A Defense of the Holy Scriptures, Part 6
Objections for translations answered and mainteyned.
After this Mr. Sm. “Diff. pag. 13.professeth to answer objections for translations: where he taketh his libertie to make the objectiōs, as liked him best to answer, thus.
Rom. 4. 3. What saith the scripture, and then followeth the Septuagints1. Objection translation. Heb. 3. 7. The holy Ghost sayth; and then folow the words of the Lxx. translation: and it is observed that the Apostles quote the words of the seventies translation not onelyonly where they expound the meaning of the holy Ghost, as Heb. 10. 5. Rom. 4. 3. where the Apostles follow the Lxx. not the Hebrue, but also in their devises besides the original; as in the second Cainan, Luk. 3. 36. 37. and in the 75. persons of Iaakobs familie, Act. 7. 14. whereas there is but one Cainan and 70. persons in the Hebrue.
If the originals themselves are not to be vsed as helps in time of spiritualM. Sm. answer worship, as hath been proved; then this obiection is of no force for translations.
But the original scriptures are to be used in Gods publike worship,Replie. by such as understand them; as hath ben proved: therfore this answer is of no force against translations.
Secondly, if it were of force to bring translations to be read in time of worship,Answer. it were available thus far even to bring in to the time of worship, the errors of the translations. &c.
Whatsoever the Scripture & holy Ghost sayth, may be read & heardRepl. in Gods publik worship ordinarily; as before hath been manifested: Errors by Gods special extraordinary dispensatiō admitted because of mens infirmities; as Cainan in Lukes genealogie, &c. are not of vsus ordinarily to be followed; that we should put new persons into genealogies, no more then we may dispense ordinarily with Gods commaundements, because himself dispensed with the Iewes for *Deut. 24 1 &c. & 21 15. &c.putting away their wives, for having many wives, and the like; which he suffred †Mat. 19. 8.for the hardnes of their harts.
The holy Ghost needeth not the lies of men to work his work, nor theAnswer seventies errors to support the faith of Theophilus and the Graecians. &c. And it is one thing by connivencie to passe by syn, as was the tolleration of polygamie, divorce and usurie, see Act. 17. 30. another thing to translate errors from a translation into the original, which is to approve them, and this whosoever affirmeth, speaketh litle lesse then blasphemie. Thirdly, therfore as Antichrist hath polluted al Gods ordinances, so hath he violated the original scriptures; and therfore one Cainan must be put out, for some ancient copies have it not: and for 75. there must be seventy al: pente for pantes: as Rom. 12. 11. kairo kurio, and it is possible easily to mistake so smal a matter, in copying out any thing, as experience teacheth.
Thus Mr. Sm. is slipt aside from translations, to quarrel withReplie. the original scriptures and correct them: where (though I would not folow his wanderings) I observ breefly these things.
1. He restreyneth, the holy Ghost from using the seventies errors (bearing with mens weaknes:) because he needeth them not: why doth he not also restreyne God from suffering divorce & many wives to one man in Israel, seing he needed not thus to have done then, more then now? Shal man limit the holy Ghost, to doe no more then he needeth?
2. He mismatcheth Gods passing by the syn of hethens idolatrie, Act. 17. 30. with Gods †Mat. 19. 8permission of divorce and *2 Sam. 12 8.polygamie in his law, and putting in Cainan in Luk. 3. The first was horrible syn in al that did it, though God overlooked it upon their repentance: the latter not so, but tolerable; and Lukes naming of Cainan, holy.
3 He injurieth Luke, intimating as if he put errors from a translationIf by the original M. S. mean Lukes own writing: he iniurieth him otherweise, as if he approved an error which only he bare with by direction of Gods spirit: & which if M. S. blame in him, let him self beware of blasphemie. into the original; indeed he had so done, if from the Lxx. he had put it into Moses Hebrue; which was farr from him. But he onelyonly sets it downe out of a common known & received record, into the genealogie which he wrote; which al would allow of, & by which they would trie Lukes writing: where the leaving of it out, mought have caused much strife. And if God so bare with the Iewes hardnes of old: what mouth can blame him for bearing with the weaknes both of Iewes and Gentiles here? Nay rather his mercy is to be magnified for writing his word so: as the weak mought not stumble or fal away, the froward mought not cavil. For had the Apostles written in Hebrue, the Grekes (& of liklihood many Iewes)▪ could not have vnderstood: and if they should have ordinarily left the common translatiō, not onelyonly the Gentiles mought have made doubt, but the Iewes would have taken occasion to speak evil. For they reverenced the labours of the 70▪ greatly, and would suffer no other translatiō. God therefore who turneth al things to his glorie turned this his indulgence, to the praise of his grace.
4 Mr. Sm. hazardeth the credit of the original scriptures, and of al mens faith; in saying Antichrist hath violated them, as he hath polluted al Gods ordinances. It is not good, they say, to bely the Divil: & Antichrist hath evil ynough upon him though he be not charged with violating the originals, which this accuser wil not easily prove. No doubt but copiers, and writers might fail, and did mistake; and some thinking to mend the new testament by the old, or Luke by Matthew, might make it worse; which by true copies may be amended. So faults are in translations through ignorance or oversight. But this point if it were true, helpeth translatiōs and hurteth them not. For if the originals be violated, and yet are not for the faults to be rejected: so translations may be violated, & the errors in the part, are no cause to reject the whole.
5 He presumeth to put Cainan out, because it is not in some ancient copies: these some I take it wil prove but one, which Beza mentioneth: and if the credit of it wil countervayl al others in Cainan, it must do the like also in a great part of the genealogie beside; †Beza annot. in Luk …. 23.varying al the names from Ioseph up to David, according to Matthewes narration: which is to overthrow Lukes purpose quite. For he deduceth Christ from Nathan his father in the flesh; and not from the brother Solomon, his father but in the kingdom, as Matthew dooth. But to change pente five, into pantes all, Act. 7, 14. without warrant of any Greek copie at al, is too much boldnes; & cannot be be born out by kurio & kairo, where many copies are for a ground. If men that perceive not the counsel of God in penning his word, shal presumptuously change it according to their owne conceipt: we shal have nothing left sound or uncorrupt. Rather, if men be ignorant, let them †Job. 39. 37lay their hand on their mouth.
Lastly (sayth he) fully to answer the obiection whatsoever is good in theAnswer. LXX translation, was taken out of the new testament, and ancient fathers of the Greek church. For 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: & therfore the holy Ghost doth not aim at the LXX. translation at al, as is imported in the obiection.
This is not fully but foolishly to answer: for though the LXX. trans.Replie. were now lost, yet was it not lost in the Apostles dayes, nay ther was no other but that known in the world; & to reason because we have it not now, therfore they then aimed not at it at al, is without reason or colour of truth. Neyther doth M. Smyth manifest by histories that the Seventies translation is now lost: rather the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotio, & others that synce the Apostles time set over the bible in Greek, these al are lost, save some peeces of them; and that which we have, is for the body of it the Seventies, though much corrupted with words and sentences of the other. And this Hieroms translation of the prophets from the Septuagint, and his commentarie citing the divers versions of Aquila, Symmachus &c. sheweth: and the best Greek bibles now extant, that have varias lectiones do confirm the same.
Neyther if al were granted which he would, is the objection fully answered: for the Apostles *Rom. 4. 3. Heb. 3. 7cite the scriptures in Greek, which the prophets wrote in Hebrue; eyther therfore they aymed at the Septuagint or translated it themselves. Whereupon it followeth that the Hebrue text set over into Greek, is the scripture of God stil, and speech of the holy ghost. Or (if M. Smyths divinitie had then been known,) the unbeleeving Iewes mought have alleged, that Paul proved not his doctrine by canonical scripture, but by apocryphal writings, that were equally humane with the Rabbines commentaries in respect of the matter: and in respect of the letter & language, worse.
There were Greeks and Graecians, Hellenes and Hellenistai, Rom. 1. 16.The 2▪ Obiection Act. 6. 1. The Greeks were so by progenie and blood, the Graecians or Hellenists were Iewes by progenie, borne in Grecia. Therfore Paul calleth himself an Hebrue of the Hebrues. Phil. 3, 5. These Graecians had forgotten their language, and spake Greek onelyonly; and in their synagogues had the Greek translation read unto them: and the Apostles coming into their synagogues approved that act: and so it followeth, that reading translations is lawful in worship.
The distinction of Greeks and Grecians, is vain (sayth M. Sm.) as appeareth M. S. Ans.by these places compared, Act. 21. 39. & 18. 2. 24. with Act. 6. 1. Phil. 3. 5. For Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and Aquila at Pontus, and Apollos at Alexandria: and yet are al called Jewes, not Hellenists or Graecians. And Act. 6. 1. The Hellenists murmured against the Hebrues: the Hellenists did understand their own tongue, and had not forgotten their own language.
This reason of Greeks and Grecians, was propounded not as certain,Replie. but as probable: because humane writers testifyed it, and in the scriptures, some footsteps onelyonly mought be seen.
That there is a distinction in scripture of Hellenes Greeks, & Hellenists Greekists or Graecians; al that have eyes to see, and judgment in the tongue, may read: though in our English this difference is not alwayes manifested. For ordinarily they of that nation are called Hellenes Greeks. Ioh. 12. 20. Act. 16. 1. & 18. 17. and 21. 28. Rom. 1. 14. and often in that and his other Epistles. Hellenists or Grecians are mentioned Act. 6, 1. and 9. 29, & 11. 20. The Hellenes or Greeks are usually set against Iewes; as Act. 14. 1. & 18. 4. and 19. 10. and 20. 21. Rom. 1. 16. and 2. 9. 10. and 3. 9. and 10. 12. 1 Cor. 1. 24. and 10. 32. and so in other places▪ The Hellenists or Grecians, are set against Hebrues, Act. 6. 1. The Hellenists were such as spake Greek; for Hellenisti is the Greek tongue, Act. 21. 37. as Ebraisti is the Ebrue tongue, Iohn. 19. 20. Al Hellenes or Greeks could their own language; but many of other nations could speak it also, it being spread over al; and such were called not Hellenes but Hellenists; as a Latine is he that is born in Latium, or of that blood; but a Latinist is he that can speak Latine, what country man soever.
That the Iewes were dispersed in the Greek nations, we may read al over the historie: for there were synagogues of Iewes at Salamis, Act. 13. 5. at Antioch of Pisidia: Act 13. 14: at Iconium, Act. 14. 1. at Thessalonica, Act. 17. 1. at Beraea, Act. 17. 10. at Athens, Act. 17. 16. 17. at Corinth, Act. 18. 14. at Ephesus, Act. 18. 19. and other places. Their dispersion among the gentiles, had been about 300 yeres: for Ptolomee Lagi King of Aegypt, surprising Ierusalem unawares, caryed many thowsands of them captives, and made them freemen of Alexandria upon their oath of fealtie; and after them many Iewes went thither of their own accord, as †de antiq. Iud. lib, 12. cap. 1.Iosephus witnesseth. And his son Ptolomee Philadelphus who procured the bible to be turned into Greek; willing to gratifie the Iewes, made free six skore thowsand of their captives: who remayning in those parts, not onelyonly learned Greek, but forgat Hebrue, as may evidētly be gathered by Ben Sirachs words in his prologue before his fathers book, among our Apocrypha, caled Ecclesiasticus. For *Prologue of Iesus son of Syrach: or Ecclesiasticus.he in the dayes of Ptolomee Euergetes, (who reigned next to Philadelphus) turned his Fathers Hebrue work into Greek, that they which remayned in banishment (as he sayth) and were desirous to learn, might apply themselves to good manners, and live according to the law. This paynes he might hav spared if his people al, could hav understood Hebrue. Also under the tyran Antiochus, the Iewes troubles & dispersiō cōtinued & increased, as the book of Machabees witnesseth: and so th'Apostles in their dayes found synagogues of the Ievves, almost in al cities of the Gentiles, as before is shevved. Novv vvho knovveth not, that farr fevver yeres then three hūdred in a strange land, vvil make a people, specially in bondage and affliction, forget their native speech: vvherfore as it is most probable, that many Ievves had forgot Hebrue, so is it almost incredible, that al should keep it, in such estate; vvhen also they maried vvith the gentiles, as Timothees mother is a president. Acts. 16. 1. Moreover in Ierusalem it self it may be probably gathered they knevv & spake Greek. For when Paul spake once in Hebrue to them, it it is noted how the people kept the more silence. See Act. 22. 1. 2. and 21. 37. 38. 39. 40. And very learned Iewes, as Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the Apostles dayes, and Josephus, wrote eloquently their works in Greek, having smal skill in Hebrue, as by their writings may be gathered.
Now for M. Smyths exception, that Paul, Aquila, & Apollos, are called Iewes not Hellenists: it is nothing to the matter: for I grant, al were called Iewes but not al Hebrues: and in Act. 6, 1. not Iewes, but Ebrues ar murmured against by the Hellenists, that is, by such as spake Greek. Wherfore, he needed not have caled the distinction vain, when himself can make but such an emptie ansvver. Neyther sheweth he any reason at al, why Paul reckoning up his privileges (Phil. 3, 5.) caleth himself an Ebrue of the Ebrues: & unlesse it be for the language I can shew none sufficient. For thus I mind his speech; by kindred or stock in general, he was of Israel by tribe in particular he was of Beniamin; by language an Ebrue; by profession of law or religion, a Pharisee; for zele, a persecutor of the contrary; and for legal righteousnes, unrebukeable. Herein the Gr. Scholiast agreeth with me, saying that the name Ebrue is added pros …desin tés Ebraidos glosses, for his skil in the Ebrue tongue. The like he speaketh of himself 2 Cor. 11. 22, They are Ebrues, so am J, they are Israelites, so am J, they are Abrahams seed, so am J. It is wel known this people had much to boast of for their stock of Israel, famous throughout al the bible; likeweise of Abraham †Ioh. 8. 39.they boasted because of Gods *Gen, 17.covenant with him, and of his fatherhood. But of Heber they had nothing to rejoyce more then of other patriarchs, save for the language onelyonly, which was derived from him to Abraham the “Gen. 14. 13.Hebrue, and so to his posteritie, til in dispersion it was lost of some, by others reteyned. And if it be excepted that Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and therfore an Hellenist as others there: I answer, though there he was born, yet his bringing up was in †Act. 22. 3Ierusalem at the feet of Doctor Gamaleel, where he learned both the language and law of the Pharisees; and therfore boasted to be an Ebrue as wel as any other.
And for those whom the scripture calleth Hellenists or Greekists they seem to be no other but Iewes. For they that were Proselytes or converts among the Hethen, are called Hellenes Greeks; as Iohn. 12. 20. ther were *Hellenes.Greeks among them, that came up to worship at the feast. Neyther know I why a Greek converted to Iudaisme should hav the name of a Greekist, seeing by his conversion, he doth more degenerate from Greekisme; so that the name were unfit. Besides, in Act. 2. 10. & 13. 43. such converted strangers, are called Prosclytes not Hellenists. Likevveise vvhen Paul nevvly converted, disputed in Ierusalem vvith the Hellenists, and they vvent about to slay him, Act. 9. 29. this their cariage argueth that they vvere Ievves, for it is not like that strangers vvould have been so busie in that place.
Also the Hellenists in Antiochia Act. 11. 20. seem to be Ievves there, to vvhom the Gospel vvas first preached; as in the vvords immediatly “vers. 19.before is noted, they preached to no man, but to the Iewes onelyonly: after that, †ve. 24. 26many moe vvere converted there dayly: & vvhen the gentiles of the city had received the fayth, they vvere troubled *Act. 15. 1.concerning circumcision, (this fel out about 7. yeares after the conversion of the Hellenists, Act. 11) and then the church at Ierusalem vvriting therof, directed their letters †Act. 15. 23.to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antiochia: al vvhichwhich do persvvade that the Hellenists first spoken of vvere Ievves. Hereuppon I conclude, that the testimonie of learned men, “Ios. Scaliger. de emēd. temp. lib. 5. De pr. anno. Chal. Et lib 2. De Ci…l. Iudae. Karraim.recording hovv the Hellenists vvere dispersed Ievves, that used the Greek bibles in their synagogues; hath more probabilitie, if not certainty to be true, even by the scripture; then M. Smyths sleight ansvver can turn avvay. But he hath yet more to speak.
A. Secondly (sayth he) it cannot be proved by scriptures, that the Hellenists had the Gr. transl. read in the synagogues: it is manifestly otherweise by the reasons used before against the translation of the LXX.
R. Those reasons were rather calumnies; & I have before refuted thē, shewing that no such syn can be proved upō the Sep. fortheir trāsl. That the Greek bible was read among the Hellenists, the point before handled giveth light; & I leave it to the judgment of the wise Further I answer, that seing by scripture we learne that not Iewes onelyonly but †Act. 18. 4. & 13. 42. 44. & 14. 1. &Greeks were present in the synagogues; it cannot be thought that the Lectures there were in Hebrue; which the Iewes themselves in liklihood, the Greeks of certainety, could not understand.
Thirdly (sayth M. S.) the worship of God properly so called of the wholAnsw. Church of the Iewes was performed in the holy place at Ierusalem, and so that which was performed in the synagogue was not properly the worship of the whol Church of the Iewes: but was of that nature that passed between Christ and the Doctors in the temple Luk. 2. 46. with Act. 17. 2.
Neyther is that which we performe in our assemblies, the worshipRepl. of the whol church of the Christians, but of our own particular Church: neyther is our reading the scriptures, the worship of God properly so called: as before I have manifested. So in the mans answer, lodgeth guile and deceit.
Though all the Iewes worshiped at the temple thrise in the year, yet followeth it not thereupon they had no proper worship in their synagogues. For Mr. Smyth himselfe counteth prophesie or preaching, proper worship; and this was in their synagogues. Againe Prayer & thanksgiving is worship properly; & this they did other where then in the temple as appeareth Act. 16. 13. Neyther can we think of our godly forefathers (howsoever Mr. Sm. counteth them a carnal Church,) that they would read and preach the word, and not pray in their synagogues; yea their synagogues were caled Oratories or prayer howses; as witnesseth Philo a Iew in the Apostles age, who complayning of the outrage offred in Alexandria (the city wher he lived) by throwing downe the synagogues *Philo de legat. ad Caium.caleth them Proseuchas Oratories; and mentioneth also the synagogues of Rome, by the same name.
Fourthly (sayth M. Sm.) if the Hellenists read the seventies translationAnsw. as a part of their proper worship having forgotten their own language, therin were committed these synns:
1. Forgetting their tongue, one part of the ceremoniall law. Nehem. 13. 24.
2. Instituting worship in a common tongue, which was as unlawful as sacrificing a dog.
3. Therefore it was false worship; as it was to sacrifice an unclean beast
Proper worship is an vnproper term wherwith Mr. S. would clokeRepl. his error, before discovered. But had it been proper worship, yet this mans charge of them were both unproper and untrue. For, although the willing neglect and forgetting of their Hebrue, was syn: yet the constreyned losse of it was not syn. The scripture alleged mought have taught him this; for †Neh. 13. 24they that of lust maried strange wives, which taught their children Azotik or Ashdod speech, are justly blamed by the holy Ghost: but were any blamed for speaking Babels tongue, where they had been prisoners neer 70. yeares? nay Ezra and Daniel wrote a great parte of their books in Babylons language, and not in Hebrue. And if it had been such a breach of the ceremonial law as is intimated; Daniel and his brethren who refused the *Dan. 1. …. &c.King of Babels diet, would also have refused his language, which they did not at al.
The comparison of sacrificing a dog is odious: for mought not converted strangers pray and praise God in their mother tongues; did God abhorr their languages, as doggs in sacrifice? Daniel was skilful both in Sions tongue and Babels: and he writing his book, recordeth his own prayer and thanksgiving in Babylons language; Dan. 2. 20.—23. He that should have condemned this for false worship: the godly Iewes would have counted him a dog. The Prophets warned Israel of the Idols of Babel, but never of their tongue: nay Ieremie in Canaan, teacheth the people in the Chaldee tongue, how they should answer and confute Idolaters. Ier. 10. 11. And what wil this calumniator of the saints, say of Christ himselfe, who prayed on the crosse, “Mark. 15Eloi Eloi lamma sabachthani, which was Syriak not▪ Hebrue, though the scripture which he had reference unto, Psal. 22. 1, was Hebrue. And ordinarily he spake Syriak, as by †Mark. 7. 34. & 5. 41.Ephphatha, Talitha coumi and other like words recorded by the Evangelists, may be probably gathered.
Lastly (sayth M. Sm.) if they read the seventies translation, and theAnswer. Apostles came in & heard: it followeth not they did allow it, as a part of the worship of the new testament, any more then circumcision &c.
First this followeth, that the bible translated, is the bible stil;Repl. and Moses turned into Greek, is Moses stil: for it is not sayd that apocryphal humane writings were read in the Synagogues, but the †Act. 13. 15. & 15. 21.law and the prophets. So it proveth the question, that the scriptures in our mother tongue, are divine writings, not humane, as M. Sm. avoucheth. Hereuppon it wil folow undenyablie, that they are to be read in al Christian churches now, as then in Israel: and not as profane & apocryphal, to be quite thrust out of Gods worship. The Apostles shewed an end *Act. 15. 24. &c. Col 2, 16. 17.of circumcision, and like legal shadowes: but never any end or ceasing or reading the scriptures: nay they shew plainly the contrary. 2 Pet, 1, 19, 2 Tim. 3, 15, 16, 17. 1 Thes. 5, 27.
Deut. 31. 12. The reasons that are alleged for reading the law are perpetual,3. Obiectiō. and therfore the law of reading is perpetual: the moral reasons are, hearing, learning, fearing God, and keeping his lawes.
Hereunto M. Smyth answereth: First the law of reading is not moral in Answer.the particular act, but in the equitie, for it was commanded to be doon but once in seven yeare, at the feast of tabernacles, Deut. 31. 10. and if it had been moral in the particular act, it should have been from the beginning, which was not so, seing it began with Moses, and it should continue after the end of the world, for moralities indure for ever: but books and so reading of books shal perish.
Men should “Pr. 24. 26kisse the lips of him that answereth upright words:Replie. but our adversary answereth with a froward mouth. He sayth the law was commanded to be read but once in seven year: these words, but once, are not of the law, but of his own false comment. There was a special charge to read the book then, in the eares of al togither; not intending to read it but then. For every sabbath, was to be †Exod. 20.sanctified, and al things are sanctified by the word and prayer; and Israel knew this wel, and therfore from old tyme read the word in the synagogues *Act. 15. 21.every sabbath; and our Lord Christ “Luk. 4. 16.accompanied thē in this holy work; so that he is more then Sadducean blind, which sayth it was commanded to be doon but once in seven year.
No better is the next plea, that because writing & reading began with Moses & was not frō the beginning of the world, therfore the law of reading is not perpetual, neither bindeth us now: a Familist or Atheist may likewise say, baptisme or the Lords supper in the particular outward act, is not to cōtinue til the worlds end, because it was not from the beginning, but began with Christ. A practise commanded of God, at what time soever; is to continue til by him it be repeled, which reading the scriptures never was, but repeted and augmented, by the Apostles writings. Like vanitie is in the reason following: books and reading of books shal perish, when the world is at an end: therefore now whiles the world continueth, we are not bound to read Gods book. Mought he not have made these reasons against preaching the word, and other ordinances of God, as wel as against reading; seeing these shal cease also at the end of the world. But a *Isai. 44. 20.seduced hart hath deceived this man, that he cannot deliver his sowl, nor say, Js there not a lye in my right hand?
Secondly (sayth he) it is moral in the equity, that is, that al meanes mustAnswer. be used to attayn the knowledge of the truth, wherof reading is a principal: and yet hence it followeth not, that reading is eyther part or meanes of spiritual worship: For books are things meerly artificial, as are pictures and images, Gen. 4. 22.
Here again the enemie is caught in the snare of his own tongue:Replie. for if reading Gods law be a principal mean to attayn the knowledge of the truth now, as it was in Israel, Deut. 31. 12. and so moral & perpetual: then his former cavils against the objection, may be cast as dung upon his own face. Then do we wel to read Gods word in our church, for that end: and M. Sm. hath doon wickedly for it to blame us, and charge us with idolatrie. To hide this his shame, he runs into his old borough, that it is no part or meanes of spirituall worship; but out of this he hath been often hunted before: and wee are sure that observing it according to Gods wil, we worship & serv God in spirit and truth, as wel in this as in other like ordinances of the gospel.
His matching of books with Tubal-cains craft (Gen. 4. 22.) & images, sheweth how his idol error hath †Isa. 44. 1…shut his eyes that he cannot see, his hart that he cannot understand. For in holy scriptures (wherof we speak) the mynd of God is made known unto us, and his spirit †Rev. 3. 1▪6.is in them, so as when we read in the book of Moses, we read that which is spoken to us of God; as the Evangelists *Mar. 12. 26, compared with Mat. 22. 31in playn words teach us: whereas in handicrafts we see or enjoy but the fruit of mans wit and skil; and an image without life, is the “Hab. 2. 18teacher of lyes. Such impious comparisons seem rather to come from Tubal-cains forge, then from any possessed with the spirit of God.
Reading the law was performed in the Synagogue, and not tyed to the4 Obiection temple: an argument that reading is not ceremonial but moral, for no part of ceremonial worship was performed from the tabernacle or temple.
This objection with the reason, (I think) was never so made of any, but by M. Smyth himself. It is true that reading was not tyed to the temple; it is true also (though this argument thus framed, hardly proveth it) that reading is not ceremonial. The last branch is untrue, for some ceremonies or figurative services were performed out of the temple. His answers to this obiection, are for the most part true, being wel understood: but in part false, when by the way he denyeth reading the law to be a moral action; wherof he giveth no reason at al: and the thing is handled before.
Luk 4. 16. Christ stood up to read and redd his text, and then preached5. Obiect. out of it. Now his actions are our instructions: and therefore we are to read words out of a book, in time of preaching or prophesying.
This objection M. Smyth hath falsified: it was never thus pressed by us for translations, whereof now we treat: but thus. Luke reporteth that Christ “Luk. 4. 17. &c.read where it was written The spirit of the Lord is upon me &c. This text Luke setteth down in Greek, which Esaias wrote in Hebrue; whereupon it followeth, that the scripture translated into an other language, is the same scripture stil for the substance of it, though the letter and language differ, and is not an apocryphal humane vvriting, and so an idol in Gods vvorship, as Mr. Smyth blasphemed. Els, Luke and the new testament cannot be defended against Ievves that should cavil, hovv humane apocryphal vvritings, are cited for divine and canonical. Thvs serveth it to prove the reading of translated scriptures, by necessary consequence: and that vve are not bound to bring the book of the law and prophets in Hebrue when we vvould read to the people, and so interpret or read mentally out of it, as M. Smyth then dreamed: though since he is fallen to forbid the Original Hebrue also, in Gods vvorship, as vve have heard before. But M. S. finding (as seemeth) this objection too heavie for him, hath sought to change it, as he could best make ansvver: vvhichwhich is thus.
First in that it was doon in the synagogue by Christ which was neither M. Sm. answer.Priest nor Levite, it is an argument that it was no proper part of the worship of the old Testament, but of that nature as was the exercise performed by Christ and the doctors in the temple, so that reading most properly is searching the scripture, which is not worship.
Christ as his custome was, (sayth *Luk. 4. 16the scripture) went into the synagogue Replie.on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read: and after speaking from the scripture which he had read, “ver. 22.al bare him witnesse, and wōdred at the gracious words, which proceeded out of his mouth. He †Mat. 26. 25. Joh. 18. 20.sate dayly teaching in the temple and in the synagogues among the people. But al this reading and teaching: vvas no proper part of the worship of the old testament, (vvith M. Smyth) because he was neither Preist nor Levite. Hovvbeit, *Dif. p. 6.before he vvould needs persvvade us by a mystical interpretation, that Christ having by the use of the book fulfilled the law of reading, he shut the book, to signifie that the ceremonie of book-worship was now exspired. So svveet an accord & harmonie is in his vvriting. Wel, Christs action here is excluded from being a part of Gods vvorship. But M. Smyth though he vvere neyther Priest nor Levite of the old testament, nor Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor nor teacher, no nor member of the church of the nevv testament, (he and his followers having dischurched themselves and dissolved their communion;) yet he in that estate, preached, and anabaptised himself, and then anabaptised others: and this in him was the worship of God, or els of the divil, properly so caled. And hath not this man behaved himself like a proud Korah, that without al office would presume to do these things which he counteth proper worship; and yet censureth Christs action in reading & preaching of the word to be no proper part of worship, because he was neyther Preist nor Levite? Shal the word out of Christs mouth, read and applied with al grace of the spirit (which he had without measure) be no proper part of Gods worship; and shal the word which Mr. Smyth uttereth out of his hart, be proper worship? And of what nature may we think, was that exercise performed by Christ and the Doctors in the temple? was it none of Gods worship? He was I am sure “Luk. 2. 49 46. 47.in his fathers busines, among the teachers of the word, whom he heard, whom he asked, whom he answered with such understanding as astonied al that heard him. If M. Smyth esteme his own teaching or prophesying used in his synagogue to be the worship of God; and this of Christ and the teachers of Israel in the temple, to be not his worship: he is worthy of al true Christians, to be holden Anathema.
But reading (sayth he) is serching the scriptures, which is not worship. But reading (say I) as Christ now did, is proclayming the word of God unto the people: and if preaching be worship, reading in this sort is worship: not proskunesis, supplication or prostrating unto God: but latreia †Rom. 1. 9.a worship or service of God in the spirit, in the gospel; as before hath been manifested.
Secondly (sayth M. Smyth) Christ had the Originals the HebrueAnswer. text of Esay the Prophet, and read or interpreted out of it: for it is doubtful whither he uttered the Hebrue words, or spake the sense of the Hebrue in the Syriak dialect, and therefore from hence reading a translation cannot be concluded, but eyther reading or interpreting the Originals.
How it maketh for translations, I shewed before againstReplie. M. Smyths frawd: and to that we have no answer, but by-matters brought as clowds to darken the light. And if we had alleged this for the Originals, yet Mr. Smyth would not have allowed it, as before hath been shewed. He doubteth whither Christ spake in Syriak or not: but if he so did, & preached or prophesied in that common language, (as before I have shewed it most likely,) and preaching or prophesying be properly worship; and instituting worship in a common tongue, Be as unlawful as sacrificing a dog, as M. Smyth before †Dif. p. 15.affirmed: wil not he be found a blasphemer of Christ, as one that speaks not by the spirit of God, *1 Cor. 12. 3.calling Iesus execrable?
Thirdly (sayth he) hence cannot be concluded that manner of preachingAnswer. now used, that a man shal take his text, and then divide it into parts, analysing it rhetorically and logically, collecting doctrines and uses from every member, &c. of his text, al this while he hauing his book before his eye, to help him at al assayes: a thing whereof I am assured the holy scripture yeeldeth no warrant that it may be counted a part of spiritual worship. For though the scripture may be so handled, and that for very profitable use; yet that is rather a scholastical lecture, then an Ecclesiastical worship, it is rather an inquisition and serching of the holy spirits intent and purpose then prophesying
If the scriptures may be so handled, and that for very profitable use: Replie.surely Mr. Smyths schisme, and charge of idolatrie layd upon us, had very unprofitable use, and wicked end. For his owne conscience can testifie for us, if it be not feared; that we never pleaded for other use of the scriptures, then was in Israel, where Christ †Luk. 4.read the text, and after taught from and applyed it; where the *Neh. 8. 8law was read, the sense given, and the people caused to understand the reading; where “Act. 13. 15. & 15. 21.lectures were of the law & prophets in their synagogues every sabbath; and other such like exercises. But because we did thus out of our translated English bibles (of him called apocrypha,) he accused us of idol-latrie, that is the worship or service of idols; we mainteyned it to be theo-latrie, that is, the worship or service of God, because it was Gods word, not mans, though written in English. This point is now sought to be shifted off, and a nue question made, whither reading the scriptures in the Church may be caled worship: which I have cleared before.
His sophistical distinction of scholastical lecture, and ecclesiastical worship; we heard not of til now; and it serveth him in no stead: for every such lecture in the Church to Christs scholars, is the latreia or service of God, not of Idols; and is a manifestation of the holy spirits intent, as of old was in prophesying. The teacher most properly doth then inquire & serch, when he prepareth himselfe privatly by reading, studie and meditation, to expound the scriptures in publik. Were not the voices of the Prophets in Israel, a manifestation of the spirits intent? But when they were read in the synagogues, their *phonas.voices were heard, as the scripture teacheth; Act. 13. 27.
Lastly (sayth M. S.) if we must needs be tied to this example of Christ,Answer. (which J see no reason for, seeing reading was of the old testament,) then the example of Christ shall bind also thus farr, as that the book shalbe layd aside, so soon as the text is read, and the book that is used, shalbe the originals, which is nothing for vocal but for mental reading, or for interpreting, which I never have thought to contradict. &c.
No man that I know, tieth to follow this particular example.Repl. We doubt not but men may teach, without any book. But that it is lawful by Christs example here, to read, open and apply the scriptures; as by other examples of him also, to preach without reading. The mayn thing is left, and new questions set on foot.
We know wel, he at first contradicted not mental reading (as he calleth it) or interpreting out of the originals though now he writeth against the use of the originals also, as before we have seen: so fast he runns on in error. His cōceipt of mental reading, as it hath no groūd frō Christ here, nor any prophet or Apostle, to be the ordinary way of reading or interpreting scripture: so mind we it to be a far more vncertayn and erroneous course; let the man make as many Querees after it, as he will.
Having answered these few objections, as we see; he *Differ. pag. 18.afterwards questioneth whither the hearers may have their translations or the originals to read or search in time of prophesie. Which he deneyeth. Of this point, though it was not controverted between us, yet I wil speak what I mind about it. Not condemning it, as dooth he; nor iustifying it, as it is abused by some; but shewing the mean, which I take to be best.
His first reason is; that the Prophets and Apostles wrote books, but never divided them into chapters or verses, Henry Stephen first made the verses of the N. Testament: whereupon he concludeth that the hearers could not serch their bookes in time of hearing. I deney the consequence; for in reading the law & expounding it, comparing words with that which went before and after; the hearers mought serch and see; though it were with more difficultie.
Secondly the Hebrue bibles that we have, are all divided into chapters and verses; as also into other sections, noting where the lecture of the law began and ended, and the lecture of the Prophets answerable to it. Whither the first writers did this, or the Church after them, I wil not dispute; but that thus they might doe, I make no doubt: For God hath left to the discretiō of the Church and Ministers, what quantitie of scripture to read and teach of. And this was the practise in th' Apostles dayes; for it was not possible that every sabbathall the law and prophets should be read over: & the Hebrue letters and marginall notes, are sufficient records of the antiquitie of them. The Churches practise in the books of the Prophets, sheweth us our libertie in the Apostles writings; which cannot be read over at once. And long before Henry Stephens time the Greek copies of the new Testament had chapters and sections though otherweise then we now have. And Matthewes gospel parted into 68. chapters or titles, and 355. sections, was in a manner as easie for the readers to serch, as it is now with us; and so the rest.
His second reason is, that th' Apostles in citing scriptures, quote not chapter and verse, but onelyonly say it is written by Zacharie, by Jeremie; the scripture sayth, &c. This reason dependeth on the former, and is there answered, in part. Further I observe, the Apostles speak diversly, sometime naming †Act. 13. 47.no book at all; sometime naming the book, as *Act. 1. 20the Psalmes; sometime a part of the book; as “Act. 13. 33.the second psalme, and how they particulated matters in their doctrine, is not set down; the summonely of things is recorded. The argument therfore concluding, thus, it is not written that they quoted chapters, therefore they did it not; is not of force, negatively. But if if be true which Hilarie an ancient writer †Prolog. … Psal. expla.recordeth that the seventie Greek interpreters did number and order the Psalmes; and we find that sometimes the Apostles quoted what Psalm in nō ber they alleged; it may warrant us such like use of humane labours, for help of our memorie.
His third reason is of like nature, that no mention is made of any hearer that had his book &c. yet mought it be, say I, though it were not mentioned, they used to dispute in their synagogues (after the lecture was ended); and that †Act. 17. 2by the scriptures: and the hearers serched *vers. 11.the scriptures dayly for trial of doctrine. Who now can say that the hearers had or used no books in the synagogues?
His 4. reason is, that serching quotations hindreth attention, for the mind and affections are distracted from hearing by seeking the places &c. This I grant to be amysse, in all that so use their books; for diligent eare shoud be given to all that is spoken. Howbeit this abuse, may not abolish the lawful use: for as by turning of leaves many hinder thē selves in time of hearing; so many againe attentively hearkning, and comparing things spoken with the matters before and after in the chapter, are not hindred at all, but greatly furthered by looking on their books. And for this matter, I rest with that rule given by th' Apostle, for all things to be doon unto edification, seemlily, and with order. 1 Cor. 14. 12. 40.
His last reason is, that manuscripts being few, and very dear, (there being yet no printing found out) all could not have or bring their bookes; but there is onelyonly one kind of true aad profitable hearing: eyther all to have bookes and serch or none. If God have left it to the wisdom and discretion of his people when and how to use the scriptures, so it be not to confound actions or hinder their good: I wil not bring their libertie into bondage, nor prescribe a law, where God hath given none. Though written copies were dear, yet were they many; & many had them; not all: for all now have not. That such as have not books, or cannot read, should prejudice other that have & can, there is no reason. It is not therefore for us to walk by example in this case, but by general ground and equitie from Gods law: who permitteth us free use of the scriptures for our edification, according to which if men use them in private or publik, they do well.
Thus am I at an end about the mayn cōtroversie of the scriptures, which for the readers good I have beaten out and explaned, shewing the true differences which he handled covertly for his best advantage. Wherein the judicious may discern, how Mr. Sm. hath been up and down, wavering like a reed shaken of the wind; sometimes seming to allow translations, sometime bitterly writing against them: that as easie it is to know *Pro. 30. 18. 19.the way of a serpent upon the rock; as the way of a man with his mineon error.