To oppose some of our new translators against your old,1 were verily an easy matter: but thus should we slip away from the question, and fall to other discourses, wherein the controversy lieth not. If we should attribute as much learning and diligence to your translator, as such a man could have and use, yet would you confess (I trust) he were still far inferior to the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, whose writings remain, and are the holy canonical scriptures of God. These writings do we oppose against your translation, and these do you wickedly and shamefully dishonour, in preferring the translation of such a man before them. This you are not able either reasonably to defend, or colourably to excuse, and therefore you run another way, as though you chased your enemy, whereas fear causeth your self to fly. All this talk of Erasmus, Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Castalion, Calvin, Beza, and their translations, is from the purpose. We make no such account of any of them, as you do of yours, to allow and receive ⟨p. 335⟩whatsoever they have translated, without examining their translations by the text. we prefer whom we know to have dealt in that work most faithfully, and if we find by skill and trial some oversight in the translation (as in the best some may be found) we cleave to the original 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 show any so repugnant to the verity of the Hebrew and Greek fountains, as I can show, and as it hath been showed that yours is. That Luther's and Bezaes, and the other several translations have been by some in certain places reproved, is true. But what kind of argument call you this, because some errors have been noted in this or that translation, therefore to conclude the whole translation is nought, or worse then yours? Emserus a papist (you say) hath gathered out of Luther's translation fourteen hundred foul lies. If I said, that this in him were a foul lie, I should say truly: Luther's translation hath been sufficiently commended and maintained by men of ⟨p. 336⟩greater wisdom and learning then Emserus.
To oppose some of our new translators against your olde,1 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 haue 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 ⟨p. 335⟩whatsoeuer they haue translated, without examining their translations by the text. we prefer whome we know to haue 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 haue bene by some in certaine places reprooued, is true. But what kinde of argument call you this, because some errours haue 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 ⟨p. 336⟩greater wisdome and learning then Emserus.
- 1pag. 375. &c.
