Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 14
CHAP. 14.
Wherin Maſter R. laboreth to prooue, that it is the verie waie to Atheiſme, and infidelitie to leaue the ordinarie tranſlation of the Bible, and to appeale to the Hebrew, Greeke, and ſuch new diuerſe tranſlations, as the Proteſtans hauehave made.
THis abſurd Chapter M. R. pag. 406. &c.beginneth with Caſtalion, tranſlating long ſentences out of the preface of his Bible to King Edwarde the Sixt: wherein how vntrulie it is obiected vntounto him, that he thinketh the Meſſias promiſed in the law, not to be come as yet, and that he would hauehave eueryevery man left to his owne priuate iudgement, I will not looſe time to declare. Let Caſtalion ſay and write what he liſt, and let M. R. alledge at his pleaſure ſtore of teſtimonies out of ſuch authors, whoe can denie him libertie ſo to do, or who can thinke him worthie anſwere therein, when he hath ſo done? As Saint Ierome being vrged with Tertullians opinion, anſwered, De Tertulliano nihilamplius dico, quàm Eccleſia hominem non fuiſſe: That he was not a man of the Church, ſo will anſwere no more about Caſtalion, but that he was a man not ſound in ſome points of the Catholike faith and religion of Chriſt, as by his dealings and writings hath appeered: and therefore we make no greate account of him, nor hauehave regard what aſſertions he held, what counſell he gaue, what can be rehearſed out of his workes. Al this was vainely brought in and no leſſe vaine is it, that you talke of neglecting all antiquity, & ſuſpending our religion vponupon the onelie teſtament tranſlated after the new guiſe, where (you ſaie) is found more varietie, then there are conlours in the rainebowe. Doe we neglect antiquitie, or you rather? For which is more auncient (Maſter Rainolds) the Hebrewe and Greeke, or the Latine? and doe not you ſuſpend your religion vponupon the teſtament tranſlated, that hauehave noe ſcripture in your Church, but onelie a tranſlation, of which I maie trulie ſaie, that greater imperfections, and moe corruptions are found therein, then in all our Engliſh tranſlations together can be eſpied? we depend not vponupon anie tranſlation, Engliſh, or Latine, or of other language, no otherwiſe then the ſame agreeth with the originall text: but your wholl Church indeed is hanged vponupon the latine tranſlation onelie, which how bad it is, hath partlie bene ſhewed alreadie, and if need require, ſhall much more be diſcouered. That you aske which Hebrewe, which Greeke I meane, are you ſo ignorant not to knowe the Hebrewe Bible, and greeke teſtament? How manie Hebrews, how manie greeks hauehave you, vnles you meane certaine editions of the greeke teſtament, wherein is found ſmall varietie of anie moment.pag. 411.
To prooue that the departing from the latine tranſlation is the verie introduction to Apoſtaſie, you propound one example of the heretikes in Germanie, called Antinomi, whoe holde,M. Rai. chargeth vsus with the hereſie of the Antinomies moſt vntruelie. as Sleidan writeth, that how wickedlie ſoeuer a man liueth, yet if he beleeue the goſpell, he ſhall be iuſtified: and this you ſaie is the verie concluſion of the Proteſtants common doctrine of iuſtification by faith. What need you, M. Rainolds, in this place thus falſelie, and malitiouſlie to ſlaunder vsus? Doe we teach any ſuch doctrine as this in our Church? doe we giuegive libertie of licentious life to the profeſſors of the goſpel? doth iuſtification by faith inferre this wicked and deteſtable concluſion: your conſcience can tell you, that you ſpeake vntrulie. If hope of repentance be left for ſuch ſlaunderers and blaſpehmers, God giuegive you repentance: otherwiſe I doubt not the Lord will auenge in time ſuch reproches againſt his holie religion. Let vsus now conſider your proceeding againſt theſe men.
Firſtpag 411. fathers and councells are by them (you ſaie) not regarded: which I graunt may well be, that ſuch wicked men will regard neither fathers nor Councells: but this can not be vnderſtood of vsus, who hauehave the fathers and the Councells in ſuch reuerence and regard, as meet is we ſhould. Then Saint Iames is alſo by them reiected, as contrarie to Saint Paull. They that reiecte Saint Iames, be they Antinomi, or whoeſoeuer, let them anſwere for it them ſelues, this appertaineth not vntounto vsus: but hereof hath bene ſaide enough before. Thirdelie, the epiſtle to the Hebrews is denyed by Beza and Caluine to be Saint Paule. What then? is it denyed therefore to be holy ſcripture? And for Illyricus, he is fo far from denying this Epiſtle to be Canonicall ſcripture, that he thinketh the ſame to be written by Saint Paul himſelfe, and to be amonſt excellent and neceſſarie part of the Scripture, as you maie reade in his preface vponupon that epiſtle. Fourthlie, Saint Peters place is brought in, which helpeth litle,2. pet. 1.20. whether we read the wordes (by good workes) according to the latine tranſlation, or leaue them out, according to the greeke veritie. That our calling & election is confirmed by good workes, maketh nothing againſt iuſtification by faith. Will you ſaie we are elected and called by our workes? that is groſſe herefie, worſſe then Pelagianiſme. But Saint Peter biddeth vsus to make our vocation and election ſure by good workes, and yet you know your ſelues and graunt, that our vocation and election is wrought without anie meanes of good workes, becauſe we are elected before the world, and before our vocation our workes were onelie wicked, what maketh all this then for merite of good workes, that they are teſtimonies and arguments of our election and effectuall vocation?1 Pet. 1.2… Fiftlie, an other pregnant place is brought out of the firſt of Saint Peter, againſt which no exception can be made, whereby you ſay is prooued firſt, that we hauehave free wil: which I graunt we hauehave, after we are regenerate, Secondlie, that we purifie our ſelues from ſinne, as though we denied that after grace receaued we ought, and in ſome meaſure might labour againſt the ſinnes and corruptions of our ſoule. Thirdlie, that good workes are neceſſarily required of Chriſtian men: this indede confuteth thoſe heretikes of whome you ſpeake, but maketh nothing againſt vsus, who thinke, teach, and continuallie preach, that good workes are neceſſarie for al Chriſtians, otherwiſe they ſhall neuer ſee the kingdome of god: ſo that we are as far from that damnable hereſie of the Anabaptiſts and Antinomies, as heauen is from earth. Further you proceede to a place of Saint Paul. Phil. 1. v. 28 where anie man of knowledge maie ſoone perceaue that your tranſlator was deceaued fouly, when he tranſlated foreign, cauſe, the word ſignifying not a cauſe, but a plaine declaration, or proofe. And this is the manifeſt meaning of Saint Paul in that place, that as the malice and rage of the wicked enemies of the Church is an argument of their condemnation, ſo the patience of the godly in ſuffering ſuch afflictions is an euident proofe that they are the children of god, and therefore ſhal inherit eternal life. Not Beza therfore, but you, and your tranſlator hauehave altered the text, and peruerted the ſenſe of this ſcripture. As for your other argument our of Luke. 7. v. 47. of the woman to whom many ſinnes were remitted, it hath bene anſwered ſo fullie and truelie by ſundry learned writers, that I might whollie paſſe it ouer.A chie… place of the papiſtes for merite of workes anſwere and expounded Onelie this in briefe I ſaie to ſtoppe your rayling mouth, that foreign, becauſe, is often times vſed for foreign, therefore: & that ſo in this place it muſt be of neceſſitie expounded, may appeere by an inuincible reaſon, which your ſelues cannot denie. For that woman being ſo deeplie drowned in deadly ſinne, how could her louelove deſerue the grace of God, and remiſſion of her ſins? doth your ſcholaſticall Theologie maintaine, that a ſinnefull creature, lying in ſtate of condemnation can by louelove merit pardon of his ſins? Tel vsus plainly, if this be your doctrine, your religion, your diuinity. If then this be moſte falſe and impoſſible, confeſſe that the louelove of that ſinnfull and miſerable woman, was not be cauſe of forgiuenes of her ſinnes, but the effecte following, and not going before the ſame. This doctrine is true and Catholike, the contrarie wicked and hereticall, and therefore no cauſe had you to raile ſo mightely at Beza and vsus for tranſlating & expounding this word as we do, & as the proportion of faith, & circumſtance of the place moſte vndoubtedlie and neceſſarilie requireth. For our ſauiour Chriſt ſheweth the cauſe of hir ſo great louelove to be the forgiuenes of the great and manie ſinnes. They to whome litle is forgiuen, louelove a litle: they to whome much is forgiuen, louelove much. She had much forgiuen, therefore ſhe loued much. And this the Fathers alſo acknowledge to be the true and naturall ſeuſe of the place, although you abuſe their names to the contrarie. S. Gregorie as he is alſo by Thomas alledged,Gr…g. … 83.… Luangell. writeth thus, The debt being forgiuen to both, the Phariſie is demaunded who ſhould more louelove him that forgaue the debt. You ſee that Gregorie expoundeth this of the louelove that followed the forgiuenes of the d…bt. And ſo likewiſe Saint Ambroſe vponupon this place,Ambroſ. is Luc. 7. Becauſe (ſaith he) there is nothing which we can worthelie render vntounto God, woe be vntounto me, if I louelove not. I dare ſaie Peter rendered not, and therefore he loued more, &c. Let vsus therefore render louelove for debt, charitie for reward, thankes for the priſe of his bloode. Thus Saint Ambroſe planlie ſhe weth, that this louelove in that woman did ſpring from remiſſion of her ſinnes,C…nus. l. 12. c. 12. as it muſt in vsus alſo proceed from the ſame fountaine. I could alſo put you in minde what Canus a ſchooleman of yours hath written of this place cleane ouerthrowing your opinion, as if he had of purpoſe deuiſed a ſhift for you. Notwithſtanding that the fathers ſometime write, our ſinnes are waſhed a waie by teares of repentaunce, I graunte: wherebie they meane no other thing, but that by our earneſt ſorowe and repentance we receiue a ſure teſtimonie to our ſoules of the remiſſion of our ſinnes. Your diſcourſe about Muſculus expoſition I pretermit, with al your monſtrous reproches, & blaſpemies of Lucianical onelyonly faith, &c. except the deuil him ſelfe ſtood by them, and ſuggeſted to them ſuch conſtruction, &c. fitter for you to vtter, then me to rehearſe or anſwere.pag. 428.
This wholl matter againe M.R. laieth out in particular diſtinctions, wherunto hath bene anſwered enough alreadle, and more then nedd, but onelie in reſpect of that intolerable and outragious Importunity, which this cauiller hath vſed. If this be an vnlawfull ſhift in expounding of ſcripture, to trie and correct the tranſlation according to the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines, then hauehave all the auncient fathers of the Church exercized continuallie wicked ſhifts, whoe both appeall them ſelues to the authenticall fountaines, and counſell all others to doe the ſame: far otherwiſe then your fathers of Tre… hauehave done, or will ſuffer others to doe. whotie their faith wholly to a bare tranſlation, and giuegive no creditt to the Canonicall fountaines: wherin they hauehave not only vſe de damnable and miſerable ſhift, but at once hauehave raſed out the wholl ſcriptures from beginning toending.Grat. diſt. 9. vt veter. S. Auguſtine ſaith, the bookes of the olde Teſtament muſt be examined by the Hebrew, and the new by the Greeke veritie. Saint Ambroſe ſaith,Ambroſade incarn. cap. 8. The authoritie of the Greeke bookes of the new Teſtament is greater. S. Ierome is eueryevery where of the ſame minde: In the new Teſtament (ſaith he) if there ariſe anie queſtion among the Latines, Hier. ad sonn & Fret.and there be difference in the copies, we repaire to the fountaines of the Greeke tongue, wherein the new Testament was written: and ſo likewiſe in the olde. In his preface vponupon the fiue bokes of Moſes: he eſteemeth it an abſurde and impoſſible thing, that the latine copies ſhould be purer then the Greeke, and the Greeke then the Hebrew. Againe in a nother place he ſaith, if trueth is to be ſought, in a Euang. ad Damaſ.whie reiurne we not to the Greeke orignal? ſpeaking of the new Teſtament. And ſuch ſayings hath he manie, alwaies preferring the Hebrew & Greeke before al tranſlations in the world. But all this by M.R. ſimple verdite was but a ſhift in him, and al the auncient learned godlie fathers. For it is the high waie to Atheiſme in his opinion to do as they did, and as they hauehave alſo taught vsus to doe.
Zuinglius expoſition of louelove for faith, pag. 429.I will not maintaine. It may ſeeme more curious, then neceſſarie. In the text is no difficultie, if the ſimplicitie of truth maie be receiued. As for Tertullians complaint of certaine heretickes, that either refuſed, or mangled, or corrupted the ſcriptures, it toucheth vsus no whit at al, who acknoweledge the wholl bodie of ſcriptures, and are ſo far of from wilfull corruption thereof, that of purpoſe we would not alter one letter in the Bible, to winne the wholl worlde. Therefore we litle regard your furious and ſenſeles railing againſt vsus, where with you hauehave ſtuffed all partes of your booke, that neuer was ſcorpion fuller of poiſon, then it is of venemous and ſtinging reproches.
Leauing the Greek, you returne againe to the Hebrew,Pag. 431. againſt which you hauehave deuiſed pretie reaſons, to prooue there is no holde in it againſt contentious heretikes. The blaſphemie of which aſſertion,M. Rain. ſaith that in the Hebrew text of ſcripture there is no holde. I dout not euerie reaſonable man at the firſt will eſpie and abhorre. For ſeeing it pleaſed the Lord, of all tongues of men vnderunder heauen to chuſe that tongue, wherein to write his word & oracles, that his Church might hauehave a moſt perfecte and certaine rule of religion, ſhall this Papiſt come and controll the wiſdome of God for ſo doing, and ſay that of the Hebrew litle holde can be taken to binde a contentious heretike? Thus it appeereth, that although we had the verie ſame Autographall and authenticall copies, which Moſes and the other Prophets did write with their owne handes, yet would this Seminary papiſt and his fellowes make leſſe account of them then of their tranſlation, as being leſſe hable to binde heretikes then it.
The reaſon is, firſt the diuerſe ſignifications of euerie worde almoſte, which may ſeeme perhapes to ſome ſimple bodie to make for their tranſlation againſt the Hebrew. Whereunto I anſwere, firſt that although the Hebrew were ſo vncertaine in reſpect of the manifold and diuerſe ſignifications of wordes, as they would hauehave it, yet were there noe cauſe whie the latine tranſlation ſhould more be allowed for the vndoubted word of God, then the Greek or any other in the world. They are all noe better then tranſlations; and what warrrant is there for one more then an oother, but onelie in commendation of greater ſinceritie, and that in reſpecte of faithfully expreſſing the Hebrew? Secondlie this variety of ſignifications is not latelie begonne, but was alwaies from the beginning: which notwithſtanding the Hebrewes could ſpeake, and write their mindes as plainlie and certainlie, as anie other people: and the ſcriptures were read and expounded in that language manie hundred yeares before anie parte of them was tranſlated into Latine. So that this reaſon maketh them now no leſſe hable to binde heretikes, then they hauehave euermore bene from the beginning. And what tongue (I praie you) were the ſcriptures written in, which the Apoſtle exhorteth Timothie to read, that he might ſtoppe the mouthes of heretikes, and which he ſaith are profitable to conuince the Aduerſaries, but in the Hebrewe and Greeke? your latine tranſlator was then vnborne, when yet the ſcriptures in their original tongues were able to binde and confute all heretikes. Your example out of the Pſalme 55. ver. 21. ſheweth a plaine corruption in your tranſlation. For that Hebrew worde with theſe letters and prickes cannot ſignifie to reward, as your tranſlation hath, but vponupon thoſe that hauehave peace with him, as our tranſlations for the moſte hauehave according to the Hebrewe.
The ſecond reaſon is,pag. 433. that manie ſubſtantiues maie hauehave diuerſe deriuations from diuerſe verbes: and one example is brought out of the 60. Pſalme, v. 6. To this maie be anſwered as to the former, that if this diuerſitie of deriuation cauſe a diuerſitie of expoſitions, it maketh no more againſt the Hebrew text now, then euer ſince the hebrew was firſt written.
Thirdlie,pag. 434. touching the literal ſenſe of the hebrew words, you demaund what maſters we ſhall followe. If a controuerſie be about the ſignification of a word, whome ſhould we followe rather then the moſte learned maſters of that tongue? they can beſt reſolue vsus that know the tongue beſt: and as this for wordes in all other languages is the onelie waie, ſo likewiſe if we doubt of ſome worde in hebrewe, what meanes maie we vſe to be inſtructed and ſatisfied, but to learne of thoſe that are moſte skilful in the tongue, and beſt know the naturall force of the words. Who can denie that this is much better, then as your tranſlator oftentimes doth, to call blacke white, and to giuegive a ſignification of a worde, which all Hebricians can tell, is cleane amiſſe. Examples hereof are in your tranſlation plentifull, as if before you knew not, now by that which I hauehave alreadie alledged, you maie vnderſtand. That which followeth of Caluine, Beza, and the reſt, hath nothing, but a poore bragge not worth the mentioning.
To your queſtion,pag. 437. whether I thinke it flat Atheiſme and Turkery, to denie that Chriſt was borne of a virgine, I anſwere, no Chriſtian can thinke otherwiſe but that it is indeed plaine Atheiſme, to denie this ſo principall an article of our faith. Then you require what ſcripture I hauehave to prooue this veritie. I anſwere, I prooue this veritie by a plaine text of ſcripture, in Matt. 1. v. 23.foreign Beholde a virgine ſhall conceaue. &c. But this, you ſaie, prooueth nothing by mine owne rule, by Bezaes common kinde of ſcanning ſuch citations, and by the proteſtants interpretation of this place. What rule, what ſcanning, what interpretation of ours can you alledge againſt this moſte ſufficient and euident proofe? Did euer Beza, or I, or anie other proteſtant ſpeake anie thing againſt this trueth? If you can charge anie of vsus, we deſire no fauour at your hands. But what cauſe or reaſon hauehave you thus to ſaie? Becauſe this texte is not according to the Hebrewe, but the ſeauentie as you affirme. Which to be a foule vntrueth and tending to Atheiſme and Turciſme, whoe ſeeth not? For if the Angels wordes rehearſed in Saint Matthew be not agreeable to the veritie of the Prophets wordes, then may Turkes, Iewes, Atheiſts, and wicked heretikes indede at their pleaſure not onelie diſpute againſt this article of our faith, but alſo condemne it, and we ſhall not be hable to conuince them. This aduantage giueth M. Rainolds vntounto them, when he ſaieth, Saint Matthewes text is not framed according to the Hebrwe, but the Greeke tranſlation.M. R. denieth the text of S. Matthewe touching Chriſt borne of a virgine, to be according to the Hebrewe. Thus while you labour to prooue that we in cleauing to the Hebrewe text, doe open a gappe to Atheiſme, your ſelfe in denying S. Matthewes text to be fully agreeable to the Hebrewe, hauehave opened a broade gate to all Atheiſts and Turkes in the world. God forbidde that we ſhould euer vtter word ſo much ſeruing for defenſe of Atheiſme as you hauehave here done: or els ſet downe in word or writing that S. Matthewes place is not according to the Hebrew. If you take part with the Iewes, and openlie maintaine, that the Hebrew worde ſignifieth not a virgine, but a young wench, then will I anſwere you as the godlie fathers hauehave anſwered thoſe wicked enemies of Chriſt, that … ſignifieth a young wench indeed, but one that is a virgine, being deriued of the roote that ſignifieth to …. foreign.So Saint Ie… writeth, that this worde not onelie ſignifieth a young maide or virgine, but more alſo, a virgine kept hid… and ſecret, by greate diligence of hee parents: and further alſo, a young virginus of tender age, not an olde virgine, as ſome be. And although the word in Hebrew had ſignified onelie a wench, yet the Angell and Euangeliſts expounding it of ſuch a wench as was a virgine alſo, this maie ſuffice all Chriſtians to beleeue and holde, that our ſauiour Chriſt was borne of a true virgine, let Iewes, Turkes, Atheiſts, and heretikes, ſay what they can to the contrarie.
Maſter R. is affraid leſt men ſhould thinke he ſtudied to diſgrace the Greeke & Hebrew tongues,pag. 435. &c. which he confeſſeth to be great helps to the attaining of the true ſenſe in ſundrie places of ſcripture, and ſheweth what paines the Catholikes hauehave taken in ſetting forth the Bible in Hebrew and other languages. I graunt you hauehave not diſgraced the tongues, but the ſcriptures written in thoſe tongues you hauehave indeauoured as much as in you laie to diſgrace, although doe what you can, you ſhall neuer be able to diſgrace them truly. And herein may you firlie be compared to the Iewes; for as they keepe the Hebrew text moſte carefullie, but yet hauehave loſt the true meaning thereof: ſoe you hauehave indeed printed the old and new teſtament in Hebrew and Greeke with diligence and great coſt, but in the meane time you deny them to be the authenticall word of God.
This treatiſe you conclude ful diſcreetly, that firſt we muſt be ſure of our faith. That is a verie good thing, but how this ſhould be wrought, you tell vsus not. The latine tranſlation is for this purpoſe no fitter, then the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines, but rather manie waies more vnfitte, being onelie a tranſlation, and that an vnperfecte, a corrupt, an obſcure tranſlation: & though it were as excellent as euer any tranſlation could be, which God knoweth is far otherwiſe, yet might it not attaine to the diuine perfection of the originall text that was written, and publiſhed by the wiſdome of Gods holie ſpirit, and miniſtery of the Prophets, Apoſtles, and Euangeliſtes. But (ſaie you) let vsus holde the Church, then our Greeke and Hebrew may do vsus ſome good: let vsus departe from her, our Greeke and Hebrew will turne to our perdition. And I graunt M. R. that to talke of the Greeke and Hebrew, vnles we hold the right faith in the true Church, helpeth vsus nothing, but rather increaſeth our condemnation. But this is true no leſſe, I am ſure, of your latine, then of the Greeke and Hebrew, vnles there be ſome ſecrete vertue in that, which is not in the other, that to talke of it, though a man hold not either faith or Church, may be a profitable thing. If this be not your meaning, then hauehave your words no ſenſe nor force of reaſon in them: a meete concluſion for ſuch a diſcourſe.