A discouerie of the manifold corruptions of the Holy Scriptures by the heretikes of our daies specially the English sectaries, and of their foule dealing herein, by partial & false translations to the aduantage of their heresies, in their English Bibles vsed and authorised since the time of schisme. By Gregory Martin one of the readers of diuinitie in the English College of Rhemes.

CHAP. XIIII. Heretical translation against the holy SACRA∣MENTS, namely BAPTISME and CONFESSION.

1 AN other sequele of their only faith is, that the Sacra∣ments also helpe nothing tovvard our saluation, and therfore they partely take ••hem cleane avvay, partly depriue them of

al grace, vertue, and efficacie, making them poore & beggarly elements, either vvorse, or no better then those of the old Lavv.

2 For this purpose Beza is not content to speake as the Apostle doth, (Ro. 4. v. 11.) that circumcision vvas a seale of the iustice of faith, but because he thinketh that, to small a terme for the dignitie of circumci∣sion, as him self confesseth, he gladly auoideth is (I vse his ovvne wordes) & for the Novvne putteth the Verbe, so dissolutely and pre∣sumptuously, that the English Bezites them selues here also dare not folovv him in trāslation, though in opinion they agree. The cause of his vvilful translation he de∣clareth in his Annotations vpon the same place, to vvit, the dignitie of circumcision, equal vvith any Sacrament of the nevv Te∣stament. His vvordes be these. Vvhat (saith he) could be spoken more magnifical of any Sacrament? therfore they that put a real difference betvvene the Sacraments of the old Testament and ours, neuer seeme to haue knovven hovv far Christs office extendeth. Vvhich he saith, not to magnifie the old, but to disgrace the nevv.

3 Vvhich is also the cause vvhy not only he, but the English Bibles (for commonly they ioyne handes and agree together) to make no difference betvvene Iohns Bap∣tisme and Christs, translate thus concerning

certaine that had not yet receiued the holy Ghost: Vnto vvhat then vvere ye baptized? And they said, vnto Iohns Baptisme. Vvhich Beza in a long discourse proueth to be spoken of Iohns doctrine, and not of his baptisme in vvater. As though it vvere said, vvhat doctrine then do ye professe? and they said, Iohns. Vvhereas in deede the question is this, and ought thus to be translated, In vvhat then or vvherein vvere you bap∣tized? And they said, In Iohns Baptisme. As vvho should say, vve haue receiued Iohns Bap∣tisme, but not the holy Ghost as yet. and therfore it folovveth immediatly, then they vvere baptized in the name of Iesus, & after imposi∣tion of handes the Holy Ghost came vpon them. Vvhereby is plainely gathered, that being baptized vvith Iohns baptisme before, and yet of necessitie baptized aftervvard vvith Christs baptisme also, there must needes be a great differēce betvvene the one baptisme and the other, Iohns being insufficient. And that this is the deduction vvhich trou∣bleth these Bezites, and maketh them trans∣late accordingly, Beza (as commonly still he vttereth his greefe) telleth vs in plaine vvordes thus. It is not necessarie, that vvheresoeuer there is mention of Iohns Baptisme, vve should thinke it to be the very ceremonie of Baptisme. therfore they that gather Iohns Baptisme to haue been diuers from Christs, because these a litle after are said to be baptized in the name of Iesus Christ, haue no sure foundation. Loe, hovv of

purpose he translateth and expoundeth it Iohns doctrine, not Iohns Baptisme, to take avvay the foundation of this Catho∣like conclusion, that his baptisme differeth and is far inferior to Christs.

4 But doth the Greeke leade him or force him to this translation, In quid? vnto vvhat? First him self confesseth in the very same place the contrarie, that the Greeke phrase is often vsed in the other sense, vvherein, or vvherevvith, as it is in the vulgar Latin and Erasmus: but that in his iudgement it doth not so signifie here, and therfore he refuseth it. Yet in the very next verse almost, vvhere it is said by the same Greeke phrase, that they vvere baptized in the name of Iesus Christ, there both he and his, so translate it as vve doe, & not, vnto the name of Christ. Is it not plaine, that al is voluntarie, and at their pleasure? For (I be∣seeche them) if it be a right translation, baptized in the name of Iesus: vvhy is it not right, baptized in the baptisme of Iohn? Is there any diffe∣rence in the Greeke? none. Vvhere then? in their commentaries and imaginations only, against vvhich vve oppose and set both the text and the commentaries of al the fathers.

5 But no maruel if they disgrace the bap∣tisme of Christ, vvhen they are bold also to take it avvay altogether: interpreting this

Scripture, Vnles a man be borne againe of vvater and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God, vvhich a man vvould thinke vvere plaine ynough to proue that Baptisme in vvater is necessarie: interpreting (I say) this Scrip∣ture, Of vvater and the Spirit, thus: of vvater, that is, the Spirit: making vvater to be no∣thing els in this place but the Spirit allego∣rically, and not material vvater. As though our Sauiour had said to Nicodemus, Vnles a man be borne of vvater, I meane, of the spirit, he can not enter, &c. According to this most impudent exposition of plaine Scriptures, Caluin translateth also as impudently for the same purpose in the epistle to Titus, making the Apostle to say, that God povvred the vva∣ter of regeneration vpon vs aboundantly, that is, the holy Ghost. And lest vve should not vnderstand his meaning herein, he telleth vs in his commentarie vpon this place, that vvhen the Apostle saith, Vvater povvred out aboundantly, he speaketh not of ma∣terial vvater, but of the holy Ghost. Novv in deede the Apostle saith not, that vvater vvas povvred vpon vs, but the holy Ghost. neither doth the Apostle make vvater and the holy Ghost al one, but most plainely distinguisheth them, saying, that God of his mercie hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and re∣nouation of the Holy Ghost, vvhom he hath povvred vpon vs aboundantly. See hovv plainely the Apo∣stle

speaketh both of the material vvater or vvashing of Baptisme, and of the effect thereof vvhich is the holy Ghost povvred vpon vs. Caluin taketh avvay vvater cleane and vvil haue him speake only of the holy Ghost, vvhich Flaccus Illyricus the Luthe∣ran him self vvondereth at, that any man should be so bold, and calleth it plaine sa∣crilege against the efficacie of the Sacra∣ments.

6 And if vve should here accuse the En∣glish translatours also, that translate it thus, by the fountaine of the regeneration of the holy Ghost, VVHICH he shedde on vs, &c. making it indif∣ferent, either vvhich fountaine, or, vvhich holy Ghost he shedde, &c: they vvould ansvver by & by that the Greeke also is indifferent: but if a man should aske them further, vvhether the holy Ghost may be said to be shedde, or rather a fountaine of vvater, they must needes confesse, not the holy Ghost, but vvater: and consequently that they trans∣lating, vvhich he shedde, vvould haue it meant of the fountaine of vvater, & so they agree iust vvith Caluins translation, and leaue Beza, vvho in his translation referreth it only to the holy Ghost, as vve doe: but in his commentarie plaieth the Heretike as Caluin doth.

7 Of the Sacrament of penance I haue spoken before, concerning that part spe∣cially vvhich is satisfaction: here I vvill only adde of Confession, that to auoid this terme (namely in such a place vvhere the reader might easily gather Sacramental cō∣fession) they translate thus, Acknovvledge your faultes one to an other. Iac. 5. It is said a litle be∣fore, If any be diseased, let him bring in Priests, &c. And then it folovveth, Confesse your faultes. &c. But they to make al sure, for, Confesse, say, Ac∣knovvledge: & for Priests, Elders. Vvhat meane they by this? If this acknovvledging of faultes one to an other before death be in∣differently to be made to al men, vvhy do they appoint in their Communion-booke (as it seemeth out of this place) that the sicke person shal make a special confession to the Minister, and he shal absolue him in the very same forme of absolution that Ca∣tholike Priests vse in the Sacrament of Cō∣fession. againe, if this acknovvledging of faultes be specially to be made to the Mini∣ster or Priest, vvhy translate they it not by the vvord Confessing and confession, as vvel as by, Acknovvledging, & vvhy is not this confession a Sacrament, vvhere them selues acknovvledge forgiuenes of sinnes by the Minister? These contradictions and re∣pugnance of their practise and translation,

if they can vvittely and vvisely reconcile, they may perhaps in this point satisfie the reader. But vvhether the Apostle speake here of Sacramental confession or no, sin∣cere translators should not haue fled from the proper and most vsual vvord of confes∣sion or confessing, consonant bothe to the Greeke and Latin, and indifferent to vvhat∣soeuer the holy Ghost might meane, as this vvord, acknovvledge, is not.

Notes

• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• libens refugi∣quod obsigna∣ret, for, si∣gillum.
• Act. 19.3.
• Annot. in Act. 19.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 10.3. v. 5.
• Beza in. 4.10. v. 10. & in Tit. 3. v. 5.
• c. 3. v. 5. Per lauacrū regeneratio∣nis Sp. sancti QVOD of∣fudit in nos abunde.
• Quem effudit as Beza him self transla∣teth.
• Comment. in hunc lo∣cum.
• Sp. sancti, que effudit.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Whereof Confession is called in S. Cyprian and other fathers, Exe∣mologêsis.
• In the order of visitation of the sicke.