Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 33 – Martins comments 35
MART. 33. Seuenthly, that all the English corruptions here noted, and refuted, are either in all or some of their English Bibles printed in these yeares, 1562. 1577. 1579. And if the corruption be in one Bible, not in an other, commonly the sayd Bible or Bibles are noted in the margent: if not, yet sure it is, that it is in one of them, and so the Reader shall find it if he find it not alwaies in his owne Bible. And in this case the Reader must be very wise and circumspect, that he thinke not by and by we charge them falsly, because they can shew him some later edition that hath it not so as we say. For it is their common and knowen fashion, not onelyonly in their translations of the Bible, but in their other bookes and writings, to alter and change, adde & put out, in their later editions, according as either them selues are ashamed of the former, or their scholers that print them againe, dissent and disagree from their Maisters. So hath Luthers, Caluins, and Bezaes writings and translations bene changed both by them selues, and their scholers, in many places, so that Catholike men when they confute that which they find euident faults in this or that edition, feare nothing more than that the Reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very shame, and so may conceiue that there is no such thing, but that they are accused wrongfully. For example. Call to minde the late pretended conference in the Tower, where that matterTouching S. Iames Epistle. was denied and faced out for Luthers credit, by some one booke or edition of his, which them selues, and all the world knoweth, was most truly layd to his charge.
FVLK. 33. First this is vntrue, for some you hauehave noted in the new Testament, printed 1580. Secondly, it is vncertaine, for two of these translations might be printed in one yeare, and so I thinke they were. Therefore I know not well which you meane, but I guesse that the Bible 1562. is that which was of Doctor Couerdales translation, most vsed in the Church seruice in King Edwards time. The Bible 1577. I take to be that, which being reuised by diuerse Bishops, was first printed in the large volume, and authorized for the Churches, about tenne or twelue yeares agoe. That of 1579. I knowe not what translation it be, except it be the same that was first printed at Geneua, in the beginning of the Queenes Maiesties Raigne. And this coniecture as the fittest I can make, I must followe, seeing your note of distinction, is as good, as that fond fellowes, that would know his maisters horse by the bridle.
But it is a common and knowen fashion, you say, vsed of vsus, that not onelyonly in translations, but in other bookes and writings of ours, we alter and change, adde, and put to in our later editions. And who vseth not so to doe, if by later cogitations, that often are wiser, he finde any thing meete to be changed? Doe not you Papistes vse the same? Is Bristowes chapter of obedience in his motiues, nothing altered from the high treason contained in the first edition? Is nothing added, taken away, or changed in your Iesus Psalter, in any of your editions, or are you your selues ashamed of the former? Or hauehave your schollers presumed to alter their maisters writings? If you may hauehave an euasion in these cases, I trust we are not so pente in, but we may change our owne writings without shame of the former, or corruption in the later. As for the example of S. Iames Epistle, denyed (as you saye) and faced out for Luthers credit, will serue you for no proofe. For so farre off is it, that we, or the world doe knowe, that is was moste truly layed to his charge: that nowe we knowe of a certaintie, that it was a very slaunder, as false, as it was common: seeing Luthers wordes of that Epistle, are not absolute, but in comparison, as is confessed by you, and founde by some of vsus to be none otherwise in deede, who hauehave not stoode vponupon one onelyonly booke or edition, but vponupon as many as they could come by, both in the Latine, and in the Dutch tongue.
MART. 34. Eightly, in citing Beza, I meane alwaies (vnlesse I note otherwise) his Latine translation of the new Testament, with his annotations adioyned thereunto, printed in the yeare 1556.
FVLK. 34. You were afraide, lest they that vnderstoode not Latine, for whose sake you wrote in English this treatise, might take hurt by Bezaes translations, and annotations in Latine. And if he him selfe hauehave espied, and corrected any thing of his first edition, that was eitherIn his later editiō 156…. he hath Qu… fuit Caina…, both in the Greek & in the vulgar Latine. faultie or offensiue, in his two later editions, with great equitie, as though you were the onelyonly man that had discouered his errours, you muste let all the vnlearned in Englande knowe, what shamefull corruptions, you hauehave obserued in Bezaes translation, or annotations.
MART. 35. Lastly and principally is to be noted, thatVVe charge them not vvith forsaking the olde approued Latine text, though it be an ill signe, and to their euident confusion. we will not charge them with falsifying that which in deede is the true and authenticall Scripture, I meane the vulgar Latine Bible, which so many yeares hath bene of so great authoritie in the Church of God, and with all the auncient fathers of the Latine Church, as is declared in the Preface of the newe Testament: though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, onelyonly in fauour of his heresies, did wilfully forsake it, so the rest followed, and doe follow him at this daye, for no other cause in the world, but that it is against them. And therefore they inueigh against it, and against the holye Councell of Trent, for confirming theKemnitius. Caluin. authoritie thereof, both in their speciall treatises thereof, and in all their writings, where they can take any occasion.
FVLK. 35. In the margent, You will not charge vsus with forsaking the old approued Latine text, though it be an ill signe, and to our euident confusion. S. Augustine, though a meere Latine man, whome you your selfe doe after confesse to hauehave vnderstoode but one tongue well, and that was euen his mother tongue, learned (as he confesseth) of his nurses, is not so addicted to the Latine translation, but that he would hauehave men to seeke to the Hebrew, and Greeke fountaines, which you like a blasphemous hypocrite deny to be the true, and authenticall Scriptures in deede: allowing onelyonly the vulgar Latine translation, as though neither the Churches of Greece, Syria, Armenia, Aethiopia, nor any other in the world, which hauehave not the vulgar Latine, had not the true and authenticall Scriptures. And though your vulgar Latine hath for many yeares bene of great authoritie in the Latine Church, from the time when the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greeke tongues hauehave decayed: yet is it vtterly false, that you say that it hath bene of great authoritie with all the fathers of the Latine Church: whereas there is not one that liued within 400. yeares after Christ, that knew it, but almost eueryevery one followed a seueral translation. And S. Augustine in the place before cited, telleth you, that there were innumerable translations out of the Greeke into the Latine. Againe that your vulgar Latin, is full of many errours, and corruptions, I hauehave shewed by the confession of Isidorus Clarius, and Lindanus two of your owne profession: of which the one tooke paines by the Hebrue and Greeke to correct it, the other shewed meanes how it should be corrected. And where you say that Luther and his followers forsooke it for none other cause in the world, but that it is against them, it is vtterly vntrue. For beside that they hauehave made cleare demonstration of many palpable errours therein, (which they that hauehave any forehead amongst you cānot denie.) they hauehave and do dayly conuince you of horrible heresies, euen out of your owne corrupt vulgar translation. Finally whosoeuer shall reade what Caluine and Kemnitius hane written against the Councell of Trent, for auctorizing that translation, shall plainely see, that they had something else to alledge against it, which nothing at all concerneth their opinions, that be contrarie to the Popish heresie.