Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 14
CHAP. XIIII.
Hereticall translation against the holy SACRAMENTS, namely BAPTISME and CONFESSION.
Martin.
AN other sequele of their onelyonly faith is, that1 the Sacraments also helpe nothing towarde our saluation, and therefore they partely take them cleane away, partly depriue them of all grace, vertue, and efficacie, making thē poore and beggarly elements, either worse, or no better than those of the old law.
Fulke.
THat the Sacraments helpe nothing toward1 our saluation, is an other of Martins slaunders, no assertion of ours. For seeing wee holde that the Sacramentes are seales of Gods promises, to confirme our faith, by which we are iustified before him, how can we affirme, that they help nothing to saluation? But this is the propertie of hers and slaunderers, when they hauehave nothing of truth to charge their aduersaries, then they eyther inuent that which was neuer saide or done by them, or else they violently drawe out of their sayings or doings by deprauing them some colour of matter to serue for a shewe of their slaunders. So dothe our wrangler in this place after a flatte lie solemnely aduouched, against vsus, of that wee say, the Sacramentes giuegive no grace, Ex opere operato, of the worke wrought, he frameth his spiders webbe, first that wee depriue them, of all grace, vertue, and efficacie. Because wee doe not include grace, vertue, and efficacie, within the externall Elementes, or the ministerie of man aboute them, but ascribe the same to the mighty working of Gods spirite in his chosen children, which worketh all his giftes in all men according to the good pleasure of his owne will. Secondly that we make the Sacraments poore and beggerly Elements. And thirdly eyther worse or no better than those of the olde lawe. The spirituall matter in deede of the Sacramentes of both the Testaments wee confesse to bee Iesus Christe of equall power vntounto saluation of his people liuing vnderunder both the states: but the more abundant grace, and truth, according to the reuelation of Christ in the flesh, we acknowledge to be testified, and exhibited in our Sacraments than was in theirs that liued vnderunder the law.
MART. 2. For this purpose Beza is not content to speake as the Apostle doth, (Ro. 4. v. 11.) that circumcisionforeign. was a seale of the iustice of faith, but because he thinketh that, to small a terme for the dignitie of circumcision, as him self confesseth, he gladly auoideth it (I vse his owne wordes) and for theLibens refugi. Quod obsignaret, for, sigillum. Nowne putteth the Verbe, so dissolutely & presumptuously, that the English Bezites themselues here also dare not folow him in translation, though in opinion they agree. The cause of his wilful translation he declareth in his Annotations vponupon the same place, to wit, the dignitie of circumcision, equall with any Sacrament of the new Testament. His wordes be these. What (saith he) could be spoken more magnifical of any Sacrament? therfore they that put a real difference betweene the Sacraments of the old Testament and ours, neuer seeme to hauehave knowen how far Christs office extendeth. Which he saith, not to magnifie the old, but to disgrace the newe.
FVLK. 2. There was neuer man that had suche an artificiall coniecture of mens purposes as you pretende your selfe to hauehave, which not only where there is likelihood to fasten a coniecture vponupon, but also when all likelyhoods are against you, yet can so confidently pronounce of eueryevery mans purpose. Well let the purpose goe, whiche is knowen best to God, and nexte to them that will iudge of the man according to charitie and good reason. You say Beza is not content to speake as the Apostle doth, that circumcision was a seale of the iustice of faith. Yes verily, his desire is to expresse that which the Apostle saith to the full. The name of seale therefore he auoydeth not, as you falsely slaunder him, but for want of a conuenient Latine worde to expresse the Apostles Greeke worde, hee is content to vse circumloquution by the verbe, and sayth, Abraham receyued the signe of circumcision, whiche should seale vp, or by seale confirme the iustice of faith, &c. yet are not you ashamed moste impudently to say hee refused the terme of Seale sigillum, and for sigillum hath vsed quod obsignaret. Whereas the worde that he saith hee refused, is Signaculum. Signaculi nomen quod vetus interpres & Erasmus vsurpauit libens refugi, partim quod non sit admodum vsitatum, partim quod non satis videatur illam vim obsignationis declarare. The terme signaculum which the old interpretor and Erasmus hath vsed, I hauehave willingly refused: partely because it is no very vsuall worde, partely because it seemeth not sufficiently to declare that vertue or efficacie of sealing. You see therefore what word he auoydeth, & for what cause, & that vour eies were not matches, or else they were daseled with a mist of malice, whē you redde that he auoided Sigillum, and placed quod obsignaret for sigillum. The worde sigillum as he vseth not, so doth he make no mention of it, I thinke because it being a diminutiue of signum, and taken sometimes for a litle image, vnde sigillares, &c. it is not proper nor ful to expresse the Greeke worde foreign. That he maketh circumcision equall vntounto the Sacramentes of the newe Testament, I hauehave shewed before, that it is in matter, substaunce, and ende, whiche hee that confesseth not (as Beza saith) seemeth neuer to hauehave knowen howe farre the office of Christe extendeth: but that hee hath any purpose to disgrace the Sacraments of the new Testament instituted by Christ him selfe, in a more cleare dispensation of grace and truth, you affirme with the same credite by whiche you saide he put quod obsignaret for sigillum.
MART. 3. Which is also the cause why not only he, but the English Bibles (for commonly they ioyne handes and agree togither) to make no difference betweene Iohns Baptisme and Christs, translate thus concerning certaine that had not yet receiued the holy Ghost: VntoUnto what then were ye baptized?Act. 19. 3. And they said, vntounto Iohns Baptisme. Which Beza in a long discourse proueth to be spoken of Iohns doctrine, and not of his baptisme in water. As though it were said, what doctrine then doe ye professe? and they sayd, Iohns. Whereas in deede the question is this, and ought thus to be translated, In what then or wherein were you Baptized? And they said, in Iohns Baptisme. As who should say, wee hauehave receiued Iohns Baptisme, but not the holy Ghost as yet. And therefore it foloweth immediatly, then they were baptized in the name of Iesus, and after imposition of hands the Holy Ghost came vpō thē. Wherby is plainely gathered, that being baptized with Iohns baptisme before, & yet of necessitie baptized afterward with Christs baptisme also, there must needes be a great difference betweene the one baptisme & the other, Iohns being insufficient. And that this is the deduction which troubleth these Bezites, and maketh them translate accordingly, Beza (as commonly▪ still he vttereth his griefe) telleth vsus inAnno. in Act. …9. plaine wordes thus. It is not necessarie, that wheresoeuer there is mention of Iohns Baptisme, we should thinke it to be the very ceremonie of Baptisme. Therefore they that gather Iohns Baptisme to hauehave bene diuers from Christs, because these a litle after are said to be baptized in the name of Iesus Christ, hauehave no sure foundation. Lo▪ how of purpose he translateth & expoundeth it Iohns doctrine, not Iohns Baptisme, to take away the foundation of this Catholike conclusion, that his Baptisme differeth and is farre inferior to Christs.
FVLK. 3. And is Iohns Baptisme now made a Sacrament of the old lawe? was Iohn the Baptist a minister of the law, or of the Gospel? Our Sauiour Christ, is sufficient to teach vsus that the lawe and the Prophetes prophecied vntill Iohn: but frō the daies of Iohn the kingdomeMatth. 10. of heauen suffereth violence. But if you will make Iohns Baptisme a Sacrament of the new Testament, and yet differing frō the Baptisme of Christ, then you make two Baptismes of the newe Testament, contrarie to the Nicene Creede, and Christ him selfe, who was baptised for vsus, baptised with the worse. But concerning that place Actes the 19. which hath troubled so many interpreters with the obscuritie thereof, or rather with a preiudicate opinion of a difference in the Baptisme of Iohn and of Christ, I am neither of Bezaes opinion, nor yet of our translators, for the vnderstanding and translation of that place. Neither doe I thinke that mention is made of any second baptisme, the auoyding whereof, hath bred diuerse forced interpretations: but that S. Paule enstructeth those Disciples that knew not the grace of the holy Ghost, that they which heard Iohns preaching to the people, that they should beleeue in Christ Iesus, which was comming after him, were also baptised in the name of Iesus, Christ, who had graunted those visible graces of his holy spirite, to be bestowed vponupon them that beleued, by imposition of the Apostles handes. Thus therefore I am perswaded those verses are to be translated. But Paule sayde, Iohn truely baptised with the baptisme of repentance, saying to the people, that they should beleue in him, that commeth after him, that is in Iesus: & they which heard him, were baptised into ye name of our Lord Iesus. And after Paule had layd his handes vponupon, &c. The argumēt of difference thereof grounded vpō this place, is nothing worth▪ where the baptisme of Iohn is confirmed by imposition of handes, rather than disgraced by reiteration, which giueth strength to the errour of the Donatists, and Anabaptistes, for rebaptization. Whereas it can not be proued, that any, which were once baptised by Iohn, were euer baptised againe. But the contrary may easily be gathered: for seeing our Sauiour Christ baptised none him selfe, it shall follow that the Apostles were either not baptised at all, or els baptised onelyonly with Iohns baptisme. And where there is expresse mention of Iohns Disciples, that came vntounto Christ, to become his Disciples▪ there is no mention of any other baptisme than they had already receaued.
MART. 4. But doth the Greeke leade him, or force him to this translation, In quid? vntounto what? First him selfeforeign. confesseth in the very same place, the contrary, that the Greeke phrase is often vsed in the other sense, wherein▪ or, wherewith, as it is in the vulgar Latine, and Erasmus: but that in his iudgement it doth not so signifie here, and therefore he refuseth it. Yet in the very next verse almoste, where it is saide by the same Greeke phrase, that they were baptized in theforeign. name of Iesus Christe, there both he and his, so translate is as wee doe, and not, vntounto the name of Christe. Is it not playne, that all is voluntarie, and at their pleasure? For (I beseeche them) if it be a right translation, baptized in the name of Iesus: why is it not right, baptized in the baptisme of Iohn? Is there any difference in the Greeke? none. Where then? in their commentaries and imaginations onelyonly, against which wee oppose and set both the texte and the commentaries of all the fathers.
FVLK. 4. The Greeke dothe allow him so to translate, and to be Baptised in the name of Iesus, and into the name of Iesus is all one: as in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, or into the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, is al one. But if Beza that hath discouered the truthe in so many places, did not see it in this one texte, as neyther you nor any of the fathers whiche hauehave written vppon it, who are not many: hee is rather to bee pardoned of all reasonable men, than to be rayled vponupon by such one who in learning is no more like him, than a Goose to a Swanne in singing.
MART. 5. But no maruell if they disgrace the baptisme of Christe, when they are bolde also to take it awaye altogither:Ioh. 3. v. 5. interpreating this Scripture, Vnlesse a man be borne again of water and the Spirite, he can not enter into the kingdome of God, which a man would thinke were plaine ynough to prooue, that water in baptisme is necessarie: interpreating (IBeza in 4. Io. v. 10. & in Tit. 3. v. 5. say) this Scripture, Of water, and the spirite, thus: of water, that is, the Spirite: making water to be nothing else in this place but the Spirite allegorically, and not materiall water. As though our sauiour had saide to Nicodemus, Vnlesse a man be borne of water, I meane, of the spirite, he can not enter, &c. According to this moste impudent exposition of plaine Scriptures, Caluin translateth also as impudently for the same purpose in the epistle to Titus, making the Apostle to say, thatc. 3. v. 5. Per lauacrum regenerationis Spsancti QVOD effudit in nos abunde. God powred the water of regeneration vponupon vsus abundantly, that is, the holie Ghost. And leaste wee shoulde not vnderstande his meaning herein, hee telleth vt in his commentarie vppon this place, that whē the apostle saith, water poured out abundātly, he speaketh not of material water, but of the holy ghost. Now indede the apostle saith not, that water was poured vponupon vsus, but the holy ghost. neither doth the Apostle make water and the holy ghost al one, but most plainely distinguisheth them, saying that God of hys merciemercy hath saued vsus by the lauer of regenerationQuem effudit, as Beza himselfe translateth. and renouation of the holy Ghost, whom he hath powred vppon vsus abundantly. See how plainely the Apostle speaketh both of the materiall water, or washing of Baptisme, & of the effect thereof, which is the holy Ghost powred vponupon vsus. Caluin taketh away water cleane, and will hauehave him speake onlyComment. in hunc locum. of the holy Ghost, which Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran him selfe wondreth at, that any man should be so bold, and calleth it plaine sacriledge against the efficacie of the Sacraments.
FVLK. 5. The Sacrament of Baptisme, howe farre we are from disgracing, or taking it away altogither, when we affirme that the grace of Gods spirite, is not so tied vntounto it, but he may worke regeneration without it, in them that by necessitie are depriued of it, let all men of reason and indifferencie, iudge. Our translation of Iohn. 3. v. 5. being such, as he can find nothing to quarrell against it, hee beginneth a newe controuersie of our interpretation, by which he might bring in fiue hundred places of scripture, in which wee differ from them in exposition. And a great absurditie hee thinketh hee hathe founde out, in that we expound the water and spirite to signifie one thing: as though in Math. 3. v. 11. the holie ghoste, and fire, are not put both for one thing: and hee may as well in the one place, vrge the element of fire in the baptisme of Christe, as by this place prooue the necessitie of baptisme in water. And yet we take not awaye the sacrament of baptisme, or the water, the externall matter thereof, whiche in other places is expresly commaunded, when we say it is not spoken of in this texte, which is of the thing signified in baptisme, rather than of baptisme, as in Iohn. 6. our sauiour Christ speaketh in like termes of the thing represented in the sacrament of his supper, not of the sacrament it selfe. The errour of Caluines translation and exposition of Titus 3 v. 5. wee hauehave before confessed, neyther doth any of our translations followe him, and yet his error is no heresie, while he ascribeth wholy to the holie ghoste, that whiche properly is his, but yet of the apostle is figuratiuely ascribed vntounto the outward element, by which he worketh.
MART. 6. And if we shoulde heere accuse the Englishe translatours also, that translate it thus, by the fountaine of the regeneration of the holy Ghost, WHICH he shed on vsus, &c. making it indifferent, eyther which foūtaine, or, which holy Ghost he shedde, &c. they would answere by and by that the Greeke also is indifferent: but if a man should aske the further, whether the holy Ghost may be said to be shedde, or rather a fountaine of water, they muste needes confesse, not the holy Ghost, but water: and consequently that they translating, which he shedde, would hauehave it meante of the fountaine of water, and so they agree iust with Caluins translation, and leaue Beza, who in his translation referreth it only to the holy Ghost,Sp. sancti, quem effudit. as wee doe: but in his commentarie playeth the Heretike as Caluin doth.
FVLK. 6. When Aristides could be accused of no crime, he was by his enuious enimies accused of iustice. Euen so this man, who is wonte to prescribe vsus a rule, to leaue that in ambiguitie, whiche in the Greeke is ambiguous, nowe blameth vsus for translating so, as eyther Caluines, or Bezaes sense may stande with it. And al be it in all other places hee is content to make vsus Bezaes schollers: yet here because Caluine hath the worse parte, hee will enforce vsus to leaue Beza, and sticke to Caluine. Suche a force hath malice when it is settled in mans harte, that it carrieth him oftentimes headlong against him selfe. But seeing the holy Ghost, as the neerest antecedent is placed nexte before the relatiue, why muste wee needes confesse, not the holy Ghost, but water to be shedde vponupon vsus? Is any man so brutish, to beleeue the bolde surmises, what saide I, surmises? nay impudent, and contentious affirmations of this blind Bayard.
MART. 7. Of the Sacrament of penance I hauehave spoken before, concerning that part specially which is satisfaction: here I will onelyonly adde of Confession, that to auoide this terme (namely in such a place where the reader might easily gather Sacramentall confession) they translate thus, Acknowledgeforeign. VVhereof Cō fession is called in S. Cyprian & other fathers, Exomologesis. your faultes one to an other. Iac. 5. It is said a litle before, if any be diseased, let him bring in Priests, &c. And then it foloweth, Confesse your faults, &c. But they to make al sure, for, Confesse, say, Acknowledge: and for Priestes, Elders. What meane they by this? If this acknowledging of faultes one to another before death be indifferently to be made to all men, why do they appoint in their Cōmunion-booke (as it seemeth outIn the order of visitation of the sicke. of this place) that the sicke person shall make a special confession to the Minister, and he shal absolue him in the very same forme of absolution that Catholike Priests vse in the Sacramēt of Confession. Againe, if this acknowledging of faults be specially to be made to the Minister or Priest, why translate they it not by the worde Confessing and confession, as well as by, Acknowledging? and why is not this confessiō a Sacrament, where them selues acknowledge forgiuenesse of sinnes by the Minister? These contradictions and repugnance of their practise and translation, if they can wittily and wisely reconcile, they may perhaps in this point satisfie the reader. But whether the Apostle speake here of Sacramentall confession or no, sincere translators should not hauehave fledde from the proper and most vsuall word of confession or confessing, consonant both to the Greeke and Latine, and indifferent to what soeuer the holy Ghost might meane, as this word, acknowledge, is not.
FVLK. 7. Of the word of penance, and therevpō to wring in satisfaction, we hauehave heard more than enough: but that penance is a Sacrament, wee hauehave heard neuer a worde to proue it. But what say wee against confession? Forsooth Iames 5. wee translate foreign acknowledge your selfes. Why sir? dothe acknowledging signifie any other thing than confessing? you want then nothing else, but the sounde of confession, which among the ignoraunt woulde helpe you litle, whiche terme your Popishe acknowledging rather shrifte than confession. It is maruaile then that you blame vsus not, because wee say not, shriue your selues one to an other. A miserable▪ Sacrament, that hath neede of the sounde of a worde to helpe it, to bee gathered. But how I pray you, should the reader gather your auricular shrifte, or Popishe confession if the worde confesse your selues were vsed by vsus? I weene because the Priests are called in a little before. It is more than mough, if you might gaine your Sacrament of anealing by their comming in. But shrifte commeth to late after extreeme vnction. Well admitte, the Apostle forgotte the order, and placed it after, which shoulde come before, must wee needes hauehave Priestly confession proued out of that place? doth not S Iames say, cōfesse your selues one to an other, as he saith, pray one for an other? Then it followeth, that the Lay man muste shriue the Prieste, as well as the Prieste muste shriue the Laye man. And the Priest muste confesse him selfe to the people, as well as the people muste pray for the Prieste. But you hauehave an obiection out of the Communion booke, to proue confession to be a Sacrament, which appointeth, that the sicke person shal make a speciall confession to the minister, and he to absolue him, &c. Will you neuer leaue this shamelesse cogging, and forging of matters against vsus? The Communion booke appointeth a speciall confessiō only for them that feele their conscience troubled with any waighty matter, that they may receiue counsaile, and comforte by the minister, who hath aucthoritie in the name of God, to remitte sinnes, not only to them that be sicke, but also to them that be whole: and dayly dothe pronounce the absolution, to them that acknowledge & confesse their sinnes humbly before God. But hereof it followeth not, that this confession is a Sacrament, for by preaching, the people that beleeue, are absolued frō their sinnes, by the ministerie of the Preacher: yet is not preaching a Sacrament. A Sacrament must hauehave an outward element, or bodily creature, to represent the grace of remission of sinnes, as in Baptisme, and in the Lordes supper. But where you conclude, that sincere translators should not hauehave fledde the proper and moste vsuall worde of confession, you speake your pleasure, for the worde of acknowledging, is more proper and vsuall in the English tongue, than is the worde of confessing. And if you can proue any Sacrament out of that texte, beholde, you hauehave the Greeke and Latine vntouched and the English answereable to both: make your Syllogisme out of that place to proue Popish shrift when you dare.