Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

And he said truly; and they shall hardly give an instance where it signifieth that fear of astonishment, which both he and they translate in the aforesaid place of St Paul. Such a force hath heresy to lead a man, even contrary to his own knowledge, to falsify God's holy word!

Fulke. Any reasonable man reading the note upon the Fulke,

word evXagris, “religious,” used by St Luke of Simeon, will 41.
understand Beza to speak of the signification of that word
as it is taken in that place; for he speaketh against the bar-
barous word timoratus, used by the vulgar interpreter, which
signifieth, if it have any signification, one made afraid, rather
than fearing God with love and reverence. But where you
say, we “shall hardly give an instance where the word sig-
nifieth that fear of astonishment, which they translate,” if you
would have taken pains to read Beza's annotations yourself
upon this text in question, you should have found, that he
bringeth many instances out of Aristotle, Sophocles, Plutarch”,
Nazianzen, and St. Luke, Acts xxiii. If you had remembered
what St Mark writeth of our Saviour Christ, Mark xiv. 33°,
it should not have been so strange a matter unto you, to
hear that our Saviour Christ, with great astonishment and
terror of mind, was afraid of death, where he useth the
words éx6augeia 6al, and dénuovely: which was not for
bodily pain, or bodily death, (which not only thousands of
holy martyrs have joyfully embraced, but infinite wicked
persons have contemned,) but for the feeling of God's wrath,
which was infinitely more heavy upon his soul than any tor-
ments were upon his body.

Martin. Yea, Beza saith further to this purpose, much more against MARTIN, his skill in the Greek tongue, if he had any at all, that in the pre-“ position cannot bear this sense, “for which," or “in respect whereof;” and therefore he translateth the Greek into Latin thus, evauditus est er metu, “he was heard from fear,” not “for fear,” or, “for his reverence.” And because “from fear” is a hard speech and dark, that

[ocr errors]

seemeth to be the cause why our English translators say, “in that which he feared,” far from Beza in word, but agreeably in sense.

FULKE, Fulke. When Beza hath shewed his skill in the Greek

42 tongue, not only in his translation and annotations, but also in divers Greek epigrams, which he hath set forth; who but one stark mad with malice, and blind with conceit of his own slender skill, would doubt whether Beza “had any skill at all in the Greek tongue?” As for that he saith of the signification of the preposition diró, he speaketh in respect of the property of the Greek tongue; for yet you bring no examples, but Hebraisms out of the scripture, for that signification of the preposition.

Mono, Martin. But for this matter we send them to Flaccus Illyricus, Fo Illyric. * captain Lutheran, who disputeth this very point against the Cal

vinists, and teacheth them that nothing is more common than that diró ris signification of diró. For proof whereof we also refer them to these §. places of the holy scripture: Matt. xiii., Luc. xxii. and xxiv., Acts xii., Aorns. Psal. lxxxvii., and [2] Machab. v. 21, where dirò with a genitive, and 6ta :* with an accusative, signify all one, which Beza denieth. Gentle reader, dró ris bear with these tedious grammatications, fitter to be handled in Latin,

owa. but necessary in this case also; good for them that understand, and for did rôy ue- the rest, an occasion to ask of them that have skill in the Greek tongue,

:* whether we accuse our adversaries justly, or no, of false translating the p

ëtas. holy scriptures. or. Fulke. And we, by the same authority, send you to

Beza's answer, in his last edition of his annotations'. And yet the reader must know, that Beza did not simply deny that the preposition might have such sense: but he said, Non facile mihi persuaserim, I cannot easily persuade myself, that any example can be brought wherein drö is so used. And in all these examples that you have brought, it signifieth rather prae, which is word, than propter, 3rd, as your vulgar translator observeth the difference, 2 Mac. v. 21,

[" Er metu, dirò ris evXaffeias. Ergo quod ad totum ipsum dicendi genus attinet, si pro reverentia, ut omnibus adhuc placuisse video; vel pro pietate, quod Erasmus annotavit, interpreteris; non aliud declarabit pro quam propter vel secundum, vel aliquid denique ejusmodi quod significet quo respectu sit exauditus. Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim proferri posse ullum exemplum in quo diró ita usurpetur. Bezae, Nov. Test. 1556, p. 219. Wide chap. i. numb. 29.]

translating prae superbia, and propter elationem mentis. But Beza requireth an example of drö taken for 3rd, wrép or kata, that may answer to the vulgar Latin, pro reverentia. For who would translate in St Matthew, xiii. diró Xapās, pro gaudio, propter gaudium, or secundum gaudium, or dard Tris Astrms, pro dolore, and so of the rest? But of these let Beza himself give account. As for “these tedious grammatications,” which you confess to have been “fitter to be handled in Latin,” it seemeth you uttered in English, for that of many ignorant you might be thought to bring some great learning out of the Hebrew and Greek tongues against us; whereas the learned, if you had written in Latin, of other nations, as well as ours, might have been witnesses of your fond trifling and quarrelling against our translations. As for the necessary cause you pretend, that the unlearned may ask them that have skill in Greek, [it] is very ridiculous. For neither can they have at hand always such as be able to resolve them; neither if they be of your faction, will they ask any indifferent man's judgment, but only such as will avouch before the ignorant that all which you write is good and perfect.

Martin. And we beseech them to give us a good reason, why they, pro- Marrin,

fessing to follow precisely the Greek, do not observe truly the Greek points *.
in such place as concerneth this present controversy. For the place in
the Apocalypse, which they allege of our Saviour Christ's suffering
from the beginning, (thereby to infer that the just men of the Old Testa-
ment might enter heaven then, as well as after his real and actual
death,) according to the Greek points saith thus: “All that dwell upon
the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names have not been
written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the beginning of the
world.” Where it is evident that the Greek text saith not, “the Lamb
slain from the beginning;' but that the names of those antichristian
idolaters were not written in God's eternal book of predestination from
the beginning; as it is also most plain without all ambiguity in the xviith
chap. ver. 8. If in a place of no controversy they had not been curious
in points of the Greek, they might have great reason sometime to alter
the same.

Fulke. How fain would you obscure the light of that Fulke, excellent testimony, even contrary to your own vulgar Latin 44. translation, that you might not have such a faithful witness against your limbus patrum ! You require a reason, why

[merged small][ocr errors]

we keep not the Greek points, Apoc. xiii.' I answer, we keep those points which the most ancient written copies have, which the Complutensis editio hath, and which the best Greek prints now have. If you would know a reason why we follow not them that point otherwise, I answer you, the composition of the words is against that pointing. For except St John had meant that the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, he would not have placed those words, “from the beginning of the world,” next to those words “the Lamb which is slain,” but next the word “written.” And therefore Aretus, that could not understand how the Lamb was “slain from the beginning of the world,” is forced to imagine hyperbaton in this text, where none needeth, the sense being good and plain without it, as the words do lie: “Whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain since the beginning of the world.” And although it be true that “the names of the antichristian idolaters were not written in God's eternal book of predestination from the beginning,” as it is said, Apoc. xiii. 8; yet is that no reason why this also should not be true, that the Lamb was slain since the beginning of the world, seeing without violence you cannot distract dró kata(30Añs kóa uov from “the Lamb slain,” whom it doth immediately follow.

Martin. But if in points of controversy between us, they will say, divers pointing is of no importance, they know the contrary by the example of ancient heretics, which used this mean also to serve their false heretical purpose. If they say, our vulgar Latin sense pointeth it so, let them profess before God and their conscience that they do it of reverence to the said ancient Latin text, or because it is indifferent, and not for any other cause; and for this one place we will admit their answer.

Fulke. We say that wrong pointing may greatly alter the sense; but good composition and placing of words in a sentence is a good rule to direct pointing, where it is either lacking, or falsely signed. We refuse not the testimony of the vulgar Latin, where it agreeth with the truth of the Greek or Hebrew; yea, before God and our consciences we reverence it as a monument of some antiquity, from which

[ocr errors]

we neither do, nor are willing to dissent, except the same dissent from the original text. Otherwise the truth of this assertion, that Christ was “slain from the beginning of the world,” hath not only testimony of the ancient fathers, but also may be confirmed out of the scripture. For by the obedience of Christ, St Paul, Rom. v. teacheth that “many are justified,” meaning all the elect of God; who, except Christ's death had been effectual to them, before he suffered actually on the cross, must have gone, not into limbo patrum, but into hell diabolorum, which is the place appointed for all them that are not “justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption of Christ Jesus, whom God before hath set forth to be a propitiatory in his blood,” Rom. iii. 24, &c.

The title of this chapter threateneth a discovery of heretical translations against purgatory especially ; but in the whole discourse thereof, which is a shameful long one, containing forty-five sections, there is not one place noted against purgatory. Amphora coepit institui; currente rota cur urceus eacit *

« PoprzedniaDalej »