So, we have a contemporary source indicating that in the context of Bible reading, the primary meaning of "Apocrypha" in English was "not of authority" and "hidden" in the sense of the source being unknown.
They well vnderstand, that the Scripture would shew their praying in a strange tongue, by tale, to be most idle, their traffique for soules very sacriledge, their miracles to be meere iuglings, their indulgences to be blasphemies, their incontroleable Lord of Rome, to bee that Imperious bewitching Lady of Babylon, and their worshipping of Images, and Saints, is flat Idolatry; The Princes of Iuda sai•…h Hosea, were like those that remoue the bounds. Hosea. 5. 10. Ribera the Iesuite, construeth it from Theodorete and Theophilact, they forsake the lawes of God, and embrace traditions of men; or as Theodorus Antiochenus, they transpose the honour of the liuing God, and giue it to dead Idols, from which obseruation, I will argue thus, they who remoue the Bible, may bee sayd, to remoue the bounds, but the Papistes haue remoued from the handes of Gods people, the Bible, forsaking the fountaines of liuing water, and digging pits, that can hold no water, Ergo, the Papists are they that remooue the bounds, as they giue you too much Sacrament, and too little, too much Christs transubstantiated body, taking away the cup, euen so they giue you too much Scripture, and too little, too much adding to the Canon, Apocrypha; too little, clapsing it vp that ye may not read it, and what is this, but to thrust you from the path of Paradise? for as Hierome sweetely, the Prophets are the way to Christ, and Christ is the way to God. As the Lord then once sayd to the Iewes, If I be your Father, where is mine honour? So the Prophets and Apostles may well obiect against the Papists, If ye repu•…e vs Fathers, why doe ye remoue the bounds which we haue set.
This, however, is the Boys who was the Dean of Canterbury, not the impoverished Greek scholar enlisted to lead the translation work on the Apocrypha section of the King James revision to the Bishops' Bible.
Likewise, the man who coined the phrase, "a fool and his money are soon parted," Dean John Bridges of Sarum (d. 1618), in "A defence of the gouernment established in the Church of Englande for ecclesiasticall matters," (1587) by John Bridges, Dean of Sarum. Bridges was answering anonymous (presumably Puritan) criticism.
As for the distinction (saye they) of Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes.
Although this bee a matter wherein good and godly Fathers haue had some difference: yet for our Bishoppes and Conuocations decree thereon, I see not how our Bretheren shall bee able to finde, that wee holde any error in that matter. It is the sixth Article, the wordes whereof are these. ... And the other bookes as Ierome sayth the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of maners, but yet doth it not applye them to establish any doctrine. ... This is the whole article, especially for the distinction of Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes. And is there any grosse and palpable errour, or any errour at all in this distinction, that any godly and learned Preacher should haue offred to speake agaynst in the Conuocation?
Bridges goes on to quote from the Geneva Bible:
But what neede I labour thus, to cléere our Article herevpon: when the Geneua Bible it selfe, hath as much as this comes too, saying: the bookes that followe in order after the Prophetes, vnto the newe Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, bookes which were not receaued by a common consent to be read and expounded publikelye in the Churche, neyther yet serued to prooue any poynte of Christian Religion, saue in as much as they had the consent of other scriptures called canonicall to confirme the same, or rather whereon they were grounded: but as bookes proceeding from godlye men, were receaued to be read for the aduauncement and furtherance of the knowledge of the historie, and for the instruction of Godly maners.
Is not this as muche héere as is in anye thing conteyned in these wordes of our bookes article, for the vse and credite of the Apocriphall bookes? and wherein then for these wordes, doeth lye suche grosse and palpable errour, as they burthen this article withall?
In short, Bridges sees no substantial difference between his view and the Puritan view, except whether the Apocrypha should be read in churches.
Hugh Broughton (d. 1612), in A concent of Scripture (ca. 1587-91) argued as follows:
Malachi in Greeke Angel, endeth the Prophetes. In him Iohn Baptist is once called Malachi: and agayne Elias in the end of his Prophecy. Marke beginneth vvith Malachi, or Angel: Gabriel vvith Elias in the first spech of the nevv Testament. So svveetely in spechet hath God ioyned the old & nevv Testament. They vvho holde the hid Apocrypha to be breathed by Gods spirite, can not holde this true. The late Ebrevves reiect them: for ska•t heard of them. In Ebrew they are not.
Francis Bunny (1543-1617) in A comparison betweene the auncient fayth of the Romans, and the new Romish religion (pub. 1595), has a marginal note (I do not know if they are his own words or that of his editor or publisher, but for the purpose of illustrating the contemporary understanding of the word, it makes little difference), which says "Apocrypha & traditions added to Gods word."
Lancelot Andrewes was one of the leading members of the KJV translation team. Lancelot Andrewes' polemic against the Puritans of his day is even more revealing of the meaning of Apocrypha in his mind. In response to the Puritan claim, "Nor none of the Apocrypha cited," Andrewes responded: "Another imagination: For, S. Iude in his Epistle, hath not feared to alleadge, out of the book of Enoch (Iude 14.) which booke hath ever been reckoned Apocrypha." (Sermon on the Second Commandment, in 96 Sermons by Lancelot Andrews, p. 31)
