MARTIN, 27. Certain (more to his own reproach, than to the defacing of Sleidan's credit,) you profess wisely, therefore, not to count the number, but to esteem the weight and importance of such faults as you thought good to note, if there were as great faithfulness in your performance, as there is wisdom in your profession. But now to your nine advertisements to the reader. Martin. First, that in this book he may not look for the proof or explication and deciding of controversies, which is done in the Annotations upon the New Testament, but only the refuting or conments to the trolling of their false translations concerning the said controversies, which is the peculiar argument of this treatise. advertise reader. FULKE, 27. MARTIN, 28. FULKE, 28. Fulke. I think there is no wise reader would look for the deciding of so many controversies in so small a book; and he that shall seek them in your Annotations, shall find even as little to the purpose, except he will take your determination without proof for a sufficient decision. As for the doctors you quote without judgment, fraudulently, falsely, truncately, and otherwise abusively, [they] have all, or the most, been answered long ago; and if need shall be, with little labour may be answered again. Martin. Secondly, that we refute sometime one of their translations, sometime another, and every one as their falsehood giveth occasion. Neither is it a good defence for the falsehood of one, that it is truly translated in another; the reader being deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one. Yea, one of them is a condemnation of the other. Fulke. That sheweth your malice rather than either wisdom or honesty; for if we ourselves in our later translations have corrected some small and few errors, that have overslipped us in our former translations, we have shewed our sincerity and care of setting out the truth by all means. And where you say it is no good defence, the reader being mentitur. Quin et Carolus V. integerrimus et potentissimus imperator, cum ipsi quoque legerentur Commentarii Sleidani, itidem subinde exclamabat, Nebulo ille mentitur, nebulo ille mentitur. Et sane datum erat ab eodem imperatore negotium cuidam, ut comitiorum acta, ob Sleidani mendacia confutanda, sincere excuderentur; sed nescio quo casu res illa impedita fuit, et omnia in Hispanas transferri jussa feruntur. Certe hæretico homini nunquam tuto credi potest.—Surii Commentarius brevis rerum in orbe gestarum, pp. 370, 371. Coloniæ, deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one; I answer you first, there is not in the worst translation any fault escaped, that may of itself lead him into a damnable error. Secondly, he hath the word of God expounded by catechising, sermons, and lectures, in which he may learn the substance of christian religion. Thirdly, he hath at hand every where learned divines, unto whose counsel he may resort, if he be offended with anything that he readeth in his bible, sounding contrary to the publicly received doctrine of the church. In that you say the one of our translations condemneth the other, it had been sufficient to have said, reproveth: which is only where there is a manifest error in the one; for otherwise, the diversities of translations, (as St Augustine teacheth you,) may much profit the simple readers; and they that be diligent students of the scriptures in the English tongue will not satisfy themselves with every translation, but will seek for the best approved. Martin. Thirdly, that we speak indifferently against Protestants, MARTIN, Calvinists, Bezites, and Puritans, without any curious distinction of 29. them, being all among themselves brethren and pew-fellows, and sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or less corrupting the holy scriptures. 29. Fulke. A wise advertisement. But this is to be noted, FULKE, that now you acknowledge them to be all brethren among themselves, and pew-fellows; but when you list, they shall be at deadly feud one against another, and no community or fellowship between them. 30. Martin. Fourthly, that we give but a taste of their corruptions, MARTIN, not seeing so far, nor marking all so narrowly and skilfully, as themselves know their own subtleties and meanings, who will smile at the places which we have not espied. 30. Fulke. He that considereth your quarrels picked to words FULKE, of one signification, as "church" and "congregation," "justice" and "righteousness," "elder" and "priest," "image" and "idol,” "works" and "deeds," and such like, will not think that you have passed over any great matters worth the writing of; but that you would set a vain brag of the case, as though there were much worse matter than you have wit to conceive. Yet you say confidently that we, as guilty of our own subtleties and meanings, will smile at the places which you have not [FULKE.] 5 MARTIN, 31. FULKE, 31. MARTIN, 32. espied. You are like to those soothsayers mentioned in Tully, of whom one said that he marvelled if, when they met together, one of them did not smile upon another, because they deluded the city, and got themselves much honour with such vain superstitions. So you, being newly become subtle and partial translators, think other men to be like yourselves. But even as the head of your church' once jested with his cardinal, how great wealth and honour that fable of Christ (so the beast called the christian religion) had brought them; even so you, his lewd limbs, make sport among yourselves of the holy word of God, which you have corrupted somewhat with your blind translations, but much more with your heretical annotations. So said your great friend, Campion, in open audience, that he could make as good sport upon the incarnation of Christ. According to your own affection, therefore, you judge of us, and not according to the truth, as the day will try, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made manifest. Martin. Fifthly, that the very use and affectation of certain terms, and avoiding other some, though it be no demonstration against them, but that they may seem to defend it for true translation, yet was it necessary to be noted, because it is and hath been always a token of heretical meaning. Fulke. When our translation is true, I doubt not but we shall defend the use of some terms, and the avoiding of other some, by as good reason as you shall defend the like in your translations; especially where you affect new terms unused, or not understood, and avoid common and usual terms of the same signification, as evangelizing for preaching the gospel; advent of Christ for the coming of Christ; scandalizing for offending; scandal for offence, &c. Which if it be, as you say, always a token of heretical meaning, first pluck yourself by the nose, and then see if we cannot defend our doings. Martin. Sixthly, that in explicating these things we have endeavoured to avoid, as much as was possible, the tediousness of Greek and Hebrew words, which are only for the learned in these tongues, and which made some little doubt whether this matter (which of necessity must be examined by them) were to be written in English or no. But being persuaded by those (who themselves have no skill in the said tongues) that every reader might reap commodity thereby, to the understanding and detesting of such false and heretical translations, it [This is told of Leo X.] was thought good to make it vulgar and common to all our dear countrymen, as the New Testament itself is common, whereof this discovery is as it were a handmaid, attending thereupon for the larger explication and proof of corruptions there briefly touched, and for supply of other some not there mentioned. 32. Fulke. He that seeth your margin painted with Greek FULKE, and Hebrew words in so many places, may guess whether it were possible for you to have avoided the tediousness of them, when in divers places the Greek and Hebrew words are set without all need of them, and sometimes where there is no controversy about them, as in the fifth section of this preface, where you shew the corruptions of the Arians and Pelagians; and in the nineteenth section, where you would shew the difference of the New Testament from the Old in citing of testimonies. But the Hebrew word in the Psalm xxi. or xxii., which you falsely say signifieth no such thing as "piercing," you set not down, lest your falsehood, by them that have skill, might be convinced. And if you had cared as much to find out the truth, as to shew your skill in both the tongues, you would have written in Latin, especially against Beza, which never wrote in English. And vain it is, that you pretend to make the matter common to your dear countrymen, that be unlearned; for the judgment must rest in them that have knowledge in the tongues, albeit you had written in Latin. It is all one, therefore, to the unlearned, as if you had only said, there are many faults or corruptions, which in a Latin book shall be discovered to the judgment of the learned, seeing the ignorant cannot understand your demonstrations. 33. Martin. Seventhly, that all the English corruptions here noted and MARTIN, refuted are either in all or some of their English Bibles printed in these years, 15622, 15773, 1579%. And if the corruption be in one bible, not in another, commonly the said bible or bibles are noted in the margin: 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 always in his own bible. And in this case the reader must be very wise and circumspect, that he think not by and by we charge them falsely, because they can shew him some later edition that hath it not so as we say. For it is their common and [The great bible, or that of Coverdale's translation, first printed in 1535, and reprinted by Cranmer's direction 1539. The edition of 1562, revised by Parker, will be quoted in the present volume for the Old, and that of 1539 for the New Testament, as the case may require.] [3 The Genevan and Bishops' bible were each printed in this year.] Touching Epistle. FULKE, 33. known fashion, not only in their translations of the bible, but in their other books and writings, to alter and change, add and put out, in their later editions, according as either themselves are ashamed of the former, or their scholars, that print them again, dissent and disagree from their masters. So hath Luther, Calvin, and Beza's writings and translations been changed both by themselves and their scholars in many places; so that catholic men when they confute that which they find evident faults in this or that edition, fear nothing more than that the reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very shame, and so may conceive that there is no such thing, but that they are accused wrongfully. For example: call to mind the late pretended conference in the tower, where that matter was denied and faced out for Luther's credit, by some one book or edition of his, which themselves and all the world knoweth, was most truly laid to his charge. Fulke. First, this is untrue; for some you have noted in the New Testament printed 1580. Secondly, it is uncertain; for two of these translations might be printed in one year, and so I think they were. Therefore I know not well which you mean; but I guess that the bible 1562 is that which was of Doctor Coverdale's translation, most used in the church service in king Edward's time. The bible 1577, I take to be that which, being revised by divers bishops, was first printed in the large volume, and authorised for the churches, about ten or twelve years ago1. That of 15792, I know not what translation it be, except it be the same that was first printed at Geneva in the beginning of the queen's majesty's reign. And this conjecture, as the fittest I can make, I must follow, seeing your note of distinction is as good as that fellow's, that would know his master's horse by the bridle. But it is a common and known fashion, you say, used of us, that not only in translations, but in other books and writings of ours, we alter and change, add and put to, in our later editions. And who useth not so to do, if by later cogitations, that often are wiser, he find anything meet to be changed? Do not you papists use the same? Is Bristow's chapter of obedience, in his Motives, nothing altered from the high treason contained in the first edition? Is nothing added, taken away, or changed in your Jesus' Psalter, in any of your editions? Or are you yourselves ashamed of the former? Or have your [Commonly called the Bishops' bible.] [It is the Genevan bible printed at Edinburgh in this year, that Martin quotes.] |