A Defense of the Holy Scriptures, Part 4
OF TRANSLATIONS.
THe first and onelyonly controversie between M. Sm. and us being about the scriptures translated or overset into other tongues, which he affirmed to be apocrypha and humane writings: how ever he hath sought to excuse and hide his error, yet hath he no wil to forsake it, as appeareth by this, that having spoken of writings 1. by men inspired of God, as the prophets and Apostles, and 2. by ordinarie men of al sorts; he shuffleth the translations of the holy scriptures among these latter; and affirmeth that * there is no better warrant to bring translations † Diff. p. 10.of scripture written into the church, and to read them as parts or helps of worship, then to bring in expositions, resolutions, paraphrasts and sermons upon the scripture, seing al these are equally humane in respect of the work equal ly divine in respect of the matter they handle.
Very impious is this comparison which thus matcheth a mans comment or written sermon, with Gods written word set over into an other tongue: for it debaseth the majestie of Gods law, and advanceth too high, the basenes of men.
Translation is that in writing, which interpretation is in speaking: namely the expressing of an others mind: but commenting or expounding, is the expressing of ones own mind or understanding. The scriptures first written in Hebrue, and secondarily written in English: do set forth one and the same word & mind of God unto us, though which different letters & sownds: as Emmanuel is interpreted and translated God with us, Mat. 1 23. Messias is interpreted CHRJST in Greek; ANOJNTED in English. Iohn. 1. 41. Here the Hebrue, Greeke and English differ onelyonly in outward letter & sound; the meaning substance or essential form being one in them al, & the word of God, so caled by relation, because the mind of God is made knowne hereby to the mind or understanding of man. The different letter or character changeth not the nature of the thing: for if it did, then Emmanuel written by †Mat. 1. 23.Matthew in Greek letters foreign, and by *Isa. 7. 14.Esaias in Hebrew letters foreign, should not be one and the same name of Christ; and so the Apostle should be made a falser, & our gospel betrayed to faithlesse Iewes. The different sound or pronū ciation changeth not the nature of the thing: for then Messias and Christ shoul not be one and the same; and so the gospel and new testament, and our faith were overthrown; and more then Iewish superstition should prevail. But God who hath sanctified by his *Act. 2. 4.spirit, all sounds and languages to the ear: hath also sanctified by the same spirit all †Rev. 1. 8.letters and characters to the eye; as th'Apostles practise sheweth, writing with Greek letters, words and phrases; which had beene profaned by lying histories and lascivious poets, unto all manner idolatry and wickednes. Herevpon it followeth, that the word of God, in whatsoever letter or language it be written or spoken vntounto vsus; is the word of God stil; so to be reverenced and regarded: and not to be basely and profanely counted among humane and apocryphal writings.
A comment or exposition of scripture, as for example, vponupon this word Emmanuel, sheweth the mans iudgement mind or understanding that commenteth; telleth the reason of this name why it was given to Christ, discourseth of his godhed, of his manhood, of the uniting of these two in one person, of the end and use of these, and many such like things. This being done by ordinary men, is properly an humane writing, (though it may be, agreeable to the word of God,) shewing by letters as by signes, what is the mind or understanding of such a man in this mysterie of Christs incarnation: even as Paul sayth of his owne divine writing; when ye read ye may know myne understanding in the mysterie of Christ. Ephes. 3. 4.
Now God hath by his Prophets and Apostles written to his Church a short summ of his mind and will; guiding and *2 Pet. 1. 21.carying them, and †2 Tim. 3. 16.inspiring their writings with his good spirit; that there should be nothing but “Eccles. 12. 10. Psal. 19. & 119. Prov. 8.words of truth, faithfulnes, equitie and perfection in them; that men mought have a sure ground for their faith and actions, throughout all generations. And minding mans weaknes, the holy Ghost hath omitted to write *Iohn. 20. 30. 31. & 21. 25.many things, (though otherweise in their nature very good:) penning such onelyonly as were needful and profitable for our faith and salvation: giving vsus warning also to take heed of other things, because there is no end of making many books, and much reading is a wearynes to the flesh. Ecclesiast. 12. 12.
But because in these scriptures, somethings are †2 Pet. 3. 16.hard to be vnderstood, and all men know not how to use and apply Gods word unto their times, estates, actions, &c. therefore hath Christ given *Eph. 4. 11 12. 13. 14 1 Cor. 12.gifts unto men, to open and apply the scriptures for the edification of the Church vntounto the worlds end: alwayes binding them both teachers and hearers, to the foundation layd †2 Pet. 1. 19. Ephe. 2 20.by the Prophets and Apostles, whose writings are sufficient to make men wise “2 Tim. 3. 15.unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ Iesns.
For this cause the holy scriptures are necessarie for al Churches, to be read & expounded unto the people: & as every nation differeth in language, so to have the word spoken and written in their vulgar tongue, which change of the tongue or letter, changeth not the nature of the word spoken or written, but it is stil divine and heavenly. OnelyOnly because in this changing or translating, imperfections, wants, errors may fal in: therfore the first writings as the Prophets & Apostles penned them, are to be made the absolute canon, rule, touchstone, whereby al translations are to be tried: by which being tried & found faithful, it is the same word of God, in what language or letter soever, & differeth as much frō humane cōmentaries or expositions, as heaven dooth from earth.
But Mr. Sm. avoucheth mens written sermons or cōments upon the scripture, & the scripture it self written in English, to be equally humane in respect of the work equally divine in respect of the matter they handle. Of this his bold and false assertion he maketh no proof at al, it is a speculation of his own hart. Two carnal reasons he setteth down, which are these. To translate the originals into any mother tongue is as wel and asmuch the worke of a mans wit and learning, as to analyse the scriptures rhetorically or logically, to collect doctrines and uses theologically, to give expositions and interpretations of places doubtful. Where first if M. S. mean the action of translating simply, without reference to the mater and thing translated, he doth but dally and seek to deceiv: for writing, printing, translating are al alike humane actions, but the things written printed translated, are differēt, some good some evil, some of God, some of men and of the divil. The books of Moses written printed or translated, are Gods law; the book of Mahomet written printed or translated, is the divils law: the actions of writing, printing, translating, are mere humane actions in all of these. Now if because translating is an humane action, therefore the thing translated must also be humane, & the work of mans wit and learning: then also because writing and printing are humane actions, therefore the bible written or printed in Hebreue Greek & al languages, must likewise be humane, and the work of mens wit and learning: and then there can be no divine scriptures but the very first copies which the Prophets & Apostles wrote with their owne hands: And if Satan could perswade this; he would be glad.
Secondly if Mr. Sm. meaneth the thing translated, as Moses law, Davids psalmes or other like in English: that these are as wel and as much the work of a mans wit and learning; as an exposition of doubtful places in them or doctrines and uses collected from them; he teacheth wicked error, which al of judgment & cōscience wil abhorr. The holy scriptures faithfully expressed in English or any language, is the work of Gods wisdome & unserchable knowledge: and cannot without injury to his majestie, be said to be the work of mans wit & learning; though man have used his skil in writing or translating it according to the original copie given of God. This plea of Mr. Sm. is like as if Ieroboam should have sayd; the *1. King. 6 23.cherubims and †1. King. 7. 25.the brazen bulls in Solomons temple, are as wel and as much the work of mans wit & skil as my *1 King. 12 28.golden calves; & if they may be admitted into the house and worship of God, then why not these? If M. Sm. should answer that the cherubims and bulls which Solomon made, were commanded of God, and from the divine pattern, though humane art did make them; but Ieroboams calves were from his own hart: so answer I in this case; the translation is from the divine pattern of Gods original book, and commanded to be made and used; but to write comments or homilies to read in the Church, is frō a mans own hart, and hath no commandement or warrant from God so to be used; but are forbidden. Eccles. 12. 12.
Secondly he sayth The translator cannot conceive nor expresse in writing the whol mind of the holy spirit conteyned in the originals, but onelyonly some good part of it: the expositor, paraphrast, commentator may expresse as much as the translator, yea and in respect of some particulars, as Hebraisms, Grecismes and the like considerations much more.
If a translator cannot expresse the whol mind of the spirit in al the bible, by his interpretation litteral or grammatical: then much lesse can the expositor expresse the whol mind of the spirit in the bible, by his exposition theological. For it is a thowsand times easier for a translator to do his duty to the ful, then for the expositor: yea this latter is utterly unpossible, I say not onelyonly for one man, but for all the men in the vvorld.
Though the translator cannot expresse to the full every vvord and sentence in the Bible, yet the most part he may; vvheras the expositor cannot do any at all, but is still to seek all dayes of his life, and they that come after him also.
Hebraismes cannot alwayes be expressed, through defect of the language: yet translation is needful, and the translator is blamelesse. For example, this name God called in Hebrue Aelohim, Gen. 1. 1. is in Greek translated Theos, and that by the Apostles often in the new Testament. Here is a vvant in the language, for Aelohim is in form the plural number, signifying the Trinitie; yet joyned with a word of the singular number bara, he created: signifying the vnitie of the persons in the Godhed. Such a phrase the Geek tongue vvanted: therefore the Apostles admit of the Greek propriety, doing the ful dutie of translators & the defect resteth in the language, of which they were not Lords. And that the Lord respecteth not so much the words and phrases, as the matter meant by them; infinite examples in the scriptures do manifest.
But whereunto leadeth this cavil? what if all cannot be expressed in the translation, shall we therefore have none in the Church? then neyther may we have any preaching by the voice of man; for none can fully expresse in his sermon, all things that God intendeth by a place of scripture, or any ground of religion. And if preaching must be vsed, though many humane infirmities be mixed with it; then also reading the scriptures (and consequently the translations to them that know not the originals,) must be used, though fewer humane infirmities be mixed therewithall; seing these both are the ordinances of God, as before hath bene proved.
But then M. Sm. wil draw commentaries and homilies into the Church also. But that is denyed to be Gods ordinance. He hath *1 Cor. 12. & 14.appointed the lively voice of his graces in the mouthes of his servants to be heard in the Church, for the opening and applying of the word vntounto them: but not their writings to be read. And because of some infirmities in translations, to disgrace them, as this man dooth, and match them with commentaries; it is capele…in (as the †2 Cor. 2. 17.Apostle speaketh,) to play the false vintner with the wine of Gods word. For as such a falser to make sale of his mixture, wherein some wine, much water, yea perhaps some puddle water is brewed togither, mought say, you can have no wine but such as is turned out of the first vessel; and it cannot be in the turning of it out, but some of the spirit and strength of the wine vvill vapour avvay, some tast it wil have of the nevv cask; therefore you may as well drink of this liquor, for in respect of the vessell they are both alike changed, in respect of the matter they are both alike wine. Let M. Sm. therefore cease his odious comparisons of the translation with the comment: or else let him shew us some comment or sermon written upon any text, wherin at the least there is not water and wine, and perhaps death in the pot.