Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, Article 3
Art. 3. All Proteſtants, who are ignorant of the Greeke, and Latine tongues, are Infidels.
Here is Latine put for Hebrew, either by the Printers fault, or the Authors craft; who perhaps, by this ſleight▪ would bring their vulgar Latine tranſlation into credit, and thereby iuſtle out the originall Hebrew; but we will lay the blame vponupon the Printer, and ſo let it paſſe.
Papist.
Whoſoeuer relyeth his faith vponupon the Miniſters credit, and A. B.fidelitie, hath no faith at all.
But all thoſe in England, who are ignorant of the Greeke, and Hebrew tongues, relye their faith vponupon the Miniſters credit. Ergo, All thoſe in England, who are ignorant of the Greeke, and Hebrew tongues, hauehave no faith at all.
The Maior is manifeſt: becauſe they themſelues confeſſeC. Calu. lib. 4. inſtit. cap. 9. § 3. Luther. lib. de concil. pag. 54. & lib de concil. par. 1. q. D. b Wherein he deſireth the lords of the Councill, to procure ſpeedily a new tranſlatiō, becauſe that, which now is in vſe in England is full of errors. E c …n the conference at Hamp…ō Court. that eueryevery man may erre, and doth erre; neither hauehave they any warrant why the Miniſters do not erre, ſince they conſtantly doe defend, that whole generall Councills, yea and the vniuerſall Catholick church may erre, and hath erred.
The Minor I proue: for all ſuch Proteſtants ground their faith vponupon the Bible tranſlated into Engliſh; the which tranſlation they know not whether it be true or falſe: whether the Miniſter Tindall for example erred or no, either vponupon ignorance, as (b) Broughton one of the greateſt Linguiſts among the Preciſions affirmeth, in an Epiſtle dedicated to the Lords of the Councel, or vponupon malice; to induce the people to Proteſtancy, and to cauſe them to leaue the Catholick religion: as Gregorie Martin, in his diſcouery, moſt pregnantly proueth.
(c) And for that all the olde tranſlations are falſe, and the Geneuians the worſt, the Miniſters are now in moulding a new one; the which will hauehave as great immunitie from falſitie, as the former were voide of veritie, that is, both be ſubiect to ſemblable vncertaintie.
Theſe errors, I ſay they know not and conſequently cannot diſcerne a true tranſlation from a falſe: and therefore muſt needs relye their faith vponupon the ſillie Miniſters faithleſſe fidelitie; which conuinceth, that they hauehave no faith at all.
Proteſtants.
I… there be any force in this reaſon, it ouerthrowes Papiſts,A. as well as Proteſtants: becauſe the very ſame thing may be concluded of them; in this ſort:
Whoſoeuer builds his faith vponupon a mans credit and fidelitie, hath no faith at all.
But eueryevery Papist builds his faith vponupon a mans credit:
Therefore no Papiſt hath faith.
The difference betweene my Propoſition, and his, ſtands onelyonly in one word; He diſables the Miniſter in particular: I eueryevery man generally, and perticularly; but I keepe his ſenſe whole, and intire. For the reaſon, that he giueth in the proofe of his Maior, doth ſhew, that therefore miniſters are not to be credited, becauſe being men they may erre. And indeed whatſoeuer imperfection is in any Miniſter, he hath it, not as he is a miniſter, but as he is a man; and therefore if his propoſition be true mine is,
The aſſumption needs no other proofe but that, firſt Fathers, Councils, and Church are men, without any ſpeciall priuiledge of not erring, 2. that at the leaſt, the particuler teachers, which tell the Papiſts that ſuch, and ſuch Councills hauehave allowed theſe bookes for ſcripture, are men that may erre; 3. And indeede what ground hath any learned Papiſt, that there hauehave bene ſuch Councils, but the authority of men? 4. Whereupon can any vnlearned Papiſt relie for the interpretation of the decrees of the Councils, being written in Greeke or Latine (as all are) but the credit of men? 5. Nay more then that, who can tell what the ſignification of the Hebrew, and Greeke words is, euen in the Bible, but by the report of men? So that it may more truly be ſaide of the Papiſts, then of the Proteſtants, that they build their faith vponupon the credit of men: yea the Papiſts do properly, and wholy rely vponupon men, viz. the Pope, and his Priests; becauſe they beleeue, not by their miniſtery, as Chriſtians, but by their authority, like Pythagoreans.B.
But ſhortely to make an anſwere to his reaſon, if by relying vponupon the miniſters credit he meane that they hauehave noTo the Aſſumption. ground to build vponupon, but that, I deny his Aſſumption. For the vnlearned Proteſtant reſts vponupon the witnes of Gods ſpirit, which perſwadeth him of the generall truth contained in the tranſlation, and directeth him to, and in the triall of particulars. If to the credit of the miniſter, he add the witnesTo the Propoſitiō. of the ſpirit, I ſay the Propoſition is falſe, for he hath true faith, that relies on the Credit of the miniſter being directed by the ſpirit of God, ſo to do; If this ſeeme ſtrange to any papiſt, let him remember, that popiſh faith requires no leſſe reuelation, then the beleefe of Proteſtants; for, according to their doctrine, no man is perſwaded of the truth of the ſcripture, either for the text, or the interpretation, but by the eſpeciall grace of the ſpirit, vſing (as they ſay) the argument of the Churches authority, to beget faith in the heart: only we ſay, the ſpirit vſeth not the authority, but the miniſtry of the Church, to perſwade withall. They affirme that men beleeue, becauſe of the Churches authority, the ſpirit directing and inclining them, to reſt therevpon. Our opinion is that the credit of the miniſter relies on his doctrine: They teach that the credit of the doctrine ariſeth from the miniſter. And yet they cannot, but confeſſe that eueryevery miniſter, and all (except the Pope) may erre, in matters of greateſt ſubſtance.
We confeſſe in deede that men may erre both in poſſibility,C. and euent. But that the whole catholick Church may erre, no Proteſtant euer taught, or thought. For we profeſſe, that the holy men departed are triumphant members of the catholick church, who are exempted from all daunger of being deceaued: That part of the catholick church, which is militant▪ may, and doth erre, but neuer wholy in matters of ſubſtance; for then we know, it might come to paſſe, that, at ſome time, there ſhould be no church at all vponupon the earth, whence a preſent diſſolutiō of the world ſhould follow, ſinceD. it is continued for the elect, and, churches ſake. The Proteſtants, you ſay, ground their faith vponupon the Bible tranſlated into Engliſh. And the Papiſts ſay I build theirs vponupon the bible tranſlated into latine, or ſimply vponupon the word of him. that preacheth vntounto them. They are bound vponupon paine of damnation, to beleeue, that the Pope is Chriſts vicar, and cannot erre; But how ſhall I know, that the Pope teacheth this doctrine? vponupon what ground is this beleefe built? vponupon the credit of him, that tells them ſo? But it is ſcripture: how ſhall I know that? He, that tells me ſo, may be deceiued, But the Pope cannot: Firſt you begge the queſtiō; for you hauehave not proued that the pope cannot erre: Thē, how ſhal I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine? Alas, I am a poore ignorant man, and vnderſtand not either Latine, or Italian, in which the Popes iudgement is ſet downe. But, put caſe I did, what proofe can I hauehave, that the Pope deliuered this for his iudgement? How can I be ſ…e he was rightly choſen? I might adde a number of theſe doubts, of none whereof you can reſolue me, but only by vrging me to reſt vponupon the authority of men. Now then, let any man weigh the…e things in the ballance of reaſon, and trye▪ whether is lighter▪ Proteſtants cannot tell whether Maiſter Tindals tranſlation of the Scripture bee true, or no, neither can they diſcerne a true tranſlation, from a fa…ſe, and therefore muſt needs relye their faith vponupon the ſilly Miniſters, faithleſſe fidelitie, which conuinceth, that they hauehave no faith at all. Papiſt; cannot tell whether the Latine tranſlation of the ſcr…pture be true or no, neyther can they diſcerne a true tranſlation from a falſe, and therfore they muſt need; build their faith vponupon a ſilly Prieſts, or Fryers faithleſſe fidelity, which con…inceth, that they hauehave no faith at all. H…therto are all things equall betwixt vsus. Now conſider ſome differences. Firſt we profeſſe that Maister T…dall might, and did erre, and therefore we labour eueryevery day to amend our tranſlations. They acknowledge theirs to be faulty, but they accurſe them to the pit o… Hell, that will not, for all that reſt vponupon it. Secondly we ſubmit our tranſlations▪ to be examined by any learned Papiſts, according to the Hebrew, and Greeke They preferre theirs be…ore the Hebrewe, and Greeke. Thirdly, we binde no mans conſcience to agree to our tranſlation, vponupon paine of damnation, becauſe it askes yet ſome better correction. They tye all men to take eueryevery title of theirs for the certaine word of God, and yet dayly they alter it. As it appears by the diuers editions of Sixtus, 5. & Clemens. 8. two Popes, neither of which could erre, and yet either diſagrees from the other. But for the further avowing of our engliſh tranſlation, I deſire all men to obſerue theſe fewe points.
Firſt that theſe parts of ſcripture, which are worſt tranſlated, as the Pſalmes, are moſt agreeable to the popiſh Latine.
Secondly that our beſt tranſlation comes a great deale neerer to the interpretation of the learned Papiſts, a▪ Ʋatablus, Pagninus, Iſidorus Clarius, & Arias Montan…s, then the popiſh Latin doth.
Thirdly that, in all this variety of tranſlations, no one poynte of Doctrine, is ouerthrowne, by any newe expoſition.
Fourthly that no papiſt is able to finde, in any of our tranſlations, ſo many errors, from the ſenſe of the Holy Ghoſt, as Iſidorus, Clarius, a learned Papiſt, hath amendedAll theſe 8000. faults remaine ſtill in their vulgar tranſlation. in their popiſh Latine. viz. to the number of 8000, places, eueryevery one of which as he profeſſeth changeth the meaning of the text.
Laſtly I offer our worſt tranſlation, to be compared with the Rhemiſts, & affirme, that, in any reaſonable mans iudgment, it will appeare, that we hauehave delt more faithfully, and plainly then they; who ſeeme to hauehave bin afraide of nothing more, then that the text of Scripture ſhould be eaſely vnderſtood, Maiſter Broughtons skill in the Tongues, he that commends not either knowes not, or enuies. His miſl…ke of Maister Tindalls tranſlation I wil condemne when I ſee it diſproued. As for Gregorie Martine, Doctor Fulke long ſince ſtopt vp the mouth of his ſlaunders, that none of all you Papiſts hitherto could open it againe.
E. It paſſeth my ſmall skill in Logick to ſee how this newe addicion is applied to proue the old Article. For it agreeeth not, either with the Maior or Minor of his Syllogiſme. For that all the old tranſlations are falſe, the Miniſters are are now in moulding a new. Therefore whoſoeuer relyeth his faith on the ſilly Miniſters faithleſſe fidility is an Infidell. Therfore all thoſe in England, who are ignorant, of the Greek, and Hebrew, are Infidells.
That clauſe of the Geneua tranſlation ſauours of malice more then reaſon; for though that tranſlation, were the beſt by many degrees (as it may be, for ought that was ſaid at the conference, where the notes, not the text were condemned) yet might the Miniſters hauehave iuſt occaſion to amend them all. He, that ſo peremptorily condemnes the labours of many graue, and learned Diuines, before he ſee them, ſhewes more obſtinate preiudice, then either iudgement, or conſcience.
But who will helpe me to vnderſtand this ſtrange ſentence? The tranſlation in hand will hauehave as great immunitie from falſitie, as the former were voide of veritie, that is, If I ſhall make reaſon of it; as much as the former were voide of veritie, ſo great immunitie will this hauehave from falſitie. This expoſition will admit no concluſion but to the Authors great diſgrace. For if I aſſume thus, But the former were wholy voide of veritie; then muſt the concluſion be, Therefore this tranſlation will be altogether free from falſitie. If otherwiſe; But the former were not voide of veritie; Then indeed I may conclude, Therefore this will not be free from falſitie. But here the Aſſumption makes as much againſt him, as the concluſion doth for him.
The compariſon of equalitie being ſo little to his purpoſe, who can make the expoſition of it ſerue his turne, that both ſhalbe ſubiect to like vncertainty? Indeed, who can make reaſon of the ſentence?