The Answer to the Preface of the Rhemish Testament, Part 10 – Part 16
To the ſecond reaſon.
It is falſe. For it is not the receiued opinion, Looke Ierome vponupon theſe places and compare them with th' old tranſlator. Geneſ. 1. 2 Eſai. 1 12 30. & 5. 2 Gal. 1. 16 & 2. 5. & 5 8. Eph. 1 14 & 4. 19. &cneither is there any probabilitie of it, conſidering that Ierome in the old and nevv Teſtament, both tranſlateth otherwiſe then th' olde interpreter, and often controwleth him. Hereof the teſtimony of Eraſmus, (a man that had as quick a noſe in Ieromes doings, as whoſoeuer:) is notable, who flatly affirmeth that this tranſlation is neither Cyprians, nor Hilaries, nor Ambroſe, nor Auguſtins, nor Ieromes; ſeing his reading is diuers from it, and that it is Looke alſo afterward, for other examples. Eraſ. epiſt. N. amico ex ani…o dilecto Eraſm…i… Scholijs … epiſt. Hieron. ad P…mmach. libro 1. aduerſus louinian.much leſſe, that which he corrected; ſeing there be found in this which he condemneth, not onlye as touching the wordes, but alſo as touching the meaning. And in another place he ſaith, that Ierome manifeſtly condemneth the former tranſlation, vvhichwhich wee yet (for the moſt part) doe vſe. Ierome (although without cauſe) ſcurgeth the old interpreter, for tranſlating foreign, Sobrietie: which (ſayth he) ſhould hauehave bene tranſlated chaſtitie. And this hee doeth in tvvo or three places. Now a man would not think, that Ierome was ſo vn-aduiſed, as to hauehave giuen his aduerſarie this aduātage: that he might reply againſt him, that it was his own tranſlation, or that which he corrected, and therfore that he was driuen to a hard ſhift, which could not defend his cauſe but by denyal of him ſelf. But that this tranſlation is not Ieromes, Pr…fat ad co…er. … ter. …eſta…ē ….let the reader looke the diſcourſe that Munſter hath made hereof. Howbeit if this were granted them which they were neuer able to proue: what hauehave they gained thereby? for it followeth not, that if either it were truly tranſlated, or faithfully corrected by Ierome: that therefore it is now true, and voyd of corruption. The fountaine of the Scriptures is ſo walled by the prouidence of God, ſo cloſe ſealed and couered; that by no, either negligence or malice of men, there can any ſuch thing fall into it, to troble the cleare & ſweete water thereof: but as for the writinges of men, they hauehave no ſuch priuiledge, neither are they laid vp in any arke of the durable wood of Cittim, but that they may be, and are corrupted, as the daily experience doth declare. Whereof it is good to heare Ieromes own teſtimony. I doe not think, that the Lordes wordes are to be corrected; but I goe about Hieron. ad Marcellā tom. 2. epiſt vlt.to correct the falſenes of the Latin bookes: which is plainly proued by the diuerſitie of them, and to bring them to th' originall of the Greek (from the which they do not denye but that they were tranſlated) who if they miſlike the water of the moſt pure fountaine, they may drink of the myrie puddles. And in the ſame place where they hauehave alledged, if we muſt beleeue the Latin copies, let them Hieron. ad Damaſum in …raf. in quatuor Evangel. tom. 3tell vsus, which. For there be (in a manner) as many diuers coppies as bookes. But if they think, that the truth is to be ſought out of the greater parte; why doe we not returne to the originall in Greek, and correct thoſe thinges which either hauehave bene vnskilfully tranſlated, or of ignorant preſumptuous perſons fooliſhly amended, or of negligēt wryters added or changed. Now if the Latin tranſlations before Ieromes time, were in 300. yeares ſo manifoldly corrupted; how much more, may we think that Ieromes tranſlation, hath in 1300. yeares bene impared and imbaſed; eſpecially whē as in diuers of theſe hundreth yeares, there hath raigned ſuch blindnes and barbarouſnes as neuer the like: and when as it was coppied out (for theMonach… indocti…r▪ more vnlearned thē a Monke. Hieron▪ in prafat. in 4. Euang. Ludouicus Viues lib. … de cauſ. corrupt. …rtiū. moſte parte) by vnclarkly Monkes, whoſe vnlearnednes is come into prouerb. Of this corruption of books, the reader may further ſee both in Ierom, & others of later times. Wherefore it is euidēt, that either this trāſlation is not Ieromes, or els it is corrupted and changed, and that more materially, then themſelues are able to alledg of the Greek coppies. Wherfore if you flie from the Greeke, for that there is ſome alteratiō from th' original: there is no cauſe why you ſhould runne to this tranſlation, ſo diuers and repugnant to Ieromes: vnles it be for that which Ierome ſayeth, that you had rather drink of the myrie puddels of the Latine tranſlations, then of the pure fountaine of the Greeke coppies.
To the thirde reaſon.
Th' antecedent being vn-true, the conſequence of Auguſtines commendation of it, can hauehave no truth. And if it were the ſame tranſlation, that Auguſtine commendeth: yet Auguſtines praiſe is ſuch of it, as doeth not free it from faults, nor lifteth it vp (as you doe) into the place of Canonicall Scripture. For ſpeaking of his tranſlation of the Goſpels only, he affirmeth that it was Auguſt. epiſt. 10 Auguſt. Epiſt. 8. & 10almoſt faultles. And in another place, ſpeaking of Ieromes tranſlation of the olde Teſtament: he ſayth, that if there were any dark places Ierome was like to be deceyued in them, as other before him. Beſide that it is knowne, that Auguſtine doth not alwayes follow this tranſlation: yea that hauing ſene Ieromes, heAuguſt. lib 18. cap. 43 de ciuitaete Dei. ſtill preferred th' elder tranſlation to Ieromes that was newer: and affirmeth that the ſame was not his alone, but the Churches iudgement of thoſe tymes wherein Ieromes tranſlation came abroade.
To the fourth reaſon.
Although your ſpeach being vſed of the moſt part, being faint and ſhort to proue that it alone ſhould now be vſed: yet euen this is verie falſe: firſt you are conſtrayned to confeſſe, that the Greeke fathers vſed it not: which argueth plainly that they had it not in that eſtimatiō, which you hauehave it. For then they would hauehave cauſed it to be trāſlated for th' uſe of their own churches; if they had eſteemed it trewer then the Greeke coppies. Secondly the moſt ancient Latin fathers do not follow it, as Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, who hauehave ſcarce a footſtep of it: albeit it was (likely) in the church in their times, before Ierome corrected certain places in it, Ierom often diſſenteth frō it, often alſo confuteth it. There remaine Ambroſe & Auguſtine, who although they vſe it more then the reſt: yet doe they often forſake it, and vſed it not (as you doe) ſeruily. This is yetHierome. Ambroſe Auguſtine Looke the places before noted. Gregor. magn▪ epiſt ad leandrū in expoſit. Iob: cap. 5 Expoſit. Iobi 20. c. 24 more euident, in that th' ancient fathers, and euen thoſe that vſed them moſt, ſend men (when there is controverſie of Latine bookes) to th' originals of Hebrew & Greeke. Yea in the very dioceſe of Rome, long after the time of theſe fathers: the Pope himſelf doth witnes, that not only he, but the Apoſtolike ſeat vſed both the new and olde tranſlation in Latin. Now if th' Apoſtolicke ſeate in Gregories time (who made too great account of this tranſlation) vſed both, and (in the booke of the Pſal.) refuſing Ierome followed the old tranſlation: there is no liklihood that th' authority which this had before his tyme, buried th' authority of th' other tranſlation. And as the elder expoſitors hauehave not vſed nor expounded it, without controulment: So the later writers wherof ſome hauehave ben pillers in your ſinagogue, hauehave bene bould manifoldly to croſſe this trāſlation of yours. For beſides Bede, Burgenſis, and Armacan: of late dayes Lyra, Ianſenius and others, hauehave left the ferular in the olde tranſlators hand. As for the Church ſeruice, it was ſo (in the primitiue Church) in the Latin tongue, as the people by reaſon of the Romaine Empire vnderſtood it. As touching your Popiſh ſervice, full of Idolatrye and ſuperſtition, as we care not what tranſlation it followeth; ſo we iudge moſte corrupt the moſt commodious.
To the fift reaſon.
It might aſwell hauehave commanded, to eate accornes, after corne was found out. And as for this Trent conuenticle being aſſembled by the Pope th' archenemy vntounto our Sauiour Chriſt, and holden of a ſorte of blinde Biſhops, ſworne to ſpeak no truth but that he (th'enemy of truth) ſhould allowe of: we eſteeme it no more, then the godly fathers did the councill of Ariminum & Epheſinum the ſecond: eſpecially ſeing that many councils before it, better, wiſer, learneder, and more troubled with hereticks difficulties of trā ſlations, neuer ſo concluded. Secondly being here aſhamed of the Trent concluſion, they mollify it, as though theyIn Martins praeface before his diſcouery, nomber 35. held it for a good tranſlation: where both the councill concludeth, and the Ieſuites holde it for th'authenticall Scripture, which they doe neither of the Greek, nor of the Hebrew. Thirdly, let them tell vsus how they will reconcile the Trent cōcluſion with Pope Leo the 10. his authoritye. Who approued Apolog. Eraſmi aduerſus Stunicam Platina in Damaſ….Eraſmus tranſlation, as Damaſus had Ieroms. Laſt of al, admitting it were the beſt tranſlation: yet that is no cauſe why th'originall ſhould not be rather tranſlated.
To the ſixt reaſon:
Further then it hath bene corrupt by popiſhe Monkes, which were (for ſome yeares) th'ordinary Iaylers to keepe it within the priſon of their cloiſters: we accuſe it not of partiality to popery, wherevnto it could hardly be partiall, when popery was not, But ſure we are, that the Greek is leſſe partiall. Secondly they might tranſlate with purpoſe not to hurt the truth, and yet fail of the purpoſe: as appeareth manifeſtly in th'example of promeriting of God, not only barbarouſly, but falſly tranſlated. As touching the ſinceritie, grauitie, and maieſtie of it, compared with other tranſlations of later yeares: the matter is before the Iudg, where our no, is as good as your yea. but if it were, as you ſay: yet your trā ſlating it, in paſſing by th'originall of the Greek, can by no meanes bee excuſed: but only by this, that not able to clime vp into the Scriptures in the Greeke and Hebrevv tongues; you vvere compelled to ſeaze vppon the Latine, vvhichwhich is the honeſteſt excuſe that you can make.
To the ſeuenth reaſon page. 12.
Praeciſenes in tranſlation is vvorthy to be commended, but ſuperſtition is vvorthy no praiſe. And if the Latine phraſe ſerue the Greeke, & anſvvere vntounto it better ſometime then th'Engliſh doth: that argueth no more the goodnes of the tranſlation, then it proueth th'Engliſh to be better then the Latine tranſlation, becauſe the Engliſh phraſe frameth often better vvith the Greeke, then doth the Latine. Of this praeciſenes they bring two examples, vvherein commending the old tranſlation they condemne ours. The firſt is for that vve tranſlate Tit. 3.foreign. 14. to maintaine to good workes. Your Greek ſtomackes be very quaſie, that cannot brook this tranſlation. Tell vsus (I pray you) how vvill you tranſlate yt Demoſthenes contra Timoc. Bu…us in commenta.in Demoſthenes, foreign, but to maintain your right. Houſoeuer you tranſlate it vve care not, ſeing Budaeus a man of ſingular ſkill inrijs, tueri & defenſitare foreign that tongue, doth ſo tranſlate it, as we hauehave done. In th'other places Heb. 10. 20. we are charged for turning he prepared. Wherein, whether th'old tranſlator hauehave ſvvarued further from the Greek, it vvill not be ſo eaſie to diſcern. For the Greek vvord doth properly ſignifie, to make newe; vvhichwhich the Latine vvorde, that th'olde tranſlator vſeth, doeth not expreſſe. for initio doth not ſignify, to make new, (for that doth innouo) but to enter into. And this defect of th'olde tranſlator in this vvorde, the Ieſuites them ſelues do bevvraye, vvhichwhich forſaking a proper Engliſh vvord, more expreſſing the old tranſlators initiabit, hauehave followed M. Bezas tranſlation, who tranſlateth dedicabit, which they turne dedicated, without acknowledgment of him by vvhome they hauehave (in that place) bettered their tranſlator. The other cauill of Traditions, Iuſtifications & Idoll, is plentifully anſvvered, and further ſhal be, as they fall out in the diſcourſe of this booke. But from this praeciſe and exact following of the Greeke, how far th'olde tranſlator is, by differing from it, by being contrary to it, by putting to that which is not in the Greek, and taking avvay that which is in it: ſhall ſoone after appeare. Although if it vvere ſo preciſe, yet that is nothing to yours; which goeth ſo far from it, both in vvordes and ſenſe.
To the eight reaſon.
If Maiſter Beza commend it, who knew ſo many faultes by it: hee hath thereby teſtifyed the ſoftneſſe and mildnes of his ſpirite, and his louing and charitable affection, couering (ſo far as th'edifiing of the Church might beare) th' olde tranſlators vvants and defects: and thereby laieth naked the proud, diſdainfull and quareling ſpirit of the trifling and caueling Ieſuites, childiſhly ſnatching & carping where there is no cauſe, & diſcouering their owne ſhame, in ſteade of diſgracing others. Howbeit it is vntrue, vvhichwhich they here alledge out of M. Beza. For he doth not prefer th' olde tranſlator vntounto Eraſmus, but defendeth him in certain places, where Eraſmus (without cauſe) doth challenge him. And in th' other place vponupon Saint Luke, his praiſe of him, is not ſo full, as they pretend. For he ſayeth, that although he may ſeeme, very religiouſly to hauehave turned theſe holy foreignbookes: yet it appeareth, that he knew not the ſignification of theſe wordes, much leſſe the force and power of them. But if Maſter Bezas iudgement be one of the pillers, that muſt vpholde this olde tranſlator, this it is in plaine wordes. It goeth …ften from the Greeke, oft it is abſurde, oft Beza in Epiſt. ad noui Teſtam. annot. quae inſcribitur Sereniſſimae Dominae Elizabethae Reginae.…tdoth add, the learned it neuer ſatiſfied, the …gnorant is brought into many errours. Which notwithſtanding he ſpeaketh not altogether, in reſpect of th' olde tranſlator; as in regarde of either the negligence, raſhnes or malice of thoſe whoſe handes it hath paſſed through. But if it were the beſt tranſlation, by M. Bezas iudgment: yet it followeth not thereof, that it hath no fault, or ought to be tranſlated, before the Greek. It would vndoutedly be more credit for your cauſe, to giuegive better weight of reaſon, although the number were leſſe.