Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 15
CHAP. 15.
Of the new teſtament ſet forth in the Colledge of Rhemes.
AS Maſter Rainolds hath he…herto defended with great indeuour,pag. 443. &c. and ſmal ſucceſſe their latine vulgare tranſlation ſo now is he come to maintaine in like manner their Rhemiſh late Engliſh tranſlation of the new Teſtament, whereof himſelfe may ſeeme to hauehave bene a principall author, or at leaſt ſome ſpeciall dealer in the worke. Firſt he rehearſeth my words at large written in my preface concerning that tranſlation, and ſetteth vponupon them ſix markes, whereof he intendeth in order and ſeuerallie to ſpeake. But before he come to the particulare ſcannig of my wordes, he breaketh out into immoderate and immodeſt railing, wherein is nothing worthie anſwere: and therefore ſuffering him to plaie his parte with Aiax or Hercules, of whome he ſpeaketh, let vsus procead to the ſeuerall points, and ſo ſhall it appeere whether I hauehave vttered any thing but a certaine trueth, or whether he had cauſe thus ſtrangelie to behaue himſelfe.
Firſt I ſaide, that ſince the world was made, neuer was there ſet forth ſuch a tranſlation:pag. 445. whereupon this man taketh occaſion to talke of newe Teſtaments and tranſlations hereof ſet forth 5000. yeares agoe. And hauehave we not iuſt cauſe to admire his wiſdome and granitie, that could deuiſe and handle in this ſorte ſuch a ſimple fantaſie of his owne braine? ſince the world was created, neuer was found ſuch a tranſlation as the Rhemiſh is; therefore (ſaith Maſter Rainolds) there hauehave bene tranſlations of the newe Teſtament euer from the creation of the world. If anie man els can ſo vnderſtand it, I am content to let it be ſo taken. To me it ſeemeth ſtraunge, that anie man of reaſon ſhould thinke and write thus abſurdlie, thus peeuiſhlie, thus falſely, vnles it were to make him ſelfe ridiculous, and odious to all the worlde. But of this ſo fooliſh a conceit of his, we neede not to ſpeake moe words. Now will Maſter Rainolds prooue indeed that worſe tranſlations of the newe Teſtament hauehave bene by vsus ſet forth of late, then theirs is, and therefore that I hauehave ſaide vntruelie, that theirs is worſt of all.
His argument is thus framed:pag. 450. &c. a tranſlation that transformeth God into a deuill, muſt needs be worſe then theirs: But ſeuen of our tranſlations, (whereof ſome hauehave bene ſet forth within theſe fiue yeares, transforme God into a deuill. Therefore theſe are worſe then theirs. His aſſumption he prooueth by a place tranſlated in the firſt of S. Peter, Chap. 2. ver. 8. And here is made a great ſturre with long ſentences out of Illyricus, Beza, Caſtalion. The indifferent reader wilbe content with a ſhort replie, when a longer is not requiſite. Now then what is this hainous fault of our tranſlations? Becauſe they hauehave tranſlated foreign, vntounto the which thing they were ordained. A greeuous accuſation, but a faint prooſe: the tranſlation is right, and no more transformeth God into a deuil, then doe S. Peters words themſelues, which were written by direction of Gods moſte holie ſpirit. Here is no place to make diſcourſe of this queſtion, whether God be author of ſinne: which as it is a moſt impious aſſertion, ſo hauehave you moſte falſelie obiected it vntounto vsus ſundrie times, and neuer could prooue it once. This place of S. Peter we cannot otherwiſe tranſlate, vnles we would willinglie tranſlate amiſſe: & S. Peters owne text being ſound, our tranſlation agreeing fullie therewith, cannot lead men into any ſuch damnable opinion, as that is, whereof you ſpeake. Yet ſaith M. R. verie confidentlie, finde you anie ſo wilfull and horrible an Atheiſme in ours, and hardlie ſet a fire on them all. Take heede what you ſpeake. Is this wilfull and horrible Atheiſme? are all your bookes worthie to be burnt, if anie ſuch can be found in them? will you ſtand to this? How then hauehave you tranſlated the place your ſelues? Let vsus looke now on your tranſlation: thus it is, wherein alſo they are put. This cannot be true, following your latine, which hath quo, for quod: and therefore in your margent you mend it thus, whereto alſo they are orderned. And how differeth this from ours? what Atheiſme is in ours more then in this? or why deſerueth ours to be burnt rather then this? Burne your owne if you liſt, Master Rainolds: and if you ſpeake as you thinke, you hauehave pronounced them in your iudgement worthie to be caſt into a fire: and ſo perhaps you could be content, ſo that ours might burne withall for companie.
The three points following,pag. 455. &c. 2.3.4. are hudled vp, and anſwered together, concerning vnaccuſtomed and monſtrous nouelties of wordes, whereof their tranſlation hath ſuch examples, as the like in no other can be found, ſo as a man may iuſtlie call it a new fangled and ridiculous tranſlation, deuiſed rather to amaze the readers, and make the worde of God a laughing ſtocke, then to edifie the Church of Chriſt.The Rhemiſh Engliſh tranſlation moſte fooliſhe and new fangled. For whoe hath euer heard or read ſuch wordes and phraſes, as they hauehave vſed and affected in their tranſlation, whereas they might hauehave retained as well the common and knowen manner of ſpeaking, that their tranſlation ſet forth in Engliſh might hauehave bene vnderſtood of Engliſh men? But they of purpoſe hauehave ſo framed the ſame that the Engliſh is in many places as obſcure in wordes, as the latine: which thing is in all tranſlations a foule fault, but in tranſlating of ſcripture moſte intollerable? And what reaſon ſhould be hereof, but that men either ſhould contemne, or not vnderſtand the ſcripture, which yet they will ſeeme to tranſlate for the benefite of the Church?Vnaccuſtomed nouelties of words and phraſes in the Rhemiſh tranſlation. if you require examples, take but the booke, and reade a litle, and ſoone ſhall you ſee ſtrange affectation of nouelties in wordes and ſpeaches throughout their whol tranſlation. There ſhal you finde. The aMatt. 1.17.tranſmigration of Babylon: bMat. 13.28.The enemie man: cLuc. 13.3.vnles you hauehave penance: dMat. 6.11.GiueGive vsus to daie our ſuperſubſtantiall breade: eLuc. 10.35.whatſoeuer thou ſhalt ſupererogat: fRom 13.13.Not in chamberings, and impudicities: gGal. 1.14.24an emulator of the traditions of my fathers: I expugned the faith: hGal. 4.…7.They emulate you not well, that you might emulate them: i1. Pet. 2.5.Be ye alſo your ſelues ſuperedified: kphil. 4.10.Once at length you hauehave refloriſhed to care for me: lIud 4.Denying the onelie dominator and our Lord: mEphe. 1 14.to the redemption of acquiſition: nEpheſ. 6.12.againſt the ſpirituals of wickednes in the celeſtials: oMarc. 5.22.the Archiſynagogue: pGal. 5.21.Ebrieties, commeſſations: qApoc. 1.10.the dominicall daie: r1. Cor. 10.11.But they are written to our correption: ſphil. 2.20.That in the name of Ieſus euerr kneebowe of the celeſtials, terreſtrials, and infernals: tPhil. 2.7.But he exinanited himſelfe: uHebr. 13.16For with ſuch hoſtes God is promerited: xHeb. 13.1.Let the charitie of the fraternitie abide in you: y1. Tim. 6.20.O Timothie keepe the depoſitum: zHebr. 2.17.that he might repropitiate the ſinnes of the people: aMatt. 27.59.wrapt it in ſindon, and laid it in a monument: bIoan. 6.45.All ſhall be docible of God: cIoan. 5.2.VponUpon probatica a pond: dIoan. 8 46.which of you ſhall argue me of ſinne? eIoan. 15.25.they hated me gratis: fIoan. 18.1.beyond the Torrent Cedron: gIoan. 19.14.It was the paraſceue of paſche. Theſe and ſuch like are the goodlie flowers of their tranſlation, beſides the obſcuritie and ambiguitie of ſentences, by reaſon of leuing out the verbs and other wordes in the Engliſh tranſlation, which maie in latine more eaſily be vnderſtood. Yet hauehave they dealt ſomething reaſonablie in adding a Dictionarie to their tranſlation, if it had bene ſomewhat larger. Hereby the reader maie iudge, but better by reading the tranſlation it ſelfe, whether I hauehave not truelie ſaid of it, that it is a ſtrange tranſlation indeed, and ſuch a one, as hard it were to finde the like. But Maſter Rainolds anſwereth, that we rather delight in ſuch noueltie, then they, ſeing they retaine the ancient words, Maſſe, Prieſt, &c. and we refuſe them: hereof hath bene ſpoken before. And as for certaine names of perſons and places which ſome of our interpreters doe reduce to the Hebrewe ſound, they cannot much trouble the reader, and they are rather vſed in bookes, then ſpeach. Your accuſation Maſter Rainolds of greater noueltie in articles of faith amongſt vsus, is falſe: and concerning the bookes of Iudith, Machabees, and the reſt of that ſorte, we hauehave ſpoken ſufficient before: your other railing I omitt.
What cauſe hauehave we to be affraide of your tranſlation?pag. 459. &c. If you tranſlate the word of God, that is it which we hauehave tranſlated and printed, and publiſhed ſo often. I wiſh indeed for my part, that your tranſlation might be printed alone, and all men ſuffered to hauehave and read it, that ſo by comparing it with ours, and with the originall text, and by conſidering the wholl ſhape of it, they might the more abhorre your irreligious and profane handling the Teſtament of Chriſt. Your Annotations ioyned with your tranſlation are deuiliſh indeede and daungerous for all Chriſtians to read, and therefore the godlie wiſdome of magiſtrates cannot ſuffer ſuch bookes openly to be ſolde. You ſpeake your pleaſure of Master Iewells dealing with Hardinges bookes, but falſelie, all men knowing the contrarie: and ſo further you proceede in blaſphemous railing againſt the truth of Chriſts goſpell, which now in England is profeſſed, calling it an Atheiſticall goſpell. Such new termes of blaſphemie hauehave you deuiſed and vſed manie, ſo as we maie perceiue that you hauehave profited wel in your ſchoole of Apoſtaſie, and are nowe come to the higheſt forme and chaire of ſcorners.Pag. 464. &c.
Where the Rhemiſh tranſlators woulde ſeeme ſo preciſelie to tranſlate the latine tranſlation, as making the ſame account of it that we doe of the Greeke, I thought to admoniſh the reader, that this thing is not by them ſo truelie and exactlie performed euerie where, as it is conſtanlie pretended: but that theſe tranſlators ſometime leaue their tranſlation which they tranſlate, and follow the greeke rather then it. Two examples hereof I noted, of which Maſter Rainolds ſpeaketh much, and more then enough, amplifying that in ten pages, which might hauehave bene compriſed in as manie lines, ſuch leaſure and pleaſure hath he to runne at large, as a wanton whelpe that can not be kept from ranging abroad, nor brought to follow the marke. I purpoſe not to runne after him, for then ſhould I be as ill occupied as he: but keeping my purpoſe and manner, I will come to the matter in queſtion. The firſt example is in the 12. Chapter of Saint Paules epiſtle to the Romans, the 19. verſe: where the Apoſtle forbiddeth vsus to reuenge our ſelues,foreign. for ſo much as vengeance belongeth to the Lord.Non voſmet ipſos defende… tes. The common tranſlator hath expreſſed it otherwiſe, as though the Apoſtle would not hauehave vsus to defend our ſelues, making defenſe …f our ſelues and reuengement all one, which yet are two diuerſe things in them ſelues. Our Rhemiſts in this place followe not their olde tranſlator, but the Apoſtles Greeke text; and thus they hauehave tranſlated it, not reuenging your ſelues, my deareſt. Whoe ſeeth not that here they hauehave left the latine worde, and followed the Greeke, which differeth from the latine? Now Maſter Rainolds to prooue himſelfe a notable Grammarian, telleth vsus the latine agreeth with the Greeke, and the Engliſh with the latine, and all is right. For he affirmeth, and by ſome vnfitt examples would prooue that foreign ſignifieth to defend, and Defendo ſignifieth to reuenge, alledging alſo ſome Dictionaries for his opinion. But, to make a ſhort replie, let M. R. bring vsus foorth any one example out of good author Greeke or Latine, wherein the wordes are ſo vſed, as he teacheth, & then ſhal we eaſilie yeald in this caſe. By implication and conſequence I graunt the one word maie perhaps be vſed ſometime for the other: but I appeale to all learned Grecians and Latiniſts in the worlde, whether it be not true that foreign properlie ſignifieth onelie to reuenge, and not to defend: and ſo likewiſe Defendo to defend, and not to reuenge. Therefore to tranſlate the one for the other, as it is altogether vnproper, ſo is it moſte daungerous in the ſcriptures, becauſe thereof may followe errors in iudgement, and practiſe of life. And it appeereth that Thomas of Aquine tooke the word Defendentes in the proper ſignification, expounding it by Chriſts precept, that if we be ſtriken on the one cheeke, we muſt be ſo farre of from defending our ſelues, that we muſt be willing rather to turne the other alſo to him that ſmote vsus: and by Chriſts example, who being buffeted on the face, defended not him ſelfe. Yet after he ſheweth that ſome defenſe is lawfull by example of Saint Paule, who procured him ſelfe to be defended from the Iewes that laie in waite for him. Thus we maie ſee that your Saint Thomas vſed the worde ſimplie and properlie, and thereby was faine to ſeeke ſome newe expoſition, which he nedd not to hauehave done, had he bene as good a grammarian, as you Master Rainolds are.
The other example is in S. Matthewe, pag. 470. &c.the 4. Chapter. 16. verſe: wherein you hauehave alſo followed the Greeke rather then the latine, tranſlating not according to moſte of your latine Teſtaments, which I hauehave ſeene, the people that walked in darknes, but after the Greeke, the people that ſat in darknes. A ſmall matter in it felfe, I graunt, yet great enough to ſhew that you hauehave not ſo preciſelie followed the latine tranſlation. as you would ſeeme: which alſo in other places appeereth, by comparing your tranſlation with that. For in the verie firſt Chapter of S. Matthew, the 19. ver. you hauehave omitted theſe wordes,foreign. Vir cius. Her husband, which your latine bookes hauehave truelie tranſlated according to the greeke. Wherof reaſon it were, that you ſhould be accountable, for what cauſe you hauehave remooued thoſe wordes cleane out of the text, if they were not rather left out by ouerſight. For I truſt you are not aſhamed that Ioſeph ſhould be called the husband of the bleſſed virgine Marie. Againe in the 13. to the Rom. v. 9. inſtauratur, you tranſlate, is compriſed, by no grammar, I am ſure, nor dictionary, I think. The ſenſe, I graunt, is true, and well agreeth with the Greeke, but the latine worde is left. If you liſted not to tranſlate, is renewed, or repared, as the word ſignifieth, you might hauehave kept the worde, and according to your new found manner of tranſlating and ſpeaking hauehave tranſlated, inſtaurated. Such examples are there in your tranſlation manie moe, if we ſhould peruſe the wholl, which is not neceſſarie. Neither hauehave I much blamed your tranſlation in this reſpect, Maſter Rainolds, for not iumping alwaies with your latine, as you hauehave vntruelie tould your reader: but for leauing the Greeke, and following the latine, tranſlating onelyonly a bare, (I wil not ſpeake as you doe, a bald) tranſlation, and for tranſlating it after ſuch a faſhion, as neuer ſcripture was tranſlated, nor any other booke I ſuppoſe: and for applying the text moſte abſurdlie and violentlie to ſome colourable maintenance of your Antichriſtian Church and religion.