Heretical translation against the holy SACRAMENTS, namely BAPTISM and CONFESSION

1 ANOTHER 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 them poor & beggarly elements, either worse, or no better than those of the old Law.

2 For this purpose Beza is not content to speak as the Apostle does,¹ (Ro. 4. v. 11.) that circumcision was a seal of the justice of faith, but because he thinks that too small a term for the dignity of circumcision, as himself confesses,² he gladly avoids is (I use his own words) & for the Noun puts the Verb, so dissolutely and presumptuously, that the English Bezites themselves here also dare not follow him in translation, though in opinion they agree. The cause of his wilful translation he declares 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 (says he) could be spoken more magnifical [magnificently] 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 extends. Which he says, not to magnify the old, but to disgrace the new.

3 Which is also the cause why not only he, but the English Bibles (for commonly they join hands and agree together) to make no difference between John’s Baptism and Christ’s, translate thus concerning certain that had not yet received the Holy Ghost: Unto what then were ye baptized? ³ And they said, unto John’s Baptism. Which Beza in a long discourse proves 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 indeed 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 follows immediately, then they were baptized in the name of Jesus, & after imposition of hands the Holy Ghost came upon them. Whereby is plainly gathered, that being baptized with John’s baptism before, and yet of necessity baptized afterward with Christ’s baptism also, there must needs be a great difference between the one baptism and the other, John’s being insufficient. And that this is the deduction which troubles these Bezites, and makes them translate accordingly, Beza (as commonly still he utters his grief) tells us in plain words thus. It is not necessary, ⁴ that wheresoever there is mention of John’s Baptism, we should think it to be the very ceremony of Baptism. Therefore they that gather John’s Baptism to have been divers from Christ’s, because these a little after are said to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, have no sure foundation. Lo, how on purpose he translates and expounds it John’s doctrine, not John’s Baptism, to take away the foundation of this Catholic conclusion, that his baptism differs and is far inferior to Christ’s.

4 But does the Greek lead him or force him to this translation,⁵ In quid? Unto what? First himself confesses in the very same place the contrary, that the Greek phrase is often used in the other sense, wherein, or wherewith, as it is in the vulgar Latin and Erasmus: but that in his judgement it does not so signify here, and therefore he refuses 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, ⁶ there both he and his, so translate it as we do, & not, unto the name of Christ. Is it not plain, that all is voluntary, and at their pleasure? For (I beseech them) if it be a right translation, 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.

5 But no marvel if they disgrace the baptism of Christ, when they are bold also to take it away altogether: interpreting this Scripture,⁷ Unless a man be borne again of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God, which a man would think were plain enough to prove that Baptism in water is necessary: interpreting (I say) this Scripture, Of water and the Spirit, thus: of water,⁸ that is, the Spirit: making water to be nothing else in this place but the Spirit allegorically, and not material water. As though our Saviour had said to Nicodemus, Unless a man be borne of water, I mean, of the spirit, he can not enter, &c. According to this most impudent exposition of plain Scriptures, Calvin translates also as impudently for the same purpose in the epistle to Titus,⁹ making the Apostle to say, that God poured the water of regeneration upon us abundantly, that is, the Holy Ghost. And lest we should not understand his meaning herein, he tells us in his commentary upon this place, that when the Apostle says, Water poured out abundantly, he speaks not of material water, but of the Holy Ghost. Now indeed the Apostle says not, that water was poured upon us, but the Holy Ghost. Neither does the Apostle make water and the Holy Ghost all one, but most plainly distinguishes them, saying, that God of his mercy has saved us by the laver [washing-basin] of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, ¹⁰ whom he has poured upon us abundantly. See how plainly the Apostle speaks both of the material water or washing of Baptism, and of the effect thereof which is the Holy Ghost poured upon us. Calvin takes away water clean and will have him speak only of the Holy Ghost,¹¹ which Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran himself wonders at, that any man should be so bold, and calls it plain sacrilege against the efficacy of the Sacraments.

6 And if we should here accuse the English translators also, that translate it thus, by the fountain of the regeneration of the Holy Ghost, WHICH he shed on us, &c. making it indifferent, either which fountain, or, which Holy Ghost he shed, &c: they would answer by & by that the Greek also is indifferent: but if a man should ask them further, whether the Holy Ghost may be said to be shed, or rather a fountain of water, they must needs confess, not the Holy Ghost, but water: and consequently that they translating, which he shed, would have it meant of the fountain of water, & so they agree just with Calvin’s translation, and leave Beza,¹² who in his translation refers it only to the Holy Ghost, as we do: but in his commentary plays the Heretic as Calvin does.

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,¹³ 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 follows, Confess your faults. &c. But they to make all sure, for, Confess, say, Acknowledge: & for Priests, Elders. What mean they by this? If this acknowledging of faults one to another before death be indifferently to be made to all men, why do they appoint in their Communion-book (as it seems out of this place) that the sick person shall make a special confession to the Minister,¹⁴ and he shall absolve him in the very same form of absolution that Catholic Priests use in the Sacrament of Confession. Again, if this acknowledging of faults be specially to be made to the Minister or Priest, why translate they it not by the word Confessing and confession, as well as by, Acknowledging, & why is not this confession a Sacrament, where themselves acknowledge forgiveness of sins by the Minister? These contradictions and repugnance of their practise 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.