Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 1 · Chapter 2
CAP. II.
Certaine notes about the vse, and translation of holy scripture, Sander.to be remembred of him, that shall read this booke.
Sander, prosessing that he followeth most, the vulgar Fulke.Latine translation, and lest the English Bible, because it almost neuer translateth any text well, whereof any cō trouersie is in these our dayes, taketh in hand to proue, many falsifications and wrong translations, in the onelyonly matter of the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloud. The first is Iohn the 6. ver. 27. foreign Operamini cibum permanentem, The true English were: worke the meate which carieth. The English bible turneth: Operamini, labor for. We labor (saith he) for that which we seeke, and … not; we worke that stuffe, which is present with vsus. This corruption the Sacramentaries hauehave vsed, because they doe not beleeue the meate which taryeth to be made really present, so that we may worke it by faith and bodie. This finall cause is falsely alledged, for we beleeue the meate that tarieth vntounto eternall life, to be made really present by faith, to them that receiue the sacrament worthily. Contrariewise, the papistes holde, that the same meate is receiued, where it taryeth not vntounto etetnall life, namely in the wicked. And concerning the corruption pretended, it is false: which Sander saith, that foreign signifieth alwayes to worke, that which is present, and not to labour or seeke for that which is absent: for saint Paul writeth, 2. Thessa. 3. ver. 10. foreign. Si quis non vult operar…: If any man will not labour, neither let him eate. EueryEvery man cannot worke that stuffe which is present, as in Sanders example of a Carpenter, working a peece of tymber, therefore, foreign signifieth to labour generally, either in seeking that which is absent, or in working that which is present. Wherefore this is a doltish distinction of doctor Sander, and a manifest corruption of the text, by leauing out such words as shewe the vanitie of this cauill, and ouerthrowe the difference of this distinction: For the wordes of Christ are these, speaking to the Iewes which sought him being absent, not because they sawe his miracles, but because they had beene filled with his breade. foreign: Labor ye, not for the meate which perisheth, but for the meate which abideth vntounto eternall life. foreign, is but once set downe, which must be referred as wel to the meat which perisheth, as to the meate which taryeth; but being applyed to the meate which perisheth, it cannot be turned, Worke not the meare which perisheth, as stuffe that is present, but Labor not or seeke not for it (as you doe) which is absent, therefore it must be so turned, as it may serue for both. And where as Sander saith, that this meat is not laboured for, because it is not sought out by our diligence, but giuen by Christ: it is a fonder reason, except you wil say that we must not labor for any good thinges, because all good thinges are the giftes of God. Finally, that you may see what a singular quarrelling, & vaine glorious person he is, to seeke a knot in a rush, you shal vnderstande yt the papistes themselues translate this place euen as ye great bible doeth: namely Heskins, as well learned a Papist as Sander: lib. 2. Cap. 2. of his popishe Parliament.
The second text which he pretendeth to be falsified, is ver. 57. of the same chapter: foreign Qui manducat me, & ipse viuet propter me. The true English is, He that eateth me, he shal also liue for me. The english bible readeth, he that eateth me, shall liue by the meanes of me. The best colour of his cauil, is that propter patrem, is translated in the same ver. For the father. Howbeit, seing foreign or propter, signifieth the efficient cause, there is no fraude in turning it, By the meanes of me, which is the same that is meant by, For me: and as I thinke was so turned by the translators, to shewe that, For the father, includeth not the finall cause, as it might seeme, but the eternall efficient cause of life. As for the cauillation, that a man may liue by meanes of him, which is absent, is altogether childish and ridiculous: for who can vnderstande him to be absent, which is eaten? The controuersie is not of the presence: but of the maner of the presence. But howe can the Papists digest this saying of Christ? He that eateth me, shall liue by me, or for me, when they affirme that wicked men eate him, which liue not by him, for this is generally true of all that eate him, and not to be restrayned to them that eate him worthily. For the Sacrament in deede, may be eaten vnworthily, but Christ himselfe, is not eaten, but where he giueth life.
The 3. corruption obserued by Sander, is vers. 58. of Iohn. 6. foreign: Qui manducat hunc panem, viuet in aeternum: The true English were, He that eateth this bread, shall liue for euer. The Bible doth english it, He that eateth of this bread. The adding of this word, Of▪ may be the Printers fault: for many translations reade without Of. But seeing Sander confesseth it is a true saying, he that eateth of this breade, vsed by Christ before, verse 51. heere can bee no corruption, or falsification prooued. As for the distinction, which Sander maketh, betweene, eating Christ, and eating of Christ, eating his flesh, and eating of his flesh, is friuolus and vaine: for none eate of him, but they which eate him. Yes (saith he,) Of him we may eate, without the Sacrament, but him selfe wee properly eate, onelyonly vnderunder the forme of breade. Howe vntrue this is, you may see by this argument: None can hauehave eternall life, except they eate Christ and the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloode: But manie hauehave eternall life, which eate not the Sacrament: Therefore manie eate Christ, and the fleshe of Christ, which eate not the Sacrament. Ioan. 6. ver. 53. & 57.
The 4. falsification is, in S. Matth. 26. foreign. Cùm accepisset Iesus panem, & gratias egisset, fregit, & dedit discipulis, & ait. The true English is, Iesus hauing taken breade, and giuen thankes (or blessed) brake and gaue to the disciples, and saide. The common Bible readeth: Iesus tooke breade, and when he had giuen thankes, hee brake it, and gaue i… to the disciples. The holy scripture saieth not, that Iesus brake it, neither that hee gaue it, but that hee brake and gaue. Againe in saint Marke saint Luke, and saint Paul, fiue times putting the particle (it) which is neither in the Greeke, nor in the Latine Bible. Who woulde thinke, that an auncient man would play the boye so kindly? What say you Sander, is not the particle (it) added, neither in Greeke nor Latine? When the accusatiue case is once set downe, and then followe transitiue verbes, is it the phrase of the Greeke or Latine tongue, to adde the particle it? You say he brake and gaue, but not brake it, nor gaue it. Will you teach vsus a newe Grammer, that fregit and dedit be verbes newters absolute? Or if you wil say they bee verbes actiue transitiues, lest the wilde Irish boyes, that goe to the Grammer schoole, should hisse at you, as you goe about your popish and trayterous commission, I would wish some young Redshanke ladde to oppose you, and aske you, what hee brake, and what hee gaue? If hee brake not and gaue not it, which hee tooke. If you say, hee brake his bodie, and not the breade, because you say, he so gaue his bodie, that hee gaue no breade, aduise your selfe, howe you will aunswere the breaking of Christes body, which was but once broken for vsus on the crosse, but yet not broken into seuerall peeces, as that thing, whatsoeuer you will call it, was broken which hee gaue to his disciples. And this vndoubtedly you meane, when you say, The wordes of saint Matthew, doe not all stande in order, in so much as Christ said: the wordes of consecration, before hee brake the sacrament, or gaue to his disciples. And doe you nowe complaine of Saint Matthewe for disordering ye words? Verily saint Marke, saint Luke, and saint Paul, place the wordes in such sort as saint Matthew doeth. And if all these Euangelists, and Apostles, doe set the words out of order, whence come you, that will take vponupon you to set thē in order? HaueHave you other places of scripture to proue this pretended inuersion of order? And if you had, hauehave you forgotten, what you did write euen nowe in the preface; that if there bee any obscuritie founde in the wordes of the supper, there is no other part of scripture that can cleere them? But standing of the wordes out of order, and that in euerie one that rehearseth them, must needes make vncerteintie and obscuritie, yea this standing, or not standing out of order, may decide a great parte of the controuersie: for if the wordes were spoken after he brake and gaue, then he brake and gaue breade. And seeing the placing of the wordes in all the Euangelistes, and saint Paul fauour this opinion, you shall not easily prooue the contrary against so manie faithfull and prudent witnesses, which had a care to place the wordes in such order, as they shoulde giuegive no manifest occasion of heresie by disordering them.
The fift corruption is in saint Luke 22. and Saint Paul, 1. Corinth. 11, foreign Hoc facite, the truest English were, make this thing. The fullest, doe and make this thing. The common Bible readeth, in Saint Luke, this doe. In saint Paul, This doe yee. And that which is most abhominable of all, in the homily of the sacrament, it is translated, doe ye thus. This great abhomination, if in any booke it bee so founde, is but the Printers faulte, although in sense there bee no great difference. But seeing foreign and facere signifieth to doe, as well as to make, what corruption or falsification can there be when it is translated To do? As for Sanders fullest translation, by doing, and making, is most absurde. For when a word hath two significations, no wise translator will render them both, but onelyonly that, which is most proper for the place, and doing is here more proper then making. For though it sounde not absurdly, in Sanders blasphemous eares, when hee saieth: doe this, is all one as if he had said, make this my body: yet yt the body of Christ should be properly said to be made, by mē, which was once made in ye wombe of the virgin, by ye holy ghost, in all godly mens minds, it is both absurde and blasphemous. And that the word facite, is to be translated by doing, and not by making, it is euident by this, that S. Paule referreth it to the whole action of the supper, 1. Cor. 11. foreign &c. This doe, as often as you shall drinke it, in my remembrance: &c So doth S. Cypryan manifestly lib. 2. Ep. 3. Caecilio. Quòd si & à domino praecipitur, & ab apostolo eius hoc idem cōfirmatur & traditur, vt quoties…un que biberimus, in commemorationē domini, hoc faciamus, quod facit & dominus, inuenimur non obseruari à nobi… quod mandatum est, nisi eadem quae dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus: Et calicem pari ratione miscentes, à diuino magisterio non recedamus. If then it be commanded by ye Lord, & the same thing is confirmed and deliuered by his Apostle, that so often as we drinke, we should doe this thing in remembrance of our Lord, which our Lord himself did, we are found that we do not obserue that which is commanded, except we also doe the same thinges which our Lord did. And ministring the cuppe after the same manner, we depart not from his diuine teaching. Last of all Heskins the papist, and other likewise before this Momus translate it as we do. Hesk. lib. 2. ca. 42 Where he cauileth that our translation omitteth the word Thing, it is without all shadowe of reason, for by This, what can be vnderstood, but, this thinge? And seing our English Pronown This, doth aptly answere the Greeke pronowne foreign, what neede is it to adde the worde, Thing, which is not expressed either in the Greeke or in the Latine?
The sixt falsification is affirmed to be in S. Luke, and Saint Paul Luke, 22. 1. Corinth. 11. foreign, In meam commemorationem. The true English were, For the remembrance of me, or To the end I may be remembred. The common bible turneth, in the remembrance of me. A strange quarell, if a man could vnderstande it. A thing (sayth he) may be donne best in the remembrance of a man, when the man is first remembred, and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him. And may not a man be firste remembred and afterward a thing don for the remembrance of him? Or would Sander, that Christ should not be thought vponupon, before he see the Masse cake lifted vp, which he saith is made for the remembrance of him? For thus he fantasieth that Christ should say: When my body is made by the preist, and lifted vp to be adored, and all the people taught to bow downe to the body of Christ, and to come with pure conscience to receiue it, then Christ is remembred, by reason of his body made: and so the scripture is fulfilled which sayth, do and make this thing for the remembrance of me. If this be the fulfilling of the scripture, then was it not fulfilled for more then a thousand yeares after Christ, vntill eleuation and adoration of the sacrament were decreed. And then is it not fulfilled in any priuate Masse, where none of the people receiue, nor yet be taught to receiue it. Where he saith, that Christ can not be remembred by eating of bread & drinking of wine, as the Sacramentaries would hauehave it, so effectually, and with such contrition, confession, and satisfaction, as he requireth, but by folowing of his crosse and death, by penance, by humilitie, by confessing our finnes to his ministers, and taking absolution of them: I answere, the Protestants require not only eating and drinking, but preaching of the Lords death, repentance, fayth, louelove, and reuerence in the receiuers: as for the rest of popish trumpery, when he can shewe that Christ required, or the Apostels vsed, we will gladly admit it. In the meane time let the readers iudge, how this later kind of remembrance, can be learned out of the former, which I hauehave set downe in his owne wordes, of making, lyfting, adoring, &c.
Beside these great corruptions, there are other two small faults, in S. Paul. The first, 1. Cor. 10. that foreign is turned, the partaking, where it should be, the communicating of the body & bloud of Christ. This he counteth a lesser fault, because the Catholike Latine translation, in one place calleth it participatio, a partaking: which is (saith he) when parte of a thing is taken, and not the whole. I thinke the translatour vsed the word of partaking, because it is better knowen to English mē, then the terme of communicating: Especially, seing the Apostle vseth both termes indifferently, as one. For in the next verse, he saith, foreign: The vulgar Latine is, Omnes qui de vno pane participamus: All wee which do partake of one breade: And speaking of them which did eate the Sacrifices of Israelites, of which, eueryevery one did not eate the whole, he saide they were foreign, communicators of the altar. And them that take part of the sacrifice of the Gentiles, he calleth foreign, communicators with diuels. And returning to the Christians, he sayeth: foreign. You cannot partake of the table of the Lorde, and of the table of diuels. Wherefore in that translation, there is neither falsification, nor corruption, great or small. The last fault is, 1. Cor. 10. in the place by mee cited: wee all partake foreign, which should de Englished of the one bread. For such strength hath the Greeke article foreign, & sometime the cō mon bible turneth the Greeke article into That. What say you, Sander, hath the Greeke article such strength alwayes? If you say so, you wil be thought to be a simple Grecian. If only sometimes, you must shewe better reason then you do, why it hath such strength heere, or els the Englishe translation is good inough. For by the outwarde signe which is the partaking of one bread, the Apostle proueth the spirituall coniunction of all the faithfull in one body, and vseth not the name of bread siguratiuely, for that which Christ calleth the bread of life, &c. And vntounto this translation, agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying: The gift that is offered perteyneth to al the people, quia in vno pane omnes significantur: per id quod enim vnum simus de vno pane nos omnes sumere oportet: because in one bread they are all signified: for in that we are one, we ought to receiue all of one bread. Of the same iudgment is Hierom vponupon the very place, saying: Omnes quidem de vno pane, & de vno calice participamus. We all partake of one bread & of one cup. The like is Chrysost. & all the old writers in a maner. You see what shamelesse cauilling, & racking he vseth, to make a shewe of corruption in the English Bible, against which his malice is so great, that he chargeth not the translators, but the English Bible to hauehave turned, to hauehave falsified, to hauehave corrupted, as though that if there were any iust fault to be founde in ye translation, the English Bible should beare the blame for it, and be despised of all English men. God be thanked, that although it may not be denyed, but some faultes hauehave and may escape the best translations, yet the translators hauehave a cleere conscience from falsifying, and corrupting, and the faultes are not so great, that any pernitious errour may be grounded on them, nor so many by a thousand partes as are in that Latine translation, which the Papistes admit, as onelyonly Catholike & authenticall.