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, 15623, 15773, 15793. 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.] 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 [1 Commonly called the Bishops' bible.] [2 It is the Genevan bible printed at Edinburgh in this year, that Martin quotes.] scholars presumed to alter their masters' writings? If you have an evasion in these cases, I trust we are not so pent in, but we may change our own writings without shame of the former, or corruption in the latter. As for the example of St James' epistle, denied (as you say) and faced out for Luther's credit, [it] will serve you for no proof. For so far off is it, that we or the world do know, that it was most truly laid to his charge, that now we know of a certainty, that it was a very slander, as false as it was common; seeing Luther's words of that epistle are not absolute, but in comparison, as is confessed by you, and found by some of us to be none otherwise in deed, who have not stood upon one only book or edition, but upon as many as they could come by, both in the Latin and in the Dutch tongue. Martin. Eighthly, in citing Beza, I mean always (unless I note MARTIN, otherwise) his Latin translation of the New Testament, with his 34. annotations adjoined thereunto, printed in the year 1556. 34. Fulke. You were afraid, lest they that understood not FULKE, Latin, for whose sake you wrote in English this treatise, might take hurt by Beza's translations and annotations in Latin. And if he himself have espied and corrected any thing of his first edition, that was either faulty or offensive, in his two later editions; with great equity, as though you were the only man that had discovered his errors, you must let In his later all the unlearned in England know, what shameful corruptions he hath Qui you have observed in Beza's translation or annotations. edition 1565. fuit Cainan, them not ing the old Latin text, though it be Martin. Lastly and principally is to be noted, that we will not MARTIN, charge them with falsifying that which indeed is the true and authen- 35. tical scripture, I mean the vulgar Latin bible, which so many years We charge hath been of so great authority in the church of God, and with all with forsakthe ancient fathers of the Latin church, as is declared in the preface approved of the New Testament: though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, only in favour of his heresies, did wilfully forsake it, so the rest followed, and do follow him at this day, for no other cause in the world, evident conbut that it is against them. And therefore they inveigh against it, and against the holy Council of Trent, for confirming the authority thereof, Kemnitius. both in their special treatises thereof, and in all their writings where they can take any occasion. an ill sign, and to their fusion. Calvin. Fulke. In the margin, "You will not charge us with for- FULKE, saking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign 35. and to our evident confusion." St Augustine', although a mere Latin man, whom you yourself do after confess to have understood but one tongue well, and that was even his mother tongue, learned (as he confesseth) of his nurses, is not so addicted to the Latin translation, but that he would have men to seek to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, which you, like a blaphemous hypocrite, deny to be the true and authentical scriptures indeed; allowing only the vulgar Latin translation, as though neither the churches of Greece, Syria, Armenia, Æthiopia, nor any other in the world, which have not the vulgar Latin, had not the true and authentical scriptures. And though your vulgar Latin hath for many years been of great authority in the Latin church, from the time when the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues have decayed; yet is it utterly false, that you say, that it hath been of great authority with all the fathers of the Latin church; whereas there is not one that lived within 400 years after Christ that knew it, but almost every one followed a several translation. And St Augustine in the place before cited telleth you, that there were innumerable translations out of the Greek into the Latin. Again, that your vulgar Latin is full of many errors and corruptions, I have shewed by the confession of Isidorus Clarius and Lindanus, two of your own profession; of which the one took pains by the Hebrew and Greek to correct it, the other shewed means how it should be corrected. And where you say that Luther and his followers forsook it for none other cause in the world, but that it is against them, it is utterly untrue. For beside that they have made clear demonstration of many palpable errors therein, (which they that have any forehead amongst you cannot deny,) they have and do daily convince you of horrible heresies, even out of your own corrupt vulgar translation. Finally, whosoever shall read what Calvin and Kemnitius have written against the [Ex hac Septuaginta interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est, quod ecclesiæ Latinæ tenent. Quamvis non defuerit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et omnium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Græco, sed ex Hebræo in Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas converterit. — Augustinus, De Civitate Dei. Lib. xvIII. c. 43. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 525. See also the passage from Augustine De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. II. c. 11. Opera, Vol. 1. pars 1. pp. 24, 25, quoted at p. 47, beginning, Contra ignota, &c.] |