendent: likevvise Deacon you are content to vse as an Ecclesiastical vvord so vsed in antiquitie, because you also haue those vvhom you call Deacons: Onely Priests must be turned contemptu­ously [Page 83]out of the text of the holy Scriptures, and Elders put in their place, because you haue no Priests, not vvil none of them, and because that is in cōtrouersie betvvene vs. & as for Elders, you haue none permitted in England, for feare of ouerthrovving your Bishops office & the Queenes supreme go­uernemēt in all spiritual things & causes. Is not this to folovv the humour of your heresie, by Machiauels politike rules vvith­out any feare of God?

13 Apostles you say for the most part in your translations (not alvvaies) as vve do, and Prophetes, and Euangelistes, & Angels, and such like, and vvheresoeuer there is no matter of controuersie betvvene you and vs, there you can pleade very grauely for keeping the auncient Ecclesiastical wordes,Beza in c. 9. Mat. nu. 25. &c. 10. nu. 2 as your maister Beza for example, beside many other places vvhere he bitterly re­buketh his fellovv Castaleons translation, in one place vvriteth thus:in 3 ca. Mat. nu. 11. I cannot in this place dissemble the boldnesse of certaine men, vvhich vvould God it rested vvithin the compasse of vvordes onely. these men therfore concerning the vvord Baptizing, Baptizo. though vsed of sacred vvriters in the mysterie or Sacrament of the nevv Testament, and for so many yeres after, by the se­crete consent of al Churches, consecrated to this one Sacra­ment, Baptisme. so that it is novv grovven into the vulgar speaches almost of al nations, yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to vse the vvord vvashing. delicate men forsooth, vvhich neither are moued vvith the [Page 84]perpetual authoritie of so many ages; nor by the daily cu­stom of the vulgar speache, can be brought to thinke that lavvful for Diuines, vvhich al men graunt to other Mai­sters and professors of artes: that is, to reteine and hold that as their ovvne, vvhich by long vse and in good faith they haue truely possessed. Neither may they pretend the authoritie of some auncient vvriters, as that Cyprian saith TINGENTES for BAPTIZANTES, and Ter­tullian in a certaine place calleth SEQVESTREM for MEDIATOREM. For that vvhich vvas to those auncients as it vvere nevv, to vs is old: and euen then, that the self same vvordes vvhich vve novv vse, vvere familiar to the Church, Baptizo. Mediator. it is euident, because it is very sel­dom that they speake othervvise. but these men by this no­ueltie seeke after vaine glorie, &c.

14 He speaketh against Castaleon, vvho in his nevv Latin translation of the Bible, changed al Ecclesiastical vvordes into pro­fane and Heathenish, as Angelos in to genios, Prophetas into Fatidicos, Templum into fanum, and so forth. But that vvhich he did for folish affectation of finenesse and stile, do not our English Caluinists the very same vvhen they list, for furthering their Heresies? Vvhen the holy Scripture saith idols accor­ding as Christians haue alvvaies vnder­stood it for false goddes, they come and tell vs out of Homer & the Lexicōs, [...]. Confut. of the Reas. 10.35. that it may signifie an image, & therfore so they trans­late it. do they not the like in the Greeke vvord that by Ecclesiastical vse signifieth, penance, [...]. and doing penance, vvhen they ar­gue out of Plutarche, and by the profane [Page 85]sense thereof, that it is nothing els but chāg­ing of the minde or amendment of life? Vvhereas in the Greeke Church, Poenitentes, that is, they that vvere in the course of penance, and excluded from the Church as Catechumeni, and Energumeni, till they had ac­complished their penance; the very same are called in the Greeke [...].Dionys. Ec. Hier. c. 5.

15 They therfore leauing this Ecclesiasti­cal signification, & translating it according to Plutarche, do they not much like to Ca­staleo? Do they not the same, against the famous and auncient distinction of Latrîa and Dulîa, Latrîa. Dulîa. Beza in [...] Mat. nu. 10. vvhen they tell vs out of Eusta­thius vpon Homer, and Aristophanes the Grammarian, that these tvvo are al one? Vvhereas vve proue out of S. Augustine in many places, the second Councel of Nice, Venerable Bede, & the long custom of the Church, [...] in the Scriptu­res, almost alvvaies vsed for the ser­uice and ho­nour proper to God. Au­gust. de Ciuit. Dei. li. 10. c, 1. that according to the Ecclesiastical sense and vse deduced out of the Scriptures, they differ very much. Do they not the like in Mysterium and Sacramentum, vvhich they translate a Secrete in the profane sense, vvher­as they knovv hovv these vvordes are othervvise taken both in Greeke and Latin, in the Church of God? did they not the like in the vvord Ecclesia, Bib. an. 1562. vvhen they trans­lated it nothing els but congregation? Do they not the like in [...], vvhich they [Page 86]translate, ordaining by election, as it vvas in the profane court of Athens: vvhereas S. Hie­rom telleth them, that Ecclesiastical vvri­ters take it for giuing holy orders by impo­sition of hands? Do they not the like in many other vvordes, vvheresoeuer it ser­ueth their hereticall purpose? And as for profane translation, is there any more pro­fane then Beza him self, that so often in his Annotations reprehendeth the old Trans­lation by the authoritie of Tullie and Te­rence, Homer and Aristophanes, & the like profane authors? yea so fondly and chil­dishly, that for Olfactum vvhich Erasmus v­seth as Plinies vvord, he vvill needes say odoratum, because it is Tullies vvord.

16 But to returne to our English Trans­latours: do not they the like to profane Ca­staleo, and do they not the very same that Beza their Maister so largely reprehendeth, vvhen they translate Presbyterum, an Elder? Is it not al one fault to translate so, and to translate, as Castaleo doth Baptismum, vvashing? Hath not Presbyter been a peculiar and vsual vvord for a Priest, as long as Baptismus for the Sacrament of regeneration, which Castaleo altering into a common & profane vvord, is vvorthely reprehended? Vve vvill proue it hath, not for their sake, vvho knovv it vvell ynough, but for the Readers sake, vvhom they abuse, as if they knevv it not.

17 In the first & second Canō of the Apo­stles vve read thus,That Presby­ter hath sig­nified a Priest, from the Apostles time, not an Elder. Episcopus a duobus aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab vno Episcopo ordinetur, & Diaconus, & alij Clerici. that is, Let a Bishop be cōsecrated or ordained by tvvo or three Bi­shops. let a Priest be made by one Bishop. See in the 4 Coūcel of Carthage the diuerse maner of cōsecrating Bishops, Priests, Deacōs,Can. 2.3.4. &c. Where S. Augustine vvas present & sub­scribed. Againe,Can. Apost. 32. Si quis Presbyter contemnens Epis­copum suum &c. If any Priest contemning his Bishop, make a seueral congregation, and erect another altar, (that is, make a Schisme or Heresie), let him be deposed. So did Arius being a Priest against his Bi­shop Alexander. Againe, Priests and Deacons, Can. 40. let them attempt to do nothing vvithout the Bishop. The first Councel of Nice saith,Can. 3. The holy Synode by al meanes forbiddeth, that neither Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon &c. haue vvith them any forren vvoman, but the mother, or sister, &c. in vvhom there is no suspicion. Againe, It is told the holy Councel, Can. 14. that in certaine places and cities, Deacons giue the Sacraments to Priests. This neither rule nor custom hath deliuered, that they vvhich haue not authoritie to offer the sacrifice, should giue to them that offer, the body of Christ. The 3 Coun­cel of Carthage vvherein S. Augustine vvas, and to the vvhich he subscribed, decreeth,Can. 24. That in the Sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ, there be no more offered, then our Lord him self deliuered, that is, bread and vvine mingled vvith vvater. Vvhich the sixth general Councel of Constantino­ple repeating and confirming, addeth: [Page 88] If therfore any Bishop or Priest doe not according to the order giuen by the Apostles, [...]. mingling vvater vvith vvine, but offer an vnmingled sacrifice, let him be deposed &c. But of these speaches al Councels be full: vvhere vve vvould gladly knovv of these nevv Translatours, hovv Presbyter must be translated: either an Elder, or a Priest.

18 Do not al the fathers speake after the same maner, making alvvaies this distin­ction of Bishop and Priest, as of the first and second degree?Ep. 2. ad Trallianos. [...]. S. Ignatius the Apostles scholer doth he not place Presbyterium as he calleth it, and Presbyteros (Priests, or the Col­lege of Priests) next after Bishops, and Dea­cons in the third place, repeating it no lesse then thrise in one Epistle, & commending the dignitie of all three vnto the people?Comment. in c. 7. Mi­cheae. doth not S. Hierom the very same, saying, Let vs honour a Bishop, do reuerence to a Priest, rise vp to a Deacon? Ep. 85. ad E­uagrium. And vvhen he saith, that as Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuites vvere in the Temple, so are Bishops, Priests, & Deacons in the Church, for place and degree. And in an other place, speaking of the outrages done by the Vandals and such like,Epitaph. Ne­potiani c. 9. Bishops vvere taken, Priests slaine, and diuers of other Ecclesia­stical orders: Churches ouerthrovven, the altars of Christ made stables for horses, the relikes of Martyrs digged vp &c. Vvhen he saith of Nepotian, fit Cleri­cus, & per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur: he becō ­meth a man of the Clergie, and by the accu­stomed [Page 89]degrees is made, vvhat? a Priest, or an Elder? vvhen he saith, Mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet &c. doth he meane he could not sit aboue an Elder, or aboue a Priest, him self as then being not Priest? Vvhen he, and Vincentius (as S. Epiphanius vvriteth) of reuerence to the degree,Ep. 60 apud Hiero. ca. 1. vvere hardly in­duced to be made Presbyteri: did they refuse the Eldership? Vvhat vvas the matter that Iohn the B. of Hierusalem, seemed to be so much offended vvith Epiphanius and S. Hierom?Ep. 1 ad He­liod. vvas it not because Epiphanius made Paulianus, S. Hieroms brother, Priest vvithin the said Iohns Diocese?

19 Vvhen al antiquitie saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, Iuuencus, Hesychius, Beda, Presbyteri: and vvhen S. Hierom so often in his Cataloge saith, Such a man Presbyter: is it not for distinction of a certaine order, to signifie that they vvere Priests, and not Bishops? namely vvhen he saith of S. Chrysostom, Ioannes Presbyter Antiochenus, doth he not meane, he vvas as then but a Priest of Antioche? Vvould he haue said so, if he had vvritten of him, after he vvas Bi­shop of Constantinople?

20 But of al other places, vve vvould de­sire these gay trāslatours to trāslate this one place of S. Augustine, speaking of him self [Page 90]a Bishop and S. Hierom a Priest:Inter Episto­las Hiero. Ep. 97 in fine. Quanquā enim secundum honorum vocabula, quaeiam Ecclesia vsus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit: tamen in mul­tis rebus, Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Is not this the English thereof? For although according to the titles or names of honour, which now by vse of the Church haue preuailed, the degree of Bishop be greater thē Priest­hod, yet in many things, Augustine is lesse thē Hierom. or, doth it like thē to trāslate it thus, The degree of Bishop is greater then Eldership &c? Againe, against Iulian the Heretike vvhen he hath brought many testimonies of the holy Doctors that vvere all Bishops, as of SS. Cyprian, Am­brose, Basil, Nazianzene, Chrysostom: at length he cōmeth to S. Hierom vvho vvas no Bishop,Lib. 1. ca. 2. in fine. and saith: Nec sanctum Hieronymum, quia Presbyter fuit, contemnendum arbitreris that is, Neither must thou thinke that S. Hierom, because he vvas but a Priest, therfore is to be contemned: vvhose diuine elo­quence, hath shined to vs from the East euen to the vvest, like a lampe, and so forth to his great cōmen­dation. Here is a plaine distinction of an inferiour degree to a Bishop, for the which the Heretike Iuliān did easily contemne him. Is not S. Cyprian full of the like pla­ces? is not al antiquitie so full, that vvhiles I proue this, me thinketh I proue nothing els but that snovv is vvhite?

21 In al vvhich places if they vvil trans­late Elder, and yet make the same a common [Page 91]name to all Ecclesiastical degrees,Annot. in 1 Pet. 5. as Beza defineth it, let the indifferent Reader con­sider the absurde cōfusion, or rather the im­possibilitie thereof: if not, but they vvill graunt in al these places it signifieth Priest, and so is meant: then vve must beate them vvith Bezaes rod of reprehension against Castaleon:Bezaes vvordes in the place a­boue allea­ged. that vve can not dissemble the boldnes of these mē. vvhich vvould God it rested vvithin the custom of wordes onely, and vvere not important matter, concerning their Heresie. These men therfore tou­ching the vvord Priest, though vsed of sacred vvriters in the mysterie of the nevv Testamēt, and for so many yeres after by the secrete consent of al Churches, consecrated to this one Sacrāment, so that it is novv grovven to be the proper vulgar speach almost of al Nations: Prete Prebstre Priest. yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to vse the vvord Elder. delicate men forsooth (yea vvorse a great deale, because these do it for heresie & not for delicacie) vvhich neither are moued vvith the perpetual authoritie of so many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speach can be brought to thinke that lavvful for Diuines, vvhich all men graunt to other Mai­sters and Professors of artes, that is, to reteine and hold that as their ovvne, vvhich by long vse and in good faith they haue truely possessed. Neither may they pretend the au­thoritie of any auncient vvriter (as that the old La­tin Translatour saith Senior, and Seniores:) for *Presbyter for a Priest. Bap­tismus for the Sacra­ment of Baptisme.that vvhich vvas to them as it vvere nevv, to vs is old: and euen then, that the self same vvordes vvhich vve novv vse, were more familiar to the Church, it is euident, because it is very seldom that they speake othervvise.

22 Thus vve haue repeated Bezaes vvor­des [Page 92]againe, onely changing the vvord Bap­tisme into Priest, because the case is all one: & so vn vvittingly Beza the successor of Cal­uin in Geneua, hath giuen plaine sentence against our English Translatours in al such cases, as they go from the cōmon receiued and vsual sense to another profane sense, & out of vse: as namely in this point of Priest and Priesthod. Vvhere vve must nee­des adde a vvord or tvvo, though vve be to long, because their folly & malice is to to great herein. For vvhereas the very name Priest neuer came into our English tonge but of the Latin Presbyter (for there vpon sacerdos also vvas so called onely by a conse­quence) they translate sacerdos, See M. Whit­gifts defēce against the Puritans re­plie. pag. 721 vvhere he af­firmeth that this vvord Priest, com­meth of the vvord Pres­byter, & not of the vvord Sacerdos. Priest, and Presbyter, not Priest, but Elder, as vvisely and as reasonably, as if a man should translate Praetor Londini, Maire of London: and Maior Londini, not Maire of London: but Greater of London: or Academia Oxoniensis, the Vniuer­sitie of Oxford: and Vniuersitas, Oxoniensis, not the Vniuersitie, but the Generalitie of Ox­ford: and such like.

23 Againe, vvhat exceding folly is it, to thinke that by false and profane translation of Presbyter into Elder, they might take away the external Priesthod of the new restamēr, vvhereas their ovvne vvord Sacerdos vvhich they do and must needes translate Priest, is [Page 93]as common and as vsual in all antiquitie, as Presbyter: and so much the more, for that it is vsed in differētly to signifie both Bishops and Priests, which Presbyter lightly doth not but in the nevv Testament. as vvhen Con­stantine the Great said to the Bishops as­sembled in the Coūcel of Nice,Ruffin li. 1. ca. 2. Deus vos consti­tuit sacerdotes, &c. God hath ordained you priests, and hath giuen you povver to iudge of vs also. Epist. 32. ad Valentinia­num Imp. And S. Am­brose, Vvhen didst thou euer heare, most Clement Prince, that lay men haue iudged Bishops. Shal vve bend by flat­terie so farre, that forgetting the right of our Priesthod, vve should yeld vp to others, Iuris Sacer­dotalis. that vvhich God hath com­mended to vs? And therfore doth S Chrisostō entitle his sixe bookes De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthod, concerning the dignitie and cal­ling, not onely of mere Priests,in Apolog. pro sua fug. orat. 1. but also of Bishops: & S. Gregorie Nazianzene hand­ling the same argumēt saith, [...]. Epist. 10. ad Hieronem. Sacerdotes. that they execute Priesthod together vvith CHRIST. and S. Ig­natius saith, Do nothing vvithout the Bishops, for they are priests, but thou the Deacon of the priests. And in the Greeke Liturgies or Masses, so often, [...], Then the priest saith this, and that, [...]. signifying also the Bishop vvhen he saith Masse: andEc. Hiera. c. 3. S. Denys saith sometime Archisacerdotem cum sacerdotibus▪ the high Priest or Bishop vvith the Priests: vvhereof come the vvordes [...], in the auncient Greeke fathers, for the sacred fun­ction [Page 94]of Priesthod, and executing of the same.

24 If then the Heretikes could possibly haue extinguished priesthod in the vvord presbyter, yet you see, it vvould haue remai­ned still in the vvordes Sacerdos and Sacerdotiū, vvhich them selues translate Priest & Priesthod: and therfore vve must desire them to trans­late vs a place or tvvo after their ovvne maner: first S. Augustine speaking thus, Quis vnquam audiuit sacerdotem ad altare stantē etiam super reliquias Martyrum, Li. 8. cap 27. De Ciu. Dei. dicere: offero tibi Petre, & Paule, vel Cypriane? Vvho euer heard that a PRIEST stāding at the altar, euen ouer the relikes of the Martyrs, said, I offer to thee Peter, & Paul, or Cyprian? So (vve trow) they must trāslate it.Li. 22 Ciuit. c. 10. Againe, Nos vni Deo & Martyrū & nostro, sacrificiū immolamus, ad quod sa­crificium sicut homines Dei, suoloco & ordine nominātur, non tamen à sacerdote inuocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamuis in memoria sacrificet corum, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum verò sacrificium corpus est Christi. Vve thinke they vvill and must translate it thus: Vve offer sacrifice to the one onely God both of Martyrs and ours, at the vvhich Sacrifice, as men of God they (Martyrs) are named in their place and order: yet are they *So as he said before, I of­fer to thee Pe­ner, &c.not inuocated of the priest that sacrificeth. For he sacrificeth to God, & not to them (though [...] sacrifice in the memorie of them) because he is Gods Priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice it self is the body of Christ.

25 Likevvise vvhen S. Ambrose saith,Li. 4. de Sa­ceam. c. 4. The consecration (of the body of Christ) vvith vvhat vvordes is it, and by vvhose speache? of our Lord [Page 95]Iesus. For in the rest that is said, there is praise giuen to God, praier made for the people, for kings and others: but vvhen it commeth that the venerable sacrament must be consecrated, novv the Priest vseth not his ovvne vvordes, Sacerdos. but he vseth the vvordes of Christ. Ho. 2 in 2 Timotin. And S. Chriso­stom in very many places saith, The sacred ob­lation it self, vvhether Peter or Paul, or any meaner Priest vvhatsoeuer offer it, Sacerdos. is the very same that Christ gaue to his disciples, Sacerdotu and vvhich novv the priests do make or cosecrate▪ vvhy so I pray thee? because not men do san­ctifie this, but Christ him self, vvhich before consecrated the same. And againe, It is not man that maketh the body and bloud of Christ, but he that vvas crucified for vs, Christ: the vvordes are vttered by the Priests mouth, Sacerdotis and by Gods povver and grace are the things proposed, conse­crated. For this, saith he, is my body. Vvith this vvord are the things proposed, consecrated.

26 And so by these places, vvhere them selues translate Sacerdos a Priest, they may learne also hovv to translate Presbyteros in S. Hierom saying the very same thing,Presbyteri that at their praiers, the body and bloud of our Lord is made. and in an other place, that vvith their sacred mouth, they make our Lordes body. Likevvise vvhen they read S. Ambrose against the Nouatians, that God hath graunted licence to his Priests to re­lease and forgiue as vvel great sinnes as litle vvithout exception:Sacerdotibas and in the Ecclesiasti­cal historie, hovv the Nouatian Heretikes taught that such as vvere fallen into great sinnes, should not aske for remission of the Priest, but of God onely:à Sacordote they may learne hovv to translate Presbyteros in S. Hie­rom [Page 96]& in the Ecclesiastical historie, vvhere the one saith thus: Episcopus & Presbyter, cum pec­catorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, qui sol­uendus: and the other speaketh de Presbytero Poenitentiario, Sozom. li. 7 c. 16. of an extraordinarie Priest that heard confessions and enioyned penance,Socrat. li. 5 c. 19. vvho aftervvard vvas taken avvay, and the people vvent to diuers ghostly fathers as before. And especially S. Chrysostom vvill make them vnderstand what these Presbyteri vvere, and hovv they are to be called in En­glish, vvho telleth them in their ovvne vvord, that Sacerdotes, the Priests of the nevv lavv haue povver not onely to knovv, Li. 3. de Sa­cerd. but to purge the filth of the soule, therfore vvhosoeuer despiseth them, is more vvorthie to be punished then the rebel Dathan and his complices.

27 Novv then (to conclude this point) seeing vve haue such a cloude of vvitnesses (as the Apostle speaketh) euen from Christs time,Hebr. 12. that testifie not onely for the name, but for the very principal functions of ex­ternal Priesthod, in offering the sacrifice of Christs body & bloud, in remitting sinnes, and so forth: vvhat a peeuish, malicious, & impudent corruption is this, for the defa­cing of the testimonies of the holy Scrip­tures tending there vnto, to seeke to scrarch aduantage of the vvord Presbyter, & to make it signifie an Elder, not a Priest: Presbyterium Eldership rather then Priesthod: as if other [Page 97]nevvfangled cōpanions that vvould forge an Heresie that there vvere no Apostles, should for that purpose translate it alwaies legates: or that there vvere no Angels, and should translate it alwaies Messengers: & that Baptisme vvere but a Iudaical ceremonie, and should translate it vvashing: vvhich Ca­stalio did much more to lerably in his tran­slation then any of these should, if he did it onely of curiositie and folly. And if to take avvay al distinction of clergie & laitie the Protestants should alvvaies translate clerum, Clerics. lotte or lotterie, as they do translate it for the same purpose parish and heritage: might notIn 1 Pet [...]. See S. Hie­rom ad Ne­pot. de vit. Clericorum ep. 2. c. 5. Beza him self controull them, saing, that the auncient fathers transferred the name clerus to the Col­lege of Ecclesiastical Ministers?

28 But alas, the effect of this corruption & heresie concerning Priests, hath it not vvrought vvithin these fevv yeres such cō ­tempt of al Priests, that nothing is more odious in our countrie then that name: vvhich before vvas so honorable and Ve­nerable, and novv is, among all good men? If ministerie or Eldership vvere grovven to estimation in steede thereof, somevvhat they had to say: but that is yet more con­temprible, and especially Elders and Elder­ship for the Queenes Maiestie & her Coū ­sellors vvill permit none in gouernement [Page 98]of any Church in England, and so they haue brought al, to nothing els, but profane laitie. And no maruel of these horrible in­conueniences, for as the Sacrifice & Priest­hod goe together, and therfore vvere both honorable together: so vvhen they had according to Daniels Prophecie, abolis hed the daily sacrifice, out of the Church, vvhat remained, but the contempt of Priests and Cleargie and their offices, so far forth, that for the holy Sacrifice sake, Priests are cal­led in great despite, Massing Priests. of them that litle consider, or lesse care, vvhat nota­ble holy learned fathers of al ages since Christs time, this their reproche toucheth and concerneth, as by the testimonies be­fore alleaged is manifest, and vvhereof the Reader may see a peculiar Chapter in the late Apologie of the English Seminaries.Chap. 6.

CHAP. VII. Heretical translation against PVRGATORIS, LIMBVS PATRVM, CHRISTS DESCENDING INTO HEL.

1 HAVING now discouered their corrupt translations for defa­cing of the Churches name, and abolishing of Priest and Priest­hod: let vs come to another point of ve­rie [Page 99]great importance also, and vvhich by the wonted cōsequence or sequele of error, includeth in it many erroneous branches. Their principal malice then being bent a­gainst Purgatorie, that is, against a place vvhere Christian soules be purged by suf­fering of temporal paines after this life, for surer maintenance of their erroneous de­nial hereof, they take avvay and denie al third places, saying that there vvas neuer from the beginning of the vvorld any o­ther place for soules after this life, but only tvvo: to vvit, heauen for the blessed: & hel for the damned. And so it folovveth by their heretical doctrine, that the Patriar­ches, Prophets, and other good holy men of the old Testament, vvent not after their deathes, to the place called Abrahams bosome, or limbus patrum, but immediatly to heauen: and so againe by their erroneous doctrine it folovveth, that the fathers of the old Te­stamēt vvere in heauen, before our sauiour Christ had suffered death for their redemp­tion: and also by their erroneous doctrine it folovveth, that our sauiout Christ vvas not the first man that ascended and entred into heauen: and moreouer by their here­tical doctrine it folovveth, that our sauiour Christ descended not into any such third place, to deliuer the fathers of the old Te­stament [Page 100]out of their prison, and to bring them triumphātly vvith him into heauen, because by their erroneous doctrine they vvere neuer there: & so that article of the Apostles Creede concerning our sauiour Christ his descending into hel, must either be put out by the Caluinists, as Beza did in his Confession of his faith printed an. 1564, or it hath some other meaning, to vvit, ei­ther the lying of his body in the graue, or (as Caluine and the purer Caluinists his schollers vvill haue it) the suffering of hel paines and distresses vpon the Crosse.Caluins In­stitutions li. 2. c. 16. Sect. 10. & in his Catechisme. Loe the consequence and coherence of these errours and heresies.

2 These novv being the heretical do­ctrines vvhich they meane to auouch and defend vvhatsoeuer come of it: first, they are at a point not to care a rush for all the auncient holy Doctors,Beza in 1 Pet. 3, 19. that vvrite vvith ful consent to the contrarie (as them selues confesse,Caluins In­stitut. li. 2. c. 16. Sect. 9. calling it their common errour) secondly, they translate the holy scriptures in fauour thereof, most corruptly & vvil­fully, as in Bezaes false translation (vvho is Caluins successor in Geneua) it is noto­rious, for he in his nevv Testament of the yere 1556. printed by Robertus Stephanus in folio, vvith Annotations, maketh our sauiour Christ say thus to his father, Non [Page 101]derelinques cadauer meum in sepulchro, thou shalt not leaue my carcasse in the graue, Act. 2. for that which the Hebrue, & the Greeke, and the Latine,Hiero. in Ps. verso ex He­braeo. and S. Hierom according to the Hebrue, say: Nō derelinques animā meam in inferno, as plaine­ly as vve say in English, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hel. Thus the Prophet Dauid spake it in Hebrue, [...]. Ps. 15. thus the Septuaginta vt­tered it in Greeke, thus the Apostle S. Pe­ter alleageth it, thus the holy Euangelist S. Luke in the Act. of the Apostles, cap. 2. re­cordeth it, and for this, S. Augustine calleth him an infidel that denieth it: yet al this vvould not suffise to make Beza translate it so, because of certaine errours (See his An­not. in 2. Act. as he he­retically tearmeth them) vvhich he vvould ful gladly auoid hereby, namely, the Catho­like true doctrine of limbus patrum, and Purga­torie. Vvhat neede vve say more? he transla­teth animam, a Carcasse: (so calling our sauiour Christs body, irreuerently, & vvickedly) he translateth infernum, graue.

3 Neede vve take any great labour to proue this to be a foule corruption, or that it is done purposely, vvhen he confesseth that he thus trāslateth because els it vvould serue the Papists? Vvhich is as much to say, as, the vvord of God if it be truly and sin­cerely trāslated, maketh in deede for them. For the first part, vve vvill not stand vpon [Page 102]it, partly because it is of it self most absurd, and they are ashamed of it: partly, because it shall suffise to confute Beza, that tvvo other as famous heretikes as he, Castalio & Flaccus Illyricus vvrite against him in this point, and cōfute him: partly also, because vve speake not here vniuersally of al here­tical trāslations, but of the English corrup­tions specially, & therefore vve may only note here, hovv gladly they also vvould say somevvhat els for, soule, euen in the text, if they durst for shame: for in the margent of that English translation,Bib. an. 1579 they say, or life, or person: there by aduertising the Reader, that he may reade thus, if it please him, Thou shalt not leaue my life in the graue, or, Thou shalt not leaue my person. As though either mans soule or life vvere in the graue, or, anima, might be translated person, vvhich the self same En­glish Bible doth not,Act. 7. v. 14. no not in those places vvhere it is euident that it signifieth the vvhole person. For though this vvord soule, by a figure, is sometime taken for the whole man, yet euen there they doe not, nor must not trāslate it otherwise then soule: because our tonge beareth that figure as vvell as Latine, Greeke, or Hebrue: but here, vvhere it can not signifie the vvhole person, it is vvicked to translate it so.

4 But as for the vvord graue, that they put boldly in the text, to signifie that hovv­soeuer [Page 103]you interprete, soule, or vvhatsoeuer you put for it, it is not meāt according to S. August. & the faith of the whole Catholike Church, that his soule descended into Hel, vvhiles his body vvas in the graue: but that his soule also, was in the graue, hovvsoeuer that is to be vnderstood. So making it a certaine and resolute conclusion, that the holy Scripture in this place speaketh not of Christs being in Hel, but in the graue: and that according to his soule, or life, or per­son, or (as Beza vvill haue it) His Carcasse or body: and so his soule in Hel, as the holy Scripture speaketh, shal be, his body in the graue, as Beza plainely speaketh,See Vigors sermōs pag. 110. 115. & deinceps. and the Bezites couertly insinuate: and vvhite shal be blacke, and chaulke shal be cheese, and euery thing shal be any thing that they wil haue it. And al this their euident false translation, must be to our miserable deceiued poore soules, the holy Scripture and Gods vvord.

5 Vvhere vve can not but maruel, vvhy they are afraid to translate the vvordes plainely in this place, of his soule being in Hel: Vvvhereas in the Creede they admit the vvords, and interprete them, that by suffe­ring Hel paines vpon the Crosse, so he des­cended into Hel, and no othervvise. Vvhy did they not here also keepe the vvordes for the credit of their translation, and [Page 104]aftervvard (if they would needes) giue them that glose for maintenance of their heresie? This mysterie vve knovv not, and vve vvould gladly learne it of the Puritan Cal­uinists, vvhose English translation perhaps this is. for, the grosser Caluinists (being not so pure and precise in folovving Caluine as the Puritans be, that haue vvel deserued that name aboue their fellovves) they in their other English Bibles haue in this place discharged thē selues of false transla­tiō,Bib. an. 1562. and 1577. saying plainely, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hel. ButSee lind. dubit. pa. 19. in vvhat sense they say so, it is very hard to gesse: & perhaps them selues can not tell yet vvhat to make of it, as ap­peareth by M. Vvhitakers ansvver to F. Campion.Vvhitak. pag. 165. M. Hues B. of S. Asaph in Vvalles. And he is novv called a Bishop among them, and proceeded Doctor in Oxford, that could not obtaine his grace to proceede Doctor in Cambridge, because he preached Christes descending into Hel, and the Puritans in their second admoni­tion to the Parliament, pag. 43. crie out against the politike Caluinists, for that in the Creede of the Apostles (made in En­glish meeter & song openly in their Chur­ches in these vvordes: His spirit did after this des­cend, into the lovver partes, to them that long in darkenes vvere the true light of their hartes) they fauour his descending into Hel very much, and so [Page 105]consequently may thereby build Limbus Pa­trum, and Purgatorie. And the Puritans in their second replie against M. Whitegifts defense pag. 7. reprehend one of their chefest Cal­uimstical martyrs for affirming (as they tearme it) a grosse descēding of our Sauiour Christ into Hel. Thus the Puritanes cōfesse plainely their heretical doctrine against Christs descending into Hel.

6 The truth is, hovvsoeuer the politike Caluinists speake, or write in this point more plausibly and couertly to the people, and more agreably to the Article of our faith, then either Caluine or their earnest brethren the Puritans doe, vvhich vvrite and speake as phantastically and madly as they thinke: yet neither doe they beleeue this Article of the Apostles Creede, or in­terpret it, as the Catholike Church and auncient holy fathers alvvaies haue done, neither can it stand vvith their nevv pro­fession so to doe, or vvith their English translations in other places. It can not stand vvith their profession: for then it vvould folovv that the Patriarches and other iust men of the old Testament vvere in some third place of rest, called Abrahams bosome, or Limbus Patrum, til our Sauiour Christ descen­ded thither, & deliuered them from thence, vvhich they deny in their doctrine, though [Page 106]they sing it in their meeters. Neither can it stand vvith their English translations: because in other places vvhere the holy Scriptures euidently speake of such a place, calling it Hel (because that vvas a common name for euery place and state of soules de­parted, in the old Testamēt, til our Sauiour Christ by his Resurrection and Ascension had opened heauē) there, for Hel, they trans­late Graue.

7 As vvhen Iacob saith,Gen. 37. Descendam ad filium meum lugens in infernum: I vvil goe dovvne to my sonne into Hel, mourning: they translate, I vvil goe dovvne into the graue vnto my sonne, mourning: as though Iacob thought, that his sonne Ioseph had been buried in a graue, vvhereas Iacob thought, and said immediatly before, as ap­peareth in the holy Scripture, that a vvilde beast had deuoured him, and so could not be presumed to be in any graue: or as though, if Ioseph had been in a graue, Iacob vvould haue gone dovvne to him into the same graue. For so the vvordes must needes import, if they take graue properly: but if they take graue vnproperly for the state of dead men after this life, vvhy doe they call it graue, [...]. Infernus. and not Hel, as the vvord is in He­brue, Greeke, and Latin? No doubt they doe it, to make the ignorāt Reader beleeue that the Patriarch Iacob spake of his body [Page 107]only to descend into the graue to Iosephs body: for as concerning Iacobs soule, that vvas by their opinion, to ascēd immediatly after his death to heauen, and not to descēd into the graue. But if Iacob vvere to ascend forthvvith in soule, hovv could he say as they translate, I vvill goe dovvne into the graue vnto my sonne? As if according to their opinion he should say, My sonnes body is deuoured of a beast, and his soule is gone vp into heauen: vvell, I vvil go dovvne to him into the graue.

8 Gentile Reader, that thou maist the better conceiue these absurdities, and the more detest their guilefull corruptions, vn­derstand (as vve began to tell thee before) that in the old Testament, because there vvas yet no ascending into heauen, the way of the holies (as the Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrues speaketh) being not yet made open,because our sauiour Christ vvas to *Hebr. 9. v. 8. dedi­cate and beginne the enterāce in his ovvne person, and by his passion to open heauen:Hebr. 10. v. 20. therfore (vve say) in the old Testamēt the common phrase of the holy Scripture is, euen of the best men, as vvel as of others, that dying they vvent dovvne ad inferos, or ad infernum: to signifie that such vvas the state of the old Testament before our sauiour Christs Resurrection and Ascension, that [Page 108]euery man vvent dovvne, and not vp: de­scended, and not ascended: by descending I meane not to the graue, vvhich receiued their bodies only: but ad inferos, that is, to bel, a common receptacle or place for their sou­les also departed, as wel of those soules that vvere to be in rest, as those that vvere to be in paines & torments. All the soules both good & bad that then died, vvent dovvne­vvard, & therfore the place of both sortes vvas called in all the tonges, by a vvord an­svverable to this vvord, hel, to signifie a lovver place beneath, not only of tormēts, but also of rest.

9 So vve say in our Creede, that our sa­uiour Christ him self descended into hel, ac­cording to his soule:Epitaph. Ne­pot. c. 3. So S. Hierom spea­king of the state of the old Testamēt, saith: Si Abraham, Isaac, Iacob in inferno, quis in calorum re­gno▪ that is, If Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob vvere in hel, vvho vvas in the kingdom of heauen? And againe, Ante Christum, Abraham apud inferos: post Christum latro in Paradiso. that is, before the comming of Christ, Abraham vvas in hel: after his comming, the theefe vvas in Paradise. And lest a man might obiect,Luc. 16. that Lazarus being in Abrahams bosome, savv the rich glotton a far of in hel, and therfore both Abraham and Lazarus seeme to haue been in heauen:See S. Aug. in Psal. 85. v. 13. the said holy doctor resolueth it, that Abraham and Lazarus also vvere in hel, but ī a place of great rest & refreshing, and therfore very far of from the misera­ble [Page 109]vvretched glotton that lay in torments.

10 His vvordes be these in effect: If a man vvil say vnto me, that Lazarus vvas seene in Abrahams bosome, and a place of refreshing euen before Christs comming: true it is, but vvhat is that in comparison? Quid simile infernus & regna calorum? Vvhat hath hel and heauen like? As if he should say, Abraham in deede and Lazarus (and consequently many other) vvere in place of rest, but yet in hel, til Christ came, & in such rest, as hath no comparison vvith the ioyes of heauen. And S. Augustine disputing this matter sometime,Epist. 99. ad Euod. & de Gen. ad lit. li. 12. c. 33. & doubting whether Abrahams bosom be called hel in the scripture, and vvhether the name of hel be taken at any time in the good part (for of Christes de­scending into hel, & of a third place where the Patriarches remained vntil Christs cō ­ming, not heauen, but called Abrahams bo­som, he doubted not, but was most assured) the same holy doctor in an other place, as being better resolued, doubteth not, vpon these vvordes of the Psalme,In Psal. 85. v. 13. Thou hast deliue­red my soule from the lovver hel, to make this one good sense of this place, that the lovver hel is it, vvherein the damned are tormented: the higher hel is that, vvherein the soules of the iust rested, calling both places by the name of hel.

11 And surely of his maruelous humilitie and vvisedom, he vvould haue been much more resolute herein, if he had hard the o­pinion of S. Hierom, vvhom he often con­sulted in such questions, and of other fa­thers, who in this point speake most plaine­ly, that Abrahams bosom or the place vvhere the Patriarkes rested, vvas some part of hel.Ioco citato. Tertullian, (Li. 4. aduers. Marcion.) Saith, I knovv that the bosome of Abraham vvas no heauenly place, but only the higher hel, or, the higher part of hel. Of which speache of the fathers, rose after­vvard that other name, limbus patrum, that is the very brimme or vppermost & outmost part of hel, vvhere the fathers of the old Testament rested. Thus vve see that the Pa­triarches them selues vvere as then in hel, though they vvere there in a place of rest: in so much that S. Hierom saith againe, Ante Resurrectionem Christi not us in Iudaea Deus, & ipsi qui nouerant eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur. that is, Be­fore the Resurrection of Christ, God vvas knovvne in Iu­rie, and they them selues that knevv him yet vvere dra­vven vnto hel. Hom. quod Christus sit Deus to. 5. S. Chrysostom vpon that place of Esay, I vvil breake the brasen gates, and bruse the yron barres in peeces, and vvill open the treasures dar­kened, &c. [...]. Infernus.So he calleth hel, saith he, for although it vvere hel, yet it held the holy soules, and pretious vessels, Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob. Marke that he saith, though it vvere hel, yet there vvere the iust men at that time, til our sauiour Christ [Page 111]came to deliuer them from thence.

12 Therfore did Iacob say, I vvill go dovvne to my sonne vnto Hel. And againe he saith,Gen. 42. If any misfortune happen to (Beniamin) by the vvay, you shal bring my gray head vvith sorovv vnto Hel, vvhich is repeated againe tvvise in the Chapter 44. by vvhich phrase the holy Scripture vvil signifie, not onely death, but also the des­cending at that time of al sorts of soules into Hel, both good and bad. And therfore it is spoken of al sortes in the holy Scrip­ture,3 Reg. 2. both of good and of bad. for al vvent then into Hel, but some into a place there of rest, others into other places there of torments. And therfore S. Hierom saith, speaking of Hel according to the old Testa­ment, Hel is a place vvherein soules are included: In c. 13 Osee. Aug. in Psal. 85. v. 13. either in rest, or in paines, according to the qualitie of their deserts.

13 And in this sense it is also often said in the holy Scriptures, that such & such vvere gathered or laid to their fathers,The Scriptu­res speake of an other Hel, besides that of the damned. though they vvere buried in diuers places, and died not in the same state of saluation or damna­tion: In that sense Samuel being raised vp to speake vvith Saul, said, To morovv thou and thy sonnes shal be vvith me. that is, dead and in Hel, though not in the same place or state there: in this sense al such places of the holy Scripture as haue the vvord Inferi, or Infernus [Page 112]correspondent both to the Greeke and He­brue, ought to be, and may be most cōue­niently translated by the vvord, Hel. as whē it is said,ab inferno inferiori. Thou hast deliuered my soul from the lovver hel. Ps. 85. v. 13. that is as S. Augustine expoū ­deth it, Thou hast preserued me from mor­tal sinnes that vvould haue brought me in­to the lovver Hel which is for the damned. vvhich place of holy Scripture and the like vvhen they translate graue, see hovv misera­bly it soūdeth:Bib. 1579. Thou hast deliuered my soul from the lovvest graue. vvhich they vvould neuer say for very shame, but that they are afraid to say in any place (be the holy Scriptures neuer so plaine) that any soule vvas deli­uered or returned from hel, lest thereof it might folovv by and by, that the Patriar­ches, and our sauiour Christ vvere in such a Hel.

14 And that this is their feare, it is eui­dent, because in al other places vvhere it is plaine that the holy Scriptures speake of the Hel of the damned, from vvhēce is no returne, there they translate the very same vvord Hel, and not graue. As for example, The vvay of life is on high to the prudent, Prouerb. 15.24. to auoid from Hel beneath. loe, here that is trāslated Hel beneath, vvhich before was translated the lovvest graue. And againe, Hel and destruction are before the Lord, hovv much more the hartes of the sonnes of men? But [Page 113]vvhen in the holy Scriptures there is men­tion of deliuerie of a soul from Hel, then thus they translate:Bib. 1579. De manu in­feri. God shal deliuer my soul from the povver of the graue: for he vvill receiue me. Can you tell vvhat they vvould say? doth God deliuer them from the graue, or from tem­poral death, vvhom he receiueth to his mercie? or hath the graue any povver ouer the soul? Againe vvhen they say,Ps. 89, 48. Vvhat man liueth, and shal not see death? shal he deliuer his soul from the hand of the graue?

15 If they take graue properly, vvhere mans body is buried: it is not true either that euery soul, yea or euery body is buried in a graue. But if in al such places, they vvill say they meane nothing els but to si­gnifie death, & that to go dovvne into the graue, and to die, is al one: vve aske them vvhy they folovv not the vvordes of the holy Scripture to signifie the same thing, vvhich call it, going dovvne to Hel, not, going dovvne to the graue? Here they must needes open the mysterie of Antichrist vvorking in their translations, and say, that so they should make Hel a common place to all that departed in the old Testament, vvhich they vvill not, no not in the most important places of our beleefe cōcerning our sauiour Christs descending into Hel, & triumphing ouer the same. Yea, therfore of [Page 114]purpose they vvill not, onely for to defeate that part of our Christian Creede.

16 As vvhen the Prophet first, Osee 13. & af­tervvard the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15. in the Greeke, say thus: [...]. Ero mors tua ô mors, morsus tuus ero in­ferne. Vbiest, mors, stimulus tuus? Vbiest, inferre, victoria tua? O death, I vvill be thy death: I vvill be thy sting, ô Hel. Vvhere is, ô death, thy sting? Vvhere is, ô hel, thy vic­torie? They translate in both places,Bibl. 1579. O graue, in stede of, ô Hel. What els can be their mea­ning hereby, but to dravv the Reader from the common sense of our sauiour Christes descending into Hel, and conquering the same, and bringing out the fathers and iust men triumphantly from thence into hea­uen? Vvhich sense hath all vvaies been the common sense of the Catholike Church & holy Doctors,See S. Hier. Comment. in 13. Osee. specially vpon this place of the Prophet. And vvhat a kind of speache is this, and out of all tune, to make our sauiour Christ say, O graue I vvill be thy de­struction? as though he had triumphed ouer the graue, and not ouer Hel: or ouer the graue, that is, ouer death: and so the Pro­phet should say death tvvise, and Hel not at all.

17 Vvhy, my Maisters, you that are so vvonderful precise translatours, admit that our sauiour Christ descended not into Hel beneath, as you say, yet I thinke you vvill graunt that he triumphed ouer Hel, & vvas [Page 115]conquerer of the same. Vvhy then did it not please you to suffer the Prophet to say so at the least, rather then that he had con­quest onely of death and the graue? You abuse your ignorāt reader very impudent­ly, and your ovvne selues very damnably, not onely in this, but in that you make graue, and death, al one, and so vvhere the ho­ly Scripture often ioyneth together death & Hel, as things different and distinct: you make them speake but one thing tvvise, idely and superfluously.

18 But vvill you knovv that you should not confound them, but that Mors, & Infernus, vvhich are the vvordes of the holy Scrip­ture in al tonges, are distinct: heare vvhat S. Hierom saith, or if you vvil not heare, because you are of them vvhich haue stopped their eares, let the indifferēt Christian Reader harken to this holy Doctor, and great in­terpreter of the holy Scriptures according to his singular knovvledge in al the learned tonges. Vpon the foresaid place of the Pro­phet, after he had spoken of our sauiour Christs descēding into Hel, and ouercom­ming of death, he addeth:Hierom. in Osee ca. 13. Betvvene death and Hel this is the difference, that death is that vvhereby the soul is separated from the body: Hel is the place vvhere soules are included, either in rest, or els in paines, according to the qualitie of their deserts. And that death is one thing, and Hel is another: the Psalmist also declareth, [Page 116]saying: THERE IS not in death, that is mindeful of thee, Psal. 6. but in Hel vvho shal confesse to thee? And in an other place. Let death come vpon them, and let them go dovvne into Hel aliue. Thus far S. Hierom.

19 By vvhich differences of death and Hel, (vvhereof vve must often aduertise the Reader) are meant tvvo things: death, and the going dovvne of the soule into some receptacle of Hel, in that state of the old Testament, at vvhat time the holy Scrip­tures vsed this phrase so often. Novv, these impudent trāslators in al these places, trans­late it graue, Bib. 1579. of purpose to confound it and death together, & to make it but one thing, vvhich S. Hierom shevveth to be diffe­rent, in the very same sense that vve haue declared.

20 But alas, is it the very nature of the Hebrue, [...] Infernus. Greeke, or Latin, that forceth them so much to English it graue, rather then Hell vve appeale to all Hebricians, Grecians, and Latinists in the vvorld: first, if a man would aske, vvhat is Hebrue, or Greeke, or Latin for Hel: vvhether they vvould not ansvver, these three vvordes, as the very proper wordes to signifie it, euen as Panis signifieth bread: secondly, if a man vvould aske, vvhat is Hebrue, [...] Sepulchrum. or Greeke, or Latin for a graue: vvhether they vvould ansvver these vvordes, and not three other vvhich they [Page 117]knovv are as proper vvordes for graue, as lac, is for milke.

21 Yea, note & consider diligently vvhat vve vvill say. let them shevv me out of al the Bible one place, vvhere it is certaine & agreed among all, that it must needes signi­fie graue, let them shevv me in any one such place, that the holy Scripture vseth any of those former three vvordes for gra­ue. As vvhen Abraham bought a place of burial, vvhether he bought Infernum: Gen. c. 49. or vvhen it is said the kings of Israel vvere buried in the monuments or sepulchres of their fathers, vvhether it say, in infernit patrum suorum. So that not onely Diuines by this obseruation, but Grammatians also and children may easily see, that the proper and children may easily see, that the proper and natural signification of the said vvordes, is in English Hel, and not graue.

Annot. in Act. 2, 25.27. & in 1 Cor. 15, 55.22 And therfore Beza doth strangely ab­vse his Reader, more then in one place, saying that the Hebrue word doth proper­ly signifie graue, being deduced of a verbe that signifieth, to craue or aske, because it craueth alvvaies nevv coarses, as though the graue craued moe then Hel doth,Bib. 1579. Prouer. 1, 12.3, 15.16. or vvallovved moe, or vvere more hardly satisfied and filled then Hel▪ for in al such places they translate graue. And in one such place they say,Prou. 27, 30. The graue and destruction can neuer [Page 118]be full. Vvhereas them selues a litle before, translate the very same vvordes,cap. 15, 11. Hel and de­struction: and therfore it might haue pleased them to haue said also, Hel and destruction can neuer be full, Bib. 1562. 1577. Prouerb. 1. 1 Pet. 5. as their pevv-follovves doe in their translation, & againe, Vve shal svvalovv them vp, like Hel. The Diuel (vve reade) goeth about continually like a roaring lion, seeking vvhom he may deuoure, Vvho is called in the Apocalypse, Abaddon, Apoc. 9, 11. that is, destruction. and so very aptly Hel and destruction are ioyned together, and are truely said neuer to be filled. Vvhat madnesse and impudencie is it then for Beza to vvrite thus.Beza before alleaged. Vvho is ignorant that by the Hebrue word, rather is signified agraue, for that it seemeth after a sort to craue alvvaies nevv carcasses?

23 And againe, concerning our Sauiour Christes descending into Hel, and deliue­ring the fathers from thence, it is maruel saith Beza,Annot. in 2 Act. v. 24. that the most part of the auncient fathers vvere in this errour, vvhereas vvith the Hebrues the vvord SHEOL. signifieth nothing els but GRAVS. Before, he pleaded vpon the etymologie or nature of the vvord, novv also he pleadeth vpon the authoritie of the Hebrues them selues. If he vvere not knovven to be very impudent and obstinate, vve vvould easily mistrust his skil in the Hebrue, saying that among the Hebrues the vvord signifieth nothing els but graue. nihil aliud.

24 I vvould gladly knovv, vvhat are those [Page 119]Hebrues? doth not the Hebrue text of the holy Scripture best tell vs the vse of this vvord? Do not them selues translate it Hel very often? do not the Septuaginta alvvaies? If any Hebrue in the vvorld, vvere asked, hovv he vvould turne these vvordes into Hebrue, Similes estis sepulchris de albatis you are like to vvhited graues: And, Sepulchrum eius apud vos est: His graue is among you: vvould any Hebrue I say translate it by this Hebrue vvord vvhich Beza saith among the Hebrues sig­nifieth nothing els but graue? Sheolim. Sheol. Aske your Hebrue Readers in this case, and see vvhat they vvill ansvver.

25 Vvhat are those Hebrues then,The Prote­stants in in­terpretation of Scriptu­res, folovv the late Ie­vves, rather then the aū ­ciēt fathers, & Aposto­lical church. that Beza speaketh of? forsooth certaine Ievves or later Rabbines, vvhich, as they do falsely interprete al the holy Scriptures against our Sauiour Christ in other pointes of our beleefe, as against his Incarnatiō, Death, & Resurrection: so do they also falsely inter­prete the holy Scriptures against his descen­ding into Hel, vvhich those Ievvish Rab­bines deny, because they looke for an other Messias that shal not die at all, and conse­quently shal not after his death go dovvne into Hel and deliuer the fathers expecting his cōming as our Sauiour Christ did. and therfore those Ievvish Rabbines hold as the Heretikes doe, that the fathers of the old [Page 120]Testament vvere in heauen before our Sa­uiour Christs Incarnatiō: & these Rabbines are they vvhich also peruert the Hebrue vvord to the signification of graue, in such places of the holy Scriptures as speake either of our Sauiour Christes descending into Hel, or of the fathers going dovvne into Hel, euen in like maner as they peruert other Hebrue vvordes, of the holy Scrip­ture as namely, alma, to signifie a yong vvoman,Esa. 7. not a virgin, against our Sauiours birth of the B. Virgin Marie.

26 And if these later Rabbines be the He­brues that Beza meaneth, and vvhich these gay English trāslatours folow, vve lament that they ioyne them selues vvith such cō ­panions, being the svvorne enemies of our Sauiour Christ. Surely the Christian He­brues in Rome and els vvhere, vvhich of great Rabbines are become zealous doc­tors of Christianitie, and therfore honour euery mysterie and article of our Christian faith concerning our Sauiour Christ, they dispute as vehemently against those other Rabbines, as we doe against the Heretikes, and among other things they tell them, that Soul said,1 Reg. 28. Raise me vp Samuël, and that the vvoman said, I see gods ascending out of the earth. & An old man is ascended or come vp. and that Samuël said, Vvhy hast thou disquieted me, that I should be rai­sed [Page 121]vp? and, To morovv thou and thy sonnes shal be vvith me. And the booke of Ecclesiasticus saith,Eccl. 46.23. that Samuël died, and aftervvard lifted vp his voice out of the earth, &c. Al vvhich the holy Scripture would neuer haue thus expressed (vvhether it vvere Samuël in deede or not) if Saul and the Ievves then had beleeued, that their Prophets and Patriarches had been in heauen aboue. And as for the He­brue vvord, they make it (as euery boy among the Ievves doth vvell knovv) as proper a vvord for Hel, as panis is for bread. and as vnproper for a graue (though so it may be vsed by a figure of speache) as Cym­ba Charontis is Latin for death.

27 But vvhat speake I of these? do not the greatest and most auncient Rabbines (so to cal them) the Septuaginta alvvaies trans­late the Hebrue vvord, by the Greeke [...],Geneb. li. 3. de Trin. vvhich is proprely hel? do not the Talmu­distes, and Chaldee paraphrases, and Rabbi Salomon Iarhi, handling these places of the Psalmes, He vvil deliuer my soule from the hand of Sheol, interpret it by Gehinum, that is, Gehenna, hel? and yet the Caluinistes bring this place for an example that it signifieth graue. like­vvise vpon this place, Let al sinners be turned in­to SHEOL: the foresaid Rabbines interpret it by Gehinum, hel. In so much that in the Pro­uerbes and in Iob, it is ioyned vvith Abaddō. Prouerb. 15. Iob. 26. [Page 122]Vvhere Rabbi Leui according to the opi­nion of the Hebrues, expoundeth Sheol, to be the lovvest region of the vvorld, a deepe place opposite to heauen, vvhereof it is vvritten, If I descended into Hel, thou art present: & so doth Rabbi Abraham expound the same vvord in chap. 2. Ionae.

28 This being the opinion and interpre­tation of the Hebrues, See the skil or the honestie of Beza, saying that Sheol, vvith the Hebrues signifieth nothing but graue. Wher­as in deede (to speake skilfully, vprightly, and not contentiously) it may signifie graue sometime secondarily, but Hel, principally and proprely, as is manifest, for that there is no other vvord so often vsed and so fami­liar in the Scriptures to signifie Hel, as this, and for that the Septuaginta doe alvvaies interprete it by the Greeke vvord [...].

29 The vvhich Greeke vvord is so no­torious and peculiar for Hel, that the Pa­gans vse it also for Pluto, vvhom they fei­ned to be god of hel, and not god of gra­ues: and if they vvould stand vvith vs in this point, vve might beate them with their ovvne kinde of reasoning, out of Poëres & profane vvriters, and out of all lexicons. Vnles they vvill tel vs (contrarie to their custom) that vve Christians must attend the Ecclesiastical vse of this vvord in the [Page 123]Bible, and in Christian vvriters,Annot. in Act. 2, 27. and that in them it signifieth graue. For so Beza see­meth to say, that the Greeke Interpreters of the Bible translated the Hebrue vvord aforesaid by this Greeke vvord, as signify­ing a darke place: vvhereas the Greeke Po­ëtes vsed it for that vvhich the Latines cal­led Inferos, that is, Hel. Vvhich ambiguitie (saith he) of the vvord, made many erre, affirming Christes des­cending into Hel. So vvas LIMBVS builded, vvhere­vnto aftervvard Purgatorie vvas laid.

30 I see Beza his vvylines very vvell in this point. for here the man hath vttered al his hart, and the vvhole mysterie of his craf­tie meaning of this corrupt translation: that to auoide these three things, Christs descen­ding into Hel, Limbus patrum, and Purgatorie, he and his companions vvrest the foresaid vvordes of the holy Scriptures to the signi­fication of graue. But let the indifferēt chri­stian reader onely consider Beza his ovvne vvordes in this place, point by point.

31 First he saith, that the Greeke Poëtes vvere vvont to vse the Greeke vvord for Hel: secondly, that they vvhich interpre­ted the Bible out of Hebrue into Greeke, vsed the very same vvord for that Hebrue vvord vvhereof vve haue novv disputed: thirdly, that the aūcient fathers (for of them he speaketh,ibid. v. 24. as a litle before he expresseth) [Page 124]vnderstood the said Greeke vvord for Hel, and thereby grevve to those errours (as he impudently affirmeth) of Christes descen­ding into Hel, & of the place in Hel vvhere the fathers rested, expecting the comming of our Sauiour, &c. Vvhereby the Reader doth easily see, that both the profane and also the Ecclesiastical vse of the vvord is for Hel, and not for graue.

Infernus, in­feri.32 And for the Latin vvord, it is the like case for al the vvorld: & if a man vvill aske but his childe that cōmeth from the Gram­mar, vvhat is Infernus, he vvil say Hel, and not graue: vvhat is Latin for graue? He vvil ansvver Sepulchrum, or monumentum. but neuer Infernus, vnles one of these Caluinisticall Translatours taught him so, to deceiue his father.

33 Novv then, to dravv to a conclusion of this their corruption also in their En­glish translation: vvhereas the Hebrue, and Greeke, and Latin vvordes do most pro­perly and vsually signifie Hel: and both Greeke, and Latin interpreters precisely in euery place vse for the Hebrue vvord, that one Greeke vvord, and that one Latin vvord, vvhich by al custom of speaking & vvriting, signifie Hel:If they ob­iect vnto vs some Catholikes, that translate it, Sepulchrum, as they doe: it is a fault in them also, but so far lesse then in the Protes­tāts, as chaū ­ce medley is in respect of vvilful mur▪ it had been the part of sincere and true meaning translatours, to 07 haue translated it also in English alvvaies [Page 125]by the vvord Hel: and aftervvard to haue disputed of the meaning thereof, vvhether and vvhen it is to be taken for Hel, or graue, or lake, or death, or any such thing. as in one place they haue done it very exactly and indifferently, namely vvhen Ionas saith (c. 2. v. 2.) out of the vvhales belly, Out of the belly of Hel, cried I, and thou beardest my voice. so al translate it, and vvell, vvhatsoeuer it signifie in this place. They thinke that Hel, here signifieth nothing els but the vvhales belly and the affliction of Ionas, and so the vvord may signifie by a Metaphorical speach, as vvhen vve say in English, It is a Hel to liue thus: and *See their marginal annot. Ionae 2, 2. Bib. 1577. therfore no doubt they did here translate it so, to insinuate that in other places it might as vvel signifie graue, as here the vvhales belly.

34 But then they should haue translated it also Hel in other places, as they did in this, and aftervvard haue interpreted it graue in their commentaries, and not presumptu­ously to straiten and limite the vvord of the holy Ghost to their priuate sense and interpretation, & to preiudice the auncient and learned holy fathers, vvhich looke far more deepely and spiritually into this pro­phecie, then to Ionas or the vvhale, *Mat. 12. our Sauiour him self also applying it to his ovvne person, and to his being in the hart [Page 126]of the earth three daies and three nightes. And therfore S. Hierom saith,Comment. in 2. Ionae. This belly of Hel, according to the storie is the vvhales belly, but it may much better be referred to the person of Christ, vvhich vnder the name of Dauid, Psal. 15. In inferno. Psal. 87. singeth in the Psalme, Thou shalt not leaue my soul in Hel: Vvho vvas in Hel aliue, and free among the dead. And that vvhich our Sauiour saith, The Sonne of man shal be in the hart of the earth, he doth interprete of his soule in Hel. for as the hart is in the middes of the body, so is Hel said to be in the middes of the earth.

35 Thus then presupposing (as vve must) that Ionas speaketh in the person, of our Sauiour Christ, the principal sense is not of the vvhales belly, but of that hel vvhither our Sauiour Christ descended, and from vvhēce he deliuered the fathers of the old Testament, him self ascending into heauen, as their kinge and general capitaine before them, and opening the vvay of heauen vnto them,Mich. 2.13. as is signified in an other pro­phet: and vvas the first that entred heauen.

36 Against al vvhich truthes and euery point thereof, these translatours are so vvatcheful and vvarie,Heb. 10, 20. [...]. initianit. that vvhere the A­postle saith, Christ began, and dedicated vnto vs the vvay into heauen, they say, in their English translations vvith full consent no­thing els but, He prepared. Vvhy are they fal­ser here then their Maisters, Caluin, Beza, Illyricus, vvho reade, Dedicauit? Is there no­thing [Page 127]in the Greeke vvord, but bare prepa­ration? where be these etymologistes now, [...]. that can straine and vvring other vvordes to the vttermost aduantage of their here­sie, and here are content for the like aduan­tage, to dissemble the force of this vvord, vvhich by all vse and propretie signifieth, to make nevv, to begin a thing, to be the first author, to dedicate:Aug. tract. 48. in Ioan. as S. Augustine might haue taught them, and their lexicōs, and the Scriptures in many places. This translatiō (no doubt) is not done sincere­ly and indifferently of them, but for their ovvne deceitfull purpose, as is al the rest. Vvhen S. Paul speaketh of preparation on­ly, they knovv right vvel that he vseth the vsual vvord to prepare: as,Heb. 11, 16. [...] He hath prepared them a citie: and vvheresoeuer is signified pre­paration only, let them bring vs one exam­ple vvhere it is expressed by the other Greeke vvord, vvhich novv vve speake of.

37 But it is of more importance, vvhich folovveth, and apparteining altogether to this controuersie. Hebr.Of the yere 1577. 5. v. 7. your transla­tion is thus, in the very English bible that novv is reade in your Churches:Against Christes des­cending in­to Hel. Vvhich in daies of his flesh offered vp praiers vvith strong crying, vnto him that vvas able to saue him from death, & vvas heard in that vvhich he feared. Is the Greeke here, [...]. In that vvhich he feared? You knovv that no [Page 128]grammar nor lexicon doth allovv you this trāslation. but either thus, for reuerence, or as one of your ovvne English Bibles hath it, because of his reuerence.

38 Hovv is it then, that in your later En­glish bibles you chāged your former tran­slatiō from better to worse?Exmetn. or vvho taught you so to trāslate it? forsooth the Heretike Beza, vvhose translation you folow for the most part in your later bibles, though here, in sense rather then in vvord. And vvho taught Beza? he saith, Caluin vvas the first that euer found out this interpretatiō. And vvhy? surely for defense of no lesse blas­phemie then this, that our Sauiour IESVS Christ vpon the Crosse was horribly afraid of damnation,Calu. Catech. & Institut. Fi. 2. c. 16. that he vvas in the very so­rovves and torments of the damned, and that this vvas his descending into Hel, and that othervvise he descended not. let the Reader note these nevv teachers vpon this place, and iudge to vvhat vvicked end this translation tendeth.

39 A vvonderful thing: vvhen all anti­quitie vvith a general, & full cōsent hath in that place of the holy Scripture read thus, that Christ vvas heard (of his father) for his reuerence (accordīg as our Sauiour him self also saith in the raising of Lazarus,Io. 11, 42. and signifieth in his long praier Io. 17:) hovv a blasphe­mous [Page 129]and presumptuous Heretike should be so malapert thus to alter it, that he vvas heard in that vvhich he feared. that is, that he vvas deliuered from damnation and the eternall paines of Hel, vvhich he vvas sore afraid of. To the maintenance of which blasphemie, Beza vvill seeme to force the Greeke thus. [...]. First (saith he) [...] doth not here signifie reuerence or pietie, but feare, and such a feare vvhich he calleth pauorem & consternatio­nem animi, that is, dreadfulnes and astonish­ment of minde, and other like vvordes, to insinuate an exceding horrour and feare in our Sauiour Christ. for confutation vvher­of, vve might easily bring the common vse of this Greeke word in the holy Scriptures to signifie not euery feare, but that religi­ous feare vvhich is in the best men, ioyned vvith godlines, holines, and deuotion, as vvhen in the Actes they that buried S. Ste­uen,Act 8. [...]. are called Viri timorati. deuout men such as feared God.

40 But vve neede not go far, for Beza vvill helpe vs him self, vvho telleth vs in an other place the very same. his vvordes be these:Annot. in Luc. 2. v. 25. [...] significat non quemuis timorem, sed cum reuerentia potius quàm cum animi trepidatione con­iunctum. latini religionem vocant. that is, [...] doth not signifie euery feare, but that vvhich is ioyned vvith reuerence rather then vvith astonishment of minde. [Page 130]the Latines do call it, religion or religious feare. If this be the true signification of [...], as Beza him self confesseth, vvhy doth he not so translate it in the foresaid place to the He­brues? Vvhy forsaketh he the old approued Latin translation and general consent of al auncient interpreters, and translateth it, that feare or astonishement of minde, vvhich he saith the vvord doth not signifie?

41 And marke that in his foresaid anno­tation vpon S. Luke he telleth not a pecu­liar signification of the Greeke vvord in that place, as though in some other places it might haue an other signification, but he telleth generally vvhat the very nature of the Greeke word is, that is, that it signifieth not euery feare but a feare ioyned vvith re­uerence. and he said truely: and they shal hardly giue an instance vvhere it signifieth that feare of astonishment, vvhich both he and they translate in the foresaid place of S. Paul. Such a force hath heresie to leade a man euen contrarie to his ovvne knovvledge, to falsifie Gods holy vvord.

42 Yea Beza saith further to this pur­pose (much more against his skill in the Greeke tonge, if he had any at all) that [...] the preposition cannot beare this sense, For vvhich or in respect vvhereof. and therfore he trās­lateth the Greeke into Latin thus. Exauditus [Page 131]est ex metu, he vvas heard from feare: not, for feare, or, for his reuerence. and because from feare, is a hard speache and darke, that seemeth to be the cause vvhy our English trāslators say, In that vvhich he feared, far from Beza in vvord, but aggreably in sense.

Flac. Illyric.43 But for this matter vve send them to Flaccus Illyricus a captaine Lutherane, vvho disputeth this very point against the Caluinistes: and teacheth them that no­thing is more common, then that significa­tion of [...]. For profe vvhereof, [...]. vve also re­ferre thē to these places of the holy Scrip­ture. Mat. 13. Luc. 22. and 24. Act. 12. Psal. 87. And Machab. 5, 21. vvhere [...] vvith a genitiue, and [...] vvith an accusatiue, signi­fie al one, vvhich Beza denyeth. Gentle Reader, beare vvith these tedious gramma­tications, fitter to be handled in Latin, but necessarie in this case also, good for them that vnderstand, & for the rest an occasion to aske of thē that haue skill in the Greeke tonge, vvhether vve accuse our aduersaries iustly or no, of false translating the holy Scriptures.

44 And vve beseeche them to giue vs a good reason why they professing to folow precisely the Greeke, do not obserue trevv­ly the Greeke points, in such place as con­cerneth this present controuersie. for the [Page 132]place in the Apocalypse which they alleage of our Sauiour Christs suffering frō the be­ginning (thereby to inferre that the iust men of the old Testament might enter heauen then,c. 13, 8. as vvel as after his real and actual death) according to the Greeke points saith thus, Al that dvvel vpon the earth, shal vvorship him (the beast) vvhose names haue not been vvritten in the booke of life of the Lambe slame, from the beginning of the vvorld. Vvhere it is euident, that the Greeke text saith not, the lambe slaine from the beginning, but that the names of those Antichristian Idolaters vvere not vvritten in Gods eternal booke of prede­stination from the beginning, as it is also most plaine vvithout al ambiguitie in the 17 Chapter v. 8. If in a place of no contro­uersie they had not been curious in points of the Greeke, they might haue great rea­son sometime to alter the same.

45 But if in points of controuersie be­tvvene vs, they vvil say, diuers pointing is of no importance, they knovv the contra­rie by the example of auncient heretikes, vvhich vsed this meane also to serue their false heretical purpose. If they say, our vul­gar latine text pointeth it so, let them pro­fesse before God and their conscience, that they do it of reuerence to the said auncient latin text, or because it is indifferent, & not for any other cause, & for this one place [Page 133]vve vvill admit their ansvver.

CHAP. VIII. Heretical translation concerning IVSTIFICATION.

ABOVT the article of iustifi­cation, as it hath many bran­ches, & their etrours therein be manifold, so are their En­glish translations according­ly many vvaies false and heretical. First against iustification by good vvorkes and by keeping the commaundements, they suppresse the very name of iustification in al such places vvhere the vvord signifieth the commaundements or the Lavv of God, vvhich is both in the old and nevv Testa­ment most common and vsual, namely in the bookes of Moyses, in the Psalme 118. that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati: in the Psalme 147. v. 19. 1 Mac. 1. v. 51. and c. 2. v. 21. Luc. 1. v. 6. Ro. 2. v. 26. In al vvhich places and the like, vvhere the Greeke signifieth iustices & iustifications most exactly, [...] according as our vulgar Latin translateth, iustitias and iustificationes: there the English translations say ioyntly and vvith one consent, ordināces, or, statutes For example, Ro. 2. If the vncircumci­sion keepe the ORDINANCES of the Lavv, [...]. shal it not be counted for circumcision? And Luc. 1, 6. They vvere both, righteous before God, [...]. vvalking [Page 134]in al the commaundements and ORDINANCES of the Lord, [...]. blamelesse. Vvhy translate you it ordināces, and auoid the terme, iustifications? is it because you vvould folovv the Greeke? I beseeche you is not [...], iust, [...], to be iusti­fied, [...], iustifications or iustices? In the old Testament you might perhaps pre­tend, that you folovv the Hebrue vvvord, [...] and therfore there you translate, statutes, or, ordinances. But euen there also, are not the Seuentie Greeke interpreters sufficient to teach you the signification of the Hebrue vvord: vvho alvvaies interprete it, [...], in English, iustifications?

2 But be it, that you may cōtroule them in the Hebrue, vvhich none but fooles vvil graunt vnto you: in the nevv Testament vvhat pretense haue you? do you there also translate the Hebrue vvord, or rather the Greeke? the Greeke vndoubtedly you should translate. what reason then can you haue vvhy you doe not? none other surely then that vvhich Beza giueth for him self, saying, that he reiected the vvord, iustificatiōs (notvvithstanding it expressed the Greeke, vvord for vvord, notvvithstanding the Seuen­tie Greeke interpreters vsed it to signifie the vvhole Lavv, and in Latin it be commonly translated, iustificationes) notvvithstanding al this,Annot. in 1 Luc. for this only cause (saith he) did I re­iecte [Page 135]it, to auoid the cauillatiōs that might be made by this vvord, against iustification by faith. As if he should say, This vvord truely translated according to the Greeke, might minister great occasion to proue by so many places of Scripture, that mans iu­stification is not by faith only, but also by keeping the lavv, and obseruing the com­maundements, vvhich therfore are called according to the Greeke and Latin, iustifica­tions, because they concurre to iustification, and make a man iust, as by S. Lukes vvordes also is vvel signified, vvhich haue this allu­sion, that they vvere both iust, because they walked in al the iustifications of our Lord. Vvhich they of purpose suppresse by other vvordes.

3 And hereof also it riseth, [...]. that vvhen he cānot possibly auoid the vvord in his trās­lation (as Apoc. 19, 8. Bissinum enim iustificatio­nes sunt sanctorum, The silke is the iustifications of Sainctes:) there he helpeth the matter with this commentarie, That iustifications, Beza Annot. in Apoc. 19. are those good vvorkes vvhich be the testimonies of a liuely faith. But our English translatours haue an other vvay to auoid the vvord euen in their trās­latiō. For they say here, the righteousnes of Saincts: because they could not say, ordinances of Saincts: and they vvould not say, iustificatiōs of saincts: knovving very vvel (by Bezaes ovvne cō ­mentarie) [Page 136]that this vvord includeth the good vvorkes of saincts: vvhich vvorkes if they should in translating call their iu­stifications, it vvould goe sore against iu­stification by only faith. Therfore doe they trāslate in steede thereof, ordinances, &, statutes, vvhere they can, vvhich are termes furthest of from iustification: and vvhere they can not, there they say, righteousnes, making it also the plural number, vvhereas the more pro­per Greeke vvord for righteousnes is [...] (Dan. 6, 22.) vvhich there some of thē trans­late vngiltinesse: because they vvil not trans­late exactly, if you vvould hire them.

4 And therfore as for, iustice, and, iustifica­tions, they say righteousnes: Bib. of the yere 1577. most appro­ued. Mat. 1, 19. Luc. 1, 6. so for, iust, they translate, righteous. and by this meanes, Ioseph vvas a righteous man, rather then a iust man: and Zacharie & Elisabeth vvere both righteous before God, rather then iust: because vvhen a man is called iust, it soundeth that he is so in deede, and not by imputation only: as a vvise man, is vnderstood to be vvise in deede, and not only so imputed. Therfore do they more gladly and more often say, righteous men, rather then, iust men, and vvhen they do say, iust men, as sometime they doe lest they might seeme vvilful inexcusably: there they vnderstand, iust by imputation, and not in deede, as is to be seen in Bezaes [Page 137]Annotatiōs vpon the Epistle to the Roma­nes. Note also that they put the vvord, iust, vvhen faith is ioyned vvithal. as Ro. 1. The iust shal liue by faith. to signifie that iustifica­tion is by faith. But if vvorkes be ioyned vvithal, and keeping the commaundemēts, as in the place alleaged Luc. 1. ther they say, righteous, to suppresse iustification by vvorkes.

5 And certaine it is, if there vvere no si­nister meaning, they vvould in no place a­uoid to say, iust, iustice, iustification, where both the Greeke and Latin are so, [...]. vvord for vvord. as for example 2 Tim. 4, 8. In al their bibles, [...] &c. Henceforth there is laid vp for me a crovvne of RIGHTEOVSNES, vvhich the Lord the RIGHTEOVS iudge shal GIVE me at that day. And againe 2 Thess. 1. Reioyce in tribulations vvhich is a token of the RIGHTEOVS IVDGEMENT of God, [...]. that you may be counted vvorthie of the kingdom of God for vvhich ye saffer. For it is a RIGHTEOVS THING vvith God, [...] iustum est. [...]. to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you: and to you that are troubled, rest vvith vs, in the reuelation of the Lord IESVS from heauen. And againe Hebr. 6, 10. God is not VNRIGHTEOVS to forget your good vvorke and labour, &c. non enim iniustus est Deus. These are very pregnant places to discouer their false purpose in concealing the vvord, iustice, in al their bibles. For if they vvil say, that iu­stice is not an vsual English vvord in this sense, and therfore they say, righteousnes: yet I trovv, iust, and vniust, are vsual and vvel [Page 138]knovven. Vvhy then vvould they not say at the least, in the places alleaged, God the IVST iudge, A token of the IVST IVDGEMENT of God, It is a IVST thing vvith God, God is not VNIVST to forget, &c? Vvhy is it not at the least in one of their English Bibles, being so both in Greeke and Latin?

6 Vnderstand gentle Reader, and marke vvel,The scriptu­res most e­uident for iustification▪ by vvorkes, against only faith. that if S. Paules vvordes vvere truely translated thus, A crovvne of IVSTICE is laid vp for me, vvhich our Lord the IVST iudge vvil RENDER vnto me at that day, and so in the other places: it vvould inferre, that men are iustly crow­ned in heauen for their good workes vpon earth, and that it is Gods iustice so to doe, & that he vvil do so because he is a iustiudge, & because he vvil shevv his IVST IVDGE­MENT, and he vvil not forget so to doe, because he is not vniust: as the auncient fa­thers (namely the Greeke doctors S. Chry­sostom,Psal. 57. Si vtique est fructus iu­sto, vtique est Deus iu­dicans eos in terra. Theodorete, & Oecumenius vpon these places) do interpret and expound. in so much that Oecumenius saith thus vpon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, [...] &c. See here, that to suffer for Christ pro­cureth the kingdom of heauen according to IVST IVDGEMENT, [...]. and not according to grace. Vvhich lest the Aduersarie might take in the vvorse part, as though it vvere only Gods iustice or iust iudgement, and not his fauour or grace also, S. Augustine excel­lently [Page 139]declareth hovvv it is both the one and the other: to vvit, his grace and fauour and mercie, in making vs by his grace to liue and beleeue vvel, and so to be vvorthy of heauen: his iustice and iust iudgement, to render and repay for those vvorkes vvhich him self vvrought in vs, life euerla­sting. Vvhich he expresseth thus:Aug. de gra. & lib. arb. ca. 6. Hovv should he render or repay as a iust iudge, vnles he had giuen it as a merciful father? Vvhere S. Augustine vrgeth the vvordes of repaying as due, and of being A IVST IVDGE therfore. both vvhich the said translatours corrupt, not only saying, righteous iudge, for, iust iudge: but, that he vvil giue a crovvne, vvhich is of a thing not due, for that vvhich is in the Greeke, [...]. He vvil render or repay: vvhich is of a thing due and deserued, & hath relation to vvorkes going before, for the vvhich the crovvne is re­paied. He said not (saith Theophylacte vpon this place) he vvil giue, but, he vvil render or repay, as a certaine dette. for he being iust, vvil define & limite the revvard according to the labours. the crovvne therfore is due dette, because of the iudges iustice. So saith he.

7 Vvhich speaches being most true as being the expresse vvordes of holy Scrip­ture, yet vve knovv hovv odiously the Ad­uersaries may & doe misconster them to the [Page 140]ignorant, as though vve chalenged heauen by our ovvne vvorkes, and as though vve made God bound to vs. Vvhich vve do not, God forbid. but because he hath pre­pared good vvorkes for vs (as the Apostle saith) to vvalke in them,Eph. 2, v. 10. and doth by his grace cause vs to doe them, and hath pro­mised life euerlasting for them, and telleth vs in al his holy Scriptures, that to doe them is the vvay to heauen: therfore not presuming vpon our ovvne vvorkes as our ovvne or as of our selues, but vpon the good vvorkes vvrought through Gods grace by vs his seely instruments, vve haue great confidence (as the Apostle speaketh) and are assured that these vvorkes proce­ding of his grace,Hebr. 10. be so acceptable to him, that they are esteemed and be vvorthie and meritorious of the kingdom of heauen. Against which truth, let vs see further, their heretical corruptions.

CHAP. IX. Heretical translation against MERITES or MERITORIOVS WORKES and the REWARD for the same.

WHEN they translate (Ro. 8, 18) thus,Bib. 1577. I am certainely persuaded, that the afflictions of this time, ARENOT WORTHIE OF THE GLO­RIE vvhich shal be shevved vpon vs: do they not meane to signifie to the reader, & must it not needes so sound in his eares, that the tribulations of this life, be they neuer so great, though suffered for Christ, yet do not merite nor deserue the heauenly glorie? but in the Greeke it is far otherwise. I vvil not stand vpon their first vvordes, I am certainely persuaded, [...]. I suppose. vvhich is a far greater asseueration then the Apostle vseth, and I maruel hovv they could so translate that Greeke word, but that they vvere disposed, not only to translate the Apostles vvordes falsely against meritorious vvorkes, but also to auouch and affirme the same lustely, vvith much more vehemencie of vvordes then the Apostle speaketh. vvel, let vs par­don them this fault, & examine the vvordes folovving. Vvhere the Greeke saith not, [...]. Non sunt condignae ad fu­turam glo­riam. as they translate vvith ful consent in al their English Bibles, The afflictions are not vvorthie of the glorie &c. but thus, The afflictions of this time are not equal, correspondent, or cōparable to the glorie to come. S. Chrys. vpon this place. because the afflictions are short, the glo­rie is eternal: the afflictions smal and fevv in comparison, the glorie great and aboun­dant aboue measure.

2 This is the Greeke phrase & the Apost­les meaning, vvhich vve neede not greatly to proue, because their ovvne Doctors Cal­uin and Beza do so interpret it, & therfore vvonder it vvere that the Geneua English bibles also should forsake their Maisters, and folovv the errour of the other English bibles, but that they thought the more voi­ces the better. In the meane time the peo­ple seeth no other translation, & thinketh it is the Apostles very vvordes. But Beza him self telleth them the contrarie, transla­ting thus: Statuo minimē esse paria quae presenti tem­pore perpetimur, futurae gloriae nobis reuelandae. that is, I am of this opinion, that the things vvhich vve suffer in this present time, are not equal to the glorie that shal be reucaled to vs. And in his commentarie, thus, S. Paules discourse and matter handled in this place. de­clare, that he speaketh not of the valure or price of the af­flictions vvhich vve suffer for Christ, but rather by compa­ring their qualitie and quantitie vvith life euerlasting, he gathereth that vve shal be infinitly more happie vvith Christ, then vve are miserable here. Therfore did he vse the [...]. Greeke vvord rightly and properly, vvhich the Grammarians say is spoken of such things, as being poi­sed or vveighed, are found of one vveight. Thus far Beza.

3 If then a comparison only be signified, vvhy do they not so trāslate it in English, that it may be taken for a comparison in our English phrase? For they knovv. very vvel that if a man should say in English, [Page 143]according as they translate, Good vvorkes are not vvorthie of heauen, this man is not vvor­thie of my fauour, he is not vvorthie of such a liuing, of so great praises: euery English man vnderstandeth it thus, that they deserue not heauen, and that such a man deserueth not this or that. Euen so must the reader needes take it in this place, and they must needes haue intēded that he should so take it. For though he Greeke phrase may signifie a comparison, being so vttered,prou. 3. [...] yet not the English. and if it might, yet obscurely and ambiguously: and if it might, yet here they do falsely translate so, because here the Greeke phrase is othervvise, and therfore should othervvise be Englished. For it is not, [...], vvhich is, as they trāslate, vvorthy of the glorie: but, [...], which cānot be so trāslated. For if it might, then these Greeke phrases vvere al one, and might be vsed indifferently. And then I must desire them to turne me this into Greeke, He is not vvorthie of thankes. and if they turne it by the Apostles phrase in this place [...], to al Grecians they shal be ridiculous. And yet this is as vvel turned out of English into Greeke, as they haue turned the other out of Greeke into English.

4 Marie, if they vvould exppresse a com­parison [Page 144]of equalitie or inequalitie betwene thing & thing, thē this is the proper Greeke phrase thereof, and much more proper for this purpose,The Greeke [...], signi­fieth a com­parison. thē by [...], & a genitiue case. Which notvvithstanding is often so vsed in the Scriptures, by vvay of cōparison. as Pro­uerb. 3. concerning the praise of vvisedom. Vvhere S. Augustine to expresse the com­parison, [...]. readeth thus, Omne pretiosum non est illi dignum: and S. Hierom according to the He­brue thus, [...] omnia quae desiderantur no valent huic cōpa­rari. or, adaequari. and Ecclci 26, vve haue the very like speache proceding of the said Greeke vvord [...] Omnis ponderatio non est digna continentis animae. Vvhich the English Bibles translate thus, There is no vveight to be compared vnto a minde that can rule it self. or, vvith a continent minde.

5 And if [...] vvith a genitiue case signifie a comparison, and them selues so translate it in al their Bibles, [...] should not [...] in the Apostles phrase much more be so trāslated? I appeale to their ovvne cōsciences. Againe if here in Ecclicus they say not according to the Greeke vvordes, [...]. There is no vveight vvor­thie of a continent minde, because they vvould by an English phrase expresse the compa­rison: is it not more then euident, that vvhen they translate the Apostle by the ve­ry same vvordes, Vvorthie of the glorie &c: they [Page 145]knovv it can not, and they meane it should not signifie a comparison? I can not suffici­ently expresse, but only to the learned and skilful reader, their partial and heretical dealing. Briefely I say, they translate, [...], Not to be compared vvith a con­tinent minde, being in Greeke Word for word Not vvorthie of a continent minde: and contrarie­vvise they translate in S. Paul, [...], Not vvorthie of the glorie to come, being in the Greeke, Not to be cōpared to the glorie to come. according to the very like Latin phrase by dignus Eccl. 6. Amico fideli nulla est com­paratio, & non est DIGNA ponderatio auri & ar­genti CONTRA BONITATEM FIDEI, that is, according to their ovvne translation, A faithful frende hath no peere, vveight of gold & sil­uer is not to be compared to the goodnes of his faith.

6. Novv if they vvil say, though their translation of S. Paules vvordes be not so exact and commodious,Hovv good vvorkes me­rite life euer­lasting, though one incompara­bly exceede the other. yet the sense and meaning is al one (for if these present af­flictions be not equal or comparable to the glorie to come, then neither are they wor­thie of it, nor can deserue or merite it) let the Christian reader marke the difference. First their Beza and Caluin telleth them that the Apostle speaketh of the one, and not of the other. Secōdly, the passions & af­flictions that Christ our Sauiour suffered al [Page 146]his life, vvere not comparable to the eter­nal glorie vvhich he obtained thereby: yet did he thereby deserue and merite eternal glorie, not only for him self, but for al the vvorld: yea by the least affliction he suffe­red, did he deserue al this. vnles you vvil deny also that he merited and deserued his glorie, vvhich your opinion a man might very vvel gather by *Heb. 2, 9. in the new Te­stament of the yere 1580. & Bib. 1579. some of your false translations, but that you vvould thinke vs to suspicious, vvhich perhaps vve vvil exa­mine hereafter. Thirdly, the present plea­sure of aduoutrie during a mans life, is not comparable to the eternal torments of hel fire: and yet it doth merite and deserue the same. Fourthly, the Apostle by making an incomparable difference of the glorie to come vvith the afflictiōs of this time, doth (as S. Chrisostom saith) exhort them the more vehemently and moue them to sus­taine al things the more vvilingly: [...]. but if he said as they translate, The afflictions are not vvorthie of heauen, you are neuer the neerer heauen for them, only beleeue: this had not been to exhort them, but to discou­rage them.2 Cor. 4. v. 17. Fifthly, the Apostle vvhen he vvil els vvhere encourage them to suffer, saith plainely, [...]. Our tribulation vvhich presently is for a moment and light, WORKETH aboue measure exce­dingly, an eternal vveight of glorie in vs.

7 See you not a comparison betvvene short and eternal, light tribulation, & exce­ding vveightie glorie: and yet that one also vvorketh the other, that is, causeth, purcha­seth, and deserueth the other? for, like as the litle seede being not cōparable to the great tree, yet causeth it and bringeth it forth: so out tribulatiōs & good vvorkes othervvise incomparable to eternal glorie, by the ver­tue of Gods grace vvorking in vs, worketh, purchaseth, and causeth the said glorie. for so they knovv very wel the Greeke vvorde importeth:See this Greeke Word. 2 Cor. 7. thrise. Vvhere thē selues trans­late it, cau­seth, Worketh v. 10.11. though here also they translate it most falsely, prepareth. Bib. an. 1577.

8 Lastly, for most manifest euidence, that these present tribulations and other good vvorkes are meritorious & vvorthie of the ioyes to come, though not cōparable to the same: you shal heare the holy Doctors say both in one passage or sentence.ep. 56. nu. 3. S. Cyprian thus: O vvhat maner of day shal come, my brethren, vvhen our Lord shal recount the MERITES of euery one, and pay vs the revvard or stipend of faith and deuo­tion? Singulorum merita. Ep. 56. here are merites & the revvard for the same. It folovveth in the said Doctor, Vvhat glorie shal it be, and hovv great ioy, to be admitted to see God, so to be honoured that thou receiue the ioy of eternal life with Christ thy Lord God, to receiue there that vvhich neither eie hath seen, nor eare hath heard, nor hath ascended into the hart of man for, that vve shal receiue greater things, then here either vve doe, or suffer, the Apostle pronounceth, saying, The passions of this time are [Page 148]not condigne or cōparable to the glorie to come, Here vve see that the stipend or revvard of the me­rites aforesaid, are incōparably greater then the said merites.

9 Likevvise S. Augustine:Ser. 37. de Sanctis. The exceding goodnes of God hath prouided this, that the labours should soone be ended, praemia meri­torum. but the revvardes of the MERITES should endure vvithout end: the Apostle testifying, THE PASSIONS OF THIS TIME ARE NOT COMPARABLE &c. For vve shal receiue greater blisse, then are the afflictions of al passions vvhatsoeuer. Thus vve see plainely, that short tribulations are true merites of endles glorie, though not comparable to the same: vvhich truth you impugne by your false and heretical translation. But let vs see further your dealing in the self same controuersie, to make it plainer that you bend your translations against it, more then the text of the Scripture doth permit you.

10 In the booke of vvisedom, vvhere there is honorable mention of the merites of Saincts and their revvardes in heauen, the holy Scripture saith thus: [...]. dignos se. [...]. God hath proued them, and findeth them MEETE FOR HIM SELF. To omit here that you vse the present tense, vvhereas in the Greeke they are pre­ter tenses (God knovveth vvhy, only this vve knovv, that it is no true nor sincere trālation) but to vvincke at smaller faultes, [Page 149]vvhy say you here in al your Bibles, that God findeth his Saincts and holy seruants meete for himself, and not, vvorthie of him self? See your partialitie, and be ashamed.

11 In the Apostles places before exami­ned, you said negatiuely, that the afflictions of this time vvere NOT WORTHIE OF the glorie to come, the Greeke not bearing that trāslation: but here, vvhen you should say affirmatiuely, and that vvord for vvord after the Greeke, that God found them WORTHIE OF HIM SELF, [...]. there you say, MEETE FOR HIM SELF, auoiding the terme, vvorthie, because merite is included therein. So that vvhen you vvil in your translation deny merites,Condignae ad gloriam. then condignae ad, signifieth, vvorthie of: vvhen you should in your traslation affirme merites,dignos se. then Dignus vvith an ablatiue case doth not signifie, vvorthie of. No matuel if such vvilfulnes vvil not see the vvord merite, or that vvhich is equiualent thereto, in al the Scripture. for vvhen you do see it, and should translate it, you suppresse it by an other vvord. But this is a case vvorthie of examination,Merite of good vvor­kes plainely proued by the Scriptu­res. vvhether the Scripture haue the vvord, merite, or the equiualēt thereof. for vve vvil force them euen by their ovvne transla­tions, to confesse that it is found there, and that they should translate it accordingly [Page 150]often vvhen they doe not, yea, that if vve did not see it in the vulgar Latin translatiō, yet they must needes see it and finde it in the Greeke.

12 First vvhen they translate the foresaid place thus, [...]. The afflictions of this time are not vvor­thie of the glorie to come: they meane this, deserue not the glorie to come, for to that purpose they do so translate it, as hath been declared. [...]. Againe, vvhen it is said, The vvorkeman is vvor­thie of his hire or vvages: Vvhat is meant, but that he deserueth his vvages? And more plainely Tob. 9. they translate thus: Brother Azarias, non ero con­dignus proui­dentiae. if I should giue my self to be thy seruant. I shal not DESERVE thy prouidence. And such like. If then in these places, both the Greeke & the Latin signifie, to be vvorthie of, or, not to be vvorthie of, to deserue, or, not to deserue: then they must allovv vs the same signification and vertue of the same vvordes in other like places. Namely Apoc. 5. of our Sauiours merites, thus: [...] The lambe that vvas killed, IS VVORTHIE to receiue povver and riches, &c. Vvhat is that to say, but, DESERVETH to receiue? For so I trust they vvil allovv vs to say of our Sauiour, that he in deede deserued. Againe, of the damned,Apoc. 16. [...]. thus: Thou hast giuen them bloud to drinke, for they ARE VVORTHIE. or, THEY HAVE DESERVED. is it not al one? lastly of the elect, thus: They shal vvalke vvith me in vvhite, [Page 151]because they are vvorthie, Apoc. 3. that is, [...], Digni sunt. [...], Di­gnos se. because they deserue it. and so in the place before by them corrupted, God found them vvorthie of him: that is, such as deserued to be vvith him in eternal glorie. Thus by their ovvne trans­lation of [...] and dignus, are plainely de­duced, vvorthines, desert, and merite of saincts, out of the Scriptures.

13 But to procede one steppe further, [...] & [...], signi­fie deserte [...] vve proue it also to be in the Scriptures, thus. Them selues translate thus Heb. 10, 29. Of hovv much sorer punishement shal he be vvorthie, vvhich treadeth vnder foote the sonne of God? though one of their Bibles of the yere 1562, [...]. very false­ly and corruptly leaueth out the vvordes, vvorthie of, saying thus, Hovv much sorer shal he be punished &c: Fearing no doubt by trans­lating the Greeke vvord sincerely, this con­sequence that novv I shal inferre. to vvit, If the Greeke vvord here, by their ovvne trāslation, signifie to be vvorthie of, or, to deserue, being spoken of paines and punishement deserued: then must they graunt vs the same vvord so to signifie els vvhere in the nevv Testament, vvhen it is spoken of de­seruing heauen and the kingdom of God. as in these places. Luc. 21. Vvatch therfore, [...], al times praying, that you MAY BE VVORTHIE to stand before the sonne of man. and c. 20. THEY THAT ARE VVORTHIE to attaine to that vvorld & to the resurrection from the dead, neither marie, [...]. nor are maried. [Page 152]& 2 Thess. 1. [...]. That you may BE VVORTHIE of the kingdom of God, for vvhich also ye suffer.

14 Thus you should translate in al these places, according to your translation of the former place to the Hebrues: or at the least­vvise you should haue this sense and mea­ning, as the old vvulgar Latin hath, trans­lating in al these places,Qui digni ba­bebuntur. Vt digni ha­beamini. counted vvorthie, but meaning vvorthie in deede: as vvhen it is said, Abraham was reputed iust, it is meant, he vvas iust in deede. If you also haue this meaning in your translations, vvhich here folovv the vulgar Latin: then vve appeale to your selues, vvhether, to be counted vvorthie, and to be vvorthie, & to deserue, and to merite, be not al one: and so here also Merite is deduced. But if you meane ac­cording to your heresie, to signifie by trās­lating, counted vvorthie, that they are not in deede vvorthie: then your purpose is here­tical, and translation false and repugnant to your translating the same vvord in other places, as is declared, and novv further vve vvil declare.

15 [...] to make wor­thie, [...] to be made. or to be wor­thie. They vvhom God doth make vvor­thie, they are truely and in deede vvorthie: are they not? but by your ovvne transla­tion of the same vvord in the actiue voice, God doth make them vvorthie. therfore in the passiue voice it must also signifie to [Page 153]be made or to be in deede vvorthie. For example, 2 Thess. 1, 11. You translate thus, [...]. vve also pray for you, THAT OVR GOD MAY MAKE YOV VVORTHIE of this calling. According to vvhich translation, vvhy did you not also in the self same chapter a litle before trans­late thus: [...]. That you MAY BE MADE VVOR­THIE (and so be vvorthie) of the kingdom of God, for vvhich also you suffer? You knovv the case is like in both places. & in the Greeke doctors you specially should knovv (by your ostētation of reading them in Greeke) that they according to this vse of holy Scripture, very often vse also this vvord both actiuely & passiuely, to make vvorthie, [...]. & to be made, or, to be vvorthie. See the Greeke Li­turgies.

[...].16 Vvhich S. Chrysostom, to put al out of doubt, explicateth thus in other vvordes, That he make vs vvorthie of the kingdom of heauen. Ser. 1. de orando Deo. And vpon the epi­stle to Titus c. 3. in the same sense passiuely, God graunt vve may al BE MADE VVORTHIE (or be vvorthie) of the good things promised to them that loue him. And in an other place of the said doctor it must needes signifie, to be vvor­thie. as vvhen he saith, In Colos. 1. [...]. No man liueth such a trade of life, that he is vvorthie of the kingdom, but al is his gift For to say thus, No man so liueth that he can be counted vvorthie of the kingdom of heauen: [Page 154]is against the Protestants ovvne opinion, vvhich say they are counted vvorthie, that are not. Againe, to say, No man so liueth that he can be made vvorthie: is false, because God can make the worst man worthie. It remaineth then to say, No man so liueth that he is vvorthie. Vvhich a litle before he declareth thus, No man by his ovvne proper merites obtaineth the kingdom of heauen. [...]. that is, as his ovvne, and of him self vvithout the grace of God. And yet vve must shevv further out of the Scriptures, that God maketh vs vvorthie, and so vve are in deede vvorthie, and here also vve must conuince you of false and partial in­terpretation.

17 The Greeke vvord [...] (I pray you) vvhat doth it signifie? you must ansvver that it signifieth not onely, meete, but also, vvorthie. [...]. for so Beza teacheth you, & so you translate Mat. 3, 11. &c. 8, 8. & 1 Cor. 15, 9. I am not vvorthie, in al three places. And vvhy (I pray you) did you not likevvise folovv the old Latin interpreter one steppe fur­ther, saying, [...]. Col. 1. v. 12. Giuing thankes to God the father THAT HATH MADE VS WORTHIE, but translating rather thus, Vvhich hath made vs meete to be partakers of the inheritāce of the saincts in light. Here vvas the place vvhere you should haue shevved your sinceritie, and haue said that God maketh vs vvorthie of heauenly [Page 155]blisse. because you know if [...] be vvorthy, then [...] is to make vvorthie. But you are like to Beza your Maister, vvho (as though al interpretation of vvordes vvere at his commaundement) saith, here and here and so forth I haue folovved the old Latin in­terpreter, translating it, vvorthie: Annot. in 3. Mat. No. Test. 1556. but in such and such a place (meaning this for one) I chose rather to say, MEETE.Idoneum di­cere malui. but that both he and you should here also haue translated, vvorthie, the Greeke fathers shal teach you, if vve be not vvorthie, or able to controule so mightie Grecians, as you pretend to be vvhen you crovve vpon your ovvne dunghil, othervvise in your translations shevving smal skil, or great malice.

18 The Greeke fathers (I say) interprete the Apostles vvord here, thus:Oecum. in Caten. [...]. that is, hath made vs vvorthie, and giuen vs the grace to be vvorthie. and S. Basil in orat. Liturg. making both Greeke vvordes al one, saith, [...]. THOV HAST MADE VS WORTHIE to be ministers of thy holy altar. and anon after, MAKE VS WORTHIE for this ministerie. And S. Chrisost. vpon the Apostles place, God doth not only giue vs societie vvith the Saincts, but maketh vs also vvorthie to receiue so great dignitie. And here is a goodly conside­ration of the goodnes of God tovvard vs, [Page 156]that doth in deede by his grace make vs vvorthie of so great things, vvho other­vvise are most vnvvorthie, vile, and abiect. Vvhich making of vs vvorthie, is expressed by the said Greeke vvordes, more then by the Latin, mereri, because it declareth whence our merite and vvorthines procedeth. to vvit,Ho. de Cru­ee & latro­ne. of God. both vvhich S. Chrysostom expresseth excellently thus: Vvhen he brought in Publicans to the kingdom of heauen, be defamed not the kingdom of heauen, but magnified it also vvith great ho­nours, shevving that there is such a Lord of the kingdom of heauen, vvhich hath made euen vnvvorthie persons to be so much better, Vt etiam il­lius dignita­tis gloriam mererentur. that they should deserue euen the glorie of that dignitie. And Occumenius saith, that it is Gods glorie, [...]. TO MAKE HIS SERVANTS WORTHIE of such good things: and that it is their glorie, [...]. TO HAVE BEEN MADE WORTHIE of such things. in 2, Thess. 1.

19 Thus vve see hovv the holy Scripture vseth equiualent vvordes to signifie, merite, vvhich you suppresse as much as you can. So likevvise vve might tel you of other vvordes and phrases that do plainely im­port and signifie merite. as vvhen it is said Ecclesiastici 16. Euery man shal finde according to his vvorkes. [...]. Budee both your Maister and ours in the Greeke tongue, telleth vs that the Greeke vvord [...] (to finde) is proprely to receiue for that vvhich a man hath giuen or laboured. & to requite you vvith some profane authoritie, because you delight [Page 157]much in that kinde) the vvhole oration of Demosthenes [...], vvil tel you the same. Novv, to receiue for that vvhich a man hath laboured or vvrought, vvhat doth it els presuppose, but merite & desert? It is a common phrase of the Scripture, that God vvil iudge and revvard or repay ac­cording to euery mans vvorkes.Ecclici 16. Psal. 61. Apoc. 22. doth not this include merite & demerite of vvorkes? but I vvot not hovv, nor vvherfore, in this case you translate sometime, deedes, for vvorkes, saying, [...]. Vvho vvil revvard euery man accor­ding to his deedes. and againe, You see then hovv that of deedes a man is iustified, and not of faith only.

20 I knovv you vvil tel vs that you vse to say deedes or vvorkes indifferently, as also you may say, that you put no difference betvvene iust and righteous, meete and vvorthie, but vse both indifferently. To the ignorant this is a faire ansvver, and shal soone per­suade them: but they that see further, must needes suspect you, til you giue a good reason of your doing. For, the controuersie being of faith and vvorkes, of iustice and iusti­fication by vvorkes, of the vvorthines or valure of vvorkes: vvhy do you not precisely keepe these termes pertaining to the con­trouersie, the Greeke wordes being alwaies pregnant in that significatiō? Vvhy should you once translate the Greeke [...], deedes, [Page 158]rather then, vvorkes. You knovv it is propre­ly, vvorkes, as [...], deedes. It vvere very good in matters of cōtrouersie to be pre­cise.Prefat. in no. Test. 1556. Beza maketh it a great fault in the old vulgar Latin translator, that he expresseth one Greeke vvord in Latin diuers vvaies. You choppe & change significations here and there as you list, and you thinke you satisfie the reader maruelous vvel, if some­time you say idol, and not alvvaies, images: sometime iust, and not alvvaies righteous: & if in other places you say vvorkes, or if one Bible hath vvorkes, vvhere an other hath deedes, you thinke this is very vvel, and vvil ansvver al the matter sufficiently. God and your conscience be iudge herein, and let the wise reader consider it deepely. The least thing that vve demaund the rea­son of, rather then charge you vvithal, is, vvhy your Church bible saith in the places before alleaged, [...]. The righteous iudgement of God, vvhich vvil revvard euery man according to his deedes. and, man is iustified by deedes, and not by faith only, Vvhereas yov knovv the Greeke is more pregnant for vs then so, and the matter of controuersie vvould better appeare on our side, if you said thus: The IVST iudgement of God, vvhich vvil revvard euery man according to his VVORKES. and, Man is iustified by vvorkes, and not by faith only.

21 But vvil you not yet see merite and [Page 159]meritorious vvorkes in the Scripture? I maruel your skil in the Greeke teacheth you nothing in this point. S. Iohn saith:2. Epist. v. 8. Looke to your selues, that you lose not the things which you haue vvrought, but that you may receiue a full revvard. Me thinketh, in these wordes the equiualēt of merite is easily seen of any mā that is not wilfully blinde. but you should see further then the cōmon sort. for you know that the Greeke here signifieth, [...]. not only that which vve worke, but that which we worke for. as in the Greeke phrase of vvorking for a mās liuing, & as you translate 10.6. v. 27. LABOVR NOT FOR THE MEATE that perisheth, but for that meate vvhich endureth vnto life euerlasting. Such [...] Mat. 20. labourers God hired to vvorke in his vineyard, and [...] Luc. 10. the vvorkeman is vvorthie of his hire. So that the Apostle in the former vvordes exhorteth to perseuêrāce, that vve lose not the revvard or pay, for vvhich vve vvorke, and vvhich by vvorking vve merite and deserue.

22 Againe Beza telleth vs,Annot. in Ro c. 1. v. 27 [...]. that [...] signifieth mercedem quae meritis respondet, that is, a revvard ansvverable to the merites. and vve finde many vvordes in the Scripture like vnto this, [...],Hebr. 10. & 11. [...], Vvhich are on Gods part, vvho is the revvarder and recōpenser. and on our part vve haue (as the Apostle saith, Hebr. 10. & 4) great confidence. [...]. cōfidence (saith Photius a [Page 160]notable Greeke father) of our vvorkes, confidence of our faith, [...], &c. Phot. apud Occu. in Hebr. 10. Ps. 18. & 118. [...]. of our tentations, of our patience. &c. Yea vve haue [...] & [...] in the Scripture, vvhich must needes signifie as much as Bezaes [...]. By the one, is said, In keeping thy commaundements is great revvard. Againe, You shal receiue THE RETRIBVTION of inheritance. Col. 3. v. 24. And 2 Thessal. 1. v. 6. Gods repaying iust and retribution of Hel or Heauen for good and euil desertes, is ex­pressed by the same vvord. & by the other, is said, I haue inclined my hart to keepe thy iustifications (or commaundements) alvvaies FOR REWARD. [...].

23 But al this vvil not suffise you. for vvheresoeuer you can possibly you vvil haue an euasion. and therfore in this later place you runne to the ambiguitie of the Hebrue vvord, and translate thus: I haue applied my hart to fulfil thy statutes alvvaies, EVEN VNTO THE END. [...]. Alas my masters, are not the Seuentie Greeke interpreters sufficient to determine the ambiguitie of this vvord? is not S. Hierom, in his translation accor­ding to the Hebrue? are not al the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latin? It is ambi­guous (say you) and therfore you take your libertie. You doe so in deede, and that like Princes. for in an other place, vvhere the Greeke hath determined, [...]. you folovv it vvith al your hart, saying, fall dovvne before his [Page 161]footestoole, because he is holy: vvhereas the ambi­guitie of the Hebrue, [...] vvould haue borne you to say, as in the vulgar Latin, because it is holy. and so it maketh for holines of places, vvhich you can not abide.

24 But you vse (you say) the ambiguitie of the Hebrue. Take heede that your liber­tie in taking al aduantages, against the com­mon and approued interpretation of the vvhole Church, be not very suspicious. for if it do signifie also revvard, as (you knovv) it doth very commonly, and your self so translate it (Psal. 18, v. 11) vvhen you can not choose: and if the Septuaginta do here so translate it in Greeke, andPropter aeternam re­tributionē. scz vitae aeter­nae, vt eam merear per­cipere. in cō ­ment. S. Hierom in his Latin translation according to the He­brue, and the auncient fathers in their com­mentaries: vvhat vpstart nevv Maisters are you that set al these to schoole againe, and teach the vvorld a nevv translation? If you vvil say, you folovv our ovvne great He­brician, Sanctes Pagninus. vvhy did you folovv him in his translation, rather then in his Lexicon called Thesaurus, vvhere he interpreteth it as the vvhole Church did before him? Vvhy did you folovv him (or Benedictus Arias either) in this place, and do not folovv them in the self same case, a litle before translating that very Hebrue vvord vvhich is in this place,Psalm. 118. v. 112. propter retribu­tionem, [Page 162]for revvard? So that you folovv nothing, [...]. neither iudgemēt nor, learning in Hebrue or Greeke, but only your ovvne errour and Heresie, vvhich is, that vve may not do vvel in respect of revvard, or, for revvard. and therfore because the holy Prophet Dauid said of him self the cōtrarie, that he did bend his vvhole hart to keepe Gods cōmaundements for revvard, you make him say an other thing.

25 And to this purpose perhaps it is (for other cause I can not gesse) that you make such a maruelous transposition of vvordes in your translation (Mat. 19.) saying thus: Vvhen the Sonne of man shal sit in the throne of his ma­iestie, ye that haue folovved me in the regeneratiō, shal sit also vpō tvvelue seates. Whereas the order of these vvordes both in Greeke and Latin, is this: You that haue folovved me, in the regeneration, vvhen the Sonne of man shal sit in his maiestie, you also shal sit vpon tvvelue seates. To folovv Christ in the re­generation, is not easily vnderstood vvhat it should meane: but to sit vvith Christ in the regeneration, that is, in the resurrection, vpon 12 seates, this is familiar and euery mans interpretation, and concerneth the great revvard that they shal then haue, vvhich here folovv Christ as the Apostles did.

26 The like transpostion of vvordes is in some of your Bibles (Hebr. 2. v. 9.) thus.no. Test. 1580. [Page 163] Vve see IESVS crovvned vvith glorie and honour, vvhich vvas a litle inferior to the Angels, through the suffring of death. Vvhereas both in Greeke and Latin, the order of the vvordes is thus: Him that was made a litle inferior to Angels, vve see IESVS, through the passion of death, crovvned vvith honour and glorie. In this later, the Apostle saith, that Christ vvas crovvned for his suffring death, and so by his death merited his glo­rie. but by your translation, he saith that Christ vvas made inferior to Angels by his suffring death,Vt mori posset. that is (saith Beza) For to suffer death: and taking it so, that he vvas made in­ferior to Angels, that he might die, then the other sense is cleane excluded, that for suf­fering death he vvas crovvned vvith glo­rie: & this is one place among other, wher­by it may very vvel be gathered that *See Caluin in epist. ad Philip. some of you thinke that Christ him self did not merite his ovvne glorie and exal­tation. So obstinatly are you set against merites and meritorious vvorkes. To the vvhich purpose also you take avvay mans free vvil, as hauing no habilitie to vvorke tovvard his ovvne saluation.

CHAP. X. Heretical translation against FREE VVIL.

AGAINST free vvil your cor­ruptions be these. Io. 1, 12. vvhere it is said, [...]. As many as re­ceiued him, he gaue them povver to be made the sonnes of God: no. Test. 1580. some of your translations say, he gaue them preroga­tiue to be the sonnes of God. Beza, dignitie. Vvho protesteth that vvhereas in other places often he trāslated this Greeke vvord, povver and authoritie, here he refused both, in deede against free vvil, vvhich he saith the Sophistes vvould proue out of this place, reprehending Erasmus for folovving them in his translation.Vt liceret fi­lios Dei fieri But vvhereas the Greeke vvord is in different to signifie dignitie, or li­bertie, he that vvil translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the holy Ghost and determineth it to his ovvne fansie. If you may translate, dignitie: may not vve as vvel trāslate it, libertie? yes surely. For you knovv it signifieth the one as vvel as the other both in profane and Diuine vvriters. and you can vvel call to minde [...], and [...], vvhence they are deriued, and that the Apostle calleth a mans libertie of his ovvne vvill,1 Cor. 7, 17. [...]. Novv then if potestas in Latin, and povver in English, be vvordes also indifferent to signifie both dignitie and libertie, translate so in the name of God, and leaue the text [Page 165]of the Scripture indifferent as vve doe: and for the sense vvhether of the tvvo it doth here rather signifie, or vvhether it doth not signifie both (as no doubt it doth, & the fathers so expound it) let that be examined othervvise. It is a common fault vvith you and intolerable, by your translation to abridge the sense of the holy Ghost to one particular vnderstāding, and to defeate the exposition of so many fathers, that expoūd it in an other sense and signification. As is plaine in this example also folovving.

2 The Apostle (1 Cor. 15, 10.) saith thus: [...]. I, laboured more aboundantly then al they: yet not I, but the grace of God vvith me. Vvhich may haue this sense, not I, but the grace of God which is with me, as S. Hierom sometime expoūdeth it: or this, not I, but the grace of God vvhich laboured vvith me. & by this later is most euidētly signified, that the grace of God and the Apostle, both labou­red together, and not only grace, as though the Apostle had done nothing▪ like vnto a blocke, forced only: but that the grace of God did so concurre as the principal agent vvith al his labours, that his free vvil vvrought vvithal. Against vvhich truth & most approued interpretatiō of this place, you trāslate according to the former sense only, making it the very text, & so excludīg al other senses and commentaries, as your [Page 166]Maisters Caluin & Beza taught you, vvho should not haue taught you if you vvere vvise, to doe that vvhich neither they nor you can iustifie. They reprehend first the vulgar Latin interpreter for neglecting the Greeke article, and secondly them that by occasiō thereof, would by this place proue free vvil. by vvhich their cōmentarie they do plainely declare their intent and pur­pose in their translation, to be directly against free vvil.

3 But concerning the Greeke article o­mitted in translation, [...]. if they vvere but Grammarians in both tongues, they might knovv that the Greeke article many times can not be expressed in Latin, and that this is one felicitie & prerogatiue of the Greeke phrase aboue the Latin, to speake more briefely, commodiously, and significantly, by the article. Vvhat neede vve goe to Te­rence and Homer, as they are vvont? Is not the Scripture ful of such speaches? Iacobus Zebedaei, Iacobus Alphaei, Iudas Iacobi, Maria Cleophae, and the like, Are not al these sincerely trās­lated into Latin, though the Greeke article be not expressed? Can you expresse the arti­cle, but you must adde more then the arti­cle, and so adde to the text, as you doe very boldly in such speaches through out the nevv Testament, yea you doe it vvhen [Page 167]there is no article in the Greeke: as Io. 5, 36.(vvitnes) (sinnes.) and 1 ep. Io. 2, 2. Yea sometime of an here­tical purpose:Bib. 1562. as Eph. 3. By vvhom vve haue bold­nesse and entrance vvith the confidence vvhich is by the faith of him, or, in him, as it is in other your bi­bles.No. Test. 1580. You say, confidence vvhich is by faith, as though there vvere no confidence by wor­kes: you knovv the Greeke beareth not that translation, [...]. vnles there vvere an article after, confidence, vvhich is not, but you adde it to the text heretically. as also Beza doth the like (Ro. 8, 2.) and your Geneua En­glish Testamēts after him, for the heresie of imputatiue iustice: as in his Annotations he plainely deduceth, saying confidently, I doubt not but a Greeke article must be vnderstood, [...]. and therfore (forsoth) put into the text also. He doth the same in S. Iames 2, v. 20: still debating the case in his Annotations vvhy he doth so, and vvhen he hath con­cluded in his fansie, that this or that is the sense, he putteth it so in the text, and trans­lateth accordingly. No maruel now, if they reprehend the vulgar Latin interpreter for not translating the Greeke article in the place vvhich vve began to treate of, vvhen they finde articles lacking in the Greeke text it self, and boldly adde them for their purpose in their translation. Vvhereas the vulgar Latin interpretation is in al these [Page 168]places so sincere, that it neither addeth nor diminisheth, nor goeth one iote from the Greeke.

Non ego, sed gratia Dei mecum.4 But you vvil say in the place to the Corinthians, there is a Greeke article, and therfore there you doe vvel to expresse it. I ansvver, first, the article may then be ex­pressed in translation, vvhen there can be but one sense of the same: secondly, that not only it may, but it must be expressed, vvhen vve can not othervvise giue the sense of the place. [...]. as Mat. 1, 6. Ex ea quae fuit Vriae. Vvhere you see the vulgar interpreter omitteth it not, but knovveth the force & signification thereof very vvel. mary in the place of S. Paul vvhich vve novv speake of, vvhere the sense is doubtful, & the La­tin expresseth the Greeke sufficiētly other­vvise, he leaueth it also doubtful and indif­ferent, not abridging it as you do, saying, the grace of God vvhich is vvith me: nor as Caluin, gratia quae mihi aderat: [...]. nor as Illyricus, gratia quae mihi adest. Vvhich tvvo later are more ab­surde then yours, because they omit and neglect altogether the force of the prepo­sition, cum, [...]. vvhich you expresse saying, with me. but because you say, which is vvith me: you meane heretically as they doe, to take away the Apostles cooperation and labouring together vvith the grace of God, by his [Page 169]free vvil: vvhich is by the article and the preposition most euidently signified.

5 And here I appeale to al that haue skil in Greeke speaches and Phrases, vvhether the Apostles vvordes in Greeke, [...] &c.) [...]. sound not thus: I laboured more aboundantly then al they: yet not I, but the grace of God (that laboured) vvith me. Vnderstanding not the participle of Sum, but of the verbe going before. as in the like case vvhen our Sauiour saith, It is not you that speake, but the holy Ghost that speaketh in you. If he had spoken short thus, but the holy Ghost in you, you perhaps vvould translate as you doe here, the holy Ghost WHICH IS IN YOV. but you see the verbe going before is rather repeated, Not you speake, but the holy Ghost THAT SPEAKETH IN YOV. Euen so, Not I laboured, but the grace of God labouring vvith me, or, WHICH LABOVRED WITH ME. So praieth the vvise man Sap. 9, 10. Send vvisedom out of thy holy heauens, that she may be vvith me, and labour vvith me as your selues trans­late.Et mecum laboret. Bib. 1577.

6 And so the Apostle calleth him self and his felovv preachers, Gods coadiutors, colla­bourers, or such as labour and vvorke vvith God, vvhich also you falsely translate, [...], S. Au­gustine, Cooperarij, & 2 Cor. 6, 1. [...]. Gods labourers, to take avvay al cooperation, and in some of your Bibles most folishly and peeuishly, as though you had svvorne not to translate the Greeke, Vve together are [Page 170]Gods labourers. as vvel might you translate (Ro. 8, 17) that vve together be Christs heires: [...]. for that, vvhich the Apostle saith coheires, or ioynt heires vvith him: the phrase and speach (as you know) in Greeke being al one. So doth Beza most falsely translate,Eph. 2. v. 5. Vna viuificauit nos per Christum, for that vvhich is plaine in the Greeke, He hath quickened vs together vvith Christ, Vvhere the English Bezites leaue also the Greeke,The English translators are ashamed of their Maister. and folovv our vulgar Latin trans­lation rather then Beza, vvho goeth so vvide from the Greeke, that for shame they dare not folovv him. Fie vpon such hypo­crisie & pretensed honour of God, that you vvil not speake in the same termes that the holy Scripture speaketh, but rather vvil teach the holy Ghost hovv to speake, in not translating as he speaketh. As though these phrases of Scripture, men are Gods coadiu­tors, covvorkers with his grace, raised vvith Christ, coheirs vvith him, compartakers of glorie vvith him, vvere al spoken to the dishonour of God and Christ, & as though these being the speaches of the holy Ghost him self, needed your reformation in your English trāslatiōs. Otherwise if you meane vvel, and vvould say as vve say, that what­soeuer good vve doe, vve doe it by Gods grace, and yet vvorke the same by our free wil together vvith Gods grace as the mouer [Page 171]and helper and directer of our vvil: vvhy do you not translate in the foresaid place of S. Paul accordingly?

7 You say moreouer in some of your Bi­bles thus: So lieth it not then in a mās vvill or running, Bib. 1562. [...]. but in the mercie of God. Vvhatsoeuer you meane, you knovv this translation is very dissolute and vvide from the Apostles vvordes, and not true in sense. for saluation is in vvilling and running:Aug. Serm. 15 de verb. Apostoli. according to that famous saying of S. Augustine, He that made thee vvith­out thee, vvil not iustifie thee vvithout thee: that is, against thy vvil, or, vnles thou be vvilling. and the Apostle saith, No man is crovvned, 2 Timoth. 2. 1 Cor. 9. Rom. 2. Mat. 19. vnles he fight lavvfully. and againe, So runne THAT YOV MAY obtaine. and againe, The doers of the Lavv shal be iustified. And our Sauiour, If thou vvilt enter into life, keepe the commaundements. Vve see then that it is in vvilling, and running, & doing: but to vvil, or runne, or doe, are not of man, but of Gods mercie. and so the Apo­stle speaketh, It is not of the vviller, nor runner, but of God that hath mercie. And it is much to be mar­ueled, vvhy you said not, It lieth not in the vvil­ler, nor in the runner: vvhich is neere to the Apostles vvordes, but so far of, in a mans vvill and running.

8 Againe, touching cōtinencie & the chast single life, you translate thus: [...]. Al men can not receiue this saying. Mat. 19. v. 11. Novv you vvot [Page 172]vvel,Maruelous strang trans­lation. that our Sauiour saith not, Al men can not, but, al men doe not receiue it: and that ther­fore,De grat & lib. arb. c. 4. (as S. Augustine saith) because al vvil not. But when our Sauiour aftervvard saith, He that CAN receiue it, let him receiue it: he addeth an other Greeke vvord to expresse that sense. [...]. vvhereas by your fond translation he might haue said, [...]. and againe by your translation, you should translate these his later vvordes thus: He that can or is able to receiue it, let him be able to receiue it. For so you translate [...] before, as though it vvere al one vvith [...]. Do you not see your follie, & falshod, & boldnes, to make the reader beleeue that our Saui­our should say, Euery man can not liue chast, it is impossible for them, and therfore no man should vovv chastirie, because he knovveth not vvhether he can liue so or no?

9 Againe in some of your Bibles (Gen. 4. v. 7.) where God saith plainely,Bibl. 1579. that Cain should receiue according as he did vvel or euil, because sinne vvas subiect vnto him, and he had the rule and dominion thereof, euidētly declaring his free vvill: you trans­late it thus, If thou doest vvel, shalt thou not be ac­cepted? and if thou doest not vvel, sinne lieth at the doore: and also vnto thee HIS desire shal be subiect, and thou shalt rule ouer HIM. By vvhich relatiues false­ly put in the masculine gender, you, ex­clude [Page 173]the true antecedent sinne, and referre them to Abel Cains brother. as though God had said, not that sinne should be in his do­miniō or subiect vnto him, but his brother Abel. But that this is most false and absurd, vve proue many vvaies. First S. Augustine saith directly the contrarie:Li. 15. c. 7. de Ciuit. Dei. Tu dominaberis il­lius: nunquid Fratris? absit. cuius igitur nisi peccati. Thou shalt rule (saith he) ouer vvhat? Ouer thy bro­ther? Not so. ouer vvhat then but sinne? Quaest. Heb. in Genes. S. Hierom also explicateth this place thus: Because thou hast free vvill, I vvarne thee that sinne haue not dominion ouer thee, but thou ouer sinne. Moreouer the text it self, if nothing els, is sufficient to conuince this absurditie. For vvhere this vvord, sinne, goeth immediatly before in the same sen­tence, and not one vvord of Abel his brother in that speache of God to Cain, hovv is it possible, or vvhat coherence can there be in saying as you translate, Sinne lieth at the doore, and thou shalt haue dominion ouer him, that is, thy brother. but if vve say thus, Sinne lieth at the doore, and thou shalt haue dominion thereof: it hath this direct & plaine sense, If thou doest ill, sinne lieth at the doore ready to con­demne thee, because it is in thee to ouer­rule it.

10 Novv if against the coherence of the text, and exposition of the holy Doctors and of the vvhole Church of God, you pre­tend [Page 174]the Hebrue grammar forsooth, as not bearing such construction: not to trouble the common reader that can not iudge of these things, and yet fully to satisfie euery man euen of common vnderstanding, vve request here the Aduersaries them selues to tel vs truely according to their knovvledge and skill, [...] vvhether the Hebrue constru­ction or point of grammar be not al one in these vvordes, Sinne LIETH at the doore: & in these, the desire THEREOF shal be subiect to thee, & thou shalt rule ouer IT. If they say (as they must needes) that the Hebrue construction or Syntaxis is al one, then vvil it folovv that the Hebrue beareth the one as vvel as the other: & therfore vvhen the self same trans­lation of theirs maketh no scruple of Gram­mar in the former, but translate as vve doe, Sinne lieth at the doore: a blinde man may see that in the later vvordes also, the Hebrue is but a foolish pretence, and that the true cause of translating them othervvise, proce­deth of an heretical humor, to obscure and deface this so plaine and euident Scripture for mans free vvill.

11 And as for the Hebrue grammar in this point, vvere it not for troubling the reader, vve could tel them that the vvord, sinne, in Hebrue is not here of the soeminine gender (as they suppose) but of the mascu­line. [Page 175]so saith S. Hierom expresly vpon this place,q. Hebr. in Genes. vvho had as much knovvledge in the Hebrue tongue as al these nevv Doctors. Aben Ezra also the great Rabbine, in his Hebrue commētaries vpon this text, saith, it is a mere forgerie and fiction to referre the masculine relatiue othervvise then to the vvord, sinne: vvhich, though els vvhere it be the feminine gender, yet here it is a masculine, according to that rule of the Grammarians,Quinquar-boreur. that the doubtful gender must be discerned by the verbe, adiectiue, pronovvne, or participle ioyned vvith the same: as the said Hebrue doctor doth in the vvord, paradise, Gen. 2. vvhich there by the pronovvnes he pronounceth to be a feminine, though els vvhere a masculine. Lastly, if the vvord, sinne, vvere here and alvvaies onely afeminine, & neuer a mascu­line: yet they haue litle skil in the Hebrue tongue, that thinke it strange to matche masculines and feminines together in very good and grammatical constructiō. Vvher­of they may see a vvhole chapter in San­ctes Pagninus vvith this title, Foeminea mascu­leis iuncta. that is, Feminines ioyned vvith masculines.

12 Novv for the last refuge, if they vvil say al this needed not, because in other their bibles it is as vve vvould haue it: vve [Page 176]tel them, they must iustifie and make good al their translations, because the people readeth al, and is abused by al, and al come forth vvith priuiledge, printed by the Q. printer &c. If they vvil not, let them con­fesse the faultes, and call them in, and tell vs vvhich translation or trāslations they vvill stand vnto. In the meane time they must be content to heare of al indifferently, as there shal be cause and occasion to touche them.

13 Againe they translate in some of their Bibles against free vvill,no. Test. 1580. thus, Christ, vvhen vve vvere yet OF NO STRENGTH, died for the vn­godly Ro. 5. v. 6. The Apostles vvord doth not signifie that vve had no strength, [...]. but that vve vvere vveake, feeble, infirme. Man vvas vvounded in free vvil by the sinne of Adam (as he that in the Gospel vvent dovvne from Hierusalem to Iericho,Luc. 10. which is a parable of this thing) he vvas not slaine altogether. but I stand not here, or in any place to dispute the controuersie, that is done els vvhere. This onely I say, because *Vvhitakers pag. 18. they falsely hold that free vvill vvas alto­gether lost by Adams sinne, therfore they translate accordingly, Vvhen vve had no strength. But the Greeke vvord is vvel knovven both in profane authors and Ecclesiastical, and specially in the nevv Testament it self, [Page 177]through out, to signifie nothing els, but, vveake, feeble, sicke, infirme.Multi inter vos infirmi sūt &c. 1 Cor. 11. v. 30. Cùm infir­mor, tum potens sum. 2 Cor. 12. v. 10. & alibi. looke me through the nevv Testamēt, vvheresoeuer, infirmitie, feeblenes, languishing, and the like are spoken of, there is found this Greeke vvord to expresse it. Vvhat Grecian knovveth not (be he but simply acquainted vvith phrases and nature of vvordes) vvhat [...], and [...], doe signifie. Vvhen the Apostle saith, Quis infirmatur, & ego non vror? 2 Cor. 11, 29 Vvho is vveake and infirme, and I am not much greiued? shal vve translate, vvho is of no strength, &c. or let them giue vs an instance, vvhere it is certaine that this vvord must needes sig­nifie, of no strength. [...] priuatiuū. [...]. Vvil they pretend the ety­mologie of the vvord? a ridiculous and absurd euasion. vve aske them of [...], a vvord of the very same significatiō, vvhich being compounded in like maner as the other, vvhat doth it signifie? any thing els but infirmitie and feeblenes? Yea it is so far from signi [...]ying, no strength, Lexicon ma­gnum Basi­leae. that the greatest Grecians say, it is not spoken proprely of him that for vveakenes keepeth his bedde, [...]. vvhich is [...], but of him that is il disposed and distempered in body. Yet the etymo­logie is al one vvith that word vvhich these men vvil haue to signifie him that hath no strength. And if they vvil needes vrge the etymologie, vve tel them, that [...] [Page 186]signifie, robur, that is, great strength such as is in the strongest and stoutest champions. and so the etymologie may take place, to signifie a man of no great strength, not, of no strength.pag. 209. But M. Vvhitaker putteth vs in good hope, they vvill not stand vpon etymologies.

14 Vvhen they haue bereaued and spoiled a man of his free vvill, & left him vvithout al strength, they goe so far in this point, that *Beza in An­not. Ro. 2, 27. they say, the regenerate them selues haue not free vvil and abilitie, no not by and vvith the grace of God, to keepe the com­maundements. To this purpose they trans­late (Io. 5, 3) thus:Mā dara eius grauia non sunt, [...]. His commaundements are not heauie. for in saying, they are not heauie, it would folovv, they might be kept & obser­ued: but in saying, they are not greuous, that may be true, were they neuer so heauie or impos­sible, through patience. As vvhen a man can not doe as he vvould, yet it greeueth him not, being patient and vvise, because he is content to doe as he can, and is able. Therfore doe they choose to translate, that the commaundements are not greuous, vvhere the Apostle saith rather, they are not heauie. much more agreably to our Sa­uiours vvordes, My burden is light: and to the wordes of God by Moyses, Deu. 30. This com­maundement [Page 187]vvhich I commaund thee this day, [...]. is not aboue thee (that is, beyond thy reache) but the vvord is very neere thee, in thy mouth and in thy hart, [...]. that thou maiest doe it: and to the cōmon signifi­cation of the Greeke vvord, vvhich is, heauie. Beza vvould say somevvhat in his commentarie, hovv the commaundements are heauie or light, but his conclusion is a­gainst free vvill, and that there can be no perfection in this life, inueighing against them that would proue it out of this place: vvhich is as much to say (but he is ashamed to speake plainely) that vve can not keepe the cōmaundements: vvhich the holy Do­ctors haue long since condemned & abhor­red as most absurd, that God should com­maūd that, vnder paine of dānation, which is impossible to be done.

15 Thus hauing taken avvay free vvil to doe good, and possibilitie to keepe the cō ­maundements, and al merite or valure and efficacie of good vvorkes, their next con­clusion is, that vve haue no true iustice or righteousnes in vs, but an imputatiue ius­tice, that is, Christs iustice imputed to vs, be vve neuer so foule and filthie in our soules, so that vve beleeue only, and by faith ap­prehend Christs iustice. For this purpose they corrupt the Scriptures in their English bibles, thus.

CHAP XI. Heretical translation for IMPVTATIVE IVSTICE, against true inhe­rent iustice.

1 ONE place might suffise, in steede of many, vvhere Beza doth pro­test, that his adding or alteration of the text, is, specially against the execrable errour of inherent iustice, Annot. in Rom. 5, 18. vvhich (he saith) is to be auoided as nothing more. His false translation, thus our English Be­zites and Caluinists folovv in their Bibles. Likevvise then as by the offense of one, Rom. 5. the fault came on al men to condemnation: so by the iustifying of one, the benefite abounded, tovvard al men to the iu­stification of life. Vvhere there are added to the text of the Apostle, sixe vvordes: and the same so vvilfully and voluntarily, that by the three first, they make the Apostle say, sinne came on al men by Adam, and they vvere made sinners in deede: by the three later, they make him say, not that iustice or righteousnes came likevvise on al men by Christ, to make them iust in deede, but that the benefite of Christs iustice abounded tovvards them, as being imputed forsooth vnto them. Vvhereas, if they Would needes adde to the text (vvhich yet is intolerable, so much, and in so doubtful a case) they [Page 181]should at the least haue made the case equal, as the Apostle him self teacheth them to doe, in the very next sentence, saying thus, For as by one mans disobedience many vvere made sinners, so by the obedience of one shal many also be made righteous. so they translate, rather then, be made iust. For they are the lothest men in the vvorld to say that vve are made iust, for feare of iustice inherent in vs, though the Scripture be neuer so plaine. as here vve see the Apostle maketh the case like, that vve are made iust by Christ, as vve vvere made sinners by Adam.

2 And it is a vvorld to see, hovv Beza shifteth from one significatiō of the vvord iustified, or, made iust, to an other. [...]. absolui. [...]. absoluitur. Sometime to be iustified, is to be pronoūced quitte from al sinne, or declared iust before Gods iudgement seate; & so he trāslateth it in the text Act. 13. v. 39. and as though his guilty conscience vvere afraid of a blovv, he saith he fleeth not the terme of iustifying or iu­stification, because he vseth it in other pla­ces. He doth so in deede, but then his com­mentarie supplieth the turne: as Ro. 2. v. 13. Not the hearers of the Lavv are RIGHTEOVS before God (so they delight to trāslate, rather then, IVST before God) but the doers of the Lavv shal be IVS TIFIED.Iusti pronū ­ctabuntur. that is (saith Beza) shal be pro­nounced iust. The Apostle must needes say by [Page 182]the coherence and consequence of his vvordes, not the hearers are iust, but the doers shal be iust or iustified. Beza vvil in no case haue it so, but either in text or com­mentarie make the Apostle say as him self imagineth.Annot. Ro. 3. v. 20. Yet in an other place he prote­steth very solemnely, that to be iustified, is not, to be pronounced or accounted iust, but rather to be iust in deede: and that, he proueth out of S. Paul, Ro. 5. v. 19. vvho maketh it al one, [...]. to be iustified, &, to be made iust. and againe by this reason, that it should be manifestly repugnant to Gods iustice, to account him for iust, that is not iust, and therfore that mā in deede is made iust. Thus Beza. Vvould you not thinke, he vvere come to be of our opinion? but he reuol­teth againe, & interpreteth al these goodly vvordes in his old sense,non quasi nobis inda­tur qualitas. saying, Not that any qualitie is invvardly giuen vnto vs, of vvhich vve are named iust: but because the iustice of Christ is imputed to vs by faith freely. By faith then at the least vve are truely iustified.Annot. in Ro. 4. v. 2. Not so neither, but faith (saith he) is an instrument vvherevvith vve apprehēd Christ our iustice. So that vve haue no more iu­stice in vs, then vve haue glorie: for glorie also vve apprehend by faith.

3 For this purpose both he and the En­glish Bibles translate thus:Pro iustitia. [...]. Abraham beleeued God, and it vvas reputed to him FOR IVSTICE [Page 183]Ro. 4. v. 3. & 9. Vvhere he interpreteth, for iustice, to be nothing els but,Vice & loco in the steede & place of iustice: so also taking avvay true inherent iustice euen from Abraham him self. But to admit their translation (vvhich notvvith­standing in their sense is most false) must it needes signifie, not true inherent iustice, be­cause the Scripture saith, it vvas reputed for iustice? Doe such speaches import, that it is not so in deede, but is onely reputed so? Then if vve say, This shal be reputed to thee for sinne: for a great benefite, and so forth: it should signifie, it is no sinne in deede, nor great benefite.Reputabitur tibi in pec­catum. But let them call to minde, that the Scripture vseth to speake of sinne & of iustice alike. It shal be sinne in thee, [...]. or, vnto thee, as they translate Bibl. 1577: or as S. Hierom translateth, It shal be reputed to thee for sinne: Deut. c. 23 & 24. and (as them selues translate) it shal be righteousnes vnto thee, before the Lord thy God. & againe Deut. c. 6. This shal be our righ­teousnes before the Lord our God, if vve keepe al the com­maundements, as he hath commaunded vs. If then iu­stice only be reputed, sinne also is only re­puted: if sinne be in vs in deede, iustice is in vs in deede.

4 Againe the Greeke fathers make it plaine, that to be reputed vnto iustice, Oecum. in caten. Pho­tius. is to be true iustice in deede, [...]. interpreting S. Paules vvordes in Greeke, thus: Abraham obtained iu­stice, [Page 184]Abraham vvas iustified. [...]. for that is, say they, It vvas reputed him to iustice. Doth not S. Iames say the like, (c. 2. v. 23) testifying, that in that Abraham vvas iustified by faith and vvorkes, the Scripture vvas fulfilled, that saith, It vvas reputed him to iustice? Gen. 15. v. 6. In vvhich vvordes of Genesis, vvhere these vvordes vvere first vvritten by Moyses, in the Hebrue there is not, for iustice, or, in steede of iustice, (vvhich Beza pleadeth vpon, by the Hebrue phrase) but thus, [...] He (God) reputed it vnto him, iustice. though here also the English Bibles adde, for. vvhich, precisely transla­ting the Hebrue they should not doe, spe­cially vvhen they meane it vvas so counted or reputed for iustice, that it was not iustice in deede.

5 But as for either the Hebrue or Greeke vvord, that is here vsed, to repute or account, they are then vsed, vvhen it must needes signifie, that the thing is so in deede, and not onely so reputed. as, Psal. 118. octonatio SAMEC. I haue reputed or accounted al the sinners of the earth, preuaricators or transgressors. praeuaricantes reputaui. [...]. 1 Cor. 4. So did the Septuaginta take the Hebrue vvord and reade it. And S. Paul, So let a man repute or account vs as the Ministers of Christ. Let them goe now & say, that neither they, vvere sinners in deede, nor these, Christs ministers in deede, because they vvere re­puted for such. let them say the children of [Page 185]the promis were not the seede of Abraham, [...] because the Apostle saith, Ro. 9. v. 8. they are reputed for the seede. But hovvsoeuer it be, the Protestants vvil haue it so to be taken, at the least in the matter of iustification.

6 Againe, vvhere S. Paul saith, 2 Cor. 5. That vve might be made the iustice of God in him: they in their first translations, intolerably corrupt it thus. That vve by his meanes should be that righteousnes, Bib. 1562. [...]. vvhich BEFORE GOD IS ALLOWED. Who taught them to trāslate so dissolutely, Iustitia Dei, the righteousnes vvhich before God is allovved? did not their errour and heresie, vvhich is, that God reputeth and accounteth vs for iust, though vve be in deede most foule sinners, and that our iu­stice being none at al in vs, yet is allovved and accepted before him for iustice and righteousnes?

7 Againe to this purpose:1 Eph. v. 6. they make S. Paul say that God hath made vs accepted, or freely accepted in his beloued sonne as they make the Angel in S. Luke say to our Lady, Haile freely beloued: [...]. to take avvay al grace inherent & residēt in the B. Virgin, or in vs: vvhereas the Apostles vvord signifieth, that vve are truely made gratious or grateful & accepta­ble, that is to say, that our soul is invvardly endued & beautified vvith grace & the ver­tues proceding thereof, & consequently is holy in deede before the sight of God, & not [Page 184] [...] [Page 185] [...] [Page 194]only so accepted or reputed, as they ima­gin. If they knovv not the true significa­tion of the Greeke vvord, & if their heresie vvil suffer them to learne it, let them heare S. Chrysostom not only a famous Greeke Doctor, but an excellent interpreter of al S. Paules epistles: vvho in this place putteth such force and significancie in the Greeke vvord, that he saith thus by an allusion and distinction of vvordes: [...]. He said not, VvHICH HE FREELY GAVE VS, but, WHEREIN HE MADE VS GRATEFVL, that is, not onely deli­uered vs from sinnes, but also made vs beloued and amia­ble, made our soule beautiful, grateful, such as the Angels and Archangels are desirous to see, and such as himself is in loue vvithal, according to that in the Psalme, THE KING SHAL DESIRE, or BE IN LOVE WITH THY BEAVTIE. So S. Chrysostom & after him Theophylacte, vvho vvith many mo vvordes & similitudes explicate this Greeke vvord and this making of the soule gra­tious and beautiful invvardly, truly, and inherently.

8 And I vvould gladly knovv of the Aduersaries, if the like Greeke vvordes be not of that forme and nature, to signifie so much as, [...]. to make vvorthy, to make meete: and vvhether he vvhom God maketh vvorthie, or meete, or grateful, iust, and holy, be not so in very deede, but by acceptation only. if not in deede, [...]. then God maketh him no [Page 195]better then he vvas before, but only accep­teth him for better: if he be so in deede, then the Apostles vvord signifieth not, to make accepted, but to make such an one as being by Gods grace sanctified and iusti­fied, is vvorthie to be accepted, for such pu­ritie, vertue, and iustice as is in him.

9 Againe, for this purpose (Dan. 6, 22.) they vvil not translate according to Chal­dee, [...]. Greeke, and Latin, Iustice vvas found in me. but they alter it thus, My iustice vvas found out. [...]. & other of them, My vnguiltinesse vvas found out. to dravv it from inherent iustice, vvhich vvas in Daniel.

10 Againe, it must needes be a spot of the same infection, that they translate thus, As Dauid DESCRIBETH the blessednes of the man vnto vvhom God imputeth righteousnes. [...]. Ro. 4, 6. as though imputed righteousnes vvere the de­scription of blessednes. They knovv the Greeke doth not signifie, to describe. I vvould once see them precise in folovving the Greeke and the Hebrue. if not, vve must looke to their fingers.

CHAP. XII. Heretical translation for SPECIAL FAITH, vaine securitie, and ONLY FAITH.

AL other meanes of saluation being thus taken avvay, their only & extreme refuge is, Only faith, and the same, not the Chri­stian faith of the articles of the Creede and such like, but a special faith and confidence, whereby euery man must assuredly beleeue, that him self is the sonne of God, and one of the elect and predestinate to saluation. If he be not by faith as sure of this as of Christs Incarnation, he shal neuer be saued.

2 For this heresie, they force the Greeke to expresse the very vvord of assurance and certaintie, thus: Let vs dravv nigh vvith a true hart, [...] IN ASSVRANCE OF FAITH. Heb. 10. v. 22. and Beza, certa persuasione fidei, that is, vvith a cer­taine and assured persuasion of faith: interpreting him self more at large in an other place,Annot. in 1 Luc. v. 1. that he meaneth thereby such a persuasion and so effectual, as by vvhich vve knovv assu­redly vvithout al doubt, that nothing can separate vs from God. Vvhich their here­tical meaning maketh their translation the lesse tolerable, because they neither expresse the Greeke precisely, nor intend the true sense of the Apostle. they expresse not the Greeke, vvhich signifieth properly the fulnes and complement of any thing, and therfore the Apostle ioyneth it sometime [Page 189]vvith faith, els vvhere (Hebr. 6. v. 11. [...].) vvith hope, vvith knovvledge, or ( [...]. Col. 2. v. 2.) vnderstanding, to signifie the fulnes of al three, as the vulgar Latin interpreter most sincerely ( [...]. Ro. 4. v. 21.) alvvaies translateth it: and to Timothee, ( [...] Ministerium tuum imple. An. 1577. an. 1562. 2 Tim. 4.) he vseth it to signifie the ful accomplishment and execu­tion of his ministerie in euery point. Where a man may vvonder that Beza to mainteine his conceiued signification of this vvord, translateth here also accordingly, thus: Ministery tui plenam fidem facito: but their more currant church English Bibles are content to say vvith the vulgar Latin interpreter, fulfil thy ministerie: or, fulfil thine office to the vtmost. and the Greeke fathers do finde no other interpretation. Thus,Ignat. Ep. Smyrn. vvhen the Greeke si­gnifieth fulnes of faith, [...]. Chrys. The­odoret. Theophyl. vpon. Ro. 10 rather then assu­rance or certaine persuasion, they translate not the Greeke precisely. Againe in the sense they erre much more, applying the foresaid wordes to the certaine and assured faith that euery man ought to haue (as they say) of his ovvne saluation. Vvhereas the Greeke fathers expound it of the ful and as­sured faith that euery faithful man must haue of al such things in heauen as he seeth not, namely that Christ is ascended thither, &c. adding further and prouing out of the Apostles vvordes next folovving, that the [Page 190]Protestants *Chryso. ho. 19. in c. 10. ad Hebr. only faith is not sufficient, be it neuer so special or assured.

3 Yet do these termes please them exce­dingly, [...], Fidei donum ele­ctum. [...]. Bib. 1577. in so much that for the chosen gift of faith, Sap. 3, 14. they translate, THE SPECIAL gift of faith: and Ro. 8, 38. I am sure, that nothing can separate vs from the loue of God. as though the Apostle vvere certaine and as­sured not only of his ovvne saluation, but of other mens. For to this sense they do so translate here, vvhereas in *Luc. 20, 6. Ro. 15, 14. Hebr. 6, 9. other places out of cōtrouersie, they translate the same vvord as they should do, I am persuaded. they are persuaded &c. For vvho knovveth not that [...] importeth onely a probable persuasion? They vvil say that, I am sure, and I am persuaded, is al one. Being vvel meant, they may in deede signifie alike, as the vul­gar Latin interpreter doth commonly trās­late it, but in this place of controuersie, vvhether the Apostle vvere sure of his sal­uation or no, vvhich you say he vvas, yea vvithout reuelation, vve say he vvas not: here vvhy vvould you translate, I am sure, & not as in other places, I am persuaded, but in fauour of your errour, by insinuating the termes of sure, & assurance, and such like: as els­vvhere you neglect the termes of iust and iustification.2 Cor. 4. In vvhich your secrete things of dishonesties and craftines (as the Apostle calleth [Page 191]it) vve can not alvvaies vse demōstrations to cōuince you: but yet euen in these things vve talke vvith your conscience, and leaue the consideration thereof to the vvise reader.

4 You hold also in this kinde of contro­uersie, that a man must assure him self that his sinnes be forgiuen. but in the booke of Ecclicus c. 5. v. 5. vve reade thus, Of thy sinne for­giuen, be not without feare. [...]. or (as it is in the Greeke) Of forgiuenes and propitiation be not vvithout feare, to heape sinne vpon sinnes. Vvhich you translate falsely thus: Because thy sinne is forgiuen thee, be not therfore vvithout feare. Is that [...], because thy sinne is forgiuen thee? You knovv it is not. but that vve should be afraid of the very forgiuenes thereof, whether our sinne be forgiuen or no, or rather, vvhether our sinne shal be forgiuen or no, if vve heape one sinne vpon an other. Vvhich seemeth to be the truest sense of the place, by the vvordes folovving. as though he should say, Be not bold vpon forgiuenesse to heape sinne vpon sinne, as though God vvil easily forgiue &c.

5 I touched before vpon an other occa­sion, hovv you adde to the text, making the Apostle say thus, Eph. 3.Bib. 1562. By vvhom vve haue bold­nes and entrance vvith THE CONFIDENCE VVHICH IS by the faith of him or (as in an other [Page 192]Bible,Bib. 1577. [...]. vvhich is al one) in the confidence by faith of him. The learned and skilful among you in the Greeke tongue, know that this trans­lation is false for tvvo causes. the one is, because the Greeke in that case should be thus, [...] an other cause is, the point after [...]. so that the very simple and sincere translation is this, vve haue affiance and accesse vvith confidence, by the faith of him euen as els where it is said, we haue confidence,1 Io. 3. if our hart reprehend vs not: vve haue confidence by keeping the commaundements, by tribulations and af­flictions and al good vvorkes.Hebr. 10. 2 Cor. 3. hope also giueth vs great confidence. Against al vvhich, your translation is preiudicial, li­miting & defining our confidence tovvard God, to be faith, as though vve had no con­fidence by vvorkes, or othervvise.

6 For this confidence by faith onely, Beza translateth so vvilfully and peruersely, that either you vvere ashamed to folovv him, or you lacked a cōmodious English vvord correspondent to his Latin, If I haue al faith (saith the Apostle) and haue not charitie, I am nothing. toiam fidem, [...]. 1 Cor. 13. Annot. in No. Test. 1556. (saith Beza) I had rather translate, then, omnem fidem, because the Apostle meaneth not al kinde of faith, to vvit, the faith that iusti­fieth: but he meaneth that if a man haue the faith of Christs omniporencie, or of any [Page 193]other article of the Creede, or of al vvholy and entierly and perfectly, that is nothing vvithout charitie. This is Bezas tota fides, vvhole faith, thinking by this translation to exempt from the Apostles vvordes their special iustifying faith, & vvrestling to that purpose in his annotations against Pighius & other Catholike Doctors. Whereas euery man of smal skill may see, [...]. that the Apostle nameth al faith, as he doth al knowledge & al mysteries: comprehēding al sortes of the one & of the other: al kind of knovvledge, al kinde of mysteries, al faith vvhatsoeuer, Christian, Catholike, historical, or special, vvhich tvvo later, are Heretical termes nevvly deuised.

7 And I vvould haue any of the Bezites giue me a sufficient reason, vvhy he trans­lated, totam fidem, and not also, totam scientiam. vndoubtedly there is no cause, but the he­resie of special and onely faith. And againe, vvhy he translateth Iaco. 2, 22. Thou seest, that faith vvas (administra) a helper of his vvorkes: and expoundeth it thus, faith vvas an efficient cause and fruiteful of good vvorkes. Whereas the Apo­stles vvordes be plaine, that faith vvrought together vvith his vvorkes, yea and that his faith vvas by vvorkes made perfecte. [...]. This is impudent handling of Scripture, to make vvorkes the fruite only and effect of faith, vvhich is your heresie.

8 Vvhich heresie also must needes be the cause, that, to suppresse the excellencie of charitie (which the Apostle giueth it aboue faith or any other gift vvhatsoeuer, in these vvordes, And yet I shevv you a more excellent vvay 1 Cor. 12. v. 31.) he in one edition of the nevv Testament (in the yere 1556.) translateth thus, Behold moreouer also I shevv you a vvay most diligently. [...]. Vvhat cold stuffe is this, and hovv imper­tinent? In an other edition (an. 1565.) he mended it thus: And besides I shevv you a vvay to excellencie. In neither of both expressing the comparison of preeminence & excellencie that charitie hath in the Apostles vvordes, and in al the chapter folovving. Vvherein you did wel (for your credite) not to folow him (no not your Bezites them selues) but to translate after our vulgar Latin interpre­ter, as it hath alvvaies been read and vnder­stood in the Church.

9 Luther vvas so impudent in this case, that, because the Apostle spake not plaine­ly ynough for only faith, he thrust (only) into the text of his translation, *Luther. to. 2 fol. 405. edi. wittēb. an. 1551. as him self vvitnesseth. You durst not hitherto pre­sume so far in this question of only faith though *Act. 9, 22. Bib. 1577. 1 Pet. 1, 25. 2 Par. 36, 8. 2 Cor. 5, 21. 1 Pet 2, 13 in the Bib. 1562. in other controuersies you haue done the like, as is shevved in their places. But I vvil aske you a smaller matter, which in vvordes and shevv you may perhaps [Page 195]easily ansvver, but in your conscience there vvil remaine a gnavving vvorme. In so many places of the Gospel, vvhere our Sa­uiour requireth the peoples faith, vvhen he healed them of corporal diseases only, why do you so gladly translate thus,Mar. 10, 52. Luc. 18, 42. &c. 8. v. 48. Thy faith hath saued thee: rather then thus, thy faith hath healed thee, or, made the vvhole? is it not, by ioyning these vvordes together, to make it sound in En­glish eares, that faith saueth or iustifieth a man? in so much that Beza noteth in the margent thus, fides saluat: that is, faith saueth. & your Geneua Bibles, in that place vvhere it can not be taken for faith that iustifieth, because it is not the parties faith, but her fathers that Christ required, there also translate thus, Beleeue only, and she shal be saued. Luc. 8, 50. Vvhich translation, though very false and impertinēt for iustifying faith, as you seeme to acknovvledge by translating it other­vvise in your other Bibles:See Goughs sermon and Tom sons answer to the L. Abbot of vvest­mester. yet in deede you must needes mainteine & hold it for good, whiles you alleage this place for only faith, as is euident in your vvritings.

10 This then you see is a fallacie, vvhen faith only is required to the health of the body, as in many such places (though not in al) there by translation to make it sound a iustifying faith, as though faith only were required to the health of the soule. Whereas [Page 194] [...] [Page 195] [...] [Page 196]that faith vvas of Christs omnipotēcie only & povver,Annot. in 1 Cor. 13, 2. vvhich Beza confesseth may be in the diuels them selues, and is far from the faith that iustifieth. If you say, the Greeke signifieth as you translate: it doth so in deede, but it signifieth also very commonly to be healed corporally, as (by your ovvne translation) in these places.Bib. 1577. Marc. 5. v. 28. Marc. 6. v. 36. Luc. 8. v. 36. & v. 51. Where you translate, I shal be vvhole. They vvere healed. He vvas healed. She shal be made vvhole. And vvhy do you here trāslate so? because you knovv, to be saued, importeth rather an other thing, to vvit, saluation of the soule: and therfore vvhen faith is ioyned withal, you translate rather, saued, then healed (though the place be meant of bodily health only) to insinuate by al meanes your iustification by only faith.

CHAP. XIII. Heretical translation against PENANCE and SATISFACTION.

VPON the heresie of onely faith iustifying and sauing a man, fo­lovveth the denial of al penāce & satisfaction for sinnes. Vvhich Beza so abhorreth, (Annot, in Mat. 3. v. 2.) that he maketh protestation, that he auoideth these termes, [...]. Poenitentia, and, Poenitentiam agere, of purpose: and that he vvill alvvaies vse for them in translating the Greeke vvordes [Page 197] resipiscentia, and, resipiscere. Vvhich he doth ob­serue perhaps, but that sometimes he is vvorse then his promis,Act. 26.20 in No. Test­an. 1556. and in his later translation 1565. Mat 3. v. 8. Luc. 3. v. 8. translating most falsely and heretically for resipiscentia, resipiscen­tes: so that your English Bezites them selues are ashamed to translate after him. Vvho othervvise folovv his rule for the most part, translating resipiscentia, amendement of life: & resipiscite, amend your liues. & the other English bibles vvhen they translat best, say, repentance, & repent: but none of them all once haue the vvordes, penance, and, doe penance. Vvhich in most places is the very true translation, ac­cording to the very circūstance of the text, and vse of the Greeke vvord in the Greeke Church, [...], Agere poeni­tentiam. and the auncient Latin translation thereof and al the fathers reading thereof, and their expositions of the same. Vvhich foure pointes I thinke not amis, briefely to proue, that the reader may see the vse and signification of these vvordes, vvhich they of purpose vvill not expresse, to auoid the termes of, penance, and, doing penance.

That [...] is to doe penāce. [...] poeniten­tiā egissent.2 First, that the circumstance of the text doth giue it so to signifie, vve read in Saint Mathevv, c. 11, v. 21. If in Tyre and Sidon had been vvrought the miracles that haue been vvrought in you, they had done penance in hearecloth or sackecloth and ashes long agoe. And in S. Luc. c. 10. v. 13. they had done penance, sitting in sackecloth and ashes. I beseeche [Page 198]you, these circunstances of sackcloth and ashes adioyned, doe they signifie penance and affliction of the body, or only amēde­ment of life, as you vvould haue the vvord to signifie? S. Basil saith, in Ps. 29. Sack­cloth maketh for penance. [...]. For the fathers in old time sit­ting in sackcloth and ashes, did penance. Vnles you vvil translate S. Basil also after your fashiō, vvhom you can not any vvay translate, but the sense must needes be, penāce, & doing penāce. Againe S. Paul saith, You vvere made sorie to pe­nance, or,2 Co. 7, 9. to repentance, say vvhich you vvill: and The sorovv vvhich is according to God, vvorketh penāce, or, repentance vnto saluation. Is not sorovv and bitter mourning & affliction, partes of pe­nance? Did the incestuous man vvhom S. Paul excommunicated,1 Cor. 5. and aftervvard ab­solued him because of his exceding sorovv and teares,2 Cor. 2. for feare lest he might be ouer­vvhelmed vvith sorovv, did he I say chāge his minde only or amend his life, as you translate the Greeke vvord, and interpret repentance? did he not penance also for his fault,Mat. 3. Luc. 3. Act. 26. enioyned of the Apostle? vvhen S. Iohn the Baptist saith, & S. Paul exhorteth the like, Doe fruites vvorthie of penance, or as you translate, meete for repentance: Doe they not plainely signifie penitential vvorkes, or the vvorkes of penance? vvhich is the very cause vvhy Beza rather translated in those [Page 199]places,Fructus dig­nos ijs qui re­sipuerint. [...]. Doe the fruites meete for them that amend their liues. or, giue vs some other good cause ô ye Bezites, vvhy your maister doth so fouly falsifie his translation.

3 Secondly, for the signification of this Greeke vvord in al the Greeke Church, and Greeke fathers, euen from S. Denys the Aeropagite S. Paules scholer, vvho must needes deduce it from the Scriptures, and learne it of the Apostles: it is most euident, that they vse this vvord for that penance vvhich vvas done in the primitiue Church according to the penitētial canons, vvher­of al antiquitie of Councels and fathers is ful.Ec. Hier. c. 3. in principio. in so much that S. Denys reckening vp the three sortes of persons that vvere excluded from seeing and participating of the diuine mysteries of Christes body and bloud,Paenitentes. [...]. to vvit, Catechumens, Poenitents, and the possessed of il spirites: for, Poeni­tents, he saith in the Greeke, [...]. that is, such as vvere in their course of penance, or had not yet done their ful pe­nance. Vvhich penance S. Augustine de­clareth thus: (Ho. 27. inter 50 ho. and ep. 108.) Est poenitentia grauior. &c. There is a more greuous and more mourneful penance, vvhereby proprely they are cal­led in the Church, that are Poenitentes: remoued also from partaking the sacramēt of the altar. And the Greeke Ecclesiastical historie thus:Sozom. li. 7. c. 16. In the Church of Rome there is a manifest and knovven place for the [Page 200]POENITENTS. & in it they stād sorovvful, & as it vvere mourning, [...]. See S. Hier. in epitaph. Fabiolae. & vvhen the sacrifice is ended, being not made partakers thereof, vvith vveeping and lamentation they cast them selues flat on the ground. then the Bishop vvee­ping also vvith compassion lifteth them vp, and after a cer­taine time enioyned, absolueth thē frō their penāce. This, the Priests, or, Bishops of Rome keepe from the very be­ginning euen vntil our time.

4 In these vvordes & other in the same chapter,Li. 5. c. 19. & in Socrates Greeke historie like­vvise whē they speake of Poenitents, that con­fessed and lamented their sinnes, that vvere enioyned penance for the same, & did it: I vvould demaund of our English Graecians, in vvhat Greeke vvordes they expresse al this. Do they it not in the vvordes vvhich vve novv speake of, & vvhich therfore are proued most euidētly to signifie penāce & doing penāce? Againe, vvhen the most aū ­cient Coūcel of Laodicea can. 2. saith, [...]. That the time of penāce should be giuen to offenders according to the proportion of the fault: and againe, can. 9. That such shal not communicate til a certaine time, but after they haue done penance and confessed their fault, then to be receiued: and againe Can. 19. After the Catechumens are gone out, that praier be made of the Penitents, or them that are in doing penance: And vvhen the first Councel of Nice saith, can. 12. about shortening or pro­longing the daies of penance, that they must vvel examine their purpose and maner of doing penance. that is, vvith what alacritie of minde, teares, patience, humilitie, good vvorkes, they ac­complished the same, and accordingly to [Page 201]deale more mercifully vvith them, as is there expressed in the councel: vvhen S. Basil, Can. 1. ad Amphiloch. speaketh after the same sort: vvhen S. Chrysostom calleth the sackcloth and fasting of the Niniuites for certaine daies, tot dierum poenitentiam, so many daies penance: in al these places, I would gladly knovv of our English Grecians, vvhether these speaches of penance and doing pe­nance, are not expressed by the said Greeke vvordes, vvhich they vvil in no case so to signifie.

5 Or, I vvould also aske them, vvhether in these places they vvil translate, repentance, and, amendement of life, vvhere there is mentio­ned a prescript time of satisfaction for their fault by such and such penal meanes: vvhe­ther there be any prescript times of repen­tance or amendement of life, to continue so long, and no longer: if not, then must it needes be translated, Penance, and, doing penance, vvhich is longer or shorter according to the fault and the maner of doing the same. I may repent in a moment, and amend my life at one instant, and this repentance and amendement ought to continue for euer. but the holy Councels and fathers speake of a thing to be done for certaine yeres or daies, and to be released at the Bishops dis­cretion: this therfore is penance, and not [Page 202]repentance only or amendemēt of life, and is expressed by the foresaid Greeke wordes, as also by * [...]. an other equiualent therevnto.

6 I omit that this very phrase, to doe penance, is vvord for word expressed thus in Greeke,Litur. Chrys. in rubricis, pag. 69. 104. [...]. And Ausonius the Xp̄ian Poëte (vvhom I may as vvel alleage once, and vse it not,Metanoea. as they do Virgil, Terence, and the like very often) vseth this Greeke vvord so euidētly in this sense,Annot. in 3 Mat. v. 2. that Beza saith, he did it for his verse sake, because an other vvord vvould not stand so vvel in the verse. But the reader (I trust) seeth the vse and signifi­cation of these Greeke vvordes by the testi­monie of the Greeke fathers them selues, most auncient and approued.

7 Thirdly, that the auncient Latin Inter­preter doth commonly so translate these vvordes through out the nevv Testament, [...] Poenitētiam agere. that needeth no proofe, neither vvil I stand vpon it (though it be greater authoritie then they haue any to the cōtrarie) because the Aduersaries knovv it and mislike it, and for that and other like pointes it is belike, that one of them saith it is the vvorst trans­lation of al,Discou. of Sand. Rocke pag. 147. Prae fat. in No. Test. an. 1556. vvhereas Beza his Maister saith it is the best of al. so vvel they agree in iud­gement, the Maister and the man.

8 I come to the fourth proofe, vvhich is, that al the Latin Church and the glorious [Page 203]Doctors thereof haue alvvaies read as the vulgar Latin interpreter translateth these vvordes, and expound the same of penance, and doing penance. To name one or tvvo for an example,Ep. 108. S. Augustines place is very notable, vvhich therfore I set dovvne, and may be translated thus:Agunt ho­mines poe­nitentiam. Act. 2. Men doe penance before Baptisme, of their former sinnes, yet so that they be also baptized, Peter saying thus, DOE YE PENANCE, AND LET EVERY ONE BE BAPTIZED. Men also doe penance, if after Baptisme they do so sinne, that they deserue to be excommunicated and reconciled againe, as in al Churches they doe vvhich be called, Sicut agunt qui Poeni­tētes appel­lantur. POENITENTES. For of such penance spakes S▪ Paul, 2 Cor. 12, 21. saying, THAT I LAMENT NOT MANY OF THEM WHICH BEFORE HAVE SINNED, AND HAVE NOT DONE PENANCE FOR THEIR VNCLEANNESSE. Vve haue also in the Actes, Act. 8, 18. that Simon Magus being baptized, vvas admonished by Peter TO DOE PENANCE for his greuous sinne. Vt agerat poenitentiā. There is also in maner a daily Penance of the good and humble beleeuers, in vvhich vve knocke our breastes, saying, FORGIVE VS OVR DETTES. For these (venial and daily offenses) fastes and almes and praiers are vvatchfully vsed, Quotidianā agere poeni­tontiam. and humbling our soules vve cease not after asort to doe daily penance.

9 In these vvordes of S. Augustine it is plaine that he speaketh of painful or peni­tential vvorkes for satisfaction of sinnes, that is, penance: againe, that there are three kindes of the same, one before Baptisme, an other after Baptisme for great offenses, greater and longer: the other daily for com­mon [Page 204]and litle venial faultes vvhich the best men also cōmit in this fraile nature. againe, that the tvvo former are signified & spoken of in the three places of Scripture by him alleaged. Where vve see, that he readeth altogether as the vulgar interpreter trans­lateth, and expoundeth al three places of penance for sinne, & so approueth that sig­nification of the Greeke vvord. Yea in saying that for venial sinnes vve knocke our breast, fast, giue almes, and pray, and so cease not Quotidianam agere poenitentiam: vvhat doth he meane but daily penance and satis­faction? Reade also S. Cyprian (beside other places) epist. 52. num. 6. Vvhere his citatiōs of Scripture are according to the old Latin interpreter, and his exposition according, of doing penance, and making satisfaction for sinnes committed. But I neede not pro­cede further in alleaging either S. Cyprian or other auncient fathers for this purpose, because the Aduersaries graūt it. Hovvbeit in vvhat termes they graunt it, and hovv malapertly they accuse al the auncient fa­thers at once for the same, it shal not be amis here to put dovvne their vvordes.

10 Vvhereas the reuerend, godly, and learned Father, Edmund Campion, had ob­iected in his booke, the Protestants accu­sation of S. Cyprian for the matter of pe­nance [Page 205]the good man that ansvvereth for both vniuersities, saith thus to that point:Vvhitak. pa. 97. cont. ra­tion. Edm. Camp. But vvhereas Magdeburgenses (Lutheran vvriters of that citie) complaine that he depraued the doctrine of re­pentance, they do not feine or forge this crime against him, but vtter or disclose it. Doctrinam poenitentiae. For al men vnderstand that it vvas to true. Neither vvas this Cyprians fault alone, De poeni­tentia. Imprudēter. that he vvrote of repentance many things incommodiously and vnvvisely, but al the most holy fathers almost at that time vvere in the same errour. For vvhiles thy desired to re­straine mens manners by seuere lavves, Poenitentiae. they made the greatest part of repentance to consist in certaine external discipline of life, vvhich them selues prescribed. In that they punished vice seuerely, they were to be borne withal: but that by this meanes they thought to pay the paines due for sinnes, and to satisfie Gods iustice, and to procure to them selues assured impunitie, remission, and iustice, ther­in they derogated not a litle from Christs death, attribu­ted to much to their ovvne inuentions, & finally depraued repentance. Thus far the Ansvverer.

11 Marke hovv he accuseth the fathers in general of no lesse crime, then taking avvay from Christ the merites of his Passion, at­tributing it to their ovvne penance and di­scipline. Vvhich if they did, I maruel he should call them in this very place vvhere he beginneth to charge them vvith such a crime, sanctissimos patres, most holy fathers. The truth is, he might as vvel charge S. Paul vvith the same, vvhen he saith,Rom. 2. vve shal Be the heires of God, and coheires vvith Christ, yet so, if vve suffer vvith him, that vve may also be glorified vvith him. S. Paul saith, our suffering also vvith [Page 206]Christ, is necessarie to saluation: Maister vvhitakers saith, it is a derogatiō to Christs suffering. Christ fasted for vs, therfore our fasting maketh nothing to saluation. He praied for vs, vvas scourged, and died for vs: therfore our praier, scourging, and em­prisonment, yea & death it self for his sake, make nothing to life euerlasting, and if vve should thinke it doth, vve derogate from Christs Passion. Alas, is this the diuinitie of England novv a daies? to make the simple beleeue that the auncient fathers and holy men of the primitiue Church by their se­uere life and voluntarie penance for their sinnes and for the loue of Christ, did ther­in derogate from Christes merites and Passions?

12 I may not stand vpon this point, nei­ther neede I. the principal matter is proued by the Aduersaries cōfession, that the holy Doctors spake, vvrote, and thought of pe­nance and doing penance as vve doe, in the same termes both Greeke and Latin: and vvith Catholikes it is alvvaies a good argu­ment, and vve desire no better proofe, then this, The Protestants graunt, al the aūcient fathers vvere of our opinion, and they say it vvas their errour. For, the first part being true, it is madnesse to dispute, vvhether al the aūciént fathers erred, or rather the nevv [Page 207]Protestants. as it is more then madnesse to thinke that Luther alone might see the truth more then a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches. Vvhich not vvithstanding the palpable ab­surditie thereof,pag. 101. yet M. Whitakers auou­cheth it very solemnely.

13 And yet againe (that the reader may see hovv they play fast and loose at their pleasure) this is the man that vvhen he hath giuen vs al the fathers on our side not only in the matter of penance,pag. 109. but also *pag. 101. in in­uocation of Sainctes, and in diuers other errours, as he calleth them: the very same man (I say) in the very next leaues almost,pag. 114. 117. renevveth M. Iuels old bragge, that vve haue not one cleere sentence for vs of any one father vvithin sixe hundred yeres after Christ, and againe, that the same faith reig­neth novv in England, vvhich these fathers professed. Vvhat faith, M. vvhitakers? not their faith concerning penance, or inuoca­tion of Saincts (as your self confesse) or other such like errours of theirs as you terme them. Vvhy are you so forgetful or rather so impudent to speake contraries in so litle a roome? Such simple ansvvering vvil not serue your aduersaries learned booke, vvhich you in vaine goe about by foolish Rhetorike to disgrace, vvhen the [Page 208]vvorld seeth you are driuen to the vvall, & either can say nothing, or do say that, vvhich confuteth it self vvith the euident absurditie thereof.

14 But to leaue M. Whitakers (vvho is a simple cōpanion, to sit in iudgemēt vpon al the aunciēt Doctors, & to condemne them of heinous errour in the matter of penāce) I trust the reader seeth by the former dis­course, the vsual Ecclesiastical signification, and consequently both the true and false translation of the foresaid Greeke vvordes. [...]. Not that they must or may alvvaies be trās­lated, [...]. penance, or, doing penance. For in the Scri­ptures God is said Poenitentiam agere, [...]. vvho can not be said to doe penance, no more then he can be said to amend his life, as the Pro­testants commonly translate this vvord. Therfore I conclude, that this vvord being spoken of God in the Scriptures, is no more preiudice against our translation of doing penance, then it is against theirs, of amendement of life. Likevvise vvhen it is spoken of the reprobate & damned in hel: [...] Sap. 5. Poenitētiam agentes. vvho as they can not doe penance propre­ly, so much lesse amend their liues.

15 Moreouer, it is purposely against pe­nance, that they translate amisse both in Daniel & Esdras,Esd. c 9. Dan. 10. vvhose voluntarie mour­ning, fasting, afflicting of them selues for [Page 209]their owne sinnes and the peoples, is noto­riously set forth in their bookes. There they make the Angel say thus to Daniel.v. 12. Bib. 1579. From the first day that thou didst set thine hart TO HVMBLE thy self. Vvhat is this humbling him self? can vve gather any penance there­by? none at al. but if they had said accor­ding to the Hebrue, Greeke, and Latin, [...] vt te afflige­res. from the first day that thou didst set thine hart TO AFFLICY thy self, [...] vve should easily conceiue vvorkes of penance, and it vvould include Daniels mourning, fasting from flesh, vvine, and other meates, abstaining from ointments, the space of the daies, mentioned in the beginning of the same chapter.

16 Againe, in al their bibles of the yeres 1562. 1577. 1579. they make Esdras c. 9, 5. after his exceding great penance, [...]. say onely this, About the euening sacrifice I arose vp from my HEAVINESSE. neither translating the He­brue, [...] vvhich is the same vvord that in Da­niel, nor the Greeke, vvhich signifieth af­fliction and humiliation.

17 Againe, in the prophet Malachie (c. 3, 14.) they translate thus: Ye haue said, It is but vaine to serue God, and vvhat profite is it that vve haue kept his commaundements and vvalked HVMBLY be­fore his face? Vvhat is this same, humbly? vvhen vve say in English, he goeth humbly: vve ima­gine or conceiue no more but this, that he is an humble man and behaueth him self [Page 210]humbly. but they knovv very vvel, the Prophete speaketh of an other thing: and if it had pleased them to haue translated the Hebrue vvord fully and significantly in the sense of the holy Ghost, [...] they might haue learned by cōference of other places where the same Hebrue vvord is vsed, that it sig­nifieth such heauines, sadnes, sorovvfulnes, and affliction, as men expresse by blacke mourning garmēts, the nature of the vvord importing blacknes, darkenes, lovvring, & the like. Vvhich is far more then vvalking humbly, and vvhich is vvholy suppressed by so translating. See the Psalme 34. v. 14. Ps. 37. v. 7. Ps. 41. v. 10. Vvhere the Prophet vseth many vvordes & speaches to expresse sorovvful penance: [...]. and for that vvhich in Latin is alvvaies, contristatus, in Greeke a vvord more significant, [...] in Hebrue it is the same kind of vvord that they translate, humbly. Vvhereas in deede this vvord hath no signification of humilitie proprely, no not of that humilitie I meane vvhich is ra­ther to be called humiliation or affliction, as the Greeke words implie. But it signifieth proprely the very maner, [...]. countenance, ges­ture, habite of a pensife or forlorne man: and if they vvil say, that they so translate it in other places, the more is their fault, that knovving the nature of the vvord, [Page 211]they vvil notvvithstanding suppresse the force and signification thereof in any one place, & so translate it, that the reader must needes take it in an other sense, and can not possibly conceiue that vvhich the vvord importeth. for, to vvalke humbly, soundeth in al English eares, the vertue of humility, vvhich this vvord doth neuer signifie, and not humilitie or humiliation by affliction, vvhich it may signifie, though secondarely and by deduction onely.

18 Againe, vvhat is it els but against pe­nance & satisfaction, that they deface these vsual and knovven vvordes of Daniel to the King, Redime eleemosynis peccatatua, Dan. 4, 24. Redeeme thy sinnes vvith almes: [...]. altering and translating it thus, Breake of thy sinnes by righteousnes. First, the Greeke is against them, vvhich is vvord for vvord according to the vulgar and cōmon reading: Secōdly, [...] the Chaldee word vvhich they translate, breake of, by Munsters ovvne iudgemēt in lexico Chald. signifieth rather and more principally, to redeeme. Thirdly, the other vvord vvhich they trāslate, righteousnes, in the Scriptures signifieth also, eleemosynam, as the Greeke interpreters translate it Deut. 6. & 24. and it is most plaine in S. Mat­thevv, vvhere our Sauiour saith (Mat. 6. v. 1) Bevvare you doe not your iustice before men. [...]. Vvhich is in other Greeke copies, your almes. And S. Au­gustine [Page 212]proueth it by the very text.in Ps. 49. v. 5 for (saith he) as though a man might aske, vvhat iustice? he addeth, WHEN THOV DOEST AN ALMES DEEDE. He signified therfore that almes are the workes of iustice. Psal. 111. And in the Psal. they are made one, He distributed, he gaue to the poore, his iustice remaineth for euer and euer. Vvhich Beza translateth, his beneficence or liberalitie remaineth &c. Againe, S. Hierom a sufficient Doctor to tel the signification of the Hebrue or Chaldee vvordes, both translateth it so, and expoun­deth it so in his commentarie. Moreouer, the vvordes that immediatly folovv in Da­niel, interprete it so vnto vs, And thy iniquities vvith mercies to the poore. Annot. in Mat. 6. v. 1. Lastly, Beza him self saith, that by the name of iustice vvith the Hebrues, is also signified beneficence or beneficialnes to the poore, yea and that in this place of Daniel it is specially taken for almes. 2 Cor. 9. So that vve see there is no impediment neither in the Chaldee nor Greeke, vvhy they might not haue said, as the Church of God alvvaies hath said, Redeeme thy sinnes vvith almes, and thy iniquities vvith mercies to the poore, but their Heresie vvill not suffer them to speake after the Catholike maner, that almes and merciful deedes are a redemption, ransom, and satisfaction for sinnes.

19 And vvhat a miserable humor is it in these cases, to flie as far as they can from the aūcient receiued speache of holy Scripture, [Page 213]that hath so many yeres sounded in al faith­ful eares, and to inuent nevv termes and phrases, when the original text both Greeke and Hebrue fauoureth the one as much, or more, then the other. as, that they choose to say in the Epistle to Titus (vvhere the Apostle excedingly exhorteth to good vvorkes) mainteine good vvorkes, and, shevv forth good vvorkes, rather then according to the auncient Latin translation, bonis operibus praeesse, [...]. to be cheefe and principal in doing good vvorkes, vvhich is the very true and vsual signification of the Greeke vvord, and implieth a vertuous emulation among good men, vvho shal doe most good vvorkes or excel in that kinde. But they that looke to be saued by faith onely, no maruel if neither their doings nor translations tend to any such excellencie.

CHAP. XIIII. Heretical translation against the holy SACRA­MENTS, namely BAPTISME and CONFESSION.

1 AN other sequele of their only faith is, that the Sacra­ments also helpe nothing tovvard our saluation, and therfore they partely take [...]hem cleane avvay, partly depriue them of [Page 214]al grace, vertue, and efficacie, making them poore & beggarly elements, either vvorse, or no better then those of the old Lavv.

2 For this purpose Beza is not content to speake as the Apostle doth, [...]. (Ro. 4. v. 11.) that circumcision vvas a seale of the iustice of faith, but because he thinketh that, to small a terme for the dignitie of circumci­sion, as him self confesseth,libens refugi­quod obsigna­ret, for, si­gillum. he gladly auoideth is (I vse his ovvne wordes) & for the Novvne putteth the Verbe, so dissolutely and pre­sumptuously, that the English Bezites them selues here also dare not folovv him in trāslation, though in opinion they agree. The cause of his vvilful translation he de­clareth in his Annotations vpon the same place, to vvit, the dignitie of circumcision, equal vvith any Sacrament of the nevv Te­stament. His vvordes be these. Vvhat (saith he) could be spoken more magnifical of any Sacrament? therfore they that put a real difference betvvene the Sacraments of the old Testament and ours, neuer seeme to haue knovven hovv far Christs office extendeth. Vvhich he saith, not to magnifie the old, but to disgrace the nevv.

3 Vvhich is also the cause vvhy not only he, but the English Bibles (for commonly they ioyne handes and agree together) to make no difference betvvene Iohns Bap­tisme and Christs, translate thus concerning [Page 215]certaine that had not yet receiued the holy Ghost: Vnto vvhat then vvere ye baptized? Act. 19.3. And they said, vnto Iohns Baptisme. Vvhich Beza in a long discourse proueth to be spoken of Iohns doctrine, and not of his baptisme in vvater. As though it vvere said, vvhat doctrine then do ye professe? and they said, Iohns. Vvhereas in deede the question is this, and ought thus to be translated, In vvhat then or vvherein vvere you bap­tized? And they said, In Iohns Baptisme. As vvho should say, vve haue receiued Iohns Bap­tisme, but not the holy Ghost as yet. and therfore it folovveth immediatly, then they vvere baptized in the name of Iesus, & after imposi­tion of handes the Holy Ghost came vpon them. Vvhereby is plainely gathered, that being baptized vvith Iohns baptisme before, and yet of necessitie baptized aftervvard vvith Christs baptisme also, there must needes be a great differēce betvvene the one baptisme and the other, Iohns being insufficient. And that this is the deduction vvhich trou­bleth these Bezites, and maketh them trans­late accordingly, Beza (as commonly still he vttereth his greefe) telleth vs in plaine vvordes thus. It is not necessarie, Annot. in Act. 19. that vvheresoeuer there is mention of Iohns Baptisme, vve should thinke it to be the very ceremonie of Baptisme. therfore they that gather Iohns Baptisme to haue been diuers from Christs, because these a litle after are said to be baptized in the name of Iesus Christ, haue no sure foundation. Loe, hovv of [Page 216]purpose he translateth and expoundeth it Iohns doctrine, not Iohns Baptisme, to take avvay the foundation of this Catho­like conclusion, that his baptisme differeth and is far inferior to Christs.

4 But doth the Greeke leade him or force him to this translation, [...] In quid? vnto vvhat? First him self confesseth in the very same place the contrarie, that the Greeke phrase is often vsed in the other sense, vvherein, or vvherevvith, as it is in the vulgar Latin and Erasmus: but that in his iudgement it doth not so signifie here, and therfore he refuseth it. Yet in the very next verse almost, vvhere it is said by the same Greeke phrase, that they vvere baptized in the name of Iesus Christ, [...] there both he and his, so translate it as vve doe, & not, vnto the name of Christ. Is it not plaine, that al is voluntarie, and at their pleasure? For (I be­seeche them) if it be a right translation, baptized in the name of Iesus: vvhy is it not right, baptized in the baptisme of Iohn? Is there any diffe­rence in the Greeke? none. Vvhere then? in their commentaries and imaginations only, against vvhich vve oppose and set both the text and the commentaries of al the fathers.

5 But no maruel if they disgrace the bap­tisme of Christ, vvhen they are bold also to take it avvay altogether: interpreting this [Page 217]Scripture,10.3. v. 5. Vnles a man be borne againe of vvater and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God, vvhich a man vvould thinke vvere plaine ynough to proue that Baptisme in vvater is necessarie: interpreting (I say) this Scrip­ture, Of vvater and the Spirit, thus: of vvater,Beza in. 4.10. v. 10. & in Tit. 3. v. 5. that is, the Spirit: making vvater to be no­thing els in this place but the Spirit allego­rically, and not material vvater. As though our Sauiour had said to Nicodemus, Vnles a man be borne of vvater, I meane, of the spirit, he can not enter, &c. According to this most impudent exposition of plaine Scriptures, Caluin translateth also as impudently for the same purpose in the epistle to Titus,c. 3. v. 5. Per lauacrū regeneratio­nis Sp. sancti QVOD of­fudit in nos abunde. making the Apostle to say, that God povvred the vva­ter of regeneration vpon vs aboundantly, that is, the holy Ghost. And lest vve should not vnderstand his meaning herein, he telleth vs in his commentarie vpon this place, that vvhen the Apostle saith, Vvater povvred out aboundantly, he speaketh not of ma­terial vvater, but of the holy Ghost. Novv in deede the Apostle saith not, that vvater vvas povvred vpon vs, but the holy Ghost. neither doth the Apostle make vvater and the holy Ghost al one, but most plainely distinguisheth them, saying, that God of his mercie hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and re­nouation of the Holy Ghost, Quem effudit as Beza him self transla­teth. vvhom he hath povvred vpon vs aboundantly. See hovv plainely the Apo­stle [Page 218]speaketh both of the material vvater or vvashing of Baptisme, and of the effect thereof vvhich is the holy Ghost povvred vpon vs. Caluin taketh avvay vvater cleane and vvil haue him speake only of the holy Ghost,Comment. in hunc lo­cum. vvhich Flaccus Illyricus the Luthe­ran him self vvondereth at, that any man should be so bold, and calleth it plaine sa­crilege against the efficacie of the Sacra­ments.

6 And if vve should here accuse the En­glish translatours also, that translate it thus, by the fountaine of the regeneration of the holy Ghost, VVHICH he shedde on vs, &c. making it indif­ferent, either vvhich fountaine, or, vvhich holy Ghost he shedde, &c: they vvould ansvver by & by that the Greeke also is indifferent: but if a man should aske them further, vvhether the holy Ghost may be said to be shedde, or rather a fountaine of vvater, they must needes confesse, not the holy Ghost, but vvater: and consequently that they trans­lating, vvhich he shedde, vvould haue it meant of the fountaine of vvater, & so they agree iust vvith Caluins translation, and leaue Beza,Sp. sancti, que effudit. vvho in his translation referreth it only to the holy Ghost, as vve doe: but in his commentarie plaieth the Heretike as Caluin doth.

7 Of the Sacrament of penance I haue spoken before, concerning that part spe­cially vvhich is satisfaction: here I vvill only adde of Confession, that to auoid this terme (namely in such a place vvhere the reader might easily gather Sacramental cō ­fession) they translate thus, [...], Whereof Confession is called in S. Cyprian and other fathers, Exe­mologêsis. Acknovvledge your faultes one to an other. Iac. 5. It is said a litle be­fore, If any be diseased, let him bring in Priests, &c. And then it folovveth, Confesse your faultes. &c. But they to make al sure, for, Confesse, say, Ac­knovvledge: & for Priests, Elders. Vvhat meane they by this? If this acknovvledging of faultes one to an other before death be in­differently to be made to al men, vvhy do they appoint in their Communion-booke (as it seemeth out of this place) that the sicke person shal make a special confession to the Minister,In the order of visitation of the sicke. and he shal absolue him in the very same forme of absolution that Ca­tholike Priests vse in the Sacrament of Cō ­fession. againe, if this acknovvledging of faultes be specially to be made to the Mini­ster or Priest, vvhy translate they it not by the vvord Confessing and confession, as vvel as by, Acknovvledging, & vvhy is not this confession a Sacrament, vvhere them selues acknovvledge forgiuenes of sinnes by the Minister? These contradictions and re­pugnance of their practise and translation, [Page 220]if they can vvittely and vvisely reconcile, they may perhaps in this point satisfie the reader. But vvhether the Apostle speake here of Sacramental confession or no, sin­cere translators should not haue fled from the proper and most vsual vvord of confes­sion or confessing, consonant bothe to the Greeke and Latin, and indifferent to vvhat­soeuer the holy Ghost might meane, as this vvord, acknovvledge, is not.

CHAP. XV. Heretical translation against the Sacrament of HOLY ORDERS, and for the MARIAGE OF PRIESTS and VOTARIES.

1 AGAINST the Sacramēt of Or­ders what can they doe more in trāslation, then in al their Bibles to take avvay the name of Priest and Priesthod of the Nevv Testament alto­gether, and for it to say, Elder and Eldership? Whereof I treated more at largeChap. 6. in an other place of this booke. Here I adde these fevv obseruations, that both for Priests and Deacons, vvhich are tvvo holy orders in the Catholike Church, they translate, Mini­sters, to commend that nevv degree deuised [Page 221]by them selues.Ecclici. c. 7. v. 31. As when they say in al their bibles, Feare the Lord vvith al thy soule, and honour his ministers. in the Greeke it is plaine thus, [...]. & honour his Priests. as the vvord alvvaies signi­fieth, and in the very next sentence them selues so translate, [...]. Feare the Lord and honour the Priests. but they vvould needes borovv one of these places for the honour of Mini­sters. As also in the epistle to Timothee,1. Tim. 3. vvhere S. Paul talketh of Deacons, and na­meth them tvvise: they in the first place translate thus,Bib. 1562. and 1577. Likevvise must the Ministers be honest &c. And a litle after, Let the Deacons be the husbads of one vvife. Loe, the Greeke word being one, [...]. and the Apostle speaking of one Ecclesia­stical order of Deacons, and Beza so inter­preting it in both places, yet our English translatours haue allovved the first place to their Ministers, and the second to Deacōs. and so (because Bishops also vvent before) they haue found vs out their three orders, Bishops, Ministers & Deacons. Alas poore soules, that can haue no place in Scripture for their Ministers, but by making the Apo­stle speake thrée things for tvvo.

2 There are in the Scripture that are cal­led ministers in infinite places, and that by three Greeke vvordes commonly: but that is a large signification of minister, [...]. attribu­ted to al that minister, vvaite, serue, or at­tend [Page 222]to doe any seruice Ecclesiastical or tēporal, sacred or prophane. If the vvord be restrained to any one peculiar seruice or function, as one of the Greeke vvordes is, then doth it signifie Deacōs only. Vvhich if they knovv not, or vvil not beleeue me, let them see Beza him self in his Annotations vpon S. Matthevv,Annot. e. 5. v. 25. vvho protesteth that in his translation he vseth alvvaies the vvord, Minister, in the general signification: and, Diaconus, in the special and peculiar Ecclesia­stical function of Deacons. So that yet vve can not vnderstād, neither can they tell vs, vvhence their peculiar calling & function of Minister commeth, vvhich is their secōd degree vnder a Bishop, & is placed in steede of Priests.

3 Againe, vvhat can be more against the dignitie of sacred orders and Ecclesiastical degrees, then to make them profane & se­cular by their termes and translations? For this purpose, as they translate, Elders & Elder­ship, for, Priests and Priesthod, so do they most impudently terme S. Peter and S. Iohn, [...], Act. 4. Bib. 1562. [...]. For messen­ger & legate the Scriptu­re vseth the­se vvordes, [...]. lay men: they say for Apostle, Embassadour, & Messenger: Io. 13. v. 16. and for Apostles of the Churches, Messengers of the same: 2 Cor. 8. for Bishops, ouerseers Act. 20. Why my maisters, doth idiota signifie a lay man? Suppose a lay man be as vvise and learned as any other, is [Page 223]he idiota? or that one of your Ministers be as vnlearned and ignorant as any shepheard, is he not idiota? so then idiota is neither clerke nor lay man, but euery simple and ignorant man. They that spake vvith miraculous tōgues in the primitiue Church, vvere they not lay men many of them?1 Cor. 14.25.24. yet the Apostle plainely distinguisheth them from idiota. So that this is more ignorantly or vvilfully translated, then Neophytus, a yong scholer, 1 Tim. 3. in al your Bibles.

4 Novv for changing the name Apostle into Messenger, though Beza do so also in the foresaid places, yet in deede he controu­leth both him self and you in other places, saying of the same vvord, Apostles: Annot in c. 10. Mat. v. 2. A man may say in Latin, legates, but vve haue gladly kept the Greeke vvord (Apostle) as many other vvordes familiar to the Church of Christ. Annot. in Ro. 16. v. 7. & in 2 Cor. 8. v. 23. And not only of the principal Apostles, but also of the other Disciples he both translateth and interpreteth in his co­mentarie, that they are notable Apostles. and he proueth that al Ministers of the vvord (as he ter­meth them) are and may be so called. And for your Ouerseers, he saith, Episcopos, and not, Superintendentes. Vvhich he might as wel haue said, as you, Ouerseers, But to say the truth, though he be to to profane, yet he doth much more keepe & vse the Ecclesiastical receiued termes, then you doe, often prote­sting [Page 224]it and as it vvere glorying therein,In tit. Euāg. Math. & in c. 3. v. 11. &c. 10. v. 2. &c. 5. v. 25. a­gainst Castaleon especially. As, vvhen he saith Presbyterum, vvhere you say Elder: Diaconū, vvhere you say, Minister, & so forth. Vvhere if you tel me that hovvsoeuer he translate, he meaneth as prophanely as you, I beleeue you, and therfore you shal goe together, like Maister, like Scholers, al false and profane translatours. for, this Beza (vvho sometime so gladly keepeth the name of Apostle) yet calleth Epaphroditus legatum Philippensium, Philip. 2. v. 15. Vvherevpon the English Bezites translate, your messenger, for, your Apostle. As if S. Augustine vvho vvas our Apostle, should be called, our messenger.

5 As also, vvhen you translate of S. Mat­thias the Apostle,no. Test. 1580. that he vvas by a common con­sent counted vvith the eleuen Apostles: Act. 1. v. 26. vvhat is it els but to make onely a popular election of Ecclesiastical degrees,Annot. ibid. & Act. 14. v. 23. as Beza in his Annotations vvould haue vs to vnder­stand, saying, that nothing vvas done here peculiarly by Peter as one of more excellent dignitie then the rest, but in common by the voices of the vvhole Church. though in an other place vpon this election he no­teth Peter to be the cheefe or Corypheus. And as for the Greeke vvord in this place, [...]. if partialitie of the cause vvould suffer him to consider of it, he should finde, that the proper signification thereof in this phrase [Page 225]of speache, is, as the vulgar Latin interpre­ter, Erasmus, and Valla (al vvhich he reie­cteth) translate it, to vvit, He vvas numbred, or,Annumera­tus est. cooptatus est. counted vvith the eleuen Apostles, vvithout al re­spect of common consent or not consent. as you also in your other bibles do trans­late.

6 Vvhich diuersitie may procede of the diuersitie of opinions among you. For vve vnderstād by Maister vvhitegiftes bookes against the Puritanes,His defense, or 2 booke pag. 157. that he and his fel­lovves deny this popular election, & giue preeminence, superioritie, and difference in this case to Peter, and to Ecclesiastical Pre­lates. and therfore he proueth at large the vse and Ecclesiastical signification of the Greeke vvord [...], not to be the gi­uing of voices in popular elections, but to be the Ecclesiastical imposing of handes vpon persons taken to the Churches mini­sterie. Vvhich he saith very truely, and nee­deth the lesse here to be spoken of, spe­cially being touchedchap. 6. nu. 7 els vvhere in this booke.

7 One thing onely vve vvould knovv, vvhy they that pleade so earnestly against their brethren the Puritanes, about the sig­nification of this vvord, pretending herein only the primitiue custome of imposition of handes in making their Ministers, vvhy [Page 226](I say) them selues translate not this word accordingly,Bib. 1577. but altogether as the Puri­tanes, thus: Vvhen they had ordained them elders by election in euery Church. [...]. Act. 14. v. 23. For if the Greeke vvord signifie here the peoples gi­uing of voices (as Beza forceth it only that vvay out of Tullie & the popular custome of old Athens) then the other signification of imposing handes is gone, vvhich Mai­ster Whitgift defendeth, and the popular election is brought in, vvhich he refelleth: and so by their translation they haue in my opinion ouershot them selues, and giuen aduantage to their brotherly Aduersaries. Vnles in deede they trāslate as they thinke, because in deede they thinke as heretically as the other, but yet because their state of Ecclesiastical regiment is othervvise, they must mainteine that also in their vvritings, hovv so euer they translate. For an exāple, They al agree to translate Elder for Priest: and M. Whitakers telleth vs a fresh in the name of them all,Pag. 200. ad rat. Camp. that there are no Priests novv in the Church of Christ, that is (as he interpreteth him self) This name Priest is neuer in the Nevv Testamēt peculiarly applied to the Ministers of the Gospel, pag. 210. this is their doctrine. But vvhat is their practise in the regiment of their Church? cleane contrarie. For in the order of the communion booke, vvhere it is ap­pointed [Page 227]vvhat the Minister shal doe, it is indifferētly said, Then shal the Priest doe or say this & that: &, Then shal the Minister, &c. Vvhereby it is euident that they make Priest a proper and peculiar calling applied to their Mini­sters, & so their practise is contrarie to their teaching and doctrine.

8 Novv concerning imposition or laying on of handes in making their Ministers (vvhich the Puritanes also are forced to allovv by other vvordes of Scripture,Beza An­not. Act. 6, v. 6. hovvsoeuer they dispute and iangle against [...]) none of them all make more of it, then of the like Iudaical ceremonie in the old Lavv, not acknovvledging that there is any grace giuen withal, though the Apostle say there is, in expresse termes. but they vvill ansvver this text (as they are vvont) vvith a fauorable translation, turning grace, 1 Timoth. 4. v. 14. into gift. As, vvhen the Apostle saith thus, Neglect not THE GRACE that is in thee, [...]. vvhich is giuen thee by prophecie, vvith imposition of the handes of Priesthod, they translate, Neglect not the GIFT. and Beza most impudently for, by prophecie, [...]. translateth, to prophecie: making that only to be this gift, & vvithal adding this goodly exposition, that he had the gift of prophe­cie or preaching before, and now by impo­sition of handes vvas chosen only to exe­cute that function. But because it might be [Page 228]obiected that the Apostle saith, Vvhich vvas giuen thee vvith the imposition of handes, or (as he speaketh in an other place) by impositiō of hādes, making this imposition of handes an in­strumental cause of giuing this grace,2 Tim. 1. he saith that it did only confirme the grace or gift before giuen.

9 Thus it is euident that, though the Apostle speake neuer so plaine for the dig­nitie of holy Orders, that it giueth grace, & consequently is a Sacrament, they peruert all to the contrarie, making it a bare cere­monie, suppressing the vvord grace, vvhich is much more significant to expresse the Greeke vvord, [...]. then gift is, because it is not euery gift, but a gratious gift, or a gift pro­ceding of maruelous and mere grace. as when it is said,Phil. cap. 1. v. 29. To you it is giuen not only to beleeue, but also to suffer for him. the Greeke vvord signi­fieth this much, To you this grace is giuen, &c. So vvhen God gaue vnto S. Paul al that sailed vvith him, [...]. Act. 27. this Greeke vvord is vsed, be­cause it vvas a great grace or gratious gift giuen vnto him. Vvhen S. Paul pardoned the incestuous person before due time,2 Cor. 2. it is expressed by this vvord,. because it vvas a grace (as * [...]. Theodorete calleth it) giuen vnto him. & therfore also the almes of the Corinthians, [...]. 1 Cor. 16. v. 3. are called, their grace, vvhich the Protestants translate, liberalitie, [Page 229]neglecting altogether the true force and signification of the Greeke vvordes.

10 But concerning the Sacrament of or­ders, as in the first to Timothee,2. Tim. [...] v. 6. so in the second also, they suppresse the vvord grace, and call it barely and coldly, gift, saying: I put thee in remembrance, that thou stirre vp the gift of God vvhich is in thee, by the putting on of my handes. Vvhere if they had said, the grace of God vvhich is in thee by the putting on of my handes: then vvere it plaine that S. Paul by the ceremonie of imposing handes vpon Timothee in making him Priest or Bishop, gaue him grace: and so it should be a very Sacrament of holy Orders. for auoiding vvhereof they translate othervvise, or els let them giue vs an other reason thereof, specially the Greeke vvord much more signifying grace, then a bare gift, as is de­clared.

11 The more to profane this sacred order, vvherevnto continencie & single life hath been alvvaies annexed in the nevv Testa­ment for the honour and reuerence of the functions therevnto belonging, to profane the same (I say) and to make it merc laical & popular, they vvil haue all to be maried men, yea those that haue vovved the con­trarie: and it is a great credite among them, for our Priests Apostataes to take vviues. [Page 230]This they would deduce from the Apostles custom, but by most false and impudent translation: making S. Paul say thus as of his ovvne vvife and the other Apostles vviues, Haue not vve povver to lead about a vvife being a sister, 1 Cor. 9. v. 5. No. Test. 1580. as vvel as the rest of the Apostles? Vvhereas the Apostle saith nothing els but, [...]. Mat. 27. a vvoman a sister, that is, a Christian vvoman, meaning such holy vvomen as folovved Christ, and the Apostles, to finde and mainteine them of their substance.Li. 1. aduers. Iouin. De op. mon. cap. 4. So doth S. Hierom inter­pret it, and S. Augustine, both directly pro­uing that it can not be translated, vvife, but, vvoman: & the Greeke fathers most expresly. And as for the Greeke vvord, if they say it is ambiguous,in Collectā. Occu. super hūc locum. S. Augustine telleth them that as the Apostle hath put it dovvne with al the circumstances, there is no ambiguitie at al that might deceine any man. yea let vs set a part the circumstances, & consider the Greeke vvord alone in it self, and Beza vvil tell vs in other places,Annot. Mat. 5. v. 28. & 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. that it signifieth a vvoman rather then a vvife: reprehending Erasmus for translating it, vvife, because there is no Quia non additur [...], aut [...]. circumstance annexed vvhy it should so signifie: thereby declaring that of it self it signifieth vvoman, and therfore much more vvhen th [...] circumstance also (as S. Augustine faith maketh it certaine, that so it doth signifie.

12 Vvherfore great must the impudenc [...] [Page 231]of Beza be (and of the English Bezites) that knovving this and protesting it els vvhere in his Annotations, yet here translateth, sororem vxorem, a sister a vvife, and saying after his lordly manner, I doubted not so to trāslate it, disputing and reasoning against al other interpreters both auncient and later, for the contrarie,ineptè face­ret. yea and affirming that S. Paul him self, did foolishly, if he spake there of other riche vvomē. Such a fansie he hath to make the Apostles not only maried men, but that they caried about their vviues vvith them, and that they vvere the Apostles vviues, (for so he translateth it Act. 1. v. 14.) that re­turned vvith them after our Lords ascēsion to Hierusalem,Cum vxori­bus. and continued together in praier til the Holy Ghost came vpon them. Whereas S. Luke there speaketh so euidētly of the other holy & faithful women which are famous in the Gospel (as the Maries & other) that the English Bezites them selues dare not here folovv his translation. For I beseeche you Maister Beza (to turne my talke vnto you a litle) is there any circum­stāce or particle here added vvhy it should be translated vviues? none. [...]. Vxorē non tangere. [...]. then by your ovvne reason before alleaged it should rather be translated, vvomen. Againe, did Erasmus translate vvel, saying, It is good for a man not to touch a vvife? 1 Cor. 7. v. 1. No, say [Page 232]you, reprehending this translation, because it dehorteth from mariage. if not, shevv your commission vvhy you may translate it in the foresaid places, vvife, and, vviues, at your pleasure: the Greeke being all one, both vvhere you vvill not in any wise haue it translated, vvife, and also vvhere you vvill haue it so translated in any vvise.

13 Againe, to this purpose they make S. Paul say as to his vvife, [...]. I beseeche thee also faith­ful yokefellovv Phil. 4. v. 3: for in English what doth it els sound but man and vvife? but that S. Paul should here meane his vvife, most of the Greeke fathers count it tidicu­lous and folish, S. Chrysostom, Theodo­rete, Oecumenius,Sorie germa­ne. Theophy­lacte saith, if he spake to a vvomā, it should be [...] in the Greeke. Theophylactus. Beza & Caluin both mislike it, translating also in the masculine gender, S. Paul him self saith the contrarie that he had no vvife, 1 Cor. 7. And as for Clemens Alexandrinus vvho alleageth it for Paules wife, Eusebius plaine­ly insinuateth,Li. 2. c. 24. and Nicephorus expresly saith, that he did it [...], by the vvay of contention and disputation, vvhiles he earnestly vvrote against them that oppug­ned matrimonie.

14 Againe, for the mariage of Priests & of al sortes of men indifferētly, they trans­late the Apostle thus:Hebr. 13. vvedlocke is honorable a­mong al men. Vvhere one falsification is, that [Page 233]they say, among al men, and Beza, inter quosuis, and in the margent, *no. Test. an. 1565. in omni hominū, ordine, in euery or­der or condition of men, and in his Annotation he raileth, to make this translation good: vvhereas the Greeke is as indifferent to sig­nifie, that mariage is honorable by al mea­nes, [...]. in al respectes, vvholy, throughly, al­together. So doth not only Erasmus, but also the Greeke fathers expound it, namely Theophylacte,See Occum. in catena. vvhose vvordes in the Greeke be very significāt, but to long here to trouble the reader vvith them. Not in part saith he, honorable, & in part not: but vvholy, through­out, by al meanes honorable and vndefiled, in al ages, in al times. Therfore to restraine it in translation to persons only (though it may also very vvel be vnderstood of al persons that haue no impediment to the contrarie) that is to translate falsely.

15 An other and the like falsification in this same short sentence, is, that they make it an affirmatiue speache, by adding, is: vvhereas the Apostles vvordes be these, [...]. Mariage honorable in al, and the bed vndefiled. Vvhich is rather an exhortation, as if he should say, Let mariage he honorable in al, and the bed vndefiled. How honorable? that (as S. Peter speaketh, 1 Pet. c. 3.) men conuerse vvith their vviues according to knovvledge, imparting honour, [...]. vnto them as to the vveaker vessels: that is [Page 234](as S. Paul also explicateth it, 1 Thess. c. 4.) pos­sessing euery man his vessel in sanctifica­tion and honour, [...]. not in the passion or lust of concupiscence, as the Gentiles, &c. Loe vvhat honorable mariage is, to vvit, vvhen the husband vseth his vvife honora­bly and honestly in al respectes, not beastly and filthily according to al kinde of lust & concupiscence. And that the Apostle here exhorteth to this honorable vsage of vved­locke, rather then affirmeth any thing, it is most probable both by that which goeth before & that which immediatly foloweth, al vvhich are exhortations. & let the Prote­stants giue vs a reason out of the Greeke text, if they can, vvhy they translate the vvordes folovving by vvay of exhortatiō, Let your cōuersation be vvithout coucieousnes: [...]. and not these vvordes also in like maner, let mariage be honorable in al. Certaine it is that the Greeke in both is al one phrase and speache, [...]. and Beza, is much troubled to finde a good reason against Erasmus vvho thinketh it is an exhortation. The sentence then being ambiguous and doubtful at the least, vvhat ioly fellovves are these, that wil so restraine it in translation, that it can not be taken in the other sense, and not rather leaue it in­differently, as in the Greeke and vulgar Latin it is, lest the sense of the holy Ghost [Page 235]be not that, or not only that, vvhich they translate.

16 Moreouer it is against the profession of cōtinencie in Priests & others, that they translate our Sauiours vvordes of single life and the vnmaried state, thus:Mat. 19. V. 11. Al men can not receiue this saying: as though it were impossible to liue continent. Vvhere Christ said not so, that al men can not, but, Al men do not receiue this saying. But of this I haue spoken more in the chapter of free vvill. Here I adde only cōcerning the vvordes folovving, that they translate them not exactly, nor perhaps vvith a sincere meaning. for if there be cha­stitie in mariage as vvel as in the single life, as Paphnutius the Confessor most truely said, and they are vvont much to alleage it, then their trāslation doth nothing expresse our Sauiours meaning, vvhen they say, There are some chast, Bibl. 1562. 1577. vvhich haue made them selues chast for the kingdom of heauens sake. for a man might say, al do so that liue chastly in matrimonie. but our Sauiour speaketh of them that are impotent and vnable to generation, called * [...]. eunuches or gelded men, and that in three diuers kindes: some that haue that infir­mitie or maime frō their birth, othersome that are gelded afrervvard by men, & other that geld them selues for the kingdom of heauen, not by cutting of those partes [Page 236]vvhich vvere an horrible mortal sinne, but hauing those partes as other men haue, [...]. yet geld them selues (for so is the Greeke) and make them selues vnable to generation. Vvhich hovv it can be but by voluntarie profession, promis, and vovv of perpetual continencie which they may neuer breake, let the Protestants tell vs. Christ then as it is most euident speaketh of gelded men, either corporally, or spiritually (vvhich are al such as professe perpetual continencie:) and they tel vs of some that vvere borne chast, and some that vvere made chast by men, and some that make them selues chast: a most folish and false translation of the Greeke vvordes, [...] and [...].

17 The Bezites here, are blamelesse, vvho trāslate it vvord for vvord, eunuches: but they are more to blame in an other place, vvhere in derogation of the priuilege and dignitie of Priests,Mal. 2. v. 7. they translate thus: The Priests lippes should preserue knovvledge, [...]. and they should secke the Lavv at his mouth. vvhere in the Hebrue and Greeke it is as plaine as possibly can be spoken, [...] The infalsi­ble iudge­mēt of the Priests, in questions of religion. The Priests lippes shal keepe knovvledge, and they shal seeke the Lavv at his mouth. Vvhich is a maruelous priuilege giuen to the Priests of of the old Lavv, for true determination of matters in controuersie, and right expoun­ding of the Lavv, as vve reade more fully [Page 237] Deutero. 17. Vvhere they are commaunded vnder paine of death to stand to the Priests iudgement, vvhich in this place God by the Prophet Malachie calleth his couenant vvith Leui, and that he vvil haue it to stand,v. 4. to vvit, in the nevv Testamēt, vvhere Peter hath such priuilege for him and his succes­sors, that his faith shal not faile, vvhere the holy Ghost is president in the Councels of Bishops and Priests. Al vvhich these Here­tikes vvould deface and defeate, by transla­ting the vvordes othervvise then the holy Ghost hath spoken them.

18 And vvhen the Prophet addeth imme­diatly the cause of this singular prerogatiue of the Priest, quia angelus Domini exercituum est, because he is the Angel of the Lorde of hostes, vvhich is also a wonderful dignitie, so to be called: they after their cold maner of profane trās­lation say, because he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes. So doe they in the next chapter call S. Iohn the Baptist, messenger: Malach. 3. v. 1. vvhere the Scripture no doubt speaketh more hono­rably of him as being Christs precursor, then of a messenger, vvhich is a terme for postes also and lackies. The Scripture I say speaketh thus of S. Iohn, [...]. angelum meum. Behold I send mine an­gel before thee: and our Sauiour in the Gospel, Mat. 11. Luc. 7: telling the people the vvonder­ful dignities of S. Iohn, and that he vvas [Page 238]more then a prophet, citeth this place and giueth this reason, For this is he of vvhom it is vvritten, Behold I send mine Angel before thee. Vvhich S. Hierom calleth meritorum [...],Comment. in hunc lo­cum. the encrease and augmenting of Iohns merites or priuileges, that in Malachie he is called an Angel: Hom. 6. in Euang. & S. Gregorie saith, he vvhich came to bring tidings of Christ him self, vvas vvorthely called an Angel, that in his very name there might be a dignitie. and al the fa­thers, and al vvit and reason conceiue a great excellencie in this name: only our profane Protestants that thinke of al diuine things and persons most basely, translate accordingly, euen in the foresaid Gospel also, making our Sauiour to say, that Iohn vvas more then a prophet, because he vvas a messenger. Yea vvhere our Sauiour him self is called,Malach. 3. v. 1. Angelus Testamenti, the Angel of the Testament, there they translate, the messenger of the couenant.

19 If S. Hierom in al these places had translated, nūtium, then the English vvere, messenger: but translating it, angelum, and the Church and al antiquitie so reading and ex­pounding it as a terme of more dignitie & excellencie,See Apoc. c. 2. and 3. in the En­glish Bibl. 1562. To the messenger of the congrega­tion, &c. Angelo Ec­clesia. vvhat meane these base com­panions to disgrace the very eloquence of the Scripture, vvhich by such termes of amplification vvould speake more signifi­cantly and emphatically? vvhat meane [Page 239]they (I say) that so inueigh against Castaleo for his profanenesse, them selues to say, for Angel, Messenger, for Apostle, Legate or Embas­sadour, and the like? Are they afraid, lest by calling men Angels, it vvould be mistaken, as though they vvere Angels in deede by nature? then S. Paul spake dangerously, vvhen he said to the Galatians,Gal. 4. v. 14. As Gods Angel you receiued me, as Christ Iesus. But to procede.

20 It is much for the authoritie and dig­nitie of Gods Priests, that they do binde and loose, and execute al Ecclesiastical fun­ction as in the person & povver of Christ, vvhose ministers they are. So S. Paul saith, 2 Cor. 2. v. 10. that vvhen he pardoned or released the penance of the incestuous Co­rinthian, [...]. he did it in the person of Christ. that is (as S. Ambrose expoundeth it) in the name of Christ, in his steede, as his Vicar and de­putie. but they translate it, In the sight of Christ. Vvhere it is euident they can not pretend the Greeke, & if there be ambiguitie in the Greeke, the Apostle him self taketh it avvay interpreting him self in the very same case, whē he excōmunicateth the said incestuous person, saying, that he doth it,1 Cor. 5. v. 4. in the name and vvith the vertue of our Lord Iesus Christ: so expoun­ding vvhat he meaneth also in this place.

21 And it may be, that for some such pur­pose they change the auncient and accu­stomed [Page 240]reading in these vvordes of S. Mat­thevv, Ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel: Mat. 2. translating thus,no. Test. 1580. Out of thee shal come the Go­uernour that shal feede my people Israel. for, that shal rule my people Israel. This is certaine that it is a false translation, because the Prophets vvordes Mich. 5. (cited by S. Matthevv) both in Hebrue & Greeke, [...] signifie only a ruler or Gouernour, & not a Pastor or feeder. Ther­fore it is either a great ouersight, vvhich is a small matter in cōparison of the least cor­ruption: or rather because they doe the like Act. 20. v. 28, it is done to suppresse the significatiō of Ecclesiastical povver and go­uernement, that concurreth vvith feeding, first in Christ, and from him in his Apostles and Pastors of the Church, both vvhich are here signified in this one Greeke vvord, to vvit, [...]. that Christ our Sauiour shal rule and feede, (Psal. 2. Apoc. 2. v. 27) yea he shal rule in a rod of yron: and from him, Peter and the rest, by his cōmission giuen in the same vvord feede and rule my sheepe: [...]. Io. 21: yea and that in a rod of yron, as vvhen he strooke Ananias and Sapphîra to corporal death,Act. 5. 1 Cor. 4. v. 21. &c. 5. v. 5. & 2 Cor. 10. v. 4. & 8. as his successors doe the like offenders to spiri­tual destruction (vnles they repent) by the terrible rod of excōmunication. This is im­ported in the double signification of the Greeke vvord, vvhich they to diminish [Page 241]Ecclesiastical authoritie, they translate, feede, then, rule, or gouerne.

22 To the diminishing of this Eccle­siastical authoritie, in the later end of the reigne of king Henrie the eight, & during the reigne of king Edvvard the sixt, the on­ly translation of their English Bibles, vvas, Submit your selues vnto al maner ordināce of man: vvhe­ther it be VNTO THE KING, [...]. AS TO THE CHEEFE HEAD. 1 Pet. 2. Vvhere in this Queenes time, the later translatours can not finde those wordes novv in the Greeke, but do trāslate thus,Bibl. 1577. 1579. To the king as hauing preemi­nence: or, to the king as the Superior. Vvhy so? be­cause then the King had first taken vpon him this name of Supreme head of the Church, and therfore they flattered both him and his sonne, til their heresie vvas planted, ma­king the holy Scripture to say that the king vvas, the Cheefe head, vvhich is al one vvith, supreme head: but novv being better aduised in that point (by Caluin I suppose and the Lutherans of Magdeburge,Calu. in c. 7. Amos. Magdeb. in praef. Cent. 7. fo. 9.10.11. vvho doe ioyntly inueigh against such title, and Caluin against that by name, vvhich vvas first giuen to king Henrie the eight) and be­cause they may be bolder vvith a Queene then vvith a king, and because novv they thinke their kingdom is vvel established, therfore they suppresse this title in their la­ter [Page 242]translations, & vvould take it from her altogether if they could, to aduance their ovvne Ecclesiastical iurisdiction, vvithout any dependence of the Queenes supreme gouernement of their church, vvhich in their conscience (if they be true Caluinists, or Lutherans, or mixt of both) they do and must mislike.

23 But hovvsoeuer that be, let them iustifie their translation, or confesse their fault. and as for the kings supremacie ouer the Church, if they make any doubt, let them read S. Ignatius vvordes,Epist. 7. ad Smyrnenses. who vvas in the Apostles time, euen vvhen S. Peter gaue the foresaid admonition of subiection to the king, and knevv very vvel hovv far his preeminence extended, and therfore saith plainely in notorious vvordes, that, vve must first honour God, then the Bishop, & thē the king. because in al thinges nothing is comparable to God, & in the Church, nothing greater then the Bishop, vvho is consecrated to God for the saluation of the vvhole vvorld, and [...]. among magistrates & temporal rulers, none is like the king. See his [...]. other vvordes immediat­ly folovving, vvhere he preferreth the Bi­shops office before the kings and al other thinges of price among men.

24 But in the former sentence of S. Pe­ter, though they haue altered their transla­tion [Page 243]about the kings headship, yet there is one corruption remaining still in these vvordes, Submit your selues VNTO AL MANER ORDINANCE OF MAN. Vvhereas in the Greeke it is vvord for vvord as in the old vulgar Latin translation, omni humanae creaturae, [...]. and as vve haue translated, to euery humane creature: meaning temporal Princes and Ma­gistrates,1 Pet. 2. v. 13.14. as is plaine by the exemplification immediatly folovving, of king, and dukes and other sent or appointed by him. But they in fauour of their temporal statutes, actes of Parliament, Proclamations & Iniunctions made against the Catholike religion, do translate all vvith one consent, Submit your selues to al maner ordinance of man. Doth [...] sig­nifie ordinance? or is it al one to be obedient to euery one of our Princes, and to al ma­ner ordinance of the said Princes?

25 A strange case and much to be consi­dered, hovv they vvring and vvrest the ho­ly Scriptures this vvay and that vvay and euery vvay to serue their heretical proce­dings. For vvhen the question is of due obedience to Ecclesiastical canons, and de­crees of the Church and general Councels, vvhere the holy Ghost by Christs promis is assistant, and vvhereof it is said,Mat. 18. If he heare not the Church, let him be vnto thee as an hethen & Pub­licant: and, He that heareth you, heareth me: Luc. 10. he that [Page 244]despiseth you, despiseth me: there they crie out aloud, and odiously terme al such ordinan­ces, Mens traditions, and, commaundements of men, & most despitefully contemne and condemne them. but here, for obedience vnto tēporal edictes & Patliament-statutes daily enacted in fauour of their schisme and heresies, they once malitiously forged, and still vvickedly reteine vvithout alteration, a text of their ovvne, making the Apostle to commaund submission vnto al maner ordināce of man, vvhereof hath ensued the false crime of treason and cruel death for the same, vpon those innocent men and glorious martyrs, that chose to obey God and his Churches holy ordinances, rather then mans statutes and lavves directly against the same.

CHAP. XVI. Heretical translation against the Sacrament of MATRIMONIE.

1 BVT as they are iniurious trans­latours to the sacred Order of Priesthod, so a mā vvould thinke they should be very frendly to the Sacrament of Matrimonie. for they would seeme to make more of Matrimonie then vve doe, making it equal at the least vvith virginitie. Yet the truth is, vve make it, or rather the Church of God esteemeth [Page 245]it as a holy Sacrament, they doe not: as giuing grace to the maried persons to liue together in loue, concord, and fidelitie: they acknovvledge no such thing. So that Matrimonie vvith them is highly esteemed in respect of the flesh, or (to say the best) only for a ciuil cōtract, as it is among Iewes & Pagans: but as it is peculiar to Christians, and (as S. Augustine saith) in the sanctification also and holines of a Sacrament, they make no ac­count of it, but flatly deny it.

2 And to this purpose they translate in the epistle to the Ephesians, 5. vvhere the Apostle speaketh of Matrimonie, This is a great secrete. Sacramentū hoc magnū est. Vvhereas the Latin Church and al the Doctors thereof haue euer read, This is a great Sacrament: the Greeke Church and al the fathers thereof, This is a great mysterie. be­cause that vvhich is in Greeke, mysterie: [...]. is in Latin, Sacrament: & contrarievvise, the vvordes in both tongues being equiualent. so that if one be taken in the large significa­tion, the other also: as, Apoc. 17. I vvil shevv thee the sacramet of the vvoman. Sacramentū [...]. & I vvil shevv thee the mysterie of the vvoman. and so in sundrie places. againe if one be restrained from the larger signification, and peculiarly applied, sig­nifie the Sacraments of the Church, the other also. As, the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ: or, the Mysterie of the body [Page 246]and bloud of Christ:Duo Sacra­menta. [...] and the Caluinists in their Latin and Greeke Catechisme say, tvvo Sacraments, or, tvvo Mysteries.

3 This being so, vvhat is the fault of their translation in the place aforesaid? this, that they translate neither, Sacrament, nor, Mysterie. As for the vvord Sacrament, they are excused, because they translate not the Latin: but translating the Greeke, vvhy faid they not, Mysterie, vvhich is the Greeke vvord here in the Apostle? I meane, vvhy said they not of Matrimonie, This is a great Mysterie? No doubt there can be no other cause, but to auoid both those vvordes, vvhich are vsed in the Latin and Greeke Church, to signifie the Sacraments. For in the Greeke Church the Sacrament of the body and bloud it self is called but a mysterie or mysteries, vvhich yet the Protestants them selues call a true Sacrament. Therfore if they should haue called Matrimonie also by that name, it might easily haue sounded to be a Sacra­ment also.Vvere it ho­nest or lavv­full to trans­late, Baptis [...], I vvash: or Baptismus. vvashing: or Euāgeliū. good ne­vves? yet the vvords pro­phanely ta­ken, signifie no more. But in saying it is a great secrete, they put it out of doubt, that it shal not be so taken.

4 They vvil say vnto me, Is not euery sa­crament and mysterie, in english a secrete? yes, as Angel, is a messenger: and Apostle, one that is sent. but vvhen the holy Scrip­ture vseth these vvordes to signifie more ex­cellent [Page 247]and diuine thinges then those of the common sort, doth it become translators to vse baser termes in steede therof, and so to disgrace the vvriting & meaning of the holy Ghost? I appeale to them selues, when they translate this vvord in other places, vvhether they say not thus, And vvithout doubt great was that MYSTERIE of godlines: 1 Tim. [...]. God was shewed manifestly in the flesh &c. againe, The MYSTERIE vvhich hath beene hid since the vvorld began, Col. 1. v. 26. Eph. 3. v. 9. 1 Cor. 15. v. 51. but novv is opened to his sainctes. againe, I shevv you a MYSTE­RIE, vve shal not al sleepe, but vve shal al be changed. and the like. Vvhere if they should trāslate, secrete, in steede of, mysterie, as the Bezites doe in one of these places, saying, I vvil shevv you a secrete thing: vvhat a disgracing and deba­sing vvere it to those high mysteries there signified? And if it vvere so in these, is it not so in Matrimonie, vvhich the Apostle maketh such a mysterie, that it representeth no lesse matter then Christ and his Church and vvhatsoeuer is most excellent in that coniunction? Novv then, if in al other pla­ces of high mysterie they translate it also mysterie, as it is in the Greeke, and only in Matrimonie do not so, but say rather, This is a great secrete, vsing so base a terme in so high & excellent a mysterie, must vve not needes thinke (as no doubt it is) that they doe it because of their Heretical opinion against [Page 248]the Sacrament of Matrimonie, and for their base estimation thereof?

5 But they vvil yet replie againe, & aske vs, vvhat vve gaine by translating it either Sacrament, or mysterie? Doth that make it one of the Sacraments properly so called, to vvit, such a Sacrament as Baptisme is? no surely. but hovvsoeuer vve gaine other­vvise, at least vve gaine the commendation of trew translators, vvhether it make vvith vs or against vs. for othervvise it is not the name that maketh it such a peculiar Sacra­ment. for (as is said before) Sacrament is a general name in Scripture to other things. neither do vve therfore so translate it, as though it vvere forthvvith one of the 7 Sacraments, because of the name: but as in other places vvheresoeuer vve finde this vvord in the Latin, vve translate it, Sacra­ment (as in the Apocalypse,Apoc. 17. the Sacrament of the vvoman) so finding it here, vve do here also so translate it. and as for the diuers taking of it here, and els vvhere, that vve examine other vvise, by circumstance of the text, and by the Churches and Doctors interpreta­tion: and vve finde that here it is taken for a Sacrament in that sense as vve say, seuen Sa­craments: not so in the other places.

6 As vvhen vve read this name Iesus in Scripture common to our Sauiour and to [Page 249]other men, vve transtate it alvvaies alike, Iesus: but vvhen it isIude. v. 5. IESVS Christ, and vvhen some other Iesus,Act. 7. v. 45. Colos. 4. v. 11. vve knovv by other circumstances. likevvise presuppose Baptisme in the Scripture vvere called a sa­crament: yet the Protestants them selues would not, nor could thereby conclude, that it vvere one of their tvvo Sacraments. yet I trovv they vvould not auoid to translate it by the vvord sacrament, if they foud it so called: euen so vve finding Matrimo­nie so called, do so translate it, neither con­cluding thereby that it is one of the Seuen, nor yet suppressing the name, vvhich no doubt gaue some occasion to the Church and the holy doctors to esteeme it as one of the Seuen. They cōtrarievvise, as though it vvere neuer so called, suppresse the name altogether, calling it a secrete, to put it out of al question, that it is no Sacrament: vvhich they vvould not haue done, if the Scrip­ture had said of Baptisme or the Eucharist, This is a great Sacrament. So partial they are to their ovvne opinions.

CHAP. XVII. Heretical translation against the B. S A­CRAMENT, and SACRIFICE, and ALTARS.

[...]
[...]

1 NOvv let vs see concerning the Eucharist, vvhich they allovv for a Sacrament, hovv they handle the matter to the disgracing and defacing of the same also. They take avvay the opera­tion and efficacie of Christes blessing pro­nounced vpon the bread & vvine, making it only a thankes-giuing to God: and to this purpose they translate more gladly, thankes-giuing, then, blessing. as Matth. 26. the Greeke vvordes being tvvo, [...]. Bib. 1562. 1577. the one signi­fying properly, to blesse: the other, to giue thankes: they translate both thus, vvhen he had giuen thankes. likevvise Marc. 14. in the Bible printed 1562. And vvhen they trans­late it, blessing, they meane nothing els but giuing thankes,Great diffe­rence in the scriptures, betvvene blessing, and geuing of thankes. as Beza telleth vs in his An­notations Mat. 26. v. 26. We reply and by most manifest Scripture proue vnto them, that the former Greeke vvord doth not signifie thankes-giuing properly, but bles­sing, and a blessing of creatures to the ope­ration of some great effect in them: as vvhē Christ tooke the fiue loaues & tvvo fishes, to multiplie them,Benedixit cis. [...]. Anno. in 9. Luc. v. 16. he blessed them Luc. 9. Vvhat say they to this thinke you? Doth not the Greeke vvord here plainely signifie, bles­sing of creatures? No, (saith Beza) no doubt but here also it signifieth giuing thankes. Hovv Beza? [Page 251]he addeth, Not as though Christ had giuen thankes to the bread, for that vvere to absurd: but vve must mollifie this interpretation thus, that he gaue thankes to God the father for the loaues and the fishes. Is not this a no­table exposition of these vvordes, benedixit cis?

2 Vve aske him in the like cases, vvhen God blessed Adam and Eue, [...]. Psal. 106. [...]. Gen. 1. & 9. Noe and his children, saying, Increase and mul­tiplie: vvhen he blessed the children of Israël, and they multiplied excedingly, vvhen he blessed the later things of Iob more then the first. Iob. 42. Vvas this also a giuing of thankes, and not an effectual blessing vpon these creatures? Vvhat vvil they say, or vvhat difference vvil they make? As God blessed here, so he vvas God and man that blessed the loaues and fishes there. If they vvil say he did it as man, and therfore it was a giuing of thankes to God his father: to omit that he blessed them as he multiplied them, that is, rather accor­ding to his diuine nature then humane: vve aske them, vvhen he blessed as man, vvas it alvvaies giuing of thankes? he blessed the litle children, he blessed his disciples,Luc. 24. vvhen he ascended: vvas this giuing thākes for them, as Beza expoundeth his blessing of the loaues & fishes? VvhenBeza loco citato. vve blesse the table or the meate vpon the table, vvhen S. Paul saith, 1 Timoth. 4. al meate is [Page 252]lavvful that * [...], Which word cā neuer sig­nifie, giuing thankes. is sanctified by the vvord & by praier: is al this nothing but giuing thankes? So saith Beza in expresse vvordes.

3 Vve goe forvvard, and proue the contra­rie yet more manifestly, in the very matter of the B. Sacrament, for the vvhich they multiplie al the foresaid absurdities. Vve tell them that S. Paul saith thus, [...]. The chalice of blessing, vvhich vve blesse, is it not &c. hovv could he speake more plainely, that the cha­lice or cuppe (meaning that in the cuppe) is blessed? Vvhich S. Cyprian de Corn. Do. explicateth thus, Calix solenni benedictione sacratus, The Chalice consecrated by solemne blessing. [...]. Oecume­nius thus, The Chalice vvhich blessing, vve prepare. that is, which vve blesse & so prepare. for so it must signifie, & not as Beza vvould haue it,Annot. in 1 Cor. 10. v. 16. vvhich vvith thankes giuing vve prepare, and that I proue by his ovvne vvordes immediatly before, vvhere he saith that the Greeke vvord being vsed of the Apostle transitiue­ly, that is, vvith a case folovving, can not signifie giuing thankes. Hovv then can it so signifie in Oecumenius vvordes, vvho doth interprete the Apostles meaning by the Apostles ovvne vvordes and phrase? yea (that you may note a notorious contra­diction) hovv doth Beza then in the place of Luke before alleaged (vvhere the same Greeke vvord is a plaine transitiue as in this [...]. [Page 253]place) expound it of giuing thankes for the bread and fishes? A lyer (they say) must be mindeful, to make his tale agree in euery point. He that before forced the vvord in euery sentēce to be nothing els but thankes giuing, euen vvhen it vvas a plaine transi­tiue, novv confesseth that he neuer read it in that signification, vvhen it is a transitiue. and so vve haue that the blessing of the cuppe or of the bread, is not giuing thankes as they either translate, or interprete it.

4 And surely in the vvord [...] this is most euident, that it signifieth in this case the blessing & consecration of the creature or element: in so much that S. Basil and S. Chrysostom in their Liturgies or Masses, say thus by the same Greeke vvord: [...]. Blesse ô Lord the sacred bread. and, Blesse ô Lord the sacred cuppe. and vvhy or to vvhat effect? It folovveth, changing it by the holy Spirit. Vvhere is signified the transmutation and cōsecration thereof into the body and bloud. But in the other vvord [...] there may be some questiō, because it signifieth properly to giue than­kes, and therfore may seeme to be referred to God only, and not to the element and creature. But this also vve finde contrarie in the Greeke fathers, vvho vse this vvord also transitiuely, saying, [...]. panem & calicem eucha­ristisatos, or, panem in quo gratiae act ae sunt. that is the [Page 254] bread and the cuppe made the Eucharist: the bread ouer vvhich thankes are giuen: that is, vvhich by the vvord of praier and thankes-giuing is made a consecrated meate, the flesh and bloud of Christ, as S. Iustine in fine 2 Apolgo. and S. Irenaeus li. 4.34. in the same places expound it. Vvhereas it may also signifie that, for vvhich thankes are giuen in that most solemne sacrifice of the Eucharist, [...]. as S. Denys in one place seemeth to take it. Eccl. Hier. c. 3 in fine. Vvho in the self same chapter speaketh of the consecration thereof most euidently.

5 Vvhereby vve haue to note that the Heretikes in vrging the vvord, Eucharist, as mere thankes-giuing, thereby to take away blessing and consecration of the elements of bread and vvine, do vnlearnedly and deceitfully. because al the fathers make mention of both: S. Paul also calleth it, blessing of the chalice, which the Euāgelists call, giuing of thankes. Vvhose vvordes Theophylacte explicateth thus, THE CHA­LICE OF BLESSING, that is, of the Eucharist. For holding it in our handes, vve blesse it, & giue thankes to him that shed his bloud for vs. See here both blessing, & Eucharist, blessing the chalice, and thankes-giuing to Christ.Liturg. S. Iac. Basil. Chrys. S. Iames and the Greeke fathers in their Liturgies, put both vvordes in the consecration of eche element, saying thus, giuing thankes, sanctifying, breaking: and, giuing thankes, [Page 255]blessing, sanctifying: [...]. and, taking the cuppe, giuing thankes, sanctifying, blessing, filling it vvith the boly Ghost, he gaue it to vs his Disciples. S. Chrysostom vvho in many places of his vvorkes spea­keth much of thankes-giuing in these holy mysteries,Hom. 2. in Tim. 2. Hom. 83. in Mat. Ho. de Iuda proditore. doth he not as often speake of the blessing, consecration, yea and the trans­mutation thereof, & that vvith vvhat vvor­des, and by vvhat povver it is done? Doth not S. Augustine say of the same,Aug. ep. 59. benedicitur & sanctificatur, it is blessed and sanctified, vvho often speaketh of the solemne giuing of thankes in the sacrifice of the Church?De bone vi­duit. c. 16. Doth not the Church at this day vse the very same termes, as in S. Augustines time, Gratias aga­mus Domino Deo nostro, Let vs giue thankes to the Lord our God. and, Verè dignum & iustum est, semper & vbique tibigratias agere &c. It is very meete and right, alvvaies and in al places to giue thee thankes: Vvhich the Greeke Church also in their Liturgies ex­presse most aboundantly? yet doth there folovv blessing & consecration, and vvhat­soeuer S. Ambrose describeth to be done in this holy sacrifice, touching this point, vvriting thereof most excellently in his booke de ijs qui initiantur mysterijs. c. 9.

6 Of al vvhich, this is the conclusion, that the Eucharist is a solemne name, taken of the vvord [...], so called, because this Sacrament and sacrifice is blessed and consecrated vvith praier & thankes-giuing, [Page 256]as S. Iustine speaketh, and because in this sacrifice so blessed and consecrated into the body and bloud of Christ, him vve offer vp a most acceptable oblation of thankes-giuing, and a memorie of al Gods marue­lous benefites tovvard vs. In this sense the fathers and the holy Church speake of the Eucharist, including al the rest, to vvit Sa­crament, sacrifice, blessing, & consecration, vvithout vvhich this vvere no more to be called Eucharist, then any other common giuing of thakes, as S. Irenaeus doth plaine­ly signifie, vvhen he declareth, hat being before bread, Li. 4. c. 34. and receiuing the inuocation of God ouer it, novv is no more common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of tvvo things, the earthly, and the heauenly. So that it is made the Eucharist by circumstance of so­lemne vvordes and ceremonies, & therfore is not a mere giuing of thankes: and further vve learne, that S. Iustines and S. Irenaeus vvordes before alleaged, [...]. Panis & calix Eucha­ristisatus, signifie, the bread and chalice made the Eucha­rist: and consequently vve learne that the actiue thereof, is, by thankes-giuing to make the Eucharist. and because the other vvord of blessing & this of thankes-giuing are vsed indifferently one for an other in Christs action about this Sacrament, vve learne vndoubtedly, that vvhen it is said, [...], or, [...], the meaning is, bles­sing, & giuing thankes, he made the Eucha­rist [Page 257]of his body and bloud, that is the Sacra­ment and Sacrifice of a singular thankes­giuing, vvhich (as S. Augustine often is vvont to say) the faithful only do knovv & vnderstand in the sacrifice of the Church: and because the faithful only vnderstand, therfore the Protestants and Caluinistes are so ignorant in this mysterie, that to take away al the dignitie thereof they bend both their expositions and translations.

7 After they haue turned blessing or con­secration into bare thankes-giuing, vvhich is one steppe tovvard the denying of the real presence, they come neerer, and so in­clude Christ in heauen, that he can not be vvithal vpon the altar, translating thus, Vvhom heauen must conteine, vntil the times that althings be restored. Act. 3. v. 21. and yet Beza vvorse, [...]. ad rat. camp. pag. 43. and he that alleageth him, M. Vvhitakers: vvho must be conteined in heauen. Vvhich is so far from the Greeke, that not only Illyricus the Luthera , but Caluin him self doth not like it. Beza protesteth that he so trāslateth of purpose to keepe Christs presence from the altar: and vve maruel the lesse, because vve are wel acquainted vvith many the like his impudēt Protestatiōs. M. Vvhitak. only vve do maruel at, that he should be either so deceiued by an other mans translation, or him self be so ouerseen in the Greeke [Page 258]vvord, [...]. that he knovveth not a mere depo­nent and onely deponent, from a passiue.

8 This doth not become him that *Ibid. pa. 84. obie­cteth ignorance of the Greeke to an other man, and that after he had vvel tried by publike conference,If he had not yet tried him, he pre­sumed to belye him, before he knevv him. that he vvas not igno­rant: & so obiecteth it as though he knevv not three vvordes in that tongue, vvhereas he had heard him reade & interpret S. Basil, not the easiest of the Greeke Doctors. This is palpable impudencie and a face that can not blush, and ful of malice against the sainctes of God, vvho if they knevv not a vvord in the Greeke tongue, vvere neuer the vvorse, nor the lesse learned, but among fooles and children, that esteeme learning by such trifles, vvhich Grammarians knovv far better then great Diuines. For vvere not he a vvise man that vvould prefer one Maister Humfrey, Maister Fulke, Maister Whitakers, or some of vs poore mē, because vve haue a litle smack in the three tonges, before S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, S. Augustin, S. Gregorie, or S. Thomas, that vnder­stoode vvel, none but one? Hovvbeit if they esteeme learning by knovvledge of the tongues, they vvil not (I trovv) com­pare vvith Catholikes, either of former time, or of these later age, specially since their nevv Gospel began: & if they vvil cō ­pare [Page 259]with vs herein for their simple credite, vve may perhaps giue them occasion ere it be long, to muster their men al at once, if they dare shevv their face before our campe of excellent Hebricians, Grecians, Latinistes, of absolute linguistes in the Chaldoe, Syriake, Arabike &c. vvhom they must needes confesse to haue been, and to be euen at this day, their Maisters and teachers.

9 But to returne to you M. Vvhitakers, greater is your fault in diuinitie, then in the tonges, vvhen you make your argument against the real presence out of this place, as out of the Scripture & S. Peter, vvhereas they are Bezas vvordes, and not S. Peters. Againe, vvhether you take Bezas vvordes, or S. Peters, your argument faileth very much, when you conclude that Christs na­tural body is not in the Sacrament, because it is placed and conteined in heauen. For S. Chrysostom telleth you,Ho. 2 ad po. Antioch. that Christ ascending into heauen, both left vs his flesh, and yet ascending hath the same. and againe, O miracle, saith he:Li. 3 de Sa­cerdotio. He that sitteth aboue vvith the Father, in the same moment of time is handled vvith the handes of al. This is the faith of the auncient fathers, M. Whitakers, and this is the Catholike faith, and this is (I trovv) an other maner of faith and far greater, thus to beleeue the presence of [Page 260]Christ in both places at once, because he is omnipotent and hath said the vvord: then your faith (vvhereof you boast so much) vvhich beleeueth no further then that he is ascended, and that therfore he cannot be present vpon the altar, nor dispose of his body as he list.

10 Againe it is a very famous place for the real presence of the bloud (vvhich vve haue handled at largeChap. 1. numb. 38. els vvhere, but here also must be breifely touched) vvhen our Sauiour saith, Luc. 22. This is the Chalice the nevv Testamēt in my bloud, [...]. vvhich (Chalice) is shed for you. For so (vvhich) must needes be referred according to the Greeke. In which speache, Chalice must needes be taken for that in the chalice, and that in the chalice must needes be the bloud of Christ, & not wine, because his bloud only vvas shed for vs. & so vve do plainely proue the real presence. according as S. Chrysostom also said,in 1 Cor. ca. 10. ho. 24. Hoc quod est in calice, illud est quod fluxit de latere. That vvhich is in the Chalice, is the same that gushed out of his side. Al vvhich most necessarie deduction Beza vvould defeate, by saying the Greeke is corrupted in al the copies that are extant in the vvorld, and by trāslating thus cleane othervvise then the Greeke vvil beare, This cuppe is the nevv Testamēt in my bloud, [...]. vvhich (bloud) is shed for you.

11 But what pertaineth this to the English Heretikes, Who translate, Vvhich is shed, so in­differētly that it may signifie, Vvhich cuppe or, vvhich bloud is shed? Thus far it pertaineth,Ad rat. Cāp. pag. 34. because they do not only defend this tran­slatiō by al meanes, but they tel vs plainely namely Fulke that they referre (vvhich) to the vvord bloud, and not to the vvord cuppe, Against D. Sand. Rocke pag. 309. euen as Beza doth, asking vs vvhat Gram­marian vvould referre it othervvise. in vvhich questiō he sheweth him self a very simple Grāmariā in the Greeke, or a madde heretike, that either knovveth not, or vvil not knovv, that in the Greeke it can not be so referred, and consequently neither in la­tin nor English, vvhich in true translation must folovv the Greeke. but of these and other their foule and manifold shiftes to auoid this place, *Chap. 1. nu. 37.38. &c. I haue spokē in an other place of this booke.

12 Only M. Whitakers (to say truely) hath brought somevvhat to the purpose,Pag. 35. to vvit, that S. Basil readeth the Greeke as they translate. But he doth vvel to make light of it, because it is euident that S. Basil cited not the text of the Euangelist, but the sense, vvhich Beza noteth to be the custom of the auncient fathers,Praef. in no. Test. an. 1556. telling vs vvithal that therfore the reading of the fathers, is no certaine rule to reforme or alter the wordes [Page 262]of Scripture according to the same: and it is very like that if Beza or Fulke his ad­uocate had thought S. Basils reading of any importance, they vvould haue vsed it long since, rather then so many other shiftes and so absurd, as they doe: vnles vve may thinke they knevv it not, and therfore could not vse it. But for S Basil, according to the sense he citeth it very truely: for, vvhether vve say, the Cuppe that is shed, or, the bloud that is shed, both signifieth the bloud of Christ shed for vs, as S. Basil citeth it. the differēce is, that referring it to the cuppe, as S. Luke hath it, it signifieth the bloud both present in the cuppe, and also then shed in a Sacra­ment at the last supper: but referring it to the vvord bloud, as S. Basil doth, & as they translate, it may signifie the bloud shed on the crosse also, yea (as these translatours meane and vvould haue it) only that on the Crosse, not considering that the Greeke vvord is the present tense, and therfore ra­ther signifieth the present sheding of his bloud then in mystical sacrifice, then the other visible sheding thereof, vvhich vvas to come in the future tense. Lastly, they translate S. Lukes Gospel, and not S. Basil: and therfore not folovving S. Luke, they are false translators, hovvsoeuer S. Basil readeth.

13 As this falshod is both against Sacra­ment and Sacrifice, so against the Sacrifice also of the altar it is, that they controule S. Hieroms translation in the old Testament concerning the sacrifice of Melchisedec,The sacrifice of Melchi­sedec. Vvho brought forth bread and vvine: Gen. 14. v. 18. that is, offered or sacrificed bread & vvine: vvhich vve proue to be the true sense and interpretation (& that this bringing forth of bread & vvine, vvas sacrificing thereof) not only by al the fathers expositions that vvrite of Melchisedeks priesthod, (Cypr. epist. 63. Epiph. har. 55. & 79. Hiero. in Mat. 26. & in epist. ad Euagrium.) & by the Hebrue vvord vvhich is a vvord of sacrifice, Iud. 6. v. 18: and * [...] See Pet. Ga­lat. li. 10 c. 4. et 5. et Chro. Genebrardi pag. 13. by the greatest Rabbines and Hebricians that vvrite thereof, but vve proue it also by these vvordes of the very text it self, He brought forth bread and vvine, for he vvas the Priest of God most high. Vvhich reason immediatly folovving, Because he vvas Gods Priest, proueth euidētly that he brought it not forth in cō ­mon maner as any other man might haue done, but as Gods Priest, vvhose office is to offer sacrifice. This cōsequence is so plaine, that for auoiding thereof, the Aduersaries vvil not haue it translated in any vvise, [...]. For he vvas the Priest, as though the Scripture gaue a reason vvhy he brought forth bread and vvine: but, and he vvas a Priest, &c. [...] Vvrangling [Page 264]about the signification of the Hebrue con­iunction.

14 Vvherein the reader may see their exce­ding partiality & wilfulnes. For, besides in­finite like places of Scripture, whereby vve do easily shevv that this Hebrue particle is vsed to giue a reason or cause of a thing, them selues also in an other place proue it for vs,Beza annot. in 1 Luc. v. 42. and that by the authoritie of Theo­phylacte, & allegation of examples out of the Scripture,no. Test. an. 1580. and translate accordingly thus: Blessed art thou among vvomen, because the fruite of thy vvombe is blessed. Benedicta tu &c. & benedi­ctus. &c. Let them giue vs a rea­son, vvhy the said Coniunction is here by their translation, quia, or, enim, vvhere it vvas neuer so translated before, [...]. and it must not be in any case in the other place of Genesis, vvhere it hath been so translated and gene­rally receiued euē in the primitiue Church. In other places of Scripture also vvhich Theophylacte alleageth, and many moe may be alleaged, they cōfesse and like very vvell it should so signifie: only in the place of Genesis,Gen. 14. v. 18. they can not abide any such sense or translation thereof: but, He brought forth bread and vvine, and he vvas the Priest, &c. not, because he vvas the Priest: Vvhat is the cause of this their dealing? None other vndoubted­ly (and in al these cases I knocke at their consciences) but that here they vvould [Page 265]auoid the necessarie sequele of Melchi­sedecks sacrifice, vpon such translation, vvhich typical sacrifice of bread and vvine if it should be graūted, then vvould folow also a sacrifice of the nevv Testamēt, made of bread and vvine ansvvering to the same, and so vve should haue the sacrifice of the altar, and their bare communion should be excluded.

15 For vvhich purpose also their partial translation about, altar, and, table, is noto­rious. For, [...]. the name of altar (as they knovv very vvel) both in the Hebrue and Greeke, [...] and by the custome of al peoples both Ievves and Pagans, implying and im­porting sacrifice, therfore vve in respect of the sacrifice of Christs body & bloud, say, altar, rather then, table, as al the auncient fathers (Chrys. ho. 53 ad po. Antioch. and ho. 20 in 2 Cor. and in Demōst. (que) Christus sit Deus, to. 5. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore. Basil. in Liturg. Socrat. li. 1. Hist. c. 20 & 25. Theodoret. hist. li. 4. c. 20. Theophyl. in 23 Mat. Cypr. epist. 63. Optat. cont. Parm. Aug. ep. 86. & li. 9. Confess. c. 11 & 13. & alibi saepe) are wont to speake & vvrite, (namely vvhen S. Hierom calleth the bodies or bones of SS. Peter & Paul the altars of Christ, because of this sacrifice of­fered ouer and vpon the same) though in respect of eating & drinking the body and bloud, it is also called a table: so that vvith vs it is both an altar and a table, vvhether [Page 266]it be of vvood or of stone. but the Prote­stants, because they make it only a commu­nion of bread and vvine, or a supper, and no sacrifice, therfore they call it table only, and abhorre from the vvord, altar, as Papi­stical. For the vvhich purpose, in their first translation, (Bible an. 1562.) vvhen altars vvere then in digging dovvne through out England, they translated vvith no lesse ma­lice, then they threvve them dovvne, put­ting the vvord, temple, in steede of altar: vvhich is so grosse a corruption, that a man vvould haue thought it had been done by ouersight, and not of purpose, if they had not done it thrise immediatly vvithin tvvo chapters, 1 Cor. 9. & 10. saying: Knovv you not that they vvhich vvaite of the TEMPLE, are partakers of the TEMPLE? and, Are not they vvhich eate of the sacrifice, partakers of the TEMPLE? in al vvhich places the Apostles vvord in Greeke is, [...]. c. 9. v. 13. [...]. altar, and not, temple. and see here their notorious peeuishnes. vvhere the Apostle saith, temple, there the same translation saith, sacrifice: vvhere the Apostle saith, altar, there it saith, temple.

16 Thus vve see hovv they suppresse the name of altar, vvhere it should be: novv let vs see how they put it in their translatiō, vvhere it should not be this also they do thrise in one chapter, & that for to saue the honour of their communion table. namely [Page 267]in the storie of Bel,Dan. 14. v. 12.17.20. vvhere we haue it thrise called the table of that idol, vnder vvhich Bels priests had made a priuie entrance, and, [...]. that the king looked vpon the table, and, that they did eate vp such things as vvere vpon the table: these vvicked trās­lators fearing lest the name of Bels table might redound to the dishonour of their Communion table, translate it, altar, See the Bib. 1562. and 1577. in al these places. Vvherein I cannot but pitie their follie, and vvonder excedingly hovv they could imagin it any disgrace either for table or altar, if the I dols also had their ta­bles and altars, vvhereas S. Paul so plainely nameth both together, The table of our Lord, 1 Cor. 10. v. 21. and the table of Diuels. If the table of Diuels, vvhy not the table of Bel? if that be no disgrace to the table of our Lord, vvhy are you afraid of Bels table, lest it should disgrace yours? Or if you had no such feare, then you must tell vs some other good reason of your vnreasonable trāslation in this place, vvhy you translate, altar, for, table, that is, chaulke for cheese.

17 And here by the vvay the Reader may note an other exceding folly in them, that thinke the name of table, maketh against altar & sacrifice, their ovvne trans­lation here condemning them, vvhere they call Bels table, an altar and S. Paul, hauing said to the Corinthians, the table of our Lord, [Page 268]saith to the HebruesHaimo. Oecumen. of the self same, vve haue an altar. & againe he saith, the table of Diuels, vvhich I am sure they wil not deny to haue been a true altar of I dololatrical sacrifice. & Malach. 1. v. 7. in one sentence it is called. both altar & table, vvherevpon the Ievves offered their external and true sacrifices. & al the fathers both Greeke and Latin spea­king of the sacrifice of the nevv Testamēt, call that where vpon it is offered, both altar & table: but the Greekes more often table, the Latin fathers more often altar: and vvhy or in vvhat respectes it is called both this and that, vve haue before declared, & here might adde the very same out of S. Ger­manus Arch. B. of Constantinople, in his Greeke commentaries (called mystica theoria) vpon the Liturgies or Masses of the Greeke fathers. but to procede.

18 There are also some places lesse euidēt, yet such as smatche of the like heretical humor against the B. Sacrament. In the pro­phet Hieremie c. 11. v. 19. vve reade thus ac­cording to the Latin and the Greeke, Let vs cast Lignum in panem eius. [...]. vvood vpon his bread, that is, saith S. Hierom in comment. huius loci, the crosse vpon the body of our Sauiour. For it is he that said, I am the bread that descen­ded from heauen. Vvhere the Prophet so long before saying, bread, and meaning his body, alludeth prophetically to his body in the [Page 269]B. Sacrament made of bread and vnder the forme of bread, and therfore also called bread of the Apostle. So that both in the Prophet and the Apostle,1 Cor. 10. his bread and his body is al one. and lest vve should thinke that the bread only signifieth his body, he saith, let vs put the Crosse vpon his bread, that is, vpō his very natural body vvhich hung on the crosse. Novv for these vvordes of the Pro­phet so vsual and vvel knovven in the Church and al antiquitie, hovv thinke you do these nevv Maisters translate? in one bi­ble thus, Let vs destroy the tree vvith the fruite ther­of. An other, vve vvil destroy his meate vvith vvood. or as they should haue said rather, the vvood vvith his meate Do you see how properly they agree, vvhiles they seeke nouelties, and for­sake the auncient vsual translation?

19 They vvil say, the first Hebrue vvord can not be as S. Hierom translateth, and as it is in the Greeke, and as al antiquitie rea­deth: but it must signifie, Let vs destroy. They say truely, according to the Hebrue vvord vvhich novv is. But is it not euidēt thereby, that the Hebrue vvord novv is not the same vvhich the Septuaginta trāslated into Greeke, [...]. mittamus. and S. Hierom into Latin? [...] and con­sequently the Hebrue is altered and cor­rupted from the original copie vvhich they had: perhaps by the Ievves (as *Ps. some other [Page 270]places) to obscure this prophecie also of Christs Passion, and their crucifying of him vpon the Crosse. Such Ievvish Rabbi­nes and nevv Hebrue vvordes do our nevv maisters gladly folovv in the translation of the old Testament, vvhereas they might easily conceiue the old Hebrue vvord in this place, if they vvould employ their skill that vvay, and not only to nouelties. For who seeth not that the Greeke Interpreters in number 70, and al Hebrues of best skill in their ovvne tongue, S. Hierom also a great Hebrician did not reade as novv vve haue in the Hebrue,Destruamus. ponamus. mittamus. Nashchîtha, but, Nashitha, or, Nashlîcha? Againe the Hebrue vvord that novv is, doth so litle agree vvith the vvor­des folovving, that they cannot tel hovv to translate it, as appeareth by the diuersitie and difference of their translations thereof before mentioned, and transposing the vvordes in English othervvise then in the Hebrue, neither of both their translations hauing any commodious sense or vnder­standing.

20 But yet they vvil pretend that for the first vvord at the least, they are not to be blamed, because they folovv the Hebrue that novv is. not considering that if this vvere a good excuse, then might they as vvel folovv the Hebrue that novv is Psal. [Page 271]21. v. 18: and so vtterly suppresse and take out of the Scripture this notable prophe­cie, They pearced my handes and my feete: Vvhich yet they doe not, neither can they doe it for shame, if they vvil be counted Chris­tians. So that in deede, to folovv the He­brue sometime vvhere it is corrupt, is no sufficient excuse for them, though it may haue a pretence of true translation, and vve promised in the preface, in such cases not to call it heretical translation.

That vvater and vvine ought to be mingled in the chalice. Pro. 9.21 But concerning the B. Sacrament, let vs see once more hovv truely they folovv the Hebrue. The holy Ghost (saith S. Cyprian ep. 63 nu. 2.) by Salomon foresheweth a type of our Lordes sacrifice, of the immolated host of bread and vvine, saying, Vvisedome hath killed her hostes, SHE HATH MING­LED HER VVINE INTO the cuppe. Come ye, eate of my bread, and drinke the vvine that I HAVE MINGLED for you. Speaking of VVINE MINGLED (saith this holy doctor) he foreshevveth prophetically the cuppe of our Lord, MINGLED VVITH VVATER AND VVINE. So doth S. Hierom interprete this mixture or mingling of the vvine in the chalice, so doth the author of the commentaries vpon this place among S. Hieroms vvorkes,See S. Augu­stine de Ci­uit. Dei li. 17 c. 20. so doe the other fathers. So that there is great importance in these prophetical vvordes of Salomon. She hath mingled her vvine into the cuppe, and, the vvine vvhich I haue mingled, as being a manifest prophecie of Christs mingling [Page 272]vvater and vvine in the Chalice at his last supper, vvhich the Catholike Church ob­serueth at this day, and vvhereof S. Cyprian vvriteth the foresaid long epistle.

22 But the Protestants counting it an idle superstitious ceremonie, here also frame their translation accordingly, sup­pressing altogether this mixture or ming­ling, and in steede thereof saying, She hath dravven her vvine, Bibl. 1579. and, drinke the vvine that I haue dravven: or (as in other of their bibles) She hath povvred out her vvine, an. 1577. and the vvine vvhich I haue povvred out: neither trāslation agreing either vvith Greeke or Hebrue. [...], miscuit. [...], miscui. not vvith the Greeke, vvhich doth euidently signifie, mingling and mixture, as it is in the Latin, & as al the Greeke Church from the Apo­stles time hath vsed this vvord in this very case vvhereof vve novv speake, of ming­ling vvater & vvine in the chalice S. Iames and S. Basil in their Liturgies expresly testi­fying that Christ did so, [...]. as also S. Cyprian in the place alleaged. S. Iustine in the end of his second apologie, calling it of the same Greeke vvord, [...], that is (accor­ding to Plutarche) vvine mingled vvith vvater:mixtus calix. likevvise S. Ireneus in his fifth booke neere the beginning.Conc. Con­stantinop. 6. can. 32. See the 6 ge­neral Councel most fully treating hereof and deducing it from the Apostles & aun­cient [Page 273]fathers,CHAP. 18. and interpreting this Greeke vvord by an other equiualent, [...]. and more plaine to signifie this mixture

23 Thus thē the Greeke is neither drawing of vvine, nor povvring out thereof, as they trāslate, but mingling. but the Hebrue per­haps signifieth both, or at the least one of the tvvo, either to dravv, or to povver out. Gentle reader, if thou haue skill, looke the Hebrue Lexicon of Pagnine esteemed the best: if thou haue not skil, aske, [...] and thou shalt vnderstand that there is no such sig­nification of this vvord in al the bible, but that it signifieth only mixture & mingling. A strange case, that to auoide this mingling of the cuppe, being a most certaine tradi­tion of the Apostles, they haue inuented tvvo other significations of this Hebrue vvord, vvhich it neuer had before.

CHAP. XVIII. Heretical translation against the honour of SAINCTS, namely of our B. LADIE.

1 LET vs passe from Gods holy Sacraments to his honorable Saincts in heauen, and vve shal finde that these transla­tions plucke from them also as much honour as they may. In the Psalme [Page 274]138 vvhere the Catholike Church & al anti­quitie readeth thus,Psal. 138. Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus &c. Thy frendes ô God are become exceding honorable, their princedom is excedingly strengthened: vvhich verse is sung and said in the honour of the holy Apostles, agreably to that in an other Psalme,Ps 44. Constitues eos principes super omnem terram, Thou shalt appoint them Princes ouer al the earth: vvhat meane they in al their English Bibles to alter it thus: Hovv deere are thy counsels (or thoughtes) to me ô God: ô hovv great is the summe of them? Doth not the Hebrue make more for the old receiued Latin trans­lation, [...] then for theirs, because the Hebrue vvord is vsed more cōmonly for to signifie frendes then cogitations? doth not S. Hie­rom so translate in his translation of the Psalmes according to the Hebrue? doth not the great Rabbine R. Salomon? Doth not the Greeke put it out of doubt, [...] vvhich is altogether according to the said auncient Latin translation?

2 And you my Maisters that translate othervvise, [...] I beseeche you, is it in Hebrue, Hovv great is the summe of them & not rather word for vvord most plainely, hovv are the heads of them strengthened, or their princedoms, as in the Greeke also it is most manifest? [...]. Vvhy do you then hunt after nouelties, and forsake the troden pathe of the auncient, and passe [Page 275]the boundes vvhich our holy forefathers haue set and appointed, preferring your ovvne singularities and nevv deuises euen there vvhere you can not iustly pretend either the Hebrue or Greeke?Epito. The­sau. Pagn. an. 1570. in radice. Vvhen the Hebrue Lexicon hath giuen the common interpretation of this place, and then saith, Quidam exponunt, Some expound it otherwise: vvhy had you rather be of that lesser, some that expound othervvise, then of the great societie of al auncient interpreters?

3 But this nevv fangled singulatitie of teaching and translating othervvise then al antiquitie hath done, shal better appeare in their dealing about our B. Lady, vvhose honour they haue sought so many vvaies to diminish & deface, that the defense and maintenance thereof against the Heretikes of our time is grovven to a great booke learnedly vvritten by the great Clerke and Iesuite, father Canisius, entitled, Mariana.

4 Concerning our purpose, vvhat vvas euer more common, and is novv more ge­neral and vsual in al Christian Countries, then in the Aue Marie to say. Gratia plena, ful of grace, in so much that in the first English Bible it hath continued so still, and euery childe in our Countrie vvas taught so to say, till the Aue Marie vvas banished alto­gether and not suffered to be said neither in [Page 276]Latin nor English? Vvhat auncient father of the Latin Church hath not alvvaies so read and expounded? Vvhat Church in al the vvest hath not euer so sung and said? Onely our nevv Translators haue found a nevv kinde of speache, translating thus: Haile thou that art freely beloued. Bib. 1579. and 1577. and, Haile thou that art in high fauour. Vvhy this, and that, or any other thing, rather then, Haile ful of grace? S. Iohn Baptist vvas ful of the holy Ghost euen from his birth,Luc. 1. v. 15. S. Steuen vvas ful of grace,Act. 7. v. 8. as the Scripture recordeth of them both: vvhy may not then our Lady much more be called ful of grace,Ambr. li. 2 in 1 Luc. vvho (as S. Am­brose saith) onely obteined the grace, vvhich no other vvomen deserued, to be replenished vvith the author of grace?

5 They vvil say, the Greeke vvord doth not so signifie. doth it not? I make them selues vvitnesses of the contrarie, and their owne translation in other places shal con­fute them, vvhere they translate an other vvord of the self same nature and forme and in al respectes like to this,Luc. 16. v. 20 ful of sores. If [...] be ful of sores, vvhy is not [...] ful of grace? Let any Grecian of them al make me a difference in the nature and significancie of these tvvo vvordes. Againe if vlcerosus (as Beza translateth) be ful of sores, vvhy is not gratiosa (as Erasmus translateth) [Page 277] ful of grace? or vvhy doth Beza maruel that Erasmus translated, gratiosa, vvhen him self trāslateth the like vvord, vlcerosus. Al vvhich adiectiues in osus (you knovv) signifie fulnes, as, periculosus, aerumnosus. Yet vvhat a sturre doth Beza keepe here in his Annotatiōs to make the Greeke vvord signifie, freely beloued?

6 But hath it in deede any such signifi­cation? tell vs you that professe this great skill of the tongues, [...] vvhat syllable is there in this vvord that soundeth to that signifi­cation?Comment. in Eph. 1. S. Chrysostom and the Greeke Do­ctors that should best knovv the nature of this Greeke word, say that it signifieth, to make gratious, & acceptable, and beloued, and beautiful, and amiable, and so to be de­sired as vvhen the Psalme saith,Psal. 44. The king shal desire thy beautie. Beza him self saith, that it is vvord for vvord, gratificata, made grateful, and yet he expoundeth it, accepted before God, and translateth it, freely beloued, because he vvill haue no singular grace or goodnes or vertue resident in our B. Lady, but al by imputation & acceptation, vvhereof I haue spoken before.S. Athan. de S. Deip. S. Athanasius a Greeke Do­ctor saith that she had this title [...], because the Holy Ghost descended into the Virgin, filling her vvith al graces and vertues. and I beseeche the reader to see his vvordes, vvhich are many moe concerning [Page 278]this fulnes of grace and al spiritual giftes. S. Hierom that knevv the Greeke vvord as vvel as the Protestants,Ep. 140 in expos. Psal. 44. readeth, Gratia plena, and findeth no fault vvith this interpreta­tion. but saith plainely she vvas so saluted, ful of grace, because she conceiued him in vvhom al fulnes of the deitie dvvelt corpo­rally.

7 Novv let the English Bezites come vvith their nevv terme, freely beloued, and con­troule these and al other auncient fathers both Greeke and Latin, and teache them a nevv signification of the Greeke vvord, vvhich they knevv not before.Iohn Kel­tridge prea­cher of the vvord in London. in his sermons vvithin the toure, prin­ted. fo. 14. Let Iohn Keltridge one of their great preachers in London, come and tel vs, that the Septuaginta and the best translations in Greeke haue no such vvordes as vve vse in the Aue Marie, but that the vvord vvhich the Septuaginta vse, is [...] &c.Grosse igno­rance & sin­gular pride in many of the nevv cleargie. Vvho euer heard such a ieast, that the preacher of the vvord of God in London (so he is called in the title of his booke) and preacher before the Iesuites and Semi­naries in the tovver,So he called the Priests of the Seminarie, as if one vvold cal a monke a Monaste­rie or a nonne a nonry. vvhich is next degree to the disputers there, vvhose sermons be solemnely printed, and dedicated to one of the Queenes Councel, vvho seemeth to be such a Grecian that he confuteth the vulgar Latin translation by the signification of the Greeke vvorde, and in other places of his [Page 279]booke alleageth the Greeke text:Pag. 37. of the 2 part. that this man for al this, referreth vs to the Septua­ginta either as authors of S. Lukes Gospel vvhich is to ridiculous: or as translators thereof, as though S. Luke had vvritten in Hebrue, yea as though the vvhole nevv Testament had been vvritten in Hebrue (for so no doubt he presupposed) and that the Septuaginta had translated it into Greeke as they did the old, vvho vvere dead three hundred yeres before S. Lukes Gospel and the nevv Testament vvas vvritten.

8 Al this is such a pitiful ieast, as vvere in­credible, if his printed booke did not giue testimonie. Pitiful I say, because the simple people count such their preachers ioly fellowes & great Clerkes, because they can talke of the Greeke & of the Hebrue text, as this man doth also concerning the He­brue letter Tau, Fol. 11. parte. 2. vvhether it had in old time the forme of a crosse or no, euen as vvisely and as skilfully, as he did before of the Septuaginta and the Greeke vvord in S. Lukes Gospel. Vvhose incredible follie and ignorance in the tongues perhaps I vvould neuer haue mentioned (because I thinke the rest are sorie and ashamed of him) but that he boasteth of that vvhereof he hath no skil, and that the people may take him for a very paterne and example of many [Page 280]other like boasters and braggers among them, and that vvhen they heare one talke lustely of the Hebrue and Greeke, and cite the text in the said tongues, they may al­vvaies remember Iohn keltridge their preacher, and say to them selues, vvhat if this fellovv also be like Iohn keltridge?

9 But to procede: these great Grecians and Hebricians that controule al antiquitie and the approued aunciēt Latin translation by scāning the Greeke & Hebrue vvordes, that thinke it a great corruption Gen. 3. to reade, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, she shal bruise thy head, because it pertaineth to our Ladies ho­nour, calling it *Sand. Rocke discou. pag. 145. a corruption of the Popish Church, whereas S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gregorie, S. Bernard, & the rest reade so, as being the cōmon receiued text in their time (though there hath been also alvvaies the other reading euen in the vulgar Latin trās­latiō, & therfore it is not any late reforma­tion of these new correctors, as though the Hebrue and Greeke text before had been vnknovven) these controulers I say of the Latin text by the Hebrue, against our La­dies honour, are in an other place content to dissemble the Hebrue vvord, and that also for smal deuotion to the B. Virgin: namely Hierem 7 and 44. Vvhere the Pro­phet inueigheth against them that offer sa­crifice [Page 281]to the Queene of heauen. this they thinke is very vvel, because it may sound in the peoples eares against the vse of the Catho­like Church, vvhich calleth our Lady, Queene of heauen. but they knovv very vvel that the Hebrue vvorde doth not signifie, Queene in any other place of the Scripture, and that the Rabbines and later Hebricians (vvhom they gladly folovv) deduce it othervvise, to signifie rather the vvhole corps and frame of heauen, consisting of al the beautiful starres and planets, and the Septuaginta call it not onely [...],See Pagn. in radice. Queene, but [...], the host of heauen, [...] and [...] c. 7. Hierem: and S. Hierom not only, reginam, but rather, militiam coeli: & vvhen he nameth it reginam, Queene, he saith vve must vnder­stand it of the moone, to vvhich and to the other starres they did sacrifice and com­mit idolatrie. but the Protestants (against their custom of scanning the Hebrue and the Greeke) translate here, Queene of heauen, for no other cause in the vvorld, but to make it sound against her, vvhom Catho­likes truely call and vvorthily honour as Queene of heauen, because her sōne is king, and she exalted aboue Angels and al other creatures. See the Nevv Test. Annot. Act. 1. v. 14.

10 Againe,An. 1580. vvhy doth the Geneua nevv Testament make S. Mathevv to say,Cap. 1. v. 25. that He [Page 282](to vvit, Ioseph) called his name Iesus? Vvhy not she,Cap. 1. v. 32. as vvel as he? For in S. Luke the Angel saith to our Lady also, Thou shalt call his name Iesus. S. Matthevv then speaking in­differently, and not limiting it to him or her, vvhy doe they giue this preeminence to Ioseph rather then to the B. Virgin? did not both Zacharie and also Elisabeth his vvife by reuelation giue the name of Iohn to Iohn the Baptist?Luc. 1. v. 60 and 63. yea did not Elisabeth the mother first so name him, before Zacha­rie her husbād? much more may vve thinke that the B. Virgin the natural mother of our Sauiour, gaue him the name of Iesus, then Ioseph his putatiue father, specially if vve consider that the Angel reuealed the name first vnto her, saying, that she should so call him: and the Hebrue vvord Esa. 7. vvherevnto the Angel alludeth, is the foe­minine gender, and referred by the great Rabbines, Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Da­uid, vnto her, saying expresly in their com­mentaries, Et vocabit ipsa puella: and the maide her self shal call. and surely the vsual pointing of the Greeke text (for Beza maketh other points of his ovvne) is much more for that purpose. Novv if they vvil say that Theo­phylacte vnderstandeth it of Ioseph, true it is, and so it may be vnderstood very wel: but if it may be vnderstood of our Lady [Page 283]also, and rather of her then of him, vvhy doth your translation exclude this other interpretation?

11 Vvhere, by the vvay I must tel you (and els vvhere perhaps more at large) that it is your common fault to make some one do­ctors interpretation, the text of your trans­lation, and so to exclude al the rest that expound it othervvise, vvhich you knovv is such a fault in a translator as can by no meanes be excused. Secōdly the reader may here obserue and learne, that if they shal hereafter defend their translation of any place, by some doctors expositiō agreable therevnto, that vvil not serue nor suffice them, because euery Doctor may say his opinion in his cōmentaries, *See chap. 1. nu. 3.43. Cha. 10. nu. 1.2. chap. 19. nu. 1. but that must not be made the text of Scripture, because other doctors expound it othervvise: and being in it self and in the original tōge am­biguous and indifferent to diuers senses, it may not be restrained or limited by transla­tion, vnles there be a mere necessitie, vvhen the translation can not possibly or hardly expresse the ambiguitie and indifferencie of the original text.

12 As (for example) in this controuersie cōcerning Saincts,2 Pet. 1. v. 15. S. Peter speaketh so am­biguously, either that he wil remember thē after his death, or they shal remember him, [Page 284]that some of the Greeke fathers gathered and concluded therevpon (Oecum. in Caten. Gagneius in hunc locū) that the Saincts in heauen remember vs on earth, [...]. and make interces­sion for vs. Vvhich am biguitie both in the Greeke and the Latin, should be also kept and expressed in the English translation, and vve haue endeuoured as neere as vve could possibly so to make it, because of the diuers interpretations of the auncient fathers. But it may seeme perhaps to the reader that the said ambiguitie can not be kept in our English tongue, and that our ovvne translation also can haue but one sense. If it be so, and if there be a necessitie of one sense, then (as I said) the translator in that respect is excused. But let the good reader consider also, that the Caluinists in restraining the sense of this place, folovv not necessitie, but their heresie, That Saincts pray not for vs.Beza. Vvhich is euident by this, that they restraine it in their Latin transla­tions also, vvhere there is no necessitie at al, but it might be as ambiguous & indifferēt, as in Greeke,no. Test. Gr. Henr. Steph. an. 1576. if it pleased them: yea when they print the Greeke Testament only vvithout any translation, yet here they put the Latin in the margent, according as they vvil haue it read, and as though it might be read no othervvise then they prescribe.

CHAP. XIX. Heretical translation against the distinction of LATRIA and DVLIA.

1 IN this restraining of the Scripture to the sense of some one Doctor, there is a famous example in the epi­stle to the Hebrues,Heb. 11. v. 21 vvhere the Apostle saith either Iacob adored the toppe of Iosephs scepter, as many read and expound: or els, that he adored tovvard the toppe of his scepter, as other read and inter­pret: and beside these there is no other in­terpretation of this place in al antiquitie, but in S. Augustine only, as Beza cōfesseth:Quaest. in Gen. Bib. 1579. yet are they so bold to make his exposition only, and his commentarie peculiar to him alone, the text of the Scripture in their trās­lation, saying, Iacob leaning on the end of his staffe, vvorshipped God, and so excluding al other senses & expositions of al the other fathers, excluding and condemning their ovvne former translations,Bib. 1562. 1577. adding tvvo vvordes more then are in the Greeke text, leaning, God: forcing [...] to signifie [...], vvhich may be, but is as rare, as virgae eius, for virgae suae: turning the other vvordes cleane out of their order and place and forme of constru­ction vvhich they must needes haue corres­pondent [Page 286]and ansvverable to the Hebrue text from vvhence they vvere translated:Gen. 47. v. 3. [...]. vvhich Hebrue vvordes them selues trans­late in this order, He vvorshipped tovvard the beddes head. If he vvorshipped tovvard the beddes head, according to the Hebrue: then did he vvorship tovvard the toppe of his scepter, according to the Greeke: the difference of both being only in these vvordes, scepter, and, bedde (because the Hebrue is ambiguous to both) and not in the order or construction of the sen­tence.

2 To make it more plaine, vvhen the Pro­phet Dauid saith, Adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum Psal. 5. & 137. is not the true translation, [...]. and grāmatical sequele of the vvordes thus: I vvil adore tovvard thy holy temple? Is it not a common phrase in the Scripture, that the people of God adored tovvard Hierusalem, [...]. Dan. 6. 3 Reg. 8. Psal. 98. Ios. 7. [...]. Ps. 131. tovvard his holy mount, before the arke, tovvard the place vvhere his feete stood? May any man be so bold, by adding and transposing to alter and obscure al such places of holy Scripture, that there may appeare no maner of adoration tovvard or before a creature? and for vvorshipping or adoring tovvard the things aforesaid and the like, may vve say, leaning vpon those things to vvorship or adore God? Vvere they afraid lest those speaches of holy Scrip­ture [Page 287]might vvarrant and confirme the Ca­tholike & Christian maner of adoring our Sauiour Christ toward the holy Roode, at, or before his image and the Crucifixe be­fore the altar, and so forth? For had they not feated this, vvhy should they translate [...], caning vpon, rather then, tovvards, yea, vvhy in Genesis, tovvards his beddes head, & here not, tovvards?

3 And (vvhich is more) vvhen the aun­cient Greeke fa [...]hers, Chrys. Oecum. in Collectan. Damesc. li. 1. pro imaginibus, Leont. apud Damasc. put so litle force either in this preposition [...] (or the other alleaged) that they expound al those speaches as if the prepositions vvere of phrase only and not of signification, [...]. saying, Iacob adored Iosephs scepter, [...]. the people of Israel adored the temple, the Arke, the holy mount, the place vvhere his feete stoode, and the like, vvhereby S. Damascene proueth the adoration of creatures named Dulia, [...]. namely of the crosse and of sacred images: if I say they make so litle force of the prepositions, that they inferre not only adoration to­wards the thing, but adoratiō of the thing: hovv do these goodly translatours, of al other vvordes so straine and racke the litle particle [...] to signifie, leaning vpon, that it shal in no vvise signifie any thing tending tovvards adoration?

4 And if the Greeke Doctors suffise not to satisfie these great Grecians herein, telme you that haue skil in the Hebrue, vvhether in the foresaid speaches cited out of the Psalmes, there be any force in the Hebrue prepositions? [...] Psal. 98.131. surely no more then if vve should say in English vvithout pre­positions, Adore ye his holy hil: vve vvil adore the place vvhere his feete stoode: [...] Psal. 95. or 96. Adore ye his footestoole: For you knovv that there is the same pre­position also vvhen it is said, Adore ye our Lord: or as your selues translate, vvorship the Lord: vvhere there can be no force nor significa­tion of the prepositiō. [...] And therfore in these places also your translation is corrupt and vvilful, vvhen you say thus: Vve vvil fall dovvne before his footestoole. fall ye dovvne before his footestoole, before his holy mount, or vvouship him vpon his holy hil: Vvhere you shunne and auoid first the terme of adoration, vvhich the He­brue and Greeke duely expresse by termes correspondent in both languages, [...]. through out the Bible, and are applied for the most part to signifie adoring of creatures. Secondly you auoid the Greeke phrase, vvhich is at the least, to adore tovvards these holy things and places: & much more the Hebrue phrase, vvhich is, to adore the very things rehearsed: to adore Gods footestoole (as the Psalme saith) because it is holy, Psal. 98. or, because [Page 289]he is holy, vvhose footestoole it is, as the Greeke readeth.

5 This being most manifest to al that haue skil in these tongues, it is euident that you regard neither Hebrue nor Greeke, but only your heresie: & that in S. Paules place aforesaid of adoring Iosephs scepter, you alter it by your ovvne fansie, and not by S. Augustines authoritie, vvhom I am sure you vvil not admit reading in the Psalme, Adore ye his footestoole: and so precisely and reli­giously reading thus, that he examineth the case, and findeth thereby that the B. Sa­crament must be adored, and that no good Christian doth take it, before he adore it. Neither vvil you admit him vvhen he readeth thus of Dauid,Praef. in Ps. 33. He vvas caried ī his ovvne handes, & interpreteth it mystically of Christ, that he vvas caried in his ovvne handes, vvhen he gaue his body and bloud to his disciples. Yet are S. Augustines interpreta­tions (hovvsoeuer you like or mislike them) very good, as also that aboue named of Ia­cobs leaning vpon his staffe, and adoring, may be one good sense or commentarie of that place, but yet a commentarie, and one Doctors opinion, not the sacred text of Scripture, as you would make it by so trans­lating.

6 And if S. Hierom like not the Greeke Doctors interpretation in this place of ado­ring Ioseph and his scepter, yet he also saith that Iacob adored tovvard Iosephs rodde, or tovvard the beds head, and not leaning vpon his staffe he adored, vvhich you make the text of Scripture. And though he thinke that in this place is not meant any adoratiō of Ioseph, yet I am sure, for adoration of holy things, namely Relikes, the holy land, and al the holy places and monuments of Christs being & doing vpon the earth, you vvil not be tried by S. Hierom. And againe, why S. Paul should say, that by faith he ado­red, & in respect of things to come, it is not othervvise easie to vnderstand, but that he partly foresaw the kingdom of Ephraim, in the posteritie of Ioseph: partly the kingdom of Christ prefigured in Ioseph then Prince of Aegypt, & so by faith adored his scepter or tovvard his scepter (vvhich is al one) as the Greeke fathers for the most part expoūd it. But let vs hasten tovvard an end.

CHAP. XX. Heretical translation by ADDING TO THE TEXT.

1 BECAVSE in the last corruption I spake of adding to the text, though it be their common and vniuersal fault in euery contro­uersie, as is to be seen in euery chapter of this booke: yet here I vvil adde certaine places not yet mentioned. As,2 Paral. 36. v. 8. in Bib. 1562. The rest of the actes of Iehoakim, and his abominations vvhich he did, and CARVED IMAGES THAT VVERE LAID TO HIS CHARGE, BEHOLD THEY ARE WRITTEN &c. these vvordes,Against images. carued images laid to his charge, are more then is either in the Greeke or the Hebrue.

2 Againe,Act. 9. v. 22. Bib. 1577. Saul confounded the Ievves prouing (by conferring one Scripture vvith an other) that this is very Christ. These vvordes,For Confe­rence of Scriptures, against fa­thers, Coun­cels &c. by conferring one scripture vvith another, are added more then is in the Greeke text: in fauour of their presumptuous opi­nion, that conference of Scriptures is ynough for any man to vnderstand them, and so to reiect both the commentaries of the Doctors, & exposition of holy Councels and Catholike Church. it is so much more I say then is in the Greeke text, and a notorious corruption in their Bible read daily in their churches as most authen­tical. See the rest of their Bibles, and thou shalt finde no more for al those vvordes, but, affirming, or, confirming. [...]. c. 2. v. 16. and the self same Bible in the first epistle to the Corinthians translateth the same Greeke vvord thus, [Page 292] Vvho shal instruct? [...]. And in deede that is the true and vsual signification of the vvord, both in the old Testament, and in the nevv. as Deut. 4. Thou shalt teach them thy children. And Esa. 40. Vvho shal instruct our Lord? the Hebrue vvord also in both places signifying no more but instructing and teaching. [...] And so doth the Apostle cite it to the Corinthians out of Esay, & he vseth it to the Colos. (c. 2. v. 2) in the same signification, as the Church readeth and expoundeth it, and so conse­quently S. Luke in the place vvhereof vve novv treate, saith nothing els, but that S. Paul earnestly taught or instructed them that Iesus is Christ. And yet our nevv Translators vvithout respect of Hebrue or Greeke, haue coined a nevv signification, of conferring one Scripture vvith an other. So ignorant they are in the signification of Greeke vvordes, or rather so vvilfully ma­litious.

3 Againe,1 Pet. 1. v. 25. Bib. 1562. 1577. Against tra­ditions. in the first epistle of S. Peter they translate thus: The vvord of the Lord endu­reth euer: and this is the vvord vvhich by the Gospel vvas preached vnto you. vvhere these vvordes, by the Gospel, are added deceitfully and of il intent, to make the reader thinke that there is no other vvord of God but the vvritten vvord, for the common reader hearing this vvord, Gospel, conceiueth nothing els. But [Page 293]in deede al is the Gospel vvhatsoeuer the Apostles taught either by vvriting, or by tradition and vvord of mouth, as S. Paul speaketh 2. Thess. 2. and S. Peter saith no­thing els in the place alleaged, but, [...]. This is the vvord vvhich is preached among you, as the Geneua bibles translate, or more significantly, vvhich is euangelized among you, as vve translate. for though there be greater significancie in the Greeke vvord, then is expressed by bare preaching or telling a thing, as hauing a goodly relation and allusion to the vvord, Euangelium, Gospel: Euangelizo. yet neither do they in any other place, neither can they translate it, to preach by the Gospel: but simply, to preache, to tel, to shevv. as, preaching peace by Iesus Christ, [...]. Act. 10. v. 36. so them selues translate it. and Ps. 95 (or 96. v. 2) Be telling of his saluation from day to day. Vvhich in other places is spoken by other Greeke vvordes, that haue no signi­fication at al of Gospel. as immediatly in the said Ps. 95 (or 96. v. 3) & Ps. 104. (or 105. v. 1.) & Act. 13. v. 5. and c. 17. v. 23. and Io. 1. vers. 3.

4 Al vvhich vvordes signifie only to tel, to shevv, to declare, and are vsed indif­ferently for & with the other word vvhich they here only translate, to preache by the Gospel. Vvhereas in al others places vvhen they [Page 294]vvil translate it most significantly,Luc. 2. v. 10. Act. 13. v. 32. Gal. 3, 8. they ex­presse it by bringing glad tidings: and in some places vvhere it should be expressed most significantly in respect of euangelizing or preaching the Gospel,Dominus dabit verbū euangelizan­tibus. Qui Euangelizas Hierusalem. Ps. 67. Isa. 40. there they trāslate it barely, preachers, & preaching. Only S. Peters place aforesaid, must be stretched to signi­fie, The word preached by the Gospel, to insinuate & vphold their heresie of the vvritten Gospel only, or only vvritten vvord, against Apo­stolical traditions not vvritten. If this be not their meaning, let them giue vs a good reason vvhy they translate it so in this one place only.

5 It is vvritten of Luther that he for the self same heresie,Lind. Dubit. pag. 88. in his first translation into the Germane tonge, left out these vvordes of S. Peter altogether, This is the vvord vvhich is euangelized or preached to you. Vvhy so? because S. Peter doth here define vvhat is the vvord of God: saying, that vvhich is preached to you, & not that only vvhich is vvritten. Vvhich false dealing of Luther is no smal presum­ption against the like heretical meaning of our English Protestants, vvho (I am sure) in this point of controuersie of the vvord vvritten & vnvvritten, vvil not deny that they agree vvith the Lutherans.

6 Againe in the epistle of S. Iames,Ia. 4. v. 6. they adde the vvord, Scripture, into the text, say­ing, [Page 295] But the Scripture offereth more grace. Vvhere the Apostle may say as vvel, and indifferently, The Spirit or holy Ghost giueth more grace, and it is much more probable, and is so expounded of many. Let the good reader see the circū ­stance of the place, and abhorre their sau­cines in the text of holy scripture.

7 One addition of theirs I vvould not speake of, but only to knovv the reason vvhy they doe it, because it is very strange, and I knovv not vvhat they should meane by it. this I am sure, if they do it for no pur­pose, they doe it very folishly and forget­fully and contrarie to them selues. In the Gospel of S. Marke,Marc 3. v 16 in the reckening of the Apostles, they adde these vvordes, And the first vvas Simon, Bibl. 1579. more then is in their Greeke text. Vvhich addition they learned of Beza, vvhose contradictions in this point are worthie noting.Mat. 10. v. 2. In S. Matthew where these vvordes are, he suspecteth that, first, vvas added by some Papist, for Peters primacie: here, vvhere the vvord is not, he auoucheth it to be the true text of the Gospel, & that because Matthevv readeth so. there he al­leaged this reason, vvhy it could not be said the first, Simon, because there is no consequēce nor coherence of second, third, fourth, &c: here he saith, that is no impediment, be­cause [Page 296]there be many exāples of such speach, & namely in the said place of S. Matthevv. there he saith it is not so, though al Greeke copies haue it so: here it must needes be so, though it be only found in certaine odde Greeke copies of Erasmus, vvhich Erasmus him self (as Beza confesseth) allovved not, but thought that these vvordes vvere ad­ded in them out of S. Matthevv. Vvhat these contradictions meane I knovv not, and I vvould learne the reason thereof, of his scholers our English translators, vvho' by their Maisters authoritie haue made the self same addition in their English trans­lation also.

8 There is also an other addition of theirs, either proceding of ignorance, or of the accustomed humor, vvhen they trans­late thus:Col. 1. v. 23. if ye continue stablished in the faith, and be not moued avvay from the hope of the Gospel, vvhich ye haue heard hovv it vvas preached to euery creature: or, vvhereof ye haue heard hovv that it is preached: or, vvhereof ye haue heard, and vvhich hath been preached to euery creature, &c. For, al these varieties they haue, and none according to the Greeke text, vvhich is vvord for vvord, as the vul­gar Latin interpreter hath most sincerely translated it, Vnmoueable from the hope of the Gospel vvhich you haue heard, [...]. vvhich is or hath been preached among al creatures, &c. So that the Apostles ex­hortation is vnto the Colossians, that they [Page 297]continue grounded and stable in the faith and Gospel vvhich they had heard and re­ceiued of their first Apostles:Ro. 16. Ga. c. 1. & 2. 2 Thess. 2. Heb. 13. 1 Tim. 6. 2 Tim. 1. & 2. as in the epi­stle to the Romanes, and to the Galatians, and to the Thessalonians, and to the He­brues, and to Timothee, and S. Iohn in his first epistle c. 2. v. 24: and S. Iude v. 3. & 20: al vse the like exhortations.

9 But this doth not so vvel like the Pro­testants vvhich *1 Tim. 1. & 6. vvith Hymenaeus & Ale­xander and other o! Heretikes haue fallen from their first faith, and therfore they alter the Apostles plaine speache vvith certaine vvordes of their ovvne, and they vvil not haue him say, Be vnmoueable in the faith and Gospel vvhich you haue heard and re­ceiued: but, vvhereof you haue heard hovv that it is preached: as though he spake not of the Gos­pel preached to them, but of a Gospel vvhich they had only heard of, that vvas preached in the vvorld. Certaine it is, these vvordes, vvhereof you haue heard hovv it vvas prea­ched, are not so in the Greeke: but, vvhich you haue heard, vvhich hath been preached. Vvhich is as much to say, as that they should continue constant in the faith and Gospel vvhich them selues had receiued, and vvhich vvas then preached and receiued in the vvhole vvorld. So say vve to our deere countrie­men, Stād fast in the faith & be vnmoueable [Page 298]from the hope of the Gospel vvhich you heard of your first Apostles,CHAP. 21. vvhich vvas & is preached in al the vvorld. If the Prote­stants like not this exhortation, they do ac­cording to their translation.

CHAP. XXI. Certaine other heretical TREACHERIES and CORRVPTIONS, vvorthie of obseruation.

1 THEY hold this position, that the Scriptures are not hard to be vnderstood, that so euery one of them may presume to interprete and expound them. And because S. Peter saith plainely,2 Pet. 3. Corruption concerning the easines of the scrip­tures. that S. Paules Epistles are hard, and other Scriptures also, vvhich the vnlearned (saith he) peruert to their ovvne destruction, therfore they labour tooth and naile to make this subtil difference,Beza in An­not. that S. Peter saith not, Paules epistles are hard but some thinges in S. Paules epist: are hard (as though that vvere not al one) and therfore they translate so, that it must needes be vn­derstood of the things, and not of the Epi­stles, pretending the Greeke, [...]. vvhich yet they knovv in some copies can not be re­ferred to the things, [...]. Test. Gr. Crisp. but must needes be vnderstood of the Epistles. Vvherfore, the Greeke copies being indifferent to both, [Page 299]and the thing also in very deede being al one, vvhether the hardnes be in the Epi­stles or in the matter (for vvhen vve say the Scripture is hard, vve meane specially the matter) it is not only an Heretical but a foolish & peeuish spirit that maketh them so curious and precise in their translations, as here to limite and abridge the sense to the things only, Beza translating, [...]. inter quae sunt multa difficilia, and not, in quibus, as it is in the old vulgar translation, most sincere, and in­different both to epistles and things.

Corruption to make God the au­thor of sinne.An other fashion they haue, vvhich can not procede of good meaning, that is, when the Greeke text is indifferent to tvvo senses, and one is receiued, read, and ex­pounded of the greater part of the auncient fathers, and of al the Latin Church, there to folovv the other sense not so generally receiued & approued. as in S. Iames epistle vvhere the common reading is, Deus intentator malorum est, God is no tempter to euil, they translate, God can not be tempted vvith euil, vvhich is so im­pertinent to the Apostles speache there, as nothing more. But vvhy vvil they not say, God is no tempter to euil, as vvel as the other? is it because of the Greeke vvord vvhich is a passiue? [...]. Let them see their Lexi­con, and it vvil tel them that it is both an actiue and passiue. so say other learned [Page 300]Grecians,Gagneius. interpreters of this place. so saith the very circumstance of the vvordes next going before, Let no man say that he is tempted of God. Vvhy so? Because God is not tempted vvith euil, say they. is this a good reasō? nothing lesse. how then? Because God is no tempter to euil, therfore let no man say that he is tempted of God.

3 This reason is so coherent and so neces­sarie in this place, that if the Greeke vvord vvere only a passiue (as it is not) yet it might beseeme Beza to translate it actiuely, vvho hath turned the actiue into a passiue vvith­out scrupulositie, as him self confesseth, and is before noted, against the real presence. Much more in this place might he be bold to translate that actiuely, vvhich is both an actiue and a passiue, specially hauing such an example and so great authoritie as is al the auncient Latin Church vntil this day. But vvhy vvould he not? surely because he vvould fauour his and their heresie, vvhich saith cleane contrarie to these vvordes of the Apostle,Annot. No. Test. an. 1556. Mat. 6. v. 13. to vvit, that God is a tempter to euil. Is that possible to be proued? yea it is possible and plaine. Bezas vvordes be these, Inducit Dominus in tentationem eos quos Sa­tanae arbitrio permittit, autin quos potius Satanam ipsum inducit, vt cor eorum impleat, vt loquitur Petrus Act. 5. v. 3. that is, The Lord leadeth into tentation those vvhom he permitteth to Satans arbitrement, or into vvhom rather he leadeth or bringeth in Satan him self to fill their hart, as Peter speaketh. Marke that he saith God brin­geth [Page 301]Satan into a man, to fill his hart, as Peter said to Ananias, Vvhy hath Satan filled thy hart, to lie vnto the Holy Ghost? So then by this mans opinion God brought Satan into Ananias hart, to make him lie vnto the holy Ghost, & so ledde him into tentation, being author & causer of that heinous sinne.

4 Is not this to say, God is a tempter to euil: cleane contrarie to S. Iames the Apo­stle? or could he that is of this opinion, translate the contrarie, that God is no tempter to euil? Is not this as much to say as that God also brought Satan into Iudas to fil his hart, and so vvas author of Iudas treason, euen as he vvas of Paules conuersion?See Beza Annot. in Ro. c. 1. v. 24 Act, 2. v. 23. Vvhit. ad ra. Camp. pag. 139. 145. Let Beza novv and Maister Whitakers or any other Heretike of them al, vvrest & vvring them selues from the absurditie of this opi­nion, as they endeuour and labour to doe excedingly, because it is most blasphemous: yet shal they neuer be able to cleere & dis­charge them selues from it, if they vvil al­lovv & mainteine their foresaid exposition of Gods leading into tentation. [...] Act. 2. v. 23. Doth not Beza for the same purpose trāslate, Gods proui­dēce, for, Gods prescience? Vvhich is so false, that the English Bezites in their translation are ashamed to folovv him.

5 An other exceding treacherie to deceiue the reader, is this: that they vse Catholike termes and speaches in such places vvhere [Page 302]they may make them odious,Corruption in abusing Catholike vvordes. and vvhere they must needes sound odiously in the peoples eares. As for example, this terme, procession, they put very maliciously & false­ly thus:2 Mach. 6. v. 7. Vvhen the feast of Bacchus vvas kept, they vvere constrained to goe in the procession of Bacchus. Let the good reader see the Greeke Lexicō,Bib. 1570. [...] procession. if there be any thing in this vvord like to the Catholike Churches processions: or vvhether it signifie so much as, to goe about, as their other bibles are translated,Bib. 1562.1577. vvhich meant also heretically, but yet durst not name, procession.

6 Againe, He put dovvne the Priests (of Baal) vvhom the kings of Iuda had founded to burne incense. Founded. 4 Reg. 23. v. 5. [...] So they translate (the Hebrue being simply to giue, make, appoint) be­cause in the Catholike Church there are foundations of chaunterie Priests, Chap­ples, ditiges, &c. Neither is it sincerely and vvithout il meaning that they say here the Priests of Baal vvhom, &c. Because the Hebrue word signifieth al those that mini­stred in the temples of false gods.

7 Againe,Shrines, [...]. Siluer shrines for Diana. Act. 19. v. 24. Because of the shrines & tabernacles made to the image of our B. Ladie: the Greeke vvord signifying, temples, and Beza saith, he can not see hovv it may signifie shrines.

8 Againe,Deuotions [...] As I passed by, & beheld your deuotiōs, [Page 303]I found an altar, Act. 17. v. 23. So they call the superstition of the Athenians toward their false gods, because of Catholike peoples deuotiōs toward the true God, his Church, altars, Saincts, &c, the Greeke vvord signi­fying the things that are vvorshipped (as 2 Thess. 2. v. 4. and Sap. 15. v. 17.) not the maner of vvorshipping. [...].

9 Againe, [...]. The Ievves had agreed, that if any mā did confesse that he vvas Christ, he should be excommu­nicate, Ioh. 9. v. 22. And Iesus heard that they had ex­cōmunicated him, v. 35. to make the Ievves doing against them that confessed Christ, sound like to the Catholike Churches doing a­gainst Heretikes in excōmunicating them,Excommu­nication. and so to disgrace the Priests povver of ex­communication: vvhereas the Ievves had no such spiritual excommunication, but (as the Greeke must needes only signifie) they did, put them out of the Synagogue, Aposynago­gum facere. and so they should haue translated, the Greeke vvord including the very name of Synagogue. But they, as though the Church of Christ and the Synagogue of the Ievves vvere al one, so translate, excommunicating, and putting out of the Synagogue, as al one.

10 I omit here as spoken before, that they call an Idol, the Queene of heauen, because vve call our Lady by that title: so to make both seeme like. Also,Altars. that they say Bels altar [Page 304]thrise,Images. for Bels table, to disgrace altars: and that for idols, they say images, in despite of the Churches images: that they say tradi­tiō duely in the il part,Traditions. yea sometime when it is not in the Greeke, to make traditions odious, and such like. Thus by similitude & like sound of vvordes they beguile the poore people, not only in their false expo­sitions concerning Iudaical fastes, meates, obseruatiō of daies (as is els where shevved) but also in their translations. So doth Cal­uins nevv Testament in frenche,Mat. 23. for, Nolite vocari Rabbi, translate, Be not called, nostre maistre or, Magister noster: in derision and dis­grace of this title and calling, vvhich is pe­culiar to Doctors of Diuinitie in the Ca­tholike Vniuersities beyond the seas: euen as Wicleffe their grand-father did vpon the same vvordes condemne such degrees in Vniuersities. But their Rabbines can tel them that Rabbi signifieth, Magister, and not, Magister noster. and S. Iohn telleth them so chap. 1. v. 38. and chap. 3. v. 2. and chap. 20. v. 16. and yet it pleaseth them to translate othervvise and to abuse Christs ovvne sa­cred vvordes against Catholike Doctors & schooles: not considering that as Christ forbadde them to be called Rabbi, so he for­badde them the name of father & fathers, and yet I trovv they vvil not scoffe at this [Page 305]name either in their ovvne fathers, or in them selues so called of their children: though in Religious men, according to their heretical humor, they scoffe also at this name, as they do at the other in Do­ctors.

A heape of corruptiōs.11 Contrarievvise as they are diligent to put some vvordes odiously vvhere they should not, so they are as circumspect not to put other vvordes and termes, vvhere they should. In their first bible (printed againe an. 1562.) not once the name of Church: in the same, for charitie, loue: for altar, temple: for heretike, an author of sectes: & for heresie, sect: because in those beginnings, al these vvordes sounded exce­dingly against them. The Church they had then forsaken, Christian charitie they had broken by schisme, altars they digged do­wne, heresie & heretike they knevv in their conscience vvere like in the peoples eares to agree vnto them, rather then to the old Catholike faith and professors of the same. Againe in al their bibles indifferently, both former & later, they had rather say, righteous, then, iust: righteousnes, then, iustice: gift, then, grace, specially in the sacrament of holy or­ders: secrete, rather then mysterie, specially in matrimonie: dissension, then, schisme: & these vvordes not at al, Priest, (to vvit, of the new [Page 306]Testament) Sacrament, Catholike, hymnes, confession, penance, iustifications, and traditions in the good part: but in steede thereof, Elders, secrete, gene­ral, praises, acknovvledging, amendement of life, ordi­nances, instructions. and vvhich is, somevvhat vvorse, carcas, for soule, and graue for hel. vve may say vnto you as Demosthenes said to Aeschines.Demosth. [...]. [...] vvhat are these? vvordes or vvonders? certainly they are vvonders, and verie vvonderful in Ca­tholike mens eares. and vvhether it be sin­cere and not heretical dealing, I appeale to the vvise and indifferent reader of any sort.

CHAP. XXII. Other faultes Iudaical, prophane, mere vanities, follies & nouelties.

1 NOvv leauing matters of cō ­trouersie, let vs talke a litle vvith you familiarly, and learne of you the reason of other points in your transla­tion, vvhich to vs seeme faultes, and sa­uour not of that spirit vvhich should be in Christian Catholike translators.

2 First, you are so profane, that you say, The ballet of ballets of Salomon, so terming that diuine booke Canticum Canticorum, conteining the high mysterie of Christ & his Church, as if it vvere a ballet of loue betvvene Sa­lomon [Page 307]and his cōcubine, as Castaleo vvan­tonly translateth it. But you say more pro­fanely thus, vve haue conceiued, vve haue borne in paine, as though vve should haue brought forth vvinde. I am ashamed to tel the literal commenta­rie of this your translation.Esa. 26. v. 18. Vvhy might you not haue said, Vve haue conceiued and as it vvere trauailed to bring forth, and haue brought forth the spirit? is there any thing in the He­brue to hinder you thus far? Vvhy vvould you say, vvinde, rather then, spirit: knovving that the Septuaginta in Greeke, & the aun­cient fathers, and S. Hierom him self vvho trāslateth according to the Hebrue,Ambr. li. 2. de Interpel. c. 4. Chrys. in Ps. 7. prope fi­nem. See S. Hier. vpon this place. yet for sense of the place, al expound it both ac­cording to Hebrue & Greeke, of the spirit of God, vvhich is first cōceiued in vs & be­ginneth by feate, vvhich the Scripture cal­leth the beginning of vvisedom. in so much that in the Greeke there are these goodly vvordes, famous in al antiquitie: Through the feare of the ô Lord vve cōceiued and haue trauailea vvith paine, and haue brought forth the spirit of thy saluation, vvhich thou hast made upon the earth. Which doth ex­cellently set before our eies the degrees of a faithful mans increase and proceding in the spirit of God, vvhich beginneth by the feare of his iudgements, & is a good feare, though seruile, and not sufficient. & it may be that you condemning vvith Luther this [Page 308]seruile feare as euil and hurtful, meane also some such thing by your translation. But in deede the place may be vnderstood of the other feare also, which hath his degrees more or lesse.

3 But to say, vve haue brought forth vvinde, can admit no such interpretation. but euen as if a mere Ievv should translate or vnder­stand it, vvho hath no sense of Gods spirit, so haue you excluded the true sense vvhich cōcerneth the Holy Ghost, & not the cold terme of vvinde, and vvhatsoeuer naked interpretation thereof. And it is your fa­shion in al such cases, where the richer sense is of Gods holy spirit, there to translate vvinde, as Ps. 147. v. 18. as you number the psalmes.

4 And it is not vnlike to this, that you vvil not translate for the Angels honour that caried Abacuc, He sette him into Babylon, ouer the lake by the force of his spirit: [...]. but thus, through a mightie vvinde: so attributing it to the vvinde, not to the Angels povver, and omitting cleane the Greeke pronovvne [...], his, vvhich shevveth euidently that it vvas the Angels spirit, force, and povver.

5 Againe, vvhere the Prophets speake most manifestly of Christ, there you trans­late cleane an other thing: as Esa. 30. v. 20. Vvhen S. Hierom translateth thus,Bib. 1579. and the [Page 309]Church hath alvvaies read accordingly, Non faciet auolare ate vltra Doctorem tuum: & erunt oculi tui videntes praeceptorem tuum. that is, [...] And (our Lord) shal not cause thy Doctor to flie from thee any more: and thine eies shal see thy Maister. Vvhich is al one in effect vvith that vvhich Christ saith, I vvil be vvith you vnto the end of the vvorld: there you translate thus, Thy raine shal be no more kept backe: but thine eies shal see thy raine. So likevvise Ioel 2. v. 23. where the holy church readeth, Reioyce ye children of Sion in the Lord your God: because he hath giuen you the Doctor of iustice: there you translate, the raine of righteousnes. See [...] Doth the He­brue vvord force you to this? you knovv that it signifieth a teacher or Maister. and therfore the Ievves them selues,Lyra in 30 Esa. partly vn­derstand it of Esdras, partly of Christs Diui­nitie. Vvhy are you more profane (I vvil not say more Iudaical) then the Iewes them selues? vvhy might not S. Hierom a Chri­stian Doctor and lacking no skil in the Hebrue (as you vvel knovv) satisfie you, vvho maketh no doubt but the Hebrue in these places is, Doctor, Maister, teacher? Vvho also (in Psal. 84, 7:) translateth thus, Vvith blessings shal the Doctor be araied: meaning Christ. Where you vvith the later Rabbines the enemies of Christ translate, The raine couereth the pooles. Vvhat cold stuff is this in respect of that other translation so cleerely pointing to Christ our Maister and Doctor?

6 And againe, vvhere S. Hierom trans­lateth, and the Church readeth, and al the fathers interpret and expound accordingly,Es 33. There shal be faith in thy times: to expresse the maruelous faith that shal be then, in the first Christians specially, euen vnto death, and in al the rest concerning the hidden mysteries of the nevv Testament: there you translate, There shal be stabilitie of thy times. The Prophet ioyneth together there, iudgemēt, iustice, faith, vvisedom, knovvledge, the feare of our Lord: you for a litle ambiguitie of the Hebrue vvord, turne faith into sta­bilitie.

7 If I should burden you vvith trans­lating thus also concerning Christ,Esa. 2. Cease from the man vvhose breath in his nostrels: for vvherein is he to be esteemed? You vvould say I did you wrong, because it is so pointed novv in the Hebrue. Vvhereas you knovv very vvell by S. Hie­roms commentarie vpon that place, [...] that this is the Iewes pointing or reading of the vvord, against the honour of Christ: the true reading and translation being as he in­terpreteth it, for he is reputed high: and therfore bevvare of him. Othervvise (as S. Hierom saith) vvhat a consequence vvere this, or vvho vvould commend any man thus, Take heede ye offend not him, vvho is nothing esteemed? yet that is your translation. Neither doth [Page 311]the Greeke helpe you vvhich (if the accent be truely put) is thus, [...] Gal. 2. v. 6. because he is reputed for some body or some thing: as S. Paul speaketh of the cheefe Apostles, and it is our phrase in the commendation of a man.

8 The like excuse you vvould haue by alleaging the Hebrue vovvels, if you vvere told that you much obscure a notable saying of the prophet concerning Christ, or rather the speache of Christ him self by his prophet, saying: I haue spoken by the Prophets, Osee 12, 10. and I haue multiplied vision, & in the hand of the Prophets (that is, by the Prophets) haue I been resembled. Vvhich later vvordes doe excedingly ex­presse, that al the Prophets spake of Christ: as our Sauiour him self declareth,Luc. 24. v. 27. Act. 3. beginning from Moyses and al the Prophets to interpret vnto the tvvo disciples, the things that concerned him. and as S. Peter saith in these vvordes, Al the Prophets from Sa­muel and that spake after him, did tel of these daies. This prophecie then being so consonant to these speaches of the nevv Testament, the Greeke also being vvord for vvord so, [...] the Hebrue by chāging one litle pricke (vvhich the later Ievves haue added at their ovvne pleasure) being fully so as vve read vvith the Catholike Church: vvhy pretend you the Ievves authoritie to mainteine an other lesse Christian translation, vvhich is thus: I vse similitudes by the ministerie of the Prophets. as [Page 312]though there vvere nothing there concer­ning Christ or the second person pecu­liarly?

9 You vvil also perhaps alleage not only the later levves, but also some later Catho­like men that so translate the Hebrue.The Hebrue text, is no certaine rule to interpre­te by. But the difference betvvene them and you, is, that they, vvith reuerence and preferment alvvaies of S. Hieroms and the Churches auncient translation, tel vs hovv it is novv in the Hebrue: you, vvith derogation and disanulling the same altogether, set dovvne your ovvne as the only true interpretation according to the Hebrue: auouching the Hebrue that novv is, and as novv it is prin­ted, to be the only authentical truth of the old Testament. Vvhere you can neuer ansvver vs, hovv that in the Psalme 22, As a lion my hand and my feete (as novv it is in the Hebrue) can be the true and old authenti­cal Hebrue, [...] vvhich none of the fathers knevv, the auncient Rabbines condemne as a corruption, your selues translate it not, but after the old accustomed reading, They haue pearced my handes and my feete Vvhich is a no­table prophecie of our Sauiours kinde and maner of Passion, being crucified on the Crosse. Only the later Ievves, and such He­retikes as thinke he died vpon a gallous or gibbet, and not vpon the Crosse, they like [Page 313]this Hebrue text vvel, and stand vpon it, as you do vpon al vvithout exception, & yet vvhen it commeth to certaine particulars, you are cōpelled to forsake it. as in certaine other places, for example.

Faultes in the Hebrue text.10 Vvhere the Hebrue saith, Achaz king of Israel, 2 Paralip. 28. v. 19. which is not true, you are compelled to translate, Achaz king of Iuda, as the truth is, and as it is in the Greeke and the vulgar Latin. yet *Bib. 1579. some of your Bibles folovv the fals hod of the Hebrue.

11 Likevvise, vvhere the Hebrue saith, Zedecias his brother, meaning the brother of Ioachin, you trāslate, Zedecias his fathers brother, Bib. 1579. as in deede the truth is, according to the Greeke, and to the Scripture 4 Reg. 24. v. 19. and therfore your Bible vvhich fo­lovveth the Hebrue here also, translating, his brother, yet in the margent putteth dovvne as more true, vncle.

12 Likevvise in an other place, the He­brue is so out of frame, that some of your Bibles say, he begat Azuba of his vvife Azuba. and othersome translate, he begat Ierioth of his vvife Azuba: the Hebrue being thus, he begat Azuba his vvife and Ierioth, vvhich neither you nor any man els can easily tel vvhat to make of. Thus you see hovv easie it vvere (if a man vvould multiplie such examples) to shevv by your ovvne testimonies the corruption [Page 314]of the Hebrue,In the pre­face of the nevv Test. and that your selues do not, nor dare not exactly folovv it, as of the Greeke text of the nevv Testament also is declared els vvhere.

13 But it is greater maruel, vvhy you folovv not the Hebrue in other places also, vvhere is no corruption. You protest to translate it according to the pointes or vovvels that novv it hath, and that you call the Hebrue veritie. Tel me then I beseeche you, vvhy do you in al your Bibles translate thus, O Virgin daughter of Sion, he hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorne: Esa. 37. v. 22 ô daughter of Hierusalem he hath shaken his head at thee. In the Hebrue, Greeke, [...]. S. Hieroms translation and com­mentarie, it is cleane contrarie, The Virgin daughter of Sion hath despised thee (ô Assur:) the daughter of Hierusalem hath shaken her head at thee. Al are the foeminine gender, and spoken of Sion lite­rally, and of the Church spiritually trium­phing ouer Assur and al her enemies: [...]. you trāslate al as of the masculine gēder, & apply it to Assur insulting against Hierusalem. &c. I can not conceiue vvhat this translation meaneth, & I vvould gladly know the rea­son, & I vvould haue thought it some grosse ouersight, but that I finde it so in al your English Bibles, & not only in this place of Esay, but also in the bookes of the kinges, 4 Reg. 19. where the same wordes are repeated. And it is no lesse maruel vnto vs that [Page 315]knovv not the reason of your doings, vvhy you haueBib 1577. [...] left out Alleluia nine times in the sixe last Psalmes,Alleluia. being in the Hebrue nine times more then in your translation: spe­cially vvhen you knovv that it is the aun­cient and ioyful song of the primitiue Church. See the nevv English Testament, Annot. Apoc. 19.

14 Againe, you translate thus: Many vvhich had seen the first house, vvhen the foundation of this house vvas laid before their eies, vvept &c. Looke vvel to your Hebrue, and you shal finde it accor­ding both to the Greeke & the Latin, thus: Many vvhich had seen the first house in the foundation thereof (that is, yet standing vpon the foūda­tion, not destroied) and this temple before their eies, vvept. You imagined that it should be meant, they savv Salomons temple, vvhen it vvas first founded, vvhich because it vvas vnpossible, therfore you translated other­vvise then is in the Hebrue, Greeke, and Latin. But yet in some of your Bibles you should haue considered the matter better, [...] and translated accordingly.

15 And surely vvhy you should trans­late (4 Reg. 23. v. 13.) On the right hand of mount Oliuete, rather then as it is in the vulgar La­tin: and why, Ye abiect of the Gentiles, Esa. 45. v. 20. rather then, ye that are saued of the Gentiles: you belike knovv some reason, vve do not, nei­ther [Page 316]by the Hebrue nor the Greeke.

16 Howbeit in these lesser things (though nothing in the Scripture is to be counted litle) you might perhaps more freely haue taken your pleasure, in folovving neither Hebrue nor Greeke: but vvhen it cōcerneth a matter no lesse then vsurie, there by your false translation to giue occasion vnto the reader, to be an vsurer, is no smal fault ei­ther against true religion or against good maners.Bib. 1562. 1577. Deut. 23. v. 19. This you doe most euidently in your most authentical translations, saying thus: Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by vsurie of mo­ney, nor by vsurie of corne, nor by vsurie of any thing that he may be hurt vvithal. What is this to say, but that vsurie is not here forbidden, vnles it hurt the partie that borovveth, vvhich is so rooted in most mēs hartes, [...], &c. that they thinke such vsurie very lavvful, and daily offend mortally that vvay. Vvhere almightie God in this place of holy Scripture hath not a vvord of hurting or not hurting (as may be seen by the Geneua bibles) but saith simply thus: Thou shalt not lend to thy brother to vsurie, vsurie of money, vsurie of meate, vsurie of any thing that is put to vsurie.

17 Marke the Hebrue and the Greeke, and see, and be ashamed, that you straine and peruert it, to say for, Non foenerabis fratri tuo, vvhich is vvord for vvord in the Greeke and Hebrue, Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by [Page 317]vsurie. If the Hebrue vvord in the vse of holy Scripture do signifie, to hurt by vsurie, why do you in the very next vvordes folowing, in the self same Bibles translate it thus,ibid. v. 20. vnto astranger thou maist lend vpon vsurie, but not vnto thy brother? Vvhy said you not, A stranger thou ma­ist hurt vvith vsurie, but not thy brother? Is it not al one vvord and phrase here and before? And if you had so translated it here also, the Ievves vvould haue thanked you, vvho by forcing the Hebrue vvord as you doe, thinke it very good to hurt any stranger, that is, any Christian by any vsurie be it neuer so great.

18 Vvhat shal I tel you of other faultes, vvhich I vvould gladly accoūt ouersightes or ignorances, such as vve also desire par­don of, but al are not such, though some be. As, Tvvo thousand, Cant. Cātic. c. 8. v. 12 Bib. 1579. (vvritten at length) to them that keepe the fruite thereof. In the Hebrue & Greeke, tvvo hundred. Againe in the same booke c. 1. v. 4. As the fruites of Cedar. in the Hebr. and Greeke. tabernacles. And,Isa. 7. v. 11. Aske a signe either in the depth or in the height aboue, for, in the depth of Hel. And, Great vvorkes are vvrought by him. Mat. 14. v. 2. for, do vvorke in him, as S. Paul vseth the same vvord 2 Cor. 4. v. 12. And, [...]. To make ready an horse. Act. 23. v. 24. in the Greeke, beastes, And,Bib. 1577. If a man on the Sabboth day receiue circumcision vvithout breaking of the lavv of Moyses. Io. 7. v. 23. For, [...]. to the end that the lavv of Moyses be not broken. And, The [Page 318]sonne of man must suffer many things, [...]. and be reproued of the elders. Mar. 8. v. 31. For, be reiected, as in the psalme, The stone vvhich the builders reiected, vve say not, reprouing of the said stone, vvhich is Christ.1 Tim. 3. And, [...] a yong scholer, in al your trāslatiōs, falsely. And, Simo of Chanaan or Simon the Cananite, Mar. 3. vvho is called otherwise, Ze­lótes, that is Zelous, as an interpretation of the Hebrue vvord, Cananaeus: vvhich I maruel you cōsidered not, specially cōsidering that the Hebrue vvord for Zelous, [...] & the other for a Cananite, beginne with diuers letters. and,Heb. 2. v. 1. lest at any time vve should let them slippe. for, lest vve slippe or runne by, and so be lost.

19 And as for the first bible,An. 1562. vvhich vvas done in hast, and not yet corrected, but is printed still a fresh:Mat. 22. that saith, Vvith Herods ser­uants, as though that vvere the only sense: that calleth idiotas lay men:Mat. 24. [...], a ship:Mar. 5. [...], vvondering:Mat. 25. [...], are gone out:Eph. 3. [...], his substance: and, To knovv the excellent loue of the knovvledge of Christ. For, the loue of Christ that excelleth knovvledge. And, of men that turne avvay the truth. Tit. 1. For, that shunne the truth and turne avvay from it. And, Mount Sina is Agar in Ara­bia. For, Agar is Mount Sina. &c.

20 Let these and the like be smal negli­gences or ignorances, such as you vvil par­don vs also, if you finde the like. Neither do vve greatly mislike, that you leaue these [Page 319]vvordes,Deut. 33. Vrim and Thummim and4 Reg 23. Chemarim and c Ziims, & Iims, vntranslated,Ierem. 50. because it is not easy to expresse them in English: and vve vvould haue liked it as vvel in certaine other vvordes, vvhich you haue translated, images, images, and stil, images, Hamanim. Esa. 17. Gillulim. Ier. 50. Miphletseth. 3 Ro. 15. being as hard to expresse the true signification of them, as the former. And vve hope you vvil the rather beare vvith the late Catholike trans­latiō of the English Testamēt, that leaueth also certaine vvordes vntrāslated, not only because they can not be expressed, but also for reuerence and religion (as S. Augustine saith) and greater maiestie of the same.

21 Of one thing vve can by no meanes excuse you, but it must sauour vanitie, or noueltie, or both. As vvhen you affectate nevv strange vvordes vvhich the people are not acquainted vvithal, but it is rather Hebrue to them then English:Bib. 1579. [...], as Demosthenes speaketh,Demosth. vttering vvith great countenāce and maiestie, Against him came vp Nabucadnezzar king of Babel, 2 Par. 36. v. 6. 2 Par. 36. v. 6. for, Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon: Saneherib, c. 32. Fo. 172.173. Io. 160. Epistle to the Queene. for Sennacherib: Michaiahs prophecie, for Michaeas: Ichoshaphats praier, for Iosaphats: Vzza slaine, for Oza. Vvhen Zerubbabel vvent about to build the Temple, for Zorobabel: Remēber what the Lord did to Miriā, for Marie, Deut. 34.Bib. 1562. And in your first trās­latiō, Elisa for Elisaeus, Pekahia & Pekah for Phaceia & Phacee, Vziahu for Ozias, 4 Reg. c. 15.16. Thiglath-peleser for Teglath [Page 320]phalasar, Ahaziahu for Ochozias: Peka the sonne of Remaliabu, for, Phacee the sonne of Romelia. And vvhy say you not as vvel Shelomoh for Salomon, and Coresh for Cyrus, and so alter euery vvord from the knovven sound and pronuncia­tion thereof? Is this to teach the people, vvhen you speake Hebrue rather then En­glish? Vvere it a goodly hearing (thinke you) to say for IESVS, Ieshuah, and for MARIE his mother, Miriam: and for Mes­sias Meshiach, and for Iohn, Iachannan, and such like monstruous nouelties? vvhich you might as vvel doe, and the people vvould vnderstand you as vvel, as when your prea­chers say,Calfil. Nabucadnezer king of Bábel.

22 Vvhen Zuinglius your great Patriarke did reade in Munsters translation of the old Testamēt,Praefat. in Esa. Iehizkiahu, Iehezchel, Cho­resh, Darianesch, Beltzezzer, and the like. for, Ezechias, Ezechiel, Cyrus, Darius, Bal­tasar: he called them barbarous voices, & vnciuil speaches, & said the vvord of God vvas soiled and depraued by them. Knovv you not that proper names alter & chaūge, and are vvritten and sounded in euery lan­guage diuersely? Might not al antiquitie & the general custom both of reading and hearing the knovven names of Nabucho­donosor, and Michaeas, and Ozias, suffice you, but you must needes inuent other [Page 311]vvhich the people neuer heard, rather for vaine ostentation to amase and astonish them, then to edification and instruction. Vvhich is an old Heretical fashion, noted by Eusebius lib. 4. c. 10: and by the author of the vnperfect cōmentaries vpon S. Mat­thevv, ho. 44: and by S. Augustine lib. 3. c. 26. contra Cresconium.

23 Vvhat shal I speake of your affecta­tion of the vvord Iehôua (for so it pleaseth you to accent it) in steede of Dominus, Iehouah. [...] The Lord: vvhereas the auncient fathers in the very Hebrue text did read and sound it ra­ther, Adonai, as appeareth both by S. Hie­roms translation and also his commētaries, and I vvould knovv of them the reason, vvhy in the Hebrue Bible, vvhen so euer this vvord is ioyned vvith Adonai, it is to be read Elohim, but only for auoiding Adonai, tvvise together. This I say vve might iustly demaund of these that take a pride in vsing this vvord Iehôua so oft both in English & Latin: though otherwise we are not super­stitious, but as occasion serueth, only in the Hebrue text vve pronounce it and reade it. Againe vve might aske them, vvhy they vse not as vvel Elohim in steede of Deus, God: and so of the rest, changing al into Hebrue, that they may seeme gay fellovves, and the people may vvonder at their vvonderful [Page 322]and mystical diuinitie.

24 To conclude, are not your scholers (thinke you) much bound vnto you, for gi­uing them in steede of Gods blessed worde and his holy Scriptures, such translations, heretical, Iudaical, profane, false, negligent, phantastical, nevv, naught, monstruous? God open their eies to see, and mollifie your hartes to repent of al your falshod & treacherie, both that vvhich is manifestly conuinced against you and can not be denied, as also that vvhich may by some shevv of ansvver be shifted of in the sight of the ignorant, but in your consciences is as manifest as the other.

FINIS.

The faultes correcte thus.

Page 46. fecit honemfecit hominem.
53 Abac. 2. v. 13.Abac 2. v. 18.
80 [...], [...].
117 Prou. 3, 15. marg.Prou. 30, 15.
ibid. Prou. 27, 30. marg.Prou. 27, 20.
124 mur-in marg.murder.
186178.
For 187Read179.
178 Io. 5, 3. 1 Io. 5, 3.
194 186.
195 187.
241 (line 2) then, rather then.
256 hat being, that being.
255 [...] in marg.  [...].

210 and 316 in the Hebrue of necessitie, be­cause the printer could not supplie them there vvanteth the vovvel Holem. and for like reason pa. 211. and 134. there vvanteth Kibuts. Vvhich also caused vs to leaue some wordes vvithout vovvels, as once in the Preface & alibi.

49 in some fevve copies ther vvanteth Segol.

A BRIEF TABLE TO DIRECT THE READER TO SVCH PLACES as this booke proueth to be corrupted in diuers translations of the English Bibles: by or­der of the bookes, chapters, & verses of the same. Vvith some other cor­rupted by Beza & others, in their Latin trans­lations.

Genesis.
  • CHap. 4. vers. 7. pag. 11. nū ­ber 28. and p. 172. nu. 9.
  • chap. 14. ver. 18. p. 18. nu. 42.
  • and pag. 263.
  • chap. 34. v. 35. p. 106. numb. 7.
  • chap. 42. v. 38. p. 111 nu. 12.
4 of the Kinges.
  • Chap. 29. v. 5. p. 302. nu. 6.
2 Paralipomenon.
  • Chap. 28. v. 19. p. 313. nu. 10.
  • chap. 38. v. 8. p. 49. nu. 19.
  • and p. 291. nu. 1.
1 Esdras.
  • Chap. 9. v. 5. p. 209. nu. 16.
Psalmes.
  • Psal. 48. v. 16. p. 133.
  • Psal. 84. v. 7. p. 309.
  • Psal. 85. v. 13. p. 112. nu. 13.
  • and p. 20. nu. 46.
  • Psal. 89. v. 48. p. 113. nu. 14.
  • Psal. 95. v. 6. p. 288.
  • Psal. 98. v. 5. ibidem.
  • Psal. 131. v. 7. ib.
  • Psal. 138. v. 17. p. 274.
  • Psal: 147 v. 19. p. 133.
  • and v. 18. p 308. nu. 3.
Prouerbes.
  • Chap. 1. v. 12. p. 117 num. 22.
  • cha. 9. v. 2. p. 271. nu. 21. cū seq.
  • chap. 27. v. 20. p. 117.
  • chap. 30. v. 16. ibid.
Cantica Canticorum.
  • Chap. 6. v. 8. p. 70. num. 10.
  • chap. 8. v. 6. p. 20. num. 46.
  • See pag. 306. num. 2.
Of vvisedome.
  • Chap. 3. v. 14. p. 190 num 3.
  • chap. 15. v. 13. p. 55. num. 27.
Ecclesiasticus.
  • Chap. 5. v. 5.191. num. 4.
  • chap. 7. v. 31. p. 221. in princip.
Esai.
  • Chap. 2. p. 310. num. 7.
  • chap. 26. v. 18. p. 307.
  • chap. 30. v. 22. p. 52. num. 23.
  • [Page]and v. 20. p. 308. num. 5.
  • chap. 33. p. 310. num. 6.
Hieremie.
  • Chap. 7. v. 18. p. 208. num. 9.
  • chap. 11. v. 19. p. 268. num. 18.
  • chap. 44. v. 19. p. 280. num. 9.
Daniel.
  • Chap. 4. v. 24. p. 211. num. 18.
  • chap. 6. v. 22. p. 136. num. 3.
  • chap. 10. v. 12. p. 209. num. 15.
  • chap. 14. v. 4. p. 54. num. 26.
  • and v. 12.17.20. p. 267. nu. 16.
Osee.
  • Chap. 12. v. 10. p. 311. num. 8.
  • chap. 13. v. 14. p. 20. num. 46.
  • and p. 114. num. 16.
Ioel.
  • Chap. 2. v. 23. p. 309.
Habacuc.
  • Chap. 2. v. 18. p. 53. num. 23.
  • See p. 308. num. 4.
Malachie.
  • Chap. 2. v. 7. p. 236. num. 17.
  • chap. 3. v. 1. p. 237. num. 18.
  • and v. 14. p. 209. num. 17.
1 Machabees.
  • Chap. 1. v. 51. p. 133.
  • chap. 2. v. 21. ibid.
2 Machabees.
  • Chap. 6. v. 7. p. 302. num. 5.
S. Matthevv.
  • Chap 1 v. 19. p. 136. num. 4.
  • and v. 25. p. 282. in princ.
  • chap. 2. v. 6. p. 240.
  • chap. 3. v. 8. p. 197.
  • chap. 16. v. 18. p. 63. num. 2.
  • and p. 67. num. 5.
  • chap. 18. v. 17. p. 63.
  • chap. 19. v. 11.12. p. 171. num. 8.
  • and p. 235. num. 16.
  • chap. 26. p. 250.
S. Marke.
  • Chap. 10. v. 52. p. 195. num. 9.
  • chap. 14. p. 250.
S. Luke.
  • Chap. 1. v. 28. p. 19 num, 43.
  • and p. 276. num. 4.
  • and v. 6. p. 133. p. 136. num 4.
  • chap. 3. v. 8. p. 197.
  • chap. 8. v. 48.50. p. 195. num. 9.
  • chap. 18. v. 42. p. 195. num. 9.
  • chap. 22. v. 20. p. 260. num. 10.
  • and p. 261. num. 11.
S. Iohn.
  • Chap. 1. v. 12. p. 164. in princ.
  • chap. 9. v. 22.23. p. 303. num. 9.
  • chap. 13. v. 16. p. 222. num. 3.
Actes.
  • Chap. 1. v. 26. p. 224. num. 5.
  • chap. 2. v. 27. p. 101. nu. 3.4.5.
  • chap. 3. v. 21. p. 257. num. 7.
  • chap. 4. v. 13. p. 222. nu. 3.
  • chap. 9. v. 22. p. 291. num. 2.
  • chap. 14 v. 22. pag. 76.
  • and v. 23. p. 226.
  • ch. 15. v. 2.4.6.22.23. p. 75. n. 4.
  • chap. 16. v. 4. ibid.
  • chap. 17. v. 23. p. 302. num. 8.
  • chap. 19. v. 24. p. 302. num. 7.
  • and v. 3. p. 215.
  • chap. 20. ibid. and v. 28. p. 240.
  • and v. 17. p. 78. num. 8.
Romanes.
  • Chap. 2. v. 26. pag. 133.
  • [Page]chap. 5. v. 6. pag. 176. num. 13.
  • and v. 18. p. 180.
  • chap. 8. v. 18. p. 141. in princ.
  • and v. 38. p. 190. num. 3.
  • chap. 9. v. 16. p. 171. num. 7.
  • chap. 11. v. 4. p. 49. num, 19.
1 Corinthians.
  • Chap. 1. v. 10. p. 60. num. 3.
  • chap. 5. v. 11. p. 3. num. 6.
  • chap. 9. v. 5. p. 266.
  • chap. 10. v. 7. p. 266. nu. 4.
  • chap. 11. v. 2. p. 27 num. 2.3.
  • chap. 15. v. 5. p. 247.
  • and v. 10. pag. 165. num. 2.
  • and v. 55. p. 114. num. 16.
2 Corinthians.
  • Chap. 2. v. 10. p. 239. num. 20.
  • chap. 4. v. 17 p. 147. num. 7.
  • chap. 5. p. 185. num. 6.
  • chap. 6. v. 16. p. 33. num. 3.
  • and v. 1. p. 169. num. 6.
  • chap. 8. p. 222. num. 3.
Galatians.
  • Chap. 5. v. 20. p. 60. num. 3.
Ephesians.
  • Chap. 1. v 6. p. 185. num. 7.
  • and v. 22. p. 64. num. 2.
  • and. v. 22.23, p. 67. num. 6.
  • chap. 3. v. 12. p. 167. p. 191. nu. 5.
  • chap. 5. p. 245. num. 2.
  • and v. 5. p. 3. num 5. p. 32. nu. 1.
  • and v. 32. p. 60. num. 2.
  • and v. 25.32. p. 64. num. 2.
Philippians.
  • Chap. 2. v. 15. p. 224. num. 4.
  • [...] 4. v. 5. p. 232. num. 13.
  • Chap. 1. v. 23. p. 296. num. 8.
  • and v. 12. p. 154. num. 17.
  • chap. 2. v. 20. p. 4. num. 8.
  • chap. 3. v. 5. p. 3. num 5.
  • pag. 32. num. 1. p. 41. num. 12.
2 Thessalonians.
  • Chap. 1. v. 5. p. 137. num. 5.
  • and v. 11. p. 152. 153.
  • chap. 2. v. 15. p. 27. num. 2.
  • chap. 3. v. 6. ibid.
1 Timothee.
  • Chap. 3. v. 6. p. 223. num. 3.
  • and v. 8. p. 221. and. v. 15. p. 64. num. 2.
  • chap. 4. v. 14. p. 79. num. 8. pag. 227. num. 8.
  • chap. 5. v. 17.18. p. 79. num. 8. pag. 80.
2 Timothee.
  • Chap. 1. v. 6. p. 229. num. 10.
  • chap. 4. v. 8. p. 137. num. 5.
Titus.
  • Chap. 3. v. 8. p. 213. and v. 10. p. 6. num. 13. p. 60. num. 3.
Hebrues.
  • Chap. 2. v. 9. p. 146.
  • chap. 5. v. 7. p. 19. num. 4.5. p. 127. nu. 37.
  • chap. 6. v. 10. p. 137. num. 5.
  • chap. 10. v. 29. p. 151. num. 13. & v. 22. p. 188 num. 2. and v. 20. p. 126. num. 36.
  • chap. 11. v, 21. p. 285.
  • chap. 12, v. 23. p. 64. num. 2.
  • chap. 13. p. 232. num. 14. & v. 5. pag. 19. num. 44.
S. Iames.
  • Chap. 1. v. 13. p. 299. num. 2.
  • chap. 4. v. 6. p. 294. num. 6.
1 Peter.
  • Chap. 1. v. 18. p. 29. num. 6. and v. 25. p. 292. num. 3.
  • chap. 2. v. 3. p. 241. num. 22. pa. 243. num. 24.
  • chap. 5. v. 1 p. 80 num. 9.
2 Peter.
  • Chap. 3. v. 16. pag. 298.
1 Iohn.
  • Chap. 5. v. 3. p. 178. num. 14.
  • and. v. 21. p. 42. num. 13.
Apocalypse.
  • Chap. 19. v. 8. p 135. num. 3.

BEZAS CORRVPTIONS.
Psalmes.

  • Psal. 51. v. 6. p. 10. num. 26.
S. Matthevv.
  • Chap. 23. pag. 304.
Actes.
  • Chap. 1. v. 14. p. 231.
  • chap. 2. v. 23. p. 11. nu. 31. p. 301.
  • and v. 24. p. 12. num. 32.34. and v. 27. p. 11. nu. 31. p. 101. nu. 2.
  • chap. 3. v. 21. p. 13. num. 36.
  • chap. 13. v. 39 p. 181. num. 2.
  • chap. 26. v. 20. p. 19. nu. 45. p. 197. num. 1.
Romanes.
  • Chap. 4. v. 11. p. 214. num. 2.
1 Corinthians.
  • Chap. 12. v. 31. p. 194. num. 8.
  • chap. 13. v. 2. p. 192. num. 6.
  • chap. 15. v. 10. num. 27.
2 Thessalonians.
  • Chap. 2 v. 3. p. 27. num. 3.
Titus.
  • Chap. 3. v. 5. pag. 217. and v. 6. p. 20. num. 46,
Hebrues.
  • Chap. 5. p. 11. num. 29.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.