Obrazy na stronie

Fol. 36.
Bib. 1579.


glish bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting the fault of the former. But because it is evident by these places, that this also is partly worse and partly as ill as the other, therefore this great confuter of master John Howlet fleeth once more to the Geneva English bible, saying, “Thus we read,” and, “so we translate;” to wit, “A covetous person, which is an idolater.” Where shall we have these good fellows, and how shall we be sure that they will stand to any of their translations? From the first read in their churches they flee to that that is now read, and from this again to the later Geneva English bibles, neither read in their churches (as we suppose,) nor of greatest authority among them; and we doubt not but they will as fast flee from this to the former again, when this shall be proved in some places more false and absurd than the other.

Fulke. It pleaseth you worse, perhaps, that less favoureth your pelting distinction of images and idols; but it is never the worse to be liked of them that be wise and learned, which know that eikov and etow\ov in Greek do signify the same thing, which you cannot deny. And where you say, in your scornful mood, “Lo, this is the bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting the fault of the former,” you follow your accustomed vein of lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former in this point of images, but confute the frowardness of that foolish reason, which accuseth our service of reading the bible in shameless translations, in that text, 1 John v.; whereas in the bible appointed for the service it is not as he saith, but even as he would have us to say. I fly not therefore (as it pleaseth your wisdom to say) from that translation also to the Geneva bible, neither do I allege the Geneva translation for that cause you pretend, but to shew, that albeit we translate in such words as you cannot mislike, yet your venomous slandering pens and tongues can never give over your peevish quarrelling. In the place by you quoted, I defend both as true, and answerable to the Greek, and of one sense and meaning, where the sound of words only is diverse, the signification of matter one and the same. And yet you must have your foolish flourish in rope-ripe terms: “Where shall we have these good fellows,” &c.? You shall have us, by the grace of God, ready to justify all our translation from shameless falsification and heretical corruptions, which is your impudent charge against us. And if in matter of lesser moment you can descry the least error in any or in all of our translations, we shall be willing to confess the same, and ready to reform it. For truth is dearer to us than credit; although we think it better credit to reform a fault, than, being admonished, wilfully to continue it or defend it.

Martin. But what matter is it how they read in their churches, or MARTIN, how they correct their former translations by the later; when the old 13. corruption remaineth still, being set of purpose in the top of every door within their churches, in these words: “Babes, keep yourselves 1 John v. from images”? Why remaineth that written so often and so conspicuously in the walls of their churches, which in their bibles they correct as a fault? Their later bibles say, “Keep yourselves from idols:” their church walls say, “Keep yourselves from images.” St John, speaking to the lately-converted gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were converted: they, speaking to the oldinstructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ our Saviour, of the holy crucifix, of the cross, of every such representation and monument of Christ's passion and our redemption. And therefore in the very same place where these holy monuments were wont to stand in catholic times, to wit, in the rood-loft and partition of the church and chancel, there now stands these words as confronting and condemning the foresaid holy monuments: “Babes, keep yourselves from images.” Which words whosoever esteemeth as the words of scripture, and the words of St John, spoken against Christ's image, is made a very babe indeed, and sottishly abused by their scribbled doors and false translations, to count that idolatry, which is indeed to no other purpose, than to the great honour of him whose image and picture it is.

Fulke. Still you harp on the old untuneable string, Fulke,

that the former is a corruption, which saith, “Babes, keep 1%
yourselves from images;” which sentence sore grieveth you,
to be written in the top of church doors, or in place where
the rood-loft stood. And you ask why it remaineth on
the walls, which we correct as a fault in the bibles? But
who told you that they correct it as a fault in the bibles?
Is every alteration with you a correction? The one ex-
plicateth the other, that idols of which St John speaketh
be images abused in religion. Not that all images be idols,
(as the word idol in the English speech is taken,) nor that
all idols be images, but as images that are worshipped. But

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

St John (you say), speaking to the converted gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols, from whence they were converted. That is true, but not only from them, but from all other idols. Except perhaps you think, that Christians by that text should not abhor the images of Simon Magus, and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gnosticks, and other hereticks, which worshipped the image of Christ and of St Paul, as Irenaeus' and Epiphanius” do testify. And it seemeth, you so think in deed. For you say soon after, “Whosoever esteemeth those words as the words of scripture (if images be put for idols) spoken against Christ's image, is made a very babe.” Such babes were Irenaeus and Epiphanius, that they condemned this worshipping of images for heresy. Such a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image of Christ painted in vail hanging in a church at Anablatha, he judged it to be contrary to the scriptures, and rent it in pieces. Such a babe was Tertullian”, that, speaking of that very text of St John, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” he writeth: Non jam ab idololatria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est, ab ipsa effigie eorum. Indignum

enim ut imago Dei vivi imago idoli et mortui fiat. “He

biddeth them take heed, not now from idolatry, as from the service, but from the idols themselves, that is to say, from the very images or shapes of them. For it is unworthy that the image of the living God should be made the image of an idol, and that being dead.” Finally, such a babe was your vulgar translator, that he saith: Filioli,

[ocr errors]

custodite vos a simulacris, which is all one, as if he should have said ab imaginibus, (as I have plentifully proved,) “Children, keep yourselves from images.” As for the purpose you pretend to have in honouring Christ by images, contrary to his commandment, is indeed nothing but dishonouring of him and destruction of yourselves.

Martin. But the gay confuter with whom I began, saith for further Manris,

answer, “Admit that in some of our translations it be, ‘Children, 14.

keep yourselves from images, (for so he would have said, if it were . .”

truly printed) what great crime of corruption is here committed?” And when it is said again, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they mean by so translating to make the simple believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd ; he replieth, “that it is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification.” And upon this position he granteth that, according to the property of the Greek word, a man may say, “God made man according to his Gen. i. idol,” and that generally idolum may as truly be translated an “image,” Kará riv as Tyrannus, a “king,” (which is very true, both being absurd;) and ** here he cited many authors and dictionaries idly, to prove that idolum etcoxon. may signify the same that image. eikaw.

Fulke. But this scornful replier, with whom I have Fulke, to do, is so accustomed to false and unhonest dealing, that 14. he can never report any thing that I have written truly, and as I have written, but with one forgery or another he will clean corrupt and pervert my saying. As here he shameth nothing to affirm, that I grant that, according to the property of the Greek word, a man may say, God made man according to his idol. I will report mine own words, by which every man may perceive how honestly he dealeth with me:

“But admit that in some translation it be as you say, ‘Children, keep yourselves from images: what great crime of corruption is here committed? You say, that it is to make simple men believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd. This is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification. But you reply, that then, where Moses saith that God made man according to his own image, we should consequently say, that God made man according to his idol. I answer, howsoever the name of idols in the English tongue, for the great dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of images,

is become so odious that no christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful prince ‘a tyrant, yet according to the Greek word, etow\ov may be as truly translated an image, as ripavvos a king.” Here, if I were disposed to give the rein to affection, as you do often, being unprovoked by me, were sufficient occasion offered to insult against your falsehood. But I will forbear, and in plain words tell you, that if you be so simple, that you cannot understand the difference of these two propositions, etow\ov, wheresoever it is read in Greek, may be truly translated “an image;” and this, wheresoever the word image is used in English, you may use the word idol; you are unmeet to read a divinity lecture in England, howsoever you be advanced in Rhemes. If not of ignorance, but of malice, you have perverted both my words and meaning, let God and all godly men be judge between you and me. My words are not obscure nor ambiguous, but that every child may understand my meaning to be no more but this, that this English word idol is by use restrained only to wicked images. The Greek word et&axov signifieth generally all images, as Tūpavvos did all kings, until kings, that were so called, became hateful for cruelty, which caused even the name tyrannus to be odious.



1 Cor. xv.


2 Cor. iii.

Heb. x.

Col. i. 2 Cor. iv.

Martin. But I beseech you, Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that eibohov may, by the original property of the word, signify “an image,” (which no man denieth,) do they tell you also, that you may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof; or do they tell you that “image” and “idol” are so all one, that wheresoever you find this word “image,” you may truly call it “idol"? For these are the points that you should defend in your answer. For an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus? “God hath predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his Son.” And again, “As we have borne the idol of the earthly (Adam,) so let us bear the idol of the heavenly” (Christ). And again, “We are transformed into the same idol, even as our Lord's spirit.” And again, “The law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very idol of the things.” And again, “Christ who is the idol of the invisible God.” Is this, I pray you, a true translation ? Yea, say you, according to the property of the word: but “because the name of idols in the English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping of images, is become odious, no christian man would say so.”

« PoprzedniaDalej »