Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue

FULK. 21. In deed there is nothing more plain in all the holy Scriptures, thā that the worshipping of Images, of all sortes, is forbidden▪ but that our itching humor of deceit, and falsehood, (as it pleaseth you to speak) hath corrupted the text, to establish any false opinion of the use of Images, it is not yet proved. But now you set upon us with 13. Hebrew words, and 9. Greek words at ones, which we for the most parte do translate still Images, Images: and you say we sound with Cuckowes birds continually Images, Images, more than Idols or other words equivalent to Idols. How many times the word Image is sounded, I never had care to seek, and now I have no leisure to number, but I am sure Idols and Idolatry, in that translation in which least, are named above forty or fifty times. But to a conscience guilty of worshipping of Images, contrary to the express commandment of God, the very name of Images must needs sound vnpleasantly. That we have no greater change of words to answer so many of the Hebrew tongue, it is of the riches of that tongue, and the poverty of our mother language, which hath but two words, Image, and Idol, and them both borrowed of the Latin and Greek: As for other words equivalent, we know not any, and we are loath to make any new words of that signification, except the multitude of Hebrew words of the same sense coming together, do sometimes perhaps seem to require it. Therefore as the Greek hath fewer words to express this thing than the Hebrew, so hath the Latin fewer than the Greek, and the English fewest of all, as will appear if you would undertake to give us English words for the 13. Hebrew words. Except you would coin such ridiculous inkhorne terms, as you do in the new Testement, Azymes, Prepuce, Neophyte, Scandale, Parasceue, and such like.

FULK. 22. Seeing you ask, why we translate the Hebrew word Matsebah so often an image? It had been reason you should have told us howe often we do so, or at least noted some place, where it cannot signify an image. We know the word being derived of the verb Iatsab that signifieth to stand, may be taken for something erected, that is no image, but a pillour, or as your Latin text calleth it a title, in both the places by you noted Gen. 28. Isaiah. 19. and else where Gen. 25. 2. Sam. 18. But whensoever we translate it an image, the circumstance of the place so requireth, as 2. Reg. 10. where it is said, that Baals images were taken out of his temple, broken and burnt. For they were images of Baal, that were worshipped in his temple, and not titles or pillours. Likewise 2. Reg. 17. where it is said, that the Ishmaelites made unto them selves, Statuas, images, and groves under every high hill and under every thick tree: as appeareth by Ezekiel. 6. where they be called Gillulim idols, which had the similitude of men, as Baalim and such other.

FULK. 23. If it had said, the graven images of silver, and the molten or cast images of gold, I know not what advantage it had been to you, or loss to us. But neither word (you say) is Hebrew for an image. Alacke this is poor sophistry, when all the world of Hebricians know, they are Hebrew for nothing else, but for graven or cast images, and by the figure Synecdoche, are taken generally for images of what making or matter soever they be. And the question is not, by what art images are made: but to what use, and howe they be used, that they may be condemned for unlawful. This I take to be the cause, why the interpretour neglected the difference of the Hebrew words, which sometimes is not observed, & in English impossible always, & unprofitable to be kept. As for your own conceit, whereat you think boys might laugh, I leave it to yourself. For if we were asked, what is Latin for an image, we could answer somewhat else than Sculptile. But if a boy should ask Pesilim or Massecath in this place of Isaiah doth signify, we would not answer a graven thing, or a molten thing, least he might show us the mantilltree of a chimney, and a brass pot hanging over the fire, and demand further whether Isaiah in this text spake of them, and all such things as they are. But it is most evidently false (you say) that Sculptile and Image are all one, and this appeareth to our great confusion, Abacuc the second &c. But I say to your shame, it will appear by this very text, that Pesel and Massecah signify one and the same thing and that most evidently. For thus the textis, What profiteth the Image ( Pesel ) for his maker iots • ro, hath made it, or (as you will have it) hath graven it Pesalo: what followeth now, but Massecah an Image? you had rather say Conflatile a molten Image. But then you must remember, that the maker of it by grauing, made it a molten Image, which is a strange piece of work, except you will say, that first he did caste it, and then he did grave it, but say which way you will, the same Image is called Pesel and Massecah without difference. The last words are vmoreh shaker, and a teacher of lies. For which words your translation hath Imaginem falsam, a false Image, whereas Moreh never signifieth an Image. But of that afterward.

FULK. 24. I would every common reader were able to discern your foolish malice in this place. For first while you cavil at the Etymology of the words, which the Prophet regardeth not, you make him say, that the ••• h • o • er thereof, hath graven a graven thing, a •• cl • ea thing. Secondly, where you say, that the Hebrew word Pes •• hath no signification of an image in it, leaning to the bare de •••• tion from the verb Pasal, you control the only use of it, which is to signify an image, or idol, whether it be graven, or molten, or by what workmanship soever it be made, which you confess to be the sense of it. But when we do it (you say) to bring all holy images into contempt, we may justly be controlled, for false and heretical translators. First we know no holy images, made with hands at this time so accounted, but they are all profane and abhominable idols. Secondly, if the translators purpose were evil, yet so long as the words and sense of the original tongue will bear him, he cannot justly be called a false and heretical translator, albeit he have a false and heretical meaning. As you Papists have in your late translation of the new Testament: yet where you translate, either according to the words, or according to the sense, no equity can condemn you for false translators.

FULK. 25. Seeing the Prophet regardeth not the Etymology of the words, but useth both for one and the same Image, no nor regardeth the matter whereof it is made, as appeareth in the next verse, where he calleth this Idol wodde, and stone, which cannot be molten, every reasonable man may see, that the word Massecah doth in this place signify generally an Image, which is made to be a teacher of lies. And whereas you repeat, that the two words doc signify each another diverse thing from Image, because the one signifieth a graven thing▪ the other a molten thing, you speak without all shame, and sense of honesty: for Pesel signifieth not every graven, carved, or hewn thing, but only an Image. For who would say, that a mortar, or a gutter of hewn stone were in Hebrew to be signified by the word Pesel, or a pewter pot, or a dishe, by the word Massecah; Seeing the use of the Hebrew tongue therefore hath appropried these names only to Images, it is great frowardness, & no learning to quarrel about the etimologie or derivation of them. As this name building in English, is taken only for houses: as when we say here are goodly buildings, which if a man would extend according to the derivation, & showing nothing else but walls of brick or other matter, praise them for goodly buildings, he should be thought to speak straungly in our tongue, & yet according to the derivation, building may signify anything that is built. But for Imaginem falsam, a false image, you charge us to translate another thing, without any necessary pretence, either of Hebrew, or Greek. Such affirmations will make us think meanly of your knowledge, in the Hebrew tongue. For what I pray you else, cā Moreh in this place signify, but a teacher? or where is it ever taken for an image, as your Latin text hath, or a fantasie, as the Greek readeth. Turn over your dictionarie, and Hebrew concordance, and see if you can find it used for an image▪ or an idol. At least wise, give credit to Isidorus Clarius, who thus writeth in his notes upon the text. Quod ait imaginem falsam, in Heb. est docen • , vel annuncians mendacium. That he saith a false Image, in the Hebrew it is teaching or showing forth a lie The distinction you make of true and false Images, is vain for this purpose: for all Images that are used in religion, are false, and teachers of falsehood, which you with Gregory say are Laye men's books; but what shall they teache saith Abacuc and Jeremiah, but lies and vanity? where note that Jeremiah calleth the Image woodde, by Synecdoche, signifying all Images made with hands, of any matter. Again he saith, every artificer is confounded in his Image, because it is false which he hath made, and there is no breath in it. In which verse it is to be observed, that he useth first the word Pesel, saying Mippasel and afterward Nifco, for the same Image made by the artificer, without distinction of grauing or melting, at leastwise for the sense, though the words be diverse. Even so your vulgar Latin translator useth Sculptile, conflatile, imaginem & simulachrum, for one and the same thing. The Scripture therefore telling us that all Images are false, because they being void of life, are set up to represent the living, it is not our fantasie, but the authority of God's word, that causeth us to reject your fantastical distinction, of true and false Images.

FULK. 26. That (thing) is put for idol, I confess it to be a fault in some translations, but in the Geneva Bible it is reformed. Contempt of the authority of that Apocryphal chapiter (as it seemed) did breed that negligence. Where you write, that he should by saying, I worship not things made with hands, have denied the Ark, and the propitiatory to be worshipped, it is very true, for neither of both was to be worshipped, as they were made with hands, but God was to be worshipped where they were, and those things to be reverently esteemed, as the sacraments, of God's presence. As for the cross whereon Christ died, I see no cause why it should be worshipped, if it were to be had, but rather, if it were worshipped, it should be served as the brazen serpent was. None of the Apostles made any account of it: Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathia, if there had been any matter of religion in it, might have preserved it, and not have suffered it to be buried in the earth, with the two other crosses▪ as the story of the invention, saith, if it be true. At the finding whereof, Helena as Saint Ambrose writeth, Regem adorauit non lignum vtique, quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorum. She worshipped the King, not the tree verily, for this is an Hethenishe error and vanity of ungodly men. De obit. Theodosij.

FULK. 27. I think you are not able to prove, that we make, image the English to all the Hebrew words, though you boldly affirm it. But in the place by you mentioned, I suppose they translated the Greek word graven or carved images, rather than idol, because the writer in that place, Sap. 15. 13. speaketh of the first framing and fashioning of those images, which though the purpose of the workman be never so wicked, yet cannot properly be called idols, before they be abused by them that worship them.

FULK. 28. It becometh us best in translation, to follow the original text, and as near as we can, the true meaning of the holy Ghost. As for the two senses, which Hieronym telleth, stand whole and untouched, for our translation. There is a difference between a translation, and a commentary. In commenting upon the text, they that see it convenient, may apply the idols of the Gentiles, & the worship of them, to the heresies of our times, of the Papists, Anabaptists, Libertines, and such like, as the Apostle doth by similitude to covetousness. As for old condemned heresies, which you charge us to worship, as idols, you are able to prove none, whatsoever you bable of Vigilantius, and Jovinian, neither of both do we follow in any error, much less in any heresy.

FULK. 29. Not these only, but the idols of the Simonists, Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Collyridians, and such like, made with hands, of Christ, and his mother, of Paul, and Simon, and Selene, and Pythagoras, &c. and such other, were idols of false Christians, since the idolatry of the Gentiles gave place, by the judgment of Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and other ancient doctors. And whatsoever you cite, or can cite out of Saint Jerome, against the idols of heresies, agreeth most aptly to yourselves, the Papists, who worship not only idols made with hands, but also the idols of your brains, which are abhominable heresies.

FULK. 30. Thus the Reader may see, that when you have caviled, quarrelled, falsified, and slandered, as much as you can, to charge us with false translation of the Scripture, concerning images, you can find nothing worth the nothing: but if some small oversight, through negligence, or perhaps the Printers fault, hath escaped, you make a great matter of it, although it be corrected by our selves in other translations, and when all other matter faileth, you return to your accustomed vein of railing, and reviling, which in no wise man's judgment, deserveth any answer, because it is so general.

Martin.

WE spake 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 shown before, upon occasion of the Adversaries grant) are to be translated in their vulgar and usual signification, not as they signify by their original property. As for example: Major in the original signification▪ is greater. But when we say, The Major 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 Lord Bishop. Likewise we say, Seven Deacons, S. Stephen a Deacon. No man will say, Seven Ministers, S. Stephen a Minister. Although that be the original signification of the word Deacon. But by Ecclesiastical use and appropriation being taken for a certain degree of the Clergy, so it foundeth 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.

MART. 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, secrete for Sacrament, over-seer for Bishop, messenger for Angel, embassadour for Apostle, minister for Deacon, and such like: to what other end be these deceitful translations, but to conceal and obscure the name of the Church and dignities thereof mentioned in the holy Scriptures: to dissemble the word schism (as they do also Heresy and Heretike) 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, saying, This is a great secrete: in favor of their heresy, that Matrimony is no Sacrament.

MART. 3. S. Paul saith as plain as he can speak, 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 them selves guilty. S. Paul saith as plainly as is possible, A man that is an Heretike avoid after the first and second admonition. They translated in their Bible of the year 1562, A man that is an author of Sectes. And where the Greek is, Heresy, reckoned among damnable sins, they say, Sectes: favoring that name for their own sakes, and dissembling it, as though the holy Scriptures spake not against Heresy or Heretics, Schism or Schismatikes.

MART. 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, them selves never shall be called or known by that name. And therefore their two English Bibles accustomed to be read in their Church (therefore by like moste authentical) leave it clean out in the title of all those Epistles, 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, &c. 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. 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 Saint Jerome saith, If we agree in faith with the B. of Rome, ergo Catholici sumus: we must translate 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, inderogation thereof, and for to hide it under a bushel.

MART. 5. Is it because they would follow the Greek, that they turn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , general? even as just, as when they turn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 image, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instruction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ordinance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dissension, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 secrete, and such like, where they go as far from the Greek as they can, and 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 them selves condemn. But we honor 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, & it is in sense all one to us with the Greke: 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 them selves that they do it for a malicious purpose.

Martin.

AS they suppress the name, Catholic, even so did they in their first English Bible the name of Church, it self: because at their first revolt and apostasy from that that was universally known to be the only true Catholic Church: it was a great obiectiō against their schismatical proceedings, and it stuck much in the people's consciences, that they forsook the Church, and that the Church condemned them. Wherupō very wi • ily they suppressed the name Church in their English translation, so, that in all that Bible so long red in their congregations, we cannot once find the name thereof. Judge by these places which seem of most importance for the dignity, preeminence, and authority of the Church.

MART. 2. Our Savior saith, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. They make him to say, Vpō this rock I will build my congregation. Again, If he hear not them, tell the Church: & if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and as a publicane, they say, Congregation. Again, who would think they would have altered the word Church in the Epistle to the Ephesians? 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 him self a glorious congregation without spot or wrinkle. And, This is a great secrete, but I speak of Christ & of the congregation. And to Timothy, The house of God, which is the congregation of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. Here is no word of Church, which in Latin & Greek is, Ecclesia Dei viui, columna & firmamētum veritatis. Likewise to the Ephesians again, He hath made him head of the congregation, which is his body. And to the Hebrews they are all bold to translate: The congregation of the first borne, where the Apostle nameth heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God, &c.

MART. 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, 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?

MART. 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 coūtry did not il to forbid & burn such books which were so translated by Tyndale 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 then they had no Caluinisticall Church in any like form of religion & 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, than in steed of a Greek word, to use a Latin of the same signification. This (we trow) will not suffice them in the judgment of the simplest indifferent Reader.

MART. 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 willfully 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 afterward say, Loe we have amended it in our later translations? Then might the Heretike Beza be excused for translating in steed of Christ's soul in hell, his carcas in the grave. And because some friend told him of that corruption, & he corrected it in the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgment, be counted a right honest man. No (be ye sure) the discrete Reader cannot be so abused, but he 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 falsify of a prepensed malice, and afterwards alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest & principal place that concerneth the Churches perpetuity & stability, you have not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before and is at this day red in your Churches thus, Upon this Rock I will build my congregation. Can it be without some heretical subtlety, that in this place specially and (I think) only you change not the word congregation into Church? Give us a reason and discharge your credit.

MART. 6. What shall I say of Beza, whom the English Bibles also follow, translating actively that Greek word, (which in common use, and by S. Chrysostom's, 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, 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, & the whole Church as the body, cōcur to the fullness & accomplishment of Christ the head. But this (saith he) seemeth unto me a forced interpretation. Why so Beza?

MART. 7. Mark his Doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers, both Greek & Latin. Because Xenophon (saith he) in such a place, & Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively. I omit this miserable match, and unworthy names of Xenophon and 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, cannot be ignorant, that the use of this word, & 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, & I am well assured, it would be counted a fault, & 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and, The wine filleth the cup, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , using it possiuely?

MART. 8. Yet (saith Beza) this is a forced interpretation, because Xenophon forsooth and Plato (once perhaps in all their whole works) use it otherwise. O heretical blindness or rather stubbornness, that calleth that forced, which is moste common and usual: and seeth 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, to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be contained, Which neither Xenophon, nor Plato, nor any Greek author will allow him to do, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 carcas, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . providence, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , them that amend their lives, may much more in this place dissemble his forced interpretatiō of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But why he should call S. Chrysostom's interpretation forced, which is the common and usual interpretation, that hath no more reason, than if a very thief should say to an honest man, Thou art a thief, and not I.

MART. 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, 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 needeth 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 secrete poison in their translation?

MART. 10. Again, it cometh from the same puddle of Geneva, that in their Bibles so called, the English Bezites translate against the unity of the Catholic Church. For whereas them selves are full of sects and dissensions, and the true Church is known by unity, and hath this mark given her by Christ him self, in whose person Solomon speaking saith, Vna est columba mea, that is, One is my dove, or, My dove is one. Therefore in steed hereof, the foresayed Bible saith, My dove is alone: Neither Hebrew nor Greek word having that signification, but being as proper to signify one, as Vnus in Latin.

MART. 11. But we beseech every indifferent Reader, even for his souls 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 ho'y Scriptures. Consider (I pray you) what a malicious intention they had herein. First, that the name Church should never sound 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 Churches credit and authority altogether, among the ignorant by opposing the Scriptures thereunto, which them selves had thus falsely translated.

Martin.

BVt 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, and them selves 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 translation, why and to what ende they suppress the name Priest, trāslating it Elder, in all places where the holy Scripture would signify by Presbyter and Presbyterium, the Priests and Priesthoode of the New Testament?

MART. 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 dependentes and consequentes one of another, so that they cannot be separated. If there be an external sacrifice, there must be an external Priesthoode 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 him self being a Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, 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 forever, 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 Priesthoode and Priests (saying, hoc faecite, Do this: ) to offer the self same sacrifice in a mystical and vnblouddie manner, until the worlds end.

MART. 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 & 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, 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 Ciuit. Dei, cap. 10. This name then of Priest and Priesthood properly so called (as S. Augustine saith) which is an order distinct from the Laity and vulgar people, ordained to offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to his heavenly father for us, to preach & minister the Sacraments, and to be the Pastors of the people) they wholly suppress in their translations, & 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, and M. Whit. gift 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,

MART. 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, about this question. Act. 15. And again, They were received of the congregation and of the Apostles and ELDERS. Again, The Apostles and Elders came together to reason of this matter. Again, Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole congregation to send &c. Again, The Apostles and Elders and brethren send greeting &c. Again, They delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and ELDERS. If in all these places they had translated Priests (as in deed they should have done according to the Greke word) it had then disaduantaged them this much, that men would have thought, both the dignity of Priests to be great, and also their authority in Councils, as being here joined with the Apostles, to be greatly reverenced and 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.

MART. 5. But let us go forward. We have heard often and of old time, of making of Priests: and of late years also, of making Ministers: but did ye ever here 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 practiced and known, no not among them selves in any of their Churches within the realm of England. To Titus they make the Apostle say thus, For this cause left I thee in Creta, that thou shouldest ordain ELDERS in every city, &c. Again of Paul and Barnabas: When they had ordained Elders by Election, in every congregration. Act. 14. If they had said plainly as it is in the Greek, and as our forefathers were wont to speak, and the truth is: Titus was le • t 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, & it had been their joy & 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, which the Apostle willeth to be avoided, if this be not an exceeding profane novelty.

MART. 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, 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, and 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, and therefore in the place to Titus it is another word which cannot be forced further, than to ordain and appoint. And they might know (if malice and Heresic would suffer them to see and confess it) that the holy Scriptures, and fathers, and Ecclesiastical custom, hath drawn this and the like words from their profane and common signification, to a more peculiar and Ecclesiastical speech: as Episcopus, an overseer in Tulite, is a Bishop in the New Testament.

MART. 7. And concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we now speak of, S. Jerome 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, but by imposition of the hand: according to S. Paul unto Timothy, Manus cito 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 another Ecclesiastical erymologie thereof, as proper and as well deduced of the word as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to give orders: and 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 S. Paul and Barnabas.

MART. 8. But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, and cure of souls, as followeth in the same place. They make S. Paul speak thus to Timothy, Neglect not the gift (so they had rather say than grace, 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. What is this company of Eldership? Somewhat they would say like to the Apostles word, but they will not speak plainly, least the world might hear out of the Scriptures, that Timothy was made Priest or Bishop even as the use is in the Catholic Church at this day. Lette the fourth Council of Carthage speak for both partes indifferently, and tell us the Apostles meaning, A Prieste when he taketh his orders, the Bishoppe blessing him and holding his hand upon his head, let all the Priests also that are present, hold their hands by the Bishops hand upon his head. So do our priests as this day, when a Bishop maketh priests: and this is the laying on of the hands of the company of Priests, which S. Paul speaketh of, & 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.

MART. 9. Otherwise in all their English Bibles, all the bells ringe one note, as, The Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honor. And, Against an Elder receive no accusation, but under two or three witnesses, 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 annoint him with oil, &c. Jacob. 5. Whereas Saint Chrysostom 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 Eldershippe. Again, they make S. Peter say thus: The Elders which are among you, I exhort, which am also an Elder, feedeye Christ's flock, as much as lieth in you, &c. 1. Pet 5.

MART. 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, & Priesthood, when he hath the words Presbyteros & Presbyterium: as we are indifferent in our translation, saying Seniors and Auncients, 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, & as both Erasmus, & also Beza him self always translate it, keeping the name Presbyter & 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, & not him, because they translate not Senior, & major natu, but the word Presbyter, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an Elder, in all places: we tell them, and herein we conuent their conscience, that they do it to take away the external Priesthood of the New Testament, and to suppress the name Priest, against the Ecclesiastical, & (as now since Christ) very proper & usual signification thereof, in the new Testament, councils, & 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.

MART. 11. Insomuch that immediately in the first Canons and Councils of the Apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees and names, Si Episcopus, vel Presbyter, vel Diaconus, &c. If any Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon do this or that. Which if the Protestants or Calvinists will translate after their manner thus, If a Bishoppe, or Elder, or Deacon, &c. they do against them selves, which make Presbyter or Elder a common name to all Ecclesiastical persons: and not a peculiar degree, next unto a Bishop. So that either they must condemn all antiquity for placing Presbyter in the 2. degree after a Bishoppe, or they must translate it Priest as we do, or they must make Elder to be their seconde degree, and so put Minister out of place.

MART. 12. And here we must ask them, how this name Minister came to be a degree distinct from a Deacon, whereas by their own rule of translation, Deacon is nothing else but a Minister: & why keep they the old and usual Ecclesiastical name of Deacon in translating Diaconus, and not the name of Priest, in translating Presbyter? Doeth not Priest come of Presbyter as certainly and as agreeably as Deacon of Diaconus? 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 thē whom you call Bishops, the name Bishops is in your English Bibles, which otherwise by your own rule of translation, should be called an Ouerseer or Superintendent: 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, & Elders put in their place, because you have no Priests, nor will none of them, and because that is in controversy between us. And as for Elders, you have none permitted in England, for fear of overthrowing your Bishops office and the Queens supreme government in all spiritual things and causes. Is not this to follow the humor of your heresy, by Machiauels politic rules without any fear of God?

MART. 13. Apostles you say for the most parte in your translations (not always) as we do, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Angels, and such like, & wheresoever there is no matter of controversy between you and us, there you can plead very gravely for keeping the ancient Ecclesiastical words, as your master Beza for example, beside many other places where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castal • ons translation, in one place writeth thus: 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, though used of sacred writers in the mystery or Sacrament of the New Testament, and for so many years after, by the secrete consent of all Churches, consecrated to this one Sacrament, 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 BA • PTIZANTES, 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, it is evident, because it is very seldom that they speak otherwise. But these men by this novelty seek after vain glory, &c.

MART. 14. He speaketh against Castaleon, who in his new Latin translation of the Bible, changed all Ecclesiastical words into profane and Heathenish, as Angelos into 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 Calvinists 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 and the Lexicons, that it may signify an image, and 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 Catechumen, and Energumeni, till they had accomplished their penance, the very same are called in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

MART. 15. They therefore leaving this Ecclesiastical signification, and 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, 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 seconde Council of Nice, Venerable Bede, and the long custom of the Church, 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 Secrete 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, when they translated it nothing else but congregation? Do they not the like in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court of Athens: whereas S. Hierons 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 anymore profane than Beza him self, that so often in his annotations, reprehendeth the old translation, by the authority of Tully, and Terence, Homer, and Aristophanes, and the like profane authors? yea so fondly and childishly, that for Olfactum, which Erasmus useth, as Pliny's word, he will needs say, odoratum, because it is Tullius word.

MART. 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 and 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.

MART. 17. In the first and second Canon of the Apostles we read thus, Episcopus à duobus aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab vno 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 cōsecrating Bishops, Priests, Deacons, &c. Where S. Augustine was present and subscribed. Again, Si quis Presbyter contēnens Episcopum suum &c. If any Priest contemning his Bishop, make a several congregation, and erect another altar, (that is, make a Sehisme or Heresy) let him be deposed. So did Arius being a Priest against his Bishop Alexander. Again, Priests and Deacons, let them attempt to do nothing without the Bishop. The first Council of Nice saith, The holy Synod by all means forbiddeth, that neither Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon &c. have with them any foreign woman, but the mother, or sister, &c. in whom there is no suspicion. Again, It is told the holy Council, that in certain places & 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, That in the Sacraments of the body & blood of Christ, there be no more offered than our Lord him self delivered▪ that is, bread and wine mingled with water. Which the sixth general Council of Constantinople repeating and confirming, ad doth If therefore any Bishop or Priest do not according to the order given by the Apostles mingling water with wine, but offer an vnmingled sacrifice, let him be deposed &c. But of these speeches all Councelles be full: where we would gladly know of these new Translatours, how Presbyter must be translated: either an Elder, or a Priest.

MART. 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? 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, and commending the dignity of all three unto the people▪ doth not S. Jerome the very same, saying▪ Let us honor a Bishop; do reverence to a Priest, rise up to a Deacon? And when he saith, that as Aaron & his sons & the Levites were in the Temple, so are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the Church, for place and degree. And in another place, speaking of 〈…〉 ages done by the Vandals and such like, Bishops were 〈…〉 Priests slain, and diverse of other Ecclesiastical o •• ers: Churches overthrown, the altars of Christ made stables for horses, the relics of Martyrs digged up, &c. When he saith of Nepotian, fit Clericus, & per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur: he becometh a man of the Clergy, and by the accustomed degrees in m 〈…〉 at? a Priest, or an Elder? when he saith, Mihi ante Presby ••• ū sedere non licet &c. doth he mean he could not sit above an Elder, or above a Priest, himself as then being not Priest? When he▪ & Vincentius (as S. Epiphanius writeth) of reverence to the degree, 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 & S. Jerome? was it not because Epiphanius made Pauliamus, S. Jerome's brother, Priest within the said John's Diocese?

MART. 19. When all antiquity saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, I •• encus, Hesychius, Beda, Presbyteri: and when S. Jerome so often in his Cataloge 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, Johannes Presbyter Antiochenus, doth he not mean, he was as then but a Priest of Antioch? Would he have said so, 〈…〉 had written of him, after he was Bishop of Constantinopl 〈…〉

MART. 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. Jerome a Priest. Quanquam enim secundū honorū vocabula, quae iam Ecclesiae vsus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major fit: tamen in multis rebus, Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Is not this the English thereof? For although according to the titles or names of honor, which now by use of the church have prevailed, the degree of Bishoppe be greater than Priesthood, yet in many things, Augustine is less than Jerome. 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 S. Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Nazianzen, Chrysostom: at length he cometh to S. Jerome, who was no Bishop, and saith: Nec sanctum Hieronymum, quia Presbyter fuit, contemnendum arbitreris, that is, Neither must thou think, that S. Jerome, 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 Heretike Julian did easily contemn him. Is • ot 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?

MART. 21. In all which places, if they will translate Elder, and yet make the same a common name to all Ecclesiastical degrees, 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 Beza's rod of reprehension against Castaleon: that we cannot 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 Sacrament, so that it is now grown to be the proper vulgar speech almost of all nations: 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 & professors of arts, that is, to retain & hold that as their own, which by long use, & in good faith, they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the authority of any ancient writer (as that the old Latin translator saith, Senior, & Seniores) for that which was to them as it were new, to us is old: & 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.

MART. 22. Thus we have repeated Beza's words again, only changing the word Baptism into Priest, because the case is all one: and so unwittingly Beza the successor of Calvin in Geneva, hath given plain sentence against our English Translatours in all such cases, as they go from the common received and usual sense, to another profane sense, and out of use: as namely in this point of Priest and Priesthood. Where we must needs add a word or two, though we be too long, because their folly and malice is too too great herein. For whereas the very name Priest, never came into our English tongue, but of the Latin Presbyte • , (for thereupon Sacerdos also was so called, only by a consequence) they translate Sacerdos, Priest, and Presbyter, not Priest, but Elder, as wisely, and as reasonably, as if a man should translate, Praetor Londini, Maire of London: & Major Londini, not Maire of London: but Greater of London: or Academia Oxoniensis, the University of Oxford: and Vniuersitas Oxoniensis, not the University, but the Generalitie of Oxford: and such like.

MART. 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 Priesthoode of the New Testament, whereas their own word Sacerdos, which they do and must needs translate Priest, is as common and as usual in all antiouitie, as Presbyter: and so much the more, for that it is used indifferently 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, Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, &c. God hath ordained you Priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also. And Saint Ambrose, When diddest 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 Priesthoode, we should yield up to others, that which God hath commended to us? And therefore doeth Saint Chrysostom entitle his six books De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthoode, concerning the dignity and calling not only of mere Priests, but also of Bishops: and S. Gregory Nazianzen handling the same argument saith, that they execute Priesthoode 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Then the Priest saith this, and that▪ signifying also the Bishoppe when he saith Mass. and S. Denys saith sometime Archisacerdotem cum sacerdotibus. The high Priest or Bishoppe with the Priests: whereof come the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the ancient Greek fathers, for the sacred function of Priesthoode, and executing of the same.

MART. 24. If then the Heretics could possibly have extinguished Priesthoode in the word Presbyter, yet you see, it would have remained still in the words Sacerdos & Sacerdotium▪ which themselves translate Priest and Priesthoode: and therefore we must desire them to translate us a place or two after their own manner: first Saint Augustine speaking thus, Q • is vnquam audiuit sacerdotem ad altare stantem etiā super reliquias Martyrum▪ dicere: offero tibi Petre, & Paul vel Cypriane? Who ever heard that a PRIEST standing at the altar▪ even over the relics of the Martyrs, said, I offer to thee Peter, and Paul, or Cyprian? So (we trow) they must translate it. Again, Nos vni Deo & Martyrum & nostro, sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, suo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote inuocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamuis in memoria sacrificet eorū, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorū. Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi. We think they will and must translate it thus. We offer sacrifice to the only God both of Martyrs and ours, at the which Sacrifice, as men of God they (Martyrs) are named in their place & order: yet are they not invocated of the Priest that sacrificeth. For he sacrificeth to God, and not to them (though he sacrifice in the memory of them) because he is God's Priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice it self is the body of Christ.

MART. 25. Likewise when Saint Ambrose saith▪ 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, but he useth the words of Christ. And S. Chrysostom in very many places saith, The sacred oblation it self, whether Peter, or Paul, or any meaner Priest whatsoever offer it, is the very same that Christ gave unto his disciples, and which now the Priests do make or consecrate Why so I pray thee? because not men do sanctify this, but Christ him self. 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 Priests mouth, and by God's power & grace are the things proposed, consecrated. For this, saith he, is my body. With this word are the things proposed, consecrated.

MART. 26. And so be these places, where them selves translate Sacerdos a Priest, they may learn also how to translate Presbyteros in S. Jerome saying the very same thing, that at their prayers, the body and blood of our Lord is made. And in another place, that with their sacred mouth, they make our Lord's body. Likewise when they read S. Ambrose against the Novatians, that God hath granted licēc • to his Priests to release & forgive as well great sins as little without exception: & in the Ecclesiastical history, how the Nouatian Heretics taught that such as were fallen into great sins, should not ask for remission of the Priest, but of God only: they may learn howe to translate Presbyteros, in S. Jerome, and in the Ecclesiastical history, where the one saith thus: Episcopus & Presbyter, cùm peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, qui soluendus: and the other speaketh de Presbytero Poenitentiario, of an extraordinary Priest, that heard confessions, and enjoined penance, who afterward was taken away, and the people went to diverse ghostly fathers, as before. And especially Saint Chrysostom • ill 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 law have power, not only to know, but to purge the filth of the soul, therefore whosoever despiseth them, is more worthy to be punished, than the • ebell Dathan, and his complices.

MART. 27 Now then (to conclude this point) seeing we have such a cloud of witnesses (as the Apostle speaketh) even from Christ's time, that testify not only for the name▪ but for the very principal functions of external Priesthood, in offering the sucrifice of Christ's body & blood▪ in remitting sins, and so forth: what a pe •• ish, malicious, and impudent corruption is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the holy scriptures tending thereunto, to seek to scratch advantage of the • ord Presbyter, and to make it signify an Elder, not a Priest: Presbytenum Eldership rather than Priesthoode: 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▪ & should translate it always Messengers: & that Baptism were but a Iudaical ceremony, & should translate it washing: which Castalio did much more tolerably in his trāsiatiō than any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity & folly. And if to take away all distinction of clergy & lai • y the Protestants should always translate clerum▪ lotte or lotterie, as they do translate is for the same purpose parish and heritage: might not Beza him self control them, saying, that the ancient fathers transferred the name clerus to the College of Ecclesiastical Ministers?

MART. 28. But all • s, the effect of this corruption and heresy concerning Priests, hath it not wrought within these few years such contempt of all Priests, that nothing is more odious in our country than that name: which before was so honorable & venerable, & now is, among all men? If ministry or Eldership were grown to estimation in steed thereof, somewhat they had to say but that is yet more contemptible, and especially Elders and Eldership, for the Queens Majesty and her Counsailours will permit none in government of any Church in England, and so they have brought all, to nothing else, but profane lai • ie. And no marvel of these horrible inconveniences, for as the Sacrifice and Priesthoode go together, and therefore were both honorable together: so when they had according to Daniel's prophecy, abolished 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.

Martin.

HAVING now discovered their corrupt translations for defacing of the Churches name, and abolishing of Priest and Priesthood: let us come to another point of very great importance also, and which by the wonted consequence or sequel of error, includeth in it many erroneous branches. Their principal malice then being bent against Purgatory, that is, against a place were Christian souls be purged by suffering of temporal pains after this life, for surer maintenance of their erroncous 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: and 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: & so again by their erroneous doctrine • it followeth, that the fathers of the Old Testament were in heaven, before our savior Christ had suffered death for their redemption: and also by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that our savior Christ was not the first man that ascended and entered into heaven: and moreover by their heretical doctrine it followeth, that our savior Christ des • ended 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 • and so that article of the Apostles Creed concerning our savior Christ his descending into hell, must either be put out by the Calvinists, 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 Calvin and the purer Calvinists his scholars will have it) the suffering of hell pains & distresses upon the Cross. Loe the consequence and coherence of these errors and heresies.

MART. 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 rushe for all the ancient holy Doctors, that write with full consent to the contrary (as themselves confess, calling it their common error) secondly, they translate the holy Scriptures in favor thereof most corruptly and willfully, as in Beza's false translation (who is Calvin's 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 Savior Christ say thus to his father, Non derelinques cadauer meū in sepulchro, Thou shalt not leave my carcass in the grave, Act. 2. For that which the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the Latin, and S. Jerome 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 spake it in the Hebrew▪ Psal. 15. Thus the Septuaginta uttered it in Greek, thus the Apostle S. Peter allegeth it, thus the holy Evangelist S. Luke in the Acts 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 ( 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 Savior Christ's body, irreverently, and wickedly) he translateth infernum, grave.

MART. 3. Neede we take any great labor to prove this to be a foul corruption, or that it is done purposely, whē 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 it self most absurd, and they are ashamed of it: partly because it shall susfise to confute Beza, that two other as famous heretics as he, Castalio and 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 margent of that English translation, they say, or life, or person: thereby 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 doeth not, 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 than soul: beause our tongue beareth that figure as well as Latin, Greek, or Hebrew: but here, where it cannot signify the whole person, it is wicked to translate it so.

MART. 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. Augustine and 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, & the Bezites covertly insinuate: & white shall be black, and chaulke shall be cheese, and everything shall be anything 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.

MART. 5. Where we cannot but marvel, why they are afraid to translate the words plainly in this place, of his soul being in Hell: Whereas 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 afterward (if they would needs) give them that gloss for maintenance of their heresy? This mystery we know not, and would gladly learn it of the Puritan Calvinists, whose English translation perhaps this is. For, the grosser Calvinists (being not so pure and precise in following Calvin as the Puritans be, that have well deserved that name above their fellows) they in their other English Bibles have in this place discharged them selves of false translation, saying plainly. Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell. But in what sense they say so, it is very hard to guess: and perhaps them selves can not tell yet what to make of it, as appeareth by M. Whitaker's answer to F. Campion. 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 Calvinists, for that in the Creed of the Apostles (made in English meeter, and song openly in their Churches, in these words: His spirit did after this descend, into the lower partes, to them that long in darkness were, the true light of their hearts, ) they favor 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. Whitgifts defense, pag. 7. reprehend one of their chiefest Caluinisticall martyrs, for affirming (as they term it) a gross descending of our Savior Christ into Hell. Thus the Puritans confess plainly their heretical doctrine, against Christ's descending into Hell.

MART. 6. The truth is, howsoever the politic Calvinists speak, or write in this point, more plausibly and covertly to the people, and more agreeably to the article of our faith, than either Calvin, 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 cannot stand with their profession: for then 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 Savior Christ descended thither, and delivered them from thence, which they deny in their doctrine, though they sing it in their meeters. 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 Savior Christ, by his Resurrection and Ascension, had opened heaven) there, for Hell, they translate Grave.

MART. 7. As when Jacob saith, 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 deucured 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 improperly, for the state of dead men, after this life, why do they call it grave, 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 spake of his body only, to descend into the grave, to Joseph's body: for as concerning Jacob's 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.

MART. 8. Gentle 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 savior Christ was to dedicate and begin the enteraunce in his own person, and by his passiō to open heaven: 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 infernū: to signify that such was the state of the Old Testament before our savior 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 hell, 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 and torments. All the souls both good and bad that then died, went downward, and therefore the place of both sortes was called in all the tongues, by a word answereable to this word, hell, to signify a lower place beneath, not only of torments, but also of rest.

MART. 9. So we say in our Creed, that our savior Christ him self descended into hell, according to his soul: So S. Jerome speaking of the state of the Old Testament, saith: Si Abraham, Isaac, Jacob in inferno, quis in caelorum 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 least a man might object, that Lazarus being in Abraham's bosom, saw the riche glott • n a far of in hell, and therefore both Abraham and Lazarus seem to have been in heaven: the said holy doctor resolveth it, that Abraham and Lazarus also were in hell, but in a place of great rest and refreshing, and therefore very far off from the miserable wretched glutton that lay in torments.

MART. 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 caelorum? 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, and in such rest, as hath no comparison with the joys of heaven. And S. Augustine disputing this matter sometime, & 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 parte (for of Christ's descending into hell, and 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 another place, as being better resolved, doubted not upon these words of the Psalm. 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.

MART. 11. And surely of his marvelous humility and wisdom, he would have been much more resolute herein, if he had heard the opinion of S. Jerome, 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. Tertullian, (Li. 4. adverse. Marcion.) 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 afterward that other name, Limbus patrum, that is the very brim or uppermost and outmost parte 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. Jerome saith again, Ante Resurrectionem Christi notus in Judea Deus, & ipsi qui nouerant 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. S. Chrysostom upon that place of Isaiah, I will break the brazen gates, and bruise the iron bars in pieces, and will open the treasures darkened, &c. 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 savior Christ came to deliver them from thence.

MART. 12. Therefore did Jacob say, I will go down to my son unto Hell. And again he saith: If any misfortune happen to (Benjamin) by the way, you shall bring my gray 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 sortes of souls into hell, both good and bad. And therefore it is spoken of all sortes in the holy scripture, 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. Jerome saith, speaking of hell, according to the old Testament, Hell is a place wherein souls are included: either in rest, or in pains, according to the quality of their deserts.

MART. 13. And in this sense it is also often said in the holy Scriptures, that such and such were gathered, or laid • o their fathers though they were buried in diverse places, and died no: 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, Thou hast delivered my soul from the lower hell, Psal. 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, s • e how miserably i • soundeth: 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 Savior Christ, were in such a Hell.

MART. 14. And that this is their fear, it is evident, because that in all other places where it is plain that the holy scriptures speak of the hell of the damned, from whence is no return, they translate there the very same word Hell▪ and not grave. As for example, The way of life is on high to the prudent, to avoid from Hell beneath. Loe, here that is translated Hell beneath, which before was translated the lowest grave. And again, Hell, and destruction are before the Lord, howe much more the harts of the sons of men? But when in the holy Scriptures there is mention of delivery of a soul from Hell, then thus they translate: God shall deliver my soul from the power of the grave: for he will receive me. Can you tell what they would say? doeth 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, What man liveth and shall not see death? shall he deli • er his soul from the hand of the grave?

MART. 15. If th • y take grave properly, where man's body is buried: it is not true either that every soul, yea or everybody is buried in a grave. But if in all such places, they will say they mean nothing else but to signify death, and that to go down into the grave, and to die, is all one: we ask them why they follow no • 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 no • in the most important places of our belief concerning our Savior Christ's descending into Hell, and triumphing over the same. Yea, therefore of purpose they will not, only for to defeat that parte of our Christian Creed.

MART. 16. As when the Prophet first, Osee. 13. and afterward the Apostle, 1. Cor. 15. in the Greek, s • y thus▪ Ero mors tua ô mors, morsus tuus ero inferne. Vbi est, mors stimulus tuus? vbi est, inferne, victoria tua? O death, I will be thy death: I will be thy sting▪ ô Hell. Where is, ô death, thy sting? where is, ô hell, thy victory? They translate in both places, O grave, in steed of, ô Hel. What else can be their meaning hereby, but to draw the Reader from the common sense of our Savior Christ's descending into hell, & conquering the same, and bringing out the fathers and just men triumphantly from thence into heaven? which sense hath always been the common sense of the Catholic church & holy Doctors, specially upon this place of the Prophet. And what a kind of speech is this, and out of all tune, to make our Savior Christ say, O grave I will be thy destruction? as though he had triumphed over the grave, & not over hell: or over the grave, that is, over death: and so the Prophet should say death twice, and Hell not at all.

MART. 17. Why, my Masters, you that are so wonderful precise translatoures, admit that our savior Christ descended not into Hel beneath, as you say, yet I think you will grant that he triumphed over Hell, and was conquerer 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, & 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 and Hell▪