Heretical translation against the CHURCH

1 AS they suppress the name, Catholic, even so did they in their first English bible the name of Church itself: because at their first revolt & apostasy from that that was universally known to be the only true Catholic Church: it was a great objection against their schismatical proceedings, and it stuck much in the peoples consciences, that they forsook the Church, and that the Church condemned them. Whereupon very wily they suppressed the name Church in their English translation, so,¹ that in all that Bible so long read in their congregations, we can not once find the name thereof. Judge by these places which seem of most importance for the dignity preeminence & authority of the Church.

2 Our Saviour says,² Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. They make him to say, Upon this rock I will build my congregation. Again,³ If he hear not them, tell the Church: and if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and as a publican. they say, Congregation. Again, who would think they would have altered the word Church in the epistle to the Ephesians?⁴ their English translation for many years read thus, Ye husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the congregation, and cleansed it to make it unto himself a glorious congregation without spot or wrinkle. And, This is a great secret, but I speak of Christ and of the congregation. And to Timothee, The house of God, which is the congregation of the living God, ⁵ the pillar and ground of truth. Here is no word of Church, which in Latin and Greek is, Ecclesia Dei viui, columna & firmamentum veritatis. Likewise to the Ephesians again, He has made him head of the congregation, ⁶ which is his body. And to the Hebrews they are all bold to translate:⁷ The congregation of the first-borne, where the Apostle names heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God, &c.

3 So that by this translation, there is no more Church militant and triumphant, but congregation, and he is not head of the Church, but of the congregation: and this congregation at the time of the making of this translation, was in a few new brethren of England, for whose sake the name Church was left out of the English Bible, to commend the name of congregation above the name of Church. Whereas S. Augustine tells them,⁸ that the Jews Synagogue, was a congregation: the Church, a convocation: and that a congregation, is of beasts also: a convocation, of reasonable creatures only: and that the Jews congregation is sometime called the Church, but the Apostles never called the Church, Congregation. do you see then what a goodly change they have made, for Church, to say congregation: so making themselves a very Synagogue, & that by the property of the Greek word, which yet (as S. Augustine tells them most truly) signifies rather a convocation?

4 If they appeal here to their later translations, we must obtain of them to condemn the former, and to confess this was a gross fault committed therein. And that the Catholic Church of our country did not ill to forbid and burn such books which were so translated by Tyndal and the like, as being not indeed God’s book, word, or Scripture, but the Devils word. Yea they must confess, that the leaving out of this word Church altogether, was of an heretical spirit against the Catholic Roman Church, because then they had no Calvinistical church in any like form of religion and government to theirs now. Neither will it serve them to say after their manner, And if a man should translate Ecclesiam, congregation: this is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word, ⁹ to use a Latin of the same signification. This (we trow) will not suffice them in the judgement of the simplest indifferent Reader.

5 But, my Masters, if you would confess the former faults and corruptions never so plainly, is that enough to justify your corrupt dealing in the holy Scriptures? Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully to falsify and corrupt the word of God written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost? May you abuse the people for certain years with false translations, and afterward say, Lo we have amended it in our later translations?¹⁰ Then might the Heretic Beza be excused for translating instead of Christ’s soul in hell, his carcass in the grave. and because some friend told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgement, be counted a right honest man. No (be ye sure) the discreet Reader can not be so abused, but the will easily see, that there is a great difference in mending some oversights which may escape the best men: & in your gross false translations, who at the first falsify of a prepensed [premeditated] malice, and afterwards alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest and principal place that concerns the Churches perpetuity and stability, you have not yet altered the former translation, but it remains as before, and is at this day read in your churches thus, Upon this rock 1 will build my congregation. ¹¹ Can it be without some heretical subtlety, that in this place specially and (I think) only you change not the word congregation into Church? Give us a reason & discharge your credit.

6 What shall I say of Beza, whom the English bibles also follow, translating actively that Greek word, (which in common use, & by S. Chrysostoms and the Greek Doctors exposition is a plain passive) to signify, as in his Annotations is clear, that Christ may be without his Church, that is, a head without a body. The words be these in the heretical translation,¹² He gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which (Church) is his body, the fulness of him that fills all in all. S. Chrysostom, says Beza, (he might have said all the Greek & Latin ancient fathers) takes it passively, in this sense, that Christ is filled all in all, because all faithful men as members, and the whole Church as the body, concur to the fulness and accomplishment of Christ the head. But this (says he) seems unto me a forced interpretation. Why so beza?

7 Mark his Doctors whom he opposes to the fathers both Greek and Latin. Because Xenophon (says he) in such a place, and Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively. I omit this miserable match, & unworthy names of Xenophon & Plato in trial of S. Paul’s words, against all the glorious Doctors: this is his common custom. I ask him rather of these his own doctors, how they use the Greek word in other places of their works? How use they it most commonly? Yea how do all other Greek writers either profane or sacred use it? What say the Greek readers of all universities? Surely not only they, but their scholars for the most part, can not be ignorant,¹³ that the use of this word and the like, is passive, though sometime it may also signify actively: but that is so rare in comparison of the other, that no man lightly will use it, and I am well assured it would be counted a fault and some lack of skill, if one now in his writings that would express this in Greek, God fills all things with his blessing, should say, πληροῦμαι πάντα: and The wine fills the cup, ὁ οἶνος πληροῦται τὸ ποτήριον. Ask them that have skill, and control me. Contrariwise, if one would say passively, All things are filled with God’s blessing, The cup is filled with wine, Such a prophecy is fulfilled, What mean Grecian would not say, as S. Chrysostom here expounds this word, πληροῦται, using it passively?

8 Yet (says Beza) this is a forced interpretation, because Xenophon forsooth & Plato (once perhaps in all their whole works) use it otherwise. O heretical blindness or rather stubbornness, that calls that forced, which is most common and usual: and sees not that his own translation is forced, because it is against the common use of the word. But no marvel. For he that in other places thinks it no forced interpretation,¹⁴ to translate δέξασθαι, to be contained, Which neither Xenophon, nor Plato, nor any Greek author will allow him to do, and ψυχήν, carcass, and πρόγνωσιν,¹⁵ providence, and μετάνοιαν, them that amend their lives, may much more in this place dissemble his forced interpretation of πεπληρουμένον. But why he should call S. Chrysostoms interpretation forced, which is the common & usual interpretation, that has no more reason, than if a very thief should say to an honest man, Thou art a thief, and not I.

9 Is it forced Beza, that Christ is filled all in all by the Church? Does not S. Paul in the very next words before, call the Church the fulness of Christ, saying,¹⁶ Which is the fulness of him that is filled all in all? If the Church be the fulness of him, then is he filled or has his fulness of the Church, so that he is not a maimed head without a body. This would S. Paul say, if you would give him leave, and this he does say, whether you will or no. But what is the cause that they will not suffer the Apostle to say so? Because (says Beza) Christ needs no such complement. And if he need it not, then may he be without a Church, and consequently it is no absurdity, if the Church has been for many years not only invisible, but also not at all. Would a man easily at the first imagine or conceive that there were such secret poison in their translation?

10 Again, it comes from the same puddle of Geneva,¹⁷ that in their bibles so called, the English Bezites translate against the unity of the Catholic Church. For whereas themselves are full of sects and dissensions, and the true Church is known by unity, and has this Mark given her by Christ himself,¹⁸ in whose person Solomon speaking says, Vnaest columba mea, that is, One is my dove, or, My dove is one. therefore instead hereof, the foresaid bible says, My dove is alone: Neither Hebrew nor Greek word having that signification, but being as proper to signify one, as Vnus in latin.

11 But we beseech every indifferent Reader, even for his souls health to consider that one point specially before mentioned of their abandoning the name of Church for so many years out of their English Bibles: thereby to defeat the strongest argument that might and may possibly be brought against them and all other Heretics: to wit, the authority of the Church which is so many ways and so greatly recommended unto all Christians in holy Scriptures. Consider (I pray you) what a malicious intention they had herein. First, that the name Church should never found in the common people’s ears out of the Scriptures: secondly, that as in other things, so in this also it might seem to the ignorant a good argument against the authority of the Church, to say, We find not this word (Church) in all the holy Scriptures. For as in other articles they say so, because they find not the express word in the holy Scripture, so did they well provide, that the word (Church) in the holy Scriptures should not stay or hinder their schismatical and heretical proceedings, as long as that was the only English translation, that was read and liked among the people; that is, so long till they had by preaching taken away the Catholic Churches credit and authority altogether, among the ignorant by opposing the Scriptures thereunto, which themselves had thus falsely translated.