A DISCOVERY OF THE MANIFOLD CORRUPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES BY THE Heretics of our days, specially the English Sectaries, and of their foul dealing herein, by partial & false translations to the advantage of their heresies, in their English Bibles used and authorized since the time of Schism.  
By GREGORY MARTIN one of the readers of Divinity in the ENGLISH COLLEGE OF RHEIMS.  2 Cor. 2. 
Non sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes verbum Dei, sed ex sinceritate sed sicut ex Deo, coram Deo, in Christo loquimur.  
That is,  
We are not as very many, adulterating the word of God, but of sincerity, & as of God, before God, in Christ we speak.  
Printed at RHEIMS, By john Fogny.  
1582.   

THE PREFACE CONTAINING FIVE SUNDRY ABUSES OR CORRUPTIONS OF HOLY Scriptures, common to all Heretics, & agreeing specially to these of our time: with many other necessary advertisements to the reader.  

Heretics five ways specially abuse the Scriptures.  AS it hath been always the fashion of Heretics to pretend Scriptures, for show of their cause: so hath it been also their custom and property to abuse the said Scriptures many ways, in favour of their errors.  

1 Denying certain books or parts of books.  1 One way is, to deny whole books thereof or parts of books, when they are evidently against them. So did (for example) Ebion all S. Paul's epistles, Manicheus the Acts of the Apostles, Alogiani S. john's Gospel, Martion many pieces of S. Luke's Gospel, and so did both these and other heretics in other books, denying and allowing what they list, as is evident by S. Ireneus, S. Epiphanius, S. Augustine, and all antiquity.  

2 Doubting of their authority, and calling them into question  2 An other way is, to call into question at the least and make some doubt of the authority of certain books of holy Scriptures, thereby to diminish their credit. so did Manicheus affirm of the whole new Testament, that it was not written by the Apostles: & peculiarly of S. Matthewes Gospel, that it was some other man's under his name: and therefore not of such credit, but that it might in some part be refused. so did Martion & the Arians deny the epistle to the hebrews to be S. Paul's, Epiphan. li. 2. haer. 69: Euseb. li. 4. hist. c. 27. & Alogiani the Apocalypse to be S. john's the Evangelist. Epiph. & August. in haer. Alogianorum.  

3 Voluntary expositions according to every one's fancy or heresy.  3 An other way is, to expound the Scriptures after their own private conceit and fantasy, not according to the approved sense of the holy ancient fathers and Catholic Church. so did Theodorus Mopsuestites (Act. Synod. 5.) affirm of all the books of the Prophets, and of the Psalms, that they spoke not evidently of Christ, but that the ancient fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings unto Christ which were spoken of other matters. so did all heretics, that would seem to ground their heresies upon Scriptures, & to avouch them by Scriptures expounded according to their own sense and imagination.  

4 Changing some words or sentences of the very original text. Tertul. count Marcio. li. 1. in princ.  4 An other way 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 sundry places, and the Nestorians in the first epistle of S. john, and especially Martion, who was therefore called, Mus Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, because he had gnawn (as it were) certain places with his corruptions, whereof some are said to remain in the Greek text until 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 error and heresy. so did the Arians (as S. Hierom noteth in 26. Esa.) read and translate Proverb. 8. Dominus creavit me in initio viarum suarum. that is, The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, possedit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  so to make Christ the wisdom of God, a more creature. S. Augustin also li. 5. Cont. julian. c. 2. noteth it as the interpretation of some Pelagian Gen. 3. Fecerunt sibi vesti menta, for, perizómata or campestria. that is, They made themselves garments. whereas the word of the Scripture is, breeches or aprons proper & peculiar to cover the secret parts. Again, the self same Heretics did read falsely Ro. 5. 
Aug. ep. 89. & lib. 1. de pec. mer. ca 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen etiam in eos qui peccaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis Adae, that is, Death reigned from Adam to Moses even on them that sinned after the similitude of the prevarication of Adam, to maintain their heresy against original sin, that none were infected therewith, or subject to death & damnation, but by sinning actually as Adam did. Thus did the old Heretics.  
6 what these of our days? is it credible that being so well warned by the condemnation and detestation of them, they also would be as mad and as impious as those? Heretics (gentle Reader) be always like Heretics, and howsoever they differ in opinions or names, yet in this point they agree, to abuse the Scriptures for their purpose by all means possibly. I will but touch four points of the five before mentioned, because my purpose is to stay upon the last only, and to decipher their corrupt translations. 
That the Protestants and calvinists use the foresaid five means of defacing the Scriptures.  But if I would stand upon the other also, were it not easy to show the manner of their proceeding against the Scriptures to have been thus: to deny some whole books and parts of books, to call other some into question, to expound the rest at their pleasure, to pick quarrels to the very original and Canonical text, to fester and infect the whole body of the Bible with cankered translations?  
7 Did not Luther deny S. james epistle and so contemn it that he called it an epistle of straw, & not worthy of an Apostolical spirit? must I prove this to M. whitaker's, who would never have * 
Cont. rat. Edm. Camp. pag. 11.  denied it so vehemently in the superlative degree for shame, if he had not thought it more shame to grant it? I need not go far for the matter: Ask M. Fulke, 
Retent. pag. 32. dist. of the Rock p. 307. Luther. in novo Test. Germa. in Pref. jacob.  and he will flatly confess it was so. Ask Calvin in arg. ep. jacobi. ask Flaccus Illyricus, in argum. ep. jacobi. and you shall perceive it is very true. I will not send you to the Catholic Germans and others, both of his own time and after, that written against him in the question of justification: among whom not one omitteth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of that Arch heretic.  
8 To let this pass: Toby, Ecclesiasticus, & the Maccabees are they not most certainly rejected? and yet they were allowed and received for Canonical, by the same authority that S. james epistle was. This epistle the Caluinists are content to admit, because * 
Conc. Carth. 3 can. 47.  so it pleased Calvin: those books they reject, because so also it pleased him. And why did it so please Calvin? under pretence forsooth that they wereonce doubted of, and not taken for Canonical. but is that the true cause in deed? How do they then * 
Argum. in ep. jac.  receive S. james epistle as Canonical, having been before doubted of also, yea (as * 
whitak p. 10. ibid.  they say) rejected?  
9 Mark gentle Reader for thy soul's sake, and thou shalt find, that heresy and only heresy is the cause of their denying these books: so far, that against the orders and Hierarchies and particular patronages of Angels, one of them writeth thus in the name of the rest, 
ibid. p. 17. M Whitak. by these words condemneth their own Service book, which appoints these books of Toby & Ecclesiasticus, to be read for holy Scripture, as the other. Do they read in their Churches Apocryphal and superstitious books for holy Scripture? or is he a Puritan, that thus disgraceth their order of daily Service?  We pass not for that Raphael of Toby, neither do we acknowledge those seven Angels which he speaketh of. all this is far from Canonical Scriptures that the same Raphael recordeth, and savoureth I wot not what superstition. Against free will thus: I little care for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I believe free will, though he affirm an hundred times, That before men is life and death. And against prayer for the dead, and intercession of Saints, thus: As for the book of the Maccabees, I do care less for it then for the other. judas dream concerning Onias I let pass as a dream. This is their reverence of the Scriptures which have universally been reverenced for Canonical in the Church of God above 1100 years, Conc. Carth. 3. and particularly of many fathers long before. August. de doct. Christ. lib. 2 ca 8.  
10 As for parts of books do they not reject certain pieces of Daniel and of Hester, because they are not in the Hebrew, which reason S. Augustine rejecteth: or because they were once doubted of by certain of the fathers? by which reason some part of S. Mark and S. Luke's Gospel might now also be called in controversy, specially if it be true which M. whitaker's by a figurative speech more than insinuateth, That he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit, 
pag. 10.  should by time win authority. Forgetting himself by & by, and in the very next lines admitting S. james epistle (though before doubted of) for Canonical Scriptures. 
M. whitak book.  unless they receive it but of their courtesy, and so may refuse it when it shall please them, which must needs be gathered of his words, as also many other notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumb blanks. Which only to note, were to confute M. whitakers by himself, being the Answerer for both Universities.  
11 For the second point, which is not the gross denial of books, but yet calling of them in question, moving scruples about them, & diminishing their authority and credit, I will go no further then to S. Paul's epistle to the hebrews, 
In the argument Bib. an. 1579.  which I will not ask why they doubt of, or rather think it not to be S. Paul's, for they will tell me, because it was once in doubt (not considering that it was in like manner doubted whether it were Canonical, & yet they will not now deny but it is Canonical) but I must ask them and request them to make a reasonable answer, why in their English Bible of the year 1579 and 1580 they presume to leave out S. Paul's name out of the very title of the said epistle, which name is * 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  in the Greek, and in Bezas Latin translation, both which they profess to follow. See the title of the new Test. an. 1580. Doth not the title tell them that it is S. Paul's? why seek they further: or why do they change the title, striking out S. Paul's name, if they meant to deal simply and sincerely? and what an heretical peevishness is this, because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greek copy that hath not Paul's name, and only one: that they will rather follow it then all other copies both Greek and Latin? I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether they do it not to diminish the credit of the epistle.  
12 I know very well that the authority of Canonical Scripture standeth not upon the certainty of the author, but yet to be Paul's or not Paul's, Apostolical or not Apostolical, maketh great difference of credit and estimation. For, what made S. james epistle doubted of sometime, or the second of S. Peter, and the rest, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles? This Luther saw very well, when he denied S. james epistle to be sames the Apostles writing: If titles of books be of no importance, then leave out Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john, leave out Paul in his other epistles also, and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old Heretics: and if the titles make no difference, urge no more the title of the Apocalypse, S. john the Divines, as though it were not S. john's the Evangelists, and you shall much displeasure some Heretics now a days. briefly, most certain it is, and they know it best by their own usual doings, that it is a principal way to the discredit of any book▪ to deny it to be that authors, under whose name it hath been received.  
13 But I come to the third point of voluntary expositions of the Scripture, that is when every man expoundeth according to his error & Heresy. This needeth no proof, for we see it with our eyes. Look upon the Caluinists and Puritans at home, the Lutherans, zwinglians, and Caluinists abroad: read their books written vehemently, one sect against an other: are not their expositions of one and the same Scripture as diverse and contrary, as their opinions differ one from an other? Let the example at home be, their controversy about the distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees, Archbishop, Bishop, and minister: the example abroad, their divers imaginations & fantasies upon these most sacred words, Hoc est corpus meum.  
14 And if you will yet have a further demonstration, this one may suffice for al. They reject Counsels, and Fathers, and the Catholic Church's interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God's word, and whether it be agreeable or no that Luther shall judge for the Lutherans, Calvin for the Caluinists, Cartwright for the Puritans, and an other for the Brethren of love: briefly * 
whitak pa. 17. & 120.  themselves will be judges both of Counsels and Fathers whether they expound the Scriptures well or no, & every youth among them upon confidence of his spirit and knowledge will saucily control not only one but all the father's consenting together, if it be against that which they imagine to be the truth.  
15 Whereupon it riseth that one of them defendeth this as very well said of Luther, 
lb. pag. 101.  that he esteemed not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustine's, Cyprians, Churches, against himself. And an other very finely and figuratively, (as he thought) against the holy Doctor and Martyr S. Cyprian affirming that the Church of Rome can not err in faith, 
Praef. ad 6 theses Oxon pag. 25.  saith thus: Pardon me Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that believing thee, I should not believe the Gospel. This is that which 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, quam desertos a veritate. And I think verily that not only we, but the wiser men among themselves smile at such eloquence, or pity it, saying this or the like most truly, 
Cicero de Senect.  Prodierunt oratores novi, stulti adolescentuli.  
16 The 4 point is, of picking quarrels to the very original text: for alter & change it I hope they shall not be able in this watchful world of most vigilant Catholics. But what they would do, if all Bibles were only in their hands and at their commandment, 
Beza the mouse of Geneva, gnaweth the text of Scripture.  guess by this: that Beza against the evidence of all copies both Greek and Latin, (In hís Annot. upon the new Test. set forth in the year 1556.) thinketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more than should be in the text Mat. 10: & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7: the first, against Peter's supremacy: the second, against the real presence of Christ's blood in the B. Sacrament: the third, against the making of whatsoever images, whether they be adored or no. Thus you see how the mouse of Geneva (as I told you before of Martion the mouse of Pontus) knibbleth and gnaweth about it, though he can not bite it of altogether.  
17 He doth the like in sundry places which you may see in his Annotations Act. 7. v. 16. Where he is saucy against all copies Greeke and Latin to pronounce corruption, corruption, avouching and endeavouring to prove that it must be so, and that with these words. To what purpose should the holy Ghost, or Luke, add this? Act. 8. v. 26. But because those places concern no controversy, I say no more but that he biteth at the text, and would change it according to his imagination, if he might: which is to proud an enterprise for Beza, and small reverence of the holy scriptures, so to call the very text into controversy, that whatsoever pleaseth not him, crept out of the margin into the text, which is his common and almost his only conjecture.  
18 He biteth sore at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 1. v. 78. and will not translate that, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but the Hebrew word of the old Testament. but at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Act. 2. v. 24.) much more, & at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Act 7. v. 14.) exceedingly: but yet after he hath said all that he could against it, he concludeth, that he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon conjecture to change any thing. And therefore all this is gnawing only. 
no. Test. an. 1556. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Beza reconcileth the Greek text of the new Testament with the Hebrew text of the old, by putting out of the Greek text so much as pleaseth him.  but in the 3 of Luke he maketh no conscience at all, to leave out these words vers. 36, Qui fuit Cainan, not only in his own translation, but in the vulgar Latin which is joined therewith, saying in his Annot. Non dubitavimus expungere, that is, We doubted not to put it out: & why? by the authority of Moses Gen. 11. Whereby he signifieth▪ that it is not in the Hebrew Gen. 11. where this posterity of Sem is reckoned: and so to maintain the Hebrew verity (as they call it) in the old Testament he ca●●th not what become of the Greek in the new Testament: which yet at other times, against the vulgar Latin text, they call the Greek verity, and the pure fountain, and that text whereby all translations must be tried.  
19 But if he have no other way to reconcile both Testaments, but by striking out in the Greek of the new, all that agreeth not with the Hebrew of the old Testament, then let him alter and change so many words of our Saviour himself, of the Evangelists, and of the Apostles, as are cited out of the old Testament, and are not in Hebrew. Which places they know are very many, & when need is, they shall be gathered to their hands. Let him strike out (Mat. 13. v. 14.15. & Act. 28. v. 26.27) the words of our Saviour and S. Paul, 
Esa. 6, 9.10. Gal 3, 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  cited out of Esay, because they are far otherwise in the Hebrew. Strike out of the epistle to the Galatians these words, upon a tree: because in the Hebrew it is only thus. Cursed is he that is hanged. Deut. 21 in fine. Yea strike out of David's Psalms that which concerneth our redemption upon the Cross much nearer, They have pierced my hands & my feet, Ps. 21. because in the Hebrew thére is no such thing. Let them conntroule the Apostle, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Eph. 4, for saying, dedit he gave gifts: because it is both in the Hebrew and Greek, (Psal. 67) Accepisti, thou tookest gifts. and (Hebr. 10) for, corpus aptasti, let them put, aures perforasti, because it is so in the Hebrew Psal. 40. To be short, if all must be reform according to the Hebrew, why doth he not in S. Steuens sermon cut of the number of five souls from seventy five, because it is not in the Hebrew?  
20 Must such difficulties and diversities be resolved by chopping and changing, hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scripture? See into what perplexities wilful heresy and arrogancy hath driven them. To discredit the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible, and the father's expositiós according to the same (for that is the original cause of this) and beside, that they may have always this evasion, It is not so in the Hebrew, it is otherwise in the Greek, and so seem jolly fellows and great clerks unto the ignorant people, what do they? they admit only the Hebrew in the old Test. and the Greek in the new, to be the true and authentical text of the Scripture. Whereupon this followeth, that they reject, and must needs reject the Greek of the old Test. (called the Septuaginta) as false, because it differeth from the Hebrew. 
Their perplexity in defending both the Hebrew text of the old Testament, and Greek text of the new.  Which being rejected, thereupon it followeth again, that wheresoever those places so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ or the Evangelists & Apostles, there also they must be rejected, because they disagree from the Hebrew. and so yet again it followeth, that the Greek text of the new Testament is not true, because it is not according to the Hebrew verítie: and consequently the words of our Saviour, and writings of hís Apostles must be reform (to say the ) because they speak according to the Septuaginta, and not according to the Hebrew.  
21 All which must needs follow, if this be a good consequence, I find it not in Moses, nor in the Hebrew, therefore I struck it out, as Beza doth and saith concerning the foresaid words, Qui fuit Cainan. This consequence therefore let us see how they will justify: and withal let them tell us, whether they will discredit the new Testament, because of the Septuaginta, or credit the Septuaginta, because of the new Testament, or how they can credit one, & discredit the other, where both agree & consent together: or, whether they will discredit both, for credit of the Hebrew: or rather, whether there be not some other way to reconcile both Hebrew and Greek, better than Bezas impudent presumption. Which if they will not maintain, let them flatly confess that he did wickedly, and not (as they do) defend every word and deed of their Masters, be it never so heinous, or salve it at the least.  

How the fathers reconcile the said Hebrew and Greek.  22 Alas how far are these men from the modesty of the ancient fathers, who seek all other means to resolve difficulties, rather than to do violence to the sacred Scripture, and when they find no way, 
Li. 18. de civit c. 43. 2 Lib. de Doct. Chr. c. 15.  they leave it to God. S. Augustine concerning the difference of the Hebrew and the Greek, saith often to this effect, that it pleased the holy Ghost to utter by the one, that which he would not utter by the other. And S. Ambrose thus, 
Hexam. li. 3. cap. 6.  We have found many things not idly added of the 70 Greek interpreters. S. Hierom, though an earnest patron of the Hebrew (not without cause, 
In Prooem. li. Paralip.  being at that time perhaps the Hebrew verity in deed) yet giveth many reasons for the differences of the Septuaginta, and concerning the foresaid places of S. Luke, he doth give a reason thereof, 
Comment. in 28. Esa. and in question. Hebrai.  both for the 70, and for the Evangelist that followed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them by the authority of Moses (as Beza speaketh) that is, by the Hebrew. Others say concerning Cainan, that Moses might leave him out in the Genealogy of Sem, by the instinct of the same Spirit, 
Mat. c. 1.  that S. Matthew left out three kings in the genealogy of our Saviour. Where if a man would control the Evangelist by the Hebrew of the old Testament that is read in the books of the kings, he should be as wise and as honest a man as Beza. 
Praef. in Act. Apost.  Lastly, Venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient in this very difficulty of Cainan, to marvel at it reverently, rather than to search it dangerously. And thus far of picking quarrels to the original text, and their good will to alter and change it as they list, if they might be suffered.  

The 5. abuse of Scriptures, Corrupt translation. which is the argument and purpose of this book.  23 Which also may be proved by all their false translatíons (being the principal point I mean to speak of) most evidently. For as now they translate falsely to their purpose, because they can not alter the text: so would they, if it were possible, have the text agreeable to their translation. For example, he that translateth, ordinances, when it is in the original Greek text, justifications, and, traditions, he would rather that it were, ordinances, also in the Greek: but because he cannot bring that about, he doth at the least what he can, to make the ignorant believe it is so, by so translating it.  
24 And this of all other is the most fine and subtle treachery against the Scriptures, to deceive the ignorant readers withal, 
2 Cor. 4.  (which S. Paul calleth the secret things of dishonesty, and adulterating of the word of God, as it were mingling water with wine like false vintner's) when they give them for God's word, & under the name of God's word, their own words, and not Gods, forged and framed, altered and changed, according to differences of times, and variety of new opinions, and diversity of humours and spirits, diversely and differently, one Heretic not only correcting his fellow every day, 
The Heretics dissension about their translations.  but one eagerly refuting and resolving an other. 
* Dial. count Melancth. Lind. dubit. pag. 84, 96.98.  Bucer, and the Osiandrians and 
c See Zuingl. resp. 1. and Confess. Tigurinorum.  Sacramentaries against Luther for false translations: Luther against Munster, Beza against Castaleo, Castaleo against Beza, Calvin against servetus, Illyricus both against Calvin and Beza: The Puritans control the grosser calvinists of our Country, yea the later translations of the self same Heretics control the former exceedingly, not only of oversights, but of wilful falsifications, as it is notorious in the * 
ibid. pag. 83.97.  later editions of Luther and Beza, and in our English Bibles set forth in divers years, from Tindal their first translator until this day: 
The new Test. of the year 1580.  yea (which is more) the English translators of Bezas new Testament, control him and his translation which they protest to follow, 
* Luc. 3, 36.  being afraid sometime and ashamed to express in English his false translations in the Latin.  
25 But in this Catalogue of dissensions falsifiers and disagreeing translators, 
Act. 1, 14, & 2, 23. Act. 3, 21.  I will not greatly rip up old faults neither abroad, nor at home. I leave Luther's false translations into the Germane tongue, 
The Germane, French, and English corruptions of the new Testament  to the credit of Staphylus, Apolog. part. 2. and Emserus. praef. Annot. in no. Test. Luth. and other Germane writers of his own time, that saw them and read them, and reckoned the number of them in the new Testament only, about 
* See Lind. Dubit. p. 84 85, etc.  1400 heretical corruptions: I leave Caluins and Bezas french corruptions, to so many worthy men as 
* Vigour and the rest.  have noted them in their french books against the said heretics: Tindals' and his companions corruptions in their first English bible, to our learned countrymen of that age, & namely to the right Reverend Father and Confessor Bishop Tonstal, who in a sermon openly protested that he had found in the new Testament only, no less than two thousand. If we know it not, or will not believe it, 
* Lind. dub. pag. 98.  strangers in their Latin writings testify it to the world.  

The author's intent in this book.  26 But I omit these as unknown to our country, or to this age, and will deal principally with the English translations of our time, which are in every man's hands within our country the corruptions whereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the Annotations upon the late new English Testament catholicly translated & printed at Rheims, so by occasion thereof, I will by God's help, to the better commodity of the reader, and evidence of the thing, lay them closer together, and more largely display them, not counting the number, because it were hard, but esteeming the weight & importance of so many as I thought good to note, specially in the new Testament. Where I have to advertise the Reader of certain special things, which he must observe.  

Certain advertisements to the Reader.  27 First, that in this book he may not look for the proof or explication & deciding of controversies, Which is done in the Annotations upon the new Testament, but only the refuting or controlling of their false translations concerning the said controversies, which is the peculiar argume●● of this treatise.  
28 Secondly, that we refute sometime one of their translations, sometime an other, and every one as their falsehood giveth occasion. Neither is it a good defence for the falsehood of one, that it is truly translated in an other: the reader being deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one. Yea one of them is a condemnation of the other.  
29 Thirdly, that we speak indifferently against Protestants, calvinists, Bezites, and Puritans, without any curious distinction of them, being all among themselves brethren and pew fellows, and sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or less corrupting the holy Scriptures.  
30 Fourthly, that we give but a taste of their corruptions, not seeing so far, nor marking also narrowly and skilfully, as themselves know their own subtleties and meanings, who will smile at the places which we have not espied.  
31 Fifthly, that the very use and affectation of certain terms, and avoiding other some, though it be no demonstration against them, but that they may seem to defend it for true translation, yet was it necessary to be noted, because it is & hath been always a token of heretical meaning.  
32 Sixtly, that in explicating these things, we have endeavoured to avoid (as much as was possible) the tediousness of Greek & Hebrew words. which are only for the learned in these tongues, and which made some little doubt whether this matter (which of necessity must be examined by them) were to be written in English or no. but being persuaded by those (who themselves have no skill in the said tongues) that every reader might reap commodity thereby, to the understanding & detesting of such false and Heretical translations, it was thought good to make it vulgar and common to all our decree country men, as the new Testament itself is common, whereof this Discovery is as it were an handmaid, attending thereupon for the larger explication and proof of corruptions there briefly touched, and for supply of other some not there mentioned.  
33 seventhly, that all the English corruptions here noted and refuted, are either in all or some of their English bibles printed in these years, 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 margin: if not, yet sure it is that it is in one of them, and so the reader shall find it, if he find it not always in his own Bible. And in this case the reader must be very wise and circumspect, that he think not by and by we charge them falsely, because they can show him some later edition that hath it not so as we say, for it is their common and known fashion, not only in their translations of the Bible, but in their other books and writings, to alter and change, add and put out, in their later editions, according as either themselves are ashamed of the former, or their scholars that print them again, dissent and disagree from their Masters. So hath Luther's, Caluins, and Bezas writings and translations been changed both by themselves and their scholars in many places, so that Catholic men when they confute that which they find evident faults in this or that edition, fear nothing more than that the reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very shame, and so may conceive that there is no such thing, but that they are accused wrongfully. for example. Call to mind the late pretended conference in the tower, 
Touching S. james epistle.  where that matter was denied and faced out for Luther's credit, by some one book or edition of his, which themselves, and all the world knoweth was most truly laid to his charge.  
34 Eightly, in citing Beza, I mean always (unless I note otherwise) his Latin translation of the new Testament with his annotations adjoined thereunto, printed in the year 1556.  

We charge them not with forsaking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign, & to their evident confusion.  35 Lastly and principally is to be noted that we will not charge them with falsifying that which in deed is the true and authentical Scripture, I mean the vulgar Latin Bible, which so many years hath been of so great authority in the Church of God, and with all the ancient fathers of the Latin Church, as is declared in the preface of the New Testament: though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, only in favour of his heresies did wilfully forsake it, so the rest followed and do follow him at this day, for no other cause in the world but that it is against them. & therefore they inveigh against it, 
Kemnitius. Calvin.  and against the holy Council of Trent for confirming the authority thereof, both in their special treatises thereof, and in all their writings, where they can take any occasion.  
36 And concerning their wilful and heretical avoiding thereof in their new translations, what greater argument can there be then this, that Luther, who before always had read with the Gath. Church and with all antiquity, these words of S. Paul, 
1 Cor. 9 Mulicrem sororem. 2 Pet. 1.  Have not we power to lead about A WOMAN A SISTER, as also the rest of the Apostles? and in S. Peter, these words, Labour that BY GOOD WORKS you may make sure your vocation and election: suddenly, after he had contrary to his profession taken a wife (as he called her) and preached that all other votaries might do the same, and that faith only justified, good works were not necessary to salvation: suddenly (I say) after he fell to these heresies, he began to read and translate the former Scriptures accordingly, thus: Have not we power to lead about a SISTER A WIFE, as the rest of the Apostles? and, Labour that you may make sure your vocation and election: leaving out the other words, by good works. And so do both the Caluinists abroad, and our English Protestant's at home read and translate at this day, because they hold the self same heresies.  
37 So do they in infinite places alter the old text, which pleased them well before they were Heretics, and they do it with brazen faces, and plain protestation, having no shame nor remorse at all, in fleeing from that which all antiquity with one consent allowed and embraced until their unhappy days. Which though it be an evident condemnation of their novelties in the sight of any reasonable man that hath any grace, yet as I began to admonish thee (gentle Reader) we will not charge them for altering the ancient approved Latin translation, because they pretend to follow the Hebrew and Greek, and our purpose is not here, to prove that they should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that now is, before the ancient approved Latin text, which is done briefly already in the preface to the new Testament.  

We charge them not with forsaking the Greek copies that agree with the ancient approved Latin text, though this be a sign of their incredible partiality.  38 Neither will we burden them, for not following the vulgar Latin text, when the same agreeth with most ancient Greek copies: which notwithstanding is great partiality in them, & must needs be of an heretical wilful humour, that among the Greek copies themselves, they reject that which most agreeth with the vulgar Latin text, in places of controversies. Yet will we not I say, neither in this case, lay falsehood and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to translate the common Greek text of the new Testament, that is one certain copy, but here at the least let them show their fidelity, & that they be true and exact translators, for here only shall they be examined and called to account.  

We charge them for forsaking & false translating their own Hebrew and Greek text.  39 And if they follow sincerely their Greeke and Hebrew text, which they profess to follow, and which they esteem the only authentical text, so far we accuse them not of heretical corruption. but if it shall be evidently proved, that they shrink from the same also, and translate an other thing, and that wilfully, and of full intention to countenance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the Scriptures to speak as they list: then we trust, the indifferent reader for his own soul's sake, will easily see and conclude, that they have no fear of God, no reverence of the Scriptures, no conscience to deceive their readers: He will perceive that the Scriptures make against them, which they so pervert and corrupt for their purpose: that neither the Hebrew nor Greek text is for them, which they dare not translate truly and sincerely: that their cause is nought, which needeth such foul shifts: that they must needs know all this, and therefore do wilfully against their conscience, & consequently are obstinate Heretics.  
40 And the more to understand their misery & wretchedness, before we enter to examine their translations, mark & gather of all that which I have said in this preface, their manifold flight's & jumps, from one shift to an other, & how Catholic writers have pursued and chased them, & followed them, and driven them even to this extreme refuge and silly covert of false translation, where also they must of necessity yield, or devise some new evasion, which we can not yet imagine.  

The divers shifts and flight's that the Protestants are driven unto by the Catholics, as it were the jumps and turnings of an hare before the bounds.  41 First we are want to make this offer (as we think) most reasonable and indifferent: that forasmuch as the Scriptures are diversely expounded of us and of them, they neither be tied to our interpretation, nor we to theirs, but to put it to the arbitrement and judgement of the ancient fathers, of general Counsels, of universal custom of times and places in the Catholic Church. No, say they, we will be our own judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans: Calvin, if we be calvinists: and so forth.  
42 This being of itself a shameless shift, unless it be better coloured, the next is to say, that the Scriptures are easy and plain & sufficient of themselves to determine every matter, and therefore they will be tried by the Scriptures only. we are content, because they will needs have it so, and we allege unto them the books of Toble, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees. No, say they: we admit none of these for Scripture. Why so? are they not approved Canonical by the same authority of the Church, of ancient Counsels and fathers, that the other books are? No matter, say they, Luther admitteth them not, Calvin doth not allow them.  
43 Well, let us go forward in their own dance. You allow at the least the Jews Canonical books of the old Testament, that is, all that are extant in the Hebrew Bible: and all of the new Testament without exception. Yea, that we do. In these books then, will you be tried by the vulgar ancient Latin Bible, only used in all the west Church above a thousand years? No. Will you be tried by the Greek Bible of the Septuaginta interpreters, so renowned and authorized, in our saviours own speeches, in the Evangelists and Apostles writings, in the whole Greek Church evermore? No. How then will you be tried? They answer, Only by the Hebrew Bible that now is, and as now it is pointed with vowels. Will you so? and do you think that only, the true authentical Hebrew which the holy Ghost did first put into the pens of those sacred writers? We do think it (say they) and esteem it the only authentical and true Scripture of the old Testament.  
44 We ask them again, what say you then to that place of the psalm, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  where in the Hebrew it is thus, As a lion my hands and my feet: for that which in truth should be thus, They digged or pierced my hands and my feet: being an evident prophecy of Christ's nailing to the Cross. There in deed (say they) we follow not the Hebrew, but the Greek text. Sometime than you follow the Greek and not the Hebrew only. And what if the same Greek text make for the Catholics, as in these places for example, I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications for reward: and, Redeem thy sins with alms: might we not obtain here the like favour at your hands for the Greek text, specially when the Hebrew doth not disagree? No, say they, nor in no other place where the Greek is never so plain, if the Hebrew word at the least may be any otherwise interpreted, and draw on to an other signification.  
45 We reply again and say unto them, why, Is not the credit of those Septuaginta interpreters, who themselves were Jews, and best learned in their own tongue, and (as S. Augustine often, and other ancient fathers say) were inspired with the holy Ghost, in translating the Hebrew bible into Greek: Is not their credit (I say) in determining and defining the signification of the Hebrew word, far greater than yours? No. Is not the authority of all the ancient fathers both Greek and Latin, that followed them, equivalent in this case to your judgement? No, say they, but because we find some ambiguity in the Hebrew, we will take the advantage, and we will determine and limit it to our purpose.  
46 A gain we condescend to their wilfulness, and say: what if the Hebrew be not ambiguous, but so plain & certain to signify onething, 
Psal. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that it can not be plainer? As, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell, which proveth for us, that Christ in soul descended into Hel. Is not the one Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin, the other as proper and usual for Hell, as Infeunus in Latin? Here then at the least will you yield? No, say they, not here neither. for Beza telleth us that the Hebrew word, which commonly and usually signifieth, soul, yet for a purpose, of a man will strain it, may signify, not only body, but also, carcase and so he translate that. But Beza (say we) being admonished by his friends, corrected it in his later edition. Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his opinion concerning the Hebrew word, as himself protesteth.  
47 Well then, doth it like you to read thus according to Bezas translation, Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the grave? No, we are content to alter the word carcase (which is not a seemly word for our saviours body) and yet we are loath to say soul, but if we might, we would say rather, life, person, as appeareth in the margin of our Bibles. but as for the Hebrew word that signifieth Hell, though the Greek and Latin Bible through out, the Greek and Latin fathers in all their writings, as occasion serveth, do so read it and understand it, yet will we never so translate it: but for Hell, we will say grave, in all such places of Scripture as might infer Limbus patrum, if we should translate, Hel. These are their shifts, and turnings, and windings, in the old Testament.  
48 In the new Testament, we ask them, will you be tried by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole Church? No, but we appeal to the Greek. What Greek, say we, for there be sundry copies, and the best of them (as Beza confesseth) agree with the said ancient Latin. for example in S. Peter's words, 
2 Pet. ca 1.  Labour that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election. doth this Greek copy please you? No, say they: we appeal to that Greek copy, which hath not those words, by good works, for otherwise we should grant the merit and efficacy of good works toward salvation. and generally to tell you at once, by what Greeke we will be tried, we like best the vulgar Greek text of the new Testament, which is most common and in every man's hands.  
49 Well, say we, if you will needs have it so, take your pleasure in choosing your text. and if you will stand to it, grant us that Peter was chief among the Apostles, because your own Greek text saith, The first, Peter. No, saith Beza: 
Mat. 10.  we will grant you no such thing, for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter's primacy. Is it so? then you will not stand to this Greek text neither. Not in this place, saith Beza.  
50 Let us see an other place. You must grant us (say we) by this Greek text, that Christ's very blood which was shed for us, is really in the chalice, because S. Luke saith so in the Greek text. No, saith Beza, those Greek words came out of the margin into the text, & therefore I translate not according to them, but according to that which I think the truer Greek text, although I find it in no copies in the world, and this his doing 
* See chap. 1. nu. 37. chap. 17. nu. 11.  is maintained & justified by our English Protestant's in their writings of late.  
51 Well yet, say we, there are places in the same Greek text, as plain for us as these now cited, where you can not say, it came out of the margin, or, 
2 Thess. 2.  it was added falsely to the text. As, Stand and hold fast the traditions etc. by this text we require that you grant us traditions delivered by word of mouth, as well as the written word, that is, the Scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greek word signifieth tradition as plain as possibly, but here and in the like places, we rather translate it, ordinances, instructions, and what else soever. Nay Sirs, say we, you can not so answer the matter, for in other places, you translate it duly and truly, tradition: and why more in one place then in an other? They are ashamed to tell why, but they must tell, and shame both themselves and the Devil, if ever they think it good to answer this treatise, as also why they changed congregation, which was always in their first translation, into Church, in their later translations, & did not change likewise ordinances into traditions, Elders into Priests.  
52 The cause is, that the name of Church was at the first odious unto them, because of the Catholic Church which stood against them: but afterward this name grew into more favour with 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 therefore their translation also remaineth as before, suppressing the names both of the one and of the other. But of all these their dealings they shall be told in their several chapters and places.  
53 To conclude as I began, concerning their shifts, and jumps, and windinge, and turnings every way, from one thing to an other, till they are driven to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions and false translations: consider with me in this one case only of traditions, as may be likewise considered in all other controversies, that the ancient fathers, counsels, antiquity, universality, & custom of the whole Church allow traditions: the canonical Scriptures have them, the Latin text hath them, the Greek text hath them: only their translations have them not. Likewise in the old Testament, the approved latin text hath such and such speeches that make for us, the renowned Greek text hath it, the Hebrew text hath it: only their translations have it not.  
These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful, and which shall be examined & discussed in this book.   

THE ARGUMENTS OF EVERY CHAPTER, WITH THE PAGE Wherevery Chapter beginneth.  

CHAP. 1. THAT the Protestants translate the holy Scripture falsely of purpose, in favour of their heresies, through out 〈◊〉 controversies. pag. 2.  
CHAP. 2 Against Apostolical Traditions. pag. 25.  
CHAP. 3 Against sacred Images. pag. 32.  
CHAP. 4 The Ecclesiastical use of words turned into their original an● profane significations. pag. 58.  
CHAP. 5 Against the CHURCH. pag. 63.  
CHAP. 6 Against Priest and Priesthood, Where much also is said of thei● profaning of Ecclesiastical words. pag. 72.  
CHAP. 7 Against Purgatory, Limbus patrum, and Christ's descending in●● Hel. pag. 98.  
CHAP. 8 Concerning justification, and God's justice in rewarding goo● works. pag. 133.  
CHAP. 9 Against Merits, meritorious works, and the reward for th● same. pag. 140.  
CHAP. 10 Against Free will. pag. 163.  
CHAP. 11 For Imputatius justice against true inherent justice. pag. 180.  
CHAP. 12 For Special faith, vain security, and only faith. pag. 187.  
CHAP. 13 Against Penance and Satisfaction. pag. 196.  
CHAP. 14 Against the holy Sacraments, namely Baptism and Confession pag. 213.  
CHAP. 15 Against the Sacrament of Holy Orders. and for the Marriage o● Priests and Votaries. pag. 220.  
CHAP. 16 Against the Sacrament of Matrimony. pag. 244.  
CHAP. 17 Against the B. Sacrament, and Sacrifice, and aliens. pag. 249.  
CHAP. 18 Against the honour of Saints, 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 worthy of observation. pag. 298.  
CHAP. 22 Other faults judaical, profane, more vanities, follies, and novelties pag. 306.    

A DISCOVERY OF THE MANIFOLD CORRUPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, by the Heretics of our days, specially the English Sectaries, & of their foul dealing herein, by partial and false translations to the advantage of their heresies, in their English Bibles used and authorized since the time of Schism.  

CHAP. I. That the Protestants translate the holy Scriptures falsely of purpose, in favour of their heresies.  
1 THOUGH this shall evidently appear through out this whole book in every place that shall be objected unto them: yet because it is an observation of greatest importance in this case, and which stingeth them sore, & toucheth their credit exceedingly, in so much that one of them setting a good face upon the matter, 
* Confutation of Io. Owlet fol. 35. pag. 2.  saith confidently, that all the Papists in the world are not able to show one place of Scripture mistranslated wilfully and of purpose: therefore I will give the reader, certain brief observations and evident marks to know wilful corruptions, as it were an abridgement and sum of this treatise.  
2 The first mark and most general is: If they translate else where not amiss, 
Evident marks or signs to know wilful corruptions in translating.  and in places of controversy between them and us, most falsely: it is an evident argument that they do it not of negligence, or ignorance, but of partiality to the matter in controversy. This is to be seen through the whole Bible, where the faults of their translations are altogether, or specially, in those Scriptures that concern the causes in question between us. For other small faults, or rather oversights, we will no further note unto them, then to the end, that they may the more easily pardon us the like, if they find them.  
3. If, as in their opinions & heresies, they forsake the ancient fathers: so also in their translations, they go from that text & ancient reading of holy Scriptures, which all the fathers used and expounded: is it not plain that their translation followeth the vein and humour of their heresy? And again if they that so abhor from the ancient expositions of the fathers, yet if it seem to serve for them, stick not to make the exposition of any one Doctor, the very text of holy Scripture: what is this but heretical wilfulness? See this 1. chap. nu. 43. ch. 10. nu. 1.2. cha. 18. numb. 10.11. and chap. 19 nu. 1.  
4 Again, if they that profess to translate the Hebrew and Greek, and that because it maketh more for them (as they say) and therefore in all conferences and disputations appeal unto it as to the fountain & touchstone, if they (I say) in translating places of controversy, flee from the Hebrew and the Greek, it is a most certain argument of wilful corruption. This is done many ways, and is to be observed also through out the whole Bible, and in all this book.  
5 If the Greek be, Idololatria, and idololátra: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eph. 5. Col. 3 Bib. an. 1577.  and they translate not, Idolatry, and, idolater: but, worshipping of images, & worshipper of images, and that so absurdly, that they make the Apostle say, Covetousness is worshipping of images: this none would do but fools or mad men, unless it were 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 Greek word, in one and the same meaning: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and they translate, A pagan idolater, 
Bib. an. 1562  & a Christian worshipper of images, by two distinct words and diverse meanings: it must needs be done wilfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. 3. nu. 8.9.  
7 If they translate one & the same Greek word, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Tradition, whensoever the Scripture speaketh of evil traditions: and never translate it so, whensoever it speaketh of good and Apostolical traditions: their intention is evident against the authority of Traditions. See chap. 2. numb. 1.2.3.  
Yea if they translate, Tradition, taken in ill part, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  where it is not in the Greek: & translate it not so, where it is in the Greek, taken in good part: 
Col. 2. v. 20.  it is more evidence of the foresaid wicked intention. See chap. 2. nu. 5.6.  
9 If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the usual signification, and not the original derivation of words, as Beza and 
* Pag. 209.  M. whitaker's do: and if they translate contrary to this rule, what is it but wilful corruption? So they do in translating, idolum, an image, Presbyter, an elder: and the like. See chap. 4. & chap. 6. nu. 6.7.8. etc. nu. 13. etc.  
10 If Presbyter, by Ecclesiastical use, be appropriated to signify a Priest, no less then, Episcopus, to signify a Bishop, or Diaconus, a Deacon: and if they translate these two ●ater accordingly, and the first never in all the new Testament: what can it be but wilful corruption in favour of this heresy, 〈◊〉 That there are no Priests of the new Testament? 
whitak p. 199.  See chap. 6. numb. 12.  
11 If for God's altar, they translate, Temple: & for Bells idololatrical table, they translate, altar: judge whether it be not of purpose against our altars, and in favour of their communion table. See chap. 17. numb. 15.16.  
12 If at the beginning of their heresy, when sacred images were broken in pieces, altars digged down, the Catholic Church's authority defaced, 
Bib. in king Edw. time. printed again 1562.  the king made supreme head, than their translation was made accordingly, and if afterwards when these errors were well established in the realm, and had taken root in the people's hearts, all was altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not find that in the Greek, which was in the former translation: what was it at the first but wilful corruption to serve the time that then was? See chap. 3.5. chap. 17. nu. 15. chap. 15. nu. 22.  
13 If at the first revolt, when none were noted for Heretics and Schismatics, but themselves, they did not once put the names of Schism or Heresy in the Bible, but in steed thereof, division, and, sect, in so much that for an Heretic, they said, an author of Sects, 
Bib. 1562. Tit. 3.  what may we judge of it but as of wilful corruption? See chap. 4. numb. 3.  
14 If they translate so absurdly at the first, that themselves are driven to change it for shame: it must needs be at the first wilful corruption. for example, when it was in the first, Temple, and in the later, Altar: in the first always, Congregation, in the later always, Church: in the first, To the king as chief head, in the later, To the king as having pre-eminence. So did Beza first translate, carcase, and afterward, soul. Which alteration in all these places is so great, that it could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical intention. See chap. 17. numb. 15. chap. 5. nu. 4.5. chap. 15. numb. 22. chap. 7. nu. 2.  
15 If they will not stand to all their translations, but flee to that namely which now is read in their churches: & if that which is now read in their churches, differ in the points aforesaid, from that that was read in their churches in king Edward's time: & if from both these, they flee to the Geneva Bible, and from that again, to the other aforesaid: what shall we judge of the one or the other, but that all is voluntary and as they list? See chap. 3. numb. 10.11.12. cha. 10. numb. 12.  
16 If they gladly use these words in ill part, where they are not in the original text, Procession, shrines, devotions, excommunicate, images: and avoid these words, which are in the original, Hymns, grace, mystery. Sacrament, Church, altar, Priests, Catholic, traditions, justifications: is it not plain that they do it of purpose to disgrace, or suppress the said things and speeches used in the Catholic Church? See chap. 21. numb. 5. & seq. chap. 12. numb. 3.  
17 If in a case that maketh for them, they strain the very original signification of the word, and in a case that maketh against them, they neglect it altogether: what is this but wilful and of purpose? See chap. 7. nu. 36.  
18 If in words of ambiguous and divers signification, they will have it signify here or there, as it pleaseth them: and that so vehemently, that here it must needs so signify, and there it must not: and both this, and that, to one end and in favour of one and the same opinion: 
Beza in 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. & 9 v. 5.  what is this but wilful translation? So doth Beza urge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify, wife, and not to signify, wife, both against virginity and chastity of Priests: and the English Bible translateth accordingly. 
Bib. an. 1579  See chap. 15. nu. 11.12.  
19 If the Puritans and grosser calvinists disagree about the translations, one part preferring the Geneva English Bible, the other the Bible read in their Church: and if the Lutherans condemn the zwinglians & calvinists translations, and contrariwise: and if all Sectaries reprove each an others translation: What doth it argue, but that the translations differ according to their divers opinions? See their books written 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. etc. 5. v. 6.   
20 If the English Geneva Bibles themselves dare not follow their Master Beza, whom they profess to translate, because in their opinion he goeth wide, and that in places of controversy: how wilful was 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 appeal to the Greek: and yet in places of controversy sometime for their more advantage (as they think) they leave the Greek, and follow our Latin translation: what is it else, but voluntary and partial translation? See chap. 2. nu. 8. chap. 6. nu. 10.21. chap. 7. nu. 39 chap. 10. nu. 6.  
22 If otherwise they avoid this word, iustificationes, 
Peza Luc. 1. Ro. 2. Apoc. 19.8.  altogether, & yet translate it When they can not choose, but with a commentary * 
Beza in c. 19 Apoc. v. 8.  that it signifieth good works that are testimonies of a lively faith: doth not this heretical commentary show their heretical meaning, when they avoid the word altogether? See chap. 8. nu. 1.2.3.  
23 When 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 Adam's offence, sin came on all men, but that by Christ's justice, the benefit only abounded toward all men, not that justice came on all, whereas the Apostle maketh the case alike, without any such divers additions, to wit, * 
Ro. 5. v. 18.  that we are truly made just by Christ, as by Adam we are made sinners: is not this most wilful corruption for their heresy of imputative and fantastical justice. See chap. 11. nu. 1.  
24 But if in this case of justification, when the question is whether only faith justify, & we say no, having the express words of S james: they say, yea, having no express scripture for it: if in this case they will add, only, to the very text: is it not most horrible and devilish corruption? So did Luther, * 
ja. 2. v. 24. Ro. 3. v. 28. Luth. tom. 2. fol. 405. edit. Witteb. an. 1551. Whitak. pag. 198.  whom our English Protestant's honour as their father, and in this heresy of only faith, are his own children. See chap. 12.  

Their ignorance of the Greek and Hebrew tongue, or their false & wilful translation thereof against their knowledge.  25 If these that account themselves the great Grecians & Hebricians of the world, will so translate for the advantage of their cause, as though they had no skill in the world, and as though they knew neither the signification of words, nor propriety of phrases in the said languages: is it not to be esteemed shameless corruption?  
26 I will not speak of the Germane Heretics, 
Brentius Melancth. See Linda. Dubi. Dial. 1. c. 12 Psal. 51.  who to maintain this heresy, that all our works, be they never so good, are sin, translated, for Tibi soli peccavi, to the only have I sinned, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whitak. pag. 198.  thus, Tibi solum peccavi. that is, I have nothing else but sinned: whatsoever I do, I sin: whereas neither the Greek nor the Hebrew will possibly admit that sense. Let these pass as Lutherans, yet wilful corrupters, * 
Ro. 5, v. 6.  and acknowledged of our English Protestant's for their good brethren. But if Beza translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when we were yet of no strength, as the Geneva English Bible also doth interpret it, whereas every young Grecian knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether without strength: is not this of purpose to take away man's free will altogether? See chap. 10. nu. 13.  
27 If Calvin translate, 
1 Cor. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Non ego, sed gratia Dei quae mihi aderat: may not mean Grecians control him, that he also translateth falsely against free will, because the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth require some other participle to be understood, that should signify a cooperation with free will to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which laboured with me? See chap. 10. nu. 2.  
28 If, when the Hebrew beareth in differently, to say, Sin lieth at the door: and, unto thee the desire thereof shall be subject, 
Gen. 4. v. 7.  & thou I halt rule over it: 
an. 1579.  the Geneva English Bible translate the first without scruple, & the later not, because of the Hebrew grammar: is not this also most wilful against free will? See chap. 10. nu. 9  
29 If Calvin affirm that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify, propter reverentiam, 
Calu. in 5. Hebr.  because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so used, and Beza avoucheth the same more earnestly, 
Bib. an. 1579  and the English Bible translateth accordingly, which may be confuted by infinite examples in the Scripture itself, and is confuted by Illyricus the Lutheran: is it not a sign either of passing ignorance, or of most wilful corruption, to maintain the blasphemy that hereupon they conclude? See chap. 7. nu. 42.43,  
30 If Beza in the self same place contend, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify reverence or piety, but such a fear as hath horror and astonishment of mind: & in an other place saith of this self same word, clean contrary: what is it but of purpose to uphold the said blasphemy? See cha. 7. nu. 39.40.  
31 If he translate for, God's foreknowledge, God's providence, for soul, carcase, for hell, grave: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. v. 27.  to what end is this but for certain heretical conclusions? And if upon admonition he altar his translation for shame, and yet * 
Annota. in no. Test. post. edit.  protesteth that he understandeth it as he did before, did he not translate before wilfully according to his obstinate opinion? See chap. 7.  
32 If to this purpose he avouch that, 
Annot. in Act. 2. v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Sheol, signifieth nothing else in Hebrew but a grave, whereas all Hebricians know that it is the most proper and usual word in the Scripture for Hell, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as the other word Keber, is for a grave: who would think he would so endanger his estimation in the Hebrew tongue, but that an heretical purpose against Christ's descending into hell, blinded him? See chap. 7.  
33 And if all the English Bibles translate accordingly, to wit, for Hell, grave, wheresoever the Scripture may mean any lower place that is not the Hell of the damned: and where it must needs signify that Hell, there they never avoid so to translate it: is it not an evident argument that they know very well the proper signification, but of purpose they will never use it to their disadvantage in the questions of Limbus, Purgatory, Christ's descending into Hell? cha. 7.  
34 If further yet in this kind of controversy, Beza would be bold to affirm (for so he saith) if the Grammarians would give him leave, that * 
Annot. in Act. 2. v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Chebel with five points signifieth, funem, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is, he would translate, Solutis funibus mortis, not, Solutis doloribus inferni.  no less than Chebel with six points: is he not wonderfully set to maintain his opinion, that will change the nature of words, if he might, for his purpose?  
35 If passives must be turned into actives, and actives into passives, participles disagree in case from their substantives, or rather be plucked and separated from their true substantives, solecisms imagined, where the construction is most agreeable, errors devised to creep out of the margin, and such like: who would so presume in the text of holy Scripture, to have all Grammar, and words, and phrases, and constructions at his commandment, but Beza & his like, for the advantage of their cause? See chap. 5. nu. 6. and the numbers next following in this chapter.  
36 For example S. Peter saith, 
Act. 3, 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Heaven must receive Christ. He translateth, Christ must be contained in heaven, which Calvin himself misliketh, the Geneva English Bible is afraid to follow, Illyricus the Lutheran reprehendeth: and yet M. whitaker's taketh the advantage of this translation, 
Pag. 43.  to prove that Christ's natural body is so contained in heaven, that it can not be upon the altar. For he knew that this was his marsters' purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, when the blind follow the blind, yea rather when they see and will be blind: for certain it is (& I appeal to their greatest Grecians) that howsoever it be taken for good in their divinity, it will be esteemed most false in their Greek schools both of Oxford and Cambridge: & howsoever they may presume to translate the holy Scriptures after this sort, surely no man, no not themselves, would so translate Demosthenes, for saving their credit and estimation in the Greek tongue. See chap. 17. nu. 7.8.9.  
37 But there is yet worse stuff behind: to wit, the famous place Luc. 22. where Beza translateth thus, Hoc poculum nowm testamentum per meum sanguinem, qui pro vobis funditur: whereas in the Greek, in all copies without exception, he confesseth that in true Grammatical construction it must needs be said, quod pro vobis funditur, and therefore he saith it is either a plain soloecophanes, (and according to that presumption he boldly translateth) or a corruption crept out of the margin into the text. And as for the word soloecophanes, we understand him that he meaneth a plain soloecism and fault in grammar, & so doth M. whitaker's: 
Pag. 34.35.  but M. Fulke saith that he meaneth no such thing, 
Against D. Sand. Rock pag. 308.  but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices, striving to make S. Luke's speech here as he construeth the words, 
See Com. Bud. Figurata constructio, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  an elegancy in the Greek tongue. He sendeth us first to Budees' commentaries, where there are examples of soloecophanes: and in deed Budee taketh the word for that which may seem a soloecism, and yet is an elegancy, and all his examples are of most fine and figurative phrases, but alas how unlike to that in S. Luke. and here M. Fulke was very foully deceived, thinking that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense: and so taking his mark amiss, as it were a counter for gold, where he found soloecophanes in Budee, there he thought all was like to S. Luke's sentence, and that which Beza meant to be a plain soloecism, he maketh it like to Budees' elegancies. Much like to those good searchers in Oxford (as it is said) masters of art, who having to seek for Papistical books in a lawyers study, and seeing there books with red letters, cried out, Mass books, Mass books: whereas it was the Code or some other book of the Civil or Canon Law.  
38 This was lack of judgement in M. Fulke at the least, and no great sign of skill in Greek phrases, and he must no more call D. Sanders unlearned for not understanding Bezas meaning, but himself, who in deed understood him not. For, if Beza meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplify of, why doth he say, that he seethe not why Luke should use soloecophanes, but thinketh rather, it is a corruption crept into the margin? Tell us, M. Fulke we beseech you, whether is the better and honester defence, to say, that it is an elegancy & fine phrase in S. Luke, or to say, it is afault in the text, it came out of the margin, the Gospel is here corrupted. Think you Beza such a fool, that he would rather stand upon this later, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by soloecophanes? yea what needed any defence at all, if it had been an usual & known elegancy, as you would prove it?  
39 For you say further, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is understood, & that this is a common thing in the best Greek authors, but you must add, that the said relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as this speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be resolved thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be resolved, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you shall never be able to bring one example, & you wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge you have of the Greek tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else you have no skill at all, that speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek elegancies. for if you have skill, you know in your conscience, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as great a soloecism in Greek, & no more elegancy, then to say in Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school deserveth whipping. And yet you ask very vehemently (concerning these words, Hic calix nowm Testamentum in meo sanguine qui pro vobis fundetur:) what mean Grammarian would refer, qui, to calix, and not to sanguis? I answer, that a mere latinist, for ignorance of the Greek tongue, would refer it rather as you say: but he that knoweth the Greek, as you seem to do, though he be a very young Grammarian, will easily see it can not so be referred: as in the like Act. 14. Sacerdos quoque iovis qui erat ante civitatem eorum. Here, qui, is ambiguous, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but in the Greek we see that, qui, must be referred to, iovis, and can not be referred to, Sacerdos.  
40 And this is one commodity among others, that we reap of the Greek text, to resolve the ambiguity that is sometime in the Latin: whereas you neither admit the one nor the other, but as you list, neither doth the Greek satisfy you, be it never so plain and infallible, but you will devise that it is corrupted, that there is a soloecism, that the same soloecism is an elegancy, and thereupon you translate your own devise, and not the word of God. which whence can it proceed, but of most wilful corruption? See chap. 17. nu. 10.11.12.  
41 If in ambiguous Hebrew words of doubtful signification, where the Greek giveth one certain sense, you refuse the Greek, & take your advantage of the other sense: what is this but wilful partiality? so you do in, Redime eleemosynis peccata tua. Dan. 4. & Inclinavi cor meum ad faciendas iustificationes tuas propter retributionem. 
Ps. 118 Octon. Nun. Ps. 138.  and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus etc. and yet at an other time you follow the determination of the Greek for an other advantage: as Psal. 98. Adore his footstool, because he is holy. Whereas in the Hebrew 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 Hebrew to the Greek, and from this to that again, from both to the vulgar Latin, as is showed in other places: and as S. Augustine saith to Faustus the Manichee, 
Li. 11. cont. Faust. c. 2.  You are the rule of truth: whatsoever is for you, is true: whatsoever is against you, is not true.  
42 What shall I speak of the Hebrew particle vau? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which (Gen. 14. v. 18) must in no case be translated, because, lest it should prove that Melchisedec offered sacrifice of bread and wine, as all the fathers expound it: but (Luc. 1. v. 42) where they translate the equivalent Greek particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there Beza proveth the said particle to signify, because, 
Quia benedictus, for, & benedictus fructus ventris tui.  & translateth accordingly, & the English Bezites likewise. I will not urge them why, we like the sense well, and Theophylacte so expoundeth it. but if the Greek copulative may be so translated, why not the Hebrew copulative much more, which often in the Scripture is used in that sense? See chap. 17. nu. 13.14.  
43 But I would ask rather, 
Luc. 1. v. 28.  why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not in any case be translated, full of grace: whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated, 
Luc. 16. v. 20  full of sores. both words being of like form and force. See chap. 18. nu. 4.5.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  44 Again, why say they (Hebr. 13) Let your conversation be without covetousness, and say not, Let marriage be honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. both being expressed a like by the Apostle, and by way of exhortation, as the rest that goeth before and followeth? See chap. 15. nu. 15.  
45 Are we to suspicious think you? 
Hebr. 5. v. 7.  how can fear, be translated, that which he feared: 
* Beza. Act. 26. v. 20. 2 Thes. 2 & 3.  repentance, them that repent or amend their life: tradition, the doctrine delivered: temples, shrines: idols, devotions: every human creature, all ordinances of man: foreknowledge, providence: soul, carcase: hell, grave: altar, temple: table, altar: and such like?  
46 What caused these strange speeches in their English Bibles, 
Psal. 86, 13. Bib. 1579.  Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave. Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave. A covetous man is a worshipper of images. By laying on of the hands of the Eldership. Hail freely beloved. SIN lieth at the door, and thou shalt rule over HIM. Break of thy sins with righteousness. for, Redeem with alms. jealousy is cruel as the grave. for, as hell. Cant. Cant. 8. Bib. an 1579. The griefs of the grave caught me. Psal. 116. And, God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave. 
Psal. 48.  O grave I will be thy destruction. Os. 13. and such like? what made Calvin so translate into Latin, that if you turn it into English, the sense is, that God powered water upon us abundantly, 
Tit. 3.  meaning the holy Ghost: what else but because he would take away the necessity of material water in Baptism, as in his commentary and Bezas, it is evident?  
47 I had meant to have but briefly skimmed over these things, but multitude of matter maketh me to long, as it chanceth to a man that wadeth through miry and foul places, and yet the greatest demonstration that they are wilful corrupters, is behind, which only I will add, and for the rest, refer the reader to the whole book.  
48 Doubt you whether they translate of purpose and partiality, infavour of their opinions? you shall hear themselves say so and protest it. If I dealt with Lutherans, this one testimony of Luther were sufficient, who being asked why he added, 
Tom. 2. fol. 405. edit. Witteb. an. 1551.  only, into the text Ro. 3: answered that he did it to explicate the Apostles sense more plainly. that is, to make the Apostle say more plainly, that faith only justified. and his disciple Illyricus disputeth the matter, that the Apostle saying, by faith without works, 
The express testimonies of Beza (whom the English Heretical translations follow herein) that he doth Wilfully and of purpose translate against such & such Catholic assertions.  saith in deed, only faith. but because I deal rather with our English calvinists, and Beza is their chief translator, & a captain among them, whom they profess to follow in the title of the new Test. an. 1580, and by the very name of their Geneva Bibles, let us see what he saith.  
49 First concerning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the vulgar Latin and Erasmus translate, Agite poenitentiam, Repent, or, Do penance. This interpretation (saith he) I refuse for many causes, but for this especially, that many ignorat persons have taken hereby an occasion of the false opinions of SATISFACTION, wherewith the Church is troubled at this day. Lo, of purpose against satisfaction he will not translate the Greek word, as it ought to be, and as it is proved to signify, both in this book, and in the Annotations upon the new Testament. 
Mat. 3. v. 8.  A little after speaking of the same word, he saith, why I have changed the name, poenitentia, I have told a little before, * 
Loco supra citato.  protesting that he will never use those words, but resipiscere, and resipiscentia, that is, amendment of life: because of their heresy, that repentance is nothing else but a mere amendment of former life, without recompense or satisfaction or penance for the sins before committed. See chap. 13.  
50 Again concerning the word, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  justifications, which in the Scripture very often signify the commandments, he saith thus. The Greek interpreters of the Bible (meaning the Septuaginta) applied this word to signify the whole Law of God, 
Luc. 1. v. 6.  and therefore commonly it is want to be translated word for word, justificationes: which interpretation therefore only I rejected, that I might take away this occasion also of cavilling against justification by faith. and so for, iustificationes, he putteth constituta, Tully's word forsooth, as he saith. Can you have a more plain testimony of his heretical purpose?  
51 Again, when he had rejected this translation (Act. 2. v. 27) Non derelinques animan meam in inferno, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell: because (as he saith) hereupon grew the errors of Christ's descending into Hell, of Limbus, and of Purgatory: at length he concludeth thus, Whereas the doubtful iuterpretation of one or two words hath brought forth so many monsters, I chose rather 
* Lo how simply: Anima, carcase. Infernus, grave.  simply, for foul, to say, carcase, for hell, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 3. v. 21.  grave: then to foster these foul errors.  
52 Again, when he had translated for, Whom heaven mustreceive, thus, who must be contained in heaven: he saith, whereas we have used the passive kind of speech, rather than the active (which is in the Greek:) we did it to avoid all ambiguity. for it is very expedient, that there should be in the Church of God, this perspicuous testimony, against them, that for ascending by faith into heaven, so to be joined to our head, obstinately maintain that Christ must be called again out of heaven unto us. Meaning his presence in the B. Sacrament, & inveighing no less against the Lutherans then the Catholics, as the * 
Flac. Illyr.  Lutherans do here against him for this wilful interpretation, & that by Caluins own judgement, who thinketh it a forced translation.  
53 But Beza goeth forward still in this kind. Ro. 5. v. 18. whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of Adam's sin which made us truly sinners, and of Christ's justice, which maketh us truly just: he rejecting it, among other causes why it displeased him, saith: That old error of the Sophists (meaning Catholics) which for imputative justice put an inherent quality in the place, is so great, and so execrable to all good men, that I think nothing is so much to be avoided as it.  
54 These few examples prove unto us that the Scriptures translated verbatim, exactly, & according to the proper use and signification of the words, do by the Heretics confession make for the Catholics, and therefore Beza saith he altereth the words into other: & (I think) it may suffice any indifferent reader to judge of his purpose and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Caluinists, and Bezites. Many other ways there are to make most certain proof of their Wilfulness, as when * 
Calu. Heb. 5, 7 & Tit. 3, 6. Beza 2 Thessal. 2, 15. & 1, 6.  the translation is framed according to their false and heretical commentary: and, When they will avouch their translations out of profane writers, Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tully, Virgil, and Terence, and reject the Ecclesiastical use of words in the Scriptures and fathers: which Beza doth for the most part always. but it were infinite to note all the marks, and by these, the wise reader may conceive the rest.  
55 But would you think that these men could notwithstanding speak very gravely and honestly against voluntary and wilful translations of Scripture, that so notoriously offend therein themselves? hearken what Beza saith against Castaleo and the like: 
Annot. act. 10. v. 46.  The matter (saith he) is now come to this point, that the traslatours of Scripture out of the Greek into Latin, or into any other tongue, think that they may lawfully do any thing in translating Whom if a man reprehend; he shall be answered by and by, that they do the office of a manslatour, not that translateth word for word, but that expresseth the sense. So it cometh to pass, that, whiles every man will rather freely follow his own judgement, then be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he doth rather pervert many things than translate them. Is not this well-said, if he had done accordingly? but doing the clean contrary, as hath been proved, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, & a wilful Heretic in so doing, and condemned by his own judgement.  
56 But after this general view of their wilful purpose and heretical intention, let us examine their false translations more particularly, and argue the case with them more at large, & press them to answer, whether in their conscience it be so or no, as hitherto is said: and that by several chapters of such CONTROVERSIES as their corruptions concern: and first of all (without further curiosity whence 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 grant any traditions of the Apostles, and not pretend the written word only: they know that by 
c See the annotations of the new Testament 2 Thess, 2, 15.  such traditions mentioned in all antiquity, their religion were wholly defaced and overthrown. for remedy whereof, and for the defacing of all such traditions, they bend their translations against them in this wonderful manner. Wheresoever the Holy, Scripture speaketh against certain traditions of the Jews, partly frivolous, partly repugnant to the Law of God, there all the English translations follow the Greek exactly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  never omitting this word, tradition. Contrariwise wheresoever the holy Scripture speaketh in the commendation of Traditions, to wit, such traditions as the Apostles delivered to the Church, there all their said translations agree, not to follow the Greek, which is still the self same word, but for, traditions, they translate, ordinances, or instructions. Why so and to what purpose? we appeal to the worm of their conscience, which continually accuseth them of an heretical meaning, whether, by urging the word, traditions, wheresoever they are discommended, and by suppressing the word, wheresoever they are commended, their purpose and intent be not, to signify to the Reader, that all traditions are nought, & none good, all reprovable, none allowable.  
2 For example. Mat. 15. Thus they translate, Why do thy disciples transgress the TRADITION of the Elders? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And again, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your TRADITION? And again, Thus have you made the commandment of God of no effect by your TRADITION: here (I warrant you) all the bells sound tradition, and the word is never omitted, and it is very well and honestly translated, for so the Greek word doth properly signify. But now on the other side, concerning good traditions, let us see their dealing. The Apostle by the self same word both in Greek and Latin, saith thus: 
2 Thes. 2. v. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, traditiones. 2 Thess. 3, 6.  Therefore, brethren, stand & hold fast the TRADITIONS which you have learned either by word, or by our epistle. And again, Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking inordinately, & not according to the TRADITION which they have received of us. 
1 Cor. 11, 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And again (according to the Greek which they profess to follow:) I praise you brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto you, you keep my TRADITIONS.  
3 Here we see plain mention of S. Paul's traditions, and consequently of Apostolical traditions, yea and traditions by word of mouth, delivered to the said Churches without writing or Scripture. In all which places look, gentle reader, & seek all their English translations, & thou shalt 
* Yet M. Fulke saith, it is found there. pag. 153 against D. Sand. Rock. If he give not us an instance. let him give himself the lie.  not once find the word, tradition, but in steed thereof, ordinances, instructions, preachings, institutions, and any word else rather then, tradition, in so much that Beza their master translateth it traditam doctrinam, the doctrine delivered, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  putting the singular number for the plural, & adding, doctrine, of his own. so framing the text of holy Scripture according to his false commentary, or rather putting his commentary in the text, & making it the text of Scripture. Who would think their malice and partiality against traditions were so great, that they should all agree with one consent so duly and exactly in these and these places to conceal the word, which in other places do so gladly use it, the Greek word being all one in all the said places?  
4 Yea they do else where so gladly use this word, tradition, when it may tend to the discredit thereof: that they put the said word in all their English Bibles, with the like full consent as before, when it is not in the Greek at al. As when they translate thus, 
Col. 2.20.  If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  why as though living in the world, ARE YE LED WITH TRADITIONS? & as an other 
* of the year 1579.  English translation of theirs readeth more heretically, Why are ye burdened with traditions? Tell us sincerely you that profess to have skill in the Greek, & to translate according to the Greek? tell us we beseech you, whether this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signify tradition, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be led or burdened with traditions. You can not be ignorant that it doth not so signify, 
Col. 2, 14. Ephes. 2, 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but as a little before in the same chapter, & in other places, yourselves translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinances, decrees: so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must be (as in the vulgar Latin it is) Quid decernitis? Why do you ordain or decree, or, why are you led with decrees?  
5 justify your translation if you can, either out of Scriptures, fathers, or Lexicon. and make us a good reason why you put the word, traditions, here, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they translate, ordinance: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tradition: clean contrary.  where it is not in the Greek: and would not put it in the places before, where you know it is most evidently in the Greek. Yea you must tell us, why you translate for tradition, ordinance, and contrary for ordinance, tradition: so turning cat in pan (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 never so authentical, even from the Apostles: which your conscience knoweth, and you shall answer for it at the dreadful day.  
6 Somewhat more excusable it is, but yet proceeding of the same heretical humour, and on your part (that should exactly follow the Greek) falsely translated, when you translate in S. Peter's Epistle thus: 
1 Pet. 1, 18.  You were not redeemed with corruptible things from your vain conversation received by the tradition of the fathers. Where the Greek is thus rather to be translated, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  from your vain conversation delivered by the fathers. but your fingers itched to foist in the word, tradition, and for, delivered, to say, received, because it is the phrase of the Catholic church, that it hath received many things by tradition, which you would here control by likeness of words in this false translation.  
7 But concerning the word tradition, you will say perhaps the sense thereof is included in the Greek word, delivered We grant. but would you be content, if we should always expressly add, tradition, where it is so included? then should we say 1 Cor. 11, 2. 
Tradidi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  I praise you that as I have delivered you (by tradition,) you keep my precepts or traditions. And again v. 23. For I received of our Lord, which also I delivered unto you (by tradition) etc. And Luc. 1. v. 2. As they (by tradition) delivered unto us, which from the beginning saw etc. and such like, by your example, we should translate in this sort. but we use not this licentious manner in translating holy Scriptures, neither is it a translators part, but an interpreters, and his that maketh a commentary: neither doth a good cause need other translation than the express text of the Scripture giveth.  
8 And if you will yet say, that our vulgar Latin translation hath here the word, tradition: we grant it hath so, and therefore we also translate accordingly. but you profess to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin, which you in England condemn as Papistical, and * 
Discover. of the Rock. pag. 147.  say it is the worst of all, though * 
Prefat. in no. Test. 1556.  Beza your master pronounce it to be the very best: and will you notwithstanding follow the said vulgar Latin rather than the Greek, to make traditions odious? Yea such is your partiality one way, and inconstancy an other way, that for your heretical purpose you are content to follow the old Latin translation, though it differ from the Greek, & again an other time you will not follow it, though it be all one with the Greek most exactly. as in the place before alleged, where the vulgar Latin translation hath nothing of traditions, but, Quid decernitis, as it is in the Greek: you translate, Why are ye burdened with traditions? 
Col. 2, 20.   
9 So that a blind man may see, you frame your translations to bolster your errors & heresies, without all respect of following sincerely either the Greek or the Latin. But for the Latin no marvel, the Greek at the least why do you not follow? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Is it the Greek that induceth you to say ordinances for traditions, traditions for decrees, ordinances for justifications, Elder for Priest, grave for hell, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  image for idol? tel us before God and in your conscience whether it be, because you will exactly follow the Greek: nay tell us truly, and shame the Devil, whether the Greek words do not sound and signify most properly that, which you of purpose will not translate, for disaduantaging your heresies? And first let us see concerning the question of Images.   

CHAP. III. Heretical translation against sacred IMAGES.  
1 I BESEECH you what is the next and readiest and most proper English of Idolum, idololatra, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  idoloratria? is it not Idol, idolater, idolatry? are not these plain English words, and well known in our language? Why sought you further for other terms and words, if you had meant faithfully? What needed that circumstance of three words for one, worshipper of images, 
Bib. 1577. Eph. 5. Col. 3.  and, worshipping of images? whether (I pray you) is the more natural & convenient speech, either in our English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say as the holy Scripture doth, Covetousness is idolatry, and consequently, The covetous man is an idolater: or as you translate, Covetousness is worshipping of images, and The covetous man is a worshipper of images?  

The absurdity of this translation, A covetous man is a Worshipper of images.  2 We say commonly in English, Such a rich man maketh his money his God: and the Apostle saith in like manner of some, Whose belly is their God. Phil. 3. & generally every creature is our idol, when we esteem it so exceedingly that we make it our God. but who ever heard in English, that our money, or belly, were our images, and that by esteeming of them to much, we become worshippers of imanges? Among yourselves are there not some even of your Superintendents, of whom the Apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their money and belly, by covetousness & belly cheer? Yet can we not call you therefore in any true sense, worshippers of images, neither would you abide it. You see then that there is a great difference betwixt idol and image, idolatry and worshipping of images: and even so great difference is there betwixt S. Paul's words and your translation.  
3. Will you see more yet to this purpose? In the English Bible printed the year 1562 you read thus: 
2 Cor. 6.  How agreeth the Temple of God with images? Can we be ignorant of Satan's cogitations herein, that it was translated of purpose to delude the simple people and to make them believe that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in the churches, which were then in plucking down in England, when this your translation was first published in print? Whereas in very truth you know, that the Apostle here partly interpreteth himself to speak of men, 
salomon's Temple did well agree with images, but not with idols.  as of God's temples wherein he dwelleth, partly alludeth to salomon's Temple, which did very well agree with images (for it had the Cherubins, which were the representations of Angels, and the figures of oxen to bear up the lavatory) but with idols it could not agree: and therefore the Apostles words are these, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The brazen serpent, first an image, & lawful: afterwards an idol, and unlawful.  How agreeth the Temple of God with idols?  
4 When Moses by God's appointment erected a brazen serpent, and commanded the people that were stung with serpents, to behold it, & thereby they were healed: this was an image only, and as an image was it erected and kept and used by God's commandment. 
num. 21.  but when it grew to be an idol (saith S. Augustine) that is, 
Li- 10 de civit. c. 8.  when the people began to adore it as God, than king Ezechias broke it in pieces to the great commendation of his piety and godly zeal. 
4 Reg. 18.  So when the children of Israel in the absence of Moses made a calf, 
Exod. 32.  and said, These are thy Gods o Israel that brought thee out of Egypt, 
The molten calf, an idol.  was it but an image which they made? was that so heinous a matter that God would so have punished them as he did? No they made it an idol also, saying, These are thy gods o Israel. And therefore the Apostle saith to the Corinthians, 
1 Cor. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Be not idolaters, as some of them. Which also you translate most falsely, Be not worshippers of images, as some of them.  
5 We see then that the Jews had images without sin, but not idols. Again for having idols they were accounted like unto the Gentiles, as the Psalm saith, They learned their works, and served their graven idols. 
Psal. 164.  but they were not accounted like unto the Gentiles for having images, which they had in salomon's Temple, and in the brazen serpent. 
In c. 25. Ezech. The Protestants are like to the Ammonites & Moabites.  S. Hierom writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites (who were Gentiles and Idolaters) that coming into the temple of Jerusalem, and seeing the Angelical images of the Cherubins covering the Propitiatory, they said, Lo, even as the Gentiles, so juda also hath idols of their religion. These men did put no difference between their own idols, and the jews lawful images. and are not you ashamed to be like to these? They accused salomon's Temple of Idols, because they saw there lawful images: you accuse the Churches of God of idolatry, because you see there the sacred images of Christ and his Saints.  
6 But tell us yet I pray you, do the holy Scriptures of either Testament speak of all manner of images, 
The holy Scripture speaketh against the idols of the Gentiles, not against almaner of images.  or rather of the idols of the Gentiles? your conscience knoweth that they speak directly against the idols & the idolatry that was among the Pagans and Infidels: from which as the Jews in the old Testament, so the first Christians in the new Testament were to be prohibited. but will you have a demonstration that your own conscience condemneth you herein, & that you apply all translation to your heresy? What caused you being otherwise in all places so ready to translate, images: yet Esa. 31 and Zachar. 13 to translate, idols, in all your Bibles with full consent? Why in these places specially and so advisedly? No doubt because God saith there, speaking of this time of the new Testament: In that day every man shall cast out his idols of silver and idols of gold. And, I will destroy the names of the idols out of the earth, so that they shall no more be had in remembrance. In which places if you had translated, images, you had made the prophecy false, because images have not been destroyed out of the world, but are, and have been in Christian countries with honour & reverence, even since Christ's time. Marry in the idols of the Gentiles we see it verified, which are destroyed in all the world so far as Gentility is converted to Christ.  
7 And what were the Pagan's idols or their idolatry? S. Paul telleth us, saying: 
Ro. 1.  They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, 
What were the idols of the Pagans.  and of birds and beasts and creeping things: and they served (or worshipped) the creature more than the creator. Doth he charge them for making the image of man or beast? Yourselves have hangings and clothes full of such paintings and embrodering of imagirie. Where with then are they charged? with giving the glory of God to such creatures, which was to make them idols, and themselves idolaters.  
8 The case being thus, 
1 Cor. 5. Bib. 1562.  why do you make it two distinct things in S. Paul, calling the Pagans, idolaters: and the Christians doing the same, worshippers of images: and that in one sentence, whereas the Apostle useth but one and the self same Greek word in speaking both of Pagans and Christians? It is a marvelous and wilful corruption, and well to be marked, and therefore I will put down the whole sentence, as it is in your English translation. I written to you that you should not company with fornicators: and I meant not at all of the fornicators of this world, either of the covetous, or extortioners, either 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the idolaters etc. but that ye company not together, if any that is called a brother, be afornicator or covetous, or 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  A WORSHIPPER or IMAGES, or an extortioner. In the first, speaking of Pagans, your translator nameth idolater according to the text, but in the later part speaking of Christians, you translate the very self same Greek word, worshipper of images. Why so? for sooth to make the reader think that S. Paul speaketh here, not only of Pagan idolaters, but also of Catholic Christians that reverently kneel in prayer before the Cross, the holy Rood, the images of our Saviour Christ and his Saints: as though the Apostle had commanded such to be avoided.  
9 Where if you have yet the face to deny this your malicious and heretical intent, tell us, why all these other words are translated and repeated alike in both places, covetous, fornicators, extortioners, both Pagans and Christians: and only this word (idolaters) not so, but Pagans, idolaters: & Christians, worshippers of images. At the least you can not deny but it was of purpose done, to make both seem all one, yea and to signify that the Christians doing the foresaid reverence before sacred images (which you call worshipping of images) are more to be avoided then the Pagan idolaters.  
Whereas the Apostle speaking of Pagans and Christians that committed one and the self same heinous sin whatsoever, commandeth the Christian in that case to be avoided for his amendment, leaving the Pagan to himself & to God, as having not to do to judge of him.  
10 But to this the answer belike will be made, 
W. Fulke, Confut. of john Howlet so. 35.  as one of them hath already answered in the like case, that in the English Bible appointed to be read in their churches it is otherwise, and even as we would have it corrected: and therefore (saith he) it had been good before we entered into such beinous accusations, to have examined our grounds that they had been true. As though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless it be false in that one Bible which for the present is read in their churches: or as though it pertained not to them how their other English Bibles be translated: or as though the people read not all indifferently without prohibition, and may be abused by every one of them: or as though the Bible which now is read (as we think) in their churches, 
Bib. 1577. Col. 3. v. 5.  have not the like absurd translations, yea more absurd, even in this matter of images, as is before declared: or as though we must first learn what English translation is read in their church (which were hard to know, it changeth so oft) before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation: or as though it were not the same Bible that Was for many years read in their churches, & is yet in every man's hands, which hath this absurd translation whereof we have last spoken.  
11 Surely the Bible that we most accuse not only in this point, 
Bib. 1562.  but for sundry other most gross faults and heretical translations, spoken of in other places, is that Bible which was authorized by Cramner their Archbishop of Canterbury, and read all king Edward's time in their churches, & (as it seemeth by the late printing thereof again an. 1562) a great part of this Queen's reign. And certain it is, that it was so long read in all their churches with this venomous & corrupt translation of images always in steed of idols, that it made the deceived people of their sect, to despise, contemn, and abandon the very sign and image of their salvation, the cross of Christ, the holy rood or crucifix representing the manner of his bitter passion and death, the sacred images of the blessed Virgin Marie the mother of God, & of S. john Evangelist, representing their standing by the Cross at the very time of his Passion. 
Io. 19 v. 26.  in so much that now by experience we see the foul inconvenience thereof, to wit, that all other images and pictures of infamous harlots and Heretics, of Heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lawful in England at this day, and their houses, parlours and chambers are garnished with them: only sacred images, and representations of the holy mystery of our redemption, are esteemed idolatrous, and have been openly defaced in most spiteful manner and burned, to the great dishonour of our Saviour Christ and his Saints.  
12 And as concerning the bible that at this day is read in their churches, if it be that of the year 1577, it is worse sometime in this matter of images, than the other. for where the other readeth, 
Col. 3. v. 5.  Covetousness, which is worshipping of idols: there this later (whereunto they appeal) readeth thus, Covetousness, which is worshipping of images. and Eph. 5. it readeth as absurdly as the other, 
W. Fulke Confut. fol. 35.  A covetous man, which is a worshipper of images. Lo this is the English bible which they refer us unto, as better translated, and as correcting the fault of the former. But because it is evident by these places, that his also is partly worse, and partly as il as the other, therefore this great confuter of M. john Houlet fleeth once more, 
Fol. 36. Bib. 1579.  to the Geneva English Bible, saying, Thus we read, and so we translate: to wit, A covetous person, which is an idolater. Where shall we have these good fellows, and how shall we be sure that they will stand to any of their translations? from the first read in their churches, they flee to that that is now read, & from this again, to the later Geneva English Bibles, neither read in their churches (as we suppose) nor of greatest authority among them: and we doubt not but they will as fast flee from this, to the former again, when this shall be proved in some places more false & absurd then the other.  
13 But what matter is it how they read in their churches, or how they correct their former translations by the later: when the old corruption remaineth still, being set of purpose in the top of every door within their churches, in these words: Babes keep yourselves from images? 
1 Io. 5.  Why remaineth that written so often and so conspicuously in the walls of their churches, which in their Bibles they correct as a fault? their later bibles say, keep yourselves from idols: their church walls say, keep yourselves from images. S. john speaking to the lately converted Gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were converted: they speaking to the old instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ our Saviour, of the holy Crucifix, of the cross, of every such representation and monument of Christ's passion, and our redemption. And therefore in the very same place where these holy monuments were want to stand in Catholic times, to wit, in the rood fit and partition of the Church and chancel: there now stand these words as confronting and condemning the foresaid holy monuments, Babes keep yourselves from images. Which words whosoever esteemeth as the words of Scripture, and the words of S. john, spoken against Christ's image, is made a very babe in deed, and sottishly abused by their scribbled doors, and false translations, to count that idolatry, which is in deed to no other purpose then to the great honour of him whose image and picture it is.  
14 But the gay confuter with whom I began, saith for further answer: 
W. Fulke. Fo. 35.  Admit that in some of our translations it be, Children keep yourselves from images (for so he would have said if it were truly printed) What great crime of corruption is here committed? And when it is said again, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they mean by so translating to make the simple believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd he replieth that it is no more absurdity, then in steed of a Greek word, to use a Latin of the same signification. And upon this position he granteth that according to the property of the Greek word a man may say, 
Gen. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  God made man according to his idol, and that generally, idolum may as truly be translated an image, as Tyrannus a king (which is very true, both being absurd) & here he citeth many authors and dictionaries idly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  to prove that idolum may signify the same that Image.  
15 But I beseech you Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may by the original property of the word signify an image, (which no man denieth) do they tell you also that you may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof? or do they tell you that image and idol are so all one, that wheresoever you find this word image, you may truly call it, idol? for these are the points that you should defend in your answer. for an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus, 
Rom. 8. imagini. 1 Cor. 15. imaginem  God hath predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his son. And again, As we have borne the idol of the earthly (Adam:) so let us bear the idol of the heavenly (CHRIST). And again, We are transformed into the same idol, even as of our lords spirit. 
2 Cor. 3. Hebr. 10.  And again, The Law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very idol of the things. And again, Christ who is the idol of the invisible God? 
Col. 1. 2 Cor. 4.  Is this (I pray you) a true translation? yea, say you, according to the property of the word: but because the name of idols, in the English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping of images, is become odious, no Christian man would say so.  
16 First note how foolishly and unadvisedly he speaketh here, because he would confound images and idols, & make them falsely to signify one thing: when he saith, the name of idol, is become odious in the English tongue because of worshipping of Images, He should have said, The dishonour done to God in worshipping Idols, made the name of Idols odious. As in his own example of Tyrant, and king: he meant to tell us that Tyrant sometime was an usual name for every king, and because certain such Tyrants abused their power, therefore the name of Tyrant became odious. for he will not say (I trow) that for the fault of kings, the name of Tyrant became odious. Likewise the Romans took away the name of Manlius for the crime of one Manlius, not for the crime of john at Nokes, or of any other name. The name of judas is so odious that men now commonly are not so called. Why so? because he that betrayed Christ, was called judas: not because he was also Iscariote. The very name of Ministers is odious and contemptible. why? because Ministers are so lewd, wicked, & unlearned, not because some Priests be nought. Even so the name of idol grew to be odious, because of the idols of the Gentiles, not because of holy images. For if the reverence done by Christians to holy images were evil, as it is not, it should in this case have made the name of images odious: & not the name of Idols. But God be thanked, the name of Images is no odious name among Catholic Christians, but only among heretics & image-breakers, such as the second general Council of Nice hath condemned therefore with the sentence of Anáthema. No more than the Cross is odious, which to all good Christians is honourable, because our Saviour Christ died on a Cross.  
17 But to omit this man's extraordinary and unadvised speeches which be to many and to tedious (as when he saith in the same sentence, Howsoever the name idol is grown odious in the English tongue, as though it were not also odious in the Latin & Greek tongues, but that in Latin and Greek a man might say according to his fond opinion, Fecit honem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places where is imago) to omit these rash assertions I say, and to return to his other words where he saith, that though the original property of the words hath that signification, yet no Christian man would say that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful Prince a tyrant. doth he not here tell us that, which we would have, to wit, that we may not speak or translate according to the original property of the word, but according to the common usual and accustomed signification thereof? As we may not translate, Phalaris tyrannus, Phalaris the king, as sometime tyrannus did signify, and in ancient authors doth signify: but, Phalaris the tyrant, as now this word tyrannus is commonly taken & understood. Even so we may not now translate, My children keep yourselves from images, as the word may and doth sometime signify according to the original property thereof, 
ab idolis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Io. 5.  but we must translate, keep yourselves from idols, according to the common use and signification of the word in vulgar speech, and in the holy Scriptures. Where the Greek word is so notoriously & usually peculiar to idols, and not unto images: that the holy fathers of the second Nicene Council (which knew right well the signification of the Greek word, themselves being Grecians) do pronounce Anáthema to all such as interpret those places of the holy Scripture that concern idols, of images or against sacred images, as now these Caluinists do, not only in their Commentaries upon the holy Scriptures, but even in their translations of the text.  
18 This then being so, that words must be translated as their common use and signification requireth, 
Loco citato fo. 35.  if you ask your old question, what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, keep yourselves from images, the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? you have answered yourself, that in so translating, idol & image are made to signify one thing, which may not be done, no more than Tyrant and king can be made to signify all one. And how can you say then, that this is no more absurdity, then in steed of a Greek word, to use a latin of the same signification. Are you not here contrary to yourself? Are idol and image, tyrant and king, of one signification? said you not that in the English tongue, idol is grown to an other signification, than image, as tyrant is grown to an other signification than king? Your false translations therefore that in so many places make idols and images all one, not only forcing the word in the holy Scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby (as Ephes. 5. & Col. 3) are they not in your own judgement very corrupt: 
Eph. 5. A covetous man is a worshipper of images. and Col. 3. Covetousness is Worshipping of images.  & as your own consciences must confess, of a malicious intent corrupted, to disgrace thereby the Churches holy images by pretence of the holy Scriptures that speak only of the Pagan's idols.  
19 But of the usual, and original signification of words (whereof you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speak more anon, if first we touch some other your falsifications against holy images: as, where you affectate to thrust the word image into the text, when there is no such thing in the Hebrew or Greek, as in that notorious example 2. Par. 36. (Bib. 1562.) Carved images that were laid to his charge. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. subaud. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. c. 22.  Again, Ro. 11. To the image of Baal. and Act. 19 The image that came down from jupiter. Where you are not content to understand image rather than idol, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but also to thrust it into the text, being not in the Greek, as you know very well.  
20 Of this kind of falsification is that which is crept as a leprosy through out all your bibles, translating, Sculptile and conflatile, graven image, molten image, namely in the first commandment, where you know in the Greek it is idol, & in the Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  such a word as signifieth only a graven thing, not including this word image: and you know that God commanded to make the images of Cherubins, and of oxen in the Temple, and of the brazen serpent in the desert, and therefore your wisdoms might have considered, that he forbade not all graven images, 
The meaning of the 1. Commandment concerning false gods and graven idols  but such as the Gentiles made and worshipped as gods: and therefore Non facies tibi sculptile, concurreth with those words that go before, Thou shalt have none other gods but me. For so to have an image as to make it a god, is to make it more than an image: and therefore, when it is an Idol, as were the Idols of the Gentiles, than it is forbid by this commandment. Otherwise, when the Cross stood many years upon the Table in the Queen's Chapel, 
The Cross in the Q. Chappel.  was it against this commandment? or was it idolatry in the queens Majesty & her Counsellors, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of your church? Or do the Lutherans your pew-fellows, at this day commit idolatry against this commandment, that have in their churches the crucifix, and the holy Images of the mother of God, 
Images in the Lutheran Churches.  and of S. john the Evangelist? Or if the whole story of the Gospel concerning our saviour Christ, were drawn in pictures and Images in your churches, as it is in many of ours, were it (trow you) against this commandment? fie for shame, that you should thus with intolerable impudency and deceit abuse and bewitch the ignorant people, against your own knowledge and conscience. For, wot you not, that God many times expressly forbade the Jews both marriages and other conversation with the Gentiles, lest they might fall to worship their idols, as Solomon did, 
3 Reg. 11. Ps. 105. v. 35.  & as the Psalm reporteth of them? This then is the meaning of the commandment, neither to make the idols of the Gentiles, nor any other like unto them, and to that end, as did jeroboam in Dan and Bethel. 
Hebr. Teraphim. Marsebah. Temunah. Maschith. Pesel. Tselamim. Tabaith. Hamanim. Saemel. Massecah. Nesachim. Gillulim. Miphletseth Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All image and images, in their translations.   
21 This being a thing so plain as nothing more in all the holy Scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceit and falsehood, for the most part doth translate still, images, images, when the Latin and Greek and Hebrew have divers other words, and very seldom that which answereth to image. for when it is image in the Latin, or Greek or Hebrew texts, your translation is not reprehended: for we also translate sometimes, images, when the text of the holy scripture requiteth it. and we are not ignorant that there were images, which the Pagans adored for their gods: & we know that some idols are images, but not all images, idols. but when the holy Scriptures call them by so many names, rather than images, because they were not only images, but made idols: why do your translations, like cuckoos birds, sound continually, images, images, more than idols, or other words equivalent to idols, which are there meant?  
22 Two places only we will at this time ask you the reason of: first why you translate the Hebrew and Greek that answereth to statue, image, so often as you do: Whereas this word in the said tongues, is taken also in the better part, as when lacob set up a stone and erected it for a * 
Matsebah. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  title, pouring oil upon it: and the prophet saith, our lords altar shall be in Argypt, and his * 
Gen. 28. v. 22  title beside it. 
Esa. 19 v. 19  So that the word doth signify generally a sign erected of good or evil, and therefore might very well (if it pleased you) have some other English then, image. Unless you will say that jacob also set up an image: &, Our lords image shall be in Egypt: which you will not say, though you might with more reason than in other places.  

Of the year 1579.  23 Secondly we demand, why your very last English Bible hath (Esa. 30, 22:) For two Hebrew words, 
Pesilim. Massechoth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which are in Latin Sculptilia and conflatilia, twice, images, images: neither word being Hebrew for an image: no more than if a man would ask, what is Latin for an image, & you would tell him sculptile. Whereupon he seeing a fair painted image in a table, might happily say, Ecce egregium sculptile. Which every boy in the Grammar school would laugh at. Which therefore we tell you, because we perceive your translations en devour and as it were affectat, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of the year 1579.  to make Sculptile and image all one. Which is most evidently false and to your great confusion appeareth Abac. 2. v. 13. Where for these words, Quid prodest sculptile, quia sculpsit illud fictor suus conflatile & imaginem falsam? Which is according to the Hebrew and Greek: your later English translation hath, What profiteth the image? for the maker thereof hath made it an image, and a teacher of lies.  
24 I would every common Reader were able to discern your falsehood in this place. First, you make sculpere sculptile, no more then, to make an image: Which being absurd you know (because the painter or embroderer making an image, can not be said sculpere sculptile) might teach you that the Hebrew hath in it no signification of image, no more than sculpere can signify, to make an image: and therefore the Greek and the Latin precisely (for the most part) express neither more nor less, than a thing graven: 
Sculptile. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but yet mean always by these words, a graven idol, to which signification they are appropriated by use of holy Scripture, as Simulacrum idolum, conflatile, and sometime imago. In which sense of signifying I dolls, if you also did repeat images so often, although the translation were not precise, yet it were in some part tolerable, because the sense were so: but when you do it to bring all holy images into contempt, even the image of our Saviour Christ crucified, you may justly be controlled for false and heretical translators.  
25 As in this very place (which is an other falsehood like to the other) conflatile you translate image, 
Abac. 2.  as you did sculptile, and so here again in Abacuk (as before in Esay is noted) for two distinct words, each signifying an other divers thing from image, you translate, images, images. Thirdly, for imaginem falsam, a false image, you translate an other thing, without any necessary pretence either of Hebrew or Greek, avoiding here the name of image, because this place telleth you that the holy Scripture speaketh against false images, or as the Greek hath, false fantasies, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  or as you translate the Hebrew, such images as teach lies, representing false Gods which are not, as the Apostle saith, Idolum nihil est, 
1 Cor. 8. Act. 19  And, Non sunt Dij qui manibus fiunt. Which distinction of false and true images you will not have, because you condemn all images, even holy and sacred also, and therefore you make the holy Scriptures to speak herein according to your own fancy.  
26 Wherein you proceed so far, that when Daniel said to the king, 
Dan. 14. v. 4.  I worship not idols made with hands (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) you make him say thus, I worship not things that be made with hands. 
Bib. 1562.1577.  leaving out the word idols altogether as though he had said, nothing made with hand were to be adored, not the Ark, the propitiatory, no nor the holy Cross itself that our Saviour shed his blood upon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish & take from it at your pleasure.  
27 But concerning the word image, which you make to be the English of all the Latin, Hebrew, and Greek words, be they never so many and so distinct, I beseech you what reason had you to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, images, Sap. 15. v. 13: doth the Greek word so signify? doth not the sentence following tell you that it should have been translated, graven idols? for thus it saith, They judged all the idols of the nations to be Gods. lo your images, or rather lo the true names of the Pagan's gods, which it pleaseth you to call, images, images.  
28 But (to conclude this point) you might, and it would have well becomed you, in translating or expounding the foresaid words, to have followed S. Hierom the great famous translator and interpreter of the holy Scriptures: 
Comment. in Abac. 2.  who telleth you two senses of the foresaid words: the one literal, of the idols of the Gentiles: the other mystical, of Heresies and errors. Sculptile, saith he, & conflatile: I take to be perverse opinions, which are adored of the authors that made them. See Arius, that graved to himself this idol, that Christ was only a creature, & adored that which he had graven. behold Eunomius, how he molted and cast a false image, and bowed to that which he had melted. Suppose he had exemplified of the two condemned heretics jovinian and Vigilantius also: had he not touched your idols, that is, the old condemned heresies which you at this day adore?  
29 These only (I mean heresies & heretics) are the idols and idolaters (by the ancient Doctor's judgement) which have been among Christians, since the idolatry of the Gentiles ceased according to the prophets. 
Zach. 13.  Therefore S. Hierom saith again, If thou see a man that will not yield to the truth, 
Loco citato.  but when the falsehood of his opinions is once showed, persevereth still in that he began: thou mayst aptly say, Sperat in figmento suo, 
Osee 11.  and he maketh dumb or deaf idols. And again, All Heretics have their gods: & whatsoever they have forged, they adore the same as sculptile and conflatile: 
Osee 12.  that is, as a graven and molten idol. And again, He saith well, I have found unto myself an idol: For, all the forgeries of heretics are as the idols of the Gentiles: neither do they much differ in impiety, though in name they seem to differ. 
In 5. Amos.  And again, Whatsoever according to the letter is spoken against the idolatry of the Jews, do thou refer all this unto them which under the name of Christ worship idols, and forging to themselves perverse opinions, carry the tabernacle of their king the Devil, and the image of their idols. For they worship not an idol, but for variety of their doctrine they adore diverse Gods. And he put in very well, which you made to yourselves: for they received them not of God, but forged them of their own mind. And of the idol of Samaria he saith, 
In 8. Amos.  we always understand Samaria (& the idol of Samaria) in the person of Heretics, the same Prophet saying, WOE BE TO THEM THAT DESPISE ZION, 
c. 6.  AND trust IN THE MOUNT OF SAMARIA. For Heretics despise the Church of God, and trust in the falsehood of their opinions, erecting themselves against the knowledge of God: and saying, when they have divided the people (by schism,) we have no part in David, nor inheritance in the son of isaiah.  
30 Thus the Reader may see that the holy Scriptures which the Adversaries falsely translate against the holy images of our Saviour Christ and his saints, to make us idolaters, do in deed concern their idols, and condemn them as idolaters, which forge new opinions to themselves, such as the ancient fathers knew not, and adore them and their own sense and interpretation of Scriptures, so far & so vehemently, that they prefer it before the approved judgement of all the general counsels and holy Doctors, and for maintenance of the same, corrupt the holy Scriptures at their pleasure, and make them speak according to there fancies, as we have partly showed, and now are to declare further.   

CHAP. FOUR The ECCLESIASTICAL use of words turned into their ORIGINAL and PROFANE signification.  
1 WE spoke a little before of the double signification of words, the one according to the original property, the other according to the usual taking thereof in all vulgar speech and writing. These words (as by the way we showed before upon occasion of the Adversaries grant) are to be translated in their vulgar and usual signification, 
Chap. 3. nu. 17.18. See also M. Whitaker pag. 209. & the 6 chap. of this book (nu. 6.7.8. & nu. 13. etc.) much more of this matter.  not as they signify by their original property. As for example: Mayor in the original signification is, greater. But when we say, The Mayor of London, now it is taken and soundeth in every man's ear for such an Officer: and no man will say, The Greater of London, according to the original property of it. likewise Episcopus a Greek word, in the original sense is every overseer, as Tully useth it and other profane writers: but among Christians in Ecclesiastical speech it is a Bishop. and no man will say, My Lord overseer of London, for my L. Bishop. Likewise we say, Seven Deacons, S. Steven a Deacon. no man will say, Seven Ministers, S. Steven a Minister. although that be the original signification of the word Deacon▪ but by Ecclesiastical use & appropriation being taken for a certain degree of the Clergy, so it soundeth in every man's ear, and so it must be translated. As we say, Nero made many Martyrs: not, Nero made many witnesses: and yet Martyr by the first original property of the word is nothing else but a witness. We say Baptism is a Sacrament: not, Washing is a Sacrament. Yet Baptism and washing by the first original property of the word is all one.  
2 Now then to come to our purpose, such are the absurd translations of the English Bibles, and altogether like unto these. Namely, when they translate congregation for Church, Elder for Priest, image for idol, dissension for schism, General for Catholic, secret for Sacrament, overseer for Bishop, 
c See chap. 15. nu. 18. & 3.4. & chap. 21. nu  messenger for Angel, ambassador for Apostle, minister for Deacon, and such like: to what other end be these deceitful translations but to conceal & obscure the name of the Church and dignities thereof mentioned in the holy Scriptures: to dissemble the word schism (as they do also * 
Gal. 5. Tit. 3. 1 Cor. 11. Bib. 1562.  Heresy and Heretic) for fear of disgracing their schisms and Heresies, to say of Matrimony, neither Sacrament which is the Latin, nor mystery which is the Greek, but to go as far as they can possibly from the common usual and Ecclesiastical words, 
Eph. 5. v. 32.  saying, This is a great secret: in favour of their heresy, that Matrimony is no Sacrament.  
3 S. Paul saith as plain as he can speak, 
1 Cor. 1. v. 10  I beseech you brethren, that you all say one thing and that there be no schisms among you. They translate for schisms, dissensions: which may be in profane and worldly things, as well as in matters of religion. but schisms are those that divide the unity of the Church, whereof they know themselves guilty. S. Paul saith as plainly as is possible, 
Tit. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gal. 5.  A man that is an Heretic avoid after the first and second admonition. they translated in their Bible of the year 1562, A man that is an author of Sects. and where the Greek is, Heresy, reckoned among damnable sins, they say, Sects: favouring that name for their own sakes, and dissembling it, as though the holy Scriptures spoke not against Heresy or Heretics, Schism or Schismatics.  
4 As also they suppress the very name Catholic, when it is expressly in the Greek, for malice toward Catholics and Catholic religion, because they know, themselves never shall be called or known by that name. 
An. 1562. 1577.  And therefore their two English Bibles accustomed to be read in their church (therefore by like most authentical) leave it clean out in the title of all those Epistles, 
Euseb. li. 2. Ec. hist. c. 22 in fine. 1579.  which have been known by the name of Catholicae Epistolae ever since the Apostles time: and their later English Bible (dealing somewhat more honestly) hath turned the word Catholic into General: saying, The General Epistle of james, of Peter, etc. As if a man should say in his Creed, I believe the general Church, because he would not say, the Catholic Church: as the Lutheran Catechisms say for that purpose, I believe the Christian Church. 
Lind. in Dubitautio.  So that by this rule, when S. Augustine telleth that the manner was in cities where there was liberty of religion, to ask, Qua itur ad Catholicam? We must translate it, Which is the way to the General? And when S. Hierom saith, If we agree in faith with the B. of Rome, ergo Catholicisumus: we must traslate it, Then we are Generals. Is not this good stuff? Are they not ashamed thus to invert and pervert all words against common sense and use and reason? Catholic and General or Universal (we know) is by the original property of the word all one: but according to the use of both, as it is ridiculous to say, A Catholic Council, for a general Council: so is it ridiculous and impious to say, General for Catholic, in derogation thereof, and for to hide it under a bushel.  
5 Is it because they would follow the Greek, 
Catholica.  that they turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, general? even as just, as when they turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 image, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instruction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissension, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secret, and such like, where they go as far from the Greek as they can, & will be glad to pretend for answer of their word, sect, that they follow our Latin translation. Alas poor shift for them that otherwise pretend nothing but the Greek, to be tried by that Latin which themselves condemn. But we honour the said text, and translate it sects also, as we there find it, and as we do in other places follow the Latin text, and take not our advantage of the Greek text, because we know the Latin translation is good also and sincere, and approved in the Church by long antiquity, and it is in sense all one to us with the Greek: but not so to them, who in these days of controversy about the Greek and Latin text, by not following the Greek, which they profess sincerely to follow, bewray themselves that they do it for a malicious purpose.   

CHAP. V Heretical translation against the CHURCH.  
1 AS they suppress the name, Catholic, even so did they in their first English bible the name of Church itself: because at their first revolt & apostasy from that that was universally known to be the only true Catholic Church: it was a great objection against their schismatical proceedings, and it stuck much in the people's consciences, that they forsook the Church, and that the Church condemned them. Whereupon very wilely they suppressed the name Church in their English translation, so, 
Bib. 1562.  that in all that Bible so long read in their congregations, we can not once find the name thereof. Ludge by these places which seem of most importance for the dignity pre-eminence & authority of the Church.  
2 Our Saviour saith, 
Mat. 16.  Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. They make him to say, Upon this rock I will build my congregation. Again, 
Mat. 18.  If he hear not them, tell the Church: and if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and as a publican. they say, Congregation. Again, who would think they would have altered the word Church in the epistle to the Ephesians? 
Eph. 5.  their English translation for many years red thus, Ye husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the congregation, and cleansed it to make it unto himself a glorious congregation without spot or wrinkle. And, This is a great secret, but I speak of Christ and of the congregation. And to Timothee, The house of God, which is the congregation of the living God, 
1 Tim. 3.  the pillar and ground of truth. Here is no word of Church, which in Latin and Greek is, Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna & firmamentum veritatis. Likewise to the Ephesians again, He hath made him head of the congregation, 
Eph. 1.  which is his body. And to the hebrews they are all bold to translate: 
Heb. 12. v. 23  The congregation of the first-born, where the Apostle nameth heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God, etc.  
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 translation, was in a few new brethren of England, for whose sake the name Church was left out of the English Bible, to commend the name of congregation above the name of church. whereas S. Augustine telleth them, 
In ps. 81 in ioitio. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that the jews Synagogue, was a congregation: the Church, a convocation: and that a congregation, is of beasts also: a convocation, of reasonable creatures only: and that the jews congregation is sometime called the Church, but the Apostles never called the Church, Congregation. do you see then what a goodly change they have made, for Church, to say congregation: so making themselves a very Synagogue, & that by the property of the Greek word, which yet (as S. Augustine telleth them most truly) signifieth rather a convocation?  
4 If they appeal here to their later translations, we must obtain of them to condemn the former, and to confess this was a gross fault committed therein. and that the Catholic Church of our country did not ill to forbid and burn such books which were so translated by Tyndal and the like, as being not in deed God's book, word, or Scripture, but the devils word. Yea they must confess, that the leaving out of this word Church altogether, was of an heretical spirit against the Catholic Roman Church, because than they had no Caluinistical church in any like form of religion and government to theirs now. Neither will it serve them to say after their manner, And if a man should translate Ecclesiam, congregation: this is no more absurdity, then in steed of a Greek word, 
Confut. of M. Houlet so. 35.  to use a Latin of the same signification. This (we trow) will not suffice them in the judgement of the simplest indifferent Reader.  
5 But, my Masters, if you would confess the former faults and corruptions never so plainly, is that enough to justify your corrupt dealing in the holy Scriptures? Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully to falsify and corrupt the word of God written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost? May you abuse the people for certain years with false translations, and afterwards say, Lo we have amended it in our later translations? 
See his new Test. in Latin of the year 1556, printed by Robert Steven in fol. Act. 2. v. 27.  Then might the Heretic Beza be excused for translating in steed of Christ's soul in hell, his carcase in the grave. and because some friend told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in the later editions, he should nevertheless in your iudgemet, be counted a right honest man. No (be ye sure) the discrete Reader can not be so abused, but the will easily see, that there is a great difference in mending some oversights which may escape the best men: & in your gross false translations, who at the first falsfie of a prepensed malice, and afterwards alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest and principal place that concerneth the Church's perpetuity and stability, you have not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before, and is at this day read in your churches thus, Upon this rock 1 will build my congregation. 
Mat. 16. v. 18. Bib. 1577.  Can it be without some heretical subreltie, that in this place specially and (I think) only you change not the word congregation into Church? Give us a reason & discharge your credit.  
6 What shall I say of Beza, whom the English bibles also follow, translating actively that Greek word, (which in common use, & by S. Chrysostoms' and the Greek Doctors exposition is a plain passive) to signify, as in his Annotations is clear, that Christ may be without his Church, that is, a head without a body. The words be these in the heretical translation, 
Eph. 1. v. 21.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which (Church) is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. S. Chrysostom, saith Beza, (he might have said all the Greek & Latin ancient fathers) taketh it passively, in this sense, that Christ is filled all in all, because all faithful men as members, and the whole Church as the body, concur to the fullness and accomplishment of Christ the head. But this (saith he) seemeth unto me a forced interpretation. Why so beza?  
7 Mark his Doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers both Greek and Latin. Because Xenophon (saith he) in such a place, and Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively. jomit this miserable match, & unworthy names of Xenophon & Plato in trial of S. Paul's words, against all the glorious Doctors: this is his common custom. I ask him rather of these his own doctors, how they use the Greek word in other places of their works? how use they it most commonly? yea how do all other Greek writers either profane or sacred use it? What say the Greek readers of all universities? Surely not only they, but their scholars for the most part, can not be ignorant, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that the use of this word and the like, is passive, though sometime it may also signify actively: but that is so rare in comparison of the other, that no man lightly will use it, and I am well assured it would be counted a fault and some lack of skill, if one now in his writings that would express this in Greek, God filleth all things with his blessing, should say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and The wine filleth the cup, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ask them that have skill, and control me. Contrariwise, if one would say passively, All things are filled with God's blessing, The cup is filled with wine, Such a prophecy is fulfilled, What mean Grecian would not say, as S. Chrysostom here expoundeth this word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, using it passively?  
8 Yet (saith Beza) this is a forced interpretation, because Xenophon forsooth & Plato (once perhaps in all their whole works) use it otherwise. O heretical blindness or rather stubburnenes, that calleth that forced, which is most common and usual: and seethe not that his own translation is forced, because it is against the common use of the word. but no marvel. For he that in other places thinketh it no forced interpretation, 
Recipere.  to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be contained, Which neither Xenophon, nor Plato, nor any Greek author will allow him to do, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, carcase, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Animam. Prescientian. Poenitentian.  providence, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them that amend their lives, may much more in this place dissemble his forced interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But why he should call S. Chrysostoms' interpretation forced, which is the common & usual interpretation, that hath no more reason, then if a very thief should say to an honest man, Thou art a thief, and not I.  
9 Is it forced Beza, that Christ is filled all in all by the Church? doth not S. Paul in the very next words before, call the Church the fullness of Christ, saying, 
Eph. 1.  Which is the fullness of him that is filled all in all? If the Church be the fullness of him, then is he filled or hath his fullness of the Church, so that he is not a maimed head without a body. This would S. Paul say, if you would give him leave, and this he doth say, whether you will or no. But what is the cause that they will not suffer the Apostle to say so? because (saith Beza) Christ needeth no such complement. And if he need it not, then may he be without a Church, and consequently it is no absurdity, if the Church hath been for many years not only invisible, but also not at all. Would a man easily at the first imagine or conceive that there were such secret poison in their translation?  
10 Again, it cometh from the same puddle of Geneva, 
Bib. 1579.  that in their bibles so called, the English Bezites translate against the unity of the Catholic Church. For whereas themselves are full of sects and dissensions, and the true Church is known by unity, and hath this mark given her by Christ himself, 
Cant. 6. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  in whose person Solomon speaking saith, Vnaest columba mea, that is, One is my dove, or, My dove is one. therefore in steed hereof, the foresaid bible saith, My dove is alone: Neither Hebrew not Greek word having that signification, but being as proper to signify one, as unus in latin.  
11 But we beseech every indifferent Reader, even for his soul's health to consider that one point specially before mentioned of their abandoning the name of Church for so many years out of their English Bibles: thereby to defeat the strongest argument that might and may possibly be brought against them and all other Heretics: to wit, the authority of the Church which is so many ways and so greatly recommended unto all Christians in holy Scriptures. consider (I pray you) what a malicious intention they had herein. First, that the name Church should never found in the common people's ears out of the Scriptures: secondly, that as in other things, so in this also it might seem to the ignorant a good argument against the authority of the Church, to say, We find not this word (Church) in all the holy Scriptures. For as in other articles they say so, because they find not the express word in the holy scripture, so did they well provide, that the word (Church) in the holy Scriptures should not stay or hinder their schismatical and heretical proceedings, as long as that was the only English translation, that was read and liked among the people; that is, so long till they had by preaching taken away the Catholic Church's credit and authority altogether, among the ignorant by opposing the Scriptures thereunto, which themselves had thus falsely translated.   

CHAP. VI Heretical translation against PRIEST and PRIESTHOOD.  
1 BUT because it may be, they will stand here upon their later translations, which have the name Church, (because by that time they saw the absurdity of changing the name, & now their number was increased, & themselves began to challenge to be the true Church, though not the Catholic: and for former times when they were not, they devised an invisible Church) If then they will stand upon their later translations, and refuse to justify the former: let us demand of them concerning all their English translations, why and to what end they suppress the name Priest, translating it Elder, in all places where the holy Scripture would signify by Presbyter and Presbyterium, the Priests and Priesthood of the new Testament?  
2 Understand gentle Reader, their wily policy therein is this. To take away the holy sacrifice of the Mass, they take away both altar and Priest, because they know right well that these three (Priest, sacrifice, and altar) are dependants and consequents one of an other, so that they can not be separated. If there be an external sacrifice, there must be an external Priesthood to offer it, an altar to offer the same upon. so had the Gentiles their sacrifices, Priests, and altars: so had the Jews: so Christ himself being a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec, had a sacrifice, his body: and an altar, his Cross: upon the which he offered it. And because he instituted this sacrifice to continue in his Church for ever in commemoration and representation of his death, therefore did he withal ordain his Apostles Priests at his last supper, there & then instituted the holy order of Priesthood and Priests (saying, hocfacite, Do this: 
Luc. c. 22. v. 19 ) to offer the self same sacrifice in a mystical and unbloody manner, until the worlds end.  
3 To defeat all this and to take away all external Priesthood and sacrifice, they by corrupt translation of the holy Scriptures, make them clean dumb as though they had not a word of any such Priests or Priesthood as we speak of. Their Bibles (we grant) have the name of Priests very often, but that is when mention is made either of the Priests of the Jews, or of the Priests of the Gentiles (specially when they are reprehended and blamed in the holy Scriptures) and in such places our Adversaries have the name Priests in there translations to make the very name of Priest odious among the common ignorant people. Again they have also the name Priests, when they are taken for all manner of men, women, or children, that offer internal and spiritual sacrifices, whereby our Adversaries would falsely signify that there are no other Priests, 
whitaker's. p. 199.  as one of them of late freshly avoucheth, directly against S. Augustine, who in one brief sentence distinguisheth Priests properly so called in the Church, and Priests as it is a common name to all Christians. Lib. 20 de Civit. Dei cap. 10. This name then of Priest & Priesthood properly so called (as S. Augustine faith, which is an order distinct from the laity & vulgar people, ordained to offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to his heavenly father for us, to preach and minister the Sacraments, & to be the Pastors of the people) they wholly suppress in their translations, and in all places where the holy Scripture calleth them, Presbyteros, there they never translate Priests, but Elders. and that they do observe so duly and so warily and with so full and general consent in all their English Bibles as the Puritans do plainly confess, 
See the puritans reply. pag. 159. and whitgifts defence against the Puritans pag. 722.  & M. whitgift denieth it not, that a man would wonder to see how careful they are, that the people may not once hear the name of any such Priest in all the holy Scriptures.  
4 As for example in their translations. when there fell a question about circumcision, They determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and ELDERS, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Presbyteros.  about this question. Act. 15. And again, They were received of the 
* The later Bible's read Church.  congregation and of the Apostles and ELDERS. Again, The Apostles & Elders came together to reason of this matter. Again, Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole congregation to send etc. Again, The Apostles and Elders and brethren send greating etc. Again, They delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and ELDERS. 
Act. 16.  If in all these places they had translated Priests (as in deed they should have done according to the Greek word) it had then disadvantaged them this much, that men would have thought, both the dignity of Priests to be great, & also their authority in Counsels, as being here joined with the Apostles, to be greatly reverenced & obeyed. To keep the people from all such holy and reverent cogitations of Priests, they put Elders, a name wherewith our holy Christian forefathers ears were never acquainted, in that sense.  
5 But let us go forward. We have heard often & of old time, of making of Priests: and of late years also, of making Ministers: but did ye ever hear in all England of making Elders? Yet by these men's translations it hath been in England a phrase of Scripture this thirty year: but it must needs be very strange, that this making of elders hath not all this while been practised & known, no not among themselves in any of their churches within the realm of England. To Titus they make the Apostle say thus, 
Tit. 1.  For this cause left I thee in Creta, that thou shouldest ordain ELDERS in every city, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Presbyteros  etc. Again of Paul and Barnabas: When they had ordained Elders by election, in every 
* Bib. an. 1562.  congregation. Act. 14. If they had said plainly as it is in the Greek, & as our forefathers were want to speak, and the truth is: Titus was left in Creta to ordain Priests in every city: and, Paul and Barnabas made Priests in every Church: then the people would have understood them: they know such speeches of old, and it had been their joy and comfort to hear it specified in holy Scriptures. Now they are told another thing, in such newness of speeches and words, of Elders to be made in every city & congregation, and yet not one city nor congregation to have any Elders in all England, that we know not what is profane novelty of words, 
1 Tim. 6.  which the Apostle willeth to be avoided, if this be not an exceeding profane novelty.  
6 That it is novelty to all English Christian ears, it is evident. And it is also profane, because they do so English the Greek word of ordaining (for of the word Presbyter we will speak more anon) as if they should translate Demosthenes, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14.  or the laws of Athens concerning their choosing of Magistrates, which was by giving voices with lifting up their hands. so do they force this word here, to induce the people's election, & yet in their churches in England the people elect not ministers, but their bishop. whereas the holy Scripture saith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they ordained to the people: and whatsoever force the word hath, it is here spoken of the Apostles, and pertaineth not to the people, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.  and therefore in the place to Titus it is another word which cannot be forced further, then to ordain & appoint. And they might know (if malice and Heresy would suffer them to see and confess it) that the holy Scriptures, and fathers, and Ecclesiastical custom, hath drawn this & the like words from their profane & common signification, to a more peculiar and Ecclesiastical speech: as Episcopus, an overseer in Tully, is a Bishop in the new Testament.  
7 And concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we now speak of, S. Hierom telleth them (in c. 58. isaiah.) that it signifieth Clericorum ordinationem, that is, giving of holy orders, which is done not only by prayer of the voice, 
Greg. Nazian. in titul. Ser. 1.4.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. ep. 10. saith of Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but by imposition of the hand: according to S. Paul unto Timothee, Manus citò nemini imposueris. Impose or put hands quickly on no man that is, be not hasty or easy to give holy orders. Where these great etymologistes, that so strain the original nature of this word to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learn an other Ecclesiastical etymology thereof, as proper and as well deduced of the word as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to give orders: & so they shall find it is all one with that which the Apostle calleth imposition of hands, 1 Tim. 4. 2 Tim. 1: and consequently, for, ordaining Elders by election, they should have said, ordaining or making Priests by imposition of hands: as else where S. Paul, 1 Tim. 5. and the Acts of the Apostles (Act. 6. and 13.) do speak in the ordaining of the seven Deacons and of SS. Paul and Barnabas.  
8 But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the new Testament, as if it had the old profane signification still, & were indifferent to signify the ancients of the Jews, the Senators of Rome, the elders of Lacedemonia, and the Christian Clergy. in so much that they say, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church: Act. 20, and yet they were such as had their flocks, & cure of souls, as followeth in the same place. They make S. Paul speak thus to Timothee, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Neglect not the gift (so they had rather say than grace, 
Bib. 1579.1577.  lest holy orders should be a Sacrament) given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Eldership. or, by the authority of the Eldership. 1 Tim. 4. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyterij.  What is this company of Eldership? Somewhat they would say like to the Apostles word, but they will not speak plainly, lest the world might hear out of the Scriptures, that Timothee was made Priest or Bishop even as the use is in the Catholic Church at this day. 
ca 3 in the year 436. Where S. Augustine was present and subscribed.  let the 4 Council of Carthage speak for both parts indifferently, and tell us the Apostles meaning, A Priest when he taketh his orders, the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head, let all the Priests also that are present, hold their hands by the Bishop's hand upon his head. So do our Priests at this day, when a bishop maketh priests: & this is the laying on of the hands of the company of Priests, which S. Paul speaketh of, and which they translate, the company of the Eldership. Only their former translation of 1562 in this place (by what chance or consideration we know not) let fall out of the pen, by the authority of Priesthood.  
9 Otherwise in all their English Bibles all the bells ring one note as, The Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour. And, Against an Elder receive no accusation, but under two or three witnesses. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 over him, and anoint him with oil, etc. jacob. 5. Whereas S. Chrisostom out of this place proveth the high dignity of Priests in remitting sins, in his book entitled, Of Priesthood, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  unless they will translate that title also, Of Eldership. Again they make S. Peter say thus: The Elders which are among you, I exhort which am also an Elder, feed ye Christ's flock, as much as lieth in you, etc. 1 Pet. 5.  

S. Hierom readeth, Presbyteros ego compresbyter. Ep. 85. ad evagr. & in 1 ad Gal: proving the dignity of Priests. and yet in 4 Gal. he readeth according to the vulgar Latin text, Seniores in vobis rogo consenior & ipse. Whereby it is evident, that Senior here & in the Acts is a Priest, & not contrary, Presbyter, an elder.  10 Where if they will tell us (as also in certain other places) that our Latin translation hath Seniores and maiores natu: we tell them, as heretofore we have told them, that this is nothing to them, who profess to translate the Greek. Again we say that if they meant no worse than the old Latin translator did, they would be as indifferent as he, to have said sometime Priests and Priesthood, when he hath the words Presbyteros and Presbyterium: as we are indifferent in our translation, saying Seniors and Ancients, when we find it so in our Latin: being well assured that by sundry words he meant but one thing, as in Greek it is but one, and as both Erasmus, and also Beza himself always translate it, keeping the name Presbyter and Presbyteri: of whom by reason they should have learned, rather than of our Latin translator, whom otherwise they condemn. And if they say, they do follow them, and not him, because they translate not Senior and maior natu, but the word Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Elder, in all places: we tell them, and herein we convent their conscience, that they do it to take away the external Priesthood of the new Testament, & to suppress the name Priest, against the Ecclesiastical, and (as now since Christ) very proper and usual signification thereof, in the new Testament, counsels, & fathers, in all common writing and speaking: specially the Latin Presbyter, which grew to this signification out of the Greek in the foresaid places of holy Scripture.  
11 In so much that immediately in the first Canons and Counsels of the Apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees and names, Si Episcopus, vel Presbyter, 
See can. Apost. Conc. 1 Nic. Epistol. Ignat. Conc. Carth. 4.  vel Diaconus etc. If any Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon do this or that. Which if the Protestants or Caluinists will translate after their manner thus, If a Bishop, or Elder, or Deacon &c: 
Beza in 1 Pet. 5.  they do against themselves, which make Presbyter or Elder a common name to all Ecclesiastical persons: & not a peculiar degree, next unto a Bishop. So that either they must condemn all antiquity for placing Presbyter in the second degree after a Bishop, or they must translate it Priest as we do, or they must make Elder to be their second degree, and so put Minister out of place.  
12 And here we must ask them, how this name Minister came to be a degree distinct from Deacon, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diaconus.  whereas by their own rule of translation, Deacon is nothing else but a minister: and why keep they the old & usual 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 certainly and as agreeably as Deacon of Diaconus? 
Prebstre. Prete.  doth not also the french and Italian word for Priest come directly from the same? will you always follow fancy and not reason, do what you list, translate as you list, and not as the truth is, and that in the holy Scriptures, which you boast and vaunt so much of? Because yourselves have them whom you call Bishops, the name Bishop is in your English Bibles, which otherwise by your own rule of translation, should be called an Overseer or superintendant: likewise Deacon you are content to use as an Ecclesiastical word so used in antiquity, because you also have those whom you call Deacons: Only Priests must be turned contemptuously out of the text of the holy Scriptures, and Elders put in their place, because you have no Priests, not will none of them, and because that is in controversy between us. & as for Elders, you have none permitted in England, for fear of overthrowing your Bishop's office & the Queen's supreme government in all spiritual things & causes. Is not this to follow the humour of your heresy, by Machiavels' politic rules without any fear of God?  
13 Apostles you say for the most part in your translations (not always) as we do, and Prophets, and Evangelists, & Angels, and such like, and wheresoever there is no matter of controversy between you and us, there you can plead very gravely for keeping the ancient Ecclesiastical words, 
Beza in c. 9 Mat. nu. 25. etc. 10. nu. 2  as your master Beza for example, beside many other places where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castaleons' translation, in one place writeth thus: 
in 3 ca Mat. nu. 11.  I cannot in this place dissemble the boldness of certain men, which would God it rested within the compass of words only. these men therefore concerning the word Baptizing, 
Baptizo.  though used of sacred writers in the mystery or Sacrament of the new Testament, and for so many years after, by the secret consent of all Churches, consecrated to this one Sacrament, 
Baptism.  so that it is now grown into the vulgar speeches almost of all nations, yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to use the word washing. delicate men forsooth, which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages; nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech, can be brought to think that lawful for Divines, which all men grant to other Masters and professors of arts: that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the authority of some ancient writers, as that Cyprian saith TINGENTES for BAPTIZANTES, and Tertullian in a certain place calleth SEQVESTREM for MEDIATOREM. For that which was to those ancients as it were new, to us is old: and even then, that the self same words which we now use, were familiar to the Church, 
Baptizo. Mediator.  it is evident, because it is very seldom that they speak otherwise. but these men by this novelty seek after vain glory, etc.  
14 He speaketh against Castaleon, who in his new Latin translation of the Bible, changed all Ecclesiastical words into profane and Heathenish, as Angelos in to genios, Prophetas into Fatidicos, Templum into fanum, and so forth. But that which he did for foolish affectation of fineness and style, do not our English Caluinists the very same when they list, for furthering their Heresies? When the holy Scripture saith idols according as Christians have always understood it for false gods, they come and tell us out of Homer & the Lexicons, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Confut. of the Reas. 10.35.  that it may signify an image, & therefore so they translate it. do they not the like in the Greek word that by Ecclesiastical use signifieth, penance, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and doing penance, when they argue out of plutarch, and by the profane sense thereof, that it is nothing else but changing of the mind or amendment of life? Whereas in the Greek Church, Poenitentes, that is, they that were 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 Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Dionys. Ec. Hier. c. 5.   
15 They therefore leaving this Ecclesiastical signification, & translating it according to plutarch, do they not much like to Castaleo? Do they not the same, against the famous and ancient distinction of Latrîa and Dulîa, 
Latrîa. Dulîa. Beza in ● Mat. nu. 10.  when they tell us out of Eustathius upon Homer, and Aristophanes the Grammarian, that these two are all one? Whereas we prove out of S. Augustine in many places, the second Council of Nice, Venerable Bede, & the long custom of the Church, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures, almost always used for the service and honour proper to God. August. de Civit. Dei. li. 10. c, 1.  that according to the Ecclesiastical sense and use deduced out of the Scriptures, they differ very much. Do they not the like in Mysterium and Sacramentum, which they translate a Secret in the profane sense, whereas they know how these words are otherwise taken both in Greek and Latin, in the Church of God? did they not the like in the word Ecclesia, 
Bib. an. 1562.  when they translated it nothing else but congregation? Do they not the like in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court of Athens: whereas S. Hierom telleth them, that Ecclesiastical writers take it for giving holy orders by imposition of hands? Do they not the like in many other words, wheresoever it serveth their heretical purpose? And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza himself, that so often in his Annotations reprehendeth the old Translation by the authority of Tully and Terence, Homer and Aristophanes, & the like profane authors? yea so fond and childishly, that for Olfactum which Erasmus useth as Pliny's word, he will needs say odoratum, because it is Tully's word.  
16 But to return to our English translators: do not they the like to profane Castaleo, and do they not the very same that Beza their Master so largely reprehendeth, when they translate Presbyterum, an Elder? Is it not all one fault to translate so, and to translate, as Castaleo doth Baptismum, washing? Hath not Presbyter been a peculiar and usual word for a Priest, as long as Baptismus for the Sacrament of regeneration, which Castaleo altering into a common & profane word, is worthily reprehended? We will prove it hath, not for their sake, who know it well enough, but for the Readers sake, whom they abuse, as if they knew it not.  
17 In the first & second Canon of the Apostles we read thus, 
That Presbyter hath signified a Priest, from the Apostles time, not an Elder.  Episcopus a duobus aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab uno Episcopo ordinetur, & Diaconus, & alij Clerici. that is, Let a Bishop be consecrated or ordained by two or three Bishops. let a Priest be made by one Bishop. See in the 4 Council of Carthage the diverse manner of consecrating Bishops, Priests, Deacons, 
Can. 2.3.4.  etc. Where S. Augustine was present & subscribed. Again, 
Can. Apost. 32.  Si quis Presbyter contemnens Episcopum suum etc. If any Priest contemning his Bishop, make a several congregation, and erect another altar, (that is, make a Schism or Heresy), let him be deposed. So did Arius being a Priest against his Bishop Alexander. Again, Priests and Deacons, 
Can. 40.  let them attempt to do nothing without the Bishop. The first Council of Nice saith, 
Can. 3.  The holy Synod by all means forbiddeth, that neither Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon etc. have with them any foreign woman, but the mother, or sister, etc. in whom there is no suspicion. Again, It is told the holy Council, 
Can. 14.  that in certain places and cities, Deacons give the Sacraments to Priests. This neither rule nor custom hath delivered, that they which have not authority to offer the sacrifice, should give to them that offer, the body of Christ. The 3 Council of Carthage wherein S. Augustine was, and to the which he subscribed, decreeth, 
Can. 24.  That in the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, there be no more offered, than our Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water. Which the sixth general Council of Constantinople repeating and confirming, addeth: If therefore any Bishop or Priest do not according to the order given by the Apostles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  mingling water with wine, but offer an unmingled sacrifice, let him be deposed etc. But of these speeches all Counsels be full: where we would gladly know of these new translators, how Presbyter must be translated: either an Elder, or a Priest.  
18 Do not all the fathers speak after the same manner, making always this distinction of Bishop and Priest, as of the first and second degree? 
Ep. 2. ad Trallianos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  S. Ignatius the Apostles scholar 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 less than thrice in one Epistle, & commending the dignity of all three unto the people? 
Comment. in c. 7. Micheae.  doth not S. Hierom the very same, saying, Let us honour a Bishop, do reverence to a Priest, rise up to a Deacon? 
Ep. 85. ad Euagrium.  And when he saith, that as Aaron and his sons and the Levites were 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 were taken, Priests slain, and divers of other Ecclesiastical orders: Churches overthrown, the altars of Christ made stables for horses, the relics of Martyrs digged up etc. When he saith of Nepotian, fit Clericus, & per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur: he becometh a man of the Clergy, and by the accustomed degrees is made, what? a Priest, or an Elder? when he saith, Mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet etc. doth he mean he could not sit above an Elder, or above a Priest, himself as then being not Priest? When he, and Vincentius (as S. Epiphanius writeth) of reverence to the degree, 
Ep. 60 apud Hiero. ca 1.  were hardly induced to be made Presbyteri: did they refuse the Eldership? What was the matter that john the B. of Jerusalem, seemed to be so much offended with Epiphanius and S. Hierom? 
Ep. 1 ad Heliod.  was it not because Epiphanius made Paulianus, S. Hieroms brother, Priest within the said john's Diocese?  
19 When all antiquity saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, Iwencus, Hesychius, Beda, Presbyteri: and when S. Hierom so often in his catalogue saith, Such a man Presbyter: is it not for distinction of a certain order, to signify that they were Priests, and not Bishops? namely when he saith of S. Chrysostom, joannes Presbyter Antiochenus, doth he not mean, he was as then but a Priest of Antioch? Would he have said so, if he had written of him, after he was Bishop of Constantinople?  
20 But of all other places, we would desire these gay translators to translate this one place of S. Augustine, speaking of himself a Bishop and S. Hierom a Priest: 
Inter Epistolas Hiero. Ep. 97 in fine.  Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula, quaeiam Ecclesia usus 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 use of the Church have prevailed, the degree of Bishop be greater than Priesthood, yet in many things, Augustine is less than Hierom. or, doth it like them to translate it thus, The degree of Bishop is greater than Eldership & c? Again, against julian the Heretic when he hath brought many testimonies of the holy Doctors that were all Bishops, as of SS. Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Nazianzene, Chrysostom: at length he cometh to S. Hierom who was no Bishop, 
Lib. 1. ca 2. in fine.  and saith: Nec sanctum Hieronymum, quia Presbyter fuit, contemnendum arbitreris that is, Neither must thou think that S. Hierom, because he was but a Priest, therefore is to be contemned: whose divine eloquence, hath shined to us from the East even to the west, like a lamp, and so forth to his great commendation. Here is a plain distinction of an inferior degree to a Bishop, for the which the Heretic juliamn did easily contemn him. Is not S. Cyprian full of the like places? is not all antiquity so full, that whiles I prove this, me thinketh I prove nothing else but that snow is white?  
21 In all which places if they will translate Elder, and yet make the same a common name to all Ecclesiastical degrees, 
Annot. in 1 Pet. 5.  as Beza defineth it, let the indifferent Reader consider the absurd confusion, or rather the impossibility thereof: if not, but they will grant in all these places it signifieth Priest, and so is meant: then we must beat them with Bezaes' rod of reprehension against Castaleon: 
Bezaes' words in the place above alleged.  that we can not dissemble the boldness of these men. which would God it rested within the custom of words only, and were not important matter, concerning their Heresy. These men therefore touching the word Priest, though used of sacred writers in the mystery of the new Testament, and for so many years after by the secret consent of all Churches, consecrated to this one Sacramment, so that it is now grown to be the proper vulgar speech almost of all Nations: 
Prete Prebstre Priest.  yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to use the word Elder. delicate men forsooth (yea worse a great deal, because these do it for heresy & not for delicacy) which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought to think that lawful for Divines, which all men grant to other Masters and Professors of arts, that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the authority of any ancient writer (as that the old Latin Translator saith Signior, and Seniores:) for * 
Presbyter for a Priest. Baptismus for the Sacrament of Baptism.  that which was to them as it were new, to us is old: and even then, that the self same words which we now use, were more familiar to the Church, it is evident, because it is very seldom that they speak otherwise.  
22 Thus we have repeated Bezaes' words again, only changing the word Baptism into Priest, because the case is all one: & so unwittingly Beza the successor of Calvin in Geneva, hath given plain sentence against our English translators in all such cases, as they go from the common received and usual sense to another profane sense, & out of use: as namely in this point of Priest and Priesthood. Where we must needs add a word or two, though we be to long, because their folly & malice is to to great herein. For whereas the very name Priest never came into our English tongue but of the Latin Presbyter (for there upon sacerdos also was so called only by a consequence) they translate sacerdos, 
See M. Whitgifts' defence against the Puritans reply. pag. 721 where he affirmeth that this word Priest, cometh of the word Presbyter, & not of the word Sacerdos.  Priest, and Presbyter, not Priest, but Elder, as wisely and as reasonably, as if a man should translate Praetor Londini, More of London: and Maior Londini, not More of London: but Greater of London: or Academia Oxoniensis, the University of Oxford: and Vniversitas, Oxoniensis, not the University, but the Generality of Oxford: and such like.  
23 Again, what exceeding folly is it, to think that by false and profane translation of Presbyter into Elder, they might take away the external Priesthood of the new restamenr, whereas their own word Sacerdos which they do and must needs translate Priest, is as common and as usual in all antiquity, as Presbyter: and so much the more, for that it is used in differently to signify both Bishops and Priests, which Presbyter lightly doth not but in the new Testament. as when Constantine the Great said to the Bishops assembled in the Council of Nice, 
Ruffian li. 1. ca 2.  Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, etc. God hath ordained you priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also. 
Epist. 32. ad Valentinianum Imp.  And S. Ambrose, When didst thou ever hear, most Clement Prince, that lay men have judged Bishops. Shall we bend by flattery so far, that forgetting the right of our Priesthood, we should yield up to others, 
juris Sacerdotalis.  that which God hath commended to us? And therefore doth S Chrisostom entitle his six books De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthood, concerning the dignity and calling, not only of mere Priests, 
in Apolog. pro sua fug. orat. 1.  but also of Bishops: & S. Gregory Nazianzene handling the same argument saith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. 10. ad Hieronem. Sacerdotes.  that they execute Priesthood together with CHRIST. and S. Ignatius saith, Do nothing without the Bishops, for they are priests, but thou the Deacon of the priests. And in the Greek Liturgies or Masses, so often, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Then the priest saith this, and that, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  signifying also the Bishop when he saith Mass: and 
* Ec. Hiera. c. 3.  S. Denys saith sometime Archisacerdotem cum sacerdotibus▪ the high Priest or Bishop with the Priests: whereof come the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the ancient Greek fathers, for the sacred function of Priesthood, and executing of the same.  
24 If then the Heretics could possibly have extinguished priesthood in the word presbyter, yet you see, it would have remained still in the words Sacerdos and Sacerdotium, which themselves translate Priest & Priesthood: and therefore we must desire them to translate us a place or two after their own manner: first S. Augustine speaking thus, Quis unquam audivit sacerdotem ad altare stantem etiam super reliquias Martyrum, 
Li. 8. cap 27. De Ciu. Dei.  dicere: offero tibi Petre, & Paul, vel Cyprian? Who ever heard that a PRIEST standing at the altar, even over the relics of the Martyrs, said, I offer to thee Peter, & Paul, or Cyprian? So (we trow) they must translate it. 
Li. 22 Civit. c. 10.  Again, Nos uni Deo & Martyrun & nostro, sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, suoloco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote invocantur. Deo quip, non ipsis sacrificat, quamuis in memoria sacrificet corum, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum verò sacrificium corpus est Christi. We think they will and must translate it thus: We offer sacrifice to the one only God both of Martyrs and ours, at the which 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, etc.  not invocated of the priest that sacrificeth. For he sacrificeth to God, & not to them (though 〈◊〉 sacrifice in the memory of them) because he is God's Priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice itself is the body of Christ.  
25 Likewise when S. Ambrose saith, 
Li. 4. de Saceam. c. 4.  The consecration (of the body of Christ) with what words is it, and by whose speech? of our Lord jesus. For in the rest that is said, there is praise given to God, prayer made for the people, for kings and others: but when it cometh that the venerable sacrament must be consecrated, now the Priest useth not his own words, 
Sacerdos.  but he useth the words of Christ. 
Ho. 2 in 2 Timotin.  And S. Chrisostom in very many places saith, The sacred oblation itself, whether Peter or Paul, or any meaner Priest whatsoever offer it, 
Sacerdos.  is the very same that Christ gave to his disciples, 
Sacerdotu  and which now the priests do make or cosecrate▪ why so I pray thee? because not men do sanctify this, but Christ himself, which before consecrated the same. And again, It is not man that maketh the body and blood of Christ, but he that was crucified for us, Christ: the words are uttered by the Priest's mouth, 
Sacerdotis  and by God's power and grace are the things proposed, consecrated. For this, saith he, is my body. With this word are the things proposed, consecrated.  
26 And so by these places, where themselves translate Sacerdos a Priest, they may learn also how to translate Presbyteros in S. Hierom saying the very same thing, 
Presbyteri  that at their prayers, the body and blood of our Lord is made. and in an other place, that with their sacred mouth, they make our lords body. Likewise when they read S. Ambrose against the novatians, that God hath granted licence to his Priests to release and forgive as well great sins as little without exception: 
Sacerdotibas  and in the Ecclesiastical history, how the Novatian Heretics taught that such as were fallen into great sins, should not ask for remission of the Priest, but of God only: 
à Sacordote  they may learn how to translate Presbyteros in S. Hierom & in the Ecclesiastical history, where 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 extraordinary Priest that heard confessions and enjoined penance, 
Socrat. li. 5 c. 19  who afterwards was taken away, and the people went to divers ghostly fathers as before. And especially S. Chrysostom will make them understand what these Presbyteri were, and how they are to be called in English, who telleth them in their own word, that Sacerdotes, the Priests of the new la have power not only to know, 
Li. 3. de Sacerd.  but to purge the filth of the soul, therefore whosoever despiseth them, is more worthy to be punished then the rebel Dathan and his complices.  
27 Now then (to conclude this point) seeing we have such a cloud of witnesses (as the Apostle speaketh) even from Christ's time, 
Hebr. 12.  that testify not only for the name, but for the very principal functions of external Priesthood, in offering the sacrifice of Christ's body & blood, in remitting sins, and so forth: what a peevish, malicious, & impudent corruption is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the holy Scriptures tending there unto, to seek to scrarch advantage of the word Presbyter, & to make it signify an Elder, not a Priest: Presbyterium Eldership rather than Priesthood: as if other new-fangled companions that would forge an Heresy that there were no Apostles, should for that purpose translate it always legates: or that there were no Angels, and should translate it always Messengers: & that Baptism were but a judaical ceremony, and should translate it washing: which Castalio did much more to lerably in his translation then any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity and folly. And if to take away all distinction of clergy & laity the Protestants should always translate clerum, 
Clerics.  lot or lottery, as they do translate it for the same purpose parish and heritage: might not 
* In 1 Pet ●. See S. Hierom ad Nepot. de vit. Clericorum ep. 2. c. 5.  Beza himself control them, saying, that the ancient fathers transferred the name clerus to the College of Ecclesiastical Ministers?  
28 But alas, the effect of this corruption & heresy concerning Priests, hath it not wrought within these few years such contempt of all Priests, that nothing is more odious in our country then that name: which before was so honourable and Venerable, and now is, among all good men? If ministery or Eldership were grown to estimation in steed thereof, somewhat they had to say: but that is yet more contemprible, and especially Elders and Eldership for the Queen's Majesty & her Counsellors will permit none in government of any Church in England, and so they have brought all, to nothing else, but profane laity. And no marvel of these horrible inconveniences, for as the Sacrifice & Priesthood go together, and therefore were both honourable together: so when they had according to daniel's Prophecy, abolis head the daily sacrifice, out of the Church, what remained, but the contempt of Priests and Clergy and their offices, so far forth, that for the holy Sacrifice sake, Priests are called in great despite, Massing Priests. of them that little consider, or less care, what notable holy learned fathers of all ages since Christ's time, this their reproach toucheth and concerneth, as by the testimonies before alleged is manifest, and whereof the Reader may see a peculiar Chapter in the late Apology of the English Seminaries. 
Chap. 6.    

CHAP. VII. Heretical translation against PURGATORIS, LIMBUS PATRUM, CHRIST'S DESCENDING INTO HELL.  
1 HAVING now discovered their corrupt translations for defacing of the Church's name, and abolishing of Priest and Priesthood: let us come to another point of very great importance also, and which by the wont consequence or sequel of error, includeth in it many erroneous branches. Their principal malice then being bend against Purgatory, that is, against a place where Christian souls be purged by suffering of temporal pains after this life, for surer maintenance of their erroneous denial hereof, they take away and deny all third places, saying that there was never from the beginning of the world any other place for souls after this life, but only two: to wit, heaven for the blessed: & hell for the damned. And so it followeth by their heretical doctrine, that the patriarchs, Prophets, and other good holy men of the old Testament, went not after their deaths, to the place called Abraham's bosom, or limbus patrum, but immediately to heaven: and so again by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that the fathers of the old Testament were in heaven, before our saviour Christ had suffered death for their redemption: and also by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that our saviout Christ was not the first man that ascended and entered into heaven: and moreover by their heretical doctrine it followeth, that our saviour Christ descended not into any such third place, to deliver the fathers of the old Testament out of their prison, and to bring them triumphantly with him into heaven, because by their erroneous doctrine they were never there: & so that article of the Apostles Creed concerning our saviour Christ his descending into hell, 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 wit, either the lying of his body in the grave, or (as Caluine and the purer Caluinists his scholars will have it) the suffering of hell pains and distresses upon the Cross. 
Caluins' Institutions li. 2. c. 16. Sect. 10. & in his Catechism.  Lo the consequence and coherence of these errors and heresies.  
2 These now being the heretical doctrines which they mean to avouch and defend whatsoever come of it: first, they are at a point not to care a rush for all the ancient holy Doctors, 
Beza in 1 Pet. 3, 19  that write with full consent to the contrary (as themselves confess, 
Caluins Institut. li. 2. c. 16. Sect. 9  calling it their common error) secondly, they translate the holy scriptures in favour thereof, most corruptly & wilfully, as in Bezaes' false translation (who is Caluins' successor in Geneva) it is notorious, for he in his new Testament of the year 1556. printed by Robertus Stephanus in folio, with Annotations, maketh our saviour Christ say thus to his father, Non derelinques cadaver meum in sepulchro, thou shalt not leave my carcase in the grave, Act. 2. for that which the Hebrew, & the Greek, and the Latin, 
Hiero. in Ps. verso ex Hebraeo.  and S. Hierom according to the Hebrew, say: Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, as plainly as we say in English, Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell. Thus the Prophet David spoke it in Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ps. 15. thus the Septuaginta uttered it in Greek, thus the Apostle S. Peter allegeth it, thus the holy Evangelist 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 all this would not suffice to make Beza translate it so, because of certain errors (
* See his Annot. in 2. Act.  as he heretically termeth them) which he would full gladly avoid hereby, namely, the Catholic true doctrine of limbus patrum, and Purgatory. What need we say more? he translateth animam, a Carcase: (so calling our saviour Christ's body, irreverently, & wickedly) he translateth infernum, grave.  
3 Need we take any great labour to prove this to be a foul corruption, or that it is done purposely, when he confesseth that he thus translateth because else it would serve the Papists? Which is as much to say, as, the word of God if it be truly and sincerely translated, maketh in deed for them. For the first part, we will not stand upon it, partly because it is of itself most absurd, and they are ashamed of it: partly, because it shall suffice to confute Beza, that two other as famous heretics as he, Castalio & Flaccus Illyricus write against him in this point, and confute him: partly also, because we speak not here universally of all heretical translations, but of the English corruptions specially, & therefore we may only note here, how gladly they also would say somewhat else for, soul, even in the text, if they durst for shame: for in the margin of that English translation, 
Bib. an. 1579  they say, or life, or person: there by advertising the Reader, that he may read thus, if it please him, Thou shalt not leave my life in the grave, or, Thou shalt not leave my person. As though either man's soul or life were in the grave, or, anima, might be translated person, which the self same English Bible doth not, 
Act. 7. v. 14.  no not in those places where it is evident that it signifieth the whole person. For though this word soul, by a figure, is sometime taken for the whole man, yet even there they do not, nor must not translate it otherwise then soul: because our tongue beareth that figure as well as Latin, Greek, or Hebrew: but here, where it can not signify the whole person, it is wicked to translate it so.  
4 But as for the word grave, that they put boldly in the text, to signify that howsoever you interpret, soul, or whatsoever you put for it, it is not meant according to S. August. & the faith of the whole Catholic Church, that his soul descended into Hell, whiles his body was in the grave: but that his soul also, was in the grave, howsoever that is to be understood. So making it a certain and resolute conclusion, that the holy Scripture in this place speaketh not of Christ's being in Hell, but in the grave: and that according to his soul, or life, or person, or (as Beza will have it) His Carcase or body: and so his soul in Hell, as the holy Scripture speaketh, shall be, his body in the grave, as Beza plainly speaketh, 
See Vigors sermons pag. 110. 115. & deinceps.  and the Bezites covertly insinuate: and white shall be black, and chalk shall be cheese, and every thing shall be any thing that they will have it. And all this their evident false translation, must be to our miserable deceived poor souls, the holy Scripture and God's word.  
5 Where we can not but marvel, why they are afraid to translate the words plainly in this place, of his soul being in Hell: Vwhereas in the Creed they admit the words, and interpret them, that by suffering Hell pains upon the Cross, so he descended into Hell, and no otherwise. Why did they not here also keep the words for the credit of their translation, and afterwards (if they would needs) give them that gloze for maintenance of their heresy? This mystery we know not, and we would gladly learn it of the Puritan Caluinists, whose English translation perhaps this is. for, the grosser Caluinists (being not so pure and precise in following Caluine as the Puritans be, that have well deserved that name above their fellows) they in their other English Bibles have in this place discharged themselves of false translation, 
Bib. an. 1562. and 1577.  saying plainly, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hel. But 
* See lined. dubit. pa. 19  in what sense they say so, it is very hard to guess: & perhaps themselves can not tell yet what to make of it, as appeareth by M. whitaker's answer to F. Campion. 
whitak pag. 165. M. Hues B. of S. Asaph in Walls.  And he is now called a Bishop among them, and proceeded Doctor in Oxford, that could not obtain his grace to proceed Doctor in Cambridge, because he preached Christ's descending into Hell, and the Puritans in their second admonition to the Parliament, pag. 43. cry out against the politic Caluinists, for that in the Creed of the Apostles (made in English meeter & sung openly in their Churches in these words: His spirit did after this descend, into the lower parts, to them that long in darkness were the true light of their hearts) they favour his descending into Hell very much, and so consequently may thereby build Limbus Patrum, and Purgatory. And the Puritans in their second reply against M. Whitegifts' defence pag. 7. reprehend one of their chiefest Caluimstical martyrs for affirming (as they term it) a gross descending of our Saviour Christ into Hel. Thus the Puritans confess plainly their heretical doctrine against Christ's descending into Hel.  
6 The truth is, howsoever the politic Caluinists speak, or write in this point more plausibly and covertly to the people, and more agreeably to the Article of our faith, then either Caluine or their earnest brethren the Puritans do, which write and speak as fantastically and madly as they think: yet neither do they believe this Article of the Apostles Creed, or interpret it, as the Catholic Church and ancient holy fathers always have done, neither can it stand with their new profession so to do, or with their English translations in other places. It can not stand with their profession: for than it would follow that the patriarchs and other just men of the old Testament were in some third place of rest, called Abraham's bosom, or Limbus Patrum, till our Saviour Christ descended thither, & delivered them from thence, which they deny in their doctrine, though they sing it in their metres. Neither can it stand with their English translations: because in other places where the holy Scriptures evidently speak of such a place, calling it Hell (because that was a common name for every place and state of souls departed, in the old Testament, till our Saviour Christ by his Resurrection and Ascension had opened heaven) there, for Hell, they translate Grave.  
7 As when jacob saith, 
Gen. 37.  Descendam ad filium meum lugens in infernum: I will go down to my son into Hell, mourning: they translate, I will go down into the grave unto my son, mourning: as though jacob thought, that his son joseph had been buried in a grave, whereas jacob thought, and said immediately before, as appeareth in the holy Scripture, that a wild beast had devoured him, and so could not be presumed to be in any grave: or as though, if joseph had been in a grave, jacob would have gone down to him into the same grave. For so the words must needs import, if they take grave properly: but if they take grave unproperly for the state of dead men after this life, why do they call it grave, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Infernus.  and not Hell, as the word is in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin? No doubt they do it, to make the ignorant Reader believe that the Patriarch jacob spoke of his body only to descend into the grave to joseph's body: for as concerning jacobs' soul, that was by their opinion, to ascend immediately after his death to heaven, and not to descend into the grave. But if jacob were to ascend forthwith in soul, how could he say as they translate, I will go down into the grave unto my son? As if according to their opinion he should say, My sons body is devoured of a beast, and his soul is gone up into heaven: well, I will go down to him into the grave.  
8 Gentile Reader, that thou mayst the better conceive these absurdities, and the more detest their guileful corruptions, understand (as we began to tell thee before) that in the old Testament, because there was yet no ascending into heaven, the way of the holies (as the Apostle in his epistle to the hebrews speaketh) being not yet made open, because our saviour Christ was to * 
Hebr. 9 v. 8.  dedicate and begin the entrance in his own person, and by his passion to open heaven: 
Hebr. 10. v. 20.  therefore (we say) in the old Testament the common phrase of the holy Scripture is, even of the best men, as well as of others, that dying they went down ad inferos, or ad infernum: to signify that such was the state of the old Testament before our saviour Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, that every man went down, and not up: descended, and not ascended: by descending I mean not to the grave, which received their bodies only: but ad inferos, that is, to bell, a common receptacle or place for their souls also departed, as well of those souls that were to be in rest, as those that were to be in pains & torments. All the souls both good & bad that then died, went downward, & therefore the place of both sorts was called in all the tongues, by a word answerable to this word, hell, to signify a lower place beneath, not only of torments, but also of rest.  
9 So we say in our Creed, that our saviour Christ himself descended into hell, according to his soul: 
Epitaph. Nepot. c. 3.  So S. Hierom speaking of the state of the old Testament, saith: Simo Abraham, Isaac, jacob in inferno, quis in calorum regno▪ that is, If Abraham, Isaac, and jacob were in hell, who was in the kingdom of heaven? And again, Ante Christum, Abraham apud inferos: post Christum latro in Paradiso. that is, before the coming of Christ, Abraham was in hell: after his coming, the thief was in Paradise. And lest a man might object, 
Luc. 16.  that Lazarus being in Abraham's bosom, saw the rich glutton a far of in hell, and therefore both Abraham and Lazarus seem to have been in heaven: 
See S. Aug. in Psal. 85. v. 13.  the said holy doctor resolveth it, that Abraham and Lazarus also were in hell, but in a place of great rest & refreshing, and therefore very far of from the miserable wretched glutton that lay in torments.  
10 His words be these in effect: If a man will say unto me, that Lazarus was seen in Abraham's bosom, and a place of refreshing even before Christ's coming: true it is, but what is that in comparison? Quid simile infernus & regna calorum? What hath hell and heaven like? As if he should say, Abraham in deed and Lazarus (and consequently many other) were in place of rest, but yet in hell, till Christ came, & in such rest, as hath no comparison with the joys of heaven. And S. Augustine disputing this matter sometime, 
Epist. 99 ad Euod. & de Gen. ad lit. li. 12. c. 33.  & doubting whether Abraham's bosom be called hell in the scripture, and whether the name of hell be taken at any time in the good part (for of Christ's descending into hell, & of a third place where the patriarchs remained until Christ's coming, not heaven, but called Abraham's bosom, he doubted not, but was most assured) the same holy doctor in an other place, as being better resolved, doubteth not, upon these words of the Psalm, 
In Psal. 85. v. 13.  Thou hast delivered my soul from the lower hell, to make this one good sense of this place, that the lower hell is it, wherein the damned are tormented: the higher hell is that, wherein the souls of the just rested, calling both places by the name of hell.  
11 And surely of his marvelous humility and wisdom, he would have been much more resolute herein, if he had hard the opinion of S. Hierom, whom he often consulted in such questions, and of other fathers, who in this point speak most plainly, that Abraham's bosom or the place where the patriarchs rested, was some part of hell. 
joco citato.  Tertullian, (Li. 4. adverse. Martion.) Saith, I know that the bosom of Abraham was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or, the higher part of hell. Of which speech of the fathers, rose afterwards that other name, limbus patrum, that is the very brim or uppermost & outmost part of hell, where the fathers of the old Testament rested. Thus we see that the patriarchs themselves were as then in hell, though they were there in a place of rest: in so much that S. Hierom saith again, Ante Resurrectionem Christi not us in judaea Deus, & ipsi qui noverant eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur. that is, Before the Resurrection of Christ, God was known in jury, and they themselves that knew him yet were drawn unto hell. 
Hom. quod Christus sit Deus to. 5.  S. Chrysostom upon that place of Esay, I will break the brazen gates, and bruise the iron bars in pieces, and will open the treasures darkened, etc. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Infernus.  So he calleth hell, saith he, for although it were hell, yet it held the holy souls, and precious vessels, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob. Mark that he saith, though it were hell, yet there were the just men at that time, till our saviour Christ came to deliver them from thence.  
12 Therefore did jacob say, I will go down to my son unto Hel. And again he saith, 
Gen. 42.  If any misfortune happen to (Benjamin) by the way, you shall bring my grey head with sorrow unto Hell, which is repeated again twice in the Chapter 44. by which phrase the holy Scripture will signify, not only death, but also the descending at that time of all sorts of souls into Hell, both good and bad. And therefore it is spoken of all sorts in the holy Scripture, 
3 Reg. 2.  both of good and of bad. for all went then into Hell, but some into a place there of rest, others into other places there of torments. And therefore S. Hierom saith, speaking of Hell according to the old Testament, Hell is a place wherein souls are included: 
In c. 13 Osee. Aug. in Psal. 85. v. 13.  either in rest, or in pains, according to the quality of their deserts.  
13 And in this sense it is also often said in the holy Scriptures, that such & such were gathered or laid to their fathers, 
The Scriptures speak of an other Hell, besides that of the damned.  though they were buried in divers places, and died not in the same state of salvation or damnation: In that sense Samuel being raised up to speak with Saul, said, To morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me. that is, dead and in Hell, though not in the same place or state there: in this sense all such places of the holy Scripture as have the word Inferi, or Infernus correspondent both to the Greek and Hebrew, ought to be, and may be most conveniently translated by the word, Hel. as when it is said, 
ab inferno inferiori.  Thou hast delivered my soul from the lower hell. Ps. 85. v. 13. that is as S. Augustine expoundeth it, Thou hast preserved me from mortal sins that would have brought me into the lower Hell which is for the damned. which place of holy Scripture and the like when they translate grave, see how miserably it soundeth: 
Bib. 1579.  Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave. which they would never say for very shame, but that they are afraid to say in any place (be the holy Scriptures never so plain) that any soul was delivered or returned from hell, lest thereof it might follow by and by, that the patriarchs, and our saviour Christ were in such a Hel.  
14 And that this is their fear, it is evident, because in all other places where it is plain that the holy Scriptures speak of the Hell of the damned, from whence is no return, there they translate the very same word Hell, and not grave. As for example, The way of life is on high to the prudent, 
Proverb. 15.24.  to avoid from Hell beneath. lo, here that is translated Hell beneath, which before was translated the lowest grave. And again, Hell and destruction are before the Lord, how much more the hearts of the sons of men? But when in the holy Scriptures there is mention of delivery of a soul from Hell, than thus they translate: 
Bib. 1579. De manu inferi.  God shall deliver my soul from the power of the grave: for he will receive me. Can you tell what they would say? doth God deliver them from the grave, or from temporal death, whom he receiveth to his mercy? or hath the grave any power over the soul? Again when they say, 
Ps. 89, 48.  What man liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?  
15 If they take grave properly, where man's body is buried: it is not true either that every soul, yea or every body is buried in a grave. But if in all such places, they will say they mean nothing else but to signify death, & that to go down into the grave, and to die, is all one: we ask them why they follow not the words of the holy Scripture to signify the same thing, which call it, going down to Hell, not, going down to the grave? Here they must needs open the mystery of Antichrist working in their translations, and say, that so they should make Hell a common place to all that departed in the old Testament, which they will not, no not in the most important places of our belief concerning our saviour Christ's descending into Hell, & triumphing over the same. Yea, therefore of purpose they will not, only for to defeat that part of our Christian Creed.  
16 As when the Prophet first, Osee 13. & afterwards the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15. in the Greek, say thus: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ero mors tua ô mors, morsus tuus ero inferne. Vbiest, mors, stimulus tuus? Vbiest, infer, victoria tua? O death, I will be thy death: I will be thy sting, o Hel. Where is, o death, thy sting? Where is, o hell, thy victory? They translate in both places, 
Bibl. 1579.  O grave, in stead of, o Hel. What else can be their meaning hereby, but to draw the Reader from the common sense of our saviour Christ's descending into Hell, and conquering the same, and bringing out the fathers and just men triumphantly from thence into heaven? Which sense hath all ways been the common sense of the Catholic Church & holy Doctors, 
See S. Hier. Comment. in 13. Osee.  specially upon this place of the Prophet. And what a kind of speech is this, and out of all tune, to make our saviour Christ say, O grave I will be thy destruction? as though he had triumphed over the grave, and not over Hell: or over the grave, that is, over death: and so the Prophet should say death twice, and Hell not at all.  
17 Why, my Masters, you that are so  precise translators, admit that our saviour Christ descended not into Hell beneath, as you say, yet I think you will grant that he triumphed over Hell, & was conqueror of the same. Why then did it not please you to suffer the Prophet to say so at the least, rather than that he had conquest only of death and the grave? You abuse your ignorant reader very impudently, and your own selves very damnably, not only in this, but in that you make grave, and death, all one, and so where the holy Scripture often joineth together death & Hell, as things different and distinct: you make them speak but one thing twice, idly and superfluously.  
18 But will you know that you should not confound them, but that Mors, & Infernus, which are the words of the holy Scripture in all tongues, are distinct: hear what S. Hierom saith, or if you will not hear, because you are of them which have stopped their ears, let the indifferent Christian Reader hearken to this holy Doctor, and great interpreter of the holy Scriptures according to his singular knowledge in all the learned tongues. Upon the foresaid place of the Prophet, after he had spoken of our saviour Christ's descending into Hell, and overcoming of death, he addeth: 
Hierom. in Osee ca 13.  Between death and Hell this is the difference, that death is that whereby the soul is separated from the body: Hell is the place where souls are included, either in rest, or else in pains, according to the quality of their deserts. And that death is one thing, and Hell is another: the Psalmist also declareth, saying: THERE IS not in death, that is mindful of thee, 
Psal. 6.  but in Hell who shall confess to thee? And in an other place. Let death come upon them, and let them go down into Hell alive. Thus far S. Hierom.  
19 By which differences of death and Hell, (whereof we must often advertise the Reader) are meant two things: death, and the going down of the soul into some receptacle of Hell, in that state of the old Testament, at what time the holy Scriptures used this phrase so often. Now, these impudent translators in all these places, translate it grave, 
Bib. 1579.  of purpose to confound it and death together, & to make it but one thing, which S. Hierom showeth to be different, in the very same sense that we have declared.  
20 But alas, is it the very nature of the Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infernus.  Greek, or Latin, that forceth them so much to English it grave, rather than Hell we appeal to all Hebricians, Grecians, and Latinists in the world: first, if a man would ask, what is Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin for Hell: whether they would not answer, these three words, as the very proper words to signify it, even as Panis signifieth bread: secondly, if a man would ask, what is Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sepulchrum.  or Greek, or Latin for a grave: whether they would answer these words, and not three other which they know are as proper words for grave, as lac, is for milk.  
21 Yea, note & consider diligently what we will say. let them show me out of all the Bible one place, where it is certain & agreed among all, that it must needs signify grave, let them show me in any one such place, that the holy Scripture useth any of those former three words for grave. As when Abraham bought a place of burial, whether he bought Infernum: 
Gen. c. 49.  or when it is said the kings of Israel were buried in the monuments or sepulchres of their fathers, whether it say, in infernit patrum suorum. So that not only Divines by this observation, 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 words, is in English Hell, and not grave.  

Annot. in Act. 2, 25.27. & in 1 Cor. 15, 55.  22 And therefore Beza doth strangely abuse his Reader, more than in one place, saying that the Hebrew word doth properly signify grave, being deduced of a verb that signifieth, to crave or ask, because it craveth always new corpses, as though the grave craved more than Hell doth, 
Bib. 1579. prover. 1, 12.3, 15.16.  or wallowed more, or were more hardly satisfied and filled then Hell▪ for in all such places they translate grave. And in one such place they say, 
Prou. 27, 30.  The grave and destruction can never be full. Whereas themselves a little before, translate the very same words, 
cap. 15, 11.  Hell and destruction: and therefore it might have pleased them to have said also, Hell and destruction can never be full, 
Bib. 1562. 1577. Proverb. 1. 1 Pet. 5.  as their pew-followes do in their translation, & again, We shall swallow them up, like Hel. The Devil (we read) goeth about continually like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, Who is called in the Apocalypse, Abaddon, 
Apoc. 9, 11.  that is, destruction. and so very aptly Hell and destruction are joined together, and are truly said never to be filled. What madness and impudency is it then for Beza to write thus. 
Beza before alleged.  Who is ignorant that by the Hebrew word, rather is signified agrave, for that it seemeth after a sort to crave always new carcases?  
23 And again, concerning our Saviour Christ's descending into Hell, and delivering the fathers from thence, it is marvel saith Beza, 
Annot. in 2 Act. v. 24.  that the most part of the ancient fathers were in this error, whereas with the hebrews the word SHEOL. signifieth nothing else but GRAUS. Before, he pleaded upon the etymology or nature of the word, now also he pleadeth upon the authority of the hebrews themselves. If he were not known to be very impudent and obstinate, we would easily mistrust his skill in the Hebrew, saying that among the hebrews the word signifieth nothing else but grave. 
nihil aliud.   
24 I would gladly know, what are those hebrews? doth not the Hebrew text of the holy Scripture best tell us the use of this word? Do not themselves translate it Hell very often? do not the Septuaginta always? If any Hebrew in the world, were asked, how he would turn these words into Hebrew, Similes estis sepulchris de albatis you are like to whited graves: And, Sepulchrum eius apud vos est: His grave is among you: would any Hebrew I say translate it by this Hebrew word which Beza saith among the hebrews signifieth nothing else but grave? 
Sheolim. Sheol.  Ask your Hebrew Readers in this case, and see what they will answer.  
25 What are those hebrews then, 
The Protestants in interpretation of Scriptures, follow the late Jews, rather than the ancient fathers, & Apostolical church.  that Beza speaketh of? forsooth certain Jews or later Rabbins, which, as they do falsely interpret all the holy Scriptures against our Saviour Christ in other points of our belief, as against his Incarnation, Death, & Resurrection: so do they also falsely interpret the holy Scriptures against his descending into Hell, which those jewish Rabbins deny, because they look for an other Messiah that shall not die at all, and consequently shall not after his death go down into Hell and deliver the father's expecting his coming as our Saviour Christ did. and therefore those jewish Rabbins hold as the Heretics do, that the fathers of the old Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ's Incarnation: & these Rabbins are they which also pervert the Hebrew word to the signification of grave, in such places of the holy Scriptures as speak either of our Saviour Christ's descending into Hell, or of the father's going down into Hell, even in like manner as they pervert other Hebrew words, of the holy Scripture as namely, alma, to signify a young woman, 
Esa. 7.  not a virgin, against our saviours birth of the B. Virgin Marie.  
26 And if these later Rabbins be the hebrews that Beza meaneth, and which these gay English translators follow, we lament that they join themselves with such companions, being the sworn enemies of our Saviour Christ. Surely the Christian hebrews in Rome and else where, which of great Rabbins are become zealous doctors of Christianity, and therefore honour every mystery and article of our Christian faith concerning our Saviour Christ, they dispute as vehemently against those other Rabbins, as we do against the Heretics, and among other things they tell them, that Soul said, 
1 Reg. 28.  Raise me up Samuël, and that the woman said, I see gods ascending out of the earth. & An old man is ascended or come up. and that Samuël said, Why hast thou disquieted me, that I should be raised up? and, To morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me. And the book of Ecclesiasticus saith, 
Eccl. 46.23.  that Samuël died, and afterwards lifted up his voice out of the earth, etc. All which the holy Scripture would never have thus expressed (whether it were Samuël in deed or not) if Saul and the jews then had believed, that their Prophets and patriarchs had been in heaven above. And as for the Hebrew word, they make it (as every boy among the Jews doth well know) as proper a word for Hell, as panis is for bread. and as unproper for a grave (though so it may be used by a figure of speech) as Cymba Charontis is Latin for death.  
27 But what speak I of these? do not the greatest and most ancient Rabbins (so to call them) the Septuaginta always translate the Hebrew word, by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Geneb. li. 3. de Trin.  which is properly hell? do not the Talmudistes, and Chaldee paraphrases, and Rabbi Solomon jarhi, handling these places of the Psalms, He will deliver my soul from the hand of Sheol, interpret it by Gehinum, that is, Gehenna, hell? and yet the calvinists bring this place for an example that it signifieth grave. likewise upon this place, Let all sinners be turned into SHEOL: the foresaid Rabbins interpret it by Gehinum, hell. In so much that in the proverbs and in job, it is joined with Abaddom. 
Proverb. 15. job. 26.  Where Rabbi Levi according to the opinion of the hebrews, expoundeth Sheol, to be the lowest region of the world, a deep place opposite to heaven, whereof it is written, If I descended into Hell, thou art present: & so doth Rabbi Abraham expound the same word in chap. 2. jonae.  
28 This being the opinion and interpretation of the hebrews, See the skill or the honesty of Beza, saying that Sheol, with the hebrews signifieth nothing but grave. Whereas in deed (to speak skilfully, uprightly, and not contentiously) it may signify grave sometime secondarily, but Hell, principally and properly, as is manifest, for that there is no other word so often used and so familiar in the Scriptures to signify Hell, as this, and for that the Septuaginta do always interpret it by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
29 The which Greeke word is so notorious and peculiar for Hell, that the Pagans use it also for Pluto, whom they feigned to be god of hell, and not god of graves: and if they would stand with us in this point, we might beat them with their own kind of reasoning, out of Poëres & profane writers, and out of all lexicons. Unless they will tell us (contrary to their custom) that we Christians must attend the Ecclesiastical use of this word in the Bible, and in Christian writers, 
Annot. in Act. 2, 27.  and that in them it signifieth grave. For so Beza seemeth to say, that the Greek Interpreters of the Bible translated the Hebrew word aforesaid by this Greek word, as signifying a dark place: whereas the Greek Poëtes used it for that which the Latins called Inferos, that is, Hel. Which ambiguity (saith he) of the word, made many err, affirming Christ's descending into Hel. So was LIMBUS builded, whereunto afterwards Purgatory was laid.  
30 I see Beza his wylines very well in this point. for here the man hath uttered all his heart, and the whole mystery of his crafty meaning of this corrupt translation: that to avoid these three things, Christ's descending into Hell, Limbus patrum, and Purgatory, he and his companions wrist the foresaid words of the holy Scriptures to the signification of grave. But let the indifferent christian reader only consider Beza his own words in this place, point by point.  
31 First he saith, that the Greek Poëtes were want to use the Greek word for Hell: secondly, that they which interpreted the Bible out of Hebrew into Greek, used the very same word for that Hebrew word whereof we have now disputed: thirdly, that the ancient fathers (for of them he speaketh, 
ibid. v. 24.  as a little before he expresseth) understood the said Greek word for Hell, and thereby grew to those errors (as he impudently affirmeth) of Christ's descending into Hell, & of the place in Hell where the fathers rested, expecting the coming of our Saviour, etc. Whereby the Reader doth easily see, that both the profane and also the Ecclesiastical use of the word is for Hell, and not for grave.  

Infernus, inferi.  32 And for the Latin word, it is the like case for all the world: & if a man will ask but his child that cometh from the Grammar, what is Infernus, he will say Hell, and not grave: what is Latin for grave? He will answer Sepulchrum, or monumentum. but never Infernus, unless one of these Caluinisticall translators taught him so, to deceive his father.  
33 Now then, to draw to a conclusion of this their corruption also in their English translation: whereas the Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin words do most properly and usually signify Hell: and both Greek, and Latin interpreters precisely in every place use for the Hebrew word, that one Greek word, and that one Latin word, which by all custom of speaking & writing, signify Hell: 
c If they object unto us some Catholics, that translate it, Sepulchrum, as they do: it is a fault in them also, but so far less than in the Protestant's, as chance medley is in respect of wilful mur.  it had been the part of sincere and true meaning translators, to 07 have translated it also in English always by the word Hell: and afterwards to have disputed of the meaning thereof, whether and when it is to be taken for Hell, or grave, or lake, or death, or any such thing. as in one place they have done it very exactly and indifferently, namely when jonas saith (c. 2. v. 2.) out of the whale's belly, Out of the belly of Hell, cried I, and thou beardest my voice. so all translate it, and well, whatsoever it signify in this place. They think that Hell, here signifieth nothing else but the whale's belly and the affliction of jonas, and so the word may signify by a Metaphorical speech, as when we say in English, It is a Hell to live thus: and * 
See their marginal annot. jonae 2, 2. Bib. 1577.  therefore no doubt they did here translate it so, to insinuate that in other places it might as well signify grave, as here the whale's belly.  
34 But then they should have translated it also Hell in other places, as they did in this, and afterwards have interpreted it grave in their commentaries, and not presumptuously to straighten and limit the word of the holy Ghost to their private sense and interpretation, & to prejudice the ancient and learned holy fathers, which look far more deeply and spiritually into this prophecy, then to jonas or the whale, * 
Mat. 12.  our Saviour himself also applying it to his own person, and to his being in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. And therefore S. Hierom saith, 
Comment. in 2. jonae.  This belly of Hell, according to the story is the whale's belly, but it may much better be referred to the person of Christ, which under the name of David, 
Psal. 15. In inferno. Psal. 87.  singeth in the Psalm, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell: Who was in Hell alive, and free among the dead. And that which our Saviour saith, The Son of man shall be in the heart of the earth, he doth interpret of his soul in Hel. for as the heart is in the mids of the body, so is Hell said to be in the mids of the earth.  
35 Thus then presupposing (as we must) that jonas speaketh in the person, of our Saviour Christ, the principal sense is not of the whale's belly, but of that hell whither our Saviour Christ descended, and from whence he delivered the fathers of the old Testament, himself ascending into heaven, as their king and general captain before them, and opening the way of heaven unto them, 
Mich. 2.13.  as is signified in an other prophet: and was the first that entered heaven.  
36 Against all which truths and every point thereof, these translators are so watcheful and wary, 
Heb. 10, 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. initianit.  that where the Apostle saith, Christ began, and dedicated unto us the way into heaven, they say, in their English translations with full consent nothing else but, He prepared. Why are they falser here than their Masters, Calvin, Beza, Illyricus, who read, Dedicavit? Is there nothing in the Greek word, but bare preparation? where be these etymologistes now, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that can strain and wring other words to the uttermost advantage of their heresy, and here are content for the like advantage, to dissemble the force of this word, which by all use and property signifieth, to make new, to begin a thing, to be the first author, to dedicate: 
Aug. tract. 48. in joan.  as S. Augustine might have taught them, and their lexicons, and the Scriptures in many places. This translation (no doubt) is not done sincerely and indifferently of them, but for their own deceitful purpose, as is all the rest. When S. Paul speaketh of preparation only, they know right well that he useth the usual word to prepare: as, 
Heb. 11, 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  He hath prepared them a city: and wheresoever is signified preparation only, let them bring us one example where it is expressed by the other Greek word, which now we speak of.  
37 But it is of more importance, which followeth, and appertaining altogether to this controversy. Hebr. 
Of the year 1577.  5. v. 7. your translation is thus, in the very English bible that now is read in your Churches: 
Against Christ's descending into Hel.  Which in days of his flesh offered up prayers with strong crying, unto him that was able to save him from death, & was heard in that which he feared. Is the Greek here, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  In that which he feared? You know that no grammar nor lexicon doth allow you this translation. but either thus, for reverence, or as one of your own English Bibles hath it, because of his reverence.  
38 How is it then, that in your later English bibles you changed your former translation from better to worse? 
Exmetn.  or who taught you so to translate it? forsooth the Heretic Beza, whose translation you follow for the most part in your later bibles, though here, in sense rather than in word. And who taught Beza? he saith, Calvin was the first that ever found out this interpretation. And why? surely for defence of no less blasphemy than this, that our Saviour JESUS Christ upon the Cross was horribly afraid of damnation, 
Calu. Catech. & Institut. Fi. 2. c. 16.  that he was in the very sorrows and torments of the damned, and that this was his descending into Hell, and that otherwise he descended not. let the Reader note these new teachers upon this place, and judge to what wicked end this translation tendeth.  
39 A wonderful thing: when all antiquity with a general, & full consent hath in that place of the holy Scripture read thus, that Christ was heard (of his father) for his reverence (according as our Saviour himself also saith in the raising of Lazarus, 
Io. 11, 42.  and signifieth in his long prayer Io. 17:) how a blasphemous and presumptuous Heretic should be so malapert thus to alter it, that he was heard in that which he feared. that is, that he was delivered from damnation and the eternal pains of Hell, which he was sore afraid of. To the maintenance of which blasphemy, Beza will seem to force the Greek thus. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  First (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not here signify reverence or piety, but fear, and such a fear which he calleth pavorem & consternationem animi, that is, dreadfulness and astonishment of mind, and other like words, to insinuate an exceeding horror and fear in our Saviour Christ. for confutation whereof, we might easily bring the common use of this Greek word in the holy Scriptures to signify not every fear, but that religious fear which is in the best men, joined with godliness, holiness, and devotion, as when in the Acts they that buried S. Steven, 
Act 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  are called Viri timorati. devout men such as feared God.  
40 But we need not go far, for Beza will help us himself, who telleth us in an other place the very same. his words be these: 
Annot. in Luc. 2. v. 25.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat non quemuis timorem, sed cum reverentia potius quàm cum animi trepidatione coniunctum. latini religionem vocant. that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify every fear, but that which is joined with reverence rather than with astonishment of mind. the Latins do call it, religion or religious fear. If this be the true signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Beza himself confesseth, why doth he not so translate it in the foresaid place to the hebrews? Why forsaketh he the old approved Latin translation and general consent of all ancient interpreters, and translateth it, that fear or astonishment of mind, which he saith the word doth not signify?  
41 And mark that in his foresaid annotation upon S. Luke he telleth not a peculiar signification of the Greek word in that place, as though in some other places it might have an other signification, but he telleth generally what the very nature of the Greek word is, that is, that it signifieth not every fear but a fear joined with reverence. and he said truly: and they shall hardly give an instance where it signifieth that fear of astonishment, which both he and they translate in the foresaid place of S. Paul. Such a force hath heresy to lead a man even contrary to his own knowledge, to falsify Gods holy word.  
42 Yea Beza saith further to this purpose (much more against his skill in the Greek tongue, if he had any at all) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preposition cannot bear this sense, For which or in respect whereof. and therefore he translateth the Greek into Latin thus. Exauditus est ex metu, he was heard from fear: not, for fear, or, for his reverence. and because from fear, is a hard speech and dark, that seemeth to be the cause why our English translators say, In that which he feared, far from Beza in word, but aggreably in sense.  

Flac. Illyric.  43 But for this matter we send them to Flaccus Illyricus a captain Lutheran, who disputeth this very point against the calvinists: and teacheth them that nothing is more common, than that signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For proof whereof, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  we also refer them to these places of the holy Scripture. Mat. 13. Luc. 22. and 24. Act. 12. Psal. 87. And Machab. 5, 21. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusative, signify all one, which Beza denieth. Gentle Reader, bear with these tedious grammatications, fit to be handled in Latin, but necessary in this case also, good for them that understand, & for the rest an occasion to ask of them that have skill in the Greek tongue, whether we accuse our adversaries justly or no, of false translating the holy Scriptures.  
44 And we beseech them to give us a good reason why they professing to follow precisely the Greek, do not observe truly the Greek points, in such place as concerneth this present controversy. for the place in the Apocalypse which they allege of our Saviour Christ's suffering from the beginning (thereby to infer that the just men of the old Testament might enter heaven then, 
c. 13, 8.  as well as after his real and actual death) according to the Greek points saith thus, All that dwell upon the earth, shall worship him (the beast) whose names have not been written in the book of life of the Lamb slain, from the beginning of the world. Where it is evident, that the Greek text saith not, the lamb slain from the beginning, but that the names of those Antichristian Idolaters were not written in Gods eternal book of predestination from the beginning, as it is also most plain without all ambiguity in the 17 Chapter v. 8. If in a place of no controversy they had not been curious in points of the Greek, they might have great reason sometime to alter the same.  
45 But if in points of controversy between us, they will say, divers pointing is of no importance, they know the contrary by the example of ancient heretics, which used this mean also to serve their false heretical purpose. If they say, our vulgar latin text pointeth it so, let them profess before God and their conscience, that they do it of reverence to the said ancient latin text, or because it is indifferent, & not for any other cause, & for this one place we will admit their answer.   

CHAP. VIII. Heretical translation concerning JUSTIFICATION.  
ABOUT the article of justification, as it hath many branches, & their etrours therein be manifold, so are their English translations accordingly many ways false and heretical. First against justification by good works and by keeping the commandments, they suppress the very name of justification in all such places where the word signifieth the commandments or the Law of God, which is both in the old and new Testament most common and usual, namely in the books of Moses, in the Psalm 118. that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati: in the Psalm 147. v. 19 1 Mac. 1. v. 51. and c. 2. v. 21. Luc. 1. v. 6. Ro. 2. v. 26. In all which places and the like, where the Greek signifieth justices & justifications most exactly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  according as our vulgar Latin translateth, iustitias and iustificationes: there the English translations say jointly and with one consent, ordinances, or, statutes For example, Ro. 2. If the uncircumcision keep the ORDINANCES of the Law, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  shall it not be counted for circumcision? And Luc. 1, 6. They were both, righteous before God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  walking in all the commandments and ORDINANCES of the Lord, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  blameless. Why translate you it ordinances, and avoid the term, justifications? is it because you would follow the Greek? I beseech you is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be justified, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, justifications or justices? In the old Testament you might perhaps pretend, that you follow the Hebrew wvord, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and therefore there you translate, statutes, or, ordinances. But even there also, are not the seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to teach you the signification of the Hebrew word: who always interpret it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in English, justifications?  
2 But be it, that you may control them in the Hebrew, which none but fools will grant unto you: in the new Testament what pretence have you? do you there also translate the Hebrew word, or rather the Greek? the Greek undoubtedly you should translate. what reason then can you have why you do not? none other surely then that which Beza giveth for himself, saying, that he rejected the word, justifications (notwithstanding it expressed the Greek, word for word, notwithstanding the seventy Greek interpreters used it to signify the whole Law, and in Latin it be commonly translated, iustificationes) notwithstanding all this, 
Annot. in 1 Luc.  for this only cause (saith he) did I reject it, to avoid the cavillations that might be made by this word, against justification by faith. As if he should say, This word truly translated according to the Greek, might minister great occasion to prove by so many places of Scripture, that man's justification is not by faith only, but also by keeping the la, and observing the commandments, which therefore are called according to the Greek and Latin, justifications, because they concur to justification, and make a man just, as by S. Luke's words also is well signified, which have this allusion, that they were both just, because they walked in all the justifications of our Lord. Which they of purpose suppress by other words.  
3 And hereof also it riseth, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that when he cannot possibly avoid the word in his translation (as Apoc. 19, 8. Bissinum enim iustificationes sunt sanctorum, The silk is the justifications of Saints:) there he helpeth the matter with this commentary, That justifications, 
Beza Annot. in Apoc. 19  are those good works which be the testimonies of a lively faith. But our English translators have an other way to avoid the word even in their translation. For they say here, the righteousness of Saints: because they could not say, ordinances of Saints: and they would not say, justifications of saints: knowing very well (by Bezaes' own commentary) that this word includeth the good works of saints: which works if they should in translating call their justifications, it would go sore against justification by only faith. Therefore do they translate in steed thereof, ordinances, &, statutes, where they can, which are terms furthest of from justification: and where they can not, there they say, righteousness, making it also the plural number, whereas the more proper Greek word for righteousness is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Dan. 6, 22.) which there some of them translate unguiltiness: because they will not translate exactly, if you would hire them.  
4 And therefore as for, justice, and, justifications, they say righteousness: 
Bib. of the year 1577. most approved. Mat. 1, 19 Luc. 1, 6.  so for, just, they translate, righteous. and by this means, joseph was a righteous man, rather than a just man: and Zacharie & Elisabeth were both righteous before God, rather than just: because when a man is called just, it soundeth that he is so in deed, and not by imputation only: as a wise man, is understood to be wise in deed, and not only so imputed. Therefore do they more gladly and more often say, righteous men, rather than, just men, and when they do say, just men, as sometime they do lest they might seem wilful inexcusably: there they understand, just by imputation, and not in deed, as is to be seen in Bezaes' Annotations upon the Epistle to the Romans. Note also that they put the word, just, when faith is joined withal. as Ro. 1. The just shall live by faith. to signify that justification is by faith. But if works be joined withal, and keeping the commandments, as in the place alleged Luc. 1. there they say, righteous, to suppress justification by works.  
5 And certain it is, if there were no sinister meaning, they would in no place avoid to say, just, justice, justification, where both the Greek and Latin are so, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  word for word. as for example 2 Tim. 4, 8. In all their bibles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of RIGHTEOUSNESS, which the Lord the RIGHTEOUS judge shall GIVE me at that day. And again 2 Thess. 1. Rejoice in tribulations which is a token of the RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT of God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God for which ye safer. For it is a RIGHTEOUS THING with God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justum est. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you: and to you that are troubled, rest with us, in the revelation of the Lord JESUS from heaven. And again Hebr. 6, 10. God is not VNRIGHTEOUS to forget your good work and labour, etc. 
non enim iniustus est Deus.  These are very pregnant places to discover their false purpose in concealing the word, justice, in all their bibles. For if they will say, that justice is not an usual English word in this sense, and therefore they say, righteousness: yet I trow, just, and unjust, are usual and well known. Why then would they not say at the least, in the places alleged, God the JUST judge, A token of the JUST JUDGEMENT of God, It is a JUST thing with God, God is not VNIVST to forget, & c? Why is it not at the least in one of their English Bibles, being so both in Greek and Latin?  
6 Understand gentle Reader, and mark well, 
The scriptures most evident for justification▪ by works, against only faith.  that if S. Paul's words were truly translated thus, A crown of JUSTICE is laid up for me, which our Lord the JUST judge will RENDER unto me at that day, and so in the other places: it would infer, that men are justly crowned in heaven for their good works upon earth, and that it is God's justice so to do, & that he will do so because he is a iustiudge, & because he will show his JUST JUDGEMENT, and he will not forget so to do, because he is not unjust: as the ancient fathers (namely the Greek doctors S. Chrysostom, 
Psal. 57 Si utique est fructus justo, utique est Deus iudicans eos in terra.  Theodorete, & Oecumenius upon these places) do interpret and expound. in so much that Oecumenius saith thus upon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. See here, that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdom of heaven according to JUST JUDGEMENT, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and not according to grace. Which lest the Adversary might take in the worse part, as though it were only God's justice or just judgement, and not his favour or grace also, S. Augustine excellently declareth howv it is both the one and the other: to wit, his grace and favour and mercy, in making us by his grace to live and believe well, and so to be worthy of heaven: his justice and just judgement, to render and repay for those works which himself wrought in us, life everlasting. Which he expresseth thus: 
Aug. de gra. & lib. arb. ca 6.  How should he render or repay as a just judge, unless he had given it as a merciful father? Where S. Augustine urgeth the words of repaying as due, and of being A JUST JUDGE therefore. both which the said translators corrupt, not only saying, righteous judge, for, just judge: but, that he will give a crown, which is of a thing not due, for that which is in the Greek, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He will render or repay: which is of a thing due and deserved, & hath relation to works going before, for the which the crown is repaid. He said not (saith Theophylacte upon this place) he will give, but, he will render or repay, as a certain debt. for he being just, will define & limit the reward according to the labours. the crown therefore is due debt, because of the judges justice. So saith he.  
7 Which speeches being most true as being the express words of holy Scripture, yet we know how odiously the Adversaries may & do misconstrue them to the ignorant, as though we challenged heaven by our own works, and as though we made God bound to us. Which we do not, God forbidden. but because he hath prepared good works for us (as the Apostle saith) to walk in them, 
Eph. 2, v. 10.  and doth by his grace cause us to do them, and hath promised life everlasting for them, and telleth us in all his holy Scriptures, that to do them is the way to heaven: therefore not presuming upon our own works as our own or as of ourselves, but upon the good works wrought through God's grace by us his silly instruments, we have great confidence (as the Apostle speaketh) and are assured that these works proceeding of his grace, 
Hebr. 10.  be so acceptable to him, that they are esteemed and be worthy and meritorious of the kingdom of heaven. Against which truth, let us see further, their heretical corruptions.   

CHAP. IX. Heretical translation against MERITS or MERITORIOUS WORKS and the REWARD for the same.  
WHEN they translate (Ro. 8, 18) thus, 
Bib. 1577.  I am certainly persuaded, that the afflictions of this time, ARENOT WORTHY OF THE GLORY which shall be showed upon us: do they not mean to signify to the reader, & must it not needs so sound in his ears, that the tribulations of this life, be they never so great, though suffered for Christ, yet do not merit nor deserve the heavenly glory? but in the Greek it is far otherwise. I will not stand upon their first words, I am certainly persuaded, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I suppose.  which is a far greater asseveration than the Apostle useth, and I marvel how they could so translate that Greek word, but that they were disposed, not only to translate the Apostles words falsely against meritorious works, but also to avouch and affirm the same lustily, with much more vehemency of words than the Apostle speaketh. well, let us pardon them this fault, & examine the words following. Where the Greek saith not, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Non sunt condignae ad futuram gloriam.  as they translate with full consent in all their English Bibles, The afflictions are not worthy of the glory etc. but thus, The afflictions of this time are not equal, correspondent, or comparable to the glory to come. 
* S. Chrys. upon this place.  because the afflictions are short, the glory is eternal: the afflictions small and few in comparison, the glory great and abundant above measure.  
2 This is the Greek phrase & the Apostles meaning, which we need not greatly to prove, because their own Doctors Calvin and Beza do so interpret it, & therefore wonder it were that the Geneva English bibles also should forsake their Masters, and follow the error of the other English bibles, but that they thought the more voices the better. In the mean time the people seethe no other translation, & thinketh it is the Apostles very words. But Beza himself telleth them the contrary, translating thus: Statuo minimē esse paria quae presenti tempore perpetimur, futurae gloriae nobis revelandae. that is, I am of this opinion, that the things which we suffer in this present time, are not equal to the glory that shall be revealed to us. And in his commentary, thus, S. Paul's discourse and matter handled in this place. declare, that he speaketh not of the valour or price of the afflictions which we suffer for Christ, but rather by comparing their quality and quantity with life everlasting, he gathereth that we shall be infinitely more happy with Christ, than we are miserable here. Therefore did he use the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek word rightly and properly, which the Grammarians say is spoken of such things, as being poised or weighed, are found of one weight. Thus far Beza.  
3 If than a comparison only be signified, why do they not so translate it in English, that it may be taken for a comparison in our English phrase? For they know. very well that if a man should say in English, according as they translate, Good works are not worthy of heaven, this man is not worthy of my favour, he is not worthy of such a living, of so great praises: every English man understandeth it thus, that they deserve not heaven, and that such a man deserveth not this or that. Even so must the reader needs take it in this place, and they must needs have intended that he should so take it. For though he Greek phrase may signify a comparison, being so uttered, 
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 Greek phrase is otherwise, and therefore should otherwise be Englished. For it is not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, as they translate, worthy of the glory: but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which cannot be so translated. For if it might, than these Greek phrases were all one, and might be used indifferently. And then I must desire them to turn me this into Greek, He is not worthy of thanks. and if they turn it by the Apostles phrase in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to all Grecians they shall be ridiculous. And yet this is as well turned out of English into Greek, as they have turned the other out of Greek into English.  
4 Marry, if they would exppresse a comparison of equality or inequality between thing & thing, them this is the proper Greek phrase thereof, and much more proper for this purpose, 
The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth a comparison.  than by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & a genitive case. Which notwithstanding is often so used in the Scriptures, by way of comparison. as Proverb. 3. concerning the praise of wisdom. Where S. Augustine to express the comparison, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  readeth thus, Omne pretiosum non est illi dignum: and S. Hierom according to the Hebrew thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  omnia quae desiderantur no valent huic comparari. or, adaequari. and Ecclci 26, we have the very like speech proceeding of the said Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omnis ponderatio non est digna continentis animae. Which the English Bibles translate thus, There is no weight to be compared unto a mind that can rule itself. or, with a continent mind.  
5 And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive case signify a comparison, and themselves so translate it in all their Bibles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  should not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostles phrase much more be so translated? I appeal to their own consciences. Again if here in Ecclicus they say not according to the Greek words, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  There is no weight worthy of a continent mind, because they would by an English phrase express the comparison: is it not more then evident, that when they translate the Apostle by the very same words, Worthy of the glory etc.: they know it can not, and they mean it should not signify a comparison? I can not sufficiently express, but only to the learned and skilful reader, their partial and heretical dealing. Briefly I say, they translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not to be compared with a continent mind, being in Greek Word for word Not worthy of a continent mind: and contrariwise they translate in S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not worthy of the glory to come, being in the Greek, Not to be compared to the glory 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 own translation, A faithful friend hath no peer, weight of gold & silver is not to be compared to the goodness of his faith.  
6. Now if they will say, though their translation of S. Paul's words be not so exact and commodious, 
How good works merit life everlasting, though one incomparably exceed the other.  yet the sense and meaning is all one (for if these present afflictions be not equal or comparable to the glory to come, than neither are they worthy of it, nor can deserve or merit it) let the Christian reader mark the difference. First their Beza and Calvin telleth them that the Apostle speaketh of the one, and not of the other. Secondly, the passions & afflictions that Christ our Saviour suffered all his life, were not comparable to the eternal glory which he obtained thereby: yet did he thereby deserve and merit eternal glory, not only for himself, but for all the world: yea by the least affliction he suffered, did he deserve all this. unless you will deny also that he merited and deserved his glory, which your opinion a man might very well gather by * 
Heb. 2, 9 in the new Testament of the year 1580. & Bib. 1579.  some of your false translations, but that you would think us to suspicious, which perhaps we will examine hereafter. Thirdly, the present pleasure of adultery during a man's life, is not comparable to the eternal torments of hell fire: and yet it doth merit and deserve the same. Fourthly, the Apostle by making an incomparable difference of the glory to come with the afflictions of this time, doth (as S. Chrisostom saith) exhort them the more vehemently and move them to sustain all things the more willingly: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but if he said as they translate, The afflictions are not worthy of heaven, you are never the nearer heaven for them, only believe: this had not been to exhort them, but to discourage them. 
2 Cor. 4. v. 17.  Fifthly, the Apostle when he will else where encourage them to suffer, saith plainly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Our tribulation which presently is for a moment and light, WORKETH above measure exceedingly, an eternal weight of glory in us.  
7 See you not a comparison between short and eternal, light tribulation, & exceeding weighty glory: and yet that one also worketh the other, that is, causeth, purchaseth, and deserveth the other? for, like as the little seed being not comparable to the great tree, yet causeth it and bringeth it forth: so out tribulations & good works otherwise incomparable to eternal glory, by the virtue of God's grace working in us, worketh, purchaseth, and causeth the said glory. for so they know very well the Greek word importeth: 
See this Greek Word. 2 Cor. 7. thrice. Where themselves translate it, causeth, Worketh v. 10.11.  though here also they translate it most falsely, prepareth. Bib. an. 1577.  
8 Lastly, for most manifest evidence, that these present tribulations and other good works are meritorious & worthy of the joys to come, though not comparable to the same: you shall hear the holy Doctors say both in one passage or sentence. 
ep. 56. nu. 3.  S. Cyprian thus: O what manner of day shall come, my brethren, when our Lord shall recount the MERITS of every one, and pay us the reward or stipend of faith and devotion? 
Singulorum merita.  Ep. 56. here are merits & the reward for the same. It followeth in the said Doctor, What glory shall it be, and how great joy, to be admitted to see God, so to be honoured that thou receive the joy of eternal life with Christ thy Lord God, to receive there that which neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, nor hath ascended into the heart of man for, that we shall receive greater things, than here either we do, or suffer, the Apostle pronounceth, saying, The passions of this time are not condign or comparable to the glory to come, Here we see that the stipend or reward of the merits aforesaid, are incomparably greater than the said merits.  
9 Likewise S. Augustine: 
Ser. 37. de Sanctis.  The exceeding goodness of God hath provided this, that the labours should soon be ended, 
praemia meritorum.  but the rewards of the MERITS should endure without end: the Apostle testifying, THE PASSIONS OF THIS TIME ARE NOT COMPARABLE etc. For we shall receive greater bliss, then are the afflictions of all passions whatsoever. Thus we see plainly, that short tribulations are true merits of endless glory, though not comparable to the same: which truth you impugn by your false and heretical translation. But let us see further your dealing in the self same controversy, to make it plainer that you bend your translations against it, more than the text of the Scripture doth permit you.  
10 In the book of wisdom, where there is honourable mention of the merits of Saints and their rewards in heaven, the holy Scripture saith thus: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. dignos se. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  God hath proved them, and findeth them MEET FOR HIMSELF. To omit here that you use the present tense, whereas in the Greek they are preter tenses (God knoweth why, only this we know, that it is no true nor sincere tranlation) but to wink at smaller faults, why say you here in all your Bibles, that God findeth his Saints and holy servants meet for himself, and not, worthy of himself? See your partiality, and be ashamed.  
11 In the Apostles places before examined, you said negatively, that the afflictions of this time were NOT WORTHY OF the glory to come, the Greek not bearing that translation: but here, when you should say affirmatively, and that word for word after the Greek, that God found them WORTHY OF HIMSELF, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  there you say, MEET FOR HIMSELF, avoiding the term, worthy, because merit is included therein. So that when you will in your translation deny merits, 
Condignae ad gloriam.  then condignae ad, signifieth, worthy of: when you should in your traslation affirm merits, 
dignos se.  than Dignus with an ablative case doth not signify, worthy of. No matuel if such wilfulness will not see the word merit, or that which is equivalent thereto, in all the Scripture. for when you do see it, and should translate it, you suppress it by an other word. But this is a case worthy of examination, 
Merit of good works plainly proved by the Scriptures.  whether the Scripture have the word, merit, or the equivalent thereof. for we will force them even by their own translations, to confess that it is found there, and that they should translate it accordingly often when they do not, yea, that if we did not see it in the vulgar Latin translation, yet they must needs see it and find it in the Greek.  
12 First when they translate the foresaid place thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glory to come: they mean this, deserve not the glory to come, for to that purpose they do so translate it, as hath been declared. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Again, when it is said, The workman is worthy of his hire or wages: What is meant, but that he deserveth his wages? And more plainly Tob. 9 they translate thus: Brother Azarias, 
non ero condignus providentiae.  if I should give myself to be thy servant. I shall not DESERVE thy providence. And such like. If then in these places, both the Greek & the Latin signify, to be worthy of, or, not to be worthy of, to deserve, or, not to deserve: then they must allow us the same signification and virtue of the same words in other like places. Namely Apoc. 5. of our saviours merits, thus: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  The lamb that was killed, IS WORTHY to receive power and riches, etc. What is that to say, but, DESERVETH to receive? For so I trust they will allow us to say of our Saviour, that he in deed deserved. Again, of the damned, 
Apoc. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  thus: Thou hast given them blood to drink, for they ARE WORTHY. or, THEY HAVE DESERVED. is it not all one? lastly of the elect, thus: They shall walk with me in white, because they are worthy, Apoc. 3. that is, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Digni sunt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dignos se.  because they deserve it. and so in the place before by them corrupted, God found them worthy of him: that is, such as deserved to be with him in eternal glory. Thus by their own translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and dignus, are plainly deduced, worthiness, desert, and merit of saints, out of the Scriptures.  
13 But to proceed one step further, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify deserte●  we prove it also to be in the Scriptures, thus. Themselves translate thus Heb. 10, 29. Of how much sorer punishment shall he be worthy, which treadeth under foot the son of God? though one of their Bibles of the year 1562, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  very falsely and corruptly leaveth out the words, worthy of, saying thus, How much sorer shall he be punished &c: Fearing no doubt by translating the Greek word sincerely, this consequence that now I shall infer. to wit, If the Greek word here, by their own translation, signify to be worthy of, or, to deserve, being spoken of pains and punishment deserved: then must they grant us the same word so to signify else where in the new Testament, when it is spoken of deserving heaven and the kingdom of God. as in these places. Luc. 21. Watch therefore, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  all times praying, that you MAY BE WORTHY to stand before the son of man. and c. 20. THEY THAT ARE WORTHY to attain to that world & to the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  nor are married. & 2 Thess. 1. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That you may BE WORTHY of the kingdom of God, for which also ye suffer.  
14 Thus you should translate in all these places, according to your translation of the former place to the hebrews: or at the leastwise you should have this sense and meaning, as the old wulgar Latin hath, translating in all these places, 
Qui digni babebuntur.  digni habeamini.  counted worthy, but meaning worthy in deed: as when it is said, Abraham was reputed just, it is meant, he was just in deed. If you also have this meaning in your translations, which here follow the vulgar Latin: then we appeal to yourselves, whether, to be counted worthy, and to be worthy, & to deserve, and to merit, be not all one: and so here also Merit is deduced. But if you mean according to your heresy, to signify by translating, counted worthy, that they are not in deed worthy: then your purpose is heretical, and translation false and repugnant to your translating the same word in other places, as is declared, and now further we will declare.  
15 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make worthy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made. or to be worthy.  They whom God doth make worthy, they are truly and in deed worthy: are they not? but by your own translation of the same word in the active voice, God doth make them worthy. therefore in the passive voice it must also signify to be made or to be in deed worthy. For example, 2 Thess. 1, 11. You translate thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  we also pray for you, THAT OUR GOD MAY MAKE YOU WORTHY of this calling. According to which translation, why did you not also in the self same chapter a little before translate thus: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That you MAY BE MADE WORTHY (and so be worthy) of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer? You know the case is like in both places. & in the Greek doctors you specially should know (by your ostentation of reading them in Greek) that they according to this use of holy Scripture, very often use also this word both actively & passively, to make worthy, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & to be made, or, to be worthy. See the Greek Liturgies.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  16 Which S. Chrysostom, to put all out of doubt, explicateth thus in other words, That he make us worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Ser. 1. de orando Deo. And upon the epistle to Titus c. 3. in the same sense passively, God grant we may all BE MADE WORTHY (or be worthy) of the good things promised to them that love him. And in an other place of the said doctor it must needs signify, to be worthy. as when he saith, In Colos. 1. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  No man liveth such a trade of life, that he is worthy of the kingdom, but all is his gift For to say thus, No man so liveth that he can be counted worthy of the kingdom of heaven: is against the Protestants own opinion, which say they are counted worthy, that are not. Again, to say, No man so liveth that he can be made worthy: is false, because God can make the worst man worthy. It remaineth then to say, No man so liveth that he is worthy. Which a little before he declareth thus, No man by his own proper merits obtaineth the kingdom of heaven. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that is, as his own, and of himself without the grace of God. And yet we must show further out of the Scriptures, that God maketh us worthy, and so we are in deed worthy, and here also we must convince you of false and partial interpretation.  
17 The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (I pray you) what doth it signify? you must answer that it signifieth not only, meet, but also, worthy. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for so Beza teacheth you, & so you translate Mat. 3, 11. etc. 8, 8. & 1 Cor. 15, 9 I am not worthy, in all three places. And why (I pray you) did you not likewise follow the old Latin interpreter one step further, saying, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Col. 1. v. 12.  Giving thanks to God the father THAT HATH MADE US WORTHY, but translating rather thus, Which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. Here was the place where you should have showed your sincerity, and have said that God maketh us worthy of heavenly bliss. because you know if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be worthy, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make worthy. But you are like to Beza your Master, who (as though all interpretation of words were at his commandment) saith, here and here and so forth I have followed the old Latin interpreter, translating it, worthy: 
Annot. in 3. Mat. No. Test. 1556.  but in such and such a place (meaning this for one) I chose rather to say, MEET. 
Idoneum dicere malui.  but that both he and you should here also have translated, worthy, the Greek fathers shall teach you, if we be not worthy, or able to control so mighty Grecians, as you pretend to be when you crow upon your own dunghill, otherwise in your translations showing small skill, or great malice.  
18 The Greek fathers (I say) interpret the Apostles word here, thus: 
Oecum. in Caten.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is, hath made us worthy, and given us the grace to be worthy. and S. Basil in orat. Liturg. making both Greek words all one, saith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  THOU HAST MADE US WORTHY to be ministers of thy holy altar. and anon after, MAKE US WORTHY for this ministery. And S. Chrisost. upon the Apostles place, God doth not only give us society with the Saints, but maketh us also worthy to receive so great dignity. And here is a goodly consideration of the goodness of God toward us, that doth in deed by his grace make us worthy of so great things, who otherwise are most unworthy, vile, and abject. Which making of us worthy, is expressed by the said Greek words, more than by the Latin, mereri, because it declareth whence our merit and worthiness proceedeth. to wit, 
Ho. de Cruee & latrone.  of God. both which S. Chrysostom expresseth excellently thus: When he brought in Publicans to the kingdom of heaven, be defamed not the kingdom of heaven, but magnified it also with great honours, showing that there is such a Lord of the kingdom of heaven, which hath made even unworthy persons to be so much better, 
 etiam illius dignitatis gloriam mererentur.  that they should deserve even the glory of that dignity. And Occumenius saith, that it is God's glory, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  TO MAKE HIS SERVANTS WORTHY of such good things: and that it is their glory, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  TO HAVE BEEN MADE WORTHY of such things. in 2, Thess. 1.  
19 Thus we see how the holy Scripture useth equivalent words to signify, merit, which you suppress as much as you can. So likewise we might tell you of other words and phrases that do plainly import and signify merit. as when it is said Ecclesiastici 16. Every man shall find according to his works. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Budee both your Master and ours in the Greek tongue, telleth us that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (to find) is properly to receive for that which a man hath given or laboured. & to requite you with some profane authority, because you delight much in that kind) the whole oration of Demosthenes' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will tell you the same. Now, to receive for that which a man hath laboured or wrought, what doth it else presuppose, but merit & desert? It is a common phrase of the Scripture, that God will judge and reward or repay according to every man's works. 
Ecclici 16. Psal. 61. Apoc. 22.  doth not this include merit & demerit of works? but I wot not how, nor wherefore, in this case you translate sometime, deeds, for works, saying, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Who will reward every man according to his deeds. and again, You see then how that of deeds a man is justified, and not of faith only.  
20 I know you will tell us that you use to say deeds or works indifferently, as also you may say, that you put no difference between just and righteous, meet and worthy, but use both indifferently. To the ignorant this is a fair answer, and shall soon persuade them: but they that see further, must needs suspect you, till you give a good reason of your doing. For, the controversy being of faith and works, of justice and justification by works, of the worthiness or valour of works: why do you not precisely keep these terms pertaining to the controversy, the Greek words being always pregnant in that signification? Why should you once translate the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deeds, rather than, works. You know it is properly, works, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deeds. It were very good in matters of controversy to be precise. 
Prefat. in no. Test. 1556.  Beza maketh it a great fault in the old vulgar Latin translator, that he expresseth one Greek word in Latin divers ways. You chop & change significations here and there as you list, and you think you satisfy the reader marvelous well, if sometime you say idol, and not always, images: sometime just, and not always righteous: & if in other places you say works, or if one Bible hath works, where an other hath deeds, you think this is very well, and will answer all the matter sufficiently. God and your conscience be judge herein, and let the wise reader consider it deeply. The least thing that we demand the reason of, rather than charge you withal, is, why your Church bible saith in the places before alleged, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The righteous judgement of God, which will reward every man according to his deeds. and, man is justified by deeds, and not by faith only, Whereas you know the Greek is more pregnant for us then so, and the matter of controversy would better appear on our side, if you said thus: The JUST judgement of God, which will reward every man according to his WORKS. and, Man is justified by works, and not by faith only.  
21 But will you not yet see merit and meritorious works in the Scripture? I marvel your skill in the Greek teacheth you nothing in this point. S. john saith: 
2. Epist. v. 8.  Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Me thinketh, in these words the equivalent of merit is easily seen of any man that is not wilfully blind. but you should see further than the common sort. for you know that the Greek here signifieth, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not only that which we work, but that which we work for. as in the Greek phrase of working for a man's living, & as you translate 10.6. v. 27. LABOUR NOT FOR THE MEAT that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto life everlasting. Such 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 20.  labourer's God hired to work in his vineyard, and 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 10.  the workman is worthy of his hire. So that the Apostle in the former words exhorteth to perseuêrance, that we lose not the reward or pay, for which we work, and which by working we merit and deserve.  
22 Again Beza telleth us, 
Annot. in Ro c. 1. v. 27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth mercedem quae meritis respondet, that is, a reward answerable to the merits. and we find many words in the Scripture like unto this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
* Hebr. 10. & 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Which are on God's part, who is the rewarder and recompenser. and on our part we have (as the Apostle saith, Hebr. 10. & 4) great confidence. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  confidence (saith Photius a notable Greek father) of our works, confidence of our faith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Phot. apud Occu. in Hebr. 10. Ps. 18. & 118. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of our temptations, of our patience. etc. Yea we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scripture, which must needs signify as much as Bezaes' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By the one, is said, In keeping thy commandments is great reward. Again, You shall receive THE RETRIBUTION of inheritance. Col. 3. v. 24. And 2 Thessal. 1. v. 6. God's repaying just and retribution of Hell or Heaven for good and evil deserts, is expressed by the same word. & by the other, is said, I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications (or commandments) always FOR REWARD. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
23 But all this will not suffice you. for wheresoever you can possibly you will have an evasion. and therefore in this later place you run to the ambiguity of the Hebrew word, and translate thus: I have applied my heart to fulfil thy statutes always, EVEN UNTO THE END. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Alas my masters, are not the seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to determine the ambiguity of this word? is not S. Hierom, in his translation according to the Hebrew? are not all the ancient fathers both Greek and Latin? It is ambiguous (say you) and therefore you take your liberty. You do so in deed, and that like Princes. for in an other place, where the Greek hath determined, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  you follow it with all your heart, saying, fall down before his footstool, because he is holy: whereas the ambiguity of the Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  would have borne you to say, as in the vulgar Latin, because it is holy. and so it maketh for holiness of places, which you can not abide.  
24 But you use (you say) the ambiguity of the Hebrew. Take heed that your liberty in taking all advantages, against the common and approved interpretation of the whole Church, be not very suspicious. for if it do signify also reward, as (you know) it doth very commonly, and yourself so translate it (Psal. 18, v. 11) when you can not choose: and if the Septuaginta do here so translate it in Greek, and 
* Propter aeternam retributionem. scz vitae aeternae, ut eam merear percipere. in comment.  S. Hierom in his Latin translation according to the Hebrew, and the ancient fathers in their commentaries: what upstart new Masters are you that set all these to school again, and teach the world a new translation? If you will say, you follow our own great Hebrician, saints Pagninus. why did you follow him in his translation, rather than in his Lexicon called Thesaurus, where he interpreteth it as the whole Church did before him? Why did you follow him (or Benedictus Arias either) in this place, and do not follow them in the self same case, a little before translating that very Hebrew word which is in this place, 
Psalm. 118. v. 112.  propter retributionem, for reward? So that you follow nothing, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  neither judgement nor, learning in Hebrew or Greek, but only your own error and Heresy, which is, that we may not do well in respect of reward, or, for reward. and therefore because the holy Prophet David said of himself the contrary, that he did bend his whole heart to keep God's commandments for reward, you make him say an other thing.  
25 And to this purpose perhaps it is (for other cause I can not guess) that you make such a marvelous transposition of words in your translation (Mat. 19) saying thus: When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his majesty, ye that have followed me in the regeneration, shall sit also upon twelve seats. Whereas the order of these words both in Greek and Latin, is this: You that have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in his majesty, you also shall sit upon twelve seats. To follow Christ in the regeneration, is not easily understood what it should mean: but to sit with Christ in the regeneration, that is, in the resurrection, upon 12 seats, this is familiar and every man's interpretation, and concerneth the great reward that they shall then have, which here follow Christ as the Apostles did.  
26 The like transpostion of words is in some of your Bibles (Hebr. 2. v. 9) thus. 
no. Test. 1580.  We see JESUS crowned with glory and honour, which was a little inferior to the Angels, through the suffering of death. Whereas both in Greek and Latin, the order of the words is thus: Him that was made a little inferior to Angels, we see JESUS, through the passion of death, crowned with honour and glory. In this later, the Apostle saith, that Christ was crowned for his suffering death, and so by his death merited his glory. but by your translation, he saith that Christ was made inferior to Angels by his suffering death, 
 mori posset.  that is (saith Beza) For to suffer death: and taking it so, that he was made inferior to Angels, that he might die, than the other sense is clean excluded, that for suffering death he was crowned with glory: & this is one place among other, whereby it may very well be gathered that * 
See Calvin in epist. ad Philip.  some of you think that Christ himself did not merit his own glory and exaltation. So obstinately are you set against merits and meritorious works. To the which purpose also you take away man's free will, as having no ability to work toward his own salvation.   

CHAP. X. Heretical translation against FREE WILL.  
AGAINST free will your corruptions be these. Io. 1, 12. where it is said, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God: 
no. Test. 1580.  some of your translations say, he gave them prerogative to be the sons of God. Beza, dignity. Who protesteth that whereas in other places often he translated this Greek word, power and authority, here he refused both, in deed against free will, which he saith the sophists would prove out of this place, reprehending Erasmus for following them in his translation. 
 liceret filios Dei fieri  But whereas the Greek word is in different to signify dignity, or liberty, he that will translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the holy Ghost and determineth it to his own fancy. If you may translate, dignity: may not we as well translate it, liberty? yes surely. For you know it signifieth the one as well as the other both in profane and Divine writers. and you can well call to mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence they are derived, and that the Apostle calleth a man's liberty of his own will, 
1 Cor. 7, 17.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now than if potestas in Latin, and power in English, be words also indifferent to signify both dignity and liberty, translate so in the name of God, and leave the text of the Scripture indifferent as we do: and for the sense whether of the two it doth here rather signify, or whether it doth not signify both (as no doubt it doth, & the fathers so expound it) let that be examined otherwise. It is a common fault with you and intolerable, by your translation to abridge the sense of the holy Ghost to one particular understanding, and to defeat the exposition of so many fathers, that expound it in an other sense and signification. As is plain in this example also following.  
2 The Apostle (1 Cor. 15, 10.) saith thus: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I, laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Which may have this sense, not I, but the grace of God which is with me, as S. Hierom sometime expoundeth it: or this, not I, but the grace of God which laboured with me. & by this later is most evidently signified, that the grace of God and the Apostle, both laboured together, and not only grace, as though the Apostle had done nothing▪ like unto a block, forced only: but that the grace of God did so concur as the principal agent with all his labours, that his free will wrought withal. Against which truth & most approved interpretation of this place, you translate according to the former sense only, making it the very text, & so excluding all other senses and commentaries, as your masters Calvin & Beza taught you, who should not have taught you if you were wise, to do that which neither they nor you can justify. They reprehend first the vulgar Latin interpreter for neglecting the Greek article, and secondly them that by occasion thereof, would by this place prove free will. by which their commentary they do plainly declare their intent and purpose in their translation, to be directly against free will.  
3 But concerning the Greek article omitted in translation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  if they were but Grammarians in both tongues, they might know that the Greek article many times can not be expressed in Latin, and that this is one felicity & prerogative of the Greek phrase above the Latin, to speak more briefly, commodiously, and significantly, by the article. What need we go to Terence and Homer, as they are want? Is not the Scripture full of such speeches? jacobus Zebedaei, jacobus Alphaei, judas jacobi, Maria Cleophae, and the like, Are not all these sincerely translated into Latin, though the Greek article be not expressed? Can you express the article, but you must add more than the article, and so add to the text, as you do very boldly in such speeches through out the new Testament, yea you do it when there is no article in the Greek: as Io. 5, 36. 
(witness) (sins.)  and 1 ep. Io. 2, 2. Yea sometime of an heretical purpose: 
Bib. 1562.  as Eph. 3. By whom we have boldness and entrance with the confidence which is by the faith of him, or, in him, as it is in other your bibles. 
No. Test. 1580.  You say, confidence which is by faith, as though there were no confidence by works: you know the Greek beareth not that translation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  unless there were an article after, confidence, which is not, but you add it to the text heretically. as also Beza doth the like (Ro. 8, 2.) and your Geneva English Testaments after him, for the heresy of imputative justice: as in his Annotations he plainly deduceth, saying confidently, I doubt not but a Greek article must be understood, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and therefore (forsooth) put into the text also. He doth the same in S. james 2, v. 20: still debating the case in his Annotations why he doth so, and when he hath concluded in his fancy, that this or that is the sense, he putteth it so in the text, and translateth accordingly. No marvel now, if they reprehend the vulgar Latin interpreter for not translating the Greek article in the place which we began to treat of, when they find articles lacking in the Greek text itself, and boldly add them for their purpose in their translation. Whereas the vulgar Latin interpretation is in all these places so sincere, that it neither addeth nor diminisheth, nor goeth one jot from the Greek.  

Non ego, sed gratia Dei mecum.  4 But you will say in the place to the Corinthians, there is a Greek article, and therefore there you do well to express it. I answer, first, the article may then be expressed in translation, when there can be but one sense of the same: secondly, that not only it may, but it must be expressed, when we can not otherwise give the sense of the place. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as Mat. 1, 6. Ex ea quae fuit Vriae. Where you see the vulgar interpreter omitteth it not, but knoweth the force & signification thereof very well. marry in the place of S. Paul which we now speak of, where the sense is doubtful, & the Latin expresseth the Greek sufficiently otherwise, he leaveth it also doubtful and indifferent, not abridging it as you do, saying, the grace of God which is with me: nor as Calvin, gratia quae mihi aderat: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  nor as Illyricus, gratia quae mihi adest. Which two later are more absurd than yours, because they omit and neglect altogether the force of the preposition, cum, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which you express saying, with me. but because you say, which is with me: you mean heretically as they do, to take away the Apostles cooperation and labouring together with the grace of God, by his free will: which is by the article and the preposition most evidently signified.  
5 And here I appeal to all that have skill in Greek speeches and Phrases, whether the Apostles words in Greek, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  sound not thus: I laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God (that laboured) with me. Understanding not the participle of Sum, but of the verb going before. as in the like case when our Saviour saith, It is not you that speak, but the holy Ghost that speaketh in you. If he had spoken short thus, but the holy Ghost in you, you perhaps would translate as you do here, the holy Ghost WHICH IS IN YOU. but you see the verb going before is rather repeated, Not you speak, but the holy Ghost THAT SPEAKETH IN YOU. Even so, Not I laboured, but the grace of God labouring with me, or, WHICH LABOURED WITH ME. So prayeth the wise man Sap. 9, 10. Send wisdom out of thy holy heavens, that she may be with me, and labour with me as yourselves translate. 
Et mecum laboret.  Bib. 1577.  
6 And so the Apostle calleth himself and his fellow preachers, Gods coadjutors, collabourers, or such as labour and work with God, which also you falsely translate, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, S. Augustine, Cooperarij, & 2 Cor. 6, 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  God's labourers, to take away all cooperation, and in some of your Bible's most foolishly and peevishly, as though you had sworn not to translate the Greek, We together are Gods labourers. as well might you translate (Ro. 8, 17) that we together be Christ's heirs: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for that, which the Apostle saith coheirs, or joint heirs with him: the phrase and speech (as you know) in Greeke being all one. So doth Beza most falsely translate, 
Eph. 2. v. 5.  una vivificavit nos per Christum, for that which is plain in the Greek, He hath quickened us together with Christ, Where the English Bezites leave also the Greek, 
The English translators are ashamed of their Master.  and follow our vulgar Latin translation rather than Beza, who goeth so wide from the Greek, that for shame they dare not follow him. Fie upon such hypocrisy & pretenced honour of God, that you will not speak in the same terms that the holy Scripture speaketh, but rather will teach the holy Ghost how to speak, in not translating as he speaketh. As though these phrases of Scripture, men are Gods coadjutors, coworkers with his grace, raised with Christ, coheirs with him, compartakers of glory with him, were all spoken to the dishonour of God and Christ, & as though these being the speeches of the holy Ghost himself, needed your reformation in your English translations. Otherwise if you mean well, and would say as we say, that whatsoever good we do, we do it by God's grace, and yet work the same by our free will together with God's grace as the mover and helper and director of our will: why do you not translate in the foresaid place of S. Paul accordingly?  
7 You say moreover in some of your Bibles thus: So lieth it not then in a man's will or running, 
Bib. 1562. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but in the mercy of God. Whatsoever you mean, you know this translation is very dissolute and wide from the Apostles words, and not true in sense. for salvation is in willing and running: 
Aug. Serm. 15 de verb. Apostoli.  according to that famous saying of S. Augustine, He that made thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee: that is, against thy will, or, unless thou be willing. and the Apostle saith, No man is crowned, 
2 Timoth. 2. 1 Cor. 9 Rom. 2. Mat. 19  unless he fight lawfully. and again, So run THAT YOU MAY obtain. and again, The doers of the Law shall be justified. And our Saviour, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. We see then that it is in willing, and running, & doing: but to will, or run, or do, are not of man, but of God's mercy. and so the Apostle speaketh, It is not of the willer, nor runner, but of God that hath mercy. And it is much to be marveled, why you said not, It lieth not in the willer, nor in the runner: which is near to the Apostles words, but so far of, in a man's will and running.  
8 Again, touching continency & the chaste single life, you translate thus: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  All men can not receive this saying. Mat. 19 v. 11. Now you wot well, 
marvelous strange translation.  that our Saviour saith not, All men can not, but, all men do not receive it: and that therefore, 
De great & lib. arb. c. 4.  (as S. Augustine saith) because all will not. But when our Saviour afterwards saith, He that CAN receive it, let him receive it: he addeth an other Greek word to express that sense. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  whereas by your fond translation he might have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and again by your translation, you should translate these his later words thus: He that can or is able to receive it, let him be able to receive it. For so you translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before, as though it were all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Do you not see your folly, & falsehood, & boldness, to make the reader believe that our Saviour should say, Every man can not live chaste, it is impossible for them, and therefore no man should vow chastirie, because he knoweth not whether he can live so or no?  
9 Again in some of your Bibles (Gen. 4. v. 7.) where God saith plainly, 
Bibl. 1579.  that Cain should receive according as he did well or evil, because sin was subject unto him, and he had the rule and dominion thereof, evidently declaring his free will: you translate it thus, If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door: and also unto thee HIS desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over HIM. By which relatives falsely put in the masculine gender, you, exclude the true antecedent sin, and refer them to Abel cain's brother. as though God had said, not that sin should be in his dominion or subject unto him, but his brother Abel. But that this is most false and absurd, we prove many ways. First S. Augustine saith directly the contrary: 
Li. 15. c. 7. de Civit. Dei.  Tu dominaberis illius: nunquid Fratris? absit. cuius igitur nisi peccati. Thou shalt rule (saith he) over what? Over thy brother? Not so. over what then but sin? 
Quaest. Heb. in Genes.  S. Hierom also explicateth this place thus: Because thou hast free will, I warn thee that sin have not dominion over thee, but thou over sin. Moreover the text itself, if nothing else, is sufficient to convince this absurdity. For where this word, sin, goeth immediately before in the same sentence, and not one word of Abel his brother in that speech of God to Cain, how is it possible, or what coherence can there be in saying as you translate, Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion over him, that is, thy brother. but if we say thus, Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion thereof: it hath this direct & plain sense, If thou dost ill, sin lieth at the door ready to condemn thee, because it is in thee to overrule it.  
10 Now if against the coherence of the text, and exposition of the holy Doctors and of the whole Church of God, you pretend the Hebrew grammar forsooth, as not bearing such construction: not to trouble the common reader that can not judge of these things, and yet fully to satisfy every man even of common understanding, we request here the Adversaries themselves to tell us truly according to their knowledge and skill, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  whether the Hebrew construction or point of grammar be not all one in these words, Sin LIETH at the door: & in these, the desire THEREOF shall be subject to thee, & thou shalt rule over IT. If they say (as they must needs) that the Hebrew construction or Syntaxis is all one, then will it follow that the Hebrew beareth the one as well as the other: & therefore when the self same translation of theirs maketh no scruple of Grammar in the former, but translate as we do, Sin lieth at the door: a blind man may see that in the later words also, the Hebrew is but a foolish pretence, and that the true cause of translating them otherwise, proceedeth of an heretical humour, to obscure and deface this so plain and evident Scripture for man's free will.  
11 And as for the Hebrew grammar in this point, were it not for troubling the reader, we could tell them that the word, sin, in Hebrew is not here of the soeminine gender (as they suppose) but of the masculine. so saith S. Hierom expressly upon this place, 
q. Hebr. in Genes.  who had as much knowledge in the Hebrew tongue as all these new Doctors. Aben Ezra also the great rabbin, in his Hebrew commentaries upon this text, saith, it is a mere forgery and fiction to refer the masculine relative otherwise then to the word, sin: which, though else where 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 verb, adjective, pronoun, or participle joined with the same: as the said Hebrew doctor doth in the word, paradise, Gen. 2. which there by the pronownes he pronounceth to be a feminine, though else where a masculine. Lastly, if the word, sin, were here and always only afeminine, & never a masculine: yet they have little skill in the Hebrew tongue, that think it strange to match masculines and feminines together in very good and grammatical construction. Whereof they may see a whole chapter in Sanctes Pagninus with this title, Foeminea masculeis juncta. that is, Feminines joined with masculines.  
12 Now for the last refuge, if they will say all this needed not, because in other their bibles it is as we would have it: we tell them, they must justify and make good all their translations, because the people readeth all, and is abused by all, and all come forth with privilege, printed by the Q. printer etc. If they will not, let them confess the faults, and call them in, and tell us which translation or translations they will stand unto. In the mean time they must be content to hear of all indifferently, as there shall be cause and occasion to touch them.  
13 Again they translate in some of their Bibles against free will, 
no. Test. 1580.  thus, Christ, when we were yet OF NO STRENGTH, died for the ungodly Ro. 5. v. 6. The Apostles word doth not signify that we had no strength, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but that we were weak, feeble, infirm. Man was wounded in free will by the sin of Adam (as he that in the Gospel went down from Jerusalem to jericho, 
Luc. 10.  which is a parable of this thing) he was not slain altogether. but I stand not here, or in any place to dispute the controversy, that is done else where. This only I say, because * 
whitaker's pag. 18.  they falsely hold that free will was altogether lost by Adam's sin, therefore they translate accordingly, When we had no strength. But the Greek word is well known both in profane authors and Ecclesiastical, and specially in the new Testament itself, through out, to signify nothing else, but, weak, feeble, sick, infirm. 
Multi inter vos infirmi sunt etc. 1 Cor. 11. v. 30. Cùm infirmor, tum potens sum. 2 Cor. 12. v. 10. & alibi.  look me through the new Testament, wheresoever, infirmity, feebleness, languishing, and the like are spoken of, there is found this Greek word to express it. What Grecian knoweth not (be he but simply acquainted with phrases and nature of words) what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do signify. When the Apostle saith, Quis infirmatur, & ego non uror? 
2 Cor. 11, 29  Who is weak and infirm, and I am not much grieved? shall we translate, who is of no strength, etc. or let them give us an instance, where it is certain that this word must needs signify, of no strength. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privatiwm. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Will they pretend the etymology of the word? a ridiculous and absurd evasion. we ask them of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word of the very same signification, which being compounded in like manner as the other, what doth it signify? any thing else but infirmity and feebleness? Yea it is so far from signifying, no strength, 
Lexicon magnum Basileae.  that the greatest Grecians say, it is not spoken properly of him that for weakness keepeth his bed, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but of him that is il disposed and distempered in body. Yet the etymology is all one with that word which these men will have to signify him that hath no strength. And if they will needs urge the etymology, we tell them, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify, robur, that is, great strength such as is in the strongest and stoutest champions. and so the etymology may take place, to signify a man of no great strength, not, of no strength. 
pag. 209.  But M. Whitaker putteth us in good hope, they will not stand upon etymologies.  
14 When they have bereaved and spoiled a man of his free will, & left him without all strength, they go so far in this point, that * 
Beza in Annot. Ro. 2, 27.  they say, the regenerate themselves have not free will and ability, no not by and with the grace of God, to keep the commandments. To this purpose they translate (Io. 5, 3) thus: 
Man dara eius gravia non sunt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  His commandments are not heavy. for in saying, they are not heavy, it would follow, they might be kept & observed: but in saying, they are not grievous, that may be true, were they never so heavy or impossible, through patience. As when a man can not do as he would, yet it grieveth him not, being patiented and wise, because he is content to do as he can, and is able. Therefore do they choose to translate, that the commandments are not grievous, where the Apostle saith rather, they are not heavy. much more agreeably to our saviours words, My burden is light: and to the words of God by Moses, Deu. 30. This commandment which I command thee this day, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is not above thee (that is, beyond thy reach) but the word is very near thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that thou mayest do it: and to the common signification of the Greek word, which is, heavy. Beza would say somewhat in his commentary, how the commandments are heavy or light, but his conclusion is against free will, and that there can be no perfection in this life, inveighing against them that would prove it out of this place: which is as much to say (but he is ashamed to speak plainly) that we can not keep the commandments: which the holy Doctors have long since condemned & abhorred as most absurd, that God should command that, under pain of damnation, which is impossible to be done.  
15 Thus having taken away free will to do good, and possibility to keep the commandments, and all merit or valour and efficacy of good works, their next conclusion is, that we have no true justice or righteousness in us, but an imputative justice, that is, Christ's justice imputed to us, be we never so foul and filthy in our souls, so that we believe only, and by faith apprehend Christ's justice. For this purpose they corrupt the Scriptures in their English bibles, thus.   

CHAP XI. Heretical translation for IMPUTATIVE JUSTICE, against true inherent justice.  
1 ONE place might suffice, in steed of many, where Beza doth protest, that his adding or alteration of the text, is, specially against the execrable error of inherent justice, 
Annot. in Rom. 5, 18.  which (he saith) is to be avoided as nothing more. His false translation, thus our English Bezites and Caluinists follow in their Bibles. Likewise then as by the offence of one, 
Rom. 5.  the fault came on all men to condemnation: so by the justifying of one, the benefit abounded, toward all men to the justification of life. Where there are added to the text of the Apostle, six words: and the same so wilfully and voluntarily, that by the three first, they make the Apostle say, sin came on all men by Adam, and they were made sinners in deed: by the three later, they make him say, not that justice or righteousness came likewise on all men by Christ, to make them just in deed, but that the benefit of Christ's justice abounded towards them, as being imputed forsooth unto them. Whereas, if they Would needs add to the text (which yet is intolerable, so much, and in so doubtful a case) they should at the least have made the case equal, as the Apostle himself teacheth them to do, in the very next sentence, saying thus, For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many also be made righteous. so they translate, rather than, be made just. For they are the loathest men in the world to say that we are made just, for fear of justice inherent in us, though the Scripture be never so plain. as here we see the Apostle maketh the case like, that we are made just by Christ, as we were made sinners by Adam.  
2 And it is a world to see, how Beza shifteth from one signification of the word justified, or, made just, to an other. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. absolui. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. absoluitur.  Sometime to be justified, is to be pronounced quit from all sin, or declared just before God's judgement seat; & so he translateth it in the text Act. 13. v. 39 and as though his guilty conscience were afraid of a blow, he saith he fleeth not the term of justifying or justification, because he useth it in other places. He doth so in deed, but then his commentary supplieth the turn: as Ro. 2. v. 13. Not the hearers of the Law are RIGHTEOUS before God (so they delight to translate, rather than, JUST before God) but the doers of the Law shall be IUS TIFIED. 
justi pronunctabuntur.  that is (saith Beza) shall be pronounced just. The Apostle must needs say by the coherence and consequence of his words, not the hearers are just, but the doers shall be just or justified. Beza will in no case have it so, but either in text or commentary make the Apostle say as himself imagineth. 
Annot. Ro. 3. v. 20.  Yet in an other place he protesteth very solemnly, that to be justified, is not, to be pronounced or accounted just, but rather to be just in deed: and that, he proveth out of S. Paul, Ro. 5. v. 19 who maketh it all one, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to be justified, &, to be made just. and again by this reason, that it should be manifestly repugnant to God's justice, to account him for just, that is not just, and therefore that man in deed is made just. Thus Beza. Would you not think, he were come to be of our opinion? but he revolteth again, & interpreteth all these goodly words in his old sense, 
non quasi nobis indatur qualitas.  saying, Not that any quality is inwardly given unto us, of which we are named just: but because the justice of Christ is imputed to us by faith freely. By faith then at the least we are truly justified. 
Annot. in Ro. 4. v. 2.  Not so neither, but faith (saith he) is an instrument wherewith we apprehended Christ our justice. So that we have no more justice in us, than we have glory: for glory also we apprehend by faith.  
3 For this purpose both he and the English Bibles translate thus: 
Pro justitia. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him FOR JUSTICE Ro. 4. v. 3. & 9 Where he interpreteth, for justice, to be nothing else but, 
Vice & loco  in the steed & place of justice: so also taking away true inherent justice even from Abraham himself. But to admit their translation (which notwithstanding in their sense is most false) must it needs signify, not true inherent justice, because the Scripture saith, it was reputed for justice? Do such speeches import, that it is not so in deed, but is only reputed so? Then if we say, This shall be reputed to thee for sin: for a great benefit, and so forth: it should signify, it is no sin in deed, nor great benefit. 
Reputabitur tibi in peccatum.  But let them call to mind, that the Scripture useth to speak of sin & of justice alike. It shall be sin in thee, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or, unto thee, as they translate Bibl. 1577: or as S. Hierom translateth, It shall be reputed to thee for sin: Deut. c. 23 & 24. and (as themselves translate) it shall be righteousness unto thee, before the Lord thy God. & again Deut. c. 6. This shall be our righteousness before the Lord our God, if we keep all the commandments, as he hath commanded us. If then justice only be reputed, sin also is only reputed: if sin be in us in deed, justice is in us in deed.  
4 Again the Greek fathers make it plain, that to be reputed unto justice, 
Oecum. in caten. Photius.  is to be true justice in deed, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  interpreting S. Paul's words in Greek, thus: Abraham obtained justice, Abraham was justified. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for that is, say they, It was reputed him to justice. Doth not S. james say the like, (c. 2. v. 23) testifying, that in that Abraham was justified by faith and works, the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, It was reputed him to justice? Gen. 15. v. 6. In which words of Genesis, where these words were first written by Moses, in the Hebrew there is not, for justice, or, in steed of justice, (which Beza pleadeth upon, by the Hebrew phrase) but thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  He (God) reputed it unto him, justice. though here also the English Bibles add, for. which, precisely translating the Hebrew they should not do, specially when they mean it was so counted or reputed for justice, that it was not justice in deed.  
5 But as for either the Hebrew or Greek word, that is here used, to repute or account, they are then used, when it must needs signify, that the thing is so in deed, and not only so reputed. as, Psal. 118. octonatio SAMEC. I have reputed or accounted all the sinners of the earth, prevaricators or transgressors. praevaricantes reputavi. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Cor. 4.  So did the Septuaginta take the Hebrew word and read it. And S. Paul, So let a man repute or account us as the Ministers of Christ. Let them go now & say, that neither they, were sinners in deed, nor these, Christ's ministers in deed, because they were reputed for such. let them say the children of the promise were not the seed of Abraham, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  because the Apostle saith, Ro. 9 v. 8. they are reputed for the seed. But howsoever it be, the Protestants will have it so to be taken, at the least in the matter of justification.  
6 Again, where S. Paul saith, 2 Cor. 5. That we might be made the justice of God in him: they in their first translations, intolerably corrupt it thus. That we by his means should be that righteousness, 
Bib. 1562. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which BEFORE GOD IS ALLOWED. Who taught them to translate so dissolutely, justitia Dei, the righteousness which before God is allowed? did not their error and heresy, which is, that God reputeth and accounteth us for just, though we be in deed most foul sinners, and that our justice being none at all in us, yet is allowed and accepted before him for justice and righteousness?  
7 Again to this purpose: 
1 Eph. v. 6.  they make S. Paul say that God hath made us accepted, or freely accepted in his beloved son as they make the Angel in S. Luke say to our Lady, Hail freely beloved: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to take away all grace inherent & resident in the B. Virgin, or in us: whereas the Apostles word signifieth, that we are truly made gracious or grateful & acceptable, that is to say, that our soul is inwardly endued & beautified with grace & the virtues proceeding thereof, & consequently is holy in deed before the sight of God, & not only so accepted or reputed, as they imagine. If they know not the true signification of the Greek word, & if their heresy will suffer them to learn it, let them hear S. Chrysostom not only a famous Greek Doctor, but an excellent interpreter of all S. Paul's epistles: who in this place putteth such force and significancy in the Greek word, that he saith thus by an allusion and distinction of words: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He said not, WHICH HE FREELY GAVE US, but, WHEREIN HE MADE US GRATEFUL, that is, not only delivered us from sins, but also made us beloved and amiable, made our soul beautiful, grateful, such as the Angels and Archangels are desirous to see, and such as himself is in love withal, according to that in the Psalm, THE KING SHALL DESIRE, or BE IN LOVE WITH THY BEAUTY. So S. Chrysostom & after him Theophylacte, who with many more words & similitudes explicate this Greek word and this making of the soul gracious and beautiful inwardly, truly, and inherently.  
8 And I would gladly know of the Adversaries, if the like Greek words be not of that form and nature, to signify so much as, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to make worthy, to make meet: and whether he whom God maketh worthy, or meet, or grateful, just, and holy, be not so in very deed, but by acceptation only. if not in deed, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  than God maketh him no better than he was before, but only accepteth him for better: if he be so in deed, than the Apostles word signifieth not, to make accepted, but to make such an one as being by God's grace sanctified and justified, is worthy to be accepted, for such purity, virtue, and justice as is in him.  
9 Again, for this purpose (Dan. 6, 22.) they will not translate according to Chaldee, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek, and Latin, justice was found in me. but they altar it thus, My justice was found out. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & other of them, My unguiltinesse was found out. to draw it from inherent justice, which was in Daniel.  
10 Again, it must needs be a spot of the same infection, that they translate thus, As David DESCRIBETH the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ro. 4, 6. as though imputed righteousness were the description of blessedness. They know the Greek doth not signify, to describe. I would once see them precise in following the Greek and the Hebrew. if not, we must look to their fingers.   

CHAP. XII. Heretical translation for SPECIAL FAITH, vain security, and ONLY FAITH.  
ALL other means of salvation being thus taken away, their only & extreme refuge is, Only faith, and the same, not the Christian faith of the articles of the Creed and such like, but a special faith and confidence, whereby every man must assuredly believe, that himself is the son of God, and one of the elect and predestinate to salvation. If he be not by faith as sure of this as of Christ's Incarnation, he shall never be saved.  
2 For this heresy, they force the Greek to express the very word of assurance and certainty, thus: Let us draw nigh with a true heart, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  IN ASSURANCE OF FAITH. Heb. 10. v. 22. and Beza, certa persuasione fidei, that is, with a certain and assured persuasion of faith: interpreting himself 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 which we know assuredly without all doubt, that nothing can separate us from God. Which their heretical meaning maketh their translation the less tolerable, because they neither express the Greek precisely, nor intent the true sense of the Apostle. they express not the Greek, which signifieth properly the fullness and complement of any thing, and therefore the Apostle joineth it sometime with faith, else where (Hebr. 6. v. 11. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ) with hope, with knowledge, or (
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Col. 2. v. 2.) understanding, to signify the fullness of all three, as the vulgar Latin interpreter most sincerely (
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ro. 4. v. 21.) always translateth it: and to Timothee, (
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministerium tuum imple. An. 1577. an. 1562.  2 Tim. 4.) he useth it to signify the full accomplishment and execution of his ministery in every point. Where a man may wonder that Beza to maintain his conceived signification of this word, translateth here also accordingly, thus: Ministry tui plenam fidem facito: but their more current church English Bibles are content to say with the vulgar Latin interpreter, fulfil thy ministery: or, fulfil thine office to the utmost. and the Greek fathers do find no other interpretation. Thus, 
Ignat. Ep. Smyrn.  when the Greek signifieth fullness of faith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. Theodoret. Theophyl. upon. Ro. 10  rather than assurance or certain persuasion, they translate not the Greek precisely. Again in the sense they err much more, applying the foresaid words to the certain and assured faith that every man ought to have (as they say) of his own salvation. Whereas the Greek fathers expound it of the full and assured faith that every faithful man must have of all such things in heaven as he seethe not, namely that Christ is ascended thither, etc. adding further and proving out of the Apostles words next following, that the Protestants * 
Chryso. ho. 19 in c. 10. ad Hebr.  only faith is not sufficient, be it never so special or assured.  
3 Yet do these terms please them exceedingly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 us from the love of God. as though the Apostle were certain and assured not only of his own salvation, but of other men's. For to this sense they do so translate here, whereas in * 
Luc. 20, 6. Ro. 15, 14. Hebr. 6, 9  other places out of controversy, they translate the same word as they should do, I am persuaded. they are persuaded etc. For who knoweth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth only a probable persuasion? They will say that, I am sure, and I am persuaded, is all one. Being well meant, they may in deed signify alike, as the vulgar Latin interpreter doth commonly translate it, but in this place of controversy, whether the Apostle were sure of his salvation or no, which you say he was, yea without revelation, we say he was not: here why would you translate, I am sure, & not as in other places, I am persuaded, but in favour of your error, by insinuating the terms of sure, & assurance, and such like: as elsewhere you neglect the terms of just and justification. 
2 Cor. 4.  In which your secret things of dishonesties and craftiness (as the Apostle calleth it) we can not always use demonstrations to convince you: but yet even in these things we talk with your conscience, and leave the consideration thereof to the wise reader.  
4 You hold also in this kind of controversy, that a man must assure himself that his sins be forgiven. but in the book of Ecclicus c. 5. v. 5. we read thus, Of thy sin forgiven, be not without fear. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or (as it is in the Greek) Of forgiveness and propitiation be not without fear, to heap sin upon sins. Which you translate falsely thus: Because thy sin is forgiven thee, be not therefore without fear. Is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because thy sin is forgiven thee? You know it is not. but that we should be afraid of the very forgiveness thereof, whether our sin be forgiven or no, or rather, whether our sin shall be forgiven or no, if we heap one sin upon an other. Which seemeth to be the truest sense of the place, by the words following. as though he should say, Be not bold upon forgiveness to heap sin upon sin, as though God will easily forgive etc.  
5 I touched before upon an other occasion, how you add to the text, making the Apostle say thus, Eph. 3. 
Bib. 1562.  By whom we have boldness and entrance with THE CONFIDENCE WHICH IS by the faith of him or (as in an other Bible, 
Bib. 1577. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which is all one) in the confidence by faith of him. The learned and skilful among you in the Greek tongue, know that this translation is false for two causes. the one is, because the Greek in that case should be thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an other cause is, the point after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. so that the very simple and sincere translation is this, we have affiance and access with confidence, by the faith of him even as else where it is said, we have confidence, 
1 Io. 3.  if our heart reprehend us not: we have confidence by keeping the commandments, by tribulations and afflictions and all good works. 
Hebr. 10. 2 Cor. 3.  hope also giveth us great confidence. Against all which, your translation is prejudicial, limiting & defining our confidence toward God, to be faith, as though we had no confidence by works, or otherwise.  
6 For this confidence by faith only, Beza translateth so wilfully and perversely, that either you were ashamed to follow him, or you lacked a commodious English word correspondent to his Latin, If I have all faith (saith the Apostle) and have not charity, 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 all kind of faith, to wit, the faith that justifieth: but he meaneth that if a man have the faith of Christ's omniporencie, or of any other article of the Creed, or of all wholly and entirely and perfectly, that is nothing without charity. This is Bezas tota fides, whole faith, thinking by this translation to exempt from the Apostles words their special justifying faith, & wrestling to that purpose in his annotations against Pighius & other Catholic Doctors. Whereas every man of small skill may see, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that the Apostle nameth all faith, as he doth all knowledge & all mysteries: comprehending all sorts of the one & of the other: all kind of knowledge, all kind of mysteries, all faith whatsoever, Christian, Catholic, historical, or special, which two later, are Heretical terms newly devised.  
7 And I would have any of the Bezites give me a sufficient reason, why he translated, totam fidem, and not also, totam scientiam. undoubtedly there is no cause, but the heresy of special and only faith. And again, why he translateth jaco. 2, 22. Thou seest, that faith was (administra) a helper of his works: and expoundeth it thus, faith was an efficient cause and fruitful of good works. Whereas the Apostles words be plain, that faith wrought together with his works, yea and that his faith was by works made perfect. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  This is impudent handling of Scripture, to make works the fruit only and effect of faith, which is your heresy.  
8 Which heresy also must needs be the cause, that, to suppress the excellency of charity (which the Apostle giveth it above faith or any other gift whatsoever, in these words, And yet I show you a more excellent way 1 Cor. 12. v. 31.) he in one edition of the new Testament (in the year 1556.) translateth thus, Behold moreover also I show you a way most diligently. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  What cold stuff is this, and how impertinent? In an other edition (an. 1565.) he mended it thus: And beside I show you a way to excellency. In neither of both expressing the comparison of pre-eminence & excellency that charity hath in the Apostles words, and in all the chapter following. Wherein you did well (for your credit) not to follow him (no not your Bezites themselves) but to translate after our vulgar Latin interpreter, as it hath always been read and understood in the Church.  
9 Luther was so impudent in this case, that, because the Apostle spoke not plainly enough for only faith, he thrust (only) into the text of his translation, * 
Luther. to. 2 fol. 405. edi. wittemb. an. 1551.  as himself witnesseth. 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 controversies you have done the like, as is showed in their places. But I will ask you a smaller matter, which in words and show you may perhaps easily answer, but in your conscience there will remain a gnawing worm. In so many places of the Gospel, where our Saviour requireth the people's faith, when he healed them of corporal diseases only, why do you so gladly translate thus, 
Mar. 10, 52. Luc. 18, 42. etc. 8. v. 48.  Thy faith hath saved thee: rather than thus, thy faith hath healed thee, or, made the whole? is it not, by joining these words together, to make it sound in English ears, that faith saveth or justifieth a man? in so much that Beza noteth in the margin thus, fides saluat: that is, faith saveth. & your Geneva Bibles, in that place where it can not be taken for faith that justifieth, because it is not the party's faith, but her fathers that Christ required, there also translate thus, Believe only, and she shall be saved. 
Luc. 8, 50.  Which translation, though very false and impertinent for justifying faith, as you seem to acknowledge by translating it otherwise in your other Bible's: 
See Goughs' sermon and Tom sons answer to the L. Abbot of westmester.  yet in deed you must needs maintain & hold it for good, whiles you allege this place for only faith, as is evident in your writings.  
10 This then you see is a fallacy, when faith only is required to the health of the body, as in many such places (though not in all) there by translation to make it sound a justifying faith, as though faith only were required to the health of the soul. Whereas that faith was of Christ's omnipotency only & power, 
Annot. in 1 Cor. 13, 2.  which Beza confesseth may be in the devils themselves, and is far from the faith that justifieth. If you say, the Greek signifieth as you translate: it doth so in deed, but it signifieth also very commonly to be healed corporally, as (by your own translation) in these places. 
Bib. 1577.  Marc. 5. v. 28. Marc. 6. v. 36. Luc. 8. v. 36. & v. 51. Where you translate, I shall be whole. They were healed. He was healed. She shall be made whole. And why do you here translate so? because you know, to be saved, importeth rather an other thing, to wit, salvation of the soul: and therefore when faith is joined withal, you translate rather, saved, then healed (though the place be meant of bodily health only) to insinuate by all means your justification by only faith.   

CHAP. XIII. Heretical translation against PENANCE and SATISFACTION.  
UPON the heresy of only faith justifying and saving a man, followeth the denial of all penance & satisfaction for sins. Which Beza so abhorreth, (Annot, in Mat. 3. v. 2.) that he maketh protestation, that he avoideth these terms, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Poenitentia, and, Poenitentiam agere, of purpose: and that he will always use for them in translating the Greek words resipiscentia, and, resipiscere. Which he doth observe perhaps, but that sometimes he is worse than his promise, 
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 themselves are ashamed to translate after him. Who otherwise follow his rule for the most part, translating resipiscentia, amendment of life: & resipiscite, amend your lives. & the other English bibles when they translat best, say, repentance, & repent: but none of them all once have the words, penance, and, do penance. Which in most places is the very true translation, according to the very circumstance of the text, and use of the Greek word in the Greek Church, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Agere poenitentiam.  and the ancient Latin translation thereof and all the father's reading thereof, and their expositions of the same. Which four points I think not amiss, briefly to prove, that the reader may see the use and signification of these words, which they of purpose will not express, to avoid the terms of, penance, and, doing penance.  

That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to do penance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 poenitentiam egissent.  2 First, that the circumstance of the text doth give it so to signify, we read in Saint Matthew, c. 11, v. 21. If in tire and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had done penance in hearecloth or sackcloth and ashes long ago. And in S. Luc. c. 10. v. 13. they had done penance, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. I beseech you, these circumstances of sackcloth and ashes adjoined, do they signify penance and affliction of the body, or only amendment of life, as you would have the word to signify? S. Basil saith, in Ps. 29. Sackcloth maketh for penance. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For the fathers in old time sitting in sackcloth and ashes, did penance. Unless you will translate S. Basil also after your fashion, whom you can not any way translate, but the sense must needs be, penance, & doing penance. Again S. Paul saith, You were made sorry to penance, or, 
2 Co. 7, 9  to repentance, say which you will: and The sorrow which is according to God, worketh penance, or, repentance unto salvation. Is not sorrow and bitter mourning & affliction, parts of penance? Did the incestuous man whom S. Paul excommunicated, 
1 Cor. 5.  and afterwards absolved him because of his exceeding sorrow and tears, 
2 Cor. 2.  for fear lest he might be overwhelmed with sorrow, did he I say change his mind only or amend his life, as you translate the Greek word, and interpret repentance? did he not penance also for his fault, 
Mat. 3. Luc. 3. Act. 26.  enjoined of the Apostle? when S. john the Baptist saith, & S. Paul exhorteth the like, Do fruits worthy of penance, or as you translate, meet for repentance: Do they not plainly signify penitential works, or the works of penance? which is the very cause why Beza rather translated in those places, 
Fructus dignos ijs qui resipuerint. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Do the fruits meet for them that amend their lives. or, give us some other good cause o ye Bezites, why your master doth so foully falsify his translation.  
3 Secondly, for the signification of this Greek word in all the Greek Church, and Greek fathers, even from S. Denys the Aeropagite S. Paul's scholar, who must needs deduce it from the Scriptures, and learn it of the Apostles: it is most evident, that they use this word for that penance which was done in the primitive Church according to the penitential canons, whereof all antiquity of Counsels and fathers is full. 
Ec. Hier. c. 3. in principio.  in so much that S. Denys reckoning up the three sorts of persons that were excluded from seeing and participating of the divine mysteries of Christ's body and blood, 
Paenitentes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to wit, Catechumens, penitents, and the possessed of il spirits: for, penitents, he saith in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is, such as were in their course of penance, or had not yet done their full penance. Which penance S. Augustine declareth thus: (Ho. 27. inter 50 ho. and ep. 108.) Est poenitentia gravior. etc. There is a more grievous and more mournful penance, whereby properly they are called in the Church, that are Poenitentes: removed also from partaking the sacrament of the altar. And the Greek Ecclesiastical history thus: 
Sozom. li. 7. c. 16.  In the Church of Rome there is a manifest and known place for the penitents. & in it they stand sorrowful, & as it were mourning, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See S. Hier. in epitaph. Fabiolae.  & when the sacrifice is ended, being not made partakers thereof, with weeping and lamentation they cast themselves flat on the ground. than the Bishop weeping also with compassion lifteth them up, and after a certain time enjoined, absolveth them from their penance. This, the Priests, or, Bishops of Rome keep from the very beginning even until our time.  
4 In these words & other in the same chapter, 
Li. 5. c. 19  & in Socrates Greek history likewise when they speak of penitents, that confessed and lamented their sins, that were enjoined penance for the same, & did it: I would demand of our English Grecians, in what Greek words they express all this. Do they it not in the words which we now speak of, & which therefore are proved most evidently to signify penance & doing penance? Again, when the most ancient Council of Laodicea can. 2. saith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That the time of penance should be given to offenders according to the proportion of the fault: and again, can. 9 That such shall not communicate till a certain time, but after they have done penance and confessed their fault, then to be received: and again Can. 19 After the Catechumens are gone out, that prayer be made of the Penitents, or them that are in doing penance: And when the first Council of Nice saith, can. 12. about shortening or prolonging the days of penance, that they must well examine their purpose and manner of doing penance. that is, with what alacrity of mind, tears, patience, humility, good works, they accomplished the same, and accordingly to deal more mercifully with them, as is there expressed in the council: when S. Basil, Can. 1. ad Amphiloch. speaketh after the same sort: when S. Chrysostom calleth the sackcloth and fasting of the Ninivites for certain days, tot dierum poenitentiam, so many days penance: in all these places, I would gladly know of our English Grecians, whether these speeches of penance and doing penance, are not expressed by the said Greek words, which they will in no case so to signify.  
5 Or, I would also ask them, whether in these places they will translate, repentance, and, amendment of life, where there is mentioned a prescript time of satisfaction for their fault by such and such penal means: whether there be any prescript times of repentance or amendment of life, to continue so long, and no longer: if not, then must it needs be translated, Penance, and, doing penance, which is longer or shorter according to the fault and the manner of doing the same. I may repent in a moment, and amend my life at one instant, and this repentance and amendment ought to continue for ever. but the holy Counsels and fathers speak of a thing to be done for certain years or days, and to be released at the Bishop's discretion: this therefore is penance, and not repentance only or amendment of life, and is expressed by the foresaid Greek words, as also by * 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  an other equivalent thereunto.  
6 I omit that this very phrase, to do penance, is word for word expressed thus in Greek, 
Litur. Chrys. in rubricis, pag. 69. 104.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Ausonius the Xpian Poëte (whom I may as well allege once, and use it not, 
Metanoea.  as they do Virgil, Terence, and the like very often) useth this Greek word so evidently in this sense, 
Annot. in 3 Mat. v. 2.  that Beza saith, he did it for his verse sake, because an other word would not stand so well in the verse. But the reader (I trust) seethe the use and signification of these Greek words by the testimony of the Greek fathers themselves, most ancient and approved.  
7 Thirdly, that the ancient Latin Interpreter doth commonly so translate these words through out the new Testament, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poenitentiam agere.  that needeth no proof, neither will I stand upon it (though it be greater authority than they have any to the contrary) because the Adversaries know it and mislike it, and for that and other like points it is belike, that one of them saith it is the worst translation of all, 
Discou. of Sand. Rock pag. 147. Prae fat. in No. Test. an. 1556.  whereas Beza his Master saith it is the best of al. so well they agree in judgement, the Master and the man.  
8 I come to the fourth proof, which is, that all the Latin Church and the glorious Doctors thereof have always read as the vulgar Latin interpreter translateth these words, and expound the same of penance, and doing penance. To name one or two for an example, 
Ep. 108.  S. Augustine's place is very notable, which therefore I set down, and may be translated thus: 
Agunt homines poenitentiam. Act. 2.  Men do penance before Baptism, of their former sins, yet so that they be also baptised, Peter saying thus, DO YE PENANCE, AND LET EVERY ONE BE baptized. Men also do penance, if after Baptism they do so sin, that they deserve to be excommunicated and reconciled again, as in all Churches they do which be called, 
Sicut agunt qui Poenitentes 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 UNCLEANNESS. We have also in the Acts, 
Act. 8, 18.  that Simon Magus being baptised, was admonished by Peter TO do PENANCE for his grievous sin. 
 agerat poenitentiam.  There is also in manner a daily Penance of the good and humble believers, in which we knock our breasts, saying, FORGIVE US OUR debts. For these (venial and daily offences) fasts and alms and prayers are watchfully used, 
Quotidianan agere poenitontiam.  and humbling our souls we cease not after asort to do daily penance.  
9 In these words of S. Augustine it is plain that he speaketh of painful or penitential works for satisfaction of sins, that is, penance: again, that there are three kinds of the same, one before Baptism, an other after Baptism for great offences, greater and longer: the other daily for common and little venial faults which the best men also commit in this frail nature. again, that the two former are signified & spoken of in the three places of Scripture by him alleged. Where we see, that he readeth altogether as the vulgar interpreter translateth, and expoundeth all three places of penance for sin, & so approveth that signification of the Greek word. Yea in saying that for venial sins we knock our breast, fast, give alms, and pray, and so cease not Quotidianam agere poenitentiam: what doth he mean but daily penance and satisfaction? Read also S. Cyprian (beside other places) epist. 52. num. 6. Where his citations of Scripture are according to the old Latin interpreter, and his exposition according, of doing penance, and making satisfaction for sins committed. But I need not proceed further in alleging either S. Cyprian or other ancient fathers for this purpose, because the Adversaries grant it. Howbeit in what terms they grant it, and how malapertly they accuse all the ancient fathers at once for the same, it shall not be amiss here to put down their words.  
10 Whereas the reverend, godly, and learned Father, Edmund Campion, had objected in his book, the Protestants accusation of S. Cyprian for the matter of penance the good man that answereth for both universities, saith thus to that point: 
whitak pa. 97. cont. ration. Edm. Camp.  But whereas Magdeburgenses (Lutheran writers of that city) complain that he depraved the doctrine of repentance, they do not feign or forge this crime against him, but utter or disclose it. 
Doctrinam poenitentiae.  For all men understand that it was to true. Neither was this Cyprians fault alone, 
De poenitentia. Imprudenter.  that he written of repentance many things incommodiously and unwisely, but all the most holy fathers almost at that time were in the same error. For whiles thy desired to restrain men's manners by severe laws, 
Poenitentiae.  they made the greatest part of repentance to consist in certain external discipline of life, which themselves prescribed. In that they punished vice severely, they were to be borne withal: but that by this means they thought to pay the pains due for sins, and to satisfy God's justice, and to procure to themselves assured impunity, remission, and justice, therein they derogated not a little from Christ's death, attributed to much to their own inventions, & finally depraved repentance. Thus far the Answerer.  
11 Mark how he accuseth the fathers in general of no less crime, then taking away from Christ the merits of his Passion, attributing it to their own penance and discipline. Which if they did, I marvel he should call them in this very place where he beginneth to charge them with such a crime, sanctissimos patres, most holy fathers. The truth is, he might as well charge S. Paul with the same, when he saith, 
Rom. 2.  we shall Be the heirs of God, and coheirs with Christ, yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him. S. Paul saith, our suffering also with Christ, is necessary to salvation: Master whitakers saith, it is a derogation to Christ's suffering. Christ fasted for us, therefore our fasting maketh nothing to salvation. He prayed for us, was scourged, and died for us: therefore our prayer, scourging, and imprisonment, yea & death itself for his sake, make nothing to life everlasting, and if we should think it doth, we derogate from Christ's Passion. Alas, is this the divinity of England now a days? to make the simple believe that the ancient fathers and holy men of the primitive Church by their severe life and voluntary penance for their sins and for the love of Christ, did therein derogate from Christ's merits and Passions?  
12 I may not stand upon this point, neither need I. the principal matter is proved by the adversaries confession, that the holy Doctors spoke, written, and thought of penance and doing penance as we do, in the same terms both Greek and Latin: and with Catholics it is always a good argument, and we desire no better proof, than this, The Protestants grant, all the ancient fathers were of our opinion, and they say it was their error. For, the first part being true, it is madness to dispute, whether all the aunciént fathers erred, or rather the new Protestants. as it is more than madness to think that Luther alone might see the truth more than a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches. Which not withstanding the palpable absurdity thereof, 
pag. 101.  yet M. whitaker's avoucheth it very solemnly.  
13 And yet again (that the reader may see how they play fast and lose at their pleasure) this is the man that when he hath given us all the fathers on our side not only in the matter of penance, 
pag. 109.  but also * 
pag. 101.  in invocation of Saints, and in divers other errors, as he calleth them: the very same man (I say) in the very next leaves almost, 
pag. 114. 117.  reneweth M. jewels old brag, that we have not one clear sentence for us of any one father within six hundred years after Christ, and again, that the same faith reigneth now in England, which these father's professed. What faith, M. whitakers? not their faith concerning penance, or invocation of Saints (as yourself confess) or other such like errors of theirs as you term them. Why are you so forgetful or rather so impudent to speak contraries in so little a room? Such simple answering will not serve your adversaries learned book, which you in vain go about by foolish Rhetoric to disgrace, when the world seethe you are driven to the wall, & either can say nothing, or do say that, which confuteth itself with the evident absurdity thereof.  
14 But to leave M. whitaker's (who is a simple companion, to sit in judgement upon all the ancient Doctors, & to condemn them of heinous error in the matter of penance) I trust the reader seethe by the former discourse, the usual Ecclesiastical signification, and consequently both the true and false translation of the foresaid Greek words. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Not that they must or may always be translated, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  penance, or, doing penance. For in the Scriptures God is said Poenitentiam agere, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  who can not be said to do penance, no more than he can be said to amend his life, as the Protestants commonly translate this word. Therefore I conclude, that this word being spoken of God in the Scriptures, is no more prejudice against our translation of doing penance, than it is against theirs, of amendment of life. Likewise when it is spoken of the reprobate & damned in hell: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sap. 5. Poenitentiam agentes.  who as they can not do penance properly, so much less amend their lives.  
15 Moreover, it is purposely against penance, that they translate amiss both in Daniel & Esdras, 
Esd. c 9 Dan. 10.  whose voluntary mourning, fasting, afflicting of themselves for their own sins and the peoples, is notoriously set forth in their books. There they make the Angel say thus to Daniel. 
v. 12. Bib. 1579.  From the first day that thou didst set thine heart TO HUMBLE thyself. What is this humbling himself? can we gather any penance thereby? none at al. but if they had said according to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut te affligeres.  from the first day that thou didst set thine heart TO AFFLICY thyself, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  we should easily conceive works of penance, and it would include daniel's mourning, fasting from flesh, wine, and other meats, abstaining from ointments, the space of the days, mentioned in the beginning of the same chapter.  
16 Again, in all their bibles of the years 1562. 1577. 1579. they make Esdras c. 9, 5. after his exceeding great penance, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  say only this, About the evening sacrifice I arose up from my HEAVINESS. neither translating the Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which is the same word that in Daniel, nor the Greek, which signifieth affliction and humiliation.  
17 Again, in the prophet Malachi (c. 3, 14.) they translate thus: Ye have said, It is but vain to serve God, and what profit is it that we have kept his commandments and walked HUMBLY before his face? What is this same, humbly? when we say in English, he goeth humbly: we imagine or conceive no more but this, that he is an humble man and behaveth himself humbly. but they know very well, the Prophet speaketh of an other thing: and if it had pleased them to have translated the Hebrew word fully and significantly in the sense of the holy Ghost, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  they might have learned by conference of other places where the same Hebrew word is used, that it signifieth such heaviness, sadness, sorowfulnes, and affliction, as men express by black mourning garments, the nature of the word importing blackness, darkness, lowering, & the like. Which is far more than walking humbly, and which is wholly suppressed by so translating. See the Psalm 34. v. 14. Ps. 37. v. 7. Ps. 41. v. 10. Where the Prophet useth many words & speeches to express sorrowful penance: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and for that which in Latin is always, contristatus, in Greek a word more significant, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  in Hebrew it is the same kind of word that they translate, humbly. Whereas in deed this word hath no signification of humility properly, no not of that humility I mean which is rather to be called humiliation or affliction, as the Greek words imply. But it signifieth properly the very manner, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  countenance, gesture, habit of a pensive or forlorn man: and if they will say, that they so translate it in other places, the more is their fault, that knowing the nature of the word, they will notwithstanding suppress the force and signification thereof in any one place, & so translate it, that the reader must needs take it in an other sense, and can not possibly conceive that which the word importeth. for, to walk humbly, soundeth in all English ears, the virtue of humility, which this word doth never signify, and not humility or humiliation by affliction, which it may signify, though secondarily and by deduction only.  
18 Again, what is it else but against penance & satisfaction, that they deface these usual and known words of Daniel to the King, Redime eleemosynis peccatatua, 
Dan. 4, 24.  Redeem thy sins with alms: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  altering and translating it thus, Break of thy sins by righteousness. First, the Greek is against them, which is word for word according to the vulgar and common reading: Secondly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Chaldee word which they translate, break of, by Munster's own judgement in lexico Chald. signifieth rather and more principally, to redeem. Thirdly, the other word which they translate, righteousness, in the Scriptures signifieth also, eleemosynam, as the Greek interpreters translate it Deut. 6. & 24. and it is most plain in S. Matthew, where our Saviour saith (Mat. 6. v. 1) Beware you do not your justice before men. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Which is in other Greek copies, your alms. And S. Augustine proveth it by the very text. 
in Ps. 49. v. 5  for (saith he) as though a man might ask, what justice? he addeth, WHEN THOU DOST AN ALMS DEED. He signified therefore that alms are the works of justice. 
Psal. 111.  And in the Psal. they are made one, He distributed, he gave to the poor, his justice remaineth for ever and ever. Which Beza translateth, his beneficence or liberality remaineth etc. Again, S. Hierom a sufficient Doctor to tell the signification of the Hebrew or Chaldee words, both translateth it so, and expoundeth it so in his commentary. Moreover, the words that immediately follow in Daniel, interpret it so unto us, And thy iniquities with mercies to the poor. 
Annot. in Mat. 6. v. 1.  Lastly, Beza himself saith, that by the name of justice with the hebrews, is also signified beneficence or beneficialnes to the poor, yea and that in this place of Daniel it is specially taken for alms. 
2 Cor. 9  So that we see there is no impediment neither in the Chaldee nor Greek, why they might not have said, as the Church of God always hath said, Redeem thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with mercies to the poor, but their Heresy will not suffer them to speak after the Catholic manner, that alms and merciful deeds are a redemption, ransom, and satisfaction for sins.  
19 And what a miserable humour is it in these cases, to fly as far as they can from the ancient received speech of holy Scripture, that hath so many years sounded in all faithful ears, and to invent new terms and phrases, when the original text both Greek and Hebrew favoureth the one as much, or more, than the other. as, that they choose to say in the Epistle to Titus (where the Apostle exceedingly exhorteth to good works) maintain good works, and, show forth good works, rather than according to the ancient Latin translation, bonis operibus praeesse, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to be chief and principal in doing good works, which is the very true and usual signification of the Greek word, and implieth a virtuous emulation among good men, who shall do most good works or excel in that kind. But they that look to be saved by faith only, no marvel if neither their doings nor translations tend to any such excellency.   

CHAP. XIIII. Heretical translation against the holy SACRAMENTS, namely BAPTISM and CONFESSION.  
1 AN other sequel of their only faith is, that the Sacraments also help nothing toward our salvation, and therefore they partly take ●hem clean away, partly deprive them of all grace, virtue, and efficacy, making them poor & beggarly elements, either worse, or no better than those of the old Law.  
2 For this purpose Beza is not content to speak as the Apostle doth, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (Ro. 4. v. 11.) that circumcision was a seal of the justice of faith, but because he thinketh that, to small a term for the dignity of circumcision, as himself confesseth, 
libens refugiquod obsignaret, for, sigillum.  he gladly avoideth is (I use his own words) & for the Noun putteth the Verb, so dissolutely and presumptuously, that the English Bezites themselves here also dare not follow him in translation, though in opinion they agree. The cause of his wilful translation he declareth in his Annotations upon the same place, to wit, the dignity of circumcision, equal with any Sacrament of the new Testament. His words be these. What (saith he) could be spoken more magnifical of any Sacrament? therefore they that put a real difference between the Sacraments of the old Testament and ours, never seem to have known how far Christ's office extendeth. Which he saith, not to magnify the old, but to disgrace the new.  
3 Which is also the cause why not only he, but the English Bibles (for commonly they join hands and agree together) to make no difference between john's Baptism and Christ's, translate thus concerning certain that had not yet received the holy Ghost: Unto what then were ye baptised? 
Act. 19.3.  And they said, unto john's Baptism. Which Beza in a long discourse proveth to be spoken of john's doctrine, and not of his baptism in water. As though it were said, what doctrine then do ye profess? and they said, john's. Whereas in deed the question is this, and aught thus to be translated, In what then or wherein were you baptised? And they said, In john's Baptism. As who should say, we have received john's Baptism, but not the holy Ghost as yet. and therefore it followeth immediately, than they were baptised in the name of jesus, & after imposition of hands the Holy Ghost came upon them. Whereby is plainly gathered, that being baptised with john's baptism before, and yet of necessity baptised afterwards with Christ's baptism also, there must needs be a great difference between the one baptism and the other, john's being insufficient. And that this is the deduction which troubleth these Bezites, and maketh them translate accordingly, Beza (as commonly still he uttereth his grief) telleth us in plain words thus. It is not necessary, 
Annot. in Act. 19  that wheresoever there is mention of john's Baptism, we should think it to be the very ceremony of Baptism. therefore they that gather john's Baptism to have been divers from Christ's, because these a little after are said to be baptised in the name of jesus Christ, have no sure foundation. Lo, how of purpose he translateth and expoundeth it john's doctrine, not john's Baptism, to take away the foundation of this Catholic conclusion, that his baptism differeth and is far inferior to Christ's.  
4 But doth the Greek lead him or force him to this translation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  In quid? unto what? First himself confesseth in the very same place the contrary, that the Greek phrase is often used in the other sense, wherein, or wherewith, as it is in the vulgar Latin and Erasmus: but that in his judgement it doth not so signify here, and therefore he refuseth it. Yet in the very next verse almost, where it is said by the same Greek phrase, that they were baptised in the name of jesus Christ, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  there both he and his, so translate it as we do, & not, unto the name of Christ. Is it not plain, that all is voluntary, and at their pleasure? For (I beseech them) if it be a right translation, baptised in the name of jesus: why is it not right, baptised in the baptism of john? Is there any difference in the Greek? none. Where then? in their commentaries and imaginations only, against which we oppose and set both the text and the commentaries of all the fathers.  
5 But no marvel if they disgrace the baptism of Christ, when they are bold also to take it away altogether: interpreting this Scripture, 
10.3. v. 5.  Unless a man be borne again of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God, which a man would think were plain enough to prove that Baptism in water is necessary: interpreting (I say) this Scripture, Of water and the Spirit, thus: of water, 
Beza in. 4.10. v. 10. & in Tit. 3. v. 5.  that is, the Spirit: making water to be nothing else in this place but the Spirit allegorically, and not material water. As though our Saviour had said to Nicodemus, Unless a man be borne of water, I mean, of the spirit, he can not enter, etc. According to this most impudent exposition of plain Scriptures, Calvin translateth also as impudently for the same purpose in the epistle to Titus, 
c. 3. v. 5. Per lavacrum regenerationis Sp. sancti QVOD offudit in nos abunde.  making the Apostle to say, that God powered the water of regeneration upon us abundantly, that is, the holy Ghost. And lest we should not understand his meaning herein, he telleth us in his commentary upon this place, that when the Apostle saith, Water powered out abundantly, he speaketh not of material water, but of the holy Ghost. Now in deed the Apostle saith not, that water was powered upon us, but the holy Ghost. neither doth the Apostle make water and the holy Ghost all one, but most plainly distinguisheth them, saying, that God of his mercy hath saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, 
Quem effudit as Beza himself translateth.  whom he hath powered upon us abundantly. See how plainly the Apostle speaketh both of the material water or washing of Baptism, and of the effect thereof which is the holy Ghost powered upon us. Calvin taketh away water clean and will have him speak only of the holy Ghost, 
Comment. in hunc locum.  which Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran himself wondereth at, that any man should be so bold, and calleth it plain sacrilege against the efficacy of the Sacraments.  
6 And if we should here accuse the English translators also, that translate it thus, by the fountain of the regeneration of the holy Ghost, WHICH he shed on us, etc. making it indifferent, either which fountain, or, which holy Ghost he shed, &c: they would answer by & by that the Greek also is indifferent: but if a man should ask them further, whether the holy Ghost may be said to be shed, or rather a fountain of water, they must needs confess, not the holy Ghost, but water: and consequently that they translating, which he shed, would have it meant of the fountain of water, & so they agree just with Caluins' translation, and leave Beza, 
Sp. sancti, que effudit.  who in his translation referreth it only to the holy Ghost, as we do: but in his commentary playeth the Heretic as Calvin doth.  
7 Of the Sacrament of penance I have spoken before, concerning that part specially which is satisfaction: here I will only add of Confession, that to avoid this term (namely in such a place where the reader might easily gather Sacramental confession) they translate thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Whereof Confession is called in S. Cyprian and other fathers, Exemologêsis.  Acknowledge your faults one to an other. jac. 5. It is said a little before, If any be diseased, let him bring in Priests, etc. And then it followeth, Confess your faults. etc. But they to make all sure, for, Confess, say, Acknowledge: & for Priests, Elders. What mean they by this? If this acknowledging of faults one to an other before death be indifferently to be made to all men, why do they appoint in their Communion-booke (as it seemeth out of this place) that the sick person shall make a special confession to the Minister, 
In the order of visitation of the sick.  and he shall absolve him in the very same form of absolution that Catholic Priests use in the Sacrament of Confession. again, if this acknowledging of faults be specially to be made to the Minister or Priest, why translate they it not by the word Confessing and confession, as well as by, Acknowledging, & why is not this confession a Sacrament, where themselves acknowledge forgiveness of sins by the Minister? These contradictions and repugnance of their practice and translation, if they can wittily and wisely reconcile, they may perhaps in this point satisfy the reader. But whether the Apostle speak here of Sacramental confession or no, sincere translators should not have fled from the proper and most usual word of confession or confessing, consonant both to the Greek and Latin, and indifferent to whatsoever the holy Ghost might mean, as this word, acknowledge, is not.   

CHAP. XV. Heretical translation against the Sacrament of HOLY ORDERS, and for the MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS and VOTARIES.  
1 AGAINST the Sacrament of Orders what can they do more in translation, then in all their Bibles to take away the name of Priest and Priesthood of the New Testament altogether, and for it to say, Elder and Eldership? Whereof I treated more at large 
* Chap. 6.  in an other place of this book. Here I add these few observations, that both for Priests and Deacons, which are two holy orders in the Catholic Church, they translate, Ministers, to commend that new degree devised by themselves. 
Ecclici. c. 7. v. 31.  As when they say in all their bibles, Fear the Lord with all thy soul, and honour his ministers. in the Greek it is plain thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & honour his Priests. as the word always signifieth, and in the very next sentence themselves so translate, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Fear the Lord and honour the Priests. but they would needs borrow one of these places for the honour of Ministers. As also in the epistle to Timothee, 
1. Tim. 3.  where S. Paul talketh of Deacons, and nameth them twice: they in the first place translate thus, 
Bib. 1562. and 1577.  Likewise must the Ministers be honest etc. And a little after, Let the Deacons be the husbads of one wife. Lo, the Greek word being one, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and the Apostle speaking of one Ecclesiastical order of Deacons, and Beza so interpreting it in both places, yet our English translators have allowed the first place to their Ministers, and the second to Deacons. and so (because Bishops also went before) they have found us out their three orders, Bishops, Ministers & Deacons. Alas poor souls, that can have no place in Scripture for their Ministers, but by making the Apostle speak three things for two.  
2 There are in the Scripture that are called ministers in infinite places, and that by three Greek words commonly: but that is a large signification of minister, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  attributed to all that minister, wait, serve, or attend to do any service Ecclesiastical or temporal, sacred or profane. If the word be restrained to any one peculiar service or function, as one of the Greek words is, then doth it signify Deacons only. Which if they know not, or will not believe me, let them see Beza himself in his Annotations upon S. Matthew, 
Annot. e. 5. v. 25.  who protesteth that in his translation he useth always the word, Minister, in the general signification: and, Diaconus, in the special and peculiar Ecclesiastical function of Deacons. So that yet we can not understand, neither can they tell us, whence their peculiar calling & function of Minister cometh, which is their second degree under a Bishop, & is placed in steed of Priests.  
3 Again, what can be more against the dignity of sacred orders and Ecclesiastical degrees, then to make them profane & secular by their terms and translations? For this purpose, as they translate, Elders & Eldership, for, Priests and Priesthood, so do they most impudently term S. Peter and S. john, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 4. Bib. 1562. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For messenger & legate the Scripture useth these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  lay men: they say for Apostle, Ambassador, & Messenger: Io. 13. v. 16. and for Apostles of the Churches, Messengers of the same: 2 Cor. 8. for Bishops, overseers Act. 20. Why my masters, doth idiota signify a lay man? Suppose a lay man be as wise and learned as any other, is he idiota? or that one of your Ministers be as unlearned and ignorant as any shepherd, is he not idiota? so than idiota is neither clerk nor lay man, but every simple and ignorant man. They that spoke with miraculous tongues in the primitive Church, were they not lay men many of them? 
1 Cor. 14.25.24.  yet the Apostle plainly distinguisheth them from idiota. So that this is more ignorantly or wilfully translated, than Neophytus, a young scholar, 
1 Tim. 3.  in all your Bibles.  
4 Now for changing the name Apostle into Messenger, though Beza do so also in the foresaid places, yet in deed he controlleth both himself and you in other places, saying of the same word, Apostles: 
Annot in c. 10. Mat. v. 2.  A man may say in Latin, legates, but we have gladly kept the Greek word (Apostle) as many other words 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 commentary, that they are notable Apostles. and he proveth that all Ministers of the word (as he termeth them) are and may be so called. And for your Overseers, he saith, Episcopos, and not, Superintendentes. Which he might as well have said, as you, Overseers, But to say the truth, though he be to to profane, yet he doth much more keep & use the Ecclesiastical received terms, than you do, often protesting it and as it were glorying therein, 
In tit. evang Math. & in c. 3. v. 11. etc. 10. v. 2. etc. 5. v. 25.  against Castaleon especially. As, when he saith Presbyterum, where you say Elder: Diaconun, where you say, Minister, & so forth. Where if you tell me that howsoever he translate, he meaneth as profanely as you, I believe you, and therefore you shall go together, like Master, like Scholars, all false and profane translators. for, this Beza (who sometime so gladly keepeth the name of Apostle) yet calleth Epaphroditus legatum Philippensium, Philip. 2. v. 15. Whereupon the English Bezites translate, your messenger, for, your Apostle. As if S. Augustine who was our Apostle, should be called, our messenger.  
5 As also, when you translate of S. Mathias the Apostle, 
no. Test. 1580.  that he was by a common consent counted with the eleven Apostles: Act. 1. v. 26. what is it else but to make only a popular election of Ecclesiastical degrees, 
Annot. ibid. & Act. 14. v. 23.  as Beza in his Annotations would have us to understand, saying, that nothing was done here peculiarly by Peter as one of more excellent dignity than the rest, but in common by the voices of the whole Church. though in an other place upon this election he noteth Peter to be the chief or Corypheus'. And as for the Greek word in this place, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  if partiality of the cause would suffer him to consider of it, he should find, that the proper signification thereof in this phrase of speech, is, as the vulgar Latin interpreter, Erasmus, and Valla (all which he rejecteth) translate it, to wit, He was numbered, or, 
Annumeratus est. cooptatus est.  counted with the eleven Apostles, without all respect of common consent or not consent. as you also in your other bibles do translate.  
6 Which diversity may proceed of the diversity of opinions among you. For we understand by Master whitegiftes books against the Puritans, 
His defence, or 2 book pag. 157.  that he and his fellows deny this popular election, & give pre-eminence, superiority, and difference in this case to Peter, and to Ecclesiastical Prelates. and therefore he proveth at large the use and Ecclesiastical signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be the giving of voices in popular elections, but to be the Ecclesiastical imposing of hands upon persons taken to the Church's ministery. Which he saith very truly, and needeth the less here to be spoken of, specially being touched 
* chap. 6. nu. 7  else where in this book.  
7 One thing only we would know, why they that plead so earnestly against their brethren the Puritans, about the signification of this word, pretending herein only the primitive custom of imposition of hands in making their Ministers, why (I say) themselves translate not this word accordingly, 
Bib. 1577.  but altogether as the Puritans, thus: When they had ordained them elders by election in every Church. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Act. 14. v. 23. For if the Greek word signify here the people's giving of voices (as Beza forceth it only that way out of Tully & the popular custom of old Athens) than the other signification of imposing hands is gone, which Master Whitgift defendeth, and the popular election is brought in, which he refelleth: and so by their translation they have in my opinion overshot themselves, and given advantage to their brotherly Adversaries. Unless in deed they translate as they think, because in deed they think as heretically as the other, but yet because their state of Ecclesiastical regiment is otherwise, they must maintain that also in their writings, how so ever they translate. For an example, They all agree to translate Elder for Priest: and M. whitaker's telleth us a fresh in the name of them all, 
Pag. 200. ad rat. Camp.  that there are no Priests now in the Church of Christ, that is (as he interpreteth himself) This name Priest is never in the New Testament peculiarly applied to the Ministers of the Gospel, 
pag. 210.  this is their doctrine. But what is their practice in the regiment of their Church? clean contrary. For in the order of the communion book, where it is appointed what the Minister shall do, it is indifferently said, Then shall the Priest do or say this & that: &, Then shall the Minister, etc. Whereby it is evident that they make Priest a proper and peculiar calling applied to their Ministers, & so their practice is contrary to their teaching and doctrine.  
8 Now concerning imposition or laying on of hands in making their Ministers (which the Puritans also are forced to allow by other words of Scripture, 
Beza Annot. Act. 6, v. 6.  howsoever they dispute and jangle against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) none of them all make more of it, then of the like judaical ceremony in the old Law, not acknowledging that there is any grace given withal, though the Apostle say there is, in express terms. but they will answer this text (as they are want) with a favourable translation, turning grace, 
1 Timoth. 4. v. 14.  into gift. As, when the Apostle saith thus, Neglect not THE GRACE that is in thee, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which is given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of Priesthood, they translate, Neglect not the GIFT. and Beza most impudently for, by prophecy, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  translateth, to prophecy: making that only to be this gift, & withal adding this goodly exposition, that he had the gift of prophecy or preaching before, and now by imposition of hands was chosen only to execute that function. But because it might be objected that the Apostle saith, Which was given thee with the imposition of hands, or (as he speaketh in an other place) by imposition of hands, making this imposition of hands an instrumental cause of giving this grace, 
2 Tim. 1.  he saith that it did only confirm the grace or gift before given.  
9 Thus it is evident that, though the Apostle speak never so plain for the dignity of holy Orders, that it giveth grace, & consequently is a Sacrament, they pervert all to the contrary, making it a bare ceremony, suppressing the word grace, which is much more significant to express the Greek word, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  than gift is, because it is not every gift, but a gracious gift, or a gift proceeding of marvelous and mere grace. as when it is said, 
Phil. cap. 1. v. 29.  To you it is given not only to believe, but also to suffer for him. the Greek word signifieth this much, To you this grace is given, etc. So when God gave unto S. Paul all that sailed with him, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 27.  this Greek word is used, because it was a great grace or gracious gift given unto him. When S. Paul pardoned the incestuous person before due time, 
2 Cor. 2.  it is expressed by this word,. because it was a grace (as * 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theodorete calleth it) given unto him. & therefore also the alms of the Corinthians, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  1 Cor. 16. v. 3. are called, their grace, which the Protestants translate, liberality, neglecting altogether the true force and signification of the Greek words.  
10 But concerning the Sacrament of orders, as in the first to Timothee, 
2. Tim. ●● v. 6.  so in the second also, they suppress the word grace, and call it barely and coldly, gift, saying: I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. Where if they had said, the grace of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands: then were it plain that S. Paul by the ceremony of imposing hands upon Timothee in making him Priest or Bishop, gave him grace: and so it should be a very Sacrament of holy Orders. for avoiding whereof they translate otherwise, or else let them give us an other reason thereof, specially the Greek word much more signifying grace, than a bare gift, as is declared.  
11 The more to profane this sacred order, whereunto continency & single life hath been always annexed in the new Testament for the honour and reverence of the functions thereunto belonging, to profane the same (I say) and to make it merc laical & popular, they will have all to be married men, yea those that have vowed the contrary: and it is a great credit among them, for our Priests Apostates to take wives. This they would deduce from the Apostles custom, but by most false and impudent translation: making S. Paul say thus as of his own wife and the other Apostles wives, Have not we power to lead about a wife being a sister, 
1 Cor. 9 v. 5. No. Test. 1580.  as well as the rest of the Apostles? Whereas the Apostle saith nothing else but, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mat. 27.  a woman a sister, that is, a Christian woman, meaning such holy women as followed Christ, and the Apostles, to find and maintain them of their substance. 
Li. 1. adverse. jovin. De op. mon. cap. 4.  So doth S. Hierom interpret it, and S. Augustine, both directly proving that it can not be translated, wife, but, woman: & the Greek fathers most expressly. And as for the Greek word, if they say it is ambiguous, 
in Collectan. Occu. super hunc locum.  S. Augustine telleth them that as the Apostle hath put it down with all the circumstances, there is no ambiguity at all that might deceine any man. yea let us set a part the circumstances, & consider the Greek word alone in itself, and Beza will tell us in other places, 
Annot. Mat. 5. v. 28. & 1. Cor. 7. v. 1.  that it signifieth a woman rather than a wife: reprehending Erasmus for translating it, wife, because there is no 
* Quia non additur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  circumstance annexed why it should so signify: thereby declaring that of itself it signifieth woman, and therefore much more when th● circumstance also (as S. Augustine faith maketh it certain, that so it doth signify.  
12 Wherefore great must the impudenc● of Beza be (and of the English Bezites) that knowing this and protesting it else where in his Annotations, yet here translateth, sororem uxorem, a sister a wife, and saying after his lordly manner, I doubted not so to translate it, disputing and reasoning against all other interpreters both ancient and later, for the contrary, 
ineptè faceret.  yea and affirming that S. Paul himself, did foolishly, if he spoke there of other rich women. Such a fancy he hath to make the Apostles not only married men, but that they carried about their wives with them, and that they were the Apostles wives, (for so he translateth it Act. 1. v. 14.) that returned with them after our Lord's ascension to Jerusalem, 
Cum uxoribus.  and continued together in prayer till the Holy Ghost came upon them. Whereas S. Luke there speaketh so evidently of the other holy & faithful women which are famous in the Gospel (as the Maries & other) that the English Bezites themselves dare not here follow his translation. For I beseech you Master Beza (to turn my talk unto you a little) is there any circumstance or particle here added why it should be translated wives? none. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vxorem non tangere. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  then by your own reason before alleged it should rather be translated, women. Again, did Erasmus translate well, saying, It is good for a man not to touch a wife? 1 Cor. 7. v. 1. No, say you, reprehending this translation, because it dehorteth from marriage. if not, show your commission why you may translate it in the foresaid places, wife, and, wives, at your pleasure: the Greek being all one, both where you will not in any wise have it translated, wife, and also where you will have it so translated in any wise.  
13 Again, to this purpose they make S. Paul say as to his wife, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I beseech thee also faithful yoke-fellow Phil. 4. v. 3: for in English what doth it else sound but man and wife? but that S. Paul should here mean his wife, most of the Greek fathers count it tidiculous and foolish, S. Chrysostom, Theodorete, Oecumenius, 
Sorry german. Theophylacte saith, if he spoke to a woman, it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek.  Theophylactus. Beza & Calvin both mislike it, translating also in the masculine gender, S. Paul himself saith the contrary that he had no wife, 1 Cor. 7. And as for Clemens Alexandrinus who allegeth it for Paul's wife, Eusebius plainly insinuateth, 
Li. 2. c. 24.  and Nicephorus expressly saith, that he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the way of contention and disputation, whiles he earnestly written against them that oppugned matrimony.  
14 Again, for the marriage of Priests & of all sorts of men indifferently, they translate the Apostle thus: 
Hebr. 13.  wedlock is honourable among all men. Where one falsification is, that they say, among all men, and Beza, inter quosuis, and in the margin, * 
no. Test. an. 1565.  in omni hominum, ordine, in every order or condition of men, and in his Annotation he raileth, to make this translation good: whereas the Greek is as indifferent to signify, that marriage is honourable by all means, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in all respects, wholly, thoroughly, altogether. So doth not only Erasmus, but also the Greek fathers expound it, namely Theophylacte, 
See Occum. in catena.  whose words in the Greek be very significant, but to long here to trouble the reader with them. Not in part saith he, honourable, & in part not: but wholly, throughout, by all means honourable and undefiled, in all ages, in all times. Therefore to restrain it in translation to persons only (though it may also very well be understood of all persons that have no impediment to the contrary) that is to translate falsely.  
15 An other and the like falsification in this same short sentence, is, that they make it an affirmative speech, by adding, is: whereas the Apostles words be these, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. Which is rather an exhortation, as if he should say, Let marriage he honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. How honourable? that (as S. Peter speaketh, 1 Pet. c. 3.) men converse with their wives according to knowledge, imparting honour, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  unto them as to the weaker vessels: that is (as S. Paul also explicateth it, 1 Thess. c. 4.) possessing every man his vessel in sanctification and honour, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not in the passion or lust of concupiscence, as the Gentiles, etc. Lo what honourable marriage is, to wit, when the husband useth his wife honourably and honestly in all respects, not beastly and filthily according to all kind of lust & concupiscence. And that the Apostle here exhorteth to this honourable usage of wedlock, rather than affirmeth any thing, it is most probable both by that which goeth before & that which immediately followeth, all which are exhortations. & let the Protestants give us a reason out of the Greek text, if they can, why they translate the words following by way of exhortation, Let your conversation be without coucieousnes: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and not these words also in like manner, let marriage be honourable in al. Certain it is that the Greek in both is all one phrase and speech, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and Beza, is much troubled to find a good reason against Erasmus who thinketh it is an exhortation. The sentence then being ambiguous and doubtful at the least, what jolly fellows are these, that will so restrain it in translation, that it can not be taken in the other sense, and not rather leave it indifferently, as in the Greek and vulgar Latin it is, lest the sense of the holy Ghost be not that, or not only that, which they translate.  
16 Moreover it is against the profession of continency in Priests & others, that they translate our saviours words of single life and the unmarried state, thus: 
Mat. 19 V 11.  All men can not receive this saying: as though it were impossible to live continent. Where Christ said not so, that all men can not, but, All men do not receive this saying. But of this I have spoken more in the chapter of free will. Here I add only concerning the words following, that they translate them not exactly, nor perhaps with a sincere meaning. for if there be chastity in marriage as well as in the single life, as Paphnutius the Confessor most truly said, and they are want much to allege it, than their translation doth nothing express our saviours meaning, when they say, There are some chaste, 
Bibl. 1562. 1577.  which have made themselves chaste for the kingdom of heavens sake. for a man might say, all do so that live chastened in matrimony. but our Saviour speaketh of them that are impotent and unable to generation, called * 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  eunuchs or gelded men, and that in three divers kinds: some that have that infirmity or maim from their birth, othersome that are gelded afrerward by men, & other that geld themselves for the kingdom of heaven, not by cutting of those parts which were an horrible mortal sin, but having those parts as other men have, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  yet geld themselves (for so is the Greek) and make themselves unable to generation. Which how it can be but by voluntary profession, promise, and vow of perpetual continency which they may never break, let the Protestants tell us. Christ then as it is most evident speaketh of gelded men, either corporally, or spiritually (which are all such as profess perpetual continency:) and they tell us of some that were borne chaste, and some that were made chaste by men, and some that make themselves chaste: a most foolish and false translation of the Greek words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
17 The Bezites here, are blameless, who translate it word for word, eunuchs: but they are more to blame in an other place, where in derogation of the privilege and dignity of Priests, 
Mal. 2. v. 7.  they translate thus: The Priest's lips should preserve knowledge, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and they should seek the Law at his mouth. where in the Hebrew and Greek it is as plain as possibly can be spoken, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The infalsible judgement of the Priests, in questions of religion.  The Priest's lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the Law at his mouth. Which is a marvelous privilege given to the Priests of of the old Law, for true determination of matters in controversy, and right expounding of the Law, as we read more fully Deutero. 17. Where they are commanded under pain of death to stand to the Priest's judgement, which in this place God by the Prophet Malachi calleth his covenant with Levi, and that he will have it to stand, 
v. 4.  to wit, in the new Testament, where Peter hath such privilege for him and his successors, that his faith shall not fail, where the holy Ghost is precedent in the Counsels of Bishops and Priests. All which these Heretics would deface and defeat, by translating the words otherwise then the holy Ghost hath spoken them.  
18 And when the Prophet addeth immediately the cause of this singular prerogative of the Priest, quia angelus Domini exercituum est, because he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts, which is also a wonderful dignity, so to be called: they after their cold manner of profane translation say, because he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. So do they in the next chapter call S. john the Baptist, messenger: 
Malach. 3. v. 1.  where the Scripture no doubt speaketh more honourably of him as being Christ's precursor, then of a messenger, which is a term for posts also and lackeys. The Scripture I say speaketh thus of S. john, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. angelum meum.  Behold I send mine angel before thee: and our Saviour in the Gospel, Mat. 11. Luc. 7: telling the people the wonderful dignities of S. john, and that he was more than a prophet, citeth this place and giveth this reason, For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send mine Angel before thee. Which S. Hierom calleth meritorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Comment. in hunc locum.  the increase and augmenting of john's merits or privileges, that in Malachi he is called an Angel: 
Hom. 6. in evang.  & S. Gregory saith, he which came to bring tidings of Christ himself, was worthily called an Angel, that in his very name there might be a dignity. and all the fathers, and all wit and reason conceive a great excellency in this name: only our profane Protestants that think of all divine things and persons most basely, translate accordingly, even in the foresaid Gospel also, making our Saviour to say, that john was more than a prophet, because he was a messenger. Yea where our Saviour himself is called, 
Malach. 3. v. 1.  Angelus Testamenti, the Angel of the Testament, there they translate, the messenger of the covenant.  
19 If S. Hierom in all these places had translated, nuntium, than the English were, messenger: but translating it, angelum, and the Church and all antiquity so reading and expounding it as a term of more dignity & excellency, 
c See Apoc. c. 2. and 3. in the English Bibl. 1562. To the messenger of the congregation, etc. Angelo Ecclesia.  what mean these base companions to disgrace the very eloquence of the Scripture, which by such terms of amplification would speak more significantly and emphatically? what mean they (I say) that so inveigh against Castaleo for his profaneness, themselves to say, for Angel, Messenger, for Apostle, Legate or Ambassador, and the like? Are they afraid, lest by calling men Angels, it would be mistaken, as though they were Angels in deed by nature? then S. Paul spoke dangerously, when he said to the Galatians, 
Gal. 4. v. 14.  As God's Angel you received me, as Christ jesus. But to proceed.  
20 It is much for the authority and dignity of God's Priests, that they do bind and loose, and execute all Ecclesiastical function as in the person & power of Christ, whose ministers they are. So S. Paul saith, 2 Cor. 2. v. 10. that when 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 steed, as his Vicar and deputy. but they translate it, In the sight of Christ. Where it is evident they can not pretend the Greek, & if there be ambiguity in the Greek, the Apostle himself taketh it away interpreting himself in the very same case, when he excommunicateth the said incestuous person, saying, that he doth it, 
1 Cor. 5. v. 4.  in the name and with the virtue of our Lord jesus Christ: so expounding what he meaneth also in this place.  
21 And it may be, that for some such purpose they change the ancient and accustomed reading in these words of S. Matthew, Ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel: 
Mat. 2.  translating thus, 
no. Test. 1580.  Out of thee shall come the Governor that shall feed my people Israel. for, that shall rule my people Israel. This is certain that it is a false translation, because the Prophet's words Mich. 5. (cited by S. Matthew) both in Hebrew & Greek, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  signify only a ruler or Governor, & not a Pastor or feeder. Therefore it is either a great oversight, which is a small matter in comparison of the least corruption: or rather because they do the like Act. 20. v. 28, it is done to suppress the signification of Ecclesiastical power and government, that concurreth with feeding, first in Christ, and from him in his Apostles and Pastors of the Church, both which are here signified in this one Greek word, to wit, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that Christ our Saviour shall rule and feed, (Psal. 2. Apoc. 2. v. 27) yea he shall rule in a rod of iron: and from him, Peter and the rest, by his commission given in the same word feed and rule my sheep: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Io. 21: yea and that in a rod of iron, as when he struck Ananias and Sapphîra to corporal death, 
Act. 5. 1 Cor. 4. v. 21. etc. 5. v. 5. & 2 Cor. 10. v. 4. & 8.  as his successors do the like offenders to spiritual destruction (unless they repent) by the terrible rod of excommunication. This is imported in the double signification of the Greek word, which they to diminish Ecclesiastical authority, they translate, feed, then, rule, or govern.  
22 To the diminishing of this Ecclesiastical authority, in the later end of the reign of king Henry the eight, & during the reign of king Edward the sixth, the only translation of their English Bibles, was, Submit yourselves unto all manner ordinance of man: whether it be UNTO THE KING, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  AS TO THE CHIEF HEAD. 1 Pet. 2. Where in this Queen's time, the later translators can not find those words now in the Greek, but do translate thus, 
Bibl. 1577. 1579.  To the king as having pre-eminence: or, to the king as the Superior. Why so? because then the King had first taken upon him this name of Supreme head of the Church, and therefore they flattered both him and his son, till their heresy was planted, making the holy Scripture to say that the king was, the Chief head, which is all one with, supreme head: but now being better advised in that point (by Calvin I suppose and the Lutherans of Magdeburge, 
Calu. in c. 7. Amos. Magdeb. in praef. Cent. 7. fo. 9.10.11.  who do jointly inveigh against such title, and Calvin against that by name, which was first given to king Henry the eight) and because they may be bolder with a Queen then with a king, and because now they think their kingdom is well established, therefore they suppress this title in their later translations, & would take it from her altogether if they could, to advance their own Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, without any dependence of the Queen's supreme government of their church, which in their conscience (if they be true Caluinists, or Lutherans, or mixed of both) they do and must mislike.  
23 But howsoever that be, let them justify their translation, or confess their fault. and as for the king's supremacy over the Church, if they make any doubt, let them read S. Ignatius words, 
Epist. 7. ad Smyrnenses.  who was in the Apostles time, even when S. Peter gave the foresaid admonition of subjection to the king, and knew very well how far his pre-eminence extended, and therefore saith plainly in notorious words, that, we must first honour God, than the Bishop, & then the king. because in all things nothing is comparable to God, & in the Church, nothing greater than the Bishop, who is consecrated to God for the salvation of the whole world, and 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  among magistrates & temporal rulers, none is like the king. See his 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  other words immediately following, where he preferreth the Bishop's office before the kings and all other things of price among men.  
24 But in the former sentence of S. Peter, though they have altered their translation about the king's headship, yet there is one corruption remaining still in these words, Submit yourselves UNTO ALL MANNER ORDINANCE OF man.. Whereas in the Greek it is word for word as in the old vulgar Latin translation, omni humanae creaturae, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and as we have translated, to every human creature: meaning temporal Princes and Magistrates, 
1 Pet. 2. v. 13.14.  as is plain by the exemplification immediately following, of king, and dukes and other sent or appointed by him. But they in favour of their temporal statutes, acts of Parliament, Proclamations & Injunctions made against the Catholic religion, do translate all with one consent, Submit yourselves to all manner ordinance of man. Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify ordinance? or is it all one to be obedient to every one of our Princes, and to all manner ordinance of the said Princes?  
25 A strange case and much to be considered, how they wring and wrist the holy Scriptures this way and that way and every way to serve their heretical proceedings. For when the question is of due obedience to Ecclesiastical canons, and decrees of the Church and general Counsels, where the holy Ghost by Christ's promise is assistant, and whereof it is said, 
Mat. 18.  If he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen & Publicant: and, He that heareth you, heareth me: 
Luc. 10.  he that despiseth you, despiseth me: there they cry out aloud, and odiously term all such ordinances, men's traditions, and, commandments of men, & most despitefully contemn and condemn them. but here, for obedience unto temporal edicts & Patliament-statutes daily enacted in favour of their schism and heresies, they once maliciously forged, and still wickedly retain without alteration, a text of their own, making the Apostle to command submission unto all manner ordinance of man, whereof hath ensued the false crime of treason and cruel death for the same, upon those innocent men and glorious martyrs, that chose to obey God and his Churches holy ordinances, rather than man's statutes and laws directly against the same.   

CHAP. XVI. Heretical translation against the Sacrament of MATRIMONY.  
1 BUT as they are injurious translators to the sacred Order of Priesthood, so a man would think they should be very friendly to the Sacrament of Matrimony. for they would seem to make more of Matrimony than we do, making it equal at the least with virginity. Yet the truth is, we make it, or rather the Church of God esteemeth it as a holy Sacrament, they do not: as giving grace to the married persons to live together in love, concord, and fidelity: they acknowledge no such thing. So that Matrimony with them is highly esteemed in respect of the flesh, or (to say the best) only for a civil contract, as it is among jews & Pagans: but as it is peculiar to Christians, and (as S. Augustine saith) in the sanctification also and holiness 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. where the Apostle speaketh of Matrimony, This is a great secret. 
Sacramentum hoc magnum est.  Whereas the Latin Church and all the Doctors thereof have ever read, This is a great Sacrament: the Greek Church and all the fathers thereof, This is a great mystery. because that which is in Greek, mystery: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is in Latin, Sacrament: & contrariwise, the words in both tongues being equivalent. so that if one be taken in the large signification, the other also: as, Apoc. 17. I will show thee the sacramet of the woman. 
Sacramentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & I will show thee the mystery of the woman. and so in sundry places. again if one be restrained from the larger signification, and peculiarly applied, signify the Sacraments of the Church, the other also. As, the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: or, the Mystery of the body and blood of Christ: 
Duo Sacramenta. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and the Caluinists in their Latin and Greek Catechism say, two Sacraments, or, two Mysteries.  
3 This being so, what is the fault of their translation in the place aforesaid? this, that they translate neither, Sacrament, nor, Mystery. As for the word Sacrament, they are excused, because they translate not the Latin: but translating the Greek, why said they not, Mystery, which is the Greek word here in the Apostle? I mean, why said they not of Matrimony, This is a great Mystery? No doubt there can be no other cause, but to avoid both those words, which are used in the Latin and Greek Church, to signify the Sacraments. For in the Greek Church the Sacrament of the body and blood itself is called but a mystery or mysteries, which yet the Protestants themselves call a true Sacrament. Therefore if they should have called Matrimony also by that name, it might easily have sounded to be a Sacrament also. 
Were it honest or lawful to translate, Baptis●, I wash: or Baptismus. washing: or evangelium. good news? yet the words profanely taken, signify no more.  But in saying it is a great secret, they put it out of doubt, that it shall not be so taken.  
4 They will say unto me, Is not every sacrament and mystery, in english a secret? yes, as Angel, is a messenger: and Apostle, one that is sent. but when the holy Scripture useth these words to signify more excellent and divine things then those of the common sort, doth it become translators to use base terms in steed thereof, and so to disgrace the writing & meaning of the holy Ghost? I appeal to themselves, when they translate this word in other places, whether they say not thus, And without doubt great was that MYSTERY of godliness: 
1 Tim. ●.  God was showed manifestly in the flesh etc. again, The MYSTERY which hath been hid since the world began, 
Col. 1. v. 26. Eph. 3. v. 9 1 Cor. 15. v. 51.  but now is opened to his saints. again, I show you a MYSTERY, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. and the like. Where if they should translate, secret, in steed of, mystery, as the Bezites do in one of these places, saying, I will show you a secret thing: what a disgracing and debasing were it to those high mysteries there signified? And if it were so in these, is it not so in Matrimony, which the Apostle maketh such a mystery, that it representeth no less matter than Christ and his Church and whatsoever is most excellent in that conjunction? Now then, if in all other places of high mystery they translate it also mystery, as it is in the Greek, and only in Matrimony do not so, but say rather, This is a great secret, using so base a term in so high & excellent a mystery, must we not needs think (as no doubt it is) that they do it because of their Heretical opinion against the Sacrament of Matrimony, and for their base estimation thereof?  
5 But they will yet reply again, & ask us, what we gain by translating it either Sacrament, or mystery? Doth that make it one of the Sacraments properly so called, to wit, such a Sacrament as Baptism is? no surely. but howsoever we gain otherwise, at least we gain the commendation of true translators, whether it make with us or against us. for otherwise 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 we therefore so translate it, as though it were forthwith one of the 7 Sacraments, because of the name: but as in other places wheresoever we find this word in the Latin, we translate it, Sacrament (as in the Apocalypse, 
Apoc. 17.  the Sacrament of the woman) so finding it here, we do here also so translate it. and as for the divers taking of it here, and else where, that we examine other wise, by circumstance of the text, and by the Churches and Doctor's interpretation: and we find that here it is taken for a Sacrament in that sense as we say, seven Sacraments: not so in the other places.  
6 As when we read this name jesus in Scripture common to our Saviour and to other men, we transtate it always alike, jesus: but when it is 
b jude. v. 5.  JESUS Christ, and when some other jesus, 
c Act. 7. v. 45. Colos. 4. v. 11.  we know by other circumstances. likewise presuppose Baptism in the Scripture were called a sacrament: yet the Protestants themselves would not, nor could thereby conclude, that it were one of their two Sacraments. yet I trow they would not avoid to translate it by the word sacrament, if they foud it so called: even so we finding Matrimony so called, do so translate it, neither concluding thereby that it is one of the Seven, nor yet suppressing the name, which no doubt gave some occasion to the Church and the holy doctors to esteem it as one of the Seven. They contrariwise, as though it were never so called, suppress the name altogether, calling it a secret, to put it out of all question, that it is no Sacrament: which they would not have done, if the Scripture had said of Baptism or the Eucharist, This is a great Sacrament. So partial they are to their own opinions.   

CHAP. XVII. Heretical translation against the B. S ACRAMENT, and SACRIFICE, and ALTARS.  
1 NOw let us see concerning the Eucharist, which they allow for a Sacrament, how they handle the matter to the disgracing and defacing of the same also. They take away the operation and efficacy of Christ's blessing pronounced upon the bread & wine, making it only a thanksgiving to God: and to this purpose they translate more gladly, thanksgiving, then, blessing. as Matth. 26. the Greek words being two, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bib. 1562. 1577.  the one signifying properly, to bless: the other, to give thanks: they translate both thus, when he had given thanks. likewise Marc. 14. in the Bible printed 1562. And when they translate it, blessing, they mean nothing else but giving thanks, 
Great difference in the scriptures, between blessing, and giving of thanks.  as Beza telleth us in his Annotations Mat. 26. v. 26. We reply and by most manifest Scripture prove unto them, that the former Greek word doth not signify thanksgiving properly, but blessing, and a blessing of creatures to the operation of some great effect in them: as when Christ took the five loaves & two fishes, to multiply them, 
Benedixit cis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Anno. in 9 Luc. v. 16.  he blessed them Luc. 9 What say they to this think you? Doth not the Greek word here plainly signify, blessing of creatures? No, (saith Beza) no doubt but here also it signifieth giving thanks. How Beza? he addeth, Not as though Christ had given thanks to the bread, for that were to absurd: but we must mollify this interpretation thus, that he gave thanks to God the father for the loaves and the fishes. Is not this a notable exposition of these words, benedixit cis?  
2 We ask him in the like cases, when God blessed Adam and Eve, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Psal. 106. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Gen. 1. & 9 Noah and his children, saying, Increase and multiply: when he blessed the children of Israel, and they multiplied exceedingly, when he blessed the later things of job more than the first. job. 42. Was this also a giving of thanks, and not an effectual blessing upon these creatures? What will they say, or what difference will they make? As God blessed here, so he was God and man that blessed the loaves and fishes there. If they will say he did it as man, and therefore it was a giving of thanks to God his father: to omit that he blessed them as he multiplied them, that is, rather according to his divine nature then human: we ask them, when he blessed as man, was it always giving of thanks? he blessed the little children, he blessed his disciples, 
Luc. 24.  when he ascended: was this giving thanks for them, as Beza expoundeth his blessing of the loaves & fishes? When 
* Beza loco citato.  we bless the table or the meat upon the table, when S. Paul saith, 1 Timoth. 4. all meat is lawful that * 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Which word can never signify, giving thanks.  is sanctified by the word & by prayer: is all this nothing but giving thanks? So saith Beza in express words.  
3 We go forward, and prove the contrary yet more manifestly, in the very matter of the B. Sacrament, for the which they multiply all the foresaid absurdities. We tell them that S. Paul saith thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The chalice of blessing, which we bless, is it not etc. how could he speak more plainly, that the chalice or cup (meaning that in the cup) is blessed? Which S. Cyprian de Corn. Do. explicateth thus, Calix solenni benedictione sacratus, The Chalice consecrated by solemn blessing. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Oecumenius thus, The Chalice which blessing, we prepare. that is, which we bless & so prepare. for so it must signify, & not as Beza would have it, 
Annot. in 1 Cor. 10. v. 16.  which with thanks giving we prepare, and that I prove by his own words immediately before, where he saith that the Greek word being used of the Apostle transitively, that is, with a case following, can not signify giving thanks. How then can it so signify in Oecumenius words, who doth interpret the Apostles meaning by the Apostles own words and phrase? yea (that you may note a notorious contradiction) how doth Beza then in the place of Luke before alleged (where the same Greek word is a plain transitive as in this 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  place) expound it of giving thanks for the bread and fishes? A liar (they say) must be mindful, to make his tale agree in every point. He that before forced the word in every sentence to be nothing else but thanks giving, even when it was a plain transitive, now confesseth that he never read it in that signification, when it is a transitive. and so we have that the blessing of the cup or of the bread, is not giving thanks as they either translate, or interpret it.  
4 And surely in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is most evident, 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 Greek word: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bless o Lord the sacred bread. and, Bless o Lord the sacred cup. and why or to what effect? It followeth, changing it by the holy Spirit. Where is signified the transmutation and consecration thereof into the body and blood. But in the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there may be some question, because it signifieth properly to give thanks, and therefore may seem to be referred to God only, and not to the element and creature. But this also we find contrary in the Greek fathers, who use this word also transitively, saying, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  panem & calicem eucharistisatos, or, panem in quo gratiae actae sunt. that is the bread and the cup made the Eucharist: the bread over which thanks are given: that is, which by the word of prayer and thanksgiving is made a consecrated meat, the flesh and blood of Christ, as S. justine in fine 2 Apolgo. and S. Irenaeus li. 4.34. in the same places expound it. Whereas it may also signify that, for which thanks are given in that most solemn sacrifice of the Eucharist, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as S. Denys in one place seemeth to take it. Eccl. Hier. c. 3 in fine. Who in the self same chapter speaketh of the consecration thereof most evidently.  
5 Whereby we have to note that the Heretics in urging the word, Eucharist, as mere thanksgiving, thereby to take away blessing and consecration of the elements of bread and wine, do unlearnedly and deceitfully. because all the fathers make mention of both: S. Paul also calleth it, blessing of the chalice, which the evangelists call, giving of thanks. Whose words Theophylacte explicateth thus, THE CHALICE OF BLESSING, that is, of the Eucharist. For holding it in our hands, we bless it, & give thanks to him that shed his blood for us. See here both blessing, & Eucharist, blessing the chalice, and thanksgiving to Christ. 
Liturg. S. jac. Basil. Chrys.  S. james and the Greek fathers in their Liturgies, put both words in the consecration of each element, saying thus, giving thanks, sanctifying, breaking: and, giving thanks, blessing, sanctifying: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and, taking the cup, giving thanks, sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the boly Ghost, he gave it to us his Disciples. S. Chrysostom who in many places of his works speaketh much of thanksgiving in these holy mysteries, 
Hom. 2. in Tim. 2. Hom. 83. in Mat. Ho. de juda proditore.  doth he not as often speak of the blessing, consecration, yea and the transmutation thereof, & that with what words, and by what power it is done? Doth not S. Augustine say of the same, 
Aug. ep. 59  benedicitur & sanctificatur, it is blessed and sanctified, who often speaketh of the solemn giving of thanks in the sacrifice of the Church? 
De bone viduit. c. 16.  Doth not the Church at this day use the very same terms, as in S. Augustine's time, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. and, Verè dignum & justum est, semper & ubique tibigratias agere etc. It is very meet and right, always and in all places to give thee thanks: Which the Greek Church also in their Liturgies express most abundantly? yet doth there follow blessing & consecration, and whatsoever S. Ambrose describeth to be done in this holy sacrifice, touching this point, writing thereof most excellently in his book de ijs qui initiantur mysterijs. c. 9  
6 Of all which, this is the conclusion, that the Eucharist is a solemn name, taken of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so called, because this Sacrament and sacrifice is blessed and consecrated with prayer & thanksgiving, as S. justine speaketh, and because in this sacrifice so blessed and consecrated into the body and blood of Christ, him we offer up a most acceptable oblation of thanksgiving, and a memory of all Gods marvelous benefits toward us. In this sense the fathers and the holy Church speak of the Eucharist, including all the rest, to wit Sacrament, sacrifice, blessing, & consecration, without which this were no more to be called Eucharist, than any other common giving of thakes, as S. Irenaeus doth plainly signify, when he declareth, hat being before bread, 
Li. 4. c. 34.  and receiving the invocation of God over it, now is no more common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the earthly, and the heavenly. So that it is made the Eucharist by circumstance of solemn words and ceremonies, & therefore is not a mere giving of thanks: and further we learn, that S. justines' and S. Irenaeus words before alleged, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Panis & calix Eucharistisatus, signify, the bread and chalice made the Eucharist: and consequently we learn that the active thereof, is, by thanksgiving to make the Eucharist. and because the other word of blessing & this of thanksgiving are used indifferently one for an other in Christ's action about this Sacrament, we learn undoubtedly, that when it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the meaning is, blessing, & giving thanks, he made the Eucharist of his body and blood, that is the Sacrament and Sacrifice of a singular thanksgiving, which (as S. Augustine often is want to say) the faithful only do know & understand in the sacrifice of the Church: and because the faithful only understand, therefore the Protestants and calvinists are so ignorant in this mystery, that to take away all the dignity thereof they bend both their expositions and translations.  
7 After they have turned blessing or consecration into bare thanksgiving, which is one step toward the denying of the real presence, they come nearer, and so include Christ in heaven, that he can not be withal upon the altar, translating thus, Whom heaven must contain, until the times that allthings be restored. Act. 3. v. 21. and yet Beza worse, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ad rat. camp. pag. 43.  and he that allegeth him, M. whitaker's: who must be contained in heaven. Which is so far from the Greek, that not only Illyricus the Luthera, but Calvin himself doth not like it. Beza protesteth that he so translateth of purpose to keep Christ's presence from the altar: and we marvel the less, because we are well acquainted with many the like his impudent Protestations. M. whitak only we do marvel at, that he should be either so deceived by an other man's translation, or himself be so overseen in the Greek word, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that he knoweth not a mere deponent and only deponent, from a passive.  
8 This doth not become him that * 
Ibid. pa. 84.  objecteth ignorance of the Greek to an other man, and that after he had well tried by public conference, 
If he had not yet tried him, he presumed to belie him, before he knew him.  that he was not ignorant: & so objecteth it as though he knew not three words in that tongue, whereas he had heard him read & interpret S. Basil, not the easiest of the Greek Doctors. This is palpable impudency and a face that can not blush, and full of malice against the saints of God, who if they knew not a word in the Greek tongue, were never the worse, nor the less learned, but among fools and children, that esteem learning by such trifles, which Grammarians know far better than great Divines. For were not he a wise man that would prefer one Master Humphrey, Master Fulke, Master whitaker's, or some of us poor men, because we have a little smack in the three tongues, before S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, S. Augustin, S. Gregory, or S. Thomas, that understood well, none but one? Howbeit if they esteem learning by knowledge of the tongues, they will not (I trow) compare with Catholics, either of former time, or of these later age, specially since their new Gospel began: & if they will compare with us herein for their simple credit, we may perhaps give them occasion ere it be long, to muster their men all at once, if they dare show their face before our camp of excellent Hebricians, Grecians, Latinistes, of absolute linguistes in the Chaldoe, Syriake, Arabike &c. whom they must needs confess to have been, and to be even at this day, their Masters and teachers.  
9 But to return to you M. whitaker's, greater is your fault in divinity, then in the tongues, when you make your argument against the real presence out of this place, as out of the Scripture & S. Peter, whereas they are Bezas words, and not S. Peter's. Again, whether you take Bezas words, or S. Peter's, your argument faileth very much, when you conclude that Christ's natural body is not in the Sacrament, because it is placed and contained in heaven. For S. Chrysostom telleth you, 
Ho. 2 ad po. Antioch.  that Christ ascending into heaven, both left us his flesh, and yet ascending hath the same. and again, O miracle, saith he: 
Li. 3 de Sacerdotio.  He that sitteth above with the Father, in the same moment of time is handled with the hands of al. This is the faith of the ancient fathers, M. whitaker's, and this is the Catholic faith, and this is (I trow) an other manner of faith and far greater, thus to believe the presence of Christ in both places at once, because he is omnipotent and hath said the word: then your faith (whereof you boast so much) which believeth no further than that he is ascended, and that therefore he cannot be present upon the altar, nor dispose of his body as he list.  
10 Again it is a very famous place for the real presence of the blood (which we have handled at large 
* Chap. 1. numb. 38.  else where, but here also must be briefly touched) when our Saviour saith, Luc. 22. This is the Chalice the new Testament in my blood, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which (Chalice) is shed for you. For so (which) must needs be referred according to the Greek. In which speech, Chalice must needs be taken for that in the chalice, and that in the chalice must needs be the blood of Christ, & not wine, because his blood only was shed for us. & so we do plainly prove the real presence. according as S. Chrysostom also said, 
in 1 Cor. ca 10. ho. 24.  Hoc quod est in chalice, illud est quod fluxit de latere. That which is in the Chalice, is the same that gushed out of his side. All which most necessary deduction Beza would defeat, by saying the Greek is corrupted in all the copies that are extant in the world, and by translating thus clean otherwise then the Greek will bear, This cup is the new Testament in my blood, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which (blood) is shed for you.  
11 But what pertaineth this to the English Heretics, Who translate, Which is shed, so indifferently that it may signify, Which cup or, which blood is shed? Thus far it pertaineth, 
Ad rat. Camp. pag. 34.  because they do not only defend this translation by all means, but they tell us plainly namely Fulke that they refer (which) to the word blood, and not to the word cup, 
Against D. Sand. Rock pag. 309.  even as Beza doth, ask us what Grammarian would refer it otherwise. in which question he showeth himself a very simple Grammarian in the Greek, or a mad heretic, that either knoweth not, or will not know, that in the Greek it can not be so referred, and consequently neither in latin nor English, which in true translation must follow the Greek. but of these and other their foul and manifold shifts to avoid this place, * 
Chap. 1. nu. 37.38. etc.  I have spoken in an other place of this book.  
12 Only M. whitaker's (to say truly) hath brought somewhat to the purpose, 
Pag. 35.  to wit, that S. Basil readeth the Greek as they translate. But he doth well to make light of it, because it is evident that S. Basil cited not the text of the Evangelist, but the sense, which Beza noteth to be the custom of the ancient fathers, 
Praef. in no. Test. an. 1556.  telling us withal that therefore the reading of the fathers, is no certain rule to reform or alter the words of Scripture according to the same: and it is very like that if Beza or Fulke his advocate had thought S. Basils' reading of any importance, they would have used it long since, rather than so many other shifts and so absurd, as they do: unless we may think they knew it not, and therefore could not use it. But for S Basil, according to the sense he citeth it very truly: for, whether we say, the Cup that is shed, or, the blood that is shed, both signifieth the blood of Christ shed for us, as S. Basil citeth it. the difference is, that referring it to the cup, as S. Luke hath it, it signifieth the blood both present in the cup, and also then shed in a Sacrament at the last supper: but referring it to the word blood, as S. Basil doth, & as they translate, it may signify the blood shed on the cross also, yea (as these translators mean and would have it) only that on the Cross, not considering that the Greek word is the present tense, and therefore rather signifieth the present shedding of his blood then in mystical sacrifice, than the other visible shedding thereof, which was to come in the future tense. Lastly, they translate S. Luke's Gospel, and not S. Basil: and therefore not following S. Luke, they are false translators, howsoever S. Basil readeth.  
13 As this falsehood is both against Sacrament and Sacrifice, so against the Sacrifice also of the altar it is, that they control S. Hieroms translation in the old Testament concerning the sacrifice of Melchisedec, 
The sacrifice of Melchisedec.  Who brought forth bread and wine: Gen. 14. v. 18. that is, offered or sacrificed bread & wine: which we prove to be the true sense and interpretation (& that this bringing forth of bread & wine, was sacrificing thereof) not only by all the father's expositions that write of Melchisedeks' priesthood, (Cypr. epist. 63. Epiph. har. 55. & 79. Hiero. in Mat. 26. & in epist. ad Euagrium.) & by the Hebrew word which is a word of sacrifice, jud. 6. v. 18: and * 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Pet. Galat. li. 10 c. 4. et 5. et Chro. Genebrardi pag. 13.  by the greatest Rabbins and Hebricians that write thereof, but we prove it also by these words of the very text itself, He brought forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of God most high. Which reason immediately following, Because he was God's Priest, proveth evidently that he brought it not forth in common manner as any other man might have done, but as God's Priest, whose office is to offer sacrifice. This consequence is so plain, that for avoiding thereof, the Adversaries will not have it translated in any wise, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For he was the Priest, as though the Scripture gave a reason why he brought forth bread and wine: but, and he was a Priest, etc. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Wrangling about the signification of the Hebrew conjunction.  
14 Wherein the reader may see their exceeding partiality & wilfulness. For, besides infinite like places of Scripture, whereby we do easily show that this Hebrew particle is used to give a reason or cause of a thing, themselves also in an other place prove it for us, 
Beza annot. in 1 Luc. v. 42.  and that by the authority of Theophylacte, & allegation of examples out of the Scripture, 
no. Test. an. 1580.  and translate accordingly thus: Blessed art thou among women, because the fruit of thy womb is blessed. 
Benedicta tu etc. & benedictus. etc.  Let them give us a reason, why the said Conjunction is here by their translation, quia, or, enim, where it was never so translated before, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and it must not be in any case in the other place of Genesis, where it hath been so translated and generally received even in the primitive Church. In other places of Scripture also which Theophylacte allegeth, and many more may be alleged, they confess and like very well it should so signify: 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 wine, and he was the Priest, etc. not, because he was the Priest: What is the cause of this their dealing? None other undoubtedly (and in all these cases I knock at their consciences) but that here they would avoid the necessary sequel of Melchisedecks' sacrifice, upon such translation, which typical sacrifice of bread and wine if it should be granted, then would follow also a sacrifice of the new Testament, made of bread and wine answering to the same, and so we should have the sacrifice of the altar, and their bare communion should be excluded.  
15 For which purpose also their partial translation about, altar, and, table, is notorious. For, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the name of altar (as they know very well) both in the Hebrew and Greek, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and by the custom of all people's both Jews and Pagans, implying and importing sacrifice, therefore we in respect of the sacrifice of Christ's body & blood, say, altar, rather than, table, as all the ancient fathers (Chrys. ho. 53 ad po. Antioch. and ho. 20 in 2 Cor. and in Demonst. 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 speak & write, (namely when S. Hierom calleth the bodies or bones of SS. Peter & Paul the altars of Christ, because of this sacrifice offered over and upon the same) though in respect of eating & drinking the body and blood, it is also called a table: so that with us it is both an altar and a table, whether it be of wood or of stone. but the Protestants, because they make it only a communion of bread and wine, or a supper, and no sacrifice, therefore they call it table only, and abhor from the word, altar, as Papistical. For the which purpose, in their first translation, (Bible an. 1562.) when altars were then in digging down through out England, they translated with no less malice, than they threw them down, putting the word, temple, in steed of altar: which is so gross a corruption, that a man would have thought it had been done by oversight, and not of purpose, if they had not done it thrice immediately within two chapters, 1 Cor. 9 & 10. saying: Know you not that they which wait of the TEMPLE, are partakers of the TEMPLE? and, Are not they which eat of the sacrifice, partakers of the TEMPLE? in all which places the Apostles word in Greek is, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 9 v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  altar, and not, temple. and see here their notorious peevishness. where the Apostle saith, temple, there the same translation saith, sacrifice: where the Apostle saith, altar, there it saith, temple.  
16 Thus we see how they suppress the name of altar, where it should be: now let us see how they put it in their translation, where it should not be this also they do thrice in one chapter, & that for to save the honour of their communion table. namely in the story of Bel, 
Dan. 14. v. 12.17.20.  where we have it thrice called the table of that idol, under which Bells priests had made a privy entrance, and, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that the king looked upon the table, and, that they did eat up such things as were upon the table: these wicked translators fearing lest the name of Bells table might redound to the dishonour of their Communion table, translate it, altar, 
See the Bib. 1562. and 1577.  in all these places. Wherein I cannot but pity their folly, and wonder exceedingly how they could imagine it any disgrace either for table or altar, if the I dolls also had their tables and altars, whereas S. Paul so plainly nameth both together, The table of our Lord, 
1 Cor. 10. v. 21.  and the table of Devils. If the table of Devils, why not the table of Bel? if that be no disgrace to the table of our Lord, why are you afraid of Bells table, lest it should disgrace yours? Or if you had no such fear, than you must tell us some other good reason of your unreasonable translation in this place, why you translate, altar, for, table, that is, chalk for cheese.  
17 And here by the way the Reader may note an other exceeding folly in them, that think the name of table, maketh against altar & sacrifice, their own translation here condemning them, where they call Bells table, an altar and S. Paul, having said to the Corinthians, the table of our Lord, saith to the hebrews 
* Haimo. Oecumen.  of the self same, we have an altar. & again he saith, the table of Devils, which I am sure they will not deny to have been a true altar of I dololatrical sacrifice. & Malach. 1. v. 7. in one sentence it is called. both altar & table, whereupon the jews offered their external and true sacrifices. & all the fathers both Greek and Latin speaking of the sacrifice of the new Testament, call that where upon it is offered, both altar & table: but the Greekes more often table, the Latin fathers more often altar: and why or in what respects it is called both this and that, we have before declared, & here might add the very same out of S. Germanus Arch. B. of Constantinople, in his Greek commentaries (called mystica theoria) upon the Liturgies or Masses of the Greek fathers. but to proceed.  
18 There are also some places less evident, yet such as smatch of the like heretical humour against the B. Sacrament. In the prophet Hieremie c. 11. v. 19 we read thus according to the Latin and the Greek, Let us cast 
* Lignum in panem eius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  wood upon his bread, that is, saith S. Hierom in comment. huius loci, the cross upon the body of our Saviour. For it is he that said, I am the bread that descended from heaven. Where the Prophet so long before saying, bread, and meaning his body, alludeth prophetically to his body in the B. Sacrament made of bread and under the form of bread, and therefore also called bread of the Apostle. So that both in the Prophet and the Apostle, 
1 Cor. 10.  his bread and his body is all one. and lest we should think that the bread only signifieth his body, he saith, let us put the Cross upon his bread, that is, upon his very natural body which hung on the cross. Now for these words of the Prophet so usual and well known in the Church and all antiquity, how think you do these new Masters translate? in one bible thus, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof. An other, we will destroy his meat with wood. or as they should have said rather, the wood with his meat Do you see how properly they agree, whiles they seek novelties, and forsake the ancient usual translation?  
19 They will say, the first Hebrew word can not be as S. Hierom translateth, and as it is in the Greek, and as all antiquity readeth: but it must signify, Let us destroy. They say truly, according to the Hebrew word which now is. But is it not evident thereby, that the Hebrew word now is not the same which the Septuaginta translated into Greek, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. mittamus.  and S. Hierom into Latin? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and consequently the Hebrew is altered and corrupted from the original copy which they had: perhaps by the jews (as * 
Ps.  some other places) to obscure this prophecy also of Christ's Passion, and their crucifying of him upon the Cross. Such jewish Rabbins and new Hebrew words do our new masters gladly follow in the translation of the old Testament, whereas they might easily conceive the old Hebrew word in this place, if they would employ their skill that way, and not only to novelties. For who seethe not that the Greek Interpreters in number 70, and all hebrews of best skill in their own tongue, S. Hierom also a great Hebrician did not read as now we have in the Hebrew, 
Destruamus. ponamus. mittamus.  Nashchîtha, but, Nashitha, or, Nashlîcha? Again the Hebrew word that now is, doth so little agree with the words following, that they cannot tell how to translate it, as appeareth by the diversity and difference of their translations thereof before mentioned, and transposing the words in English otherwise then in the Hebrew, neither of both their translations having any commodious sense or understanding.  
20 But yet they will pretend that for the first word at the least, they are not to be blamed, because they follow the Hebrew that now is. not considering that if this were a good excuse, than might they as well follow the Hebrew that now is Psal. 21. v. 18: and so utterly suppress and take out of the Scripture this notable prophecy, They pierced my hands and my feet: Which yet they do not, neither can they do it for shame, if they will be counted Christians. So that in deed, to follow the Hebrew sometime where it is corrupt, is no sufficient excuse for them, though it may have a pretence of true translation, and we promised in the preface, in such cases not to call it heretical translation.  

That water and wine ought to be mingled in the chalice. Pro. 9  21 But concerning the B. Sacrament, let us see once more how truly they follow the Hebrew. The holy Ghost (saith S. Cyprian ep. 63 nu. 2.) by Solomon foreshoweth a type of our lords sacrifice, of the immolated host of bread and wine, saying, Wisdom hath killed her hosts, SHE HATH MINGLED HER WINE INTO the cup. Come ye, eat of my bread, and drink the wine that I HAVE MINGLED for you. Speaking of WINE MINGLED (saith this holy doctor) he foreshoweth prophetically the cup of our Lord, MINGLED WITH WATER AND WINE. So doth S. Hierom interpret this mixture or mingling of the wine in the chalice, so doth the author of the commentaries upon this place among S. Hieroms works, 
See S. Augustine de civit. Dei li. 17 c. 20.  so do the other fathers. So that there is great importance in these prophetical words of Solomon. She hath mingled her wine into the cup, and, the wine which I have mingled, as being a manifest prophecy of Christ's mingling water and wine in the Chalice at his last supper, which the Catholic Church observeth at this day, and whereof S. Cyprian writeth the foresaid long epistle.  
22 But the Protestants counting it an idle superstitious ceremony, here also frame their translation accordingly, suppressing altogether this mixture or mingling, and in steed thereof saying, She hath drawn her wine, 
Bibl. 1579.  and, drink the wine that I have drawn: or (as in other of their bibles) She hath powered out her wine, 
an. 1577.  and the wine which I have powered out: neither translation agreeing either with Greek or Hebrew. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, miscuit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, miscui.  not with the Greek, which doth evidently signify, mingling and mixture, as it is in the Latin, & as all the Greek Church from the Apostles time hath used this word in this very case whereof we now speak, of mingling water & wine in the chalice S. james and S. Basil in their Liturgies expressly testifying that Christ did so, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as also S. Cyprian in the place alleged. S. justine in the end of his second apology, calling it of the same Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is (according to plutarch) wine mingled with water: 
mixtus calix.  likewise S. Ireneus in his fifth book near the beginning. 
Conc. Constantinop. 6. can. 32.  See the 6 general Council most fully treating hereof and deducing it from the Apostles & ancient fathers, 
CHAP. 18.  and interpreting this Greek word by an other equivalent, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and more plain to signify this mixture  
23 Thus then the Greek is neither drawing of wine, nor pouring out thereof, as they translate, but mingling. but the Hebrew perhaps signifieth both, or at the least one of the two, either to draw, or to power out. Gentle reader, if thou have skill, look the Hebrew Lexicon of Pagnine esteemed the best: if thou have not skill, ask, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and thou shalt understand that there is no such signification of this word in all the bible, but that it signifieth only mixture & mingling. A strange case, that to avoid this mingling of the cup, being a most certain tradition of the Apostles, they have invented two other significations of this Hebrew word, which it never had before.   

CHAP. XVIII. Heretical translation against the honour of SAINTS, namely of our B. LADY.  
1 LET us pass from God's holy Sacraments to his honourable Saints in heaven, and we shall find that these translations pluck from them also as much honour as they may. In the Psalm 138 where the Catholic Church & all antiquity readeth thus, 
Psal. 138.  Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus etc. Thy friends o God are become exceeding honourable, their princedom is exceedingly strengthened: which verse is sung and said in the honour of the holy Apostles, agreeably to that in an other Psalm, 
Ps 44.  Constitues eos principes super omnem terram, Thou shalt appoint them Princes over all the earth: what mean they in all their English Bibles to alter it thus: How dear are thy counsels (or thoughts) to me o God: o how great is the sum of them? Doth not the Hebrew make more for the old received Latin translation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  then for theirs, because the Hebrew word is used more commonly for to signify friends then cogitations? doth not S. Hierom so translate in his translation of the Psalms according to the Hebrew? doth not the great rabbin R. Solomon? Doth not the Greek put it out of doubt, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which is altogether according to the said ancient Latin translation?  
2 And you my Masters that translate otherwise, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  I beseech you, is it in Hebrew, How great is the sum of them & not rather word for word most plainly, how are the heads of them strengthened, or their princedoms, as in the Greek also it is most manifest? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Why do you then hunt after novelties, and forsake the trodden path of the ancient, and pass the bounds which our holy forefathers have set and appointed, preferring your own singularities and new devices even there where you can not justly pretend either the Hebrew or Greek? 
Epito. Thesau. Pagn. an. 1570. in radice.  When the Hebrew Lexicon hath given the common interpretation of this place, and then saith, Quidam exponunt, Some expound it otherwise: why had you rather be of that lesser, some that expound otherwise, then of the great society of all ancient interpreters?  
3 But this new fangled singulatitie of teaching and translating otherwise then all antiquity hath done, shall better appear in their dealing about our B. Lady, whose honour they have sought so many ways to diminish & deface, that the defence and maintenance thereof against the Heretics of our time is grown to a great book learnedly written by the great Clerk and jesuite, father Canisius, entitled, Mariana.  
4 Concerning our purpose, what was ever more common, and is now more general and usual in all Christian Countries, then in the ave Marie to say. Gratia plena, full of grace, in so much that in the first English Bible it hath continued so still, and every child in our Country was taught so to say, till the ave Marie was banished altogether and not suffered to be said neither in Latin nor English? What ancient father of the Latin Church hath not always so read and expounded? What Church in all the west hath not ever so sung and said? Only our new Translators have found a new kind of speech, translating thus: Hail thou that art freely beloved. 
Bib. 1579. and 1577.  and, Hail thou that art in high favour. Why this, and that, or any other thing, rather than, Hail full of grace? S. john Baptist was full of the holy Ghost even from his birth, 
Luc. 1. v. 15.  S. Steven was full of grace, 
Act. 7. v. 8.  as the Scripture recordeth of them both: why may not then our Lady much more be called full of grace, 
Ambr. li. 2 in 1 Luc.  who (as S. Ambrose saith) only obtained the grace, which no other women deserved, to be replenished with the author of grace?  
5 They will say, the Greek word doth not so signify. doth it not? I make themselves witnesses of the contrary, and their own translation in other places shall confute them, where they translate an other word of the self same nature and form and in all respects like to this, 
Luc. 16. v. 20  full of sores. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be full of sores, why is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of grace? Let any Grecian of them all make me a difference in the nature and significancy of these two words. Again if ulcerosus (as Beza translateth) be full of sores, why is not gratiosa (as Erasmus translateth) full of grace? or why doth Beza marvel that Erasmus translated, gratiosa, when himself translateth the like word, ulcerosus. All which adjectives in osus (you know) signify fullness, as, periculosus, aerumnosus. Yet what a stir doth Beza keep here in his Annotations to make the Greek word signify, freely beloved?  
6 But hath it in deed any such signification? tell us you that profess this great skill of the tongues, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  what syllable is there in this word that soundeth to that signification? 
Comment. in Eph. 1.  S. Chrysostom and the Greek Doctors that should best know the nature of this Greek word, say that it signifieth, to make gracious, & acceptable, and beloved, and beautiful, and amiable, and so to be desired as when the Psalm saith, 
Psal. 44.  The king shall desire thy beauty. Beza himself saith, that it is word for word, gratificata, made grateful, and yet he expoundeth it, accepted before God, and translateth it, freely beloved, because he will have no singular grace or goodness or virtue resident in our B. Lady, but all by imputation & acceptation, whereof I have spoken before. 
S. Athan. de S. Deip.  S. Athanasius a Greek Doctor saith that she had this title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Holy Ghost descended into the Virgin, filling her with all graces and virtues. and I beseech the reader to see his words, which are many more concerning this fullness of grace and all spiritual gifts. S. Hierom that knew the Greek word as well as the Protestants, 
Ep. 140 in expos. Psal. 44.  readeth, Gratia plena, and findeth no fault with this interpretation. but saith plainly she was so saluted, full of grace, because she conceived him in whom all fullness of the deity dwelled corporally.  
7 Now let the English Bezites come with their new term, freely beloved, and control these and all other ancient fathers both Greek and Latin, and teach them a new signification of the Greek word, which they knew not before. 
john Keltridge preacher of the word in London. in his sermons within the tour, printed. fo. 14.  Let john Keltridge one of their great preachers in London, come and tell us, that the Septuaginta and the best translations in Greek have no such words as we use in the ave Marie, but that the word which the Septuaginta use, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 
Gross ignorance & singular pride in many of the new clergy.  Who ever heard such a jest, that the preacher of the word of God in London (so he is called in the title of his book) and preacher before the jesuits and Seminaries in the tower, 
So he called the Priests of the Seminary, as if one would call a monk a Monastery or a nun a nonry.  which is next degree to the disputers there, whose sermons be solemnly printed, and dedicated to one of the Queen's Council, who seemeth to be such a Grecian that he confuteth the vulgar Latin translation by the signification of the Greek word, and in other places of his book allegeth the Greek text: 
Pag. 37. of the 2 part.  that this man for all this, referreth us to the Septuaginta either as authors of S. Luke's Gospel which is to ridiculous: or as translators thereof, as though S. Luke had written in Hebrew, yea as though the whole new Testament had been written in Hebrew (for so no doubt he presupposed) and that the Septuaginta had translated it into Greek as they did the old, who were dead three hundred years before S. Luke's Gospel and the new Testament was written.  
8 All this is such a pitiful jest, as were incredible, if his printed book did not give testimony. Pitiful I say, because the simple people count such their preachers jolly fellows & great Clerks, because they can talk of the Greek & of the Hebrew text, as this man doth also concerning the Hebrew letter Tau, 
Fol. 11. part. 2.  whether it had in old time the form of a cross or no, even as wisely and as skilfully, as he did before of the Septuaginta and the Greek word in S. Luke's Gospel. Whose incredible folly and ignorance in the tongues perhaps I would never have mentioned (because I think the rest are sorry and ashamed of him) but that he boasteth of that whereof he hath no skill, and that the people may take him for a very pattern and example of many other like boasters and bragger's among them, and that when they hear one talk lustily of the Hebrew and Greek, and cite the text in the said tongues, they may always remember john keltridge their preacher, and say to themselves, what if this fellow also be like john keltridge?  
9 But to proceed: these great Grecians and Hebricians that control all antiquity and the approved ancient Latin translation by scamning the Greek & Hebrew words, that think it a great corruption Gen. 3. to read, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, she shall bruise thy head, because it pertaineth to our Lady's honour, calling it * 
Sand. Rock discou. pag. 145.  a corruption of the Popish Church, whereas S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, S. Bernard, & the rest read so, as being the common received text in their time (though there hath been also always the other reading even in the vulgar Latin translation, & therefore it is not any late reformation of these new correctors, as though the Hebrew and Greek text before had been unknown) these controllers I say of the Latin text by the Hebrew, against our Lady's honour, are in an other place content to dissemble the Hebrew word, and that also for small devotion to the B. Virgin: namely Hierem 7 and 44. Where the Prophet inveigheth against them that offer sacrifice to the Queen of heaven. this they think is very well, because it may sound in the people's ears against the use of the Catholic Church, which calleth our Lady, Queen of heaven. but they know very well that the Hebrew word doth not signify, Queen in any other place of the Scripture, and that the Rabbins and later Hebricians (whom they gladly follow) deduce it otherwise, to signify rather the whole corpse and frame of heaven, consisting of all the beautiful stars and planets, and the Septuaginta call it not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
See Pagn. in radice.  Queen, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the host of heaven, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  c. 7. Hierem: and S. Hierom not only, reginam, but rather, militiam coeli: & when he nameth it reginam, Queen, he saith we must understand it of the moon, to which and to the other stars they did sacrifice and commit idolatry. but the Protestants (against their custom of scanning the Hebrew and the Greek) translate here, Queen of heaven, for no other cause in the world, but to make it sound against her, whom Catholics truly call and worthily honour as Queen of heaven, because her son is king, and she exalted above Angels and all other creatures. See the New Test. Annot. Act. 1. v. 14.  
10 Again, 
An. 1580.  why doth the Geneva new Testament make S. Matthew to say, 
Cap. 1. v. 25.  that He (to wit, joseph) called his name jesus? Why not she, 
Cap. 1. v. 32.  as well as he? For in S. Luke the Angel saith to our Lady also, Thou shalt call his name jesus. S. Matthew then speaking indifferently, and not limiting it to him or her, why do they give this pre-eminence to joseph rather than to the B. Virgin? did not both Zacharie and also Elisabeth his wife by revelation give the name of john to john the Baptist? 
Luc. 1. v. 60 and 63.  yea did not Elisabeth the mother first so name him, before Zacharie her husband? much more may we think that the B. Virgin the natural mother of our Saviour, gave him the name of jesus, than joseph his putative father, specially if we consider that the Angel revealed the name first unto her, saying, that she should so call him: and the Hebrew word Esa. 7. whereunto the Angel alludeth, is the feminine gender, and referred by the great Rabbins, Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi David, unto her, saying expressly in their commentaries, Et vocabit ipsa puella: and the maid herself shall call. and surely the usual pointing of the Greek text (for Beza maketh other points of his own) is much more for that purpose. Now if they will say that Theophylacte understandeth it of joseph, true it is, and so it may be understood very well: but if it may be understood of our Lady also, and rather of her then of him, why doth your translation exclude this other interpretation?  
11 Where, by the way I must tell you (and else where 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 all the rest that expound it otherwise, which you know is such a fault in a translator as can by no means be excused. Secondly the reader may here observe and learn, that if they shall hereafter defend their translation of any place, by some doctor's exposition agreeable thereunto, that will not serve nor suffice them, because every Doctor may say his opinion in his commentaries, * 
See chap. 1. nu. 3.43. Cham 10. nu. 1.2. chap. 19 nu. 1.  but that must not be made the text of Scripture, because other doctors expound it otherwise: and being in itself and in the original tongue ambiguous and indifferent to divers senses, it may not be restrained or limited by translation, unless there be a mere necessity, when the translation can not possibly or hardly express the ambiguity and indifferency of the original text.  
12 As (for example) in this controversy concerning Saints, 
2 Pet. 1. v. 15.  S. Peter speaketh so ambiguously, either that he will remember them after his death, or they shall remember him, that some of the Greek fathers gathered and concluded thereupon (Oecum. in Caten. Gagneius in hunc locum) that the Saints in heaven remember us on earth, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and make intercession for us. Which am biguitie both in the Greek and the Latin, should be also kept and expressed in the English translation, and we have endeavoured as near as we could possibly so to make it, because of the divers interpretations of the ancient fathers. But it may seem perhaps to the reader that the said ambiguity can not be kept in our English tongue, and that our own translation also can have but one sense. If it be so, and if there be a necessity of one sense, than (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, follow not necessity, but their heresy, That Saints pray not for us. 
Beza.  Which is evident by this, that they restrain it in their Latin translations also, where there is no necessity at all, but it might be as ambiguous & indifferent, as in Greek, 
no. Test. Gr. Henr. Steph. an. 1576.  if it pleased them: yea when they print the Greek Testament only without any translation, yet here they put the Latin in the margin, according as they will have it read, and as though it might be read no otherwise then they prescribe.   

CHAP. XIX. Heretical translation against the distinction of LATRIA and DULIA.  
1 IN this restraining of the Scripture to the sense of some one Doctor, there is a famous example in the epistle to the hebrews, 
Heb. 11. v. 21  where the Apostle saith either jacob adored the top of joseph's sceptre, as many read and expound: or else, that he adored toward the top of his sceptre, as other read and interpret: and beside these there is no other interpretation of this place in all antiquity, but in S. Augustine only, as Beza confesseth: 
Quaest. in Gen. Bib. 1579.  yet are they so bold to make his exposition only, and his commentary peculiar to him alone, the text of the Scripture in their translation, saying, jacob leaning on the end of his staff, worshipped God, and so excluding all other senses & expositions of all the other fathers, excluding and condemning their own former translations, 
Bib. 1562. 1577.  adding two words more than are in the Greek text, leaning, God: forcing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may be, but is as rare, as virgae eius, for virgae suae: turning the other words clean out of their order and place and form of construction which they must needs have correspondent and answerable to the Hebrew text from whence they were translated: 
Gen. 47. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which Hebrew words themselves translate in this order, He worshipped toward the beds head. If he worshipped toward the beds head, according to the Hebrew: then did he worship toward the top of his sceptre, according to the Greek: the difference of both being only in these words, sceptre, and, bed (because the Hebrew is ambiguous to both) and not in the order or construction of the sentence.  
2 To make it more plain, when the Prophet David saith, Adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum Psal. 5. & 137. is not the true translation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and grammatical sequel of the words thus: I will adore toward thy holy temple? Is it not a common phrase in the Scripture, that the people of God adored toward Jerusalem, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dan. 6. 3 Reg. 8. Psal. 98. Ios. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ps. 131.  toward his holy mount, before the ark, toward the place where his feet stood? May any man be so bold, by adding and transposing to alter and obscure all such places of holy Scripture, that there may appear no manner of adoration toward or before a creature? and for worshipping or adoring toward the things aforesaid and the like, may we say, leaning upon those things to worship or adore God? Were they afraid lest those speeches of holy Scripture might warrant and confirm the Catholic & Christian manner of adoring our Saviour Christ toward the holy Rood, at, or before his image and the Crucifix before the altar, and so forth? For had they not seated this, why should they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, caning upon, rather than, towards, yea, why in Genesis, towards his beds head, & here not, towards?  
3 And (which is more) when the ancient Greek father's, Chrys. Oecum. in Collectan. Damesc. li. 1. pro imaginibus, Leont. apud Damasc. put so little force either in this preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or the other alleged) that they expound all those speeches as if the prepositions were of phrase only and not of signification, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saying, jacob adored joseph's sceptre, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the people of Israel adored the temple, the Ark, the holy mount, the place where his feet stood, and the like, whereby S. Damascene proveth the adoration of creatures named Dulia, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  namely of the cross and of sacred images: if I say they make so little force of the prepositions, that they infer not only adoration towards the thing, but adoration of the thing: how do these goodly translators, of all other words so strain and rack the little particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify, leaning upon, that it shall in no wise signify any thing tending towards adoration?  
4 And if the Greek Doctors suffice not to satisfy these great Grecians herein, telme you that have skill in the Hebrew, whether in the foresaid speeches cited out of the Psalms, there be any force in the Hebrew prepositions? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 98.131.  surely no more than if we should say in English without prepositions, Adore ye his holy hill: we will adore the place where his feet stood: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 95. or 96.  Adore ye his footstool: For you know that there is the same preposition also when it is said, Adore ye our Lord: or as yourselves translate, worship the Lord: where there can be no force nor signification of the preposition. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And therefore in these places also your translation is corrupt and wilful, when you say thus: We will fall down before his footstool. fall ye down before his footstool, before his holy mount, or wouship him upon his holy hill: Where you shun and avoid first the term of adoration, which the Hebrew and Greek duly express by terms correspondent in both languages, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  through out the Bible, and are applied for the most part to signify adoring of creatures. Secondly you avoid the Greek phrase, which is at the least, to adore towards these holy things and places: & much more the Hebrew phrase, which is, to adore the very things rehearsed: to adore God's footstool (as the Psalm saith) because it is holy, 
Psal. 98.  or, because he is holy, whose footstool it is, as the Greek readeth.  
5 This being most manifest to all that have skill in these tongues, it is evident that you regard neither Hebrew nor Greek, but only your heresy: & that in S. Paul's place aforesaid of adoring joseph's sceptre, you altar it by your own fancy, and not by S. Augustine's authority, whom I am sure you will not admit reading in the Psalm, Adore ye his footstool: 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 will you admit him when he readeth thus of David, 
Praef. in Ps. 33.  He was carried in his own hands, & interpreteth it mystically of Christ, that he was carried in his own hands, when he gave his body and blood to his disciples. Yet are S. Augustine's interpretations (howsoever you like or mislike them) very good, as also that above named of jacobs' leaning upon his staff, and adoring, may be one good sense or commentary of that place, but yet a commentary, and one Doctor's opinion, not the sacred text of Scripture, as you would make it by so translating.  
6 And if S. Hierom like not the Greek Doctors interpretation in this place of adoring joseph and his sceptre, yet he also saith that jacob adored toward joseph's rod, or toward the bed's head, and not leaning upon his staff he adored, which you make the text of Scripture. And though he think that in this place is not meant any adoration of joseph, yet I am sure, for adoration of holy things, namely Relics, the holy land, and all the holy places and monuments of Christ's being & doing upon the earth, you will not be tried by S. Hierom. And again, why S. Paul should say, that by faith he adored, & in respect of things to come, it is not otherwise easy to understand, but that he partly foresaw the kingdom of Ephraim, in the posterity of joseph: partly the kingdom of Christ prefigured in joseph then Prince of Egypt, & so by faith adored his sceptre or toward his sceptre (which is all one) as the Greek fathers for the most part expound it. But let us hasten toward an end.   

CHAP. XX. Heretical translation by ADDING TO THE TEXT.  
1 BECAUSE in the last corruption I spoke of adding to the text, though it be their common and universal fault in every controversy, as is to be seen in every chapter of this book: yet here I will add certain places not yet mentioned. As, 
2 Paral. 36. v. 8. in Bib. 1562.  The rest of the acts of jehoakim, and his abominations which he did, and CARVED IMAGES THAT WERE LAID TO HIS CHARGE, BEHOLD THEY ARE WRITTEN etc. these words, 
Against images.  carved images laid to his charge, are more than is either in the Greek or the Hebrew.  
2 Again, 
Act. 9 v. 22. Bib. 1577.  Saul confounded the jews proving (by conferring one Scripture with an other) that this is very Christ. These words, 
For Conference of Scriptures, against fathers, Counsels etc.  by conferring one scripture with another, are added more than is in the Greek text: in favour of their presumptuous opinion, that conference of Scriptures is enough for any man to understand them, and so to reject both the commentaries of the Doctors, & exposition of holy Counsels and Catholic Church. it is so much more I say then is in the Greek 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 find no more for all those words, but, affirming, or, confirming. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 2. v. 16.  and the self same Bible in the first epistle to the Corinthians translateth the same Greek word thus, Who shall instruct? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And in deed that is the true and usual signification of the word, both in the old Testament, and in the new. as Deut. 4. Thou shalt teach them thy children. And Esa. 40. Who shall instruct our Lord? the Hebrew word 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 useth 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 whereof we now treat, saith nothing else, but that S. Paul earnestly taught or instructed them that jesus is Christ. And yet our new Translators without respect of Hebrew or Greek, have coined a new signification, of conferring one Scripture with an other. So ignorant they are in the signification of Greek words, or rather so wilfully malicious.  
3 Again, 
1 Pet. 1. v. 25. Bib. 1562. 1577. Against traditions.  in the first epistle of S. Peter they translate thus: The word of the Lord endureth ever: and this is the word which by the Gospel was preached unto you. where these words, by the Gospel, are added deceitfully and of ill intent, to make the reader think that there is no other word of God but the written word, for the common reader hearing this word, Gospel, conceiveth nothing else. But in deed all is the Gospel whatsoever the Apostles taught either by writing, or by tradition and word of mouth, as S. Paul speaketh 2. Thess. 2. and S. Peter saith nothing else in the place alleged, but, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  This is the word which is preached among you, as the Geneva bibles translate, or more significantly, which is evangelized among you, as we translate. for though there be greater significancy in the Greek word, then is expressed by bare preaching or telling a thing, as having a goodly relation and allusion to the word, evangelium, Gospel: 
Euangelizo.  yet neither do they in any other place, neither can they translate it, to preach by the Gospel: but simply, to preach, to tell, to show. as, preaching peace by jesus Christ, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Act. 10. v. 36. so themselves translate it. and Ps. 95 (or 96. v. 2) Be telling of his salvation from day to day. Which in other places is spoken by other Greek words, that have no signification at all of Gospel. as immediately 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 All which words signify only to tell, to show, to declare, and are used indifferently for & with the other word which they here only translate, to preach by the Gospel. Whereas in all others places when they will translate it most significantly, 
Luc. 2. v. 10. Act. 13. v. 32. Gal. 3, 8.  they express it by bringing glad tidings: and in some places where it should be expressed most significantly in respect of evangelizing or preaching the Gospel, 
Dominus dabit verbum evangelizantibus. Qui Euangelizas Jerusalem. Ps. 67. Isa. 40.  there they translate it barely, preachers, & preaching. Only S. Peter's place aforesaid, must be stretched to signify, The word preached by the Gospel, to insinuate & uphold their heresy of the written Gospel only, or only written word, against Apostolical traditions not written. If this be not their meaning, let them give us a good reason why they translate it so in this one place only.  
5 It is written of Luther that he for the self same heresy, 
Lind. Dubit. pag. 88  in his first translation into the German tongue, left out these words of S. Peter altogether, This is the word which is evangelized or preached to you. Why so? because S. Peter doth here define what is the word of God: saying, that which is preached to you, & not that only which is written. Which false dealing of Luther is no small presumption against the like heretical meaning of our English Protestants, who (I am sure) in this point of controversy of the word written & unwritten, will not deny that they agree with the Lutherans.  
6 Again in the epistle of S. james, 
ja. 4. v. 6.  they add the word, Scripture, into the text, saying, But the Scripture offereth more grace. Where the Apostle may say as well, and indifferently, The Spirit or holy Ghost giveth more grace, and it is much more probable, and is so expounded of many. Let the good reader see the circumstance of the place, and abhor their sauciness in the text of holy scripture.  
7 One addition of theirs I would not speak of, but only to know the reason why they do it, because it is very strange, and I know not what they should mean by it. this I am sure, if they do it for no purpose, they do it very foolishly and forgetfully and contrary to themselves. In the Gospel of S. Mark, 
Marc 3. v 16  in the reckoning of the Apostles, they add these words, And the first was Simon, 
Bibl. 1579.  more than is in their Greek text. Which addition they learned of Beza, whose contradictions in this point are worthy noting. 
Mat. 10. v. 2.  In S. Matthew where these words are, he suspecteth that, first, was added by some Papist, for Peter's primacy: here, where the word is not, he avoucheth it to be the true text of the Gospel, & that because Matthew readeth so. there he alleged this reason, why it could not be said the first, Simon, because there is no consequence nor coherence of second, third, fourth, &c: here he saith, that is no impediment, because there be many examples of such speech, & namely in the said place of S. Matthew. there he saith it is not so, though all Greek copies have it so: here it must needs be so, though it be only found in certain odd Greek copies of Erasmus, which Erasmus himself (as Beza confesseth) allowed not, but thought that these words were added in them out of S. Matthew. What these contradictions mean I know not, and I would learn the reason thereof, of his scholars our English translators, who ' by their masters authority have made the self same addition in their English translation also.  
8 There is also an other addition of theirs, either proceeding of ignorance, or of the accustomed humour, when they translate thus: 
Col. 1. v. 23.  if ye continue established in the faith, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard how it was preached to every creature: or, whereof ye have heard how that it is preached: or, whereof ye have heard, and which hath been preached to every creature, etc. For, all these varieties they have, and none according to the Greek text, which is word for word, as the vulgar Latin interpreter hath most sincerely translated it, unmovable from the hope of the Gospel which you have heard, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which is or hath been preached among all creatures, etc. So that the Apostles exhortation is unto the Colossians, that they continue grounded and stable in the faith and Gospel which they had heard and received 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 Romans, and to the Galatians, and to the Thessalonians, and to the hebrews, and to Timothee, and S. john in his first epistle c. 2. v. 24: and S. Jude v. 3. & 20: all use the like exhortations.  
9 But this doth not so well like the Protestants which * 
1 Tim. 1. & 6.  with Hymenaeus & Alexander and other o! Heretics have fallen from their first faith, and therefore they altar the Apostles plain speech with certain words of their own, and they will not have him say, Be unmovable in the faith and Gospel which you have heard and received: but, whereof you have heard how that it is preached: as though he spoke not of the Gospel preached to them, but of a Gospel which they had only heard of, that was preached in the world. Certain it is, these words, whereof you have heard how it was preached, are not so in the Greek: but, which you have heard, which hath been preached. Which is as much to say, as that they should continue constant in the faith and Gospel which themselves had received, and which was then preached and received in the whole world. So say we to our dear countrymen, Stand fast in the faith & be unmovable from the hope of the Gospel which you heard of your first Apostles, 
CHAP. 21.  which was & is preached in all the world. If the Protestants like not this exhortation, they do according to their translation.   

CHAP. XXI. Certain other heretical TREACHERIES and CORRUPTIONS, worthy of observation.  
1 THEY hold this position, that the Scriptures are not hard to be understood, that so every one of them may presume to interpret and expound them. And because S. Peter saith plainly, 
2 Pet. 3. Corruption concerning the easiness of the scriptures.  that S. Paul's Epistles are hard, and other Scriptures also, which the unlearned (saith he) pervert to their own destruction, therefore they labour tooth and nail to make this subtle difference, 
Beza in Annot.  that S. Peter saith not, Paul's epistles are hard but some things in S. Paul's epist: are hard (as though that were not all one) and therefore they translate so, that it must needs be understood of the things, and not of the Epistles, pretending the Greek, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which yet they know in some copies can not be referred to the things, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Test. Gr. Crisp.  but must needs be understood of the Epistles. Wherefore, the Greek copies being indifferent to both, and the thing also in very deed being all one, whether the hardness be in the Epistles or in the matter (for when we say the Scripture is hard, we mean specially the matter) it is not only an Heretical but a foolish & peevish spirit that maketh them so curious and precise in their translations, as here to limit 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 sin.  another fashion they have, which can not proceed of good meaning, that is, when the Greek text is indifferent to two senses, and one is received, read, and expounded of the greater part of the ancient fathers, and of all the Latin Church, there to follow the other sense not so generally received & approved. as in S. james epistle where the common reading is, Deus intentator malorum est, God is no tempter to evil, they translate, God can not be tempted with evil, which is so impertinent to the Apostles speech there, as nothing more. But why will they not say, God is no tempter to evil, as well as the other? is it because of the Greek word which is a passive? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Let them see their Lexicon, and it will tell them that it is both an active and passive. so say other learned Grecians, 
Gagneius.  interpreters of this place. so saith the very circumstance of the words next going before, Let no man say that he is tempted of God. Why so? Because God is not tempted with evil, say they. is this a good reason? nothing less. how then? Because God is no tempter to evil, therefore let no man say that he is tempted of God.  
3 This reason is so coherent and so necessary in this place, that if the Greek word were only a passive (as it is not) yet it might beseem Beza to translate it actively, who hath turned the active into a passive without scrupulosity, as himself confesseth, and is before noted, against the real presence. Much more in this place might he be bold to translate that actively, which is both an active and a passive, specially having such an example and so great authority as is all the ancient Latin Church until this day. But why would he not? surely because he would favour his and their heresy, which saith clean contrary to these words of the Apostle, 
Annot. No. Test. an. 1556. Mat. 6. v. 13.  to wit, that God is a tempter to evil. Is that possible to be proved? yea it is possible and plain. Bezas words be these, Inducit Dominus in tentationem eos quos Satanae arbitrio permittit, autin quos potius Satanam ipsum inducit, ut cor eorum impleat, ut loquitur Petrus Act. 5. v. 3. that is, The Lord leadeth into tentation those whom he permitteth to Satan's arbitrement, or into whom rather he leadeth or bringeth in Satan himself to fill their heart, as Peter speaketh. Mark that he saith God bringeth Satan into a man, to fill his heart, as Peter said to Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thy heart, to lie unto the Holy Ghost? So then by this man's opinion God brought Satan into Ananias heart, to make him lie unto the holy Ghost, & so led him into tentation, being author & causer of that heinous sin.  
4 Is not this to say, God is a tempter to evil: clean contrary to S. james the Apostle? or could he that is of this opinion, translate the contrary, that God is no tempter to evil? Is not this as much to say as that God also brought Satan into judas to fill his heart, and so was author of judas treason, even as he was of Paul's conversion? 
See Beza Annot. in Ro. c. 1. v. 24 Act, 2. v. 23. Whit. ad ra. Camp. pag. 139. 145.  Let Beza now and Master whitaker's or any other Heretic of them all, wrist & wring themselves from the absurdity of this opinion, as they endeavour and labour to do exceedingly, because it is most blasphemous: yet shall they never be able to clear & discharge themselves from it, if they will allow & maintain their foresaid exposition of Gods leading into tentation. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2. v. 23.  Doth not Beza for the same purpose translate, God's providence, for, God's prescience? Which is so false, that the English Bezites in their translation are ashamed to follow him.  
5 An other exceeding treachery to deceive the reader, is this: that they use Catholic terms and speeches in such places where they may make them odious, 
Corruption in abusing Catholic words.  and where they must needs sound odiously in the people's ears. As for example, this term, procession, they put very maliciously & falsely thus: 
2 Mach. 6. v. 7.  When the feast of Bacchus was kept, they were constrained to go in the procession of Bacchus. Let the good reader see the Greek Lexicon, 
Bib. 1570. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 procession.  if there be any thing in this word like to the Catholic Churches processions: or whether it signify so much as, to go about, as their other bibles are translated, 
Bib. 1562.1577.  which meant also heretically, but yet durst not name, procession.  
6 Again, He put down the Priests (of Baal) whom the kings of juda had founded to burn incense. 
Founded.  4 Reg. 23. v. 5. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  So they translate (the Hebrew being simply to give, make, appoint) because in the Catholic Church there are foundations of chaunterie Priests, chapels, ditiges, etc. Neither is it sincerely and without ill meaning that they say here the Priests of Baal whom, etc. Because the Hebrew word signifieth all those that ministered in the temples of false gods.  
7 Again, 
Shrines, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Silver shrines for Diana. Act. 19 v. 24. Because of the shrines & tabernacles made to the image of our B. Lady: the Greek word signifying, temples, and Beza saith, he can not see how it may signify shrines.  
8 Again, 
Devotions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  As I passed by, & beheld your devotions, I found an altar, Act. 17. v. 23. So they call the superstition of the Athenians toward their false gods, because of Catholic people's devotions toward the true God, his Church, altars, Saints, etc., the Greek word signifying the things that are worshipped (as 2 Thess. 2. v. 4. and Sap. 15. v. 17.) not the manner of worshipping. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
9 Again, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The jews had agreed, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be excommunicate, joh. 9 v. 22. And jesus heard that they had excommunicated him, v. 35. to make the Jews doing against them that confessed Christ, sound like to the Catholic Churches doing against Heretics in excommunicating them, 
Excommunication.  and so to disgrace the Priest's power of excommunication: whereas the Jews had no such spiritual excommunication, but (as the Greek must needs only signify) they did, put them out of the Synagogue, 
Aposynagogum facere.  and so they should have translated, the Greek word including the very name of Synagogue. But they, as though the Church of Christ and the Synagogue of the Jews were all one, so translate, excommunicating, and putting out of the Synagogue, as all one.  
10 I omit here as spoken before, that they call an Idol, the Queen of heaven, because we call our Lady by that title: so to make both seem like. Also, 
Altars.  that they say Bells altar thrice, 
Images.  for Bells table, to disgrace altars: and that for idols, they say images, in despite of the Church's images: that they say tradition duly in the ill part, 
Traditions.  yea sometime when it is not in the Greek, to make traditions odious, and such like. Thus by similitude & like sound of words they beguile the poor people, not only in their false expositions concerning judaical fasts, meats, observation of days (as is else where showed) but also in their translations. So doth Caluins' new Testament in french, 
Mat. 23.  for, Nolite vocari Rabbi, translate, Be not called, nostre master or, Magister noster: in derision and disgrace of this title and calling, which is peculiar to Doctors of Divinity in the Catholic Universities beyond the seas: even as Wicleffe their grandfather did upon the same words condemn such degrees in Universities. But their Rabbins can tell them that Rabbi signifieth, Magister, and not, Magister noster. and S. john telleth them so chap. 1. v. 38. and chap. 3. v. 2. and chap. 20. v. 16. and yet it pleaseth them to translate otherwise and to abuse Christ's own sacred words against Catholic Doctors & schools: not considering that as Christ forbade them to be called Rabbi, so he forbade them the name of father & fathers, and yet I trow they will not scoff at this name either in their own fathers, or in themselves so called of their children: though in Religious men, according to their heretical humour, they scoff also at this name, as they do at the other in Doctors.  

A heap of corruptions.  11 Contrariwise as they are diligent to put some words odiously where they should not, so they are as circumspect not to put other words and terms, where they should. In their first bible (printed again an. 1562.) not once the name of Church: in the same, for charity, love: for altar, temple: for heretic, an author of sects: & for heresy, sect: because in those beginnings, all these words sounded exceedingly against them. The Church they had then forsaken, Christian charity they had broken by schism, altars they digged down, heresy & heretic they knew in their conscience were like in the people's ears to agree unto them, rather than to the old Catholic faith and professors of the same. Again in all their bibles indifferently, both former & later, they had rather say, righteous, then, just: righteousness, then, justice: gift, then, grace, specially in the sacrament of holy orders: secret, rather than mystery, specially in matrimony: dissension, then, schism: & these words not at all, Priest, (to wit, of the new Testament) Sacrament, Catholic, hymns, confession, penance, justifications, and traditions in the good part: but in steed thereof, Elders, secret, general, praises, acknowledging, amendment of life, ordinances, instructions. and which is, somewhat worse, carcase, for soul, and grave for hell. we may say unto you as Demosthenes said to Aeschines. 
Demosth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what are these? words or wonders? certainly they are wonders, and very  in Catholic men's ears. and whether it be sincere and not heretical dealing, I appeal to the wise and indifferent reader of any sort.   

CHAP. XXII. Other faults judaical, profane, mere vanities, follies & novelties.  
1 NOw leaving matters of controversy, let us talk a little with you familiarly, and learn of you the reason of other points in your translation, which to us seem faults, and savour not of that spirit which should be in Christian Catholic translators.  
2 First, you are so profane, that you say, The ballet of ballets of Solomon, so terming that divine book Canticum Canticorum, containing the high mystery of Christ & his Church, as if it were a ballet of love between Solomon and his concubine, as Castaleo wanton translateth it. But you say more profanely thus, we have conceived, we have borne in pain, as though we should have brought forth wind. I am ashamed to tell the literal commentary of this your translation. 
Esa. 26. v. 18.  Why might you not have said, We have conceived and as it were travailed to bring forth, and have brought forth the spirit? is there any thing in the Hebrew to hinder you thus far? Why would you say, wind, rather than, spirit: knowing that the Septuaginta in Greek, & the ancient fathers, and S. Hierom himself who translateth according to the Hebrew, 
Ambr. li. 2. de Interpel. c. 4. Chrys. in Ps. 7. prope finem. See S. Hier. upon this place.  yet for sense of the place, all expound it both according to Hebrew & Greek, of the spirit of God, which is first conceived in us & beginneth by feat, which the Scripture calleth the beginning of wisdom. in so much that in the Greek there are these goodly words, famous in all antiquity: Through the fear of the o Lord we conceived and have travailea with pain, and have brought forth the spirit of thy salvation, which thou hast made upon the earth. Which doth excellently set before our eyes the degrees of a faithful man's increase and proceeding in the spirit of God, which beginneth by the fear of his judgements, & is a good fear, though servile, and not sufficient. & it may be that you condemning with Luther this servile fear as evil and hurtful, mean also some such thing by your translation. But in deed the place may be understood of the other fear also, which hath his degrees more or less.  
3 But to say, we have brought forth wind, can admit no such interpretation. but even as if a mere jew should translate or understand it, who hath no sense of God's spirit, so have you excluded the true sense which concerneth the Holy Ghost, & not the cold term of wind, and whatsoever naked interpretation thereof. And it is your fashion in all such cases, where the richer sense is of God's holy spirit, there to translate wind, as Ps. 147. v. 18. as you number the psalms.  
4 And it is not unlike to this, that you will not translate for the Angel's honour that carried Abacuc, He set him into Babylon, over the lake by the force of his spirit: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but thus, through a mighty wind: so attributing it to the wind, not to the Angel's power, and omitting clean the Greek pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his, which showeth evidently that it was the Angel's spirit, force, and power.  
5 Again, where the Prophets speak most manifestly of Christ, there you translate clean an other thing: as Esa. 30. v. 20. When S. Hierom translateth thus, 
Bib. 1579.  and the Church hath always read accordingly, Non faciet avolare ate ultra Doctorem tuum: & erunt oculi tui videntes praeceptorem tuum. that is, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And (our Lord) shall not cause thy Doctor to fly from thee any more: and thine eyes shall see thy Master. Which is all one in effect with that which Christ saith, I will be with you unto the end of the world: there you translate thus, Thy rain shall be no more kept back: but thine eyes shall see thy rain. So likewise joel 2. v. 23. where the holy church readeth, Rejoice ye children of Zion in the Lord your God: because he hath given you the Doctor of justice: there you translate, the rain of righteousness. 
See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Doth the Hebrew word force you to this? you know that it signifieth a teacher or Master. and therefore the Jews themselves, 
Lyra in 30 Esa.  partly understand it of Esdras, partly of Christ's Divinity. Why are you more profane (I will not say more judaical) then the jews themselves? why might not S. Hierom a Christian Doctor and lacking no skill in the Hebrew (as you well know) satisfy you, who maketh no doubt but the Hebrew in these places is, Doctor, Master, teacher? Who also (in Psal. 84, 7:) translateth thus, With blessings shall the Doctor be arrayed: meaning Christ. Where you with the later Rabbins the enemies of Christ translate, The rain covereth the pools. What cold stuff is this in respect of that other translation so clearly pointing to Christ our Master and Doctor?  
6 And again, where S. Hierom translateth, and the Church readeth, and all the fathers interpret and expound accordingly, 
Es 33.  There shall be faith in thy times: to express the marvelous faith that shall be then, in the first Christians specially, even unto death, and in all the rest concerning the hidden mysteries of the new Testament: there you translate, There shall be stability of thy times. The Prophet joineth together there, judgement, justice, faith, wisdom, knowledge, the fear of our Lord: you for a little ambiguity of the Hebrew word, turn faith into stability.  
7 If I should burden you with translating thus also concerning Christ, 
Esa. 2.  Cease from the man whose breath in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be esteemed? You would say I did you wrong, because it is so pointed now in the Hebrew. Whereas you know very well by S. Hieroms commentary upon that place, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that this is the jews pointing or reading of the word, against the honour of Christ: the true reading and translation being as he interpreteth it, for he is reputed high: and therefore beware of him. Otherwise (as S. Hierom saith) what a consequence were this, or who would commend any man thus, Take heed ye offend not him, who is nothing esteemed? yet that is your translation. Neither doth the Greek help you which (if the accent be truly put) is thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 2. v. 6.  because he is reputed for some body or some thing: as S. Paul speaketh of the chief Apostles, and it is our phrase in the commendation of a man.  
8 The like excuse you would have by alleging the Hebrew vowels, if you were told that you much obscure a notable saying of the prophet concerning Christ, or rather the speech of Christ himself by his prophet, saying: I have spoken by the Prophets, 
Osee 12, 10.  and I have multiplied vision, & in the hand of the Prophets (that is, by the Prophets) have I been resembled. Which later words do exceedingly express, that all the Prophets spoke of Christ: as our Saviour himself declareth, 
Luc. 24. v. 27. Act. 3.  beginning from Moses and all the Prophets to interpret unto the two disciples, the things that concerned him. and as S. Peter saith in these words, All the Prophets from Samuel and that spoke after him, did tell of these days. This prophecy then being so consonant to these speeches of the new Testament, the Greek also being word for word so, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Hebrew by changing one little prick (which the later jews have added at their own pleasure) being fully so as we read with the Catholic Church: why pretend you the Jews authority to maintain an other less Christian translation, which is thus: I use similitudes by the ministery of the Prophets. as though there were nothing there concerning Christ or the second person peculiarly?  
9 You will also perhaps allege not only the later Iewes, but also some later Catholic men that so translate the Hebrew. 
The Hebrew text, is no certain rule to interpret by.  But the difference between them and you, is, that they, with reverence and preferment always of S. Hieroms and the Churches ancient translation, tell us how it is now in the Hebrew: you, with derogation and disannulling the same altogether, set down your own as the only true interpretation according to the Hebrew: avouching the Hebrew that now is, and as now it is printed, to be the only authentical truth of the old Testament. Where you can never answer us, how that in the Psalm 22, As a lion my hand and my feet (as now it is in the Hebrew) can be the true and old authentical Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which none of the fathers knew, the ancient Rabbins condemn as a corruption, yourselves translate it not, but after the old accustomed reading, They have pierced my hands and my feet Which is a notable prophecy of our saviours kind and manner of Passion, being crucified on the Cross. Only the later Jews, and such Heretics as think he died upon a gallows or gibbet, and not upon the Cross, they like this Hebrew text well, and stand upon it, as you do upon all without exception, & yet when it cometh to certain particulars, you are compelled to forsake it. as in certain other places, for example.  

Faults in the Hebrew text.  10 Where the Hebrew saith, Achaz king of Israel, 2 Paralip. 28. v. 19 which is not true, you are compelled to translate, Achaz king of juda, as the truth is, and as it is in the Greek and the vulgar Latin. yet * 
Bib. 1579.  some of your Bible's follow the falsehood of the Hebrew.  
11 Likewise, where the Hebrew saith, Zedecias his brother, meaning the brother of joachin, you translate, Zedecias his father's brother, 
Bib. 1579.  as in deed the truth is, according to the Greek, and to the Scripture 4 Reg. 24. v. 19 and therefore your Bible which followeth the Hebrew hear also, translating, his brother, yet in the margin putteth down as more true, uncle.  
12 Likewise in an other place, the Hebrew is so out of frame, that some of your Bible's say, he begat Azuba of his wife Azuba. and othersome translate, he begat jerioth of his wife Azuba: the Hebrew being thus, he begat Azuba his wife and jerioth, which neither you nor any man else can easily tell what to make of. Thus you see how easy it were (if a man would multiply such examples) to show by your own testimonies the corruption of the Hebrew, 
In the preface of the new Test.  and that yourselves do not, nor dare not exactly follow it, as of the Greek text of the new Testament also is declared else where.  
13 But it is greater marvel, why you follow not the Hebrew in other places also, where is no corruption. You protest to translate it according to the points or vowels that now it hath, and that you call the Hebrew verity. Tell me then I beseech you, why do you in all your Bible's translate thus, O Virgin daughter of Zion, he hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn: 
Esa. 37. v. 22  o daughter of Jerusalem he hath shaken his head at thee. In the Hebrew, Greek, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  S. Hieroms translation and commentary, it is clean contrary, The Virgin daughter of Zion hath despised thee (o Assur:) the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. All are the feminine gender, and spoken of Zion literally, and of the Church spiritually triumphing over Assur and all her enemies: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  you translate all as of the masculine gender, & apply it to Assur insulting against Jerusalem. etc. I can not conceive what this translation meaneth, & I would gladly know the reason, & I would have thought it some gross oversight, but that I find it so in all your English Bibles, & not only in this place of Esay, but also in the books of the kings, 4 Reg. 19 where the same words are repeated. And it is no less marvel unto us that know not the reason of your doings, why you have 
c Bib 1577. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  left out Alleluia nine times in the six last Psalms, 
Alleluia.  being in the Hebrew nine times more than in your translation: specially when you know that it is the ancient and joyful song of the primitive Church. See the new English Testament, Annot. Apoc. 19  
14 Again, you translate thus: Many which had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept etc. Look well to your Hebrew, and you shall find it according both to the Greek & the Latin, thus: Many which had seen the first house in the foundation thereof (that is, yet standing upon the foundation, not destroyed) and this temple before their eyes, wept. You imagined that it should be meant, they saw salomon's temple, when it was first founded, which because it was unpossible, therefore you translated otherwise then is in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But yet in some of your Bibles you should have considered the matter better, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and translated accordingly.  
15 And surely why you should translate (4 Reg. 23. v. 13.) On the right hand of mount Olivete, rather than as it is in the vulgar Latin: and why, Ye abject of the Gentiles, Esa. 45. v. 20. rather then, ye that are saved of the Gentiles: you belike know some reason, we do not, neither by the Hebrew nor the Greek.  
16 Howbeit in these lesser things (though nothing in the Scripture is to be counted little) you might perhaps more freely have taken your pleasure, in following neither Hebrew nor Greek: but when it concerneth a matter no less than usury, there by your false translation to give occasion unto the reader, to be an usurer, is no small fault either against true religion or against good manners. 
Bib. 1562. 1577. Deut. 23. v. 19  This you do most evidently in your most authentical translations, saying thus: Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by usury of money, nor by usury of corn, nor by usury of any thing that he may be hurt withal. What is this to say, but that usury is not here forbidden, unless it hurt the party that borroweth, which is so rooted in most men's hearts, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  that they think such usury very lawful, and daily offend mortally that way. Where almighty God in this place of holy Scripture hath not a word of hurting or not hurting (as may be seen by the Geneva bibles) but saith simply thus: Thou shalt not lend to thy brother to usury, usury of money, usury of meat, usury of any thing that is put to usury.  
17 Mark the Hebrew and the Greek, and see, and be ashamed, that you strain and pervert it, to say for, Non foenerabis fratri tuo, which is word for word in the Greek and Hebrew, Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by usury. If the Hebrew word in the use of holy Scripture do signify, to hurt by usury, why do you in the very next words following, in the self same Bible's translate it thus, 
ibid. v. 20.  unto astranger thou mayst lend upon usury, but not unto thy brother? Why said you not, A stranger thou mayst hurt with usury, but not thy brother? Is it not all one word and phrase here and before? And if you had so translated it here also, the Jews would have thanked you, who by forcing the Hebrew word as you do, think it very good to hurt any stranger, that is, any Christian by any usury be it never so great.  
18 What shall I tell you of other faults, which I would gladly accounted oversights or ignorances, such as we also desire pardon of, but all are not such, though some be. As, Two thousand, 
Cant. Cantic. c. 8. v. 12 Bib. 1579.  (written at length) to them that keep the fruit thereof. In the Hebrew & Greek, two hundred. Again in the same book c. 1. v. 4. As the fruits of Cedar. in the Hebr. and Greek. tabernacles. And, 
Isa. 7. v. 11.  Ask a sign either in the depth or in the height above, for, in the depth of Hel. And, Great works are wrought by him. 
Mat. 14. v. 2.  for, do work in him, as S. Paul useth the same word 2 Cor. 4. v. 12. And, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  To make ready an horse. Act. 23. v. 24. in the Greek, beasts, And, 
Bib. 1577.  If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision without breaking of the la of Moses. Io. 7. v. 23. For, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to the end that the la of Moses be not broken. And, The son of man must suffer many things, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and be reproved of the elders. Mar. 8. v. 31. For, be rejected, as in the psalm, The stone which the builders rejected, we say not, reproving of the said stone, which is Christ. 
1 Tim. 3.  And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a young scholar, in all your translations, falsely. And, Simo of Chanaan or Simon the Cananite, 
Mar. 3.  who is called otherwise, Zelótes, that is Zealous, as an interpretation of the Hebrew word, Cananaeus: which I marvel you considered not, specially considering that the Hebrew word for Zealous, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  & the other for a Cananite, begin with divers letters. and, 
Heb. 2. v. 1.  lest at any time we should let them slip. for, lest we slip or run by, and so be lost.  
19 And as for the first bible, 
An. 1562.  which was done in haste, and not yet corrected, but is printed still a fresh: 
Mat. 22.  that saith, With Herod's servants, as though that were the only sense: that calleth idiotas lay men: 
a Mat. 24.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a ship: 
b Mar. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wondering: 
c Mat. 25.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are gone out: 
Eph. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his substance: and, To know the excellent love of the knowledge of Christ. For, the love of Christ that excelleth knowledge. And, of men that turn away the truth. 
Tit. 1.  For, that shun the truth and turn away from it. And, Mount Sina is Agar in Arabia. For, Agar is Mount Sina. etc.  
20 Let these and the like be small negligences or ignorances, such as you will pardon us also, if you find the like. Neither do we greatly mislike, that you leave these words, 
a Deut. 33.  urim and Thummim and 
b 4 Reg 23.  Chemarim and c Ziims, & jims, untranslated, 
jerem. 50.  because it is not easy to express them in English: and we would have liked it as well in certain other words, which you have translated, images, images, and still, images, 
Hamanim. Esa. 17. Gillulim. jer. 50. Miphletseth. 3 Ro. 15.  being as hard to express the true signification of them, as the former. And we hope you will the rather bear with the late Catholic translation of the English Testament, that leaveth also certain words vntranslated, not only because they can not be expressed, but also for reverence and religion (as S. Augustine saith) and greater majesty of the same.  
21 Of one thing we can by no means excuse you, but it must savour vanity, or novelty, or both. As when you affectate new strange words which the people are not acquainted withal, but it is rather Hebrew to them then English: 
Bib. 1579.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Demosthenes speaketh, 
Demosth.  uttering with great countenance and majesty, Against him came up 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 Queen.  for Sennacherib: Michaiahs' prophecy, for Michaeas: Ichoshaphats' prayer, for josaphats': Vzza slain, for Oza. When Zerubbabel went about to build the Temple, for Zorobabel: Remember what the Lord did to Miriae, for Marie, Deut. 34. 
Bib. 1562.  And in your first translation, Elisa for Elisaeus, Pekahia & Pekah for Phaceia & Phacee, Vziahu for Ozias, 
4 Reg. c. 15.16.  Thiglath-peleser for Teglath phalasar, Ahaziahu for Ochozias: Peka the son of Remaliabu, for, Phacee the son of Romelia. And why say you not as well Shelomoh for Solomon, and Coresh for Cyrus, and so alter every word from the known sound and pronunciation thereof? Is this to teach the people, when you speak Hebrew rather than English? Were it a goodly hearing (think you) to say for JESUS, jeshuah, and for MARRY his mother, Miriam: and for Messiah Meshiach, and for john, jachannan, and such like monstrous novelties? which you might as well do, and the people would understand you as well, as when your preachers say, 
Calfil.  Nabucadnezer king of Bábel.  
22 When Zuinglius your great Patriarch did read in Munster's translation of the old Testament, 
Praefat. in Esa.  jehizkiahu, jehezchel, Choresh, Darianesch, Beltzezzer, and the like. for, Ezechias, Ezechiel, Cyrus, Darius, Balthasar: he called them barbarous voices, & uncivil speeches, & said the word of God was soiled and depraved by them. Know you not that proper names alter & change, and are written and sounded in every language diversely? Might not all antiquity & the general custom both of reading and hearing the known names of Nabuchodonosor, and Michaeas, and Ozias, suffice you, but you must needs invent other which the people never heard, rather for vain ostentation to amaze and astonish them, then to edification and instruction. Which is an old Heretical fashion, noted by Eusebius lib. 4. c. 10: and by the author of the unperfect commentaries upon S. Matthew, ho. 44: and by S. Augustine lib. 3. c. 26. contra Cresconium.  
23 What shall I speak of your affectation of the word jehôua (for so it pleaseth you to accent it) in steed of Dominus, 
jehovah. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  The Lord: whereas the ancient fathers in the very Hebrew text did read and sound it rather, Adonai, as appeareth both by S. Hieroms translation and also his commentaries, and I would know of them the reason, why in the Hebrew Bible, when so ever this word is joined with Adonai, it is to be read Elohim, but only for avoiding Adonai, twice together. This I say we might justly demand of these that take a pride in using this word jehôua so oft both in English & Latin: though otherwise we are not superstitious, but as occasion serveth, only in the Hebrew text we pronounce it and read it. Again we might ask them, why they use not as well Elohim in steed of Deus, God: and so of the rest, changing all into Hebrew, that they may seem gay fellows, and the people may wonder at their wonderful and mystical divinity.  
24 To conclude, are not your scholars (think you) much bound unto you, for giving them in steed of God's blessed word and his holy Scriptures, such translations, heretical, judaical, profane, false, negligent, fantastical, new, nought, monstrous? God open their eyes to see, and mollify your hearts to repent of all your falsehood & treachery, both that which is manifestly convinced against you and can not be denied, as also that which may by some show of answer be shifted of in the sight of the ignorant, but in your consciences is as manifest as the other.   
FINIS.   

The faults correct thus.  
Page 46. fecit honem fecit hominem. 53 Abac. 2. v. 13. Abac 2. v. 18. 80 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 117 Prou. 3, 15. mark Prou. 30, 15. ibid. Prou. 27, 30. mark Prou. 27, 20. 124 mur-in mark murder. 186 178.  
For 187 Read 179. 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 mark  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
210 and 316 in the Hebrew of necessity, because the printer could not supply them there wanteth the vowel Holem. and for like reason pa. 211. and 134. there wanteth Kibuts. Which also caused us to leave some words without vowels, as once in the Preface & alibi.  
49 in some few copies there wanteth Segol.   

A BRIEF TABLE TO DIRECT THE READER TO SUCH PLACES as this book proveth to be corrupted in divers translations of the English Bibles: by order of the books, chapters, & verses of the same. With some other corrupted by Beza & others, in their Latin translations.  

Genesis.  
CHap. 4. vers. 7. pag. 11. number 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 Kings.  
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.   

Psalms.  
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.   

proverbs.  
Chap. 1. v. 12. p. 117 num. 22.  
cha. 9 v. 2. p. 271. nu. 21. cum 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 wisdom.  
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.   

isaiah.  
Chap. 2. p. 310. num. 7.  
chap. 26. v. 18. p. 307.  
chap. 30. v. 22. p. 52. num. 23.  
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.   

joel.  
Chap. 2. v. 23. p. 309.   

Habacuc.  
Chap. 2. v. 18. p. 53. num. 23.  
See p. 308. num. 4.   

Malachi.  
Chap. 2. v. 7. p. 236. num. 17.  
chap. 3. v. 1. p. 237. num. 18.  
and v. 14. p. 209. num. 17.   

1 Maccabees.  
Chap. 1. v. 51. p. 133.  
chap. 2. v. 21. ibid.   

2 Maccabees.  
Chap. 6. v. 7. p. 302. num. 5.   

S. Matthew.  
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. Mark.  
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. john.  
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.   

Acts.  
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.   

Romans.  
Chap. 2. v. 26. pag. 133.  
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.   

hebrews.  
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. james.  
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 john.  
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 CORRUPTIONS.  
Psalms.  

Psal. 51. v. 6. p. 10. num. 26.   

S. Matthew.  
Chap. 23. pag. 304.   

Acts.  
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.   

Romans.  
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,   

hebrews.  
Chap. 5. p. 11. num. 29.