Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue

FULK. 14. Seeing our English word grievous, cometh of the Latin word grave, which is not only weighty, but also troublesome, It better answereth both the Greek and the Latin, than heavy, which is properly that which is of great weight, and the same word being both in Greek and Latin, 2. Cor. 10. you yourselves translate sore: his epistles are sore and vehement: but in effect there is no great difference. We acknowledge that his commandments are not heavy to him that is borne of God, which overcometh the world by faith, otherwise the yoke of the law, as the Apostle confesseth, is such a burthē, as neither we, nor our fathers were able to bear, but believe to be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who having taken away the curse of the law, and satisfied for our transgressions of the law, hath also given us grace to love the law, and commandments of God, and in some weak measure to observe them. So that the curse being taken away, our transgressions answered in Christ, and our harts framed by his grace, to love his commandments, and some strength given us to keep them, they are not heavy, they are not burdenous, or grievous. That which God speaketh, Deut. 30. is of the knowledge of the law, which was plainly revealed, and not of the strength that men have to keep it, and therefore is by the Apostle referred unto faith, for the observation thereof, Rom. 10. for by faith in Christ, which hath fulfilled the law for us, we are accounted to have fulfilled it in him. Beza speaketh plainly enough, if you had grace to understand him, and therefore is nothing ashamed to say, that we cannot keep the commandments of God, not only without the grace of God, but neither having the grace of God in such measure, as God giveth it to no man but that he sinneth. Otherwise, what grace God is able to give, we doubt not, but what he doth, and will give to any man in this life we speak. That God should command under pain of damnation, that which is impossible to be done, is no absurdity: seeing for them whom God will have to be saved, he provided another way of their salvation, than by keeping the law, namely the redemption of Christ. As for the reprobate void of God's grace, say you (if you dare) that they are able to keep the law without grace, or without grace have so much as any will to desire to have grace.

FULK. 15. The justice whereby we are accounted just in the sight of God, is not inherent in us, but in Christ, which is the Lord our righteousness. Ierem. 23. Not withstanding it is the only true justice, and we are truly just by it. And yet we are not void of the spirit of sanctification, which is a fruit, and consequent of justification, by which we have grace to withstand sin, and to work righteousness, not whereby we should be made righteous before God, but whereby we are declared to be righteous in parte, until the body of sin being abolished, we shall be wholly renewed according to the image of God.

Martin.

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, which (he saith) is to be avoided as nothing more. His false translation, thu • our English Bezites and Calvinists follow in their Bibles. Likewise then as by the offense of one▪ 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 willfully 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 him self 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 lothest 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.

MART. 2. And it is a world to see, how Beza shifteth from one signification of the word justified, or, made just, to another. Sometime to be justified, is to be pronounced qui •• e from all sin, or declared just before God's indgement seat: and so • e • rāslateth 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 thē his commentary supplieth the • urne: as Ro. 2. v 13. Not y ^t hearers of y ^e law are RIGHTEOVS before God (so they delight to translate, rather than, IVST before God) but the doers of the Law shall be IVSTIFIED, that is (saith Beza) shall be pronounced just. The Apostle must needs say by the coherence and consequence of his words, no • the hearers are just, but the do • rs shall be just or justified. Beza will in no case have it so, but either in text or comētarie make the Apostle say as himself imagineth. 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, and, 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. Woulde you not think, he were come to be of our opinion? but he reuolteth again, and interpreateth all these goodly words in his old sense, 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. Not so neither, but faith (saith he) is an instrument wherewith we apprehend Christ our justice. So that we have no more justice in us, than we have glory: for glory also we apprehend by faith.

MART. 3. For this purpose both he and the English Bibles translate thus: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him FOR IVSTICE, Rom. 4. v. 3. & 9. Where he interpreateth, for justice, to be nothing else but. 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 moste 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 indeed, nor great benefit. But let them call to mind, that the Scripture useth to speak of sin and of justice alike. It shall be sin in thee, or, unto thee, as they translate Bibl. 1577: or as S. Jerome translateth, It shall be reputed to thee for sin, Deut. c. 23. & 24. & (as themselves translate) it shall be righteousness unto thee, before the Lord thy God. And 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 v • indeed, justice is in us indeed.

MART. 4. Again the Greek fathers make it plain, that to be reputed unto justice, is to be true justice in deed, interpreating S. Paul's word 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 (cap. 2. verse. 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. Cap. 15. verse. 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 indeed.

MART. 5. But as for either the Hebrew or Greek word, that is here used, to repute or account, they are then used, whē it must needs signify, that the thing is so in deed, and not only so reputed. as Psal. 118. octonario SAMEC. I have reputed or accounted all the sinners of the earth, preuaricators or transgressors. praeuaricantes reputaui. 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 and say, that neither they, were sin • rs 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, Rom. 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.

MART. 6. Again, where Saint Paul saith, 2. Cor. 5. That we might be made the justice of God in him: they in their first translations, intolerably corrupt i • thus: That we by his means should be that righteousness, which BEFORE GOD IS ALLOWED. Who • aught them to translate so dissolutely, Iustitia 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 moste foul sinners, and that our justice being none at all in us, yet is allowed and accepted before him for justice and righteousness?

MART. 7. Again to this purpose: 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 and resident in the B. Virgin, or in us: whereas the Apostles word signifieth, that we are truly made gracious or grateful and acceptable, that is to say, that our soul is inwardly endued and beautified with grace and the virtues proceeding thereof, and consequently is holy in deed before the sight of God, and not only so accepted or reputed, as they imagine. If they know not the true signification of the Greek word, and 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 significancie in the Greek word, that he saith thus by an allusion and distinction of words: He said not, WHICH HE FREELY GAVE VS, but, WHEREIN HE MADE VS GRATEFVL, that is, not only delivered us from sin, 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 BEAVTIE. So S. Chrysostom, and after him Theophylacte, who with many moe words and similitudes explicate this Greek word, and this making of the soul gracious and beautiful inwardly, truly, and inherently.

MART. 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: & 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, then God maketh him no better than he was before, but only accepteth him for better: if he be so in deed, then 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 accepied, for such purity, virtue, and justice, as is in him.

MART. 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 alter it thus, My justice was found out. and other of them, My vnguiltinesse was found out. to draw it from inherent justice, which was in Daniel.

MART. 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. Rom. 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.

MARTIN.

AL other means of salvation being thus taken away, their only and extreme refuge is, Only faith, & the same not the Christian faith of the articles of the creed, & such like, but a special faith & confidence, whereby every man must assuredly believe, that himself is the Son of God, and one of the elect, and praedestinate to salvation. If he be not by faith as sure of this as of Christ's incarnation, he shall never be saved.

MART. 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 ASSVRANCE OF FAITH. Heb. 10. v. 22. and Beza, Certa persuasione fidei, that is, with a certain & assured persuasion of faith: interpreting him self more at large in another place, 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 intend the true sense of the Apostle, they express not the Greek, which signifieth properly the fullness and cōplement of anything, and therefore the Apostle joineth it sometime with faith, else where (Hebr. 6. v. 11.) with hope, with knowledge, or ( Col. 2. v. 2.) understanding, to signify the fullness of all three, as the vulgar Latin interpreter most sincerely ( Ro. 4. v. 21.) always translateth it: & to Timothy, ( 2. Tim. 4.) he useth it to signify the full accomplishment & executiō of his ministry in every point. Where a man may wonder that Beza to maintain his conceived signification of this word, translateth here also accordingly, thus: Ministerij tui plenā fidem facito: but their more currant Church English Bibles are content to say with the vulgar Latin interpreter, fulfil thy ministry: or, fulfil thine office to the utmost. And the Greek fathers do find no other interpretation. Thus, when the Greek signifieth fullness of faith, 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 & 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 seeth not, namely that Christ is ascended thither, &c. adding further and proving out of the Apostles words next following, that the Protestants* only faith is not sufficient, be it never so special or assured.

MART. 3. Yet do these terms please them exceedingly, in so much that for the chosen gift of faith, Sap. 3. 14. they translate, THE SPECIAL gift of faith: and Rom. 8. 38. •• ni sure, that nothing can separate us from the love of God. 〈◊〉 though the Apostle were certain and assured not only of h 〈…〉 wne salvation, but of other men's. For to this sense they do 〈◊〉 translate here, whereas in other places out of controversy they translate the same word as they should do, I am persuaded, they are persuaded, &c. For who knoweth not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 importeth only a probable persuasion? They will say that I am sure, and I am persuaded, is all one. Being well meant, they may indeed signify alike, as the vulgare 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, and not as in other places, I am persuaded, but in favor of your error, by insinuating the terms of sure, and assurance, and such like: as elsewhere you neglect the terms of just and justification. In which your secrete things of dishonesties & craftiness (as the Apostle calleth it) we cannot 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.

MART. 4. You hold also in this kind of contronersie, that a man must assure himself that his sins be forgiven. but in the book of Eccle. c. 5. v. 5. We read thus, Of thy sin forgivē, be not without fear. or (as it is in the Greke) Of forgiveness & 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 another. 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 vpō sin, as though God will easily forgive, &c.

MART. 5. I touched before upon another occasion, how you add to the text, making the Apostle say thus, Ephes. 3. By whom we have boldness and entrance with THE CONFIDEHCE WHICHE Is by the faith of him, or (as in another Bible, which is all one) in the confidence by faith of him. The learned and skillful among you in the Greke tongue, know that this translation is false for two causes, the one is, because the Greek in that case should be thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . another cause is, the point after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . so that the very simple & sincere translation is this, we have affiaunce and access with confidence, by the faith of him. even as elsewhere it is said, we have confidence, if our heart reprehend us not: we have confidence by keeping the commandments, by tribulations and afflictions, and all good works. hope also giveth us great confidence. Against all which, your translation is prejudicial, limiting and defining our confidence toward God, to be faith, as though we had no confidence by works, or otherwise.

MART. 6. For this confidence by faith only, Beza translateth so willfully & perversely, that either you were ashamed to follow him, or you lacked a cōmodious English word correspondēt to his Latin. If I have all faith (saith the Apostle) and have not charity, I am nothing▪ totam fidem (saith Beza) I had rather translate, than, 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 omnipotency, or of any other article of the Creed, or of all wholly & entirely & perfectly, that is nothing without charity. This is Beza's tota fides, whole faith, thinking by this translation to exempt frō the Apostles words, their special justifying faith, and wrestling to that purpose in his annotatiōs against Pighius and other Catholic Doctors. Whereas every man of small skil may see, that the Apostle nameth all faith, as he doth all knowledge and all mysteries: comprehending all sortes of the one and 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 newely devised.

MART. 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 Iaco. 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.

MART. 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, & howe impertinent? In another edition (an. 1565.) he mended it thus: And besides I show you a way to excellency. In neither of both expressing the comparison of preeminence & 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 them selves) but to translate after our vulgar Latin interpreter, as it hath always been read & understood in the Church.

MART. 9. Luther was so impudent in this case, that, because the Apostle spake not plàinely enough for only faith, he thrust (only) into the text of his translation, as himself witnesseth, you durst not hitherto presume so far in this question of only faith, though in other controversies you have done the like, as is shown in their places. But I will ask you a smaller matter, which in words & 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 Savior requireth the people's faith, when he healed them of corporal diseases only, why do you so gladly translate thus, Thy faith hath saved thee, rather than thus, thy faith hath healed thee, or made thee 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 margent thus, fides saluat: that is, faith saveth. & your Geneva Bibles, in that place where it cannot be taken for faith that justifieth, because it is not the parties faith, but her fathers that Christ required, there also translate thus, Believe only, & she shall be saved. Which translation, though very false and impertinent for justifying faith, as you seem to acknowledge by translating it otherwise in your other Bibles: yet in deed you must needs maintain and hold it for good, whiles you allege this place for only faith, as is evident in your writings.

MAR. 10. This then you see is a fallacy, whē 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 and power, 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, 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 another thing, to wit, salvation of the soul: and therefore when faith is joined withal, you translate rather saved, than, healed, (though the place be meant of bodily health only) to insinuate by all means your justification by only faith.

Martin.

VPon the heresy of only faith justifying, and saving a man, followeth the denial of all penance and satisfaction for sins. Which Beza so abhorreth, ( Annot. in Mat. 3. v. 2 ) that he maketh protestation, that he auoydeth 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, translating most falsely and heretically, for resipiscentia, resipiscentes: so that your English Bezites them selves are ashamed to translate after him. Who otherwise follow his rule for the most part, translating resipiscentia, amendment of life: and, resipiscite, amende your lives. and the other English Bibles when they translate best, say, repentance, and, 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, and the ancient Latin translation thereof, and all the fathers reading thereof, and their expositions of the same. Which four pointes 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.

MART. 2. First, that the circumstance of the text doth give it so to signify, we read in S. Matthew, cap. 11. v. 21. If in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had done penance in hairecloth, or sackcloth and ashes long ago. And in S. Luke, cap. 10. v. 13. they had done penance, fitting 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 Psal. 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 cannot any way translate, but the sense must needs be, penance, and, doing penance. Again S. Paul saith, You were made sorry to penance, or, 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, and affliction, partes of penance? Did the incestuous man whom Saint Paul excommunicated, and afterward absolved him▪ because of his exceeding sorrow and tears, 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, enjoined of the Apostle? when Saint John the Baptist saith, and Saint 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, Do the fruits meet for them that amend their lives. or, give us some other good cause Oye Bezites, why your master doth so fo • lie falsify his translation.

MART. 3. Secondly, for the signification of this Greek word, in all the Greek Church, and Greek fathers, even from S. Denys the Areopagite 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 Councils and Fathers, is full: in so much that S. Denys reckoning up the three sortes of persons that were excluded from seeing and participating of the divine mysteries of Christ's body and blood, to wit, Catechumens, Poenitents, and the possessed of ill spirits: for, Poenitents, he saith in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 grauior, &c. There is a more grievous & 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: In the Church of Rome there is a manifest & known place for the POENITENTS, & in it they stand sorrowful, & as it were mourning, & when the sacrifice is ended, being not made partakers thereof, with weeping and lamentation they cast them selves flat on the ground: then 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 frō the very beginning even until our time.

MART. 4. In these words and other in the same Chapter, and in Socrates Greek history likewise when they speak of Poenitents, that confessed and lamented their sins, that were enjoined penance for the same, and 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, and which therefore are proved moste evidently to signify penance, and doing penance? Again, when the moste 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 Poenitentes, 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 Saint Basil, Can. 1. ad Amphiloch. speaketh after the same sort: when Saint Chrysostom calleth the sackcloth, and fasting of the Ninevites 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 penaun • ce, are not expressed by the said Greek words, which they will in no case so to signify.

MART. 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 amende my life at one instant, and this repentance and amendment ought to continue forever. but the holy Councils and Fathers speak of a thing to be done for certain years or days, and to be released at the Bishops discreation: this therefore is penance, and not repentance only or amendment of life, and is expressed by the foresaid Greek words, as also by * another equivalent there unto.

MART. 6. I omit that this very phrase, to do penance, is word for word expressed thus in Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Ausonius the Christian Poet (whom I may as well allege once, & use it not, as they do Virgil, Terence, & the like very often) useth this Greek word so evidently in this sense, that Beza saith, he did it for his verse sake, because another word would not stand so well in the verse. But the reader (I trust) seeth the use and signification of these Greek words, by the testimony of the Greek fathers them selves, moste ancient and approved.

MART. 7. Thirdly, that the ancient Latin Interpreter doth commonly so translate these words through out the new Testament, 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 pointes it is belike, that one of them saith it is the worst translation of all, whereas Beza his Master saith it is the best of all. So well they agree in judgment, the Master and the man.

MART. 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, S. Augustine's place is very notable, which therefore I set down, and may be translated thus: Men do penance before Baptism, of their former sins, yet so that they be also baptized, Peter saying thus, DOE YE PENANCE, AND LET EVERY ONE BE BAPTISED. 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, POENITENTES. For of such penance spake S Paul. 2. Cor. 12. 21. saying, THAT I LAMENT NOT MANY OF THEM WHICH BEFORE HAVE SINNED, AND HAVE NOT DONE PENANCE FOR THEIR VNCLEANNESSE. We have also in the Acts, that Simon Magus being baptized, was admonished by Peter TO DO PENANCE for his grievous sin. There is also in manner a daily Penance of the good and humble believers, in which we knock our breasts, saying, FORGIVE VS OUR DETTES. For these (venial and daily offenses) fasts and alms and prayers are watchfully used, and humbling our souls we cease not after a sort to do daily penance.

MART. 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, another after Baptism for great offenses, greater and longer: the other daily for common and little venial saultes which the best men also commit in this frail nature. Again that the two former are signified and 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, and 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 citatiōs 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.

MART. 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: But whereas Magdeburgenses (Lutheran writers of that city) complain that he depraved the doctrine of repentance, they do not feine or forge this crime against him, but utter or disclose it. For all men understand that it was too true. Neither was this Cyprians fault alone, that he wrote of repentance many thing • incommodiously, and unwisely, but all the most holy fathers almost at that time, were in the same error. For whiles they desired to restrain men's manners by severe laws, they made the greatest part of repentance to consist in certain external discipline of life, which them selves 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 them selves assured impunity, remission, and justice, therein they derogated not a little from Christ's death, attributed too much to their own inventions and finally depraved repentance. Thus far the Answerer.

MART. 11. Mark how he accuseth the fathers in general of no less crime, than 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 thē 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, 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 Whitaker's 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 emprisonment, yea and death it self 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, didd • therein derogate from Christ's merits and passions?

MART. 12. I may not stand upon this point; neither need I. the principal matter is proved by the adversaries confession, that the holy Doctors spake, wrote, 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 parte being true, it is madness to dispute, whether all the ancient 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, notwithstanding the palpable absurdity thereof, yet M. Whitaker's avoucheth it very solemnly.

MART. 13. And yet again (that the reader may see howe they play fast and loose 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, but also in invocation of Saints, and in diverse other errors, as he calleth them: the very same man (I say) in the very next leaves almost, reneweth Master 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 fathers professed. What faith, M. Whitaker's? 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 seeth you are driven to the wall, and either can say nothing, or do say that, which confuteth is self with the evident absurdity thereof.

MART. 14 But to leave M. Whitaker's (who is a simple companion, to sit in judgment upon all the ancient Doctors, and to condemn them of heinous error in the matter of penance). I trust the Reader seeth 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 cannot 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 and damned in hell: who as they cannot do penance properly, so much less amende their lives.

MART. 15. Moreover, it is purposely against penance, that they translate amiss, both in Daniel, and Esdras, whose voluntary mourning, fasting, afflicting of them selves for their own sins, and the people's, is notoriously set forth in their books. There they make the Angel say thus to Daniel. From the first day that thou didst set thine heart TO HVMBLE thyself. What is this humbling him self? can we gather any penance thereby? none at all. but if they had said according to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, from the first day that thou didst set thine heart TO AFFLICT 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.

MART. 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 HEAVINESSE. neither translating the Hebrew, which is the same word that in Daniel, nor the Greek, which signifieth affliction, and humiliation.

MART. 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 HVMBLY 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 him self humbly▪ but they know very well, the Prophet speaketh of another 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, and 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 and 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 sorlorne man: & 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, and so translate it, that the reader must needs take it in another sense, and cannot 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.

MART. 18. Again, what is it else but against penance and satisfaction, that they deface these usual and known words of Daniel to the king, Redime eleemosynis peccata tua, Redeem thy sins with alms: altering and translating it thus, Break off thy sins by righteousness. Firste, the Greek is against them, which is word for word according to the vulgare and common reading: Secondly, the Chaldee word which they translate, Break off, by Munsters own judgment in lexico Chaldee. signifieth rather, and more principally, to redeem. Thirdely, the other word which they translate, righteousness, in the Scriptures signifieth also, eleemosynam, as the Greke interpreaters, translate it, Dent. 6. & 24 & it is most plain in S. Matthew, where our Savior saith (Mat. 6. v. 1.) Beware you do not your justice before men▪ Which is in other Greke copies, your alms. And S. Augustine proveth it by the very text. For (saith he) as though a mā might ask, what justice? he addeth. WHEN THOVDOST AN ALMES DEEDS. He signified therefore, that alms are the works of justice. And in the Psalm they are made one, He distributed he gave to the poor, his justice remaineth forever and ever▪ Which Beza translateth, his beneficence or liberality remaineth, &c. Again, S. Jerome, a sufficient Doctor to tell the signification of the Hebrew or Chaldee words, both translateth i • 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 pore. Lastly, Beza himself saith, that by the name of justice with the Hebrews, is also signified beneficence or beneficialnes to the pore yea, and that in this place of Daniel it is specially taken for alms. 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 & merciful deeds are a redemption, ransom, and satisfaction for sins.

MART. 19. And what a miserable humor is it in these cases, to sly 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 Greke and Hebrew fauoreth 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 moste 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 tēd to any such excellency.

Martin.

AN other sequel of their only faith is, that the Sacraments also help nothing toward our salvation, and therefore they partly take them clean away, partly deprive them of all grace, virtue, and efficacy, making thē poor and beggarly elements, either worse, or no better than those of the old law.

MART. 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, he gladly auoideth it (I use his own words) and for the Nowne putteth the Verbe, so dissolutely & presumptuously, that the English Bezites themselves here also dare not follow him in translation, though in opinion they agree. The cause of his willful 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.

MART. 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 baptized? 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 ought thus to be translated, In what then or wherein were you Baptized? 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, then they were baptized in the name of Jesus, and after imposition of hands the Holy Ghost came vpō thē. Whereby is plainly gathered, that being baptized with John's baptism before, & yet of necessity baptized afterward with Christ's baptism also, there must needs be a great difference between the one baptism & 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, 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 diverse from Christ's, because these a little after are said to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, have no sure foundation. Lo▪ how of purpose he translateth & 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.

MART. 4. But doth the Greek lead him, or force him to this translation, In quid? unto what? First him self 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 judgment 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 baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, there both he and his, so translate is as we do, and 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, baptized in the name of Jesus: why is it not right, baptized 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.

MART. 5. But no marvel if they disgrace the baptism of Christ, when they are bold also to take it away altogether: interpreating this Scripture, Unless a man be borne again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, which a man would think were plain enough to prove, that water in baptism is necessary: interpreating (I say) this Scripture, Of water, and the spirit, thus: of water, that is, the Spirit: making water to be nothing else in this place but the Spirit allegorically, and not material water. As though our savior had said to Nicodemus, Unless a man be borne of water, I mean, of the spirit, he cannot enter, &c. According to this moste impudent exposition of plain Scriptures, Calvin translateth also as impudently for the same purpose in the epistle to Titus, making the Apostle to say, that God poured the water of regeneration upon us abundantly, that is, the holy Ghost. And lease we should not understand his meaning herein, he telleth vt in his commentary upon this place, that whē the apostle saith, water poured out abundātly, he speaketh not of material water, but of the holy ghost. Now indeed the apostle saith not, that water was poured 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, whom he hath poured upon us abundantly. See how plainly the Apostle speaketh both of the material water, or washing of Baptism, & of the effect thereof, which is the holy Ghost poured upon us. Calvin taketh away water clean, and will have him speak only of the holy Ghost, which Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran him self wondereth at, that any man should be so bold, and calleth it plain sacrilege against the efficacy of the Sacraments.

MART. 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, &c. making it indifferent, either which fountain, or, which holy Ghost he shed, &c. they would answer by and by that the Greek also is indifferent: but if a man should ask the 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, and so they agree just with Calvin's translation, and leave Beza, who in his translation referreth it only to the holy Ghost, as we do: but in his commentary playeth the Heretike as Calvin doth.

MART. 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, Acknowledge your faults one to another. Iac. 5. It is said a little before, if any be diseased, let him bring in Priests, &c. And then it followeth, Confess your faults, &c. But they to make all sure, for, Confess, say, Acknowledge: and for Priests, Elders. What mean they by this? If this acknowledging of faults one to another before death be indifferently to be made to all men, why do they appoint in their Cōmunion-book (as it seemeth out of this place) that the sick person shall make a special confession to the Minister, 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? and why is not this confessiō a Sacrament, where them selves 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.

Martin.

AGAINST the Sacrament of Orders what can they do more in translation, than 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 in another 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. As when they say in all their Bibles, Fear the Lord with all thy soul, and honor his ministers. In the Greek it is plain thus, and honor his Priests, as the word always signifieth, and in the very next sentence themselves so translate, Fear the Lord and honor the Priests. But they would needs borowe one of these places for the honor of Ministers. As also in the Epistle to Timothy, where S. Paul talketh of Deacons, and nameth them twice: they in the first place translate thus, Likewise must the Ministers be honest, &c. And a little after Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife, Loe, the Greek word being one, and the Apostle speaking of one Ecclesiastical order of Deacons, and Beza so interpreating 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, and Deacons. Alas poor souls, that can have no place in Scripture for their Ministers, but by making the Apostle speak three things for two.

MART. 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 world 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 Saint Matthew, 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 cannot understand, neither can they tell us, whence their peculiar calling and function of Minister cometh, which is their second degree under a Bishop, and is placed in steed of Priests.

MART. 3. Again, what can be more against the dignity of sacred orders and Ecclesiastical degrees, than to make them profane and secular by their terms and translations? For this purpose, as they translate, Elders and Eldershippe, for Priests, and Priesthode, so do they most impudently term S. Peter and S. John, lay men: they say for Apostle, Embassador and Messenger: John 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 & ignorant as any shepherd, is he not idiota? so then idiota is neither Clearke nor lay man, but every simple and ignorant man. They that spake with miraculous tongs in the primitive church, were they not lay men many of them? yet the Apostle plainly distinguisheth them from idiota. So that this is more ignorantly or willfully translated, than Neophytus, a young scholar in all your bibles.

MART. 4. Now for changing the name Apostle into Messenger, though Beza do so also in the foresaid places, yet in deed he controuleth both him self, and you, in other places, saying of the same word, Apostles: 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. 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 too too profane, yet he doth much more keep and use the Ecclesiastical received terms, than you do, often protesting it, and as it were glorying therein, against Castaleon especially. As, when he saith, Presbyterum, where you say Elder: Diaconum, where you say, Minister, and 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. verse 15. Whereupon the English Bezites translate, your Messenger, for, your Apostle. As if S. Augustine who was our Apostle, should be called, our Messenger.

MART. 5. As also, when you translate of S. Matthias the Apostle, 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, 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 another 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, counted with the eleven Apostles, without all respect of common consent, or not consent, as you also in your other Bibles do translate.

MART. 6. Which diversity may proceed of the diversity of opinions among you. For we understand by Master Whitegifts books against the Puritans, that he and his fellows deny this popular election, and give preeminence, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not to be the giving of voices in popular elections, but to be the Ecclesiastical imposing of hands upon persons taken to the Churches ministry. Which he saith very truly, and needeth the less here to be spoken of, specially being touched elsewhere in this book.

MART. 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) them selves translate not this word accordingly, but altogether as the Puritans, thus: When they had ordained them Elders by election in every Church. Act. 14. verse 23. For if the Greek word signify here the people's giving of voices (as Beza forceth it only that way, out of Tully, and the popular custom of old Athens) then the other signification of imposing hands is gone, which Mayster Whitgift defendeth, and the popular election is brought in, which he refelleth: and so by their translation they have in my opinion ouershotte 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 Eccles • asticall regiment is otherwise, they must maintain that also in their writings, howsoever they translate. For an example, They all agree to translate Elder for Priest: and Master Whitaker's telleth us a fresh in the name of them all, that there are no Priests now in the Church of Christ, that is, (as he interpreteth himself) This name Prieste is never in the New Testament peculiarly applied to the Ministers of the Gospel, this is their doctrine. But what is their prastise 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 Prieste do or say this and that: and, Then shall the Minister, &c. Whereby it is evident that they make Priest a proper and peculiar calling applied to their Ministers, and so their practice is contrary to their teaching and doctrine.

MART. 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, howsoever they dispute and iangle against 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) none of them all make more of it, than 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 wont) with a favorable translation, turning grace, into gift. As, when the Apostle saith thus, Neglect not THE GRACE that is in thee, which is given thee by prophecy, with impositiō 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 and 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 another place) by imposition of hands, making this imposition of hands, an instrumental cause of giving this grace, he saith that it did only confirm the grace or gift before given.

MART. 9. Thus it is evident that, though the Apostle speak never so plain for the dignity of holy Orders, that it giveth grace, and 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. At when it is said, 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, &c. So when God gave unto S. Paul all that sailed with him, 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, it is expressed by this word, because it was a grace (as Theodorete calleth it) given unto him. And 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.

MART. 10. But concerning the sacrament of orders, as in the first to Timothy, so in the seconde also, they suppress the word Grace, and call it barely and coldely, 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 Timothy, 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 another reason thereof, specially the Greek word much more signifying grace, than a bare gift, as is declared.

MART. 11. The more to prosane this sacred order, whereunto continency & single life hath been always annexed in the new Testament for the honor and reverence of the functions thereunto belonging, to profan • the same (I say) and to make it mere laicall and 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, as well as the rest of the Apostles? Whereas the Apostle saith nothing else but, 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. So doth S. Jerome interpret it, & S. Augustine, both directly proving that it cannot be translated, wife, but, womā: and the Greek fathers most expressly. And as for the Greek word, if they say it is ambiguous▪ S. Augustine telleth them that as the Apostle hath put it down with all the circumstances, there is no ambiguiti • at all that might deceive any man. Yea let us set a part the circumstances, and consider the Greek word alone in it self, and Beza will tell us in other places, that it signifieth a woman rather than a wife: reprehending Erasmus for translating it, wife, because there is no circumstance annexed why it should so signify: thereby declaring that of it self it signifieth, woman, and therefore much more when the circumstance also (as S. Augustine saith) maketh it certain, that so it doth signify.

MART. 12. Wherefore great must the impudency of Beza be (and of the English B • zites) that knowing this and protesting it else where in his Annotations, yet here translateth, soro • em vxorem, 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 & later, for the contrary, yea and aff • ming that S. Paul himself, did foolishly, if he spake there, of other rich womē. Such a fancy he hath to make the Apostles not only married man, but that they carried about their wives with them, & 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, and continued together in prayer til the holy Ghost came upon them. Whereas S. Luke there speaketh so evidently of the other holy and faithful women which are famous in the Gospel (as the Mary's and other) that the English Bezites them selves dare not here follow his translation. For I beseech you M. Beza (to turn my talk unto you a little) is there any circumstance or particle here added why i • should be translated wives? none. then by your own reason before alleged it should rather be trs̄lated, 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 commissiō why you may translate in the foresaid places, wife, & 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.

MART. 13. Again, to this purpose they make Saint Paul say, as to his wife, I beseech thee also faithful yokfellow, Phil. 4. v. 3. for in English what doth it else sound, but man and wife? but that S. Paul should h • ere mean his wife, moste of the Greek fathers count it ridiculous and foolish, S. Chrysostom, Theodorete, Oecumenius, Theophilactus. Beza and 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 insinua • eth, and Nicephorus expressly saith, that he did it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the way of contention and disputation, whiles he • arnestly wrote against them that oppugned matrimony.

MART. 14. Again, for the marriage of Priests, and of all sorts of men indifferently, they translate the Apostle thus: wedlock is honorable among all men. Where one falsificatiō is, that they say, among all men, and Beza, inter quosuis, & in the margent, in omni hominū ordine, in every order or condition of mē, & in his Annotation he raileth, to make this translation good whereas the greek is as indifferent to signify, that marriage is honorable, by all means, in all respects, wholly, thoroughly, altogether. So doth, not only Erasmus, but also the Greek fathers expound it, namely Theophilact, whose words in the Greek be very significāt▪ but too long here to trouble the reader with thē. Not in part saith he, honorable, and in part not: but wholly, throughout, by all means honorable and undefiled, in all ages, in all times. Therefore, to restrain it in trāslatiō to persons only (though it may also very well be understood of all persons that have no impedimē • to the contrary) that is to translate falsely.

MART. 15. An other, and the like falsificatiō in this same short sentence, is, that they make it an affirmative speech, by adding, is: whereas the apostles words be these, Marriage honorable in all, & the bed undefiled. Which is rather an exhortation, as if he should say, Let marriage be honorable, and the bed undefiled. How honorable? that (as S. Peter speaketh, 1. Pet. c. 3.) non cōuerse with their wives according to knowledge, im • arting honor to them, as to the weaker vessels: that is, as S. P. also explica • eth it▪ 1. Th. c. 4. possessing every mā his vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the passion or lust of concupiscence, as the Gentiles, &c. Loe what honorable marriage is, to wit, when the husband useth the wife honourably and honestly in all respects, not beastly and filihily according to all kind of lust and concupiscence. And that the Apostle here exhorteth to this honorable usage of wedlock, rather than affirmeth anything▪ it is most probable, both by that which goeth before, and that which immediately followeth, all which are exhortations. and les 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 conuers • tion be without covetousness: and not these words also in like manner, Let marriage be honorable in all. 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 ioly fellows are these that will so restrain it in translation, that it cannot be taken in the other sense, & not rather leave it indifferently, as in the Greke and vulgar latin it is, least the sense of the holy ghost be not that, or not only that, which they translate.

MART. 16. Moreover it is against the profession of continency in Priests, and others, that they translate our Saviors words of single life, and the unmarried state, thus: All men cannot receive this saying: as though it were impossible to live continent. Where Christ said not so, that all men cannot, 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 wont much to allege it, then their translation doth nothing express our Saviors meaning, whē they say, There are some chaste, which have made them selves chaste, for the kingdom of heavens sake▪ for a man might say, all do so that live chastely in matrimony. but our Savior speaketh of them that are impotent and unable to generation, called* Eunuchs, or gelded men, and that in three diverse kinds: some that have that infirmity or maim from their birth, othersome that are gelded afterward by men, and other that geld themselves for the kingdom of heaven, not by cutting of those partes, which were an horrible mortal sin, but having those partes, as other men have▪ yet geld themselves (for so is the Greek) and make them selves unable to generation. Which how it can be but by voluntary profession, promise, and v • w 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 c • rporally, 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 them selves chaste: • most foolish and false translation of the Greek words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

MART. 17. The Bezites here, are blameless, who translate it word for word. Eunuchs: but they are more to blame in another place, where in derogation of the privilege and dignity of Priests, they translate thus: The Priests 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 Priests lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the Law at his mouth. Which is a marvelous privilege given to the Priests of the old Law, for true determination of matters in controversy, & right expounding of the Law, as we read more fully, Deutero. 17. Where they are commanded under pain of death, to stand to the Priests judgment, which in this place God by the Prophet Malachi, calleth his covenant with Levi, and that he will have it to stand, 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 President in the Church of Bishops and Priests. All which these Heretics would deface and defeat, by translating the words otherwise, than the holy Ghost hath spoken them.

MART. 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: where the Scripture no doubt speaketh more honourably of him, as being Christ's precursor, than of a messenger, which is a term for posts also and lackies. The Scripture I say, speaketh thus of S. John, Behold I send mine Angel before thee: and our Savior in the Gospel, Mat. 11. Luc. 7. telling the people the wonderful dignisies of S. John, & that he was more than a Prophet, citeth this place, & giveth this reason, For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send mine Angel before thee. Which Saint Jerome calleth meritorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the increase and augmenting of John's merits or privileges, that in Malachi he is called an Angel: and Saint Gregori • saith, he which came to bring tidings of Christ him self, 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 excellencye 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 Savior to say, that John was more than a Prophet, because he was a Messenger. Yea, where our Savior him self is called, Angelus Testamenti, the Angel of the Testament, there they translate, the messenger of the covenant.

MART. 19. If S. Jerome in all these places had translated, nuntium, then the English were messenger: but translating it, angelum, and the Church & all antiquity so reading and expounding it as a term of more dignity and excellency, 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 inuey against Castaleo for his profaneness, them selves to say, for Angel, Messenger, for Apostle, Legate, or Ambassador, and the like? Are they afraid, lest by calling mē Angels, it would be mistaken, as though they were Angels in deed by nature? then S. Paul spake dangerously, when he said to the Galatians, As God's Angel you received me, as Christ Jesus. But to proceed.

MART. 20. It is much for the authority and dignity of God's Priests, that they do bind and loose, and execute all Ecclesiastical functiō •• in the person and power of Christ, whose ministers they are. So Saint 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 Saint 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 cannot pretend the Greek, and if there be ambiguity in the Greek, the Apostle him self taketh it away interpreting himself in the very same case, when he excommunicateth the said incestuous person, saying, that he doth it, in the name and with the virtue of our Lord Jesus Christ: so expounding what he meaneth also in this place.

MART. 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 populū meum Israel: translating thus, Out of thee shall come the gouemour that shall feed my people Israel. for, that shall rule my people Israel. This is certain that it is a false translation, because the Prophets words. Mich. 5. (cited by Saint Matthew) both in Hebrew and Greek▪ signify only, a ruler or Governor, and not a Pastor or feeder. Therefore it is either a great over sight, which i • a small matter in comparison of the least corruption: or rather, because they do the like Act. 20. v. 28. it is done, to suppres the signification of ecclesiastical power & government, that concurreth with feeding, first in Christ, and from him in his Apostles and Past • rs of the Church, both which are here signified in this one Greek word, to wit, that Christ our Savior shall rule and feed, (Ps. 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 & rule my sheep. Io. 21. yea and that in a rod of iron, as when he stroke Ananias and Sapphîra to corporal death, 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 significatiō of the Greek word, which they to diminish Ecclesiastical authority, they translate, feed, rather than, rule, or govern.

MART. 22. To the diminishing of this Ecclesiastical authority, in the later ende of the reign of king Henry the • ight, and 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 VNTO THE KING, AS TO THE CHIEFE HEAD. 1. Pet. 2. Where in this Queens time, the later translators cannot find those words now in the Greek, but do translate thus, To the king as having preeminence: 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, who do • jointly inveigh against such title, and Calvin against that by name, which was first given to king Henry the eight) & because they may be bolder with a Queen than with a king, and because now they think their kingdom is well established, therefore they suppress this title in their later trāslations, & would take it frō her altogether if they could, to advance their own Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, without any dependence of the Queens supreme government of their church, which in their conscience (if they be true Calvinists, or Lutherans, or mix • of both) they do and must mislike.

MART. 23. But howsoever that he, let them justify their translation, or confess their fault. And as for the kings supremacy over the Church, if they make any doubt, let thē read S. Ignatius words, who was in the Apostles time, • uen when S. Peter gave the foresaid admonition of subjection to the king, and knew very well how far his preeminence extended, and therefore saith plainly in notorious words, that, we must first honor God, then the Bishop, and then the king. Because in all things nothing is comparable to God, & in the Church, nothing greater then y ^e Bishop, who is consecrated to God for the salvation of the whole world, and among magistrates & temp • rall rulers, none is like the king. See his other words immediately following, where he preferreth the Bishops office before the kings & all other things of price among men.

MART. 24. But in the former sentence of S. Peter, though they have altered their translation about the kings headshippe, yet there is one corruption remaining still in these words, Submit yourselves VNTO AL MANER 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 & Magistrates, as is plain by the exemplification immediately following, of king, and dukes, and other sent or appointed by him. But they in favor of their temporal statutes, acts of Parliament, Proclamations and Injunctions made against the Catholic religion, do translate all with one consent, Submit vour selves to all manner ordinance of man. Doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify ordinance? or is it all one to be obedient to everyone of our Princes, and to all manner ordinance of the said Princes?

MART. 25. A strange case and much to be considered, how they wring and wrest 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 Councils, where the holy Ghost by Christ's promise is assistant, and whereof it is said, if he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen and Publican: and, He that heareth you, heareth me: he that despiseth you despiseth me: there they cry out aloud & odiously term all such ordinances▪ men's traditions, and, commandments of men, and most despitefully contemn and condemn them. But here, for obedience unto temporal edictes and Parliament statutes daily enacted in favor 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 then man's statutes and laws directly against the same.

BVT as they are injurious translators to the sacred order of Priesthoode, so a man would think they should be very friendly to the sacrament of Matrimony. For they would seem to make more of Matrimony then 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 and 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.

MART. 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. 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: and contrariwise, the words in both tongue • being equivalent. so that if one be taken in the large signification, the other also: as, Apoc. 17. I will show thee the sacrament of the woman. And I will show thee the mystery of the woman. And so in sundry places, again if one be restrained from the larger signification, & 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: and the Calvinists in their Latin and Greek Catechism say, two Sacraments. or, two Mysteries.

MART. 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 Sacrament • s. For in the Greek Church the Sacrament of th • body & 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. But in saying it is a great secret, they put it out of doubt that it shall not be so taken.

MART. 4. They will say unto me, Is not every sacrament & mystery in english a secrete? Yes, as Angel, is a messenger: & Apostle, one that is sent. But when the holy Scripture useth these words to signify more excellent & divine things then those of the common sort, doth it become translators to use baser terms in steed thereof, & so to disgrace the writing & meaning of the holy Ghost? I appeal to themselves, when they translat • this word in other places, whether they say not thus, And w ^t out doubt, great was y ^t MYSTERIE of godliness: God was shown manifestly in y ^e flesh, &c. again, The MYSTERIE which have been hid since y ^e world began, but now is opened to his saints. again▪ I show you a MYSTERIE, 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 & 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 mater then Christ & his Church & whatsoever is most excellent in that coniunctiō? No • then, if in all other places of high mystery they translate it also, mystery, as it is in the Greek, & 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 (at no dout it is) that they do it because of their heretical opiniō against the Sacrament of Matrimony, & for their base estimation thereof •

MART. 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 seven 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, the sacrament of the woman ) so finding it here, we do here also so translate it and as for the diverse taking of it here, and else where, that we examine otherwise, by circumstance of the text, and by the Churches and Doctors 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.

MART. 6. As when we read this name Jesus in Scripture common to our Savior and to other men, we translate it always alike, Jesus, but when it is JESUS Christ, & when some other Jesus, 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 found 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 secrete, 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.