from images," as your vulgar Latin text is a simulacris, wherein you fly from your own authentical text to the Greek, which, except you think it make for your purpose, you are not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted. Martin. If they gladly use these words in ill part, where they are not in the original text, procession, shrines, devotions, excommunicate, images; and avoid these words which are in the original, hymns, grace, mystery, sacrament, church, altar, priests, catholic traditions, justifications; is it not plain that they do it of purpose to disgrace or suppress the said things and speeches used in the catholic church? See chap. xxi. numb. 5, and seq. chap. xii. numb. 3. Fulke. Who would be so mad, but blind malice, to think they would disgrace or suppress the things or names of catholic church, whereof they acknowledge themselves members; of grace, by which they confess they are saved; of hymns, which they use to the praise of God; of justifications, when they profess they are of themselves unjust; of sacraments and mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ are sealed up unto them; of altar, when they believe that Jesus Christ is our altar; of priests, when they hold that all good Christians are priests; of devotions, when they dispute that ignorance is not the mother of true devotion, but knowledge; of excommunication, which they practise daily? As for the names and things of procession, shrines, images, traditions beside the holy Scriptures in religion, they have just cause to abhor. Neither do they use the one sort of terms, without probable ground out of the original text; nor avoid the other, but upon some good special cause, as in the several places (when we are charged with them) shall appear. Martin. If in a case that maketh for them they strain the very original signification of the word, and in a case that maketh against them they neglect it altogether; what is this but wilful and of purpose? See chap. vii. numb. 36. Fulke. I answer, we strain no words to signify otherwise than the nature and use of them will afford us, neither do we spare to express that which hath a shew against us, if the property or usual signification of the word, with the circumstance of the place, do so require it. 18. Martin. If in words of ambiguous and diverse signification they MARTIN, will have it signify here or there as it pleaseth them; and that so vehemently, that here it must needs so signify, and there it must not; and both this and that to one end, and in favour of one and the same opinion; what is this but wilful translation? So doth Beza urge Beza in yuvaika to signify wife, and not to signify wife, both against virginity and ix. 5. and chastity of priests: and the English bible translateth accordingly. See chap. xv. numb. 11, 12. 1 Cor. vii. 1. Bib. an. 1579. 18. Fulke. To the general charge I answer generally, FULKE, We do not as you slander us; nor Beza, whom shameyou fully belie, to urge the word yuvaîka, 1 Cor. vii. 1'. not to signify a wife, against virginity and chastity of priests; for clean contrariwise, he reproveth Erasmus restraining it to a wife, which the apostle saith generally, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman;" which doth not only contain a commendation of virginity in them that be unmarried, but also of continency in them that be married. And as for the virginity or chastity of priests, he speaketh not one word of it in that place, no more than the apostle doth. Now, touching the other place that you quote, 1 Cor. ix. 52, [ Bonum fuerit viro mulierem non attingere, is the rendering of Beza's version, upon which he has these remarks: Mulierem non attingere, yvvaikòs μǹ åптeσbai. Erasmus, uxorem non attingere, id est, (ut ipse interpretatur) ab uxore ducenda abstinere. Ego vero existimo Paulum verbo anтeσa significasse in genere viri cum muliere congressum: quem tamen per se non damnat, quum eo velit homines ut remedio uti, idque in matrimonio, si continere se non possint, minime id facturus si malum esset conjugium. Nam præcipit quidem humana prudentia, ut ex duobus malis quod minus malum est eligamus: christiana vero religio contra, ut quicquid malum est sine ulla exceptione vitemus. Falsa est igitur Hieronymi doctrina, qui adversus Jovinianum disserens, verbum ärтeσ@α ita urget, quasi in ipso etiam mulieris contactu sit periculum: quum constet virum non minus bona conscientia uti posse ac debere uxore sua quam esca et potu, ut recte defendit Augustinus. Nov. Test. 1556.] [* The words are (1 Cor. ix. 5.), μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι ; Translated in Tyndale's version of 1534: "Either, have we not power to lead about a sister to wife, as well as other apostles?" In Cranmer's, 1539: "Have we not power to lead about a sister to wife, as well as other apostles?" In the Geneva version, 1557: "Either, have we not power to lead about a wife, being a sister, as well as other apostles?" The Rhemish Beza doth truly translate adeλþηv yuvaîka, “a sister to wife," because the word sister is first placed, which comprehendeth a woman, and therefore the word yuvaîka following must needs explicate, what woman he meaneth, namely, a wife. For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therefore the vulgar Latin interpreter perverteth the words, and saith, mulierem sororem. It is true, that many of the ancient fathers, as too much addict to the singleness of the clergy, though they did not altogether condemn marriage in them, as the papists do, did expound the sister, whereof St Paul speaketh, of certain rich matrons, which followed the apostles whithersoever they went, and ministered to them of their substance; as we read that many did to our Saviour Christ, Matt. xxvii. 55. Luke viii. 3. But that exposition cannot stand, nor agree with this text for many causes. First, the placing of the words, which I have before spoken of. Secondly, this word, yuvaîka, were needless, except it should signify a wife: for the word sister signifieth both a woman and a faithful woman; and otherwise it was not to be doubted, lest the apostle would lead a heathen woman with him. Thirdly, the apostle speaketh of one woman, and not many; whereas there were many that followed our Saviour Christ, whereas one alone to follow the apostle might breed occasion of ill suspicion and offence, which many could not so easily. Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the gospel our Saviour Christ did not lead about, but they did voluntarily follow him but the apostle here saith, that he had authority, as the rest of the apostles, to lead about a woman, which argueth the right that an husband hath over his wife, or of a master over his maid. Fifthly, it is not all one, if women could travel out of Galilee to Jerusalem, which was nothing near an hundred miles, that women could follow the apostles into all parts of the world. Sixthly, if the cause why such women are supposed to have followed the apostles, was to minister to them of their substance, the leading them about was not burdenous to the church, but helpful: but the apostle testifieth, that he forbare to use this liberty, because he would : version, 1582, has it: "Have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister, as also the rest of the apostles?" The Authorised Version, 1611: "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles?"] not be burdenous to the church of Corinth, or to any of them. Seventhly, seeing it is certain that Peter had a wife, and the rest of the apostles are by antiquity reputed to have been all married; it is not credible that Peter, or any of the rest, would leave the company of their own wives, and lead strange women about with them. As for the objection that you make in your note upon the text, To what end should he talk of burdening the Corinthians with finding his wife, when he himself clearly saith that he was single? I answer, Although I think he was single, yet is it not so clear as you make it; for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh he had a wife, which he left at Philippi by mutual consent. But albeit he were single, it was lawful for him to have married, and Barnabas also, as well as all the rest of the apostles. Again, to what end should he talk of burdening the church with a woman, which was not his wife, when such women, as you say, ministered to the apostles of their goods? Whereby it should follow, that none of the apostles burdened the churches where they preached with their own finding, which is clean contrary to the apostle's words and meaning. Wherefore the translation of Beza, and of our church, is most true and free from all corruption. 19. Martin. If the puritans and grosser Calvinists disagree about the MARTIN, translations, one part preferring the Geneva English bible, the other the bible read in their church; and if the Lutherans condemn the Zuinglians' and Calvinists' translations, and contrariwise; and if all sectaries reprove each another's translation; what doth it argue, but that the translations differ according to their diverse opinions? See their books written one against another. Fulke. Here again is nothing but a general charge of FULKE, disagreeing about translations, of puritans and Calvinists, Lu- 19. therans and Zuinglians, and of all sectaries reproving one another's translation, with as general a demonstration, "See the books written one against another;" which would ask longer time than is needful to answer such a vain cavil, when it is always sufficient to deny that which is affirmed without certain proof. MARTIN, Martin. If the. English Geneva bibles themselves dare not follow 20. their master Beza, whom they profess to translate, because in their Luke iii. 36. Acts i. 14; ii. 23; iii. 21; opinion he goeth wide, and that in places of controversy; how wilful 2 Thess. ii. 15. was he in so translating! See chap. xii. numb. 6, 8; chap. xiii. numb. 1. xxvi. 20. and ix. 6. FULKE, 20. MARTIN, 21. FULKE, 21. MARTIN, 22. Beza, Luke 1. Rev. xix. 8. FULKE, 22. Fulke. It is a very impudent slander. The Geneva bibles do not profess to translate out of Beza's Latin translation', but out of the Hebrew and Greek; and if they agree not always with Beza, what is that to the purpose, if they agree with the truth of the original text? Beza oftentimes followeth the purer phrase of the Latin tongue, which they neither would nor might follow in the English. If in dissenting from Beza, or Beza from them, they or he dissent from the truth, it is of human frailty, and not of heretical wilfulness. The places being examined shall discover your vanity. Martin. If for the most part they reprehend the old vulgar translation, and appeal to the Greek; and yet in places of controversy sometime for their more advantage (as they think) they leave the Greek, and follow our Latin translation; what is it else, but voluntary and partial translation? See chap. ii. numb. 8, chap. vi. numb. 10, 21, chap. vii. numb. 39, chap. x. numb. 6. Fulke. We never leave the Greek to follow your vulgar translation, as in the places by you quoted I will prove manifestly but I have already proved that you leave the Latin and appeal to the Greek, in translating simulacra, idols, Col. iii. and 1 John v. Martin. If otherwise they avoid this word justifications altogether, and yet translate it when they cannot choose, but with a commentary that it signifieth good works that are testimonies of a lively faith; doth not this heretical commentary shew their heretical meaning, when they avoid the word altogether? See chap. viii. numb. 1, 2, 3. Fulke. To avoid the word altogether, and yet sometime to translate it, I see not how they can stand together; for [The Geneva bible, edit. Rouland Hall, 1560, professes, on the title page, to be "translated according to the Ebrue and Greke, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages."] [ πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασι. Luke i. 6. "Incedentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus." Vulgate. "Incedentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus." Beza's version. "Going in all the maundementis and justifiyngis." Wiclif. "Walked in all the laws and ordinances." Tyndale, Cranmer. "Commandments and ordinances." Geneva, Bishops' Bible, Authorised.] |