Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

nor for any mistranslation. For seeing the Spirit of God (as I have said) useth the word ecclesia generally for a company of Christians, Jews, and Gentiles, the translator hath not gone from the truth and use of the scriptures, to use the word "congregation," which signifieth indifferently all three. Wherefore there needeth no condemnation, nor confession of any gross fault herein committed; except you will count it a gross fault in St Luke, to use the word e«Ai;ff/a without any scrupulosity for all three, as the translator doth the word "congregation," and you in two significations the word "assembly." Neither can your heathenish and barbarous burning of the holy scriptures so translated, nor your blasphemy in calling it the devil's word, be excused for any fault in translation which you have discovered as yet, or ever shall be able to descry. That stinking cavil of leaving out of the bible this word "church" altogether, being both foolish and false, I have answered more than once already. It is not left out altogether, that in contents of books and chapters, and in notes of explication of this word " congregation1," is set down. Neither could there be any purpose against the catholic church of Christ in them tliat translated and taught the creed in English, professing to believe "the holy catholic church." As for our hatred of the malignant antichristian church of Rome, we never dissembled the matter, so that we were afraid openly to profess it: what need had we then after such a fantastical manner (as is fondly imagined) to insinuate it?

Martin. But, my masters, if you would confess the former faults Martin, 5. and corruptions never so plainly, is that enough to justify your corrupt dealing in the holy scriptures? Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully to falsify and corrupt the word of God, written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost? May you abuse the people for certain years with false translations, and afterward say, "Lo, we have amended it in our later translations"? Then might the heretic Beza be excused for translating see his New instead of "Christ's soul in hell," his "carcase in the grave:" and ofthe"^^11 because some friend told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in {,^?il<jt!ertted the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgment be counted a right honest man. No, be ye sure, the discreet reader cannot be so abased; but he will easily see that there is a great difference in mending some oversights which may escape the best men, and in your gross false

P Congregation. See No. 2.]

translations, who at the first falsify of a prepensed malice, and afterwards alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest and principal place, that coneerneth the church's perpetuity and stability, you have not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before,

Bib"i5-''18' an*' "* at t'"S ^ rea^ 'n ^our cnurcnc8 tnus> "Upon this rock I will build my congregation." Can it be without some heretical subtHty, that in this place specially, and (I think) only, you change not the word "congregation" into "church"? Give ua a reason, and discharge your credit.

Fulke, 5. Ftdke. You are very hardly, and in very deed maliciously, bent against us, that you will accept no confession of faults escaped, never so plainly made. As for corrupt dealing in tho holy scriptures, and falsifying of the word of God, you are not able, no, not if you would burst yourself for malice, to convict us. And therefore look for no confession of any such wickedness, whereof our conscience is clear before God, and doth not accuse us. As for Beza's correction of his former translation, Acts ii. 27, if your dogged stomach will not accept, ho shall notwithstanding with all godly learned men be accounted, as he deserveth, for one who hath more profited the church of God with his sincere translation and learned annotations, than all the popish seminaries and seminarists shall be able to hinder it, jangle of gross and false translations as long as you will. But "the chiefest and principal place, that coneerneth the church's perpetuity," is not yet reformed to your mind. For in the bible 1577, we read still, Matt, xvi., "Upon this rock I will build my congregation." If Christ have a perpetual congregation, "builded upon tho foundation of the prophets and apostles, himself being tho corner-stone," his church is in no danger ever to decay. Yet you ask, whether it can be without some heretical subtilty, that in this place specially, and (as you think) only, the word "congregation" is not changed into "church." It is an homely, but a true proverb: The good wife would never have sought her daughter in the oven, had she not been there first herself. You are so full of heretical subtilties and traitorous devices, that you dream of them in other men's doings, whatsoever cometh into your hands; yea, where you yourself can have no probable imagination what to suspect. And therefore we must give you a reason in discharge of our credit. For my part, I know not with what special reason the translator was moved; but I can give you my probable conjecture, that he thought it all one, (as indeed it is,) to say "my congregation," or "my church." For what is Christ's congregation, but his church? or what is Christ's church, but his congregation? And yet, to put you out of all fear, the Geneva translation hath the word "church," that you make so great account of, as though it were not an indifferent word to the true church of true Christians and the false church of malignant heretics; being usurped first to signify the congregation of Christians, by a metonymy of the place containing for the people contained. For the etymology thereof is from the Greek word Kupiaxrj, which was used of Christians for the place of their holy meetings, signifying "the Lord's house;" therefore in the northern, which is the more ancient English speech, is called by contraction kyrke, more near to the sound of the Greek word.

Martin. What shall I say of Beza, whom the English bibles also Martin, 6. follow, translating actively that Greek word, (which in common use, and by St Chrysostom, and the Greek doctors' exposition, is a plain passive,) to signify, as in his annotations is clear, that Christ may be without his church, that is, a head without a body. The words be these in the heretical translation: "He gave him to be the head over all Epi>- i. si. 93.

TOU TT\tl~

povfievov'.

17 The following extract from Beza's New Testament will serve to explain the matter in dispute in this and the two succeeding numbers: "ht« for! rA ••• ../<.-/ airrov, ri> ir\ijp<ofui rov navra ev iratri vfypoviuvmi. Ephes. i. 23. Rendered by Beza, "Qua; est corpus ipsios, et complementum ejus qui ornnia implet in omnibus:" upon which he has this note:

Complementum, TrX^to/ia, sivo supplementum. Is enim est Christ! in ecclesiam amor, ut quum omnia in omnibus ad plenum prxstct, tamen sese veluti mancum ct membris mutilum caput existimet, nisi ecclesiam habeat sibi instar corporis adjunctam. Hinc factum ut Chriatus interdum collective pro tota ecclesia capiti suo adjuncta accipiatur, ut 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, et Gal. iii. 16. Hinc etiam illud "in Christo," toties rcpetitum; quod multo expressius aliquid significat quam cum Christo, vel per Christum. Hinc factum ut diceret apostolns se in Christo, et Christum in se vivere, Gal. ii. 20. Hinc ilia Christi vox, Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? Quo etiam pertinet quod scriptum est, Col. L 24. Hine denique nostra spes omnis et consolatio proficiscitur. Qui imph't, rou •n\i)pavfi.(vov. Chrysostomus accipit, ut sit sensus, Christum prorsus impleri in omnibus, things to the church, which (church) is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." "St Chiysostom," saith Beza, (he might have said, all the Greek and Latin ancient fathers,) "taketh it passively in this sense, that Christ is 'filled' all in all, because all faithful men as members, and the whole church as the body, concur to the fulness and accomplishment of Christ the head. But this," saith he, "secmeth unto me a forced interpretation." Why so, Beza?

Fulke, 6. Fulke. That Beza translateth the participle, Tov ir\tjpovnevov, actively, it is plain, both in the text of his translation, and in his annotations: but that he doth it to signify, that Christ may be without his church, that is, a head without a body, it is a shameless slander. His words, upon which you weave this cobweb, are these: Omnino aittem hoc addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoc supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus retera; nedum ut suppleatur a quoguam, nisi quatenus pro immensa sua bonitate ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis imtar adjungere. "This tho apostle hath added altogether for this end, that we may know that Christ of himself hath no need of this supply, as he which worketh in truth 'all things in all;' so far it is, that he should be supplied by any body, but that of his infinite goodness he vouchsafeth to adjoin his church unto himself as his body." Who but the devil would find fault with this godly and catholic saying? wherein it is affirmed, that Christ, which according to the perfection of his divine nature needeth no supply, yet of his infinite mercy vouchsafeth to become head of his church, as of his body; so that he will not be counted perfect without it. Is this to say, Christ may be a head without a body? or is it for his benefit, or the benefit of his church, that he is the head thereof? But the more to lay open this malicious slander and impudent falsifying of Beza's words and meaning, I will set down his saying, going im

id est, singulos fideles conferre ad Christi complementum, uti corpus ipsum ex singulis rncmbris est compactum. Mihi videtur coacta ista interpretatio, [qui potius active istud accipio, edit. 1582, p. 231.] qunm To ir\r;povcr6ai pro TrXijpoCv Xenophon usurparit, Lib. vi. Hellen. et <rvnTr\Tjpov<Tdat pro mifml^ripovv Plato in Timico. Omnino autem hoc addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoc supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera; nedum ut suppleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immensa sua bonitate ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar adjungere. Edit. 1556, p. 240.]

r

mediately before, upon the word irXypwua, which he calleth eompUmentum give supplementum, "a fulfilling or supplying:" Is enim est Chritti in ecclesiam amor, &c. "For such is the lore of Christ toward his church, that whereas he performcth all things to all men unto the full; yet he esteemeth himself as an imperfect head, and maimed of the members, unless he haTe his church adjoined to him, as his body. Hereof it cometh, that Christ is taken sometime collectively for the whole church, adjoined to her head, as 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, and Gal. iii. 16. Hereof cometh also that phrase 'in Christ,' so often repeated, which signifieth something more expressly than with Christ, or by Christ. Hereof that voice of Christ, 'Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?' Whither also pertaineth that which is written, Col. i. 24. Finally, hereof proceedeth all our hope and consolation." How think you? is not this man willing to separate the church from Christ, the head from the body? 0 monstrous malices of godless papists! His exposition of the place being such, as you see, let us now examine what can be said against his translation: for a man must not translate falsely to make a true sense. It is alleged against him, that Chrysostom and all the Greek and Latin fathers take the participle passively. Beza confesseth it of Chrysostom, whom the later Greek writers commonly do follow. But the participle, being derived of the mean verb, may have either passive or active signification. But why doth Beza say, that the exposition of Chrysostom is "forced," which taketh it passively? He saith not in respect of Chrysostom's sense, which he himself followeth, and it is contained in the word ir\r)pwij.a, but in respect of the grammar, that vavra should be put absolutely without any word to govern it, seeing the participle of the mean verb may be taken actively, and govern Trdvra, being the accusative case.

Martin. Mark his doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers, both Martin, 7. Greek and Latin. "Because Xenophon" saith he, "in such a place, and Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively." I omit this miserable match, and unworthy names of Xenophon and Plato, in trial of St Paul's words, against all the glorious doctors; this is his common custom. I ask him rather of these his own doctors, how they use the Greek word in other places of their works? how use they it most commonly? yea, how do all other Greek writers, either profane or sacred,

« PoprzedniaDalej »