A15061:415
An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written
An answer to a certain book, written by Master William Rainolds student of divinity in the English college at Rhemes, and entitled, A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cavils, etc. by William Whitaker ...An answere to a certeine booke, written by Maister William Rainolds student of diuinitie in the English colledge at Rhemes, and entituled, A refutation of sundrie reprehensions, cauils, etc. by William Whitaker ...
Printed at London : For Thomas Chard, 1585
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
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,