A Defense of the Holy Scriptures, Part 5
OF THE LXXII. INTERPRETERS.
HEre †Differene pag. 10.M. Smyth before he proceed further, takes up an accusation against the Church of Israel, who in the dayes of Ptolomee Philadelphus King of Egypt, and at his request sent 72. learned Iewes to translate the Hebrue Bible into Greek before the Apostles time almost 300. yeares. This their translation (sayth M. Smyth,) was a grevous syn.
1. For that the covenant of grace ought not to have been preachedThe 1. reason. vntounto the gentiles til the fulnes of time Mat. 10. 5. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Rom. 16. 25. 26. with Mat. 10. 5. 6. & 28. 19. and therefore that the Lxx. by their translation did communicate it to the Graecians, before the fulnes of the time, was their greevous syn.
I answer in the behalf of Israel; First, by M. Smythes divinity,Answer. the Church of Israel *Charact. of the B. pag. 16.was a carnal people, had a carnal covenant or promise of carnal things, &c. how is it then that he chargeth them here with profaning, the covenant of grace? and how wil this agree with his grounds of Anabaptisme?
Secondly, by his divinity also, the scriptures and reading of them, is the mimistration of the letter 2 Cor. 3. 6. that is of death & damnation; as *pag. 32.before hath been handled. How then could the litteral translation & reading therof, be the ministerie or covenant of grace? the ministration of death, was fit ynough for the Gentiles that were to die. Or, did it kil them before the tyme?
Thirdly I deny his collection from those scriptures against this action: for although the fulnes of time was not yet come, that God would send preachers with the power of his spirit, to convert all nations: yet followeth it not herevpon, that no gentile, no nation, (no not though they desired it, as King Ptolomee desired the Bible;) mought have the truth imparted unto them. There is no such law made of God; nay the cōtrarie is playne. For, 1. ther were many strangers, Aegyptians & others that went out with Israel to the Land of Canaan, not forbidden nor debarred of grace with Israel, Exod. 12. 38. nay the law admitted any stranger to circumcision & the passeover, & so to the covenant of grace, Exod. 12. 48. 49. 1 Cor. 5. 7. 2. The Gibeonites which were of the worst sort of hethens, devote to destruction, yet obteyned merciemercy with God, to be in the covenant of his grace. Josh. 9. 27. 2 Sam. 21. 1. 2. 5. &c.
3. There were also in Solomons time 153. thowsand and 600. strangers, none exempted from partaking with Israels mercy.
4. God gave his law to be read even unto strangers also, Deut. 31. 12. so far vvas he from vvithholding grace, if any sought it.
5. And solomōd dicating the tēple prayed even *1 King. 8. 41. 43.for strāgers, that dvvelt in far countries, (vvho mought vvhen they heard of Gods name, come thither and pray in that house) that they even all people of the earth mought know Gods name, & fear him as did his people Israel. All vvhichwhich do shevv the untruth of M. Sm. collection, that it vvas a syn for Israel to impart the scriptures and covenant of grace to the gentiles.
Because all the Gentiles ought to have been Proselytes of the Iewes Church, and to have come to Ierusalem to worship, Exod. 12. 43. 49.The 2. reason. Mat. 23. 15. Act, 2. . 10. and ought to have learned their tongue and worship, which was prevented by the Lxx. translation.
First, this reason enterfeireth vvith the former; for, if all oughtAnsvver. to have beene proselytes: hovv might not the covenant of grace be preached vntounto them? Could they be converted vvithout the vvord of the covenant? Here the accuser of the Saincts hath †Prov. 26. 27.rolled a stone, which is returned unto himself.
Secondly, their conversion vvas not hindered but furthered by the Greek translation; for many novv might read and hear of Gods name, enquire after his truth and finding it, come to Ierusalem, and learn that tongue, if they could. So yet the seventie are not found in syn, vvhichwhich helped men to righteousnes.
Because the Hebrue characters and writings were ceremonies, and soThe 3. reason. ought not to have been prophaned among the Grecians by their wr…ings &c.
Whether the characters were ceremonies or no, the LXX. are innocentAnswer. of this blame; for they wrote the bible to the gentils in the Greek characters, syllables, words, sounds &c. and not in Hebrue. If M. Smyth make the substance of the scripture a ceremonie, that is a shadow to be ended and abolished at Christs coming, it is †Rō. 15. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19a wicked error. Or if he make the characters ceremonies in that sense, it is erroneous: for the Hebrues converted to Christ may & ought to read the Hebrue scriptures in the Church, as they were wont in their synagogues. The profaning and abusing of the translated scripture was in deed a syn, in al that so did: so was it if any Israelite or stranger profaned the Hebrue. Yet Hebrue copies might goe abroad, notwithstanding the danger of profanation, how much more the Greek? The personal synns of some, may not hinder the publik good. Otherweise, at this day bibles should not be printed and commonly sold, because atheists and profane people may buy and abuse them. The scriptures are as much to be reverenced now, as ever they were; although M. Sm. hath laboured their disgrace.
If it were unlawful to sing one of Davids Psalmes in a strange nation as Babylon,4. Reason. Psal. 137. 4. then much more unlawful was it to translate the scriptures into a strange tongue: for the ceremonial law was bounded within the holy land.
If at this day Turks captiving Christians should ask in scorn andAnswer. mockage to sing some spiritual song for them to laugh at, I doubt not but we should answer them as the Iewes did the Babylonians; & not expose Gods word to derision. But if any would hereupon infer, it were syn to translate the scriptures into vulgar tongues, M. S. himself *pag. 17.would condemn him: like mesure must be meted to himself, for these frivolous reasons.
The scriptures were not ceremonies, (though there was some figurative use “Heb. 9. 19of the book of the law,) but if they had been, yet this is an error in M. Smyth. to bound them within the holy land. For circumcision was a shadow, (or as he calleth it, a ceremonie) yet did they it in Babylon, and many shadowes moe. And for the scriptures, who doubteth but the Iewes had and used them in Babel, which was out of the holy land: Yea some of the scripture was written and sent to Babylon, as Ier. 29. 1. &c. some written in Babylon, as the prophesies of Ezekiel and Daniel, Ezek. 1. 1. &c. and some written in the Babylonian language, and not in Hebrue, as Ezra. 4. 7. 8. &c. Dan. 2. 4. 5. &c. Wherfore if any Babylonian would have sought for God, the scriptures should not have been deneyed him.
The translation &c. is contradictorie to the Lords mercy to the5. Reason. Iewes Church, and their special privileges. Psal. 147. 19. 20. Rom. 3. 1. 2. Act. 10. 28. and 22. 1. 2. 3. 4—18. Eph. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Act. 13. 46. 47. 48. Rom. 16. 25. 26.
This reason is in a manner the same with the first, and soAnswer. before answered.
The Iewes privileges even then appeared, that the Gentiles must have the instrument of mercy, the scriptures from them. And that God gave them this not for themselves onelyonly, but also for the Gentiles occasionally, is before proved. Generall mercy I know there was not, as is now under Christ.
Peters fact was caled in question, about conversing and eating with them, being uncircumcised, Act. 11, 2. 3. not for letting them partake of the privilege of Gods word: for it was permitted the Gentiles to hear the word read and preached in the synagogues, as appeareth Acts. 13. 42. 44. 46. 48. And how was it contradictorie to Gods mercy to the Iewes, when his prophets wrote some of the scriptures in the hethens language: as did Daniel and Ezra, which are mentioned before.
Because that seeing the Hebrue writings were ceremonies, it was6. Reason. unlawful for the Septuagint to change them from their proper kind, and to picture them out by the Greek writings for the Greeks use.
Here agayn is a repetition of the third reason, refuted before:Answer. and if he wil he may make it twentie; by a little change of the words. But the weight of the argument is shewed to be too leight: and Greek writings for Greeks use, was no more unlawful, then Chaldee writing for the Chaldeans use; which the LXX. had learned by Daniels example, if no way els.
Because the LXX did of purpose concele many things, as iudging the Gentils7. Reason. unworthy to know them fearing also least they should profane such holy mysteries, wherein their consciences told them plainly that their translation was syn. Also they did pervert many things of purpose, add somthing, and infinitely corrupt their translation, which was their greevous synn.
This last reason seemes to come from M. Smyths gealousAnswer. head, or surmising hart: and it is overthrown by himself. For a little after he †pag. 14.sayth, it is manifest by histories that the LXX. translation is lost; and this that goeth under the name of the LXX. is a patcherie made out of ancient writings. If this be so, how knowes this accuser, that they infinitely corrupted their translation? seeing he never saw their work, which long synce is lost? Belike he thought it might be so; and therfore he wrote it was so. If he make not better proof of this his heighnous charge; al men may see whose sonne he is, that so calumniateth the saincts: & readeth without book not onelyonly their infinite errors, but what their consciences told them also.
His inference hereupon, that the Apostles would never account so synful a translation to be holy scripture coming from the holy Ghost, nor approve the use of it in the Greek churches; This faleth with his weak reasons: there being no such greevous syn proved against the Greek translation: but rather we may judge it a blessed work of God, that hereby brought many Gentiles to be proselytes, and prepared them for the receiving of the gospel. Albeit I deney not but errors were in the translation, some of which as occasion was, the Apostles in their writings did amend. And whereas he further sayth, there could be no use of the LXX translation for reading in the latine church of the Romans. I answer, First if there was use of it, in the Greek churches onelyonly: it is ynough to warrant like use of translations in al churches, in what tongue soever. Secondly, there could be use of it even in the church of Rome, where the Greek tongue was commonly known before the Apostles time, as †Orat. pro Archia.Tullie testifyeth, and the poets *Omnia Graece. Iuvenal. Sat. 6taxed the people for it. And if they understood not Greek, is it likely that Paul would have written his Epistle to the Romans in Greek, as he did? seeing he misliked speaking (and consequently writing,) in an unknown tongue. 1 Cor. 14. 6. 18. 19.
M. Sm. having spent his strength, (though in vain) to heap syn upon Israel for translating the bible: “Diff. pag. 11.procedeth unto arguments against reading translations in time of worship. Where first I wil give the reader advertisement, how contrary this enemie is to himself: and then I wil come to his frawd against the truth. Of the scriptures set over into other languages, commonly caled translations; he thus affirmeth †pag. 12.A translation is as much and as truly an humane writing, as the apocrypha (so commonly caled) writings are. Againe he sayth, Translations are not the pure word of God, and so contrary to Eccles. 12. 10. Mat. 15, 9. Agayn, *pag. 10.that translations of scripture, and written sermons upon the scripture, are equally humane in respect of the work, equally divine in respect of the matter they handle. These and the like blasphemous opinions he sought to infect our church withal, for which he was resisted: these laboured he by word and writing to confirm, with sophistical reasons, the pillars of al heresie. Yet even in this same book, he pulleth down this his former uncouth building; it being the nature of error, as the “Pro. 14. 1.foolish woman, to destroy her howse with her own hands. For afterwards he writeth thus, †Dif. p. 17.The translation agreable to the originals, is a secondary scripture, yet much inferiour to the originals. So then it is not apocryphal, unlesse he use a fallacie in this word scripture: for we understand hereby (as Christ *Joh. 5. 39himself did) holy scripture, inspired of God: as 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. It may be read (sayth he) in the church, and sung in tunes. Then (say I) it is not as the apocryphal (so commonly called) writings are: for their very name signifying hidden, teacheth that they are not to be read in the publik church. Jt may (sayth he) be expounded in the church. But so (say I) may not homilies be, nor apocryphal writings. And if M. S. in his synagogue doe read and expound such scriptures to his people, he maketh thē with himself notorious idolaters. Exod. 20. 4. 5. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Eccle. 12. 10. The matter of it (sayth he) agreable to the originals, is inspired to weet, of God. But the matter (say I) of the Apocryphal books, as Iudith, Tobie &c. though exactly translated, is not inspired vnlesse of the Divil; for lyes and fables are in them both, the translations I mean, and the original Greek copies. Jt may be made a ground of our faith (sayth he) and an instrument to try doctrine by. Then is it (say I) not apocryphal but Canonical: for it is made a †Gal. 6. 16.canon, that is, a rule of our faith and walking. But far be it that humane apocryphal writings should have such vse in the Church of God▪ Wil M. Sm. ground his faith upon this, that ther are *Tob. 12: 15.seven holy Angels, which present the prayers of the Saincts; and that lying Raphael, (of the kinred of “Tob. 5. 12Azarias,) is one of them? wil he ground his faith upon this, that †Tob. 6. 16, 17.the smel of the hart and liver of a fish perfumed on the coles, wil so drive away the Divil, that he shal never come againe any more? or wil he have his disciples to try their religion by such crooked instruments? no marvell though they be led with him into the ditch, when they try his doctrine by that which they professe to be as much and as truly an humane writing, as the Apocrypha (comonly so called) writings are. For it argueth that eyther they use the Bible but for a shew and colour, (seing they esteme so vily of it:) or else that they honour the base borne apocrypha, as inspired of God. Which is the very syn & snare, that they have sought to bring upon us.
Now let vsus examine his arguments.
1 Thes. 5. 21. Try all things, keep that good thing. But no man ignorant1. Argument. of the tongues can trie whither the translation be fit or good: & therfore no man ignorant of the tongues, can strictly keep or read a translation in time of worship.
Here first M. Sm. striking at the translation, mysseth that, andAnswer. hitteth onelyonly the ignorant reader of it: for if one have skil of the tongues, & know it to be truely translated; this reason maketh nothing against his reading, but for it. So M. Sm. playes the sophister, to argue against a holy thing, because of the ignorances & infirmities of some men. He mought thus have cavilled against reading the law in Israel; that no man blind of sight (as was “1. King. 14. 4Ahijah the prophet) could trie whither the original scriptures were truly written or not.
Secondly, if he proceed further as he hath begun, hereafter he may come with like reason thus: Try al things, keep the good thing: but no man ignorant of the tongues, can trie whither the interpretation of scriptures which the minister giveth in preaching the word, or any text that he allegeth in his doctrine be fitt or good; then mind what conclusion the Divil wil make hereupon, in a simple mans conscience: to draw him to doubt of, and consequently to forsake and despise, not onelyonly al reading, but also preaching of the word, because he being ignorant of the tongues, cannot judge or trie whither that which is read or taught be true; according to the original scriptures. And thus he falleth into the snare of Satan, which Mr. Sm. here hath set in secret.
Thirdly, this reason overthwarteth that which elsewhere the man granteth; that the †pag. 17.translation may be made the ground of our faith and an instrument to try doctrine by. This being so, how dooth Pauls counsel (Trie al things &c.) make against translations?
Rom. 14 23. 1. Tim. 1. 4. - 7. Heb. 11. 6. whatsoever cōmeth not fromThe 2. argument faith is syn. but no man ignorant of the tongues can of faith use the translation, seing he cannot examin it whither it be good or bad; and so beleve or refuse it. Therefore it is not of faith in him, and so it is syn for him, to use it before the eye in time of worship.
Like sophistrie and impietie is in this argument as in the former;Answer for it concludes not the thing unlawful in it selfe, but onelyonly in him that is ignorant of the tongues; and his faith, it seeks to shake. For ther is no faith without *Rom. 10. …Gods word, and where to have this word he cannot tell. If it be set over from the originals to his mother tongue in writing, he cannot trie whither it be good or bad: if the Minister translate or interpret it by voice, the poor man is as much uncertain, or more, whither the teacher speak true or false. Thus can he neyther read nor hear of sayth, if M. Smyths engine once take him: But eyther he must look for enthusiasmes, or revelations from heaven; (vvhichwhich some Anabaptists have dreamed of;) or els, he faleth to profanenes or desperation. And it is not M. Sm. distinction of worship properly so called, that here vvil comfort the troubled sovvl; for he must doe †Rom. 14.▪ 23. Heb. 1…al, especially his ecclesiastical & religious actions of fayth, and not his proper vvorship onelyonly. Yea the serpent wil build more on this rotten foundation, and assault him also that hath skil in the tongues and trouble him, saying; though thou hast knowledge of Hebrue and Greek, yet hovv canst thou tel vvhither this that thou readest, be the pure vvord of God? There be many *Tit. 1. 14Ievvish fables and humane “Mar. 7. 8. 9—11.traditions, that have been vvritten in Hebrue, and in Greek also: and vvhither God spake or vvrote these things, as novv thou readest them, thou knovvest not: and therfore canst not of faith make this book a ground of thy religion and vvorship. And if thou vvilt credit M. Smyth, loe he telleth thee, that †Dif. p. 14.as Antichrist hath polluted al Gods ordinances, so hath he violated the original scriptures. Do not thou therfore build thy fayth upon the scriptures any longer; but beleev that which M. Smyth and his like, shal prophesie out of their harts, for so he *Dif. p. 5.sayth, holy men prophesied before Moses time: (and indeed so some prophesyed “Eze, 13. 2in Ezekiels time, though they vvere blamed for it:) & †Diff. p. 4.books are in the nature of pictures and images, and therfore ceremonies, and reading a book is ceremonial; and †pag. 22.reading Prophesies in the time of the law, was a type of prophesying: and *pag. 5.reading the words of the law out of the book, signified the lettering of the words of God out of the hart: and “pag. 6.Christ fulfilled the law of reading, and shut the book in the synagogue, to signifie that the ceremonie of book-worship or ministerie of the letter was now exspired and finished: and now †pag. 18.the worship of the new testament must proceed originally from the hart and spirit. Wherfore lay aside the scriptures, and hear what men shal prophesy out of their harts; orif that like thee not, exspect thou revelations and visions from heaven. Thus M. Sm. as a *Hos. 5. 1.snare on Mispah, & a net spred upon Tabor, hath layd in his book such a groundwork against the script▪ as fitteth the Divils purpose to intāgle mens sovvls; although to deceive the birds withall, he hath strewed some wheat at the mouth of the pit, as, that translations may be made the ground of our faith, & an instrument to trie doctrine by: &c. so breathing out of one mouth, both hot and cold.
Argument. 3.A translation made verbatim from the originals is absurd by reason of the difference of the dialects, & therfore unlawful seing it edifieth not, 1 Cor. 14. 26. a translation paraphrastical or a paraphrast if it be lawful in time of worship to be read then why not a written sermon.
Answer.These are but blocks, to make the blind stumble. Gods word may be set over into English, for the most part word for word without absurditie: and where our language wilnot bear the strict proprietie of the original phrases; we are warranted by the Apostles allegations of scriptures in an other tongue, to use such words as the language wil affoard, to expresse the other withall. Though tongues differ one from another in proprietie of speeches: yet God hath sanctified them all, for instruments to convey his word and law unto us; and this in writing as well as in speaking. Dan. 2. 4. &c. Act. 1. 4. 8. 9.—11. & 15. 23. Rev. 1. 11. 19.
Written sermons are the works of men: Gods book set over into English, though with some diversitie of phrase, is Gods book and word stil; for (as hath been shewed) it is not the letter or sound, but the thing signified & meant by them, which properly is Gods word, and which we are so to reverence. But M. Sm. having granted that the translation may be read in the Church, made a ground of our faith &c. and now asking why a written sermon is not also lawful in Gods worship: eyther alloweth humane writings to be read in the Church, as wel as Gods writings translated, which is a notable error; or els he cavilleth against the truth, contrary to his cō science: And in his reasoning, dealeth like a false coyner; who because the gold of the common wealth is not so fine perhaps, as the gold of *Job. 28. 16.Ophir or †Dan. 10. 5.Vphaz: sayth to the merchant, if such course metal may be taken for mony; then why not brasse or copper?
A paraphrast, commentarie or exposition upon a chapter which conteynethArgument. 4. more of the contents of the originals and the holy Ghosts meaning is vnlawful to be read in time of worship: therefore a translation of a chapter which conteyneth lesse, is unlawful also to be read in time of worship.
First by Mr. Sm. grownd layd in the “pag. 1.beginning; a paraphrase,Answer. comment or any humane writing, may be used in the administration of Christs kingdome, in like sorte as the scriptures; which is erroneous. Secondly he addeth more to his error, in teaching here that a cōmentary hath more of the contents of the holy Ghosts meaning then the text it self in English or othertrāslatiōs. His cōclusiō therfore bringeth forth vanitie, and ¶Iob. 15. 35.his belly hath prepared deceit. No cōmentary in the world made by an ordinarie man, conteyneth the meaning of God, so as the text it self in a faithful translation of the book or chapter dooth. Thirdly, Mr. Sm. confesseth that †pag. 17.the matter of the translation agreable to the originals is inspired: but not the writing or character. If the thing written be inspired of God, then is it canonical scripture, 2. Tim. 3. 16. then not apocryphal nor an humane work, as a commentarie: then conteyneth it more of the contents of the originals, then any mans exposition. As for his exception of the writing or character, it is but vanitie: for the Apostles had the matter of their writings by inspiration, frō God: as for the writing or character, that was not inspired▪ but Gods word was written in such characters, words, phrases, as the hethen Greeks, philosophers and Poets, had used long before.
Argument 5.Lev. 22. 22. Mal. 1. 8. 13. 14. Mat. 22. 37. Rō. 12. 1. 2. Ps. 119. 45. & 103. 1. God wil be served with the best we have. But ther is no one translation the best we hav, seing the Lord may in time of worship, minister better to him that administreth, if he understand the originals; if he understand not the originals he hath it not at all, for it is an other mans work; and therefore no one translation written may be read in time of worship.
M. Sm. is like one of them that †Ezek. 13. 18.hunteth the sowles of Gods people; setting reasons as hayes to intangle. No one translation Answer.(sayth he) is the best we have seing the Lord may in time of worship minister a better: as good a reason against reading the translated scriptures▪ tures, as if he should have sayd unto an Israelite, no one sheep of thy pasture is the best thou hast: seeing the Lord may in time of worship minister a better, (as he did the ram *Gē. 22. 13to Abraham:) therfore no one sheep of thym may be offred for sacrifice Mal. 1. 8. Nay his reason against translations hath not so good a colour as this: for it is certaine that God once ministred a ram to Abraham for sacrifice; but it was never heard that God so ministred an other translated book to read, then that which was brought to be read. The gift of interpreting or expounding by voyce, is of an other kind, and not properly reading, wherof we intreat. But let us follow M. Sm. in his circle, & see whither he wil lead us. No translated bible may be read in Gods worship, for God may minister a better: what then? shal I bring the original bible & look on that, exspecting what interpretation God wil give me to speak: seeing I may not read? Not so neyther (sayth M. S.) “Diff. p. 6.the holy original scriptures are not to be reteyned as helps before the eye in time of spiritual worship: So then neyther is that the best sacrifice yet, but I must exspect the Lord to minister a better. If neither the translated bible nor the original be the best: where then is the word that is best to be read or uttered to the people? In a mans owne hart: that must be the book out of which M. Sm. wil have Gods lavv to be read in his vvorship: al other books are as images and ceremonies, abolished, & ended by Christ. Though he plead here against translations, colourably; yet he aimeth at Gods book generally, even as his holy Prophets and Apostles vvrote it. But the vvickednes of this engine is before discovered. Also for translations this further I say; the scriptures in English are the best for to read unto English eares; better then eyther Hebrue or Greek, which they cannot hear. And seeing it is needful the scriptures should be read; the translation is best. Yet so, as no Christian is tied to the words of the book, but if he know any error in print or tralation, or any better words to expresse Gods mind; he is to do all things for the best unto the church; giving the sense togither with his reading, as the practise was in Israel, Nehem. 8. 8. But he that withdraweth corn, the people shal curse him, †Pro. 11. 26sayth Solomon: how much more deserveth this mā the curse of Gods people, that hath sought to withdraw from them in al their publik worship, the whol scriptures and book of God, whereby the true corn and bread of their sovvles, is broken unto them.
Deut. 16. 16. 1 Chro. 21. 24. Eph. 4. 8. Rom. 12. 3. we must worship God withArgum. 6 our own, not with another mans: with that which cost us somthing, not with that which cost us nothing. But for one ignorant of the tongues to read the translation and offer it to God, is to offer to God an other mans labour not his own, that which cost him nothing, but is an other mans cost, therfore it is unlawful.
Al vvisdoms vvords †Pro. 8. 9.are playn and straight; but M. Smyths areAnswer. rough and crooked. Who ever said before, that men read translations and offred them to God? He mought as vvel have sayd, vve minister the sacraments unto God. For if he mean, the last end is the glory of God: so is it of al a Christian mans actions. Did Paul vvhen he *1 Thes. 5. 27.charged that his Epistle should be read unto al the brethren the saints, mean they should read and offer it unto God? Or had it been for them to except (as this man here cavilleth) we must worship God with our own, not with an other mans, with that which cost us something, not with that which cost us nothing: but this Epistle cost us nothing, it is another mans cost and paynes: therfore it is unlawful to read it, and offer it to God. If this reason had been ridiculous in them, vvhy they vvould not read Pauls Epistle: even so is it here in M. Smyth, for vve read the bible (vvhichwhich is Gods Epistle “Rō. 15. 4.unto us,) in no other manner, nor to no other end then they read Pauls letter vvhichwhich vvas part of †2 Pet. 3. 16.holy scripture) in the church, and the book costeth us as much, as that cost them. And David vvhichwhich vvould not *1 Chro. 21 24.offer burnt offrings wtihout cost: vvould he not read, or be at the reading of the book of the lavv in the church, because it cost him nothing, “Deut. 31. 9—13.but had been vvritten by Moses, and freely given unto Israel? Never vvas ther heard more childish sophismes. But vvhat if a man translate a book or chapter or text himself and vvriteth it: this is his ovvn cost, I think: & then he may read and offer it to God, or els M. S. cavilling is litle vvorth.
Reading a translatiō is not cōmanded, nor was ever practised by Christ, theArgum. 7. Apostles, or primitive churches in time of worship, & so being devised by mā, is the account of vain worship Mat. 15. 9. and wil-worship Col. 2. 23. and so a kind of idolatrie, and therfore the translation is self before the eye in time of worship an idol, and so hath a curse denounced against the use of it in time of worship. Rev. 22. 18. Exod. 20. 4. 5.
Though they curse, yet thou wilt blesse, sayth *Psa. 109. 28.David to GodAnswer. against his enemies: and so say I against this adversary, who curseth the reading of the scriptures, as a wil-worship; which God “Rev. 1. 3.hath blessed: so maketh he himself by his blasphemie, a †2 Pet. 2. 14child of the curse. And by his own mouth let him be judged: for thus he writeth in his book. *Diff. p, 17Mat. 28. Christ commandeth to goe teach al nations, and therefore al nations may have the holy scriptures translated into their own vernacular tongue, that thereby they may learn the truth. Then further he addeth. The translation agreable to the originals, may be read in the church and sung in tunes, may be expounded in the church, may be made a ground of our faith &c. From whence I reason, if Christ commanding the Apostles to teach Mat. 28. did therby intimate a commandement (or permission) of translations to learn the truth by; and such translations may be read & expounded in the church, & made a ground of our faith: then we & al other Christian churches that have made and used translations to this end, are not idolaters, neyther have used wil-worship, nor incurred the curse: but it hangeth over M. S. own head, if he prevent it not by repentance.
Writing and reading the law is a part of preaching the law, Act. 15. 21. Deut. 33. 10. with Nehem. 8, 7, 8, Mat. 28. 19. with 1 Thes. 5, 27, Eph. 3, 4, Col. 4, 16, Rev. 10, 10, 11. with Rev. 1, 19, and 22. 18. Preaching must be in al languages, therefore writing and reading must be in al lāguages: & being a part of preaching of the word and one joynt action with it, (so as one and the *kara. Isa. 29. 12. and 61, 1, 2. Zac 7, 7.same word is used in the holy tongue both for to read and to preach,) it is a part of the vvorship or service of God in spirit, in the gospel of his son, as Paul speaketh; Rom. 1. 9. But “Jsa. 5, 20.woe unto them that speak good of evil, and evil of good; and vvith feighned vvords make merchandise of mens sovvls: †2 Pet. 2. 3their judgment long agon is not farr off, and their damnation sleepeth not.
A translation being the work of a mans wit and learning, is asmuch andArgum. 8. as truly an humane writing as the Apocrypha (so commonly called) writings are; and seeing it hath not the allowance of holy men inspired but is of an hidden authoritie, it may be iustly caled Apocryphon, for the signification of the word importeth so much, and therfore not to be brought into the worship of God to be read.
The Apocryphal vvritings are humane both in matter and form,Answer. in language, letter, vvords, sentences, method and order: the book of God set over into English, notwithstanding the difference of the letters and sounds, is yet for the substance divine, the words, sentences and methode heavenly. He that translateth faythfully, altereth not the nature of the work translated, neyther maketh he it his own. Luke translating into Greek Esaias prophesie from the Hebrue, (Luk. 4. 17. 18.) and we translating it into English, have not changed the prophesie it self, from divine to humane, from Gods work to mans: it was no fruit of our wit or learning to find out such a prophesie of Christ; but we understanding the originals, expresse the same thing in English which Esaias wrote, and it is his prophesie not ours. And the visions of Iohn in the Revelation now Englished; are not as much and as truely an humane writing, as if M. Smyth should make a book of visions or dreames, out of his own witt and learning, and set it forth in English. Wherefore his hart is striken with *Exo. 10. 21.the darknes of Aegypt, that can see no difference betwixt the Prophets and Apostles set over into our tongue, and other mens apocryphal writings; but maketh these alike asmuch and as truly humane.
Agayn this enemy of Gods book is herein condemned by his own mouth, for the apocrypha commonly so called, are holden and described thus; “Arg. set before the apocryphal books, in many English bibles.These books &c. are called apocrypha, that is books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publikly in the church, neyther yet served to prove any poynt of Christian religion, save inasmuch as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same, or rather whereon they were grounded.
These things are spoken of the Apocrypha, not as touching the outward letter or language, but for the substance or things in them conteyned.
But M. Smyth alloweth translations to be read and expounded publikly in in the Church, and made a ground of our fayth: which agreeth as wel with this his argument, as did the evil servāts plea with his practise. Luk 19. 20. 22. &c.
Al the arguments used against the reading of homilies and prayers, mayArg. 9. be applied against the reading of translations in time of worship, as, 1. they do stint or quench the spirit, which is contrary to 1 Thes. 5. 19. 20. 2 Cor. 3. 17. 2. They are not the pure word of God: and so contrary to Eccles. 12. 10. Mat. 15. 9. 3. They are the private works of men: contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 7. 8. 2 Pet. 1. 20. 4. They are the private openings or interpretations of the prophesies of scripture, contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 20. 5. They contradict the gifts bestowed by Christ upon the church for the work of the ministerie: contrary to Eph. 4. 8. 11. 12. Act. 2. 4. Joh. 16. 7. 6. They derogate from the vertue of Christs ascention, and dignity of his kingdom: contrary to Ephe. 4. 8. 7. They blemish Christs bountie to and care of his church, contrarie to Ioh. 14. 16. 18. 26. 8. They disgrace the spirit of God, setting him to schole: contrarie to 1 Ioh. 2. 27. 9. They bring into the church a strange ministration, contrarie to 1 Cor. 12. 5. and so a new part of the Gospel or covenant, contrarie to Gal. 3. 15. 10. They do not manifest the spirit which cometh from within, but the letter which cometh from without 2 Cor. 3. 6. Therfore they are not spiritual worship, Joh. 4, 24. with 2 Cor. 3. 17. Gal. 5. 1. and 4. 31.
Indeed if lyes may goe for arguments, here is a heap. WhatAnswer. Lucian could have written more reprochfully & slanderously of the holy scriptures? Cannot the written word and spirit of God, his scriptures and his gifts to open them, stand togither: but one must contradict, stint, quench, and disgrace another? Did Christ when *Luk. 4. 16-21.he took the book, read the text, and after spake from the same to the people: did he herein contradict his own gifts, blemish his own boū tie, stint or quench the spirit in him? or did the church of Israel contradict Gods gifts or quench his spirit, when they preached & read the law “Act. 15. 21.every sabbath: Or did the churches of Colosse, Thessalonica &c. run into any of these evils, by †Col. 4. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 27.reading the scriptures in the publik assemblies? Nay rather this adversary would quench the spirit, by abolishing the scriptures out of Gods worship: seeing Gods spirit is in his scriptures, and he having commanded them to be written, commandeth also him that hath an ear, to hear what in them *Rev. 2. 1. 6, 7. 13.the spirit speaketh to the churches. Let him not here cavil that he meaneth these things of translations onelyonly; for vve have heard before, hovv even the original scriptures are also by him shut out of Gods vvorship; and the reading of them so, condemned for ministration of the letter, Iudaisme & Antichristian.
But some special things here are, vvhichwhich he seemeth to bend at translations onelyonly: as that they are not the pure word of God, and so cō trary to Eccles. 12. 10. Math. 15. 9. So then belike, vvhen vve read the lavves of God, *Exod. 20thou shalt not kil; thou shalt not steal; honour thy father and thy mother: or any other scriptures hovv faythfully soever translated into English; vve read not the pure word of God; nor as Solomon sayth, †Ecc. 12. 10an upright writing, the words of truth: but we do that which Christ blamed the Pharisees for, Matth. 15. 9. worship God in vain, teaching doctrines the precepts of men. Loe here some part of the deepnes of Satan, who would perswade that the pure word of God, the upright writing, the words of truth, cannot be written in English; no nor spoken; for if they may be spoken, they may be written: but vvhatsoevet is written, (& by consequent spoken) of us in our mother tongue, is a doctrine and precept of men. For thus farr reacheth this impious argument.
Againe wher he calleth them private works of men, private openings or interpretations of prophesies, contrarie to 1 Corin. 12. 7. 8. 2 Pet 1. 20. hee injureth the holy scriptures: for the work or thing it self is Gods, whosoever hath written, printed or translated it. The decree of King Ahashverosh, when it was translated and published *Est. 1. 20 22.into al the provinces after every peoples language, was it a private decree of him that translated or wrote it? If M. Smyth should translate Paules Epistles, or Iohns Revelation; should we esteeme them M. Smyths epistles or visions? These be but delusions to make the work his, or of the nature of him, that is but the interpreter or oversetter of the same.
Neyther do the scriptures by him alleaged, speak ought against trāslations; for God having given to his church, the “Joh. 20, 31 1 Cor. 14. 37.scriptures for a a ground of their fayth; and *1 Cor. 12.gracious gifts unto men for opening and applying the scriptures: the one of these destroyeth not the other, but they confirm ech other. And Peter “2 Pet. 1. 20.speaketh not of translation or grammatical interpretation of a tongue, caled †1 Cor. 14. 26—28. Mar. 15. 35.hermencia: which even an infidel that wanteth Gods spirit, yet having skil in the tongues, can do: but he speaketh of a theological resolution, opening and applying of the prophesies, called of him epilusis, which may be done without any translating at al, as Christ *epelue.unlosed or expounded his owne parables, Mark. 4. 34. and as Ioseph “Heb. pathar Gr. epelusen.opened or expounded the dreames told unto him.
Thus see we the weaknes of these reasons; and how M. Smyth quoteth many scriptures to prove things that we al hold: as that it is syn to quench the spirit, to contradict Gods gifts &c. but for that which we deney, namely, that in reading the scriptures we commit these evils; this be wil have taken for granted: thinking belike his readers wil be so simple, that if any one propositiō of an argument be proved, the whol shal be yealded unto. How then dooth he reason against us in vain, seing in his arguments there †Joh. 21. 34remayns but leasing?
The last of his reasons followeth.
Children may read a translation perfectly wel: but children cannot performArg. 10. any part of spiritual worship: therfore reading a translation is no part of spiritual worship.
The second proposition is untrue, and injurious to al the childrenAnswer. of God; and the Divil it seemeth put in his hart to write this, as a ground of his anabaptisme, wherunto soon after he drew him; and now hath moved him to write further, that †Coar. of the B. in the Epistle.an infant is no more capable of baptisme then is any unreasonable or unsensible creature; thus evil men and deceyvers waxe worse and worse, *2 Tim. 3. 13.deceiving and being deceived. Is not the praysing of God, a part of his worship? & Christ when the children cryed Hosanna in the temple, defended their fact against cavilling Iewes, by this, that out of the mouth of babes and fuklings, God had made perfit the prayse. Mat. 21. 15. 16. Wherfore this one testimonie is ynough to confute and “Psa. 8. 2.stil this enemie and avenger, whom Satan useth to wreak his teen upon the children and infants of the Lord.
But I wil turne his owne weapon against him thus. Mr. Sm. anabaptised himself with water: but a child could have done the like unto himself, who cannot performe any part of spirituall worship: therefore Mr. Sm. anabaptising himself with water, did no part of spirituall worship: and consequently it was carnal worship, and service of the Divil. If he answer, that a child though he could cast water on himself, & utter such words as he heard Mr. Sm. speak withal; yet could he not preach or open the covenant as Mr. Sm. did: I answer in like manner, though children may read the scriptures perfectly wel; yet can they not preach nor open the covenant as did the Preists and Levits, Nehem. 8. 8. and as Christ himself did when he read in the synagogue, Luk. 4. Wherefore reading and preaching being joyned togither, as baptising with water & preaching: he that condemns the one outward action because a child can doe it, condemneth also the other by the like reason. And Mr. Sm. having thus written of children, and doon to himself; the babes and sucklings whose soules he would murder by depriving them of the covenant promise and visible seal of salvation in the Church; shal rise up in judgment & shall condemn him in the day of Christ.