H. Ainsworth and J. Smyth

A Defence of the Holy Scriptures, Worship, and Ministry used in the Christian Churches separated from Antichrist, against the challenges, cavils, and contradictions of M. Smyth, in his book entitled “The Differences of the Churches of the Separation,” Henry Ainsworth, Amsterdam: Giles Thorp, 1609

Paul willeth the church to read his Epistles, yea chargeth them in the Lord, to read them to all the brethren; and writeth to them again, to keep the instructions, taught by his Epistle: M. Smyth sayth the meaning is not strictly literal, that the words which he wrote should be repeated: but the sense related. As if Paul wanted fit words to set down his meaning, & they that should read, could tell it better. He that readeth, must read words as they are written, specially in Gods book, & Epistles from the holy Ghost, wherein no one word is vaine, idle, or unprofitable, no word misplaced or out of order: and he that shall presume to add or diminish or change the order in reading Gods writings, doth wickedly, and is near unto the curse. If things in reading be difficult, God hath given gifts unto men to open and expound them, to the understanding of all: but this expounding is not reading. Reading is first, exactly to the letter; exposition cometh after with such words as God putteth in the expositors heart; as by Daniels practise, we may learn. Neither are the words of the expositor comparable to the words of the writer; these being divine, are all as silver fined seven times, no drosse mixed with them. The other being human, (I speak of ordinary men as we are) and shewing the mans judgement that expoundeth them, are mixed with human infirmities, mistakings, and sometime deadly errors. Wherefore reading of the Original scriptures wherof here we treat, must be strictly literal, as is in the book. Translations are after to be spoken of; and is here vainly inserted, for Paul wrote in Greek, which all in Colosse, Laodicea, Thessalonica, and the whole country over, used as their vulgar tongue, that they needed none to translate for them. p. 43

The first and only controversie between M. Sm. and us being about the scriptures translated or overset into other tongues, which he affirmed to be apocrypha and human writings: how ever he hath sought to excuse and hide his error, yet hath he no will 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 all sorts; he shuffleth the translations of the holy scriptures among these latter; and affirmeth that there is no better warrant to bring translations 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 all these are equally human in respect of the work equally 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 baseness of men. p. 45

For this cause the holy scriptures are necessarie for all 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 still divine and heavenly. Only because in this changing or translating, imperfections, wants, errors may fall in: therefore the first writings as the Prophets & Apostles penned them, are to be made the absolute canon, rule, touchstone, whereby all 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 from human coommentaries or expositions, as heaven doth from earth. p. 47

Where first if M. S. mean the action of translating simply, without reference to the matter and thing translated, he doth but dally and seek to deceive: for writing, printing, translating are all alike human actions, but the things written printed translated, are different, some good some evil, some of God, some of men and of the devil. The books of Moses written printed or translated, are Gods law; the book of Mahomet written printed or translated, is the devils law: the actions of writing, printing, translating, are mere human actions in all of these. Now if because translating is an human action, therefore the thing tran∣slated must also be human, & the work of mans wit and learning: then also because writing and printing are human actions, therefore the bible written or printed in Hebreue, Greek, & all languages, must likewise be human, 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. p. 48

There was one only difference between M. Smyth and us, when first he began to quarrel; though synce he have increast them, and increaseth daily, with deadly feud and open opposition, as all men may see.

That difference was this. He with his followers breaking off communion with us, charged us with sin for using our English Bibles in the worship of God; & he thought that the teachers should bring the originals the Hebrew and Greek, and out of them translate by voice. His principal reason against our translated scripture was this. Page  [unnumbered]

No Apocrypha writing, but only the Canonical scriptures, are to be used in the Church, in time of Gods worship. Every written translation is an Apocrypha writing, & is not canonical scripture. Therefore every written translation is unlawful in the Church in time of Gods worship. Page  [unnumbered]

...the Scriptures in English and other languages, rightly translated out of the Originals, are Canonical; & so to be read in the Church in the worship of God.  Page  [unnumbered]

Touching the first, namely, the use of translated scriptures in the worship of God: M. Smyth thus summeth up the difference, in the forefront of his book.

1. We hold (saith he) that the worship of the new testament properly so called, is spirituall, proceeding originally from the heart: and that reading out of a book (though a lawful ecclesiasticall action,) is no part of spiritual worship: but rather the invention of the man of sin, it being substituted for a part of spiritual worship.

2. We hold that, seeing prophesying is a part of spirituall worship: therefore in time of prophesying it is unlawfull to have the book as a help before the eye.

3. We hold that, seeing singing a Psalm is a part of spirituall worship; therefore it is unlawful, to have the book before the eye, in time of singing a Psalm. p. 4