Gods Effectual Calling, Treatise · Chapter 23
CHAP. XXIII. Of the tranſlation of the Bible into the mother tongue.
IT remaineth now that we ſpeake of ſuch editions and tranſlations as be in the vſuall mother tongue. I vnderſtand that tranſlation to be in the mother tongue, which is done in that language, which is vulgar & common among the people of that countrey, whoſe language it is; as the Dutch, Italian, French, Engliſh, Scottiſh, and Spaniſh tranſlations, &c. We may moue three queſtions of theſe tranſlations. Firſt, whether it be lawfull to tranſlate the ſacred Scripture into eueryevery mother tongue. Secondlie, whether the leiturgie or common prayers of the Church ought to be in the mother tongue. Thirdly, whether it ſhal be lawfull for the common people to read the ſcriptures tranſlated into their owne language or mother tongue.
To the firſt queſtion we anſwer, that it is lawfull, yea alſo that it is expedient it ſhould be ſo: and this we proue by ſome few arguments. Firſt, the ſacred ſcriptures muſt be read publiquely before all the people: therefore muſt they be tranſlated into their owne known language: for otherwiſe it were in vain to read them. The antecedent is proued Deut. 31. ver. 11. 12. The Lord commandeth that the books of Moſes be read to all indifferently, when they were aſſembled, Men, Women, and Children with the ſtrangers. Ier. 36. chargeth Baruch the ſcribe, that hee ſhould read before all the people the book which he had Tranſlating of the ſcripture into the vulgar tongues. Firſt argument.written from his mouth. But ſome will heere obiect, that this precept was to indure but for a time. I anſwer, the end ſhewes it muſt be perpetuall, Deut. 31. The end being this, that this people may heare, learne, and feare the Lord. This end is perpetuall, therefore ſo is the law in like manner, ſpecially ſeeing that the reading of the Scripture is the ordinarie and neceſſarie meanes whereby we be to come to this appointed end. So the antecedēt being thus cleered, it followeth neceſſarily that the ſcripture muſt be tranſlated into our knowne mother tongue.
Arg. 2. The people are permitted to read ye Scriptures: Second argu.therfore they are to be tranſlated into the vulgar tongue: for otherwiſe the common people could neuer reade them. The antecedent I proue thus. The Sacred Scriptures do furniſh vsus with weapons againſt the Deuil, as we be taught by Chriſts example, Matth. 4. who gaue Sathan the repulſe, vſing none other weapons againſt him but teſtimonies of Scripture. Ioh. 5. chap. Chriſt commaunded the multitude to ſearch the ſcriptures. Acts chap. 17. the Chriſtians of Beroea are commended for ſearching the ſcriptures, whether the points were ſound and good, & agreeable to the ſriptures, which were taught by the Apoſtles. But ſee more of this antecedent in the handling of the 3. queſtion.
Arg. 3. The very Papiſts graunt, the ſcriptures may be read before the people; but they ſay it muſt be done in an Third argu.vnknowen tongue: wherefore, I reaſon thus. If the ſcriptures muſt be read before the multitude in an vnknowen tongue, that ſhall be fruitleſſe, and without all edification: therefore they muſt be tranſlated into their knowen language. The Antecedent is prooued by, 1. Corin. 14. 6. If I ſhal come vntounto you ſpeaking in tongues, what ſhal I profit you. q. d. nothing. And after in the ſame Chap. ver. 19. I had rather ſpeake fiue words with my vnderſtanding, that I might alſo inſtruct others, then ten thouſandwords in a ſtrange tongue. But of this point more hereafter.
The fourth argument: God requires in his people wiſdome, knowledge, and inſtruction: Therefore the ſcriptures Fourth argu.muſt be read, and therefore tranſlated into the vulgar tongues. The antecedent I prooue thus. Deut. 4. God wil hauehave his people to be wiſe & of vnderſtanding, that the nations round about hearing of this, might bee ſmitten with an admiration, and ſay, ver. 4. Only this people is wiſe, and of vnderſtanding, and a great nation. The Apoſtle, Col. 3. 16. will hauehave Gods worde to dwell in them richly, or plenteouſly. Paul in his Epiſtles eueryevery where requires the Churches to whom he writes, to be filled with all knowledge. The aduerſaries contend and diſpute much againſt this knowledge which God requires in the common people.
The fift argument. Chriſt while he liued among the Iewes, ſpake and preached vntounto them in their owne mother Fift argu.tongue: The Apoſtles of Chriſt in like manner did preach the Goſpell in their vulgar tongue, as in the day of Pentecoſt, and after; and for this very cauſe, that they might ſpeake to eueryevery nation in their owne knowen language, that gift of tongues was giuen them. Thus then I reaſon; If to preach the Goſpell in the vulgar known languages, was no profanatiō of the Goſpell; then ſo in like maner, to write the Goſpel in the vulgar known languages, is no profanation of the ſame: for there is like reaſon of both.
The ſixt argument is from the perpetuall vſe and practiſe Sixt argu.of all the auncient Church. For in the Primitiue Church, the ſacred Scripture was tranſlated, neere hand into all languages, as the Chaldiac, the Syriac, the Arabian, the Armenian, the Egyptian, the Ethiopian, the Indian, the Perſian, the Scythian, the Sarmatian tongue. There are not a few do auouch this; aHomil. 1. in Io.Chryſoſtome, *De corrigend. Graecorum Affectib lib. 5.Theodoret, cDe doctr. Chri. lib. 2. cap. 15.Auguſtine, with others. And at this day there be extant the Chaldiac, the Syriack, the Arabick, the Egyptian, and the Ethiopian tranſlations; all which the learned ſay, were done in the Apoſtles times. Chryſoſtome turned the ſacred Scripture into the Armenian tongue, as Sixtus Senēſis reporteth. Ierom trāſlated the ſcripture into the *Lingua Dalmatica.Dalmatick tongue, as theſe men do teſtify; Alphonſus a Caſtro, Eckius, Hoſius, Eraſmus. Methodius tranſlated it into the Sclauonian tongue, as ſaith Auentine in his Chronicle. *Socrates tripartita hiſtoria.Vlphilas Biſhop of the Gothes, tranſlated the ſame into the Gothes language. *De ciuitate Dei lib. 15.Auguſtine writeth that the old Teſtament was tranſlated into Syriack. Harding againſt Iuel, and Eckius write that the Muſcouites, and the people of Ruſſia had the ſcripture in their owne mother tongue. The hiſtorie of England written by Beda affirmeth, that the ſcriptures were tranſlated into the Engliſh tongue before his time. Beda ſaith, he tranſlated part of the new Teſtament himſelfe. Thus far the practiſe of the old church, whereby as by the reſt of the arguments afore going, it followeth, that the ſacred Scripture is to be tranſlated into eueryevery countrey vulgar language.
Now it reſteth to ſee what the Papiſts anſwer to this queſtion we hauehave in hand. Some few yeares paſt they vtterly denied that the ſacred Scripture might bee tranſlated into any mother tongue. *De choris canonicis.Petrus Aſoto, Cenſura Colonienſis, and Harding before named, theſe write that ſome are of this iudgment: The Scriptures are not to be tranſlated into the vulgar languages. And for this cauſe ſuch as tranſlated Scriptures, they were baniſhed and condemned by the Pope: and their bookes were prohibited and burnt. And when they ſaw this to be odious to all men, theſe graue Fathers changed their minds, and now forſooth they auouch the Scriptures may be tranſlated into the vulgar languages, yet by the Popes permiſſion. And this, albeit it ſeeme to be ſomething diuers from the former aſſertion, yet in effect it is the verie ſame. For the Pope will permit no man to doe this, but to ſuch a one as ſhall turne all the corruptions which are to be found in the old Latine edition into the vulgar tongue, and ſo recommend the ſame to poſterity. This is Bellarmines iudgment, and the Rhemiſts. But we auouch the contrarie, to wit, that eueryevery godly, learned man, skilful in the tongues, may tranſlate the Scripture without the Popes permiſſion: yea, albeit he prohibit the ſame. And that it ſhall bee lawfull for the Church of Chriſt, to accept of the ſame tranſlation after examination, albeit the Pope giuegive none authoritie nor approbation hereunto. For in the ancient Church, when the authoritie or tyrannicall iuriſdiction of the Pope was vnknowne, the tranſlations before ſpecified, were both done and receiued of the Churches without the Pope. And thus farre of the firſt queſtion.
It followeth in the ſecond place, whether the Leiturgie or common prayers of the Church, are to be celebrate in a knowne tongue? I meane the publike ſeruice or worſhip of God in eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies: as the publike prayers, the reading of the Scriptures, the adminiſtration of Sacraments, ſinging of pſalmes, &c. Theſe be called by the name of *foreign.diuine ſeruice. To the queſtion we anſwer affirmatiuely, that this publike ſeruice of God is to be done in the vulgar tongue. Our firſt argument, we take from the 1. Cor 14. where, from the 6. ver. to the 21. the Apoſtle teacheth, that nothing is to bee done in the Church in an vnknown & ſtrange language. But Bellarmine excepteth ſaying, that in that chapter the Apoſtle vnderſtandeth principally, a collation & exhortation, which in the old Church followed after the publike prayers: and to this end he ſheweth out of *Apolog. 2. Note the order of the old Church on the Lords day.Iuſtin Martyr, the cuſtome of the old Church. The Chriſtians aſſembled on the Lords daies, and firſt, the Scriptures were read: then after this, the chiefe miniſter of the place preached: after this the Sacramēts were adminiſtred: laſtly, they did vſe conference of diuine arguments, or of godly queſtions. I anſwer, the Apoſtle here intreateth generally of all eccleſiaſticall duties, and that in this order; firſt, ye hauehave a general doctrine from the ſixth verſe to the fourteenth. Next, there followeth a ſpecial inſtruction how prayers muſt bee conceiued, how to ſing pſalmes, not in an vnknowne tongue, but in a knowne or common language, to the ninteenth verſe. After this, he returnes to his generall doctrine againe.
Bellarmine excepteth againe, that Paul here ſpeaketh of ſongs, which in that meeting they ſung, which were endued with ſome extraordinarie gift of the holy Ghoſt. I anſwer, the Apoſtle diſtinctly nameth prayers & ſongs: againe, he ſpeaketh of thoſe prayers and thankſgiuings, whereunto the people did anſwer, Amen: now the people did not anſwer Amen, but to the publike prayers: wherfore he meaneth here publike prayers conceiued in the diuine adminiſtrations, in the publike aſſemblies.
Bellarmine againe obiecteth: The publike prayers at Corinth were in the Greeke tongue, a ſpeech wel known to the people, and that the Apoſtle knew: and therefore If in Greeke, not in Latine.there was no need to preſcribe any ſuch rules for their diuine ſeruice. I anſwer, albeit it be graunted that the common prayers, &c. at Corinth were done in the knowne mother tongue; yet it followeth not but that the Apoſtles doctrine is generall, of all Eccleſiaſticall offices to be done in the publike aſſemblies. Next, it is moſt like, that there were at Corinth ſome which had the gift of tongues, which abuſed it to vaine oſtentation, euen in the publike adminiſtration, and that is it which the Apoſtle taxeth in that Chapter. And thus farre of the firſt Argument.
The ſecond is of the ſame Apoſtle, in the ſame chap. v. 6. If I ſhall come vntounto you ſpeaking with tongues, that is, vnknowne Argument. 2.tongues, what ſhall I profit you? Hence I conclude, the publike worſhip of God muſt be not in an vnknown, but a knowne language. Bellarmine anſwereth, that hee which adminiſtreth the publike prayers in an vnknowne tongue, ſhall profit others: for it is ſufficient that God vnderſtand him: And this he goeth about to cleare by a ſimilitude: Like as (ſaith he) if a man ſpeake for a ruſtick or rude man, ignorant in the Latine tongue, in Latine to the king, this ſhall ſuffice if the king vnderſtand him, to conferre any benefit by the king vponupon the ſame ignorant perſon. I anſwer, what is this els but to ſay, that the publike adminiſtration doth profit the people by vertue or merit of the worke done, albeit in the meane time the Opus operatum.people be without faith & knowledge of the true God: but of this in place appertaining.
The third Argument is of the ſame Apoſtle in the ſame chap. verſ. 11. He that ſpeaketh vntounto mee in a ſtrange 3. Arg.tongue, ſhall be as a Barbarian: therefore the publike adminiſtration of the word and Sacraments, and of all Gods worſhip and ſeruice muſt be in the vulgar and knowne tongue. Bellarmine anſwereth, that hee which ſpeaketh Hebrue, Greeke, or Latine, albeit he bee not vnderſtood; yet is he not to be reputed as a Barbarian, becauſe theſe tongues be not barbarous: but if he ſpeake in anie other language, he is to bee accounted barbarous. I anſwer. If the ſpeaker (who ſpeaketh in theſe tongues) be not vnderſtood, he ſhall be to him that vnderſtandeth him not, as barbarous. For ſo the verie Poet auoucheth it of himſelfe, When, ſaith he, he was in exile in Pontus, he complaineth, that albeit he ſpake Latine, yet hee was accounted of thoſe ſtrangers as barbarous:
Barbarus hîc ego ſum, quia non intelligor vlli.
And when it was obiected to Anacharſis the Philoſopher at Athens, that he was barbarous: he anſwered, The Athenians are Barbarous vntounto me.
The fourth Argument is of the ſame Apoſtle in the 4. Arg.ſame chap. ver. 16. When thou bleſſeſt with the ſpirit, to wit, ſpeaking in an vnknowne tongue, how ſhall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned ſay Amen, at thy thankeſgiuing; ſeeing he knoweth not what thou ſayeſt? Whence it followeth neceſſarily, that all publike prayers and ſeruice of God, muſt be done in the knowne vulgar tongue. Bellarmine anſwereth, that it ſufficeth, if ſome of the people vnderſtand and anſwer Amen: yea, it ſufficeth, if he whō they call the Clarke, ſay Amen for the people. I anſwer, this was not the cuſtome of that old ancient Church, which neuer knew what a Clearke meant.
My fift Argument is of the ſame Apoſtle in the ſame 5. Arg.chapter, verſ. 40. Let all things in the Church be done decently, and in order: But if ye Miniſter ſhal pray in an vnknowne tongue, and the people ſhall conceiue other prayers differing from the Miniſters: then ſhall the Miniſter in the publike congregation hauehave his prayers, and eueryevery one of the people his owne prayers alſo, and not the ſame with the Miniſter. What good decencie can be in this, when the people are ſo diuided in prayer, which in the publike aſſemblie ſhould offer vp with one mind, and with one mouth, one and the ſame prayer vntounto God?
The ſixt Argument is from a point which Bellarmine himſelfe yeeldeth. He granteth that the publike adminiſtration 6. Arg.of prayers, &c. at Corinth, were done in the known Greek tongue: wherfore then may not all other Churches in the like manner hauehave their Leiturgie in the vulgar knowne language? What can he anſwer heere, but this happily, that the publike adminiſtration at Corinth was done in the mother tongue, not for that it was the vulgar tongue, but becauſe it was Greeke: for Papiſts giuegive the Greeke tongue (when they pleaſe) ſome prerogatiue.
The ſeuenth Argument is from another point which 7. Arg.Bellarmine graunteth. The Collations (as himſelfe ſpeaketh) and the exhortations ought to be done in the mother tongue: wherefore in like manner may not the publike adminiſtration of Gods worſhip be done in the mother tongue beſt known to ye people? He anſwereth, that the reaſon is not the ſame of the collation & ſeruice; For (ſaith he) the collations tend to the inſtruction and conſolation of the people: but the publike ſeruice principally concernes Gods worſhip. I anſwer, Doth not all the people worſhip God in the publike adminiſtration or ſeruice of God, and therefore ought they not to worſhip God in a knowne language, if they wil worſhip their God in faith?
The 8. Argument is from the practiſe of the old and beſt Church. In elder ages, ſo manie tranſlations were done principally to this end, to celebrate the publike ſeruice of God, and that herein the Scriptures might bee read to eueryevery man in his owne knowne mother tongue. *Lib. de origine Bohemorum.AEneas Syluius writeth, that to Cyril & Methodius it was permitted, that the people of Morauia ſhould hauehave their common prayers in the mother tongue. And at this day the people of Armenia, AEthiopia, Egypt, and the Muſcouites hauehave their common prayers in their known tongue. Here Bellarmine anſwereth, all theſe are heretiques. I ſay they be no more heretiques then Papiſts. Aſſuredly as touching publike prayers, I had rather be in this hereſie with them, then with the Papiſts, as they thinke, to meane well. And thus for our iudgement in this matter.
The Aduerſaries ſay, that the publike prayers may not be in a knowne tongue, but in Hebrue or Greeke, as in the Eaſt and Greeke Churches; or in the Latine tongue, as in the Latine and Weſt Churches. The arguments they produce for this purpoſe, be firſt from the prerogatiue of tongues: the firſt is this, Chriſt in the title of his Croſſe, gaue honour to theſe three languages, therefore publike prayers ought to be done in theſe. I anſwer, albeit wee graunt the antecedent, the conſequent will not follow: yea rather we may infer the contrarie. The Lord would hauehave the cauſe of Chriſts death to be manifeſted to all people in thoſe languages, which then were beſt known: which cannot be denied of the Greeke and Latine: therfore publike prayers ought to bee done in the vulgar tongues, and knowne to the people.
The 2. Arg. Theſe three tongues Hebrue, Greek and Latine are of greateſt excellencie, antiquitie & authority▪ therfore the common prayers and ſeruice of God ought to be done onelyonly in theſe tongues. I anſwer. Grant the Antecedent be true, yet the fequele is not good: for that verie gift of tongues, which was giuen the Apoſtles in the feaſt of Pentecoſt, plainly proueth, that eueryevery toong, be it neuer ſo baſe, is ſanctified of God for holy vſes, and Note.for the execution of publique and eccleſiaſticall offices and ſeruice vntounto God.
The 3. Arg. The Scriptures was originally written in theſe three tongues: therefore the publique prayers ought to be done in theſe only. I anſwer, firſt, the Antecedent is falſe: for neither the whole Scripture, nor anie part thereof was written firſt in the Latine tongue. For whereas they ſay, Saint Marks Goſpell was firſt written The Papiſts ſay Saint Marks Goſpe… was firſt written in Latin.in Latine, it is falſe: but of this point elſe where. Next, I anſwer, that it will not followe of that Antecedent, that publike prayers ſhould be ſayd in vnknowne tongues; but rather the contrarie followeth: for that whereas the Scripture was firſt written in theſe two tongues, Hebrue and Greeke, for this very cauſe, for that euen then, and in thoſe times, theſe two languages were moſt common, and beſt knowne to the people: hence it followes rather, I ſay, that the publique prayers ought to bee in the moſt common and beſt knowne tongues.
Thus farre we hauehave heard of arguments drawne from the prerogatiue of tongues: now follow arguments from the practiſe and vſe of the Church. The firſt here is this: From Ezra vntill Chriſt the Scripture was woont to bee read in the Church of the Iewes in the Hebrue tongue, that is, an vnknowe tongue: Ergo publike prayers may be ſaid in an vnknowne tongue. I anſwer. I grant the Scriptures were read in the Hebrue tongue: but I denie that this was an vnknowne tongue. For Nehem. 8. it is very cleare, that the ſacred Scripture which Ezra read in Hebrue, was vnderſtood by the people which were preſent and heard it. Whereupon the contrarie conſequent muſt follow: The Scripture was read in the Church of the Iewes in elder ages in a known tongue: therfore it muſt be read at this day in popular and knowne tongues.
The ſecond Argument is from the practiſe of the Iewiſh Synagogue of theſe times. To this day (ſaith hee) the Scripture is read in the ſynagogue of the Iewes in the Hebrue tongue: therefore publique prayers muſt be celebrate in an vnknowne tongue. I anſwer. The Argument followes not from the euill example of the ſynagogue of the Iewes; for that this reading of the old Teſtament in an vnknowne tongue, is the cauſe wherefore ſo manie of them hold backe, and will not be conuerted to the faith of Chriſt.
The third argument is from the practiſe of the primitiue Church. In the primitiue Church the publike prayers were ſaid in one of theſe 3. tongues: therfore the concluſion followeth. I anſwer, the Antecedent is falſe, for that, as hath beene before ſhewed, in the time of the old Church, yea in the verie dayes of the Apoſtles, the Scriptures were tranſlated in a manner into all languages.
The fourth Argument is from the continuall practiſe of the catholike Church: for in it the publique prayers were euer either in the Greeke or Latine tongue. I anſwer, if by catholike Church, they meane the Church of Rome, then I weigh not the example and practiſe thereof: but if by this word they meane the true catholike Church, then it is cleare alreadie by that which is before deliuered, that the Antecedent is falſe. And thus farre of theſe Arguments taken from the practiſe and vſe of the Church.
To the former Arguments, they adde more from a finall cauſe: The publike adminiſtration of Gods ſeruice and worſhip being performed of all or moſt Churches in one tongue, to wit the Latine, this might ſerue well for the preſeruation of the vnitie of faith. To this I anſwer, this ſerues notably for the continuance and increaſe of vnbeleefe and ignorance. Againe, our verie experience teacheth (by Gods good bleſſing in theſe times) that notwithſtanding the great variety of tongues in the reformed Churches, yet they agree well (to God be praiſe) in the vnitie of faith.
Next, they reaſon from the little good which hence enſueth, as they imagine: It profits the people nothing at all that the Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongues: for they vnderſtand not any ſentence of Scripture, albeit they know the words? To this I anſwer: Euerie one of the vnlearned, if they come to heare the Scriptures with Gods feare and reuerence, they ſhall reape and receiue ſome profit by it.
Againe, from another danger which may happen, they reaſon thus: The reading of the Scriptures in a knowne tongue may more hurt then profit the people: for deuotion hath rather decreaſed then increaſed, ſince publike prayers or ſeruice of God hath beene celebrated in popular tongues. I anſwer, the conſequent is not good: The ſacred Scripture read in the mother tongue hurts manie; therfore it is not ſo to be read at all: becauſe accidentally, and through the default and corruption of the people, it hurts, and profits not. So the preaching of the Goſpell is the ſauour of death vntounto death vntounto manie; therefore the Goſpell is not to bee preached. Furthermore, be it knowne that this is no religion, nor true pietie, which is ſo coupled with ignorance, but a damnable ſuperſtition, when as the ſacred Scriptures are read, and prayers adminiſtred in a ſtrange and vnknowne tongue. Thus far theſe three Arguments from the finall cauſes and effects.
Againe, they reaſon from an inconuenience, firſt, on this wiſe. If the ſcriptures muſt bee read in the vulgar tongue, then tranſlations muſt bee renewed in eueryevery age: for auncient words weare out of vſe: and this is inconuenient. I anſwere, what loſſe is it, if tranſlations be reuiſed and renewed in eueryevery age? for the whole tranſlation needes no renuing, but ſome words which happily are become obſolete and out of vſe.
Againe, an other euill which might follow this concluſion is this. The Pope vnderſtandeth not all vulgar tongues: But the publique prayers muſt be celebrate in a language which the Pope knoweth: Ergo. I anſwere, it is not neceſſarie that prayers be in that tongue which the Pope knoweth. This they proue *Vne conceſſo errore mille conſequuntur.becauſe he is the vniuerſall Biſhop: And this I deny alſo. Wherefore there is no domage ſhal follow, if publique prayers be contained in a language which the Pope knoweth not. And thus far the 2. queſtion.
The 3. queſtion followeth: whether it is lawfull for the lay people, as they call them, or the vulgar ſort, to read the holy ſcriptures? We auouch that it is lawfull for eueryevery one, euen of the baſeſt of the people to read the holy Scriptures. For this point ſee Deut. 6. Chap. & 11. c. and 17. c. Ioſh. 1. c. and 10. c. 5. Search the Scriptures, ſaith the Lord Chriſt. Acts. 17. the men of Berea ſearched the Scriptures, and for this cauſe are commended by the holy Ghoſt. Matth. 4. The example of Chriſt (who reſiſted the Deuill with no other weapons, but of the ſcripture) teacheth vsus that the ſcripture miniſtreth vntounto vsus ſuch a furniture, as eueryevery man muſt be prouided of to withſtand Sathan in his aſſaults againſt vsus. Laſtly, this is prooued by the practiſe of the Church: For wherefore were the ſcriptures in the old church tranſlated into ſo many popular languages, but that they might be read & vnderſtood of the people? And this is our iudgement in few words. What ſay the aduerſaries? Some yeares paſt they taught it was not lawfull at all for any of the common and lay people (as they vſuallie tearme them) to reade the holy Scriptures. Afterwards when they ſaw how odious Vide Cenſuram Colonienſem.this was, they changed their minde: and now forſooth they ſay, it is lawful to read the ſcriptures, but with conditiō if it be permitted: permitted, I ſay: of whom? They anſwer, by the Pope, his Biſhops, or inquiſitors. I demaund: what, of theſe only? They anſwer, not of theſe only, but of them with the aduertiſemēt of the pariſh Prieſt or confeſſor. Well, I vnderſtand who be to permit the reading of the holy ſcripture: now I aske, to whom is this permitted? They anſwer, not to all indifferently, but only to ſuch as the pariſh Prieſt, whom they call the Curate, ſhall well diſcerne, both by their confeſſion, and by their whole cariage of their life, to be a true Catholick, that is, a ſtubborne or ſtiffe-necked Papiſt. I ſee then to whom they yeeld thus far the reading of the ſcriptures. I demand in the next place, what tranſlations be allowed them? They anſwer, they will not hauehave them to read all tranſlations indifferently, but ſuch only as ſome Catholicks hauehave publiſhed, ſuch as at this day, the Engliſh Rhemiſh tranſlation of the New Teſtament is.
Thus far briefly of that permiſſion, which hath ſo decreed the condition of this libertie of reading the ſcriptures. And this is their meaning according to the decree of Pius Quartus the Pope, which decree is confirmed alſo by the councel of Trent, & commended by the Rhemiſts, in the preface of their Engliſh tranſlation. And this is Bellarmines iudgment; who differeth in words only a little from the former popiſh aſſertion, but in matter and purpoſe is the ſame in effect: for what difference is there, if there be no permiſſion at all, & to be thus permitted with ſuch a condition, as is aforeſhewed?
And thus of the 3. queſtion, and as touching the controuerſies which are moued at this day, concerning holy ſcripture, I remember not any that we hauehave left vntouched. We hauehave therefore ſpoken of the word of God, which is the word of both couenants: as alſo of the ſacred ſcripture, which is a certaine meane, wherby it pleaſed God to manifeſt his word and wil vntounto men. It reſteth now that weſpeake of ſinne, and of mans miſerie.