Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/1611_kjv/msg-kjv.08

Text File | 1994-02-11 | 6KB | 95 lines

>>> Continued from previous message

         AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES
        ─────────────────────────────────────────────────
     Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm
and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English,
set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs
of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the
word of God.  As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament,
being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still
the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator
with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so
expressly for sense, everywhere.  For it is confessed, that things
are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural
man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis
offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.]  A man may be counted a virtuous
man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were
none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also
a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand,
yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.  No cause
therefore why the word 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 privi-
leged 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) [Ezra 3:12] 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 to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise)
to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw
cause?  Saint Augustine was not afraid to exhort S. Jerome to a
Palinodia or recantation; [S. Aug. Epist. 9.] and doth even glory
that he seeth his infirmities. [S. Aug. Epist. 8.]  If we be sons
of the Truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon
our own credit, yea, and upon other men's too, if either be any
way an hindrance to it.  This to the cause:  then to the persons
we say, that of all men they ought to be most silent in this case.
For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made,
not only of their Service books, Portesses and Breviaries, but
also of their Latin Translation?  The Service book supposed to be
made by S. Ambrose (Officium Ambrosianum) was a great while in

>>> Continued to next message