Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 13
CHAp. 13.
Of the new Teſtament in latine: and a compariſon of the vulgar tranſlator with all other of this age.
NOw M. R. beginneth to declame againſt.pag. 361. the newe Teſtament in Greeke, as he hath in the former Chapter done againſt the old Teſtament in Hebrew. Wherein how vnlearnedlie and vnworthelie he hath behaued him-ſelfe, the wiſe reader may perceiue by that which hath beene anſwered to his particular reprehenſions. And as no cauſe can be alledged to preferre the latine tranſlation of the old Teſtament before the Hebrew fountaine, ſo no leſſe abſurd and vnreaſonable is it to leaue the Greeke, and follow the vulgare tranſlation in the new teſtament.
Their chiefeſt reaſon of greateſt ſhew and likelyhood againſt the Hebrew text is the malice and impietie of the Iewes, whoe being enimies of Chriſtian religion may therefore be thought to hauehave in many places corrupted their bibles of purpoſe to diſgrace and diſcredite the Goſpell of Chriſt. But as this is prooued moſte vntrue, ſo being graunted for true, it can be no reaſon againſt the Greeke teſtament, which euer ſince the writing and firſt publiſhing thereof remained in the cuſtodie and handling of moſt godlie fathers, Churches and Countries, who had as great skill and care to preſerue it from corruption, as had the latins to kepe their tranſlations pure and ſincere. Then what reaſon can you bring, or what colour of reaſon can you pretend in the new teſtament to cleaue onelie to the latine, and to reiecte the Greeke? The latine, you ſaie, is purer, then the Greeke. So hauehave your fellowes of Rhemes indeede tolde vsus, and this they make their principall ground, whereupon they hauehave bene bolde to followe the latine, and not the Greeke, in tranſlating the new teſtament. But what aduantage ſoeuer you thinke to make of this, or any other ſuch reaſon, true it is, and by triall ſo ſhall be found, and hath heretofore by diuerſe ſufficientlie bene prooued, that the latine tranſlation of the new teſtament is more generallie & notoriouſly corrupted, then you ſhall euer be hable to auouch of the Greeke originall text. That Beza writeth againſt Eraſmus in commendation & defenſe of the latine tranſlation, it is euident, he meaneth not whollie to excuſe it from corruption in all places, but onelie in certaine, which Eraſmus found fault withall. For otherwiſe Beza ſheweth the vulgare tranſlation to be full of corruptions, as if you reade his annotations, you may perceiue. Wherefore this teſtimony of Beza ſerued your Remiſts to litle purpoſe, but that they hauehave a ſleight to make ſuch things as are ſpoken, in ſome reſpecte, ſeeme to be vttered without exception, as in this place and many others may be ſeene.
Your aſſertions are now to be examined by which you labour to ſtrengthen the Remiſh ſlaunder of corruption againſt the Greeke teſtament.Pag. 363. Three in number hauehave you brought, of no importaunce, as ſhall appeere, ſo that we may eaſilie thinke they are indeed your owne. The firſt is, the difference of our Greeke copies now, M. Rai. argumēts againſt the newe teſtamente in Greeke confuted.from the olde. It may perhaps (I graunt) be prooued, that in the Greeke copies of the new teſtament ſome diuerſitie may be founde. So was there much greater difference in the latine tranſlations, as your ſelfe cannot deny. Then what maketh this for the latine tranſlation, againſt the Greeke fountaine? if you ſay the latine was corrected, I anſwere, it was indede corrected, but according to the Greeke, and the Greeke nowe remaineth ſtill, which maie be prooued to be not onelie as pure, as the latine, but purer by many degrees. For what reaſon hauehave you to ſaie, that the latine tranſlation euer ſince the correction hath bene preſerued faithfullie without corruption: but the Greeke text it ſelfe, after which it was corrected, became forthwith diſtayned and repleniſhed with groſſe corruptions? Our Greeke teſtament for the moſte parte, and in a manner euerie where, agreeth fullie with that copie, which the auncient Greeke Church vſed, and which therefore vndoubtedlie was the true originall Greeke text of the newe teſtament. And as the olde latine Church reformed her tranſlations according to the copies vſed in the Greek Churches, ſo ſhall it neuer be prooued, but that the ſame Greeke copies hauehave continued ſtill as free from corruption, as the latine tranſlations hauehave: wherefore the difference of our Greeke copies nowe from ſome olde, maketh nothing againſt the puritie and authoritie of our Greeke Teſtament, vnles you can ſhewe by euident proofe, that the Greeke Teſtament nowe extant differeth from that, which the Greeke Churches in times paſt generallie vſed. Some difference there might be (I denie not) in ſuch infinite multitude of copies. But what then? is no copie now therefore to be alowed? Maie we not alſo ſhewe the like difference betwene theſe latter editions of your latine tranſlation, and ſome other of elder time? you knowe we can, and it is by your owne writers confeſſed, & acknowledged. Is this then a learned obſeruation? is this a good concluſion? is this a ſound reaſon againſt the greek teſtament? ſuch arguments runne for currant at Rhemes, where popiſh blindnes raigneth: but being a litle opened and laid forth in the light, are by and by eſpied to be naught. Of this difference twoe examples you alledge: the former, is the ſtory of the adulterous woman in the eight of S. Iohn: which although ſome Greeke copies hauehave wanted, as apeereth by the Syriake interpreter, by Chryſoſtom, by Nonnus, by Ierome, yet others of as great authoritie had it. So this difference is not through later corruption, nor prooueth no more that the Greeke teſtament nowe is to be reiected, then it was in S. Chryſoſtomes daies. And furthermore this ſtorie being in your vulgare tranſlation, what can you deuiſe againſt the Greeke, more then the latine? The Greeke and latine agreeing, how is the Greeke more corrupt then the Latine? The other is in the Epiſtle to the Epheſians, Chap. 3. verſe 14. Wherein Saint Ierome ſaith certaine wordes were added in the latine, Domini noſtri Ieſu Chriſti, not being in the Greeke. But that herein Saint Ierome was deceiued, appeereth by S. Chryſtome, who readeth the wordes in the Greeke as you may ſee in his Greeke commentaries. And by this one example we may further note, what diligence Saint Ierome vſed ſome time in correcting the latine according to the Greeke, that denieth wordes to be in the Greeke, which yet are found in Saint Chryſoſtomes copies, and manie moe.
Your ſecond obſeruation is of raſhe additions, which hauehave bene made in the Greeke text. Pag. 365.If this be an argument of anie force againſt the teſtament in Greeke, it muſt hauehave much more weight againſt your common tranſlation, which is ſo full of additions both in the old teſtament, as I hauehave ſhewed, and alſo in the new, as hath bene faithfullie declared by others. Your examples are but twoe: the one in Saint Iohns Goſpell Chap. 8. verſ. 59. It may indeede appeere that thoſe laſt words of the verſe, paſſing through the midſt of them, and ſo departed, hauehave bene added. But this corruption may be eſpied, and corrected by auncient copies, and ſo in this reſpecte no cauſe to reiecte or diſallowe the wholl text in Greeke. The other is the concluſion of the Lordes prayer, For thine is the kingdome, the power, and the glorie for euer and euer. Amen. This peece, as you call it, your latine hath not, our Greeke copies hauehave. That ſome had it not in times paſt, I confeſſe: that others had it, is plaine by the Syriake tranſlator: if you ſuſpecte our copy of corruption, why may not weas probably ſuſpecte the ſame of yours? and we hauehave as iuſt cauſe to be offended with you for omitting this, as you with vsus for ſo glorious ſinging and ſaying of it.
The third obſeruation is,pa 3. 67. that the Greeke teſtaments oftentimes omit that, which they ſhould not. Examples in Luc. Chap. 1. v. 35. and Chapter. 17. v. 36. For the firſt, you might hauehave found, that in many greeke copies now extant and vſed, the wordes foreign of thee, are not omitted, and that hath Beza noted, and therefore ſupplyed thoſe wordes in the greeke of the laſt Geneuian edition. Your reproche of Anabaptiſme is ridiculous. The ſame maie be anſwered of the ſecond. For that 3 6. verſe of Luc. 17. is extant in ſundrie greeke editions, as well as in your latine tranſlation. But what maketh all this to purpoſe? Conclude hereof an argument, if you can, that therfore the greeke teſtament is more corrupted, then the latine. What a pitifull ſyllogiſme will this be, that muſt ſeuerallie of theſe places be concluded, that therfore the greeke teſtament is more corrupt, then the latine vulgar edition, becauſe the latine is in ſome places not ſo faulty, as ſome Greeke copies either are, or hauehave bene ſuppoſed to be.
Your laſt and principall reaſon,pag. 371. &c. why your Latine tranſlator ought to be preferred before all other, toucheth not the cauſe in hand, as your owne wordes doe witneſſe. The controueſie is not, which tranſlation is beſt, and moſte to be preferred, but whether this latine edition of your tranſlator, whoſoeuer he were, be worthely of your Church preferred before the originall fountaine. Admit he was indued with ſuch qualities as are moſte requiſite in faithfull tranſlators of ſcripture, & in reſpect thereof deſerueth greater creditte, then the reſt: doth it therefore followe, Maſter Rainolds, that we muſt preferre him before the writers of holie ſcripture themſelues? was he of ſounder religion towards God, indued with greater grace and ſpirit, more voide of partialitie and affection, then they? Otherwiſe if you compare him with other tranſlators, although I knowe herein your iudgement is altogether partiall, yet as this reaſon may aduance him to higher eſtimation then other tranſlators: ſo muſt it caſt him down as much and more beneath the writers them ſelues, in that they being choſen inſtruments of God for that purpoſe, were moſte plentifullie indued and aſſiſted with al graces of the holie Ghoſt, which can not be auouched of that tranſlator, how excellent otherwiſe ſoeuer he were. Other ſurmiſes and geaſſes of corruptions in the originall texte more then in the tranſlation, as they are by you oft repeated, & by ſundry impertinent teſtimonies of our writers idlelie enlarged, ſo ſhal they neuer be trulie and ſubſtantiallie prooued, whereby it might appeere that the latine tranſlation is more to be alowed and eſteemed generallie then the Greeke text.
To oppoſe ſome of our new tranſlators againſt your olde,pag. 375. &c. were verelie an eaſie matter: but thus ſhould we ſlippe awaie from the queſtion, and fall to other diſcourſes, wherin the controuerſie lieth not. If we ſhould attribute as much learning and diligence to your tranſlator, as ſuch a man could hauehave and vſe, yet would you confeſſe (I truſt) he were ſtill far inferior to the Prophets, Apoſtles, and Euangeliſts, whoſe writings remaine, and are the holy canonicall ſcriptures of God. Theſe writinges do we oppoſe againſt your tranſlation, and theſe doe you wickedlie and ſhamfullie diſhonour, in preferring the tranſlation of ſuch a man before them. This you are not hable either reaſonably to defend, or colourablie to excuſe, and therefore you runne another waie, as though you chaſed your enemie, whereas feare cauſeth your felfe to flie. All this talke of Eraſmus, Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Caſtalion, Caluine, Beza, and their tranſlations, is from the purpoſe. We make no ſuch account of anie of them, as you doe of yours, to allowe and receiue whatſoeuer they hauehave tranſlated, without examining their tranſlations by the text. we prefer whome we know to hauehave dealt in that worke moſte faithfullie, and if we find by skill and triall ſome ouerſight in the tranſlation (as in the beſt ſome may be found) we cleaue to the originall text of ſcripture, and not after your prepoſterous manner, to the corrupt tranſlation. Now of all tranſlations ſet forth by Proteſtants of all countries, ſure I am you cannot ſhewe any ſo repugnant to the veritie of the Hebrewe and Greeke fountaines, as I can ſhew, and as it hath bene ſhewed that yours is. That Luthers and Bezaes, and the other ſeuerall tranſlations hauehave bene by ſome in certaine places reprooued, is true. But what kinde of argument call you this, becauſe ſome errours hauehave bene noted in this or that tranſlation, therefore to conclude the wholl tranſlation is nought, or worſe then yours? Emſerus a papiſt (you ſay) hath gathered out of Luthers tranſlation fourteene hundred foule lies. If I ſaide, that this in him were a foule lie, I ſhould ſay truelie: Luthers tranſlation hath bene ſufficientlie commended and maintained by men of greater wiſdome and learning then Emſerus. That Zuinglius alſo miſliked Luthers tranſlation in ſome parts, and Beza the Baſill tranſlation, and that of Caſtalion, and Molinaeus Calaines, and Bezaes tranſlations, which matters are by you at large rehearſed, as thouge they made ſomewhat to purpoſe, I graunte and giuegive you leaue to make thereof what you can. But if this ſeeme in your iudgement a thing ſo odious and ſlanderous to our tranſlatious, that thus they hauehave bene ſeuerallie charged by ſome, what may we thinke and ſaie of you, that not content to accuſe our tranſlations (though far better then anie you hauehave) of ſuch impietie, dare affirme the originall bookes them ſelues now extant to be ſo full of groſſe and notorious corruptions (which you ſhall neuer prooue) that your vulgar tranſlation knowne to be moſte corrupt, is purer then they? what ſoeuer hath bene ſaied by any againſt our tranſlations, is in no reſpect of like hainouſnes to this, ſeeing that not onlie the bookes of ſcripture were written and ſet foorth at the firſt moſte purelie, but the meanes alſo hauehave euermore bene as great to keepe and continue them in the ſame puritie, as anie tranſlation whatſoeuer.
Your iudgement of our Engliſh Bibles is anſwerable to that ſpirit, where with you are poffeſſed, and of the abundance whereof you write. Nothing els they are (you ſaie) but corrupt gutters flowing from corrupte and ſtinking lakes,M. R. contumelies againſt the Engliſh tranſlations of the ſcriptures the beſt containing wicked, horrible, and ethnicall errors, A ſlaunder moſt wicked, horrible, ethnicall, of all men to be deteſted: neuer ſhal you prooue any word hereof true. Gregorie Martine hath labored herein, and performed nothing: your skill is onelie in open railing: other deed of moment can you do none againſt vsus. If you finde faulte with vsus for correcting our Bibles, ſhew vsus, if you can, that either it is vnlawfull to tranſlate the Bible into our owne tongue, or els after is hath bene tranſlated, to reforme the tranſlation in ſuch places wherein ſome errors hauehave eſcaped, or to tranſlate it ouer againe. No tranſlation of the ſcripture can at the firſt be ſo perfecte and ſincere, but it may be afterwardes amended, as God ſhall reuele to his Church the faultes thereof. Otherwiſe if it were any fault to amend a fault, why hath your Councell of Trident taken order for the correction of your latine tranſlation, and for a better edition thereof to be publiſhed, then heretofore hath bene? yea why hath Pope Pius reformed your Pſalters, Breuiaries, Offices, and ſuch other bookes, as are with you in greateſt vſe and eſtimation? If this ſeemed requiſite, why maie not we looke to our tranſlations like wiſe, amend the imperfefections, ſet forth better? But your griefe is, that we hauehave tranſlated the ſcriptures at all: although (I truſt) you will not now condemne the thing plainlie, ſeeing your ſelues at length hauehave giuen vsus an Engliſh tranſlation of the new teſtament, which if you thinke to be ſo abſolute, as it ſhall neuer neede any reformation, your iudgement is to be pitied rather, then confuted.
Twoe reaſons are alledged,pag. 387. whie you maie not tranſlate the new teſtament after the Greeke:The reaſons why the Rhemiſts hauehave not tranſlated the new teſtamen… according to the greeke. firſt, becauſe you thinke your latine Teſtament to be truer, then the common Greeke copies now extant. Thus you tell vsus what you thinke, but reaſon or proofe of this ſo abſurd a thought hauehave you none. Let me anſwere you, as Saint Ierome anſwereth Heluidius the heretike in this point,H…eron aduer. Heluid. tibi ſtultiſſimè perſuaſiſti Graecos codices eſſe falſatos: Thou haſt perſwaded thy ſelf moſt fooliſhlie that the Greeke bookes (of the new teſtamente) are falſified: and why may you not as well thinke, that the latine teſtament is corrupt, as the Greeke? what argument hauehave you more for the one, then the other? But your ſeconde reaſon is more abſurde, wherein you profeſſe that although you had the true originals, yet could you not make in theſe daies a better tranſlation. Wherefore could you not? the thinge is not harde if you had ſimple and willing mindes. But now may we ſee by this your proteſtation, that whatſoeuer you ſpeake againſt the corruption of the originall bookes, in reſpecte where of you will ſeeme to preferre your common tranſlation before them, yet although you had as true originals as euer were or could be wiſhed, notwitſtanding you woulde ſtill make more account of your tranſlation, then of them.
That wherefoeuer we find faulte with your tranſlation, ſome one of our owne brethren ſtandeth with you in defenſe of your tranſlation, is vntrue. I hauehave ſhewed examples enowe of groſſe and manifeſt corruptions in the tranſlation of the olde teſtament, which none our brethren as you call them, euer went about to excuſe. Valla, Eraſmus, Beza, hauehave noted manie in your tranſlation of the newe, althoug I graunt that both Eraſmus doth inſtlie reprooue Valla, and Beza hath worthelie reprooued Eraſmus in ſome places of their reprehenſions. And ſo maie it fall out to thoſe that take paines in correcting a booke ful of corruptions, as your latine tranſlation is, ſometime to finde a fault, where none is & the latter corrector to diſſent from the former. Your Tridentine decree which you commend, being ſet forth by ſo manie excellent godlie learned men, as you ſaie were impietie to compare all the ſcattered ſynagogues of Lutherans with them, hath bene tried and examined by more godlie and learned men, then euer were in that ſynagogue aſſembled, wherein neither godlines nor learning, but Antichriſtian tyrannie preuailed.
One example I alledged of corruption in your latine Teſtament:pag. 391. &c. and that I might hauehave gathered manie moe, is euident by that which hath bene declared before. In the 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. theſe wordes are wanting in your tranſlation, when this corruptible hath put on incorruption, which yet are found in all greeke copies now extant, and were not onelie in the olde greeke teſtaments, as appeereth by S. Chryſoſtome, but alſo euen in the auncient latine tranſlations thereof, and that by your owne co…eſſion. Hereunto you make long and friuolous anſweres by diſtinctions of points.
Firſt you ſaie, there is no loſſe of anie parte of doctrine: for the ſame thing is ſet downe in the next lines before. A proper reaſon, which giueth libertie to ſcrape out of the ſcriptures, whatſoeuer is in other places repeated. Secondlie you adde, that ſome reaſon you hauehave to thinke that percel repeated not to be of the text. As good hauehave you to thinke that theſe wordes when this mortall ſhall put on immortalitie, are not of the text, ſeing they are ſett downe in the lines immediatlie going before. Thirdlie, that it was in ſome greeke copies, as you reade. Perhaps ſo: but what then, ſeing doubtles the moſte and beſt read it other wiſe? Fourthlie, you thinke more reaſon to correct Chryſoſtome by Ierome, then Ierome by Chryſoſtome. Yet maie it ſeeme otherwiſe to indifferent men, that Chryſoſtome and the Church of Conſtantinople had as true copies, and as great varictie of bookes, as Ierome could hauehave anie. For where ſhould Ierome ſeeke for true and faithfull copies of the new Teſtament, but in the Greeke Church? and in which more then in that? and whoe liker to hauehave the trueſt, then Chryſoſtome? I think therefore no man of diſcretion can otherwiſe iudge, but that it is much more likelie S. Chryſoſtomes reading to be true, then S. Ieromes, if they diffent, eſpeciallie other latine tranſlations agreing wiht that text, which S. Chryſostome followed. And Saint Hierome manie times in his Epiſtles and treatiſies reprehendeth the common latine reading,The vulgare tranſlation of the new teſtament reprooued indiuerſe places by S. Ierome. euen the ſame that is nowe currant in your latine teſtaments. Whereby maie appeere that the ſame was not in his iugdement euerie where ſo entire, as you affirme. That Saint Chryſoſtome maketh againſt vsus, and approoueth your reading, I wonder with what face you could auouch. Let anie man read S. Chryſoſtome in Greeke, and if he finde not the text in him ſet down as our Greeke teſtaments reade it, both in the firſt and ſecond place, I am content to yeald the wholl to Maſter Rainolds. And ſo likewiſe readeth Oecumenius this place. I graunt S. Ambroſe hath it onelie in the firſt place, yet other latine fathers reade it according to the veritie of the Greeke, as your ſelfe confeſſe, which as much as I maintaine. Fiftlie, you thinke it enough for defenſe of your tranſlation, that the ſame wordes are added in the margent, which is but a poore ſhift, when you hauehave thruſt the text of ſcripture out of his due and proper ſeate, to giuegive it ſome roome in a corner. And yet your Engliſh tranſlation hath diſcharged it of that place alſo, and wipte it cleane awaie both out of text and margent.
That not here onelie,pag. 399. &c. but in other manifolde places alſo you keepe the errors of the latine tranſlation contrarie to the trueth of the Greeke copies, is a thing that hath bene plentifullie prooued by manie, and therefore to ſaie ſo, was no bragge. Aria Montanus how good a prieſt ſoeuer he be, doubtles is not of your iudgement concerning the Hebrewe and greeke originals of ſcripture, and therefore cannot alowe that wicked decree of the Tridentine Councell, wherein the corrupt tranſlation is confirmed and eſtabliſhed for the Canonical word of God, by general conſent & commaundement, the true & originall Canon of ſcriptures being there reiected and diſgraced. Now then whether in this and ſuch other reſpects I had not iuſt cauſe to call you foreign, iniurious to the Bible, I referre to the iudgement of all godlie and wiſe readers. For what greater iniurie or contumelie can be offered to the holie Bible, then not onelie to approoue a tranſlation, that is full of corruptions in all partes thereof, for the authenticall Bible and word of god; but alſo to caſt away the originall Bible it ſelfe, as corrupte, and to giuegive no further credit vntounto it, then it agreeth with your tranſlation? And therefore that you malitiouſlie auouch of vsus, that we hauehave no Bibles, maie moſte truelie be ſaide of you, that you hauehave willinglie refuſed the fountaines of Gods moſte pure and bleſſed word, and hauehave not amongſt you in publike regarde and authoritie the true Bibles indeed, which you hauehave wickedlie both contemned and condemned. Your repetitions to the end of this Chapter, full of outragious vntruthes and ſlaunders, require no anſwere in this place: you hauehave bene fullie anſwered before, and the wholl world can teſtifie to Gods glorie, and your confuſion, that not one tittle of Gods worde and ſcriptures is by vsus denied.