« PoprzedniaDalej »
tion therefore only I rejected, that I might take away this occasion also of cavilling against justification by faith;” and so for “justificationes” he putteth “constituta,” Tully's word, forsooth, as he saith. Can you have a more plain testimony of his heretical purpose?
Fulke. Concerning the Greek word Śikaidouaou, which Fulke,
Beza translateth constitutionibus, “constitutions;” and you 50. confess that in scripture it doth very often signify the commandments; he saith first, that as the whole law of God is divided into three parts, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, so the Hebrews have three several words to express the several precepts of those laws. For the Hebrew word which signifieth the ceremonial precepts, the Greeks use to translate Sikatauata. So the sense is, that Zachary and Elizabeth were just, walking in all the moral commandments, and observing the holy rites and ceremonies, as much as concerned them : but the third word, which signifieth “judgments,” St Luke doth not add, because the exercise of judicial cases did not belong unto them, being private persons. After this he saith, that the Greek interpreters of the Bible transferred this word unto the whole law of God, and especially to the holy ceremonies: so, verily, exceedingly commending the law, that it is a certain rule of all justice; and therefore men are wont commonly, in respect of the word, to turn it “justifications.” And this word in this place, Beza indeed confesseth that he refused to use, for avoiding of cavillations against justification by faith, seeing he hath none other word; neither would he for offence seek any new word to express justification by faith, whereas the word & Kataouata, in this text, Luke i. 6., signifieth not that by which they were made just, but the commandments or precepts of God, by walking in which they were declared to be just. For “by the works of the law” (such as St Luke here speaketh of) “no flesh shall be justified” before God. Therefore 8traitéuara in this place must have another sense than justifications, namely, commandments, as you say it is often taken, or constitutions, as Beza calleth them, which before God and the world are not of such difference, that you should charge him with wilful corruption for translating that word constitutions, which you confess signifieth very often commandments. Wherefore here appeareth no heretical purpose, except you will say that justification by faith, which St Paul so often, so diligently, and so purposedly doth teach, is an heresy.
Martin. Again, when he had rejected this translation, Act ii. 27, Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, “thou shalt not leave my soul in hell,” “because, as he saith, “hereupon grew the errors of Christ's descending into hell, of limbus, and of purgatory; at length he concludeth thus: “Whereas the doubtful interpretation of one or two words hath brought forth so many monsters, I chose rather simply” for “soul’ to say carcase; for “hell, grave; than to foster these foul
Fulke. Beza sheweth, that because the doubtful inter
pretation of the Hebrew word sheol into #3ms, which doth not properly signify “hell,” but a dark place, such as the pit is wherein the dead are put, and of the poets is taken for hell, had bred such monsters as limbus patrum, purgatory, and Christ's descending into them; therefore he did plainly translate that verse as it is meant, of the raising up of Christ's body out of the grave; which, if he had translated out of Hebrew, as he did out of Greek, had not been offensive nor untrue, as I have shewed in answer to your preface, sect. 46, and of this chapter, sect. 32. But seeing Beza himself hath altered that translation, and it was never followed of our English translators, what demonstration is this, that we are wilful corrupters of the holy scriptures?
Martin. Again, when he had translated for “Whom heaven must receive,” thus, “who must be contained in heaven,” he saith: “Whereas we have used the passive kind of speech, rather than the active, which is in the Greek, “we did it to avoid all ambiguity. For it is very expedient that there should be in the church of God this perspicuous testimony against them, that for ascending by faith into heaven, so to be joined to our Head, obstinately maintain that Christ must be called again out of heaven unto us:” meaning his presence in the blessed sacrament, and inveighing no less against the Lutherans than the catholics, as the Lutherans do here against him for this wilful interpretation, and that by Calvin's own judgment, who thinketh it a forced translation.
Fulke. True it is, that he meant concerning the manner of Christ's presence in the blessed sacrament, and that he so translated, to exclude the carnal manner of presence, which the papists have invented: but all this while the translation is true, and warranted by Gregory Nazianzen, as I have shewed before, sect. 36 of this chapter. For he that saith, “heaven must receive Christ,” (as you do,) cannot deny, except he be mad, but that Christ must be received of heaven. So
that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you do, Qui daemonia habebant; which is actually thus to be translated, “those who had devils,” and you say, ‘which were possest of devils,’ that is, were had of devils. That the Lutherans did find fault with Beza's translation, it proveth it not to be false: he hath justified it sufficiently in his answer to Selneccerus and the divines of Jena. Neither doth Calvin (as you say untruly) think it a forced translation; but not weighing the sentence sufficiently, supposeth that the words are placed ambiguously, for that it seemeth to be doubtful whether we should say, that heaven must receive Christ, or that Christ must receive heaven. But if it be once granted (as it is of "you) that heaven must receive Christ, there is neither Calvin nor Illyricus, nor any man that beareth the face but of a young grammarian, yea, of a reasonable man, which can deny that conversion by the passive: Christ must be received of heaven. Therefore, if you had any respect of your credit with men of understanding, you would not for shame rehearse this quarrel so often; which hath not so much as any colour or shew of reason to maintain it, but that you abuse the names of Illyricus and Calvin, as misliking it, whose arguments by no means will serve your turn, because that which is denied by them, or doubtful to them, is plain and confessed by you.
Martin. But Beza goeth forward still in this kind. Rom. v. 18, MAntis,
whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of 53.
Fulke. A manifest eclipsis, or want of words, being in Fulke, that verse, for which Erasmus hath put propagatum est, 53. which word is ambiguous, and may give occasion of error, for men to think that the righteousness of Christ cometh by propagation, as the guiltiness of Adam doth; Beza thought good to supply the lack, rather by such words as are warranted by the text, verses 12, 15, and 16, and can give no occasion of error. And therefore thus he rendereth that verse: Nempe igitur, sicut per unam offensam reatus venit in omnes homi
mes ad condemnationem ; ita per unam justificationem beneficium redundavit in omnes homines ad justificationem vitae. “Now therefore, as by one offence guiltiness came upon all men unto condemnation; so by one justification the benefit abounded toward all men unto justification of life.” In this verse these words, “guiltiness came,” and “the benefit abounded,” are added for explication sake, and are taken out of the verses going before, in which the apostle speaketh of the same matter. Therefore Beza, to avoid occasion of the heresy of the papists, of justice inherent, among other causes which he rehearseth, refuseth that word by which Erasmus supplied the text, and useth such words for that purpose, as the apostle himself in the verses precedent doth offer, for this' necessary supply: which seeing it must be made, that there may be a sense and understanding, who can mislike that it should be made by the apostle's own words? or who can suppose that the apostle would leave any other words to be understood, than such as he himself had before expressed ? And as for the heresy of inherent justice, [it] can have no hold in this verse, except some such word be added for supply, as the apostle never used in this case. That Christ's justice doth make us as truly just, as Adam's sin made us truly sinners, there is no question: but by what means we are made just, we say, as the scripture teacheth us to speak, that justice is imputed to us through faith, Rom. iv. The papists say it is a quality inherent within us; for which words and matter they have no warrant in the holy scripture.
Beza 2 Thess.
ii. 15. and iii. 6.
Martin. These few examples prove unto us that the scriptures translated verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of the words, do by the heretics' confession make for the catholics; and therefore Beza saith he altereth the words into other: and, I think, it may suffice any indifferent reader to judge of his purpose and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Calvinists and Bezites. Many other ways there are to make most certain proof of their wilfulness, as when the translation is framed according to their false and heretical commentary; and when they will avouch their translations out of profane writers, Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tully, Virgil, and Terence, and reject the ecclesiastical use of words in the scriptures and fathers; which Beza doth for the most part always. But it were infinite to note all the marks, and by these the wise reader may conceive the rest.
Fulke. These examples prove nothing less. For to run Fulke, over them all briefly, the first two we translate verbatim, * “A man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” and “repent” and “repentance” we say for ustavosiv and uerávota. What make these for popery 2 If Luke i. 6, we should call 8traiduata, “justifications,” what should popery gain but a vain cavil, when yourselves confess, that those justifications are often used for commandments? Acts i. 27, all our English translations are as you would have them, “Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption;” by which verse no descent into limbus, but the resurrection from death, can be proved. "If we translate as you do Acts iii. 21, “whom heaven must receive,” we will easily convince that Christ must be received of heaven. In the last example the question is not, how the word is to be translated, but by what word the want of the text is to be supplied; which we supply not with words of our own, but with the apostle's own words.
Have you not gained greatly by translating verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of the words? I like well, that every indifferent reader may judge by these examples of Beza's purpose in other places of his translation. But you have two other ways to make certain proof of their wilfulness. The first is, when the translation is framed according to their heretical commentary. A reasonable man would think rather that the commentary were framed according to the text, than the text to the commentary. But to justify the truth of those translations, for the first text you quote, it is handled sect. 26 of this chapter, and so consequently cap. vii. The second is answered sect. 46; the other two concerning tradition sect. 23 of the preface, and in the chapter following. The second way of proof is, when they will avouch their translations out of profane writers. I think there is no better way to know the proper or diverse signification of words, than out of ancient writers, though they be never so profane, who used the words most indifferently in respect of our controversies, of which they were altogether ignorant. As for the ecclesiastical use of words in the scripture and the fathers, which Beza (you say) doth for the most part reject, it is untrue: except there be good and sufficient cause why he should so do, warranted