Heretical translation against PRIEST and PRIESTHOOD

1 BUT because it may be, they will stand here upon their later translations, which have the name Church, (because by that time they saw the absurdity of changing the name, & now their number was increased, & themselves began to challenge to be the true Church, though not the Catholic: and for former times when they were not, they devised an invisible Church) If then they will stand upon their later translations, and refuse to justify the former: let us demand of them concerning all their English translations, why and to what end they suppress the name Priest, translating it Elder, in all places where the holy Scripture would signify by Presbyter and Presbyterium, the Priests and Priesthood of the New Testament?

2 Understand gentle Reader, their wily policy therein is this. To take away the holy sacrifice of the Mass, they take away both altar and Priest, because they know right well that these three (Priest, sacrifice, and altar) are dependents and consequents one of another, so that they can not be separated. If there be an external sacrifice, there must be an external Priesthood to offer it, an altar to offer the same upon. So had the Gentiles their sacrifices, Priests, and altars: so had the Jews: so Christ himself being a Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, had a sacrifice, his body: and an altar, his Cross: upon the which he offered it. And because he instituted this sacrifice to continue in his Church forever in commemoration and representation of his death, therefore did he withal ordain his Apostles Priests at his last supper, there & then instituted the holy order of Priesthood and Priests (saying, hocfacite, Do this: ¹) to offer the self same sacrifice in a mystical and unbloody manner, until the worlds end.

3 To defeat all this and to take away all external Priesthood and sacrifice, they by corrupt translation of the holy Scriptures, make them clean dumb as though they had not a word of any such Priests or Priesthood as we speak of. Their Bibles (we grant) have the name of Priests very often, but that is when mention is made either of the Priests of the Jews, or of the Priests of the Gentiles (specially when they are reprehended and blamed in the holy Scriptures) and in such places our Adversaries have the name Priests in their translations to make the very name of Priest odious among the common ignorant people. Again they have also the name Priests, when they are taken for all manner of men, women, or children, that offer internal and spiritual sacrifices, whereby our Adversaries would falsely signify that there are no other Priests,² as one of them of late freshly avouches, directly against S. Augustine, who in one brief sentence distinguishes Priests properly so called in the Church, and Priests as it is a common name to all Christians. Lib. 20 de Civit. Dei cap. 10. This name then of Priest & Priesthood properly so called (as S. Augustine says, which is an order distinct from the laity & vulgar people, ordained to offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to his heavenly father for us, to preach and minister the Sacraments, & to be the Pastors of the people) they wholly suppress in their translations, and in all places where the holy Scripture calls them, Presbyteros, there they never translate Priests, but Elders. and that they do observe so duly and so warily and with so full and general consent in all their English Bibles as the Puritans do plainly confess,³ & M. Whitgift denies it not, that a man would wonder to see how careful they are, that the people may not once hear the name of any such Priest in all the holy Scriptures.

4 As for example in their translations. When there fell a question about circumcision, They determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and ELDERS,⁴ about this question. Act. 15. And again, They were received of the ⁵ congregation and of the Apostles and ELDERS. Again, The Apostles & Elders came together to reason of this matter. Again, Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole congregation to send &c. Again, The Apostles and Elders and brethren send greeting &c. Again, They delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and ELDERS.⁶ If in all these places they had translated Priests (as indeed they should have done according to the Greek word) it had then disadvantaged them this much, that men would have thought, both the dignity of Priests to be great, & also their authority in Councils, as being here joined with the Apostles, to be greatly reverenced & obeyed. To keep the people from all such holy and reverent cogitations of Priests, they put Elders, a name wherewith our holy Christian forefathers ears were never acquainted, in that sense.

5 But let us go forward. We have heard often & of old time, of making of Priests: and of late years also, of making Ministers: but did ye ever hear in all England of making Elders? Yet by these mens translations it has been in England a phrase of Scripture this thirty year: but it must needs be very strange, that this making of elders has not all this while been practised & known, no not among themselves in any of their churches within the realm of England. To Titus they make the Apostle say thus,⁷ For this cause left I thee in Creta, that thou shouldest ordain ELDERS in every city, ⁸ &c. Again of Paul and Barnabas: When they had ordained Elders by election, in every ⁹ congregation. Act. 14. If they had said plainly as it is in the Greek, & as our forefathers were wont to speak, and the truth is: Titus was left in Creta to ordain Priests in every city: and, Paul and Barnabas made Priests in every Church: then the people would have understood them: they know such speeches of old, and it had been their joy and comfort to hear it specified in holy Scriptures. Now they are told another thing, in such newness of speeches and words, of Elders to be made in every city & congregation, and yet not one city nor congregation to have any Elders in all England, that we know not what is profane novelty of words,¹⁰ which the Apostle wills to be avoided, if this be not an exceeding profane novelty.

6 That it is novelty to all English Christian ears, it is evident. And it is also profane, because they do so English the Greek word of ordaining (for of the word Presbyter we will speak more anon) as if they should translate Demosthenes,¹¹ or the laws of Athens concerning their choosing of Magistrates, which was by giving voices with lifting up their hands. So do they force this word here, to induce the peoples election, & yet in their churches in England the people elect not ministers, but their bishop. Whereas the holy Scripture says,¹² they ordained to the people: and whatsoever force the word has, it is here spoken of the Apostles, and pertains not to the people,¹³ and therefore in the place to Titus it is another word which cannot be forced further, than to ordain & appoint. And they might know (if malice and Heresy would suffer them to see and confess it) that the holy Scriptures, and fathers, and Ecclesiastical custom, has drawn this & the like words from their profane & common signification, to a more peculiar and Ecclesiastical speech: as Episcopus, an overseer in Tullie, is a Bishop in the New Testament.

7 And concerning πρεσβύτερος which we now speak of, S. Jerome tells them (in c. 58. Isaiah.) that it signifies Clericorum ordinationem, that is, giving of holy orders, which is done not only by prayer of the voice, ¹⁴ but by imposition of the hand: according to S. Paul unto Timothee, Manus citò nemini imposueris. Impose or put hands quickly on no man that is, be not hasty or easy to give holy orders. Where these great etymologists, that so strain the original nature of this word to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learn another Ecclesiastical etymology thereof, as proper and as well deduced of the word as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to give orders: & so they shall find it is all one with that which the Apostle calls imposition of hands, 1 Tim. 4. 2 Tim. 1: and consequently, for, ordaining Elders by election, they should have said, ordaining or making Priests by imposition of hands: as elsewhere S. Paul, 1 Tim. 5. and the Acts of the Apostles (Act. 6. and 13.) do speak in the ordaining of the seven Deacons and of SS. Paul and Barnabas.

8 But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the Greek word πρεσβύτερος in all the New Testament, as if it had the old profane signification still, & were indifferent to signify the ancients of the Jews, the Senators of Rome, the elders of Lacedemonia, and the Christian Clergy. in so much that they say,¹⁵ Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church: Act. 20, and yet they were such as had their flocks, & cure of souls, as follows in the same place. They make S. Paul speak thus to Timothee,¹⁶ Neglect not the gift (so they had rather say than grace, ¹⁷ lest holy orders should be a Sacrament) given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Eldership. or, by the authority of the Eldership. 1 Tim. 4.¹⁸ What is this company of Eldership? Somewhat they would say like to the Apostles word, but they will not speak plainly, lest the world might hear out of the Scriptures, that Timothee was made Priest or Bishop even as the use is in the Catholic Church at this day.¹⁹ let the 4 Council of Carthage speak for both parts indifferently, and tell us the Apostles meaning, A Priest when he takes his orders, the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head, let all the Priests also that are present, hold their hands by the Bishops hand upon his head. So do our Priests at this day, when a bishop makes priests: & this is the laying on of the hands of the company of Priests, which S. Paul speaks of, and which they translate, the company of the Eldership. Only their former translation of 1562 in this place (by what chance or consideration we know not) let fall out of the pen, by the authority of Priesthood.

9 Otherwise in all their English Bibles all the bells ring one note as, The Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour. And, Against an Elder receive no accusation, but under two or three witnesses. ²⁰ 1 Tim. 5. And, If any be diseased among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, and anoint him with oil, &c. Jacob. 5. Whereas S. Chrysostom out of this place proves the high dignity of Priests in remitting sins, in his book entitled, Of Priesthood, ²¹ unless they will translate that title also, Of Eldership. Again they make S. Peter say thus: The Elders which are among you, I exhort which am also an Elder, feed ye Christ’s flock, as much as lies in you, &c. 1 Pet. 5.

²²10 Where if they will tell us (as also in certain other places) that our Latin translation has Seniors and majors natu: we tell them, as heretofore we have told them, that this is nothing to them, who profess to translate the Greek. Again we say that if they meant no worse than the old Latin translator did, they would be as indifferent as he, to have said sometime Priests and Priesthood, when he has the words Presbyteros and Presbyterium: as we are indifferent in our translation, saying Seniors and Ancients, when we find it so in our Latin: being well assured that by sundry words he meant but one thing, as in Greek it is but one, and as both Erasmus, and also Beza himself always translate it, keeping the name Presbyter and Presbyteri: of whom by reason they should have learned, rather than of our Latin translator, whom otherwise they condemn. And if they say, they do follow them, and not him, because they translate not Senior and major natu, but the word Presbyter or πρεσβύτερος, an Elder, in all places: we tell them, and herein we convent their conscience, that they do it to take away the external Priesthood of the New Testament, & to suppress the name Priest, against the Ecclesiastical, and (as now since Christ) very proper and usual signification thereof, in the New Testament, councils, & fathers, in all common writing and speaking: specially the Latin Presbyter, which grew to this signification out of the Greek in the foresaid places of holy Scripture.

11 In so much that immediately in the first Canons and Councils of the Apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees and names, Si Episcopus, vel Presbyter, ²³ vel Diaconus &c. If any Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon do this or that. Which if the Protestants or Calvinists will translate after their manner thus, If a Bishop, or Elder, or Deacon &c: ²⁴ they do against themselves, which make Presbyter or Elder a common name to all Ecclesiastical persons: & not a peculiar degree, next unto a Bishop. So that either they must condemn all antiquity for placing Presbyter in the second degree after a Bishop, or they must translate it Priest as we do, or they must make Elder to be their second degree, and so put Minister out of place.

12 And here we must ask them, how this name Minister came to be a degree distinct from Deacon,²⁵ whereas by their own rule of translation, Deacon is nothing else but a minister: and why keep they the old & usual Ecclesiastical name of Deacon in translating Diaconus, ²⁶ and not the name of Priest, in translating Presbyter? does not Priest come of Presbyter as certainly and as agreeably as Deacon of Diaconus? ²⁷ does not also the french and Italian word for Priest come directly from the same? Will you always follow fancy and not reason, do what you list, translate as you list, and not as the truth is, and that in the holy Scriptures, which you boast and vaunt so much of? Because yourselves have them whom you call Bishops, the name Bishop is in your English Bibles, which otherwise by your own rule of translation, should be called an Overseer or Superintendent: likewise Deacon you are content to use as an Ecclesiastical word so used in antiquity, because you also have those whom you call Deacons: Only Priests must be turned contemptuously out of the text of the holy Scriptures, and Elders put in their place, because you have no Priests, nor will none of them, and because that is in controversy between us. & as for Elders, you have none permitted in England, for fear of overthrowing your Bishops office & the Queen’s supreme government in all spiritual things & causes. Is not this to follow the humour of your heresy, by Machiavel’s politic rules without any fear of God?

13 Apostles you say for the most part in your translations (not always) as we do, and Prophets, and Evangelists, & Angels, and such like, and wheresoever there is no matter of controversy between you and us, there you can plead very gravely for keeping the ancient Ecclesiastical words,²⁸ as your Master Beza for example, beside many other places where he bitterly rebukes his fellow Castaleons translation, in one place writes thus:²⁹ I cannot in this place dissemble the boldness of certain men, which would God it rested within the compass of words only. These men therefore concerning the word Baptizing, ³⁰ though used of sacred writers in the mystery or Sacrament of the New Testament, and for so many years after, by the secret consent of all Churches, consecrated to this one Sacrament, ³¹ so that it is now grown into the vulgar speeches almost of all nations, yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to use the word washing. Delicate men forsooth, which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages; nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech, can be brought to think that lawful for Divines, which all men grant to other Masters and professors of arts: that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the authority of some ancient writers, as that Cyprian says TINGENTES for BAPTIZANTES, [dipping for baptizing] and Tertullian in a certain place calls SEQVESTREM for MEDIATOREM. [a go-between for a mediator] For that which was to those ancients as it were new, to us is old: and even then, that the self same words which we now use, were familiar to the Church, ³² it is evident, because it is very seldom that they speak otherwise. But these men by this novelty seek after vain glory, &c.

14 He speaks against Castaleon, who in his new Latin translation of the Bible, changed all Ecclesiastical words into profane and Heathenish, as Angelos into genios, Prophetas into Fatidicos, Templum into fanum, and so forth. But that which he did for foolish affectation of fineness and stile, do not our English Calvinists the very same when they list, for furthering their Heresies? When the holy Scripture says idols according as Christians have always understood it for false gods, they come and tell us out of Homer & the Lexicons,³³ that it may signify an image, & therefore so they translate it. Do they not the like in the Greek word that by Ecclesiastical use signifies, penance, ³⁴ and doing penance, when they argue out of Plutarch, and by the profane sense thereof, that it is nothing else but changing of the mind or amendment of life? Whereas in the Greek Church, Poenitentes, that is, they that were in the course of penance, and excluded from the Church as Catechumeni, and Energumeni, till they had accomplished their penance; the very same are called in the Greek οἱ ἐν μετανοίᾳ ὄντες.³⁵

15 They therefore leaving this Ecclesiastical signification, & translating it according to Plutarch, do they not much like to Castaleo? Do they not the same, against the famous and ancient distinction of Latrîa and Dulîa, [the worship due to God alone, and the honour given to his saints] ³⁶ when they tell us out of Eustathius upon Homer, and Aristophanes the Grammarian, that these two are all one? Whereas we prove out of S. Augustine in many places, the second Council of Nice, Venerable Bede, & the long custom of the Church,³⁷ that according to the Ecclesiastical sense and use deduced out of the Scriptures, they differ very much. Do they not the like in Mysterium and Sacramentum, which they translate a Secret in the profane sense, whereas they know how these words are otherwise taken both in Greek and Latin, in the Church of God? Did they not the like in the word Ecclesia, ³⁸ when they translated it nothing else but congregation? Do they not the like in χειροτονία, which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court of Athens: whereas S. Jerome tells them, that Ecclesiastical writers take it for giving holy orders by imposition of hands? Do they not the like in many other words, wheresoever it serves their heretical purpose? And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza himself, that so often in his Annotations reprehends the old Translation by the authority of Tullie and Terence, Homer and Aristophanes, & the like profane authors? Yea so fondly and childishly, that for Olfactum [smelling] which Erasmus uses as Plinies word, he will needs say odoratum, because it is Tullies word.

16 But to return to our English Translators: do not they the like to profane Castaleo, and do they not the very same that Beza their Master so largely reprehends, when they translate Presbyterum, an Elder? Is it not all one fault to translate so, and to translate, as Castaleo does Baptismum, washing? Has not Presbyter been a peculiar and usual word for a Priest, as long as Baptismus for the Sacrament of regeneration, which Castaleo altering into a common & profane word, is worthily reprehended? We will prove it has, not for their sake, who know it well enough, but for the Readers sake, whom they abuse, as if they knew it not.

17 In the first & second Canon of the Apostles we read thus,³⁹ Episcopus a duobus aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab vno Episcopo ordinetur, & Diaconus, & alij Clerici. that is, Let a Bishop be consecrated or ordained by two or three Bishops. Let a Priest be made by one Bishop. See in the 4 Council of Carthage the diverse manner of consecrating Bishops, Priests, Deacons,⁴⁰ &c. Where S. Augustine was present & subscribed. Again,⁴¹ Si quis Presbyter contemnens Episcopum suum &c. If any Priest contemning his Bishop, make a several [separate] congregation, and erect another altar, (that is, make a Schism or Heresy), let him be deposed. So did Arius being a Priest against his Bishop Alexander. Again, Priests and Deacons, ⁴² let them attempt to do nothing without the Bishop. The first Council of Nice says,⁴³ The holy Synod by all means forbids, that neither Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon &c. Have with them any foreign woman, but the mother, or sister, &c. in whom there is no suspicion. Again, It is told the holy Council, ⁴⁴ that in certain places and cities, Deacons give the Sacraments to Priests. This neither rule nor custom has delivered, that they which have not authority to offer the sacrifice, should give to them that offer, the body of Christ. The 3 Council of Carthage wherein S. Augustine was, and to the which he subscribed, decrees,⁴⁵ That in the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, there be no more offered, than our Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water. Which the sixth general Council of Constantinople repeating and confirming, adds: If therefore any Bishop or Priest do not according to the order given by the Apostles, ⁴⁶ mingling water with wine, but offer an unmingled sacrifice, let him be deposed &c. But of these speeches all Councils be full: where we would gladly know of these new Translators, how Presbyter must be translated: either an Elder, or a Priest.

18 Do not all the fathers speak after the same manner, making always this distinction of Bishop and Priest, as of the first and second degree?⁴⁷ S. Ignatius the Apostles scholar does he not place Presbyterium as he calls it, and Presbyteros (Priests, or the College of Priests) next after Bishops, and Deacons in the third place, repeating it no less than thrice in one Epistle, & commending the dignity of all three unto the people?⁴⁸ does not S. Jerome the very same, saying, Let us honour a Bishop, do reverence to a Priest, rise up to a Deacon? ⁴⁹ And when he says, that as Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the Temple, so are Bishops, Priests, & Deacons in the Church, for place and degree. And in another place, speaking of the outrages done by the Vandals and such like,⁵⁰ Bishops were taken, Priests slain, and divers of other Ecclesiastical orders: Churches overthrown, the altars of Christ made stables for horses, the relics of Martyrs digged up &c. When he says of Nepotian, fit Clericus, & per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur: he becomes a man of the Clergy, and by the accustomed degrees is made, what? A Priest, or an Elder? When he says, Mihi ante Presbyterum seder non licet &c. does he mean he could not sit above an Elder, or above a Priest, himself as then being not Priest? When he, and Vincentius (as S. Epiphanius writes) of reverence to the degree,⁵¹ were hardly induced to be made Presbyteri: did they refuse the Eldership? What was the matter that John the B. Of Jerusalem, seemed to be so much offended with Epiphanius and S. Jerome?⁵² was it not because Epiphanius made Paulianus, S. Jerome’s brother, Priest within the said John’s Diocese?

19 When all antiquity says, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, Juvencus, Hesychius, Beda, Presbyteri: and when S. Jerome so often in his Catalog says, Such a man Presbyter: is it not for distinction of a certain order, to signify that they were Priests, and not Bishops? Namely when he says of S. Chrysostom, Joannes Presbyter Antiochenus, does he not mean, he was as then but a Priest of Antioch? Would he have said so, if he had written of him, after he was Bishop of Constantinople?

20 But of all other places, we would desire these gay translators to translate this one place of S. Augustine, speaking of himself a Bishop and S. Jerome a Priest:⁵³ Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula, quaeiam Ecclesia vsus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit: tamen in multis rebus, Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Is not this the English thereof? For although according to the titles or names of honour, which now by use of the Church have prevailed, the degree of Bishop be greater than Priesthood, yet in many things, Augustine is less than Jerome. or, does it like them to translate it thus, The degree of Bishop is greater than Eldership &c? Again, against Julian the Heretic when he has brought many testimonies of the holy Doctors that were all Bishops, as of SS. Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Nazianzene, Chrysostom: at length he comes to S. Jerome who was no Bishop,⁵⁴ and says: Nec sanctum Hieronymum, quia Presbyter fuit, contemnendum arbitreris that is, Neither must thou think that S. Jerome, because he was but a Priest, therefore is to be contemned: whose divine eloquence, has shined to us from the East even to the west, like a lamp, and so forth to his great commendation. Here is a plain distinction of an inferior degree to a Bishop, for the which the Heretic Juliann did easily contemn him. Is not S. Cyprian full of the like places? Is not all antiquity so full, that whiles I prove this, methinks I prove nothing else but that snow is white?

21 In all which places if they will translate Elder, and yet make the same a common name to all Ecclesiastical degrees,⁵⁵ as Beza defines it, let the indifferent Reader consider the absurd confusion, or rather the impossibility thereof: if not, but they will grant in all these places it signifies Priest, and so is meant: then we must beat them with Beza’s rod of reprehension against Castaleon:⁵⁶ that we can not dissemble the boldness of these men. Which would God it rested within the custom of words only, and were not important matter, concerning their Heresy. These men therefore touching the word Priest, though used of sacred writers in the mystery of the New Testament, and for so many years after by the secret consent of all Churches, consecrated to this one Sacrament, so that it is now grown to be the proper vulgar speech almost of all Nations: ⁵⁷ yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to use the word Elder. Delicate men forsooth (yea worse a great deal, because these do it for heresy & not for delicacy) which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought to think that lawful for Divines, which all men grant to other Masters and Professors of arts, that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the authority of any ancient writer (as that the old Latin Translator says Senior, and Seniors:) for ⁵⁸ that which was to them as it were new, to us is old: and even then, that the self same words which we now use, were more familiar to the Church, it is evident, because it is very seldom that they speak otherwise.

22 Thus we have repeated Beza’s words again, only changing the word Baptism into Priest, because the case is all one: & so unwittingly Beza the successor of Calvin in Geneva, has given plain sentence against our English Translators in all such cases, as they go from the common received and usual sense to another profane sense, & out of use: as namely in this point of Priest and Priesthood. Where we must needs add a word or two, though we be too long, because their folly & malice is too too great herein. For whereas the very name Priest never came into our English tongue but of the Latin Presbyter (for there upon sacerdos also was so called only by a consequence) they translate sacerdos, ⁵⁹ Priest, and Presbyter, not Priest, but Elder, as wisely and as reasonably, as if a man should translate Praetor Londini, Mayor of London: and Major Londini, not Mayor of London: but Greater of London: or Academia Oxoniensis, the University of Oxford: and Vniuersitas, Oxoniensis, not the University, but the Generality of Oxford: and such like.

23 Again, what exceeding folly is it, to think that by false and profane translation of Presbyter into Elder, they might take away the external Priesthood of the New Testament, whereas their own word Sacerdos which they do and must needs translate Priest, is as common and as usual in all antiquity, as Presbyter: and so much the more, for that it is used in differently to signify both Bishops and Priests, which Presbyter lightly does not but in the New Testament. As when Constantine the Great said to the Bishops assembled in the Council of Nice,⁶⁰ Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, &c. God has ordained you priests, and has given you power to judge of us also. ⁶¹ And S. Ambrose, When didst thou ever hear, most Clement [merciful] Prince, that lay men have judged Bishops. Shall we bend by flattery so far, that forgetting the right of our Priesthood, we should yield up to others, ⁶² that which God has commended to us? And therefore does S Chrysostom entitle his six books De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthood, concerning the dignity and calling, not only of mere Priests,⁶³ but also of Bishops: & S. Gregory Nazianzene handling the same argument says,⁶⁴ that they execute Priesthood together with CHRIST. And S. Ignatius says, Do nothing without the Bishops, for they are priests, but thou the Deacon of the priests. And in the Greek Liturgies or Masses, so often, ὁ ἱερεύς, Then the priest says this, and that, ⁶⁵ signifying also the Bishop when he says Mass: and⁶⁶ S. Denys says sometime Archisacerdotem cum sacerdotibus the high Priest or Bishop with the Priests: whereof come the words ἱερατεύειν, ἱερουργεῖν, ἱεράτευμα, ἱερατεία, ἱερουργία, in the ancient Greek fathers, for the sacred function of Priesthood, and executing of the same.

24 If then the Heretics could possibly have extinguished priesthood in the word presbyter, yet you see, it would have remained still in the words Sacerdos and Sacerdotium, which themselves translate Priest & Priesthood: and therefore we must desire them to translate us a place or two after their own manner: first S. Augustine speaking thus, Quis vnquam audiuit sacerdotem ad altar stantem etiam super reliquias Martyrum, ⁶⁷ dicer: offero tibi Petre, & Paul, vel Cyprian? Who ever heard that a PRIEST standing at the altar, even over the relics of the Martyrs, said, I offer to thee Peter, & Paul, or Cyprian? So (we trow) they must translate it.⁶⁸ Again, Nos uni Deo & Martyrum & nostro, sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, suoloco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote inuocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamuis in memoria sacrificet corum, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum verò sacrificium corpus est Christi. We think they will and must translate it thus: We offer sacrifice to the one only God both of Martyrs and ours, at the which Sacrifice, as men of God they (Martyrs) are named in their place and order: yet are they ⁶⁹ not invocated of the priest that sacrifices. For he sacrifices to God, & not to them (though he sacrifice in the memory of them) because he is God’s Priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice itself is the body of Christ.

25 Likewise when S. Ambrose says,⁷⁰ The consecration (of the body of Christ) with what words is it, and by whose speech? Of our Lord Jesus. For in the rest that is said, there is praise given to God, prayer made for the people, for kings and others: but when it comes that the venerable sacrament must be consecrated, now the Priest uses not his own words, ⁷¹ but he uses the words of Christ. ⁷² And S. Chrysostom in very many places says, The sacred oblation itself, whether Peter or Paul, or any meaner Priest whatsoever offer it, ⁷³ is the very same that Christ gave to his disciples, ⁷⁴ and which now the priests do make or consecrate why so I pray thee? Because not men do sanctify this, but Christ himself, which before consecrated the same. And again, It is not man that makes the body and blood of Christ, but he that was crucified for us, Christ: the words are uttered by the Priests mouth, ⁷⁵ and by God’s power and grace are the things proposed, consecrated. For this, says he, is my body. With this word are the things proposed, consecrated.

26 And so by these places, where themselves translate Sacerdos a Priest, they may learn also how to translate Presbyteros in S. Jerome saying the very same thing,⁷⁶ that at their prayers, the body and blood of our Lord is made. And in another place, that with their sacred mouth, they make our Lord’s body. Likewise when they read S. Ambrose against the Novatians, that God has granted licence to his Priests to release and forgive as well great sins as little without exception:⁷⁷ and in the Ecclesiastical history, how the Novatian Heretics taught that such as were fallen into great sins, should not ask for remission of the Priest, but of God only:⁷⁸ they may learn how to translate Presbyteros in S. Jerome & in the Ecclesiastical history, where the one says thus: Episcopus & Presbyter, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, qui soluendus: [The bishop and priest, when he heareth the varieties of sins, knoweth who is to be bound and who to be loosed] and the other speaks de Presbytero Poenitentiario, ⁷⁹ of an extraordinary Priest that heard confessions and enjoined penance,⁸⁰ who afterward was taken away, and the people went to divers ghostly [spiritual] fathers as before. And especially S. Chrysostom will make them understand what these Presbyteri were, and how they are to be called in English, who tells them in their own word, that Sacerdotes, the Priests of the new law have power not only to know, ⁸¹ but to purge the filth of the soul, therefore whosoever despises them, is more worthy to be punished than the rebel Dathan and his complices [accomplices].

27 Now then (to conclude this point) seeing we have such a cloud of witnesses (as the Apostle speaks) even from Christ’s time,⁸² that testify not only for the name, but for the very principal functions of external Priesthood, in offering the sacrifice of Christ’s body & blood, in remitting sins, and so forth: what a peevish, malicious, & impudent corruption is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the holy Scriptures tending thereunto, to seek to scratch advantage of the word Presbyter, & to make it signify an Elder, not a Priest: Presbyterium Eldership rather than Priesthood: as if other newfangled companions that would forge an Heresy that there were no Apostles, should for that purpose translate it always legates: or that there were no Angels, and should translate it always Messengers: & that Baptism were but a Judaical ceremony, and should translate it washing: which Castalio did much more tolerably in his translation than any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity and folly. And if to take away all distinction of clergy & laity the Protestants should always translate clerum, ⁸³ lott or lottery, as they do translate it for the same purpose parish and heritage: might not⁸⁴ Beza himself control them, saying, that the ancient fathers transferred the name clerus to the College of Ecclesiastical Ministers?

28 But alas, the effect of this corruption & heresy concerning Priests, has it not wrought within these few years such contempt of all Priests, that nothing is more odious in our country than that name: which before was so honorable and Venerable, and now is, among all good men? If ministry or Eldership were grown to estimation instead thereof, somewhat they had to say: but that is yet more contemptible, and especially Elders and Eldership for the Queen’s Majesty & her Counsellors will permit none in government of any Church in England, and so they have brought all, to nothing else, but profane laity. And no marvel of these horrible inconveniences, for as the Sacrifice & Priesthood go together, and therefore were both honorable together: so when they had according to Daniels Prophecy, abolished the daily sacrifice, out of the Church, what remained, but the contempt of Priests and Clergy and their offices, so far forth, that for the holy Sacrifice sake, Priests are called in great despite [contempt], Massing Priests. of them that little consider, or less care, what notable holy learned fathers of all ages since Christ’s time, this their reproach touches and concerns, as by the testimonies before alleged is manifest, and whereof the Reader may see a peculiar Chapter in the late Apology of the English Seminaries.⁸⁵