Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 1 · Martins comments 15 – Martins comments 17
MART. 15. If they will not stand to all their translations, but flie to that, namely which now is redde in their Churches: & if that which is now redde in their Churches, differ in the points afore sayd, from that that was redde in their Churches in King Edwards time: & if from both these, they slie to the Geneua Bible, & from that againe, to the other afore sayd: what shall we iudge of the one or the other, but that all is voluntarie, and as they list? See chap. 3. num. 10. 11. 12. chap. 10. num. 12.
FVLK. 15. If of three translations, we preferre that which is the best, what signe of corruption is this? If any fault hauehave either of ignorance, or negligence escaped in one, which is corrected in an other, and we preferre that which is corrected, before that which is faultie, what corruption cā be iudged in either? Not eueryevery fault is a wilful corruption, & much lesse an heretical corruptiō. The example that you quote out of your 3. chapiter concerning the translation of Idolum, is no flying from our trā slation to an other, but a confuting of Howlets cauill against our Church seruice: because this word is therein redde translated an image. 1. Ioan. 5. wheras in that Bible, which by authority is to be red in the church seruice, the word in the text is idols, & not images▪ & yet wil we iustifie the other to be good & true, which readeth, Babes, keepe your selues from images, as your vulgare Latine text is à simulachris, wherein you flie from your owne authentical text to the Greeke, which except you thinke it make for your purpose, you are not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted.
MART. 16. If they gladly vse these wordes in ill part, where they are not in the originall text, Procession, shrines, deuotions, excommunicate, images: and auoide these wordes, which are in the originall, Hymnes, grace, mysterie, Sacrament, Church, Altar, Priests, Catholike, traditions, iustifications: is it not plaine that they doe it of purpose to disgrace, or suppresse the sayd things and speeches vsed in the Catholike Church? See chap. 21. num. 5. & seq. chap. 12. num. 3.
FVLK. 16. Who would be so mad, but blind malice, to thinke they would disgrace or suppres the things, or names of Catholike Church, whereof they acknowledge thēselues mēbers: of grace by which they confesse they are saued: of hymnes, which they vse to the praise of God: of iustifications, when they professe they are of thē selues vniust: of Sacraments & mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ are sealed vp vntounto them: of altar, when they beleue that Iesus Christ is our altar: of Priests, when they hold that al good Christians are Priests: of deuotions, when they dispute that ignorance is not the mother of true deuotion, but knowledge, of excommunication, which they practise daily. As for the names and thinges of procession, shrines, images, traditions, beside the holy Scriptures in religiō, they hauehave iust cause to abhorre. Neither do they vse the one sort of termes, without probable ground out of the originall text: nor auoide the other, but vponupon some good speciall cause: as in the seueral places (when we are charged with them) shal appeare.
MART. 17. If in a case that maketh for them, they straine the very originall signification of the word, and in a case that maketh against them, they neglect it altogither: what is this but wilfull and of purpose? See chap. 7. numb. 36.
FVLK. 17. I answer we streine no words, to signifie otherwise, than the nature and vse of them will affoord vsus, neither doe we spare to expresse that, which hath a shewe against vsus, if the propertie, or vsuall signification of the word, with the circumstance of the place, doe so require it.