Obrazy na stronie

grant, not to believe your report against any man's writing, except they read it themselves. Now that this word “the first” argueth no primacy or superiority, beside those places quoted by Beza, Acts xxvi. 20, Rom. i. 8, and iii. 2, you may read 1 Par. xxiii. xxiv. where the posterity of Levi and Aaron are sighron. rehearsed, as they were appointed by David in their orders: #". or courses: Subuel primus, Rohobia primus, sors prima Joiarib, &c. where lest you should think of any headship or principality, because the Hebrew is sometime wron, and the Greek ãpxov, you may see that Subuel is called primus of the sons of Gerson, when there is no more mention; and more expressly, Rohobia is called primus of the sons of Eleazer, of whom it is said, that he had no more sons; and that won signifieth here the first in order, it appeareth by those generations, where the second, third, or fourth; is named, as in the sons of Hebron and of Oziel. Also in the sons of Semei, where Jehoth is counted the first, Riza the second, Jaus and Beria, because they increased not in sons, were accounted for one family. In all which there is no other primacy than in the first lot of fivon Joiarib, where the Hebrew word is harishuon, and so follow " the rest in order, unto four and twenty courses. Therefore there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greek text in that place, neither did Beza ever deny to stand to it.

Martin. Let us see another place. You must grant us (say we) MARTIN, by this Greek text, that Christ's very blood which was shed for us is 50. really in the chalice, because St Luke saith so in the Greek text. No, saith Beza; those Greek words came out of the margin into the text, and therefore I translate not according to them, but according to that which I think the truer Greek text, although I find it in no copies in the world: and this his doing is maintained and justified by our .o: i.

English Protestants in their writings of late. chap. xvii. num. ll.

Fulke. Still Beza speaketh as you inspire into him, while Fulke, he speaketh through your throat or quill. The truth is, Beza 50. saith, that either there is a manifest solacophanes, that is, an appearance of incongruity; or else those words “which is shed for you” seem to be added out of St Matthew; or else it is an error of the writer's, placing that in the nominative case which should be in the dative : for in the dative case did Basil read them in his Morals", 21. definition.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Nevertheless, all our old books, saith Beza, had it so written, as it is commonly printed, in the nominative case. Here are three several distinctions, yet can you find none but one proposition that you set down, as though it were purely and absolutely affirmed by Beza. Likewise, where you speak of no copies in the world, you say more than Beza, who speaketh but of such copies as he had; who, if he were of no better conscience than you would have him seem to be, might feign some copy in his own hands to salve the matter. But the truth is, that since he wrote this, he found one more ancient copy, both in Greek and Latin, which now is at Cambridge, where this whole verse is wanting. But of this matter, which somewhat concerneth myself particularly, I shall have better occasion to write in the places by you quoted, cap. I. 37, and cap. xvii. 11, where I will so justify that which I have written before touching this place, as I trust all learned and indifferent readers shall see how vainly you insult against me, where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greek phrases than ever I would have suspected in you, being accounted the principal linguist of the seminary at Rhemes.

Martin. Well, yet, say we, there are places in the same Greek text, as plain for us as these now cited, where you cannot say, it came out of the margin, or it was added falsely to the text. As, “Stand and hold fast the traditions,” &c.; by this text we require that you grant us traditions delivered by word of mouth, as well as the written word, that is, the scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greek word signifieth tradition, as plain as possibly; but here and in the like places we rather translate it “ordinances,” “instructions,” and what else soever. Nay, sirs, say we, you cannot so answer the matter, for in other places you translate it duly and truly “tradition;” and why more in one place than in another? They are ashamed to tell why; but they must tell, and shame both themselves and the devil, if ever they think it good to answer this treatise: as also, why they changed “congregation,” which was always in their first translation, into “church” in their later translations, and did not change likewise “ordinances” into “traditions,” “elders” into “priests.”

Fulke. That the Thessalonians had some part of christian doctrine delivered by word of mouth, that is, by the apostle's preaching, at such time as he did write unto them, and some part by his epistles, the text enforceth us to grant, and we never purposed to deny: but that the church at this day, or ever since the New Testament was written, had any tradition by word of mouth of any matter necessary to salvation, which was not contained in the Old or New Testament, we will never grant, neither shall you ever be able out of this text or any text in the bible to prove. Make your syllogisms when you dare, and you shall be answered. But “we know,” you say, “that the Greek word signifieth tradition as plain as possibly; but here, and in like places, we rather translate it ordinances, instructions, and what else soever.” We know that it signifieth tradition, constitution, instruction, precept; also mancipation, treatise, treason: for all these the Greek dictionaries do teach that it signifieth. Therefore if in any place we have translated it “ordinances”, or “instructions”, or “institutions”, we have not gone from the true signification of the word; neither can you ever prove that the word signifieth such a doctrine only as is taught by word of mouth, and is not or may not be put in writing. But in other places you can tell us, that we translate it duly and truly “tradition”; and you will know, why more in one place than in another, affirming that we are shamed to tell why. For my part, I was never of counsel with any that translated the scriptures into English; and therefore it is possible I cannot sufficiently express what reason moved the translators so to vary in the exposition of one and the same word. Yet can I yield sufficient reason that might lead them so to do, which I think they followed. The papists do commonly so abuse the name of tradition, which signifieth properly a delivery, or a thing delivered, for such a matter as is delivered only by word of mouth, and so received from hand to hand, that it is never put in writing, but hath his credit without the holy scriptures of God, as the Jews had their cabala, and the scribes and Pharisees had their traditions, beside the law of God; and the Valentinian heretics accused the scriptures, as insufficient of authority and ambiguously written, and that the truth could not be found in them by those that knew not the tradition, which was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth, just as the papists do. This abusing of the word “tradition” might be a sufficient cause for the translators to render the Greek Martin. The cause is, that the name of church was at the first Maitrix,

meo, qui pro vobis funditur. Basilii Moralia. Regula xxi. c. 3. Opera, v. iii. p. 254. Edit. Garnier, Parisiis, 1722.T

Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 2.

word, where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the
commandment of God, by the name of tradition, as the word
is commonly taken. But where the Greek word is taken in
the good part, for that doctrine which is agreeable with the
holy scriptures, they might with good reason avoid it, as
you yourself do not always translate tradere, to betray, but
sometimes to deliver. So did the translators give these words,
“ordinances”, “instructions”, “institutions”, or doctrine deli-
vered; which do generally signify the same that tradition, but
have not the prejudice of that partial signification in which the
papists use it, who, wheresoever they find tradition, straightway
imagine they have found a sufficient argument against the per-
fection and sufficiency of the holy scripture, and to bring in
all riff-raff and trish-trash of man's doctrine, not only beside,
but also contrary to the manifest word of God, contained
in his most holy and perfect scriptures. To the shame of
the devil therefore, and of all popish maintainers of traditions
uncommanded by God, this reason may be yielded.
Now to answer you, why ecclesia was first translated “con-
gregation”, and afterward “church”; the reason that moved
the first translators, I think, was this: the word church of the
common people at that time was used ambiguously, both for
the assembly of the faithful, and for the place in which they
assembled; for the avoiding of which ambiguity they trans-
lated ecclesia the congregation; and yet in their creed, and
in the notes of their, bibles, in preaching and writing, they
used the word church for the same : the later translators,
seeing the people better instructed and able to discern, when
they read in the scriptures, the people from the place of
their meeting, used the word church in their translations, as
they did in their preaching. These are weighty matters
that we must give account of them. Why we change not
ordinances into traditions, and elders into priests, we will
answer when we come to the proper places of them. In the
mean season we think, there is as good cause for us in trans-
lating, sometime to avoid the terms of traditions and priest,
as for you to avoid the names of elders, calling them ancients,
and the wise men sages, as though you had rather speak
French than English, as we do : like as you translate confide,
“have a good heart,” after the French phrase, rather than
you would say as we do, “be of good comfort.”

[ocr errors]

odious unto them, because of the catholic church which stood against ". them ; but afterward this name grew into more favour with them, because of their English church, so at length called and termed. But their hatred of priests and traditions continueth still, as it first began; and therefore their translation also remaineth as before, suppressing the names both of the one and of the other. But of all these their dealings they shall be told in their several chapters and places.

Fulke. I pray you, who first translated the creed into Fulke,

the English tongue, and taught it to the people, and for * that cause were accounted heretics of the antichristian Romish rabble? If the name of church were odious unto them, why did they not suppress that name in the creed which they taught to young and old, and instead of catholic church call it the universal congregation or assembly 2 Well, Davus, these things be not aptly divided according to their times. The first translation of the bible, that was printed in the English tongue, in very many places of the notes useth the name church, and most notoriously in the Song of Salomon, where before every other verse almost it telleth which is the voice of the church to Christ her spouse; which no reasonable man would think the translators would have done, if the name of the church had been odious unto them, or that they thought the catholic church stood against them. Look Thomas Matthews’ bible, in the Canticles of Salomon, and upon the xvi. of St Matthew's Gospel, the 18th verse, the words of Christ to Peter. Therefore your senseless imaginations shew no hatred of the catholic church in our translators, but cankered malice and impudent folly in yourselves.

Martin. To conclude, as I began, concerning their shifts and jumps, Marris, and windings, and turnings every way from one thing to another, till 53. they are driven to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions and false translations: consider with me in this one case only of traditions, as may be likewise considered in all other controversies, that the ancient fathers, councils, antiquity, universality, and custom of the whole church allow traditions; the canonical scriptures have them, the Latin text hath them, the Greek text hath them; only their translations have them not. Likewise in the Old Testament, the approved Latin text hath such and such speeches, that make for us; the renowned Greek text hath it, the Hebrew text hath it; only their translations have it not.

These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful, and which shall be examined and discussed in this book.

« PoprzedniaDalej »