That the Protestants translate the holy Scriptures falsely on purpose, in favour of their heresies

1 THOUGH this shall evidently appear throughout this whole book in every place that shall be objected unto them: yet because it is an observation of greatest importance in this case, and which stings them sore, & touches their credit exceedingly, in so much that one of them setting a good face upon the matter,¹ says confidently, that all the Papists in the world are not able to show one place of Scripture mistranslated wilfully and on purpose: therefore I will give the reader, certain brief observations and evident marks to know wilful corruptions, as it were an abridgement and sum of this treatise.

2 The first Mark and most general is: If they translate elsewhere not amiss,² and in places of controversy between them and us, most falsely: it is an evident argument that they do it not of negligence, or ignorance, but of partiality to the matter in controversy. This is to be seen through the whole Bible, where the faults of their translations are altogether, or specially, in those Scriptures that concern the causes in question between us. For other small faults, or rather oversights, we will no further note unto them, than to the end, that they may the more easily pardon us the like, if they find them.

3 If, as in their opinions & heresies, they forsake the ancient fathers: so also in their translations, they go from that text & ancient reading of holy Scriptures, which all the fathers used and expounded: is it not plain that their translation follows the vein and humor of their heresy? And again if they that so abhor from the ancient expositions of the fathers, yet if it seem to serve for them, stick not to make the exposition of any one Doctor, the very text of holy Scripture: what is this but heretical wilfulness? See this 1. chap. nu. 43. ch. 10. nu. 1, 2. Cha. 18. numb. 10, 11. And chap. 19. nu. 1.

4 Again, if they that profess to translate the Hebrew and Greek, and that because it makes more for them (as they say) and therefore in all conferences and disputations appeal unto it as to the fountain & touchstone, if they (I say) in translating places of controversy, flee from the Hebrew and the Greek, it is a most certain argument of wilful corruption. This is done many ways, and is to be observed also throughout the whole Bible, and in all this book.

5 If the Greek be, Idololatria, and idololátra: ³ and they translate not, Idolatry, and, idolater: but, worshipping of images, & worshipper of images, and that so absurdly, that they make the Apostle say, Covetousness is worshipping of images: this none would do but fools or mad men, unless it were on purpose against sacred images. See chap. 3. numb. 1, 2.

6 If the Apostle say, A pagan idolater, ⁴ and a Christian idolater, by one and the same Greek word, in one and the same meaning:⁵ and they translate, A pagan idolater, ⁶ & a Christian worshipper of images, by two distinct words and diverse meanings: it must needs be done wilfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. 3. nu. 8, 9.

7 If they translate one & the same Greek word,⁷ Tradition, whensoever the Scripture speaks of evil traditions: and never translate it so, whensoever it speaks of good and Apostolical traditions: their intention is evident against the authority of Traditions. See chap. 2. numb. 1, 2, 3.

8 Yea if they translate, Tradition, taken in ill part,⁸ where it is not in the Greek: & translate it not so, where it is in the Greek, taken in good part:⁹ it is more evidence of the foresaid wicked intention. See chap. 2. nu. 5, 6.

9 If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the usual signification, and not the original derivation of words, as Beza and¹⁰ M. Whitaker do: and if they translate contrary to this rule, what is it but wilful corruption? So they do in translating, idolum, an image, Presbyter, an elder: and the like. See chap. 4. & chap. 6. nu. 6, 7, 8. &c. nu. 13. &c.

10 If Presbyter, by Ecclesiastical use, be appropriated to signify a Priest, no less than, Episcopus, to signify a Bishop, or Diaconus, a Deacon: and if they translate these two later accordingly, and the first never in all the New Testament: what can it be but wilful corruption in favour of this heresy, that there are no Priests of the New Testament?¹¹ See chap. 6. numb. 12.

11 If for God’s altar, they translate, Temple: & for Bel’s idololatrical table, they translate, altar: judge whether it be not on purpose against our altars, and in favour of their communion table. See chap. 17. numb. 15, 16.

12 If at the beginning of their heresy, when sacred images were broken in pieces, altars digged down, the Catholic Churches authority defaced,¹² the king made supreme head, then their translation was made accordingly, and if afterward when these errors were well established in the realm, and had taken root in the peoples hearts, all was altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not find that in the Greek, which was in the former translation: what was it at the first but wilful corruption to serve the time that then was? See chap. 3.5. chap. 17. nu. 15. chap. 15. nu. 22.

13 If at the first revolt, when none were noted for Heretics and Schismatics, but themselves, they did not once put the names of Schism or Heresy in the Bible, but instead thereof, division, and, sect, in so much that for an Heretic, they said, an author of Sects, ¹³ what may we judge of it but as of wilful corruption? See chap. 4. numb. 3.

14 If they translate so absurdly at the first, that themselves are driven to change it for shame: it must needs be at the first wilful corruption. For example, when it was in the first, Temple, and in the later, Altar: in the first always, Congregation, in the later always, Church: in the first, To the king as chief head, in the later, To the king as having preeminence. So did Beza first translate, carcass, and afterward, soul. Which alteration in all these places is so great, that it could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical intention. See chap. 17. numb. 15. chap. 5. nu. 4, 5. chap. 15. numb. 22. chap. 7. nu. 2.

15 If they will not stand to all their translations, but flee to that namely which now is read in their churches: & if that which is now read in their churches, differ in the points aforesaid, from that that was read in their churches in king Edward’s time: & if from both these, they flee to the Geneva Bible, and from that again, to the other aforesaid: what shall we judge of the one or the other, but that all is voluntary and as they list? See chap. 3. numb. 10, 11, 12. Cha. 10. numb. 12.

16 If they gladly use these words in ill part, where they are not in the original text, Procession, shrines, devotions, excommunicate, images: and avoid these words, which are in the original, Hymns, grace, mystery. Sacrament, Church, altar, Priests, Catholic, traditions, justifications: is it not plain that they do it on purpose to disgrace, or suppress the said things and speeches used in the Catholic Church? See chap. 21. numb. 5. & seq. chap. 12. numb. 3.

17 If in a case that makes for them, they strain the very original signification of the word, and in a case that makes against them, they neglect it altogether: what is this but wilful and on purpose? See chap. 7. nu. 36.

18 If in words of ambiguous and divers signification, they will have it signify here or there, as it pleases them: and that so vehemently, that here it must needs so signify, and there it must not: and both this, and that, to one end and in favour of one and the same opinion:¹⁴ what is this but wilful translation? So does Beza urge γυναῖκα to signify, wife, and not to signify, wife, both against virginity and chastity of Priests: and the English Bible translates accordingly.¹⁵ See chap. 15. nu. 11, 12.

19 If the Puritans and grosser Calvinists disagree about the translations, one part preferring the Geneva English Bible, the other the Bible read in their Church: and if the Lutherans condemn the Zwinglians & Calvinists translations, and contrariwise: and if all Sectaries reprove each another’s translation: What does it argue, but that the translations differ according to their divers opinions? See their books written one against another.¹⁶

20 If the English Geneva Bibles themselves dare not follow their Master Beza, whom they profess to translate, because in their opinion he goes wide, and that in places of controversy: how wilful was he in so translating? See chap. 12. numb. 6, 8. Cha. 13. numb. 1.

21 If for the most part they reprehend the old vulgar translation, and appeal to the Greek: and yet in places of controversy sometime for their more advantage (as they think) they leave the Greek, and follow our Latin translation: what is it else, but voluntary and partial translation? See chap. 2. nu. 8. chap. 6. nu. 10, 21. chap. 7. nu. 39. chap. 10. nu. 6.

22 If otherwise they avoid this word, justifications, ¹⁷ altogether, & yet translate it When they can not choose, but with a commentary ¹⁸ that it signifies good works that are testimonies of a lively faith: does not this heretical commentary show their heretical meaning, when they avoid the word altogether? See chap. 8. nu. 1, 2, 3.

23 When by adding to the text at their pleasure, they make the Apostle say,¹⁹ that by Adam’s offence, sin came on all men, but that by Christ’s justice, the benefit only abounded toward all men, not that justice came on all, whereas the Apostle makes the case alike, without any such divers additions, to wit, ²⁰ that we are truly made just by Christ, as by Adam we are made sinners: is not this most wilful corruption for their heresy of imputative and fantastical justice. See chap. 11. nu. 1.

24 But if in this case of justification, when the question is whether only faith justify, & we say no, having the express words of S. James: they say, yea, having no express Scripture for it: if in this case they will add, only, to the very text: is it not most horrible and devilish corruption? So did Luther, ²¹ whom our English Protestants honour as their father, and in this heresy of only faith, are his own children. See chap. 12.

²²25 If these that account themselves the great Grecians [Greek scholars] & Hebricians [Hebrew scholars] of the world, will so translate for the advantage of their cause, as though they had no skill in the world, and as though they knew neither the signification of words, nor propriety of phrases in the said languages: is it not to be esteemed shameless corruption?

26 I will not speak of the German Heretics,²³ who to maintain this heresy, that all our works, be they never so good, are sin, translated, for Tibi soli peccavi, to thee only have I sinned, ²⁴ thus, Tibi solum peccavi. that is, I have nothing else but sinned: whatsoever I do, I sin: whereas neither the Greek nor the Hebrew will possibly admit that sense. Let these pass as Lutherans, yet wilful corrupters, ²⁵ and acknowledged of our English Protestants for their good brethren. But if Beza translate, ἔτι ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν [when we as yet were weak], when we were yet of no strength, as the Geneva English Bible also does interpret it, whereas every young Grecian knows that ἀσθενής is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether without strength: is not this on purpose to take away man’s free will altogether? See chap. 10. nu. 13.

27 If Calvin translate,²⁶ Non ego, sed gratia Dei quae mihi aderat: [not I, but the grace of God which was with me] may not mean Grecians control him, that he also translates falsely against free will, because the preposition σύν [with] does require some other participle to be understood, that should signify a cooperation with free will to wit, συγκοπιάσασα, which laboured with me? See chap. 10. nu. 2.

28 If, when the Hebrew bears indifferently, to say, Sin lies at the door: and, unto thee the desire thereof shall be subject,²⁷ & thou shalt rule over it: ²⁸ the Geneva English Bible translate the first without scruple, & the later not, because of the Hebrew grammar: is not this also most wilful against free will? See chap. 10. nu. 9.

29 If Calvin affirm that ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας cannot signify, propter reuerentiam, [for his reverence] ²⁹ because ἀπό [from] is not so used, and Beza avouches the same more earnestly,³⁰ and the English Bible translates accordingly, which may be confuted by infinite examples in the Scripture itself, and is confuted by Illyricus the Lutheran: is it not a sign either of passing ignorance, or of most wilful corruption, to maintain the blasphemy that hereupon they conclude? See chap. 7. nu. 42, 43.

30 If Beza in the self same place contend, that εὐλάβεια does not signify reverence or piety, but such a fear as has horror and astonishment of mind: & in another place says of this self same word, clean contrary: what is it but on purpose to uphold the said blasphemy? See cha. 7. nu. 39, 40.

31 If he translate for, God’s foreknowledge, God’s providence, for soul, carcass, for hell, grave: ³¹ to what end is this but for certain heretical conclusions? And if upon admonition he alter his translation for shame, and yet ³² protests that he understands it as he did before, did he not translate before wilfully according to his obstinate opinion? See chap. 7.

32 If to this purpose he avouch that,³³ Sheol, signifies nothing else in Hebrew but a grave, whereas all Hebricians know that it is the most proper and usual word in the Scripture for Hell,³⁴ as the other word Keber, is for a grave: who would think he would so endanger his estimation [reputation] in the Hebrew tongue, but that an heretical purpose against Christ’s descending into hell, blinded him? See chap. 7.

33 And if all the English Bibles translate accordingly, to wit, for Hell, grave, wheresoever the Scripture may mean any lower place that is not the Hell of the damned: and where it must needs signify that Hell, there they never avoid so to translate it: is it not an evident argument that they know very well the proper signification, but on purpose they will never use it to their disadvantage in the questions of Limbus, Purgatory, Christ’s descending into Hell? Cha. 7.

34 If further yet in this kind of controversy, Beza would be bold to affirm (for so he says) if the Grammarians would give him leave, that ³⁵ Chebel with five points signifies, funem, [a rope] ³⁶ no less than Chebel with six points: is he not wonderfully set to maintain his opinion, that will change the nature of words, if he might, for his purpose?

35 If passives must be turned into actives, and actives into passives, participles disagree in case from their substantives, or rather be plucked and separated from their true substantives, solecisms [grammatical errors] imagined, where the construction is most agreeable, errors devised to creep out of the margin, and such like: who would so presume in the text of holy Scripture, to have all Grammar, and words, and phrases, and constructions at his commandment, but Beza & his like, for the advantage of their cause? See chap. 5. nu. 6. and the numbers next following in this chapter.

36 For example S. Peter says,³⁷ Heaven must receive Christ. He translates, Christ must be contained in heaven, which Calvin himself dislikes, the Geneva English Bible is afraid to follow, Illyricus the Lutheran reprehends: and yet M. Whitaker takes the advantage of this translation,³⁸ to prove that Christ’s natural body is so contained in heaven, that it can not be upon the altar. For he knew that this was his master’s purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, when the blind follow the blind, yea rather when they see and will be blind: for certain it is (& I appeal to their greatest Grecians) that howsoever it be taken for good in their divinity, it will be esteemed most false in their Greek schools both of Oxford and Cambridge: & howsoever they may presume to translate the holy Scriptures after this sort, surely no man, no not themselves, would so translate Demosthenes, for saving their credit and estimation in the Greek tongue. See chap. 17. nu. 7, 8, 9.

37 But there is yet worse stuff behind: to wit, the famous place Luc. 22. where Beza translates thus, Hoc poculum nouum testamentum per meum sanguine, qui pro vobis funditur: [This cup the new testament by my blood, which is shed for you] whereas in the Greek, in all copies without exception, he confesses that in true Grammatical construction it must needs be said, quod pro vobis funditur, [which is shed for you (neuter, agreeing with blood)] and therefore he says it is either a plain soloecophanes, (and according to that presumption he boldly translates) or a corruption crept out of the margin into the text. And as for the word soloecophanes, we understand him that he means a plain solecism and fault in grammar, & so does M. Whitaker:³⁹ but M. Fulke says that he means no such thing,⁴⁰ but that it is an elegancy [figure of speech] and figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devises, striving to make S. Luke’s speech here as he construes the words,⁴¹ an elegancy in the Greek tongue. He sends us first to Budés commentaries, where there are examples of soloecophanes: and indeed Budé takes the word for that which may seem a solecism, and yet is an elegancy, and all his examples are of most fine and figurative phrases, but alas how unlike to that in S. Luke. And here M. Fulke was very foully deceived, thinking that Beza and Budé took the word in one sense: and so taking his Mark amiss, as it were a counter for gold, where he found soloecophanes in Budé, there he thought all was like to S. Luke’s sentence, and that which Beza meant to be a plain solecism, he makes it like to Budés elegancies. Much like to those good searchers in Oxford (as it is said) Masters of art, who having to seek for Papistical books in a lawyers study, and seeing there books with red letters, cried out, Mass books, Mass books: whereas it was the Code or some other book of the Civil or Canon Law.

38 This was lack of judgement in M. Fulke at the least, and no great sign of skill in Greek phrases, and he must no more call D. Sanders unlearned for not understanding Beza’s meaning, but himself, who indeed understood him not. For, if Beza meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authors, and such as Budé does exemplify of, why does he say, that he sees not why Luke should use soloecophanes, but thinks rather, it is a corruption crept into the margin? Tell us, M. Fulke we beseech you, whether is the better and honester defense, to say, that it is an elegancy & fine phrase in S. Luke, or to say, it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the Gospel is here corrupted. Think you Beza such a fool, that he would rather stand upon this later, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by soloecophanes? yea what needed any defense at all, if it had been an usual & known elegancy, as you would prove it?

39 For you say further, that τὸ [the] is taken for ὅ [which], & ἐστί [is] is understood, & that this is a common thing in the best Greek authors, but you must add, that the said relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as this speech τὸ ποτήριον τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον [the cup which is shed] may be resolved thus. τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐκχυνόμενόν ἐστι, or rather ὃ ἐκχύνεται [the cup which is being shed, or rather which is shed]. But that ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον [in my blood, which is shed], may be resolved, ὃ ἐκχυνόμενον ἐστι, you shall never be able to bring one example, & you wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge you have of the Greek tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else you have no skill at all, that speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek elegancies. For if you have skill, you know in your conscience, that ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένῳ [in my blood which is shed for you], is as great a solecism in Greek, & no more elegancy, than to say in Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, [in my blood, shed for you] which in the school deserves whipping. And yet you ask very vehemently (concerning these words, Hic calix nouum Testamentum in meo sanguine qui pro vobis fundetur: [This chalice the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you]) what mean Grammarian would refer, qui, [which] to calix, [the chalice] and not to sanguis? [the blood] I answer, that a mere latinist, for ignorance of the Greek tongue, would refer it rather as you say: but he that knows the Greek, as you seem to do, though he be a very young Grammarian, will easily see it can not so be referred: as in the like Act. 14. Sacerdos quoque Iouis qui erat ante ciuitatem eorum. [The priest also of Jupiter, which was before their city.] Here, qui, is ambiguous,⁴² but in the Greek we see that, qui, must be referred to, Iouis, [Jupiter] and can not be referred to, Sacerdos. [the priest]

40 And this is one commodity among others, that we reap of the Greek text, to resolve the ambiguity that is sometime in the Latin: whereas you neither admit the one nor the other, but as you list, neither does the Greek satisfy you, be it never so plain and infallible, but you will devise that it is corrupted, that there is a solecism, that the same solecism is an elegancy, and thereupon you translate your own devise, and not the word of God. Which whence can it proceed, but of most wilful corruption? See chap. 17. nu. 10, 11, 12.

41 If in ambiguous Hebrew words of doubtful signification, where the Greek gives one certain sense, you refuse the Greek, & take your advantage of the other sense: what is this but wilful partiality? So you do in Redime eleemosynis peccata tua. Dan. 4. [Redeem thou thy sins with alms.] & Inclinaui cor meum ad faciendas iustificationes tuas propter retributionem. [I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications for the reward.] ⁴³ and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus &c. [Thy friends, O God, are become exceedingly honourable.] and yet at another time you follow the determination of the Greek for another advantage: as Psal. 98. Adore his footstool, because he is holy. Whereas in the Hebrew it may be as in our Latin,⁴⁴ because it is holy. See cha. 13. nu. 18. chap. 9. nu. 23, 24. chap. 18. nu. 1, 2. So you flee from the Hebrew to the Greek, and from this to that again, from both to the vulgar Latin, as is showed in other places: and as S. Augustine says to Faustus the Manichee,⁴⁵ You are the rule of truth: whatsoever is for you, is true: whatsoever is against you, is not true.

42 What shall I speak of the Hebrew particle vav? [the conjunction “and”] ⁴⁶ which (Gen. 14. v. 18) must in no case be translated, because, lest it should prove that Melchizedek offered sacrifice of bread and wine, as all the fathers expound it: but (Luc. 1. v. 42) where they translate the equivalent Greek particle καί [and], there Beza proves the said particle to signify, because, ⁴⁷ & translates accordingly, & the English Bezites likewise. I will not urge them why, we like the sense well, and Theophylact so expounds it. But if the Greek copulative may be so translated, why not the Hebrew copulative much more, which often in the Scripture is used in that sense? See chap. 17. nu. 13, 14.

43 But I would ask rather,⁴⁸ why κεχαριτωμένη may not in any case be translated, full of grace: whereas ἡλκωμένος is translated,⁴⁹ full of sores. both words being of like form and force. See chap. 18. nu. 4, 5.

⁵⁰44 Again, why say they (Hebr. 13) Let your conversation [conduct] be without covetousness, and say not, Let marriage be honorable in all, and the bed undefiled. both being expressed a like by the Apostle, and by way of exhortation, as the rest that goes before and follows? See chap. 15. nu. 15.

45 Are we too suspicious, think you?⁵¹ how can fear, be translated, that which he feared:⁵² repentance, them that repent or amend their life: tradition, the doctrine delivered: temples, shrines: idols, devotions: every human creature, all ordinances of man: foreknowledge, providence: soul, carcass: hell, grave: altar, temple: table, altar: and such like?

46 What caused these strange speeches in their English Bibles,⁵³ Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave. Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave. A covetous man is a worshipper of images. By laying on of the hands of the Eldership. Hail freely beloved. SIN lies at the door, and thou shalt rule over HIM. Break off thy sins with righteousness. for, Redeem with alms. Jealousy is cruel as the grave. for, as hell. Cant. Cant. 8. Bib. An 1579. The griefs of the grave caught me. Psal. 116. And, God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave. ⁵⁴ O grave I will be thy destruction. Os. 13. and such like? What made Calvin so translate into Latin, that if you turn it into English, the sense is, that God poured water upon us abundantly,⁵⁵ meaning the Holy Ghost: what else but because he would take away the necessity of material water in Baptism, as in his commentary and Beza’s, it is evident?

47 I had meant to have but briefly skimmed over these things, but multitude of matter makes me too long, as it chances to a man that wades through miry [muddy] and foul places, and yet the greatest demonstration that they are wilful corrupters, is behind, which only I will add, and for the rest, refer the reader to the whole book.

48 Doubt you whether they translate on purpose and partiality, in favour of their opinions? You shall hear themselves say so and protest it. If I dealt with Lutherans, this one testimony of Luther were sufficient, who being asked why he added,⁵⁶ only, into the text Ro. 3: answered that he did it to explicate the Apostles sense more plainly. That is, to make the Apostle say more plainly, that faith only justified. And his disciple Illyricus disputes the matter, that the Apostle saying, by faith without works, ⁵⁷ says indeed, only faith. but because I deal rather with our English Calvinists, and Beza is their chief translator, & a captain among them, whom they profess to follow in the title of the new Test. An. 1580, and by the very name of their Geneva Bibles, let us see what he says.

49 First concerning, μετανοεῖτε, which the vulgar Latin and Erasmus translate, Agite poenitentiam, Repent, or, Do penance. This interpretation (says he) I refuse for many causes, but for this especially, that many ignorant persons have taken hereby an occasion of the false opinions of SATISFACTION, wherewith the Church is troubled at this day. Lo, on purpose against satisfaction he will not translate the Greek word, as it ought to be, and as it is proved to signify, both in this book, and in the Annotations upon the New Testament.⁵⁸ A little after speaking of the same word, he says, why I have changed the name, poenitentia, I have told a little before, ⁵⁹ protesting that he will never use those words, but resipiscere, and resipiscentia, that is, amendment of life: because of their heresy, that repentance is nothing else but a mere amendment of former life, without recompense or satisfaction or penance for the sins before committed. See chap. 13.

50 Again concerning the word,⁶⁰ Justifications, which in the Scripture very often signify the commandments, he says thus. The Greek interpreters of the Bible (meaning the Septuaginta) applied this word to signify the whole Law of God, ⁶¹ and therefore commonly it is wont to be translated word for word, Justifications: which interpretation therefore only I rejected, that I might take away this occasion also of cavilling against justification by faith. and so for, justifications, he puts constituta, [ordinances] Tullies word forsooth, as he says. Can you have a more plain testimony of his heretical purpose?

51 Again, when he had rejected this translation (Act. 2. v. 27) Non derelinques animan meam in inferno, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell: because (as he says) hereupon grew the errors of Christ’s descending into Hell, of Limbus, and of Purgatory: at length he concludes thus, Whereas the doubtful interpretation of one or two words has brought forth so many monsters, I chose rather ⁶² simply, for foul, to say, carcass, for hell, ⁶³ grave: then to foster these foul errors.

52 Again, when he had translated for, Whom heaven must receive, thus, who must be contained in heaven: he says, whereas we have used the passive kind of speech, rather than the active (which is in the Greek:) we did it to avoid all ambiguity. For it is very expedient, that there should be in the Church of God, this perspicuous [clear, evident] testimony, against them, that for ascending by faith into heaven, so to be joined to our head, obstinately maintain that Christ must be called again out of heaven unto us. Meaning his presence in the B. Sacrament, & inveighing no less against the Lutherans than the Catholics, as the ⁶⁴ Lutherans do here against him for this wilful interpretation, & that by Calvin’s own judgement, who thinks it a forced translation.

53 But Beza goes forward still in this kind. Ro. 5. v. 18. whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, [was spread abroad] indifferently, both of Adam’s sin which made us truly sinners, and of Christ’s justice, which makes us truly just: he rejecting it, among other causes why it displeased him, says: That old error of the Sophists (meaning Catholics) which for imputative justice put an inherent quality in the place, is so great, and so execrable to all good men, that I think nothing is so much to be avoided as it.

54 These few examples prove unto us that the Scriptures translated verbatim, exactly, & according to the proper use and signification of the words, do by the Heretics confession make for the Catholics, and therefore Beza says he alters the words into other: & (I think) it may suffice any indifferent reader to judge of his purpose and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Calvinists, and Bezites. Many other ways there are to make most certain proof of their Wilfulness, as when ⁶⁵ the translation is framed according to their false and heretical commentary: and, When they will avouch their translations out of profane writers, Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tullie, Virgil, and Terence, and reject the Ecclesiastical use of words in the Scriptures and fathers: which Beza does for the most part always. But it were infinite to note all the marks, and by these, the wise reader may conceive the rest.

55 But would you think that these men could notwithstanding speak very gravely and honestly against voluntary and wilful translations of Scripture, that so notoriously offend therein themselves? Harken what Beza says against Castaleo and the like:⁶⁶ The matter (says he) is now come to this point, that the translators of Scripture out of the Greek into Latin, or into any other tongue, think that they may lawfully do anything in translating Whom if a man reprehend; he shall be answered by and by, that they do the office of a translator, not that translates word for word, but that express the sense. So it comes to pass, that, whiles every man will rather freely follow his own judgement, than be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he does rather pervert many things than translate them. Is not this well-said, if he had done accordingly? But doing the clean contrary, as has been proved, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, & a wilful Heretic in so doing, and condemned by his own judgement.

56 But after this general view of their wilful purpose and heretical intention, let us examine their false translations more particularly, and argue the case with them more at large, & press them to answer, whether in their conscience it be so or no, as hitherto is said: and that by several chapters of such CONTROVERSIES as their corruptions concern: and first of all (without further curiosity whence to begin, in cases so indifferent) of TRADITIONS.