Heretical translation against the B. SACRAMENT, and SACRIFICE, and ALTARS

1 NOW let us see concerning the Eucharist, which they allow for a Sacrament, how they handle the matter to the disgracing and defacing of the same also. They take away the operation and efficacy of Christ’s blessing pronounced upon the bread & wine, making it only a thanks-giving to God: and to this purpose they translate more gladly, thanks-giving, than, blessing. as Matth. 26. the Greek words being two,¹ the one signifying properly, to bless: the other, to give thanks: they translate both thus, when he had given thanks. likewise Marc. 14. in the Bible printed 1562. And when they translate it, blessing, they mean nothing else but giving thanks,² as Beza tells us in his Annotations Mat. 26. v. 26. We reply and by most manifest Scripture prove unto them, that the former Greek word does not signify thanks-giving properly, but blessing, and a blessing of creatures to the operation of some great effect in them: as when Christ took the five loaves & two fishes, to multiply them,³ he blessed them Luc. 9. What say they to this think you? Does not the Greek word here plainly signify, blessing of creatures? No, (says Beza) no doubt but here also it signifies giving thanks. How Beza? He adds, Not as though Christ had given thanks to the bread, for that were too absurd: but we must mollify this interpretation thus, that he gave thanks to God the father for the loaves and the fishes. Is not this a notable exposition of these words, benedixit eis?

2 We ask him in the like cases, when God blessed Adam and Eve,⁴ Gen. 1. & 9. Noe and his children, saying, Increase and multiply: when he blessed the children of Israël, and they multiplied exceedingly, when he blessed the later things of Job more than the first. Job. 42. Was this also a giving of thanks, and not an effectual blessing upon these creatures? What will they say, or what difference will they make? As God blessed here, so he was God and man that blessed the loaves and fishes there. If they will say he did it as man, and therefore it was a giving of thanks to God his father: to omit that he blessed them as he multiplied them, that is, rather according to his divine nature than human: we ask them, when he blessed as man, was it always giving of thanks? He blessed the little children, he blessed his disciples,⁵ when he ascended: was this giving thanks for them, as Beza expounds his blessing of the loaves & fishes? When⁶ we bless the table or the meat upon the table, when S. Paul says, 1 Timoth. 4. all meat is lawful that ⁷ is sanctified by the word & by prayer: is all this nothing but giving thanks? So says Beza in express words.

3 We go forward, and prove the contrary yet more manifestly, in the very matter of the B. Sacrament, for the which they multiply all the foresaid absurdities. We tell them that S. Paul says thus,⁸ The chalice of blessing, which we bless, is it not &c. How could he speak more plainly, that the chalice or cup (meaning that in the cup) is blessed? Which S. Cyprian de Corn. Do. explicates thus, Calix solenni benedictione sacratus, The Chalice consecrated by solemn blessing. ⁹ Oecumenius thus, The Chalice which blessing, we prepare. that is, which we bless & so prepare. For so it must signify, & not as Beza would have it,¹⁰ which with thanks giving we prepare, and that I prove by his own words immediately before, where he says that the Greek word being used of the Apostle transitively, that is, with a case following, can not signify giving thanks. How then can it so signify in Oecumenius words, who does interpret the Apostles meaning by the Apostles own words and phrase? Yea (that you may note a notorious contradiction) how does Beza then in the place of Luke before alleged (where the same Greek word is a plain transitive as in this¹¹ place) expound it of giving thanks for the bread and fishes? A liar (they say) must be mindful, to make his tale agree in every point. He that before forced the word in every sentence to be nothing else but thanks giving, even when it was a plain transitive, now confesses that he never read it in that signification, when it is a transitive. And so we have that the blessing of the cup or of the bread, is not giving thanks as they either translate, or interpret it.

4 And surely in the word εὐλογεῖν this is most evident, that it signifies in this case the blessing & consecration of the creature or element: in so much that S. Basil and S. Chrysostom in their Liturgies or Masses, say thus by the same Greek word:¹² Bless O Lord the sacred bread. and, Bless O Lord the sacred cup. and why or to what effect? It follows, changing it by the holy Spirit. Where is signified the transmutation and consecration thereof into the body and blood. But in the other word εὐχαριστεῖν there may be some question, because it signifies properly to give thanks, and therefore may seem to be referred to God only, and not to the element and creature. But this also we find contrary in the Greek fathers, who use this word also transitively, saying,¹³ panem & calicem eucharistisatos, or, panem in quo gratiae actae sunt. that is the bread and the cup made the Eucharist: the bread over which thanks are given: that is, which by the word of prayer and thanks-giving is made a consecrated meat, the flesh and blood of Christ, as S. Justin in fine 2 Apolog. and S. Irenaeus li. 4.34. in the same places expound it. Whereas it may also signify that, for which thanks are given in that most solemn sacrifice of the Eucharist,¹⁴ as S. Denys in one place seems to take it. Eccl. Hier. c. 3 in fine. Who in the self same chapter speaks of the consecration thereof most evidently.

5 Whereby we have to note that the Heretics in urging the word, Eucharist, as mere thanks-giving, thereby to take away blessing and consecration of the elements of bread and wine, do unlearnedly and deceitfully. Because all the fathers make mention of both: S. Paul also calls it, blessing of the chalice, which the Evangelists call, giving of thanks. Whose words Theophylact explicates thus, THE CHALICE OF BLESSING, that is, of the Eucharist. For holding it in our hands, we bless it, & give thanks to him that shed his blood for us. See here both blessing, & Eucharist, blessing the chalice, and thanks-giving to Christ.¹⁵ S. James and the Greek fathers in their Liturgies, put both words in the consecration of each element, saying thus, giving thanks, sanctifying, breaking: and, giving thanks, blessing, sanctifying: ¹⁶ and, taking the cup, giving thanks, sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the Holy Ghost, he gave it to us his Disciples. S. Chrysostom who in many places of his works speaks much of thanks-giving in these holy mysteries,¹⁷ does he not as often speak of the blessing, consecration, yea and the transmutation thereof, & that with what words, and by what power it is done? Does not S. Augustine say of the same,¹⁸ benedicitur & sanctificatur, it is blessed and sanctified, who often speaks of the solemn giving of thanks in the sacrifice of the Church?¹⁹ Does not the Church at this day use the very same terms, as in S. Augustine’s time, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. and, Verè dignum & iustum est, semper & vbique tibi gratias agere &c. It is very meet and right, always and in all places to give thee thanks: Which the Greek Church also in their Liturgies express most abundantly? Yet does there follow blessing & consecration, and whatsoever S. Ambrose describes to be done in this holy sacrifice, touching this point, writing thereof most excellently in his book de ijs qui initiantur mysterijs. c. 9.

6 Of all which, this is the conclusion, that the Eucharist is a solemn name, taken of the word εὐχαριστία, so called, because this Sacrament and sacrifice is blessed and consecrated with prayer & thanks-giving, as S. Justin speaks, and because in this sacrifice so blessed and consecrated into the body and blood of Christ, him we offer up a most acceptable oblation of thanks-giving, and a memory of all God’s marvelous benefits toward us. In this sense the fathers and the holy Church speak of the Eucharist, including all the rest, to wit Sacrament, sacrifice, blessing, & consecration, without which this were no more to be called Eucharist, than any other common giving of thanks, as S. Irenaeus does plainly signify, when he declares, that being before bread, ²⁰ and receiving the invocation of God over it, now is no more common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the earthly, and the heavenly. So that it is made the Eucharist by circumstance of solemn words and ceremonies, & therefore is not a mere giving of thanks: and further we learn, that S. Justin’s and S. Irenaeus words before alleged,²¹ Panis & calix Eucharistisatus, signify, the bread and chalice made the Eucharist: and consequently we learn that the active thereof, is, by thanks-giving to make the Eucharist. And because the other word of blessing & this of thanks-giving are used indifferently one for another in Christ’s action about this Sacrament, we learn undoubtedly, that when it is said, εὐλογία, or, εὐχαριστία, the meaning is, blessing, & giving thanks, he made the Eucharist of his body and blood, that is the Sacrament and Sacrifice of a singular thanksgiving, which (as S. Augustine often is wont to say) the faithful only do know & understand in the sacrifice of the Church: and because the faithful only understand, therefore the Protestants and Calvinists are so ignorant in this mystery, that to take away all the dignity thereof they bend both their expositions and translations.

7 After they have turned blessing or consecration into bare thanks-giving, which is one step toward the denying of the real presence, they come nearer, and so include Christ in heaven, that he can not be withal upon the altar, translating thus, Whom heaven must contain, until the times that all things be restored. Act. 3. v. 21. and yet Beza worse,²² and he that alleges him, M. Whitaker: who must be contained in heaven. Which is so far from the Greek, that not only Illyricus the Luthera, but Calvin himself does not like it. Beza protests that he so translates on purpose to keep Christ’s presence from the altar: and we marvel the less, because we are well acquainted with many the like his impudent Protestations. M. Whitaker. Only we do marvel at, that he should be either so deceived by another man’s translation, or himself be so overseen [mistaken] in the Greek word,²³ that he knows not a mere deponent and only deponent, from a passive.

8 This does not become him that ²⁴ objects ignorance of the Greek to another man, and that after he had well tried by public conference,²⁵ that he was not ignorant: & so objects it as though he knew not three words in that tongue, whereas he had heard him read & interpret S. Basil, not the easiest of the Greek Doctors. This is palpable impudency and a face that can not blush, and full of malice against the Saints of God, who if they knew not a word in the Greek tongue, were never the worse, nor the less learned, but among fools and children, that esteem learning by such trifles, which Grammarians know far better than great Divines. For were not he a wise man that would prefer one Master Humfrey, Master Fulke, Master Whitaker, or some of us poor men, because we have a little smack in the three tongues, before S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, or S. Thomas, that understood well, none but one? Howbeit if they esteem learning by knowledge of the tongues, they will not (I trow) compare with Catholics, either of former time, or of these later age, specially since their new Gospel began: & if they will compare with us herein for their simple credit, we may perhaps give them occasion ere it be long, to muster their men all at once, if they dare show their face before our camp of excellent Hebricians, Grecians, Latinists, of absolute linguists in the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic &c. Whom they must needs confess to have been, and to be even at this day, their Masters and teachers.

9 But to return to you M. Whitaker, greater is your fault in divinity, than in the tongues, when you make your argument against the real presence out of this place, as out of the Scripture & S. Peter, whereas they are Beza’s words, and not S. Peter’s. Again, whether you take Beza’s words, or S. Peter’s, your argument fails very much, when you conclude that Christ’s natural body is not in the Sacrament, because it is placed and contained in heaven. For S. Chrysostom tells you,²⁶ that Christ ascending into heaven, both left us his flesh, and yet ascending has the same. and again, O miracle, says he:²⁷ He that sits above with the Father, in the same moment of time is handled with the hands of all. This is the faith of the ancient fathers, M. Whitaker, and this is the Catholic faith, and this is (I trow) another manner of faith and far greater, thus to believe the presence of Christ in both places at once, because he is omnipotent and has said the word: then your faith (whereof you boast so much) which believes no further than that he is ascended, and that therefore he cannot be present upon the altar, nor dispose of his body as he list.

10 Again it is a very famous place for the real presence of the blood (which we have handled at large²⁸ elsewhere, but here also must be briefly touched) when our Saviour says, Luc. 22. This is the Chalice the New Testament in my blood, ²⁹ which (Chalice) is shed for you. For so (which) must needs be referred according to the Greek. In which speech, Chalice must needs be taken for that in the chalice, and that in the chalice must needs be the blood of Christ, & not wine, because his blood only was shed for us. & so we do plainly prove the real presence. According as S. Chrysostom also said,³⁰ Hoc quod est in calice, illud est quod fluxit de latere. That which is in the Chalice, is the same that gushed out of his side. All which most necessary deduction Beza would defeat, by saying the Greek is corrupted in all the copies that are extant in the world, and by translating thus clean otherwise than the Greek will bear, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, ³¹ which (blood) is shed for you.

11 But what pertains this to the English Heretics, Who translate, Which is shed, so indifferently that it may signify, Which cup or, which blood is shed? Thus far it pertains,³² because they do not only defend this translation by all means, but they tell us plainly namely Fulke that they refer (which) to the word blood, and not to the word cup, ³³ even as Beza does, asking us what Grammarian would refer it otherwise, in which question he shows himself a very simple Grammarian in the Greek, or a mad heretic, that either knows not, or will not know, that in the Greek it can not be so referred, and consequently neither in Latin nor English, which in true translation must follow the Greek. But of these and other their foul and manifold shifts to avoid this place, ³⁴ I have spoken in another place of this book.

12 Only M. Whitaker (to say truly) has brought somewhat to the purpose,³⁵ to wit, that S. Basil reads the Greek as they translate. But he does well to make light of it, because it is evident that S. Basil cited not the text of the Evangelist, but the sense, which Beza notes to be the custom of the ancient fathers,³⁶ telling us withal that therefore the reading of the fathers, is no certain rule to reform or alter the words of Scripture according to the same: and it is very like that if Beza or Fulke his advocate had thought S. Basils reading of any importance, they would have used it long since, rather than so many other shifts and so absurd, as they do: unless we may think they knew it not, and therefore could not use it. But for S Basil, according to the sense he cites it very truly: for, whether we say, the Cup that is shed, or, the blood that is shed, both signifies the blood of Christ shed for us, as S. Basil cites it. The difference is, that referring it to the cup, as S. Luke has it, it signifies the blood both present in the cup, and also then shed in a Sacrament at the last supper: but referring it to the word blood, as S. Basil does, & as they translate, it may signify the blood shed on the cross also, yea (as these translators mean and would have it) only that on the Cross, not considering that the Greek word is the present tense, and therefore rather signifies the present shedding of his blood than in mystical sacrifice, than the other visible shedding thereof, which was to come in the future tense. Lastly, they translate S. Luke’s Gospel, and not S. Basil: and therefore not following S. Luke, they are false translators, howsoever S. Basil reads.

13 As this falsehood is both against Sacrament and Sacrifice, so against the Sacrifice also of the altar it is, that they control S. Jerome’s translation in the Old Testament concerning the sacrifice of Melchizedek,³⁷ Who brought forth bread and wine: Gen. 14. v. 18. that is, offered or sacrificed bread & wine: which we prove to be the true sense and interpretation (& that this bringing forth of bread & wine, was sacrificing thereof) not only by all the fathers expositions that write of Melchizedek’s priesthood, (Cypr. epist. 63. Epiph. har. 55. & 79. Hiero. in Mat. 26. & in epist. ad Euagrium.) & by the Hebrew word which is a word of sacrifice, Jud. 6. v. 18: and ³⁸ by the greatest Rabbines and Hebricians that write thereof, but we prove it also by these words of the very text itself, He brought forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of God most high. Which reason immediately following, Because he was God’s Priest, proves evidently that he brought it not forth in common manner as any other man might have done, but as God’s Priest, whose office is to offer sacrifice. This consequence is so plain, that for avoiding thereof, the Adversaries will not have it translated in any wise,³⁹ For he was the Priest, as though the Scripture gave a reason why he brought forth bread and wine: but, and he was a Priest, &c. ⁴⁰ Wrangling about the signification of the Hebrew conjunction.

14 Wherein the reader may see their exceeding partiality & wilfulness. For, besides infinite like places of Scripture, whereby we do easily show that this Hebrew particle is used to give a reason or cause of a thing, themselves also in another place prove it for us,⁴¹ and that by the authority of Theophylact, & allegation of examples out of the Scripture,⁴² and translate accordingly thus: Blessed art thou among women, because the fruit of thy womb is blessed. ⁴³ Let them give us a reason, why the said Conjunction is here by their translation, quia, or, enim, where it was never so translated before,⁴⁴ and it must not be in any case in the other place of Genesis, where it has been so translated and generally received even in the primitive Church. In other places of Scripture also which Theophylact alleges, and many moe [more] may be alleged, they confess and like very well it should so signify: only in the place of Genesis,⁴⁵ they can not abide any such sense or translation thereof: but, He brought forth bread and wine, and he was the Priest, &c. not, because he was the Priest: What is the cause of this their dealing? None other undoubtedly (and in all these cases I knock at their consciences) but that here they would avoid the necessary sequel of Melchizedek’s sacrifice, upon such translation, which typical sacrifice of bread and wine if it should be granted, then would follow also a sacrifice of the New Testament, made of bread and wine answering to the same, and so we should have the sacrifice of the altar, and their bare communion should be excluded.

15 For which purpose also their partial translation about, altar, and, table, is notorious. For,⁴⁶ the name of altar (as they know very well) both in the Hebrew and Greek,⁴⁷ and by the custom of all peoples both Jews and Pagans, implying and importing sacrifice, therefore we in respect of the sacrifice of Christ’s body & blood, say, altar, rather than, table, as all the ancient fathers (Chrys. ho. 53 ad po. Antioch. and ho. 20 in 2 Cor. and in Demonst. quod Christus sit Deus, to. 5. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore. Basil. in Liturg. Socrat. li. 1. Hist. c. 20 & 25. Theodoret. hist. li. 4. c. 20. Theophyl. in 23 Mat. Cypr. epist. 63. Optat. cont. Parm. Aug. ep. 86. & li. 9. Confess. c. 11 & 13. & alibi saepe) are wont to speak & write, (namely when S. Jerome calls the bodies or bones of SS. Peter & Paul the altars of Christ, because of this sacrifice offered over and upon the same) though in respect of eating & drinking the body and blood, it is also called a table: so that with us it is both an altar and a table, whether it be of wood or of stone. But the Protestants, because they make it only a communion of bread and wine, or a supper, and no sacrifice, therefore they call it table only, and abhor from the word, altar, as Papistical. For the which purpose, in their first translation, (Bible an. 1562.) when altars were then in digging down throughout England, they translated with no less malice, than they threw them down, putting the word, temple, instead of altar: which is so gross a corruption, that a man would have thought it had been done by oversight, and not on purpose, if they had not done it thrice immediately within two chapters, 1 Cor. 9. & 10. saying: Know you not that they which wait of the TEMPLE, are partakers of the TEMPLE? And, Are not they which eat of the sacrifice, partakers of the TEMPLE? in all which places the Apostles word in Greek is,⁴⁸ altar, and not, temple. and see here their notorious peevishness. Where the Apostle says, temple, there the same translation says, sacrifice: where the Apostle says, altar, there it says, temple.

16 Thus we see how they suppress the name of altar, where it should be: now let us see how they put it in their translation, where it should not be this also they do thrice in one chapter, & that for to save the honour of their communion table. Namely in the story of Bel,⁴⁹ where we have it thrice called the table of that idol, under which Bel’s priests had made a privy entrance, and,⁵⁰ that the king looked upon the table, and, that they did eat up such things as were upon the table: these wicked translators fearing lest the name of Bel’s table might redound [reflect] to the dishonour of their Communion table, translate it, altar, ⁵¹ in all these places. Wherein I cannot but pity their folly, and wonder exceedingly how they could imagine it any disgrace either for table or altar, if the Idols also had their tables and altars, whereas S. Paul so plainly names both together, The table of our Lord, ⁵² and the table of Devils. If the table of Devils, why not the table of Bel? If that be no disgrace to the table of our Lord, why are you afraid of Bel’s table, lest it should disgrace yours? Or if you had no such fear, then you must tell us some other good reason of your unreasonable translation in this place, why you translate, altar, for, table, that is, chalk for cheese.

17 And here by the way the Reader may note another exceeding folly in them, that think the name of table, makes against altar & sacrifice, their own translation here condemning them, where they call Bel’s table, an altar and S. Paul, having said to the Corinthians, the table of our Lord, says to the Hebrews⁵³ of the self same, we have an altar. & again he says, the table of Devils, which I am sure they will not deny to have been a true altar of idololatrical sacrifice. & Malach. 1. v. 7. in one sentence it is called. Both altar & table, whereupon the Jews offered their external and true sacrifices. & all the fathers both Greek and Latin speaking of the sacrifice of the New Testament, call that where upon it is offered, both altar & table: but the Greeks more often table, the Latin fathers more often altar: and why or in what respects it is called both this and that, we have before declared, & here might add the very same out of S. Germanus Arch. B. Of Constantinople, in his Greek commentaries (called mystica theoria) upon the Liturgies or Masses of the Greek fathers. But to proceed.

18 There are also some places less evident, yet such as smatch [taste, tinge] of the like heretical humor against the B. Sacrament. In the prophet Jeremiah c. 11. v. 19. we read thus according to the Latin and the Greek, Let us cast ⁵⁴ wood upon his bread, that is, says S. Jerome in comment. huius loci, the cross upon the body of our Saviour. For it is he that said, I am the bread that descended from heaven. Where the Prophet so long before saying, bread, and meaning his body, alludes prophetically to his body in the B. Sacrament made of bread and under the form of bread, and therefore also called bread of the Apostle. So that both in the Prophet and the Apostle,⁵⁵ his bread and his body is all one. And lest we should think that the bread only signifies his body, he says, let us put the Cross upon his bread, that is, upon his very natural body which hung on the cross. Now for these words of the Prophet so usual and well known in the Church and all antiquity, how think you do these new Masters translate? in one bible thus, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof. Another, we will destroy his meat with wood. or as they should have said rather, the wood with his meat Do you see how properly they agree, whiles they seek novelties, and forsake the ancient usual translation?

19 They will say, the first Hebrew word can not be as S. Jerome translates, and as it is in the Greek, and as all antiquity reads: but it must signify, Let us destroy. They say truly, according to the Hebrew word which now is. But is it not evident thereby, that the Hebrew word now is not the same which the Septuaginta translated into Greek,⁵⁶ and S. Jerome into Latin?⁵⁷ and consequently the Hebrew is altered and corrupted from the original copy which they had: perhaps by the Jews (as ⁵⁸ some other places) to obscure this prophecy also of Christ’s Passion, and their crucifying of him upon the Cross. Such Jewish Rabbines and new Hebrew words do our new Masters gladly follow in the translation of the Old Testament, whereas they might easily conceive the old Hebrew word in this place, if they would employ their skill that way, and not only to novelties. For who sees not that the Greek Interpreters in number 70, and all Hebrews of best skill in their own tongue, S. Jerome also a great Hebrician did not read as now we have in the Hebrew,⁵⁹ Nashchîtha, but, Nashitha, or, Nashlîcha? Again the Hebrew word that now is, does so little agree with the words following, that they cannot tell how to translate it, as appears by the diversity and difference of their translations thereof before mentioned, and transposing the words in English otherwise than in the Hebrew, neither of both their translations having any commodious sense or understanding.

20 But yet they will pretend that for the first word at the least, they are not to be blamed, because they follow the Hebrew that now is. Not considering that if this were a good excuse, then might they as well follow the Hebrew that now is Psal. 21. v. 18: and so utterly suppress and take out of the Scripture this notable prophecy, They pierced my hands and my feet: Which yet they do not, neither can they do it for shame, if they will be counted Christians. So that indeed, to follow the Hebrew sometime where it is corrupt, is no sufficient excuse for them, though it may have a pretence of true translation, and we promised in the preface, in such cases not to call it heretical translation.

⁶⁰21 But concerning the B. Sacrament, let us see once more how truly they follow the Hebrew. The Holy Ghost (says S. Cyprian ep. 63 nu. 2.) by Solomon foreshows a type of our Lord’s sacrifice, of the immolated host of bread and wine, saying, Wisdom has killed her hosts, SHE HAS MINGLED HER WINE INTO the cup. Come ye, eat of my bread, and drink the wine that I HAVE MINGLED for you. Speaking of WINE MINGLED (says this holy doctor) he foreshows prophetically the cup of our Lord, MINGLED WITH WATER AND WINE. So does S. Jerome interpret this mixture or mingling of the wine in the chalice, so does the author of the commentaries upon this place among S. Jerome’s works,⁶¹ so do the other fathers. So that there is great importance in these prophetical words of Solomon. She has mingled her wine into the cup, and, the wine which I have mingled, as being a manifest prophecy of Christ’s mingling water and wine in the Chalice at his last supper, which the Catholic Church observes at this day, and whereof S. Cyprian writes the foresaid long epistle.

22 But the Protestants counting it an idle superstitious ceremony, here also frame their translation accordingly, suppressing altogether this mixture or mingling, and instead thereof saying, She has drawn her wine, ⁶² and, drink the wine that I have drawn: or (as in other of their bibles) She has poured out her wine, ⁶³ and the wine which I have poured out: neither translation agreeing either with Greek or Hebrew.⁶⁴ not with the Greek, which does evidently signify, mingling and mixture, as it is in the Latin, & as all the Greek Church from the Apostles time has used this word in this very case whereof we now speak, of mingling water & wine in the chalice S. James and S. Basil in their Liturgies expressly testifying that Christ did so,⁶⁵ as also S. Cyprian in the place alleged. S. Justin in the end of his second apology, calling it of the same Greek word, κρᾶμα, that is (according to Plutarch) wine mingled with water:⁶⁶ likewise S. Irenaeus in his fifth book near the beginning.⁶⁷ See the 6 general Council most fully treating hereof and deducing it from the Apostles & ancient fathers,⁶⁸ and interpreting this Greek word by another equivalent,⁶⁹ and more plain to signify this mixture

23 Thus then the Greek is neither drawing of wine, nor pouring out thereof, as they translate, but mingling. But the Hebrew perhaps signifies both, or at the least one of the two, either to draw, or to pour out. Gentle reader, if thou have skill, look the Hebrew Lexicon of Pagnine esteemed the best: if thou have not skill, ask,⁷⁰ and thou shalt understand that there is no such signification of this word in all the bible, but that it signifies only mixture & mingling. A strange case, that to avoid this mingling of the cup, being a most certain tradition of the Apostles, they have invented two other significations of this Hebrew word, which it never had before.