Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 51 – Martins comments 53
MART. 51. Well yet, sayewe, there are places in the same Greeke text, as plaine for vsus as these now cited, where you can not say, it came out of the margent, or, it was added falsely to the text. A…, Stand and hold fast the traditions, &c. by this2. Thess. 2. text we require that you graunt vsus traditions deliuered by word of mouth, as wel as the written word, that is, the Scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greeke word signifieth tradition, as plaine as possibly, but here and in the like places, we rather translate it, ordinances, instructions, and what els soeuer. Nay Sirs, say we, you can not so answer the matter, for in other places, you translate it duely, and truely, tradition: and why more in one place, than in another? They are ashamed to tell why, but they must tell, and shame both thom selues, and the deuill, if euer they thinke it good to answer this treatise, as also why they changed congregation, which was alwaies in their first translation, into Church, in their later translations, and did not change likewise ordinances, into traditions, Elder… into Priestes.
FVLK. 51. That the Thessalonians had some parte of Christian doctrine, deliuered by word of mouth, that is, by the Apostles preaching, at such time as he did write vntounto them, and some part by his Epistles, the text enforceth vsus to graunt, and we neuer purposed to denye: But that the Church at this daye, or euer since the newe Testament was written, had any tradition by worde of mouth, of any matter necessary to saluation, which was not contayned in the olde or newe Testament, we will neuer graunt, neither shall you euer be able out of this text, or any text in the Bible to proue. Make your Syllogismes, when you dare, and you shall be aunswered. But we knowe (you saye) that the Greeke word signifieth, tradition, as plaine as possibly, but here, and in like places, we rather translate it, ordinances, instructions, and what else soeuer. We knowe that it signifieth tradition, constitution, instruction, precept, also mancipation, treatise, treason.
For al these the Greeke Dictionaries do teach, that it signifieth. Therefore if in any place we hauehave translated it ordinaunces, or instructions, or institutions, we hauehave not gone from the true signification of the worde, neither can you euer proue, that the worde signifieth such a doctrine onelyonly, as is taught by worde of mouth, and is not, or may not be put in writing. But in other places you can tell vsus, that we translate it duely 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 neuer of counsaile with any that translated the Scriptures into English, and therefore it is possible, I can not sufficiently expresse what reason moued the translators so to varie in the exposition of one and the same worde. Yet can I yeelde sufficient reason, that might leade them so to doe, which I thinke they followed. The Papistes doe commonly so abuse the name of tradition, which signifieth properly a deliuerie, or a thinge deliuered, for such a matter as is deliuered onelyonly by worde of mouth, and so receaued from hande to hande, that it is neuer put in writing, but hath his credite without the holye Scriptures of God, as the Iewe had their Cabala, and the Scribes & Pharisees had their traditions beside the lawe of God,Irenaeus, lib. 3. c. 2. and the Valentinian Heretikes accused the Scriptures, as insufficient of authoritie, and ambiguously written, and that the truth could not be found in them by those that knewe not the tradition, which was not deliuered by writing, but by worde of mouth, iumpe as the Papists doe. This abusing of the word, tradition, might be a sufficient cause for the translators, to render the Greeke worde, where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the commaundement of God, by the name of tradition, as the worde is commonly taken. But where the Greeke worde is taken in the good parte, for that doctrine which is agreeable with the holy Scriptures, they might with good reason auoide it, as you your selfe doe not alwayes translate tradere, to betray, but sometimes to deliuer. So did the translators giuegive these words, ordinances, instructions, institutions, or doctrine deliuered, which doe generally signifie the same that tradition, but hauehave not the preiudice of that partiall signification, in which the Papistes vse it, who wheresoeuer they find tradition, straight way imagine they hauehave found a sufficient argument, against the perfection and sufficiencie of the holy Scripture, and to bring in all riffe raffe, and trishe trashe, of mans doctrine, not onelyonly beside, but also contrarye to the manifest worde of God, conteined in his most holy and perfect Scriptures. To the shame of the deuill therefore, and of all popish maintainers of traditions vncommaunded by God, this reason may be yelded.
Nowe to aunswer you why Ecclesia was first translated congregation, and afterward Church: the reason that moued the firste translators (I thinke) was this: the worde Churche of the common people, at that tyme, was vsed ambiguously, both for the assemblie of the faythfull, and for the place in which they assembled: for auoyding of which ambiguitie, they translated Ecclesia the congregation, and yet in their Creede, and in the notes of their Bibles, in preaching, & writing they vsed the word Church for the same, the later translators seing the people better instructed, & able to discerne when they read in the Scriptures, the people, from the place of their meeting, vsed the worde Church in their translations, as they did in their preaching. These are weightie matters that wee muste giuegive accompt of them▪ Why we chaunge not ordinances into traditions, and Elders into Priests, wee will answere when we come to the proper places of them. In the meane season wee thinke there is as good cause for vsus in translating, sometime to auoide the termes of traditions and prieste, as for you to auoid the names of Elders calling them auncients, and the wise men sages, as though you had rather speake French, than English as we do. Like as you translate Conside. hauehave a good hart after the french phrase, rather than you would say as we do, be of good comforte.
MART. 52. The cause is, that the name of Church was at the first odious vntounto thē, because of the Catholike Church which stoode against them: but afterward this name▪ grewe 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 shal be told in their seuerall chapiters and places.
FVLK. 52. I pray you, who translated first the creed into the English tongue, and taught it to the people▪ & for that cause were accounted heretikes of the Antichristian Romish rable? If the name of Churche were odious vntounto them, why didde they not suppresse that name in the creede, whyche they taught to yong and olde, and in steede of Catholike Church, call it the vniuersal congregation or assembly? Wel Dauus, these things be not aptely diuided according to their times. The firste translation of the Bible that was printed in the english tong, in very many places of the notes, vseth the name Church, & most notoriously in the song of Salomon, where before eueryevery other verse almost it telleth which is the voice of the Church to Christ her spous… ▪ which no reasonable man would thinke the translators would hauehave done, if the name of the Church had bene odious vntounto them, or that they thought the Catholike church stood against thē. Looke Thomas Mathewes Bible, in the Canticles of Salomon, & vponupon the 16. of S. Mathewes Gospell, the 18. verse, the wordes of Christ to Peter. Therfore your senseles imaginations, shewe no hatred of the Catholike Church in our translators, but cancred malice, and impudent follie in your selues.
MART. 53. To conclude, as I began, concerning their shiftes, and iumpes, and windings, and turnings eueryevery way, from one thing to an other, till they are driuen to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions, and false translations: consider with me in this one case onelyonly of traditions, as may be likewise considered in all other controuersies, that the auncient fathers, councels, antiquitie, vniuersalitie, and custom of the whole Church allowe traditions: the Canonicall Scriptures hauehave them, the Latine text hath them, the Greeke text hath them: onelyonly their translations hauehave them not. Likewise in the olde Testament, the approued Latine text hath such and such speeches, that make for vsus, the renowmed Greeke text hath it, the Hebrewe text hath it: onelyonly their translations hauehave it not.
These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful, and which shal be examined and discussed in this Booke.
FVLK. 53. By what windings and turnings I pray you are we driuen to that miserable refuge of palpable corruptions, and false translations? for hitherto you hauehave shewed none, but such as shewe your owne ignoraunce, or malice. Neither (I hope) you shal be able to shewe any, though you sweat neuer so sore at your work. Yes, I weene, this one case only of traditions, for so you seeme to say, if it be considered, wil discouer no lesse. It is meruaile, if for your sake, al the Greeke Dictionaries in the world must not be corrected, & taught to say, that foreign cā signifie nothing but a tradition, that is not written. But yet you rolle in your accustomed rhetorike, saying, that the antiēt fathers, coūcels, antiquitie, vniuersalitie, & custome of the whole Church allow traditiōs, & so do we, so many as be good & agreeable to the holie scripturs, but that there be traditiōs of matter necessarie to saluatiō ▪ not contained in the holie scripturs, whē you bring your fathers, Councels, &c. you shal receiue an answere to them. That the canonical scripture alloweth any traditions contrary to the doctrine therof, or to supply any want or imperfection therof, as though al things required to make the man of God perfecte, prepared to all good workes, were not conteyned in the Scriptures, you shall neuer be able to proue, although for spite against the perfection of the Canonicall Scripture, you should braste a sunder, as Iudas did, which betrayed the auctor of the Scripture. Finally, what so euer you say out of the old Testament, without proofe or shew of proofe, it is as easily denied by vsus, as it is affirmed by you. When you bring but only a shadow of reason, it shall sone be chased away, with the light of truth.