Page:Bible (Douay Rheims NT, 1582).djvu/18

THE PREFACE as Beza confesseth Luc. 1, 6. δικαιώμασιν, ordinances, or instructions, and not traditions, in the better part. 2 Thess. 2, 15. πρεσβύτερος, Elders, and not Priests: εἴδωλον, images rather then idols. And especially when S. Luke in the Greek so maketh for vs (the vulgar Latin being indifferent for them and vs) that Beza saith it is a corruption crept out of the margent into the text. What neede these absurd diuises and false dealings with the Greek text, if it made for them more then for vs, yea if it made not for vs against them? But that the Greeke maketh more for vs, see 1 Cor. 7. In the Latin, Defraud not one another, but for a time, that you giue your selues to praier: in the Greek, to fasting and prayer. Act. 10, 30. in the Latin, Cornelius saith, From the fourth day past vntil this houre I was praying in my house, and behold a man &c. in the Greek, I was fasting, and praying. 1 Io. 5, 18, in the Latin, ''We know that euery one which is borne of God, sinneth not. But the generation of God preserueth him'' &c. In the Greek, But he that is borne of God preserueth him self. Apoc. 22, 14. in the Latin, Blessed are they that wash their garments in the bloud of the lambe &c. in the Greek, Blessed are they that doe his commaundements. Rom. 8, 38. ''Certus sum &c. I am sure that neither death nor life, nor other creature is able to separate vs from the charitie of God; as though he were assured or we might and should assure our-selues of our predestination: in the Greek, πέπεισμαι, I am probably persuaded that neither death nor life'' &c. In the Euangelists about the Sacrifice and B. Sacrament, in the Latin thus: This is my bloud that shal be shed for you: and in S. Paul, This is my body which shal be betraied or deliuered for you: both being referred to the time to come & to the sacrifice on the Crosse: in the Greeke, This is my bloud which is shed for you, and, my body which is broken for you: both being referred to that present time when Christ gaue his body and bloud at his supper, then sheading the one and breaking the other; that is, sacrificing it Sacramentally and mystically. Loe these & the like our aduantages in the Greek more then in the Latin.

But is the vulgar translation, for al this Papistical, and therfore doe we folow it? for so some of them cal it, and say it is the worst of al other. If it be, the Greek (as you see) is more, and so both Greek and Latin and consequently the holy Scriptures of the new Testament is Papistical. Againe if the vulgar Latin be Papistical, Papistrie is very auncient, and the Church of God for so many hundred yeares wherin it hath vsed and allowed this translation, hath been Papistical. But wherein it is Papistical? forsooth in these phrases and speaches, ''Poenitentiam agite. Sacramentum hoc magnum est''. , Talibus hostiis promeretur Deus; and such like. First, doth not the Greek say the same? See the Annotations vpon these places. Secondly, could he translate these things Papistically or partially, or rather prophetically, so long before they were in controuersie? Thirdly, doth he not say for poenitentiam agite, in an other place, poenisemini: and doth he not translate other mysteries, by the word, Sacramentum, as Apoc. 17, Sacramentum mulieris: and as he translateth one word, Gratia plena, so doth he not translate the very like word, plenus vlceribus, which themselues doe folllow also? Is this also Papistrie? When he said Heb. 10, 29. Quantum deteriora merebitur supplicia &c. & they like it wel enough, might he not haue said according to the same Greek words, Vigilate vt merebitur fugere ista omnia et stare ante filium homnis. Luc. 21, 36. and, Qui meribuntur saeculum illud et resurrectionem ex mortuis &c. Luc. 20, 35. and Tribulationes quas sustinetis, vt mereamini regnum, Dei, pro quo et patimini. 2. Thess. 1. 5. Might he not (we say) if he had partially effectated the word merits, haue vsed it in al these places, according to his and your owne translation of the same Greek word Heb. 10, 29? Which he doth not, but in al these places saith simply, Vt digni habeamini, and, Qui digni habebuntur. And how can it be iudged Papistical or partial, when he saith, Talibus hostibus promeretur Deus, Heb. 13? Was Primasius also, S. Augustines scholer, a Papist, for vsing this text, and al the rest that haue done the like? Was S. Cyprian a Papist, for vsing so often this speach, Promereri Dominum iustis operibus, poenitentia, &c.? or is there any difference, but that S. Cyprian vseth it as a deponent more latinly, the other as a passiue lesse finely? Was it Papistrie, to say Senior for Presbiter, Ministrantibus for sacrificantibus or liturgiam celebrantibus, simulachris for idolis, fides tuam te saluum fecit sometime for sanum fecit? Or shal we thinke he was a Caluinist for translating thus, as they thinke he was a Papist, when any word soundeth for vs?

Againe, was he a Papist in these kind of words only, and was he not in whole sentences? as, ''Tibi dabo claues, &c. Quicquid solueris in terra, erit solutum & in coelis''. and, Quorum remiseritis