Eph. v. 1 Tim. ii. Again, who would think they would have altered the word "church" in the Epistle to the Ephesians? Their English translation for many years read thus: "Ye husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the congregation, and cleansed it to make it unto himself a glorious congregation without spot or wrinkle." And, "This is a great secret, but I speak of Christ and of the congregation." And to Timothy, "The house of God, which is the congregation of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth." Here is no word of "church," which in Latin and Greek is, Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis. Likewise to the Ephesians again, "He hath made him head of the congregation, which Heb. xi 23. is his body." And to the Hebrews they are all bold to translate: "The congregation of the first-born," where the apostle nameth "heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God," &c.1 Eph. 1. FULKE, 2. Fulke. In the first English bible printed, where it was thus translated, Matt. xvi. "Upon this rock I will build my congregation"," the note in the margin is thus: "Upon this rock, that is, as saith St Augustine, upon the confession which thou hast made, knowledging me to be Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my congregation or church!" Was not this translator, think you, sore afraid of the name of "the church"? What other thing should he understand by the word "congregation" in all places by you noted, or in any like, but the church, as he doth here expound himself? And this translation, almost word for word, doth the bible you call 1562 follow. [The versions of Tyndale and Cranmer render ékkλŋơía at Eph. v. 23, 24, 25, "congregation:" those of Wiclif, Geneva, Bishops' bible, and Authorised, render it "church." And also the same translation of ÉKKAŋσía is given by these several versions respectively at 1 Tim. iii. 15. Tyndale and Cranmer also translate the word "congregation" at Ephes. i. 22.: all the other versions render it "church." At Hebrews xii. 23, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Bishops' bible, have it "congregation:" Wiclif, Rhemish, and Authorised version, “church."] [ Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam; ut super hunc intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus, dicens, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi; ac sic Petrus ab hac petra appellatus personam ecclesiæ figuraret, quæ super hanc petram ædificatur, et accepit claves regni cœlorum. Non enim dictum est illi, Tu es petra, sed, tu es Petrus. Petra autem erat Christus; quem confessus Simon, sicut eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Augustini Retractionum, Lib. 1. c. 21. Opera, Vol. I. pp. 67, 68. edit. Bened. Paris. 1836.] [3 Matthew's Bible 1537.] in initio. Martin. So that, by this translation, there is no more church mili- MARTIN, 3. tant and triumphant, but congregation, and he is not head of the church, but of the congregation; and this congregation, at the time of the making of this translation, was in a few new brethren of England, for whose sake the name "church" was left out of the English bible, to commend the name of "congregation" above the name of "church." Whereas St Augustine telleth them, that the Jews' synagogue was a In Ps. lxxxi. congregation, the church a convocation; and that a congregation is of συναγωγή. beasts also; a convocation, of reasonable creatures only; and that the KKλnoía. Jews' congregation is sometime called "the church," but the apostles never called the church "congregation." Do you see then what a goodly change they have made, for "church" to say "congregation," so making themselves a very synagogue, and that by the property of the Greek word; which yet (as St Augustine telleth them most truly) signifieth rather a "convocation"? Fulke. A strange matter, that the church militant and FULKE, 3. triumphant should be excluded by using the word congregation, when by it nothing is signified but the congregation or church militant and triumphant; and that Christ should no more be head of the church when he is head of the congregation, where the difference is only in sound of words, not in sense or meaning. Your vain and ridiculous surmise, why the name of church should be left out of the bible, I have before confuted, shewing that in every bible it is either in the text, or in the notes. But St Augustine telleth us (say you) that the Jews' synagogue was a congregation, the church a convocation; and that a congregation is of beasts also, a convocation of reasonable creatures only. But St Luke in the person of St Stephen telleth us, (and Augustine telleth us as much,) that the synagogue of the Jews is called also ecclesia, which signifieth the church and congregation. [The LXX. read in the first verse of the eighty-second Psalm, ὁ Θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, which is translated by the Vulgate, "Deus stetit in synagoga deorum." Upon these words Augustine speaks as follows: "In synagoga populum Israel accipimus; quia et ipsorum proprie synagoga dici solet, quamvis et ecclesia dicta sit. Nostram vero apostoli nunquam synagogam dixerunt, sed semper ecclesiam; sive discernendi causa, sive quod inter congregationem unde synagoga, et convocationem unde ecclesia nomen accepit, distet aliquid; quod scilicet congregari et pecora solent, atque ipsa proprie, quorum et greges proprie dicimus; convocari autem magis est utentium ratione, sicut sunt homines. Augustini Enarratio in Psalmum lxxxi. 1.] MARTIN, 4. Confut. of M. Howlet, fol. 35. FULKE, 4. That congregatio, the Latin word, may be of beasts also, it skilleth not; for the church of Christ is called also a flock, and sheep of his pasture. But he that should say in English "a congregation of beasts," might be taken for as wise a man, as he that said "an audience of sheep." And whereas St Augustine telleth you, that the Jews' congregation is sometime called the church; what is the cause that you do translate it "the assembly," Acts vii., even as you do "the congregation of the idolatrous Ephesians," Acts xix.? But further (you say) Augustine telleth us, that the apostles never called the church "congregation." It is a world to see what foolish fetches you have to deceive the ignorant. Augustine sayeth, the apostles never called our assembly synagoga, but always ecclesia and yet he is a little deceived; for St Paul calleth our gathering together unto Christ &πiovvaywyn, but congregatio, "a congregation," he saith not. And although he make a nice distinction between the words "congregation" and "convocation," yet all men which know the use of these words, will confess no necessity of a Jewish synagogue to be implied in the word "congregation" more than in the word ÉKKλnoia, which of the Holy Ghost is used for an assembly or gathering together, either of Jews, Christians, or Gentiles. And therefore, it seemeth, the translator used the word "congregation," which is indifferent for all, even as the word ecclesia is used both in the Greek and vulgar Latin. Martin. If they appeal here to their later translations, we must obtain of them to condemn the former, and to confess this was a gross fault committed therein; and that the catholic church of our country did not ill to forbid and burn such books which were so translated by Tyndal and the like, as being not indeed God's book, word, or scripture, but the devil's word. Yea, they must confess that the leaving out of this word "church" altogether was of an heretical spirit against the catholic Roman church, because then they had no Calvinistical church in any like form of religion and government to theirs now. Neither will it serve them to say after their manner, "And if a man should translate ecclesiam congregation,' this is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification." This, we trow, will not suffice them in the judgment of the simplest indifferent reader. Fulke. We need not to appeal to the later translations for any corruption or falsification of the former, no, 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 ÉKKλnoia 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 "congregation'," is set down. Neither could there be any purpose against the catholic church of Christ in them that 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 of the year because some friend told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgment be counted right honest man. No, be ye sure, the discreet reader cannot be so abused; 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 ['Congregation. See No. 2.] a Test. in Latin 1556, printed by Robert Steven, in fol. Acts ii. 27. 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 concerneth the church's perpetuity and stability, you have not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before, Matt. xvi. 18. and is at this day read in your churches thus, "Upon this rock I will build my congregation." Can it be without some heretical subtilty, that in this place specially, and (I think) only, you change not the word congregation" into "church"? Give us a reason, and discharge your Bib. 1577. FULKE, 5. 66 credit. Fulke. 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 the 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, he 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 concerneth 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 the foundation of the prophets and apostles, himself being the 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, |
