Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 1 · Martins comments 18 – Martins comments 25
MART. 18. If in wordes of ambiguous and diuerse signification, they will hauehave it signifie here or there, as it pleaseth them: and that so vehemently, that here it must needes so signifie, and there it must not: and both this, and that, to one ende and in fauour of one and the same opinion: what is this but wilfull translation? So doth Beza vrge foreign to signifie, wife, Beza in …. Cor. 7. v. 1. & 9. v. 5. Bib. an. 1579.and not to signifie, wife, both against virginitie and chastitie of Priestes: and the English Bible translateth accordingly. See chap. 15. num. 11. 12.
FVLK. 18. To the generall charge, I answer generally, we do not as you slaunder vsus. Nor Beza whom you shamefully belye, to vrge the worde foreign. 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. not to signifie a wife against virginitie, and chastitie of Priestes. For cleane contrariwise, he reproueth Erasmus restraining it to a wife, which the Apostle saith generally: it is good for a man not to touch a woman, which doth not onelyonly conteine a commendation of virginitie in them that be vnmaried, but also of continencie in them that be maried. And as for the virginity or chastitie of Priestes, he speaketh not one worde of it, in that place, no more than the Apostle doth. Now touching the other place, that you quote. 1. Cor. 9. v. 5. Beza doth truely translate foreign, a sister to wife, because the word sister, is first placed, which comprehendeth a woman, and therefore the word foreign following, must needes explicate, what woman he meaneth, namely a wife. For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therfore the vulgar Latine Interpreter, peruerteth the words, & saith: Mulierem sororem. It is true, that many of the auncient fathers, as too much addict to the singlenes of the Clergie, though they did not altogither condemne mariage in them, as the Papists doe: did expound the sister whereof S. Paule speaketh, of certaine rich matrones, which followed the Apostles, whithersoeuer they went & ministred to them of their substance, as we reade that many did to our Sauiour Christ. Math. 27. v. 55. Luc. 8. v. 3. But that exposition can not stand, nor agree with this text for many causes. First the placing of the wordes, which I hauehave before spoken of. Secondly this word foreign were needeles, except it should signifie a wife: for the word sister signifieth both a woman, & a faithful woman, and otherwise it was not to be doubted, least the Apostle would leade a heathen woman with him. Thirdly the Apostle speaketh of one womā, & not many, wheras there were many that followed our Sauiour Christ, whereas one alone to follow the Apostle, might breede occasion of ill suspition, and offence, which many could not so easily. Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the Gospell, our Sauiour Christ did not leade about, but they did voluntarily follow him: but the Apostle here saith, that he had authoritie, as the rest of the Apostles, to leade about a woman, which argueth the right, that an husband hath ouer his wife, or of a maister ouer his maide. Fiftly, it is not all one, if women could trauel out of Galilie to Ierusalem, which was nothing neare an hundred miles; that women could followe the Apostles into all partes of the world. Sixtly, if the cause why such women are supposed to hauehave followed the Apostles, was to minister to them of their substance, the leading them about, was not burdenous to the Church, but helpeful: but the Apostle testifieth, that he forbare to vse this libertie, because he would not be burdenous to the Church of Corinth, or to any of them. Seuenthly, seing it is certaine that Peter had a wife, and the rest of the Apostles are by antiquitie reputed to hauehave bene all maried: It is not credible that Peter, or any of the rest, would leaue the companie of their owne wiues, & leade strange women about with them. As for the obiection that you make in your note vppon the text, to what ende should he talke of burdening the Corinthians with finding his wife, when he himself cleerely saith, that he was single? I answer, Although I thinke he was single, yet is it not so cleere as you make it, for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh he had a wife, which he left at Philippi, by mutual consent. But albeit he were single, it was lawfull for him to hauehave maried, and Barnabas also, as wel as all the rest of the Apostles. Againe, to what end should he talke of burdening the Church with a woman, which was not his wife, when such women as you say ministred to the Apostles of their goods? Wherby it should follow that none of the Apostles burdened the Churches where they preached with their owne finding, which is cleane contrary to the Apostles wordes and meaning. Wherefore the translation of Beza, and of our Church, is most true, and free from all corruption.
MART. 19. If the Puritans & grosser Caluinists disagree about the translations, one part preferring the Geneua English Bible, the other the Bible read in their Church: & if the Lutherans condemne the Zuinglians & Caluinistes translations, and contrariwise: & if all Sectaries reproue eche an others translation: What doth it argue, but that the translations differ according to their diuerse opinions. See their bookes written one against another.
FVLK. 19. Here againe is nothing but a generall charge of disagreeing about translations, of Puritans, & Caluinists, Lutherans & Zuinglians, and of all Sectaries reprouing one an others translation, with as generall a demonstration. See the bookes written one against an other, which would aske longer time, than is needeful to answer such a vaine cauil; when it is alwaies sufficient to deny, that which is affirmed without certaine proofe.Luc. 3. v. 36. Act. 1. v. 14. c. 2. v. 23. c. 3. v. 21. c. 26. v. 20. 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. &c. 9. v. 6.
MART. 20. If the English Geneua Bibles them selues dare not follow their Maister Beza, whom they professe to translate, because in their opinion he goeth wide, and that in places of controuersie: how wilfull was he in so translating? See chap. 12. num. 6. 8. chap. 13. num. 1.
FVLK. 20. It is a very impudent slaunder. The Geneua Bibles doe not professe to translate out of Bezaes Latine translation, but out of the Hebrew & Greeke, & if they agree not alwaies with Beza▪ what is that to the purpose, if they agree with the truth of the originall text? Beza often times followeth the purer phrase of the Latine tongue, which they neither woulde, nor might follow in the English. If in dissenting from Beza, or Beza from them, they or he dissent from the truth, it is of humane frailtie, & not of hereticall wilfulnes. The places being examined, shall discouer your vanitie.
MART. 21. If for the most part they reprehend the olde vulgar translation, and appeale to the Greeke: and yet in places of controuersie sometime for their more aduantage (as they thinke) they leaue the Greeke, and followe our Latine translation: what is it else, but voluntarie and partiall translation? See chap. 2. num. 8. chap. 6. nu. 10. 21. chap. 7. nu. 39. chap. 10. nu. 6.
FVLK. 21. We neuer leaue the Greeke to followe your vulgar translation, as in the places by you quoted, I will proue manifestly: but I hauehave already proued, that you leaue the Latine, and appeale to the Greeke, in translating Simulachra, Idols, both Col. 3. & 1. Iohn. 5.*Beza. Luc. 1. Ro. 2. Apoc. 19. 8. Beza in c. 1…. Apoc. v. 8.
MART. 22. If otherwise they auoid this world, iustifications, altogither, & yet translate it when they can not choose, but with a cōmētarie that it signifieth good works that are testimonies of a liuely faith: doth not this hereticall commentarie shew their heretical meaning, when they auoide the worde aliogither? See Chap. 3. Nu. 1. 2. 3.
FVLK. 22. To auoyde the worde altogither, and yet sometime to translate it, I see not how they can stand togither, for he that doth sometimes translate it, doth not altogither auoyde it. But you will say, they do altogither auoyde it in all such places, where they doe not translate it. That is altogither false; for the Geneua translation Luc. 1. telleth you that the Greeke worde signifieth iustifications, and yeeldeth a reason why it doth in that place otherwise translate it: and if to translate the Greeke worde foreign otherwise than iustificatiō, must needes shew an hereticall meaning, then must you needs say▪ that your vulgar Latine translater had an hereticall meaning, for in the second place by you quoted, namely Rom. 2. v. 26. he tran…lateth it Iustitias, likewise Ro. 1. v. 32. Iustitiam, so likewise Rom. 5. v. 18. And if it be an hereticall commentarie, to say, that good workes are a testimonie of a liuely faith, you will also condemne the Apostles of heresie, which teach it to be impossible to please God without faith, Heb. 11. and that what soeuer is not of faith, is sinne, Rom. 14. If there be any good workes that are not testimonies of a liuely faith. But it is sufficient for you, to call what you wil heresie, and hereticall falsification, and corruption, for your disciples are bounde to beleeue you, though you say the Gospell be heresie, and the Apostles themselues heretikes. Gregorie Martine calleth this an heretical commentarie, what neede you seeke other proofe?
MART. 23. When by adding to the text at their pleasure, they make the Apostle say, that by Adams offence, …inneRo …. v. …8. No. T…st. an. 1580. Bib. 1579. came on all men, but that by Christs iustice, the benefite only abounded toward all men, not that iustice came on all, whereas the Apostle maketh the case a like, without any such diuers additions, to wit, that we are truely made iuste by*Ro. 5. v. 19. Christ, as by Adam we are made sinners: is not this most wilfull corruption for their heresie of imputatiue and phantasticall iustice. See Chap 11. Nu. 1.
FVLK. 23. The Verse by you quoted Rom. 5. v. 18. is a manifest eclipsis or defectiue speach, to make any sense, wherof, there must needes be added a Nominatiue case, and a Verbe. Now by what other Nominatiue case, and Verbe, may the sense be supplied, but by that which the Apostle him selfe giueth before? Verse. 15. VntoUnto which all that followeth must be referred for explication. Where he saieth, as you your selues trāslate it: If by the offēce of one many died: much more the grace of God & the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpō many. Seing therfore that defectiue speach must be supplied for vnderstanding in this probation, what is so apt as that which the Apostle him self hath expressed before in the proposition? Although you in your translatiō are not disposed to supplie it, bicause you had rather the text should be obscure, & wōdred at, than that it should be plaine & easie, or able to be vnderstood: albeit in other places you sticke not to adde such wordes as be necessarie for explication of the texte, as eueryevery translater must do, if he will hauehave any sense to be vnderstood in his trā slation. For that defectiue speach which in some tongue is well vnderstood, in some other is altogither voide of sense, and must be explicated by addition of that, which is necessarily or probably to be vnderstoode. So you translate Math. 8. Quid nobis. What is betweene vsus? Mark. 2. Post dies, after some daies, Accumberet, he satte at meate and many such like. But where you charge our translation to say, the benefite (only) aboūded toward all men, not that iustice came on all: you do shamefully adde to our translation, for the worde onelyonly is of your owne slaunderous addition, and the rest is your malitious colection. For we meane not to extenuate the benefite of Christes redemption, but by all meanes to set it forth to the vttermost: as the worde (abounded) doth shew, if you do not blemish the light of it, by your blockish addition of this worde (only). And that we are truely made iust by Christ, and yet by imputation, as wee are truly made sinners by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually by corruptiō, we do at all times and in al places most willingly confesse, for the iustice of Christ which is imputed vntounto vsus by faith, is no false or phantasticall iustice, as you do no lesse blasphemously, than phantastically affirme: but a true and effectuall iustice, by which we are so truly made iust▪ that we shall receiue for it the crowne of iustice, which is eternall life, as the Apostle proueth at large, Rom. 4. and 5. whom none but an hellhound will barke against, that he defendeth imputatiue and phantasticall iustice.
MART. 24. But if in this case of iustification, when the*…a. 2. v. 14. Ro 3. v. 28. …uth. tom. 2. fol. 405. edit. Witteb. an. …551. Whitak. pag. 198. question is whether onelyonly faith iustifie, and wee say no, hauing the expresse wordes of S. Iames: they say, yea, hauing ne expresse scripture for it: if in this case they will adde, only, to the very text: is it not most horrible and diuelish corruption? So did Luther, whom our English Protestāts honor as their father, & in this heresie of only faith, are his owne childrē. See ch. 12.
FVLK. 24. In the question of iustification by faith only, where S. Iames saieth no: we say, no also, neyther can it be proued that we adde this word only to the text in any translation of oures. If Luther did in his translation adde the worde only to the texte, it can not be excused of wrong translation in worde, although the sense might well beare it. But seing Luther doth him selfe confesse it, he may be excused of frawde, though not of lacke of iudgement. But why should our translation be charged with Luthers corruption? Because our English Protestants honour him as their father. A very lewde slaunder: for we call no man father vponupon earth, though you do call the Pope your father, albeit in another sense Luther was a reuerende father of the Churche for his time. But as touching the doctrine of only faith iustifying, it hath more patrones of the fathers of the auncient, primitiue Church, than Martine can beare their bookes, though he would breake his backe, who in the same plaine wordes do affirme it as Luther doth, that only faith doth iustifie. And the Apostle which saieth that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law, speaketh more plainely for iustification by faith only, (as we do teach it), than if he had sayed a man is iustified by faith only. Which text of Rom. 3. and many other, are as expresse scripture to proue that we teach and beleeue, as that S. Iames sayeth against iustification by faith only, where he speaketh of an other faith, and of an other iustification, than S. Paule speaketh of, and we vnderstand, when we holde that a man is iustified by faith only, or without workes of the law, which is all one.Their ignorance of the Greeke and Hebrue tongue, or their false & vvilfull trans…ation thereof against their knovvledge.
MART. 25. If these that account themselues the great Grecians and Hebricians of the world, will so translate for the aduauntage of their cause, as though they had no skill in the world, and as though they knew neither the significatiō of words, nor proprietie of phrases in the saide languages: is it not to be esteemed shamelesse corruption?
FVLK. 25. Yes, but if it can not be proued that so they translate, then is this an impudent slaunder, as al the rest are, and so it will proue when it cōmeth to be tried.