Basic HTML Version
translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some
imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under
the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of
God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists
therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the
spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s
weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth, that after
that Rome had been burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon to build it again: but doing it in haste, they
did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely fashion, as had been most slightly
and convenient; [Plutarch in Camillo.] was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that
sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the
story of Ezra, and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple built by Zerubbabel
after the return from Babylon, was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon
(for they that remembered the former, wept when they considered the latter)
]
notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned
by the Greeks? The like we are to think of Translations. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth
from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet
which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as
Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their
example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the
appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their
vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that
heretics (forsooth) were the Authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that
they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so. We are
sure Tertullian was of another mind: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? [Tertul. de
praescript. contra haereses.] Do we try men’s faith by their persons? we should try their persons
by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of another mind: for he lighting upon certain rules made by
Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of
them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they
were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S. Augustine’s third book De doctrina Christiana.
[S. August. 3. de doct. Christ. cap. 30.] To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for
certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much
more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of
Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined together
with the Hebrew Original, and the Translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of
Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the
unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.
Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering
and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For
15
KJV Bible