Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 1 · Martins comments 54 – Martins comments 56
MART. 54. These few examples proue vntounto vsus that the Scriptures translated verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper vse and signification of the wordes, do by the Heretikes confession make for the Catholikes, and therefore Beza saith he altereth the wordes into other: and (I thinke) it may suffice any indifferent reader to iudge of his purpose and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Caluinists, and Bezites. Many other waies there are to make mosta certaine proofe of their Wilfulnesse, as when the translation is*Cal. Heb. 5. 7. & Tit. 3. 6. Beza 2. Thess…l. 2. 15. & 3. 6. framed according to their false and hereticall commentarie: and, When they will auouch their translations out of prophane writers, Homer, Plutarch, Plinie, Tullie, Virgil, and Terence, and reiect the Ecclesiastical vse of wordes in the Scriptures and Fathers: which Beza doth for the most part alwaies. But it were infinite to note all the markes, and by these, the wise reader may conceiue the rest.
FVLK. 54 These examples proue nothing lesse. For to runne ouer them all briefly, the first two, we translate verbatim, A man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the law, and, repent, and, repētance, we say for foreign and foreign. What make these for Poperie? If Luc 1. v. 6. we should call foreign, iustifications, what should Poperie gaine, but a vaine cauill? when you your selues cō fesse, that those iustifications are often vsed for commandements? Act. 2. v. 27. all our English translations are as you would hauehave them. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption, by which verse no descent into Limbus, but the resurrection from death can be proued. If wee translate as you do Act. 3. v. 21. whome heauen must receaue, wee will easily conuince that Christe muste be receaued of heauen. In the laste example the question is not, howe the worde is to be translated, but by what worde the want of the texte is to be supplied, whiche wee supplie not with wordes of our owne, but with the Apostles owne wordes.
HaueHave you not gayned greatly by translating verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper vse and signification of the wordes? I lyke well that eueryevery indifferent Reader may iudge by these examples, of Bezaes purpose in other places of his translation. But you hauehave two other wayes, to make certaine proofe of their wilfulnesse: The firste is, when the translation is framed according to their hereticall commentarie. A reasonable man would thinke rather, that the commentarie were framed according to the texte, than the texte to the commentarie. But to iustifie the truth of those translations, for the firste texte you quote, it is handled sect: 26. of this chapter, and so consequently Cap. 7. The seconde is answered sect: 46. the other two concerning tradition sect. 23. of the preface, and in the chapiter following. The second waye of proofe is, when they will auouch their translations out of prophane writers. I thinke there is no better waye, to know the proper, or diuerse signification of wordes, than out of auncient writers, though they be neuer so prophane who vsed the wordes most indifferently, in respect of our controuersies, of which they were altogither ignorant. As for the ecclesiasticall vse of wordes in the Scripture, and the Fathers, which Beza (you say) doth for the most part reiect, it is vntrue: except there be good and sufficient cause, why he should so do, warranted by the Scripture it selfe, or necessarie circumstances of the places, which he doth translate. For if the Scripture hauehave vsed a worde in one signification sometimes, it is not necessarie that it should alwaies vse it in the same signification, when it is proued by auncient writers that the worde hath other significations, more proper to the place, and agreeable to the rule of fayth, which perhaps the vsuall signification is not. As for example, the Scripture vseth very often this worde foreign for a boy, or seruaunt: but when the same worde is applied to our Sauiour Christ, in the prayer of the Apostles, Act. 4. 27. Who woulde not rather translate it childe, or sonne, as the worde doth sometime, but more seldome signifie? Howe the Fathers of the Churche hauehave vsed wordes, it is no rule for translators of the Scripture to followe, who oftentimes vsed wordes, as the people did then take them, and not as they signified in the Apostles tyme. As foreign for a publicke testification of repentaunce, which wee call penaunce: foreign for imposition of handes, and suche like, in whiche sense these wordes were neuer vsed before the Apostles times, and therefore it is not lyke, that they woulde beginne a newe vse of them, without some manifest explication of their meaning, without the whiche no man could hauehave vnderstoode them: as they hauehave done in the vse of these wordes foreign, and such like. It is not a faulte therefore, prudently to seeke euen out of prophane writers, what is the proper signification of wordes, and howe many significations a woorde may hauehave, and reuerently to iudge, which is moste apte for the place to be translated, and moste agreeable with the holy ghostes meaning in that texte: and not alwaies to bee tyed to the vsuall signification of wordes, as they are sometimes taken in Scripture, and much lesse as they are vsed of the auncient Fathers.
MART. 55. But would you thinke that these men could notwithstanding speake very grauely and honestly against voluntarie and wilfull translations of Scripture, that so notoriously offend therein them selues? Harken what Beza saith againstAnnot. act. 10. v. 46. Castaleo and the like: The matter (saith he) is now come to this point that the translatours of Scripture out of the Greeke into Latin, or into any other tōgue, think that they may lawfully doe any thing in translating. Whom if a man reprehend, he shall be answered by and by that they do the office of a translatour, not that translateth worde for worde, but that expresseth the sense. So it commeth to passe, that whiles eueryevery man will rather freely folow his own iudgement, than be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he doth rather peruert many things than translate them. Is not this well said, if he had done accordingly? but doing the cleane contrarie, as hath ben… proued, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, and a wilfull Heretike in so doing, and condemned by his owne iudgement.
FVLK. 55. No wise man doubteth, but they could both speake very grauely and auoyde most religiously al voluntarie, & wilful translations of scripture, that might tende to maintaine any errour. And the rather they will be perswaded, that Beza hath auoyded that lewde kinde of translatiō, for which he reproueth Castaleo, when they shall see, that you so malitious an enimie vntounto him, hauing spent all your inuention to seeke holes in his translation, can finde nothing but such childish cauils, as when they be discouered, men will maruaile that you were not ashamed to moue them.
MART. 56. But after this generall vewe of their wilfull purpose and heretical intention, let vsus examine their false translations more particularly, and argue the case with them more at large, and presse them to answere, whether in their conscience it be so or no, as hitherto is saide: and that by seuerall chapters of such CONTROVERSIES as their corruptions concerne: and first of all (without further curiositie whence to begin, in cases so indifferent) of TRADITIONS.
FVLK. 56. The more particularly you examine our translations, the freer, I hope, they shall be found from falsehoode, & wilfull corruption. And the more at large you argue the case, and presse vsus to answere, the more you shall make the case to appeare worse on your side, and the truth clearer on our parte. And as God is witnesse of our conscience and sinceritie in setting forth his word, without adulteration, or corruptiō, so I appeale to the consciences of al indifferent readers, whether hitherto you hauehave gotten any aduantage against vsus in this whole chapter, which yet you professe to be the abridgement, and summe of your whole treatise.