Preface to the King
James Translation of 1611 |
|
Submitted by Elder
Bill Allen |
(Not Copyrighted)
Part VII The Translators To The Reader
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. 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 what ever 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 sightly and convenient; 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 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? 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. 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 them 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 whom ever
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; the same S. Augustine was not
ashamed to retractate, we might say revoke, many things that
had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his
infirmities. If we will 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 special use and
request; but Pope Hadrian calling a Council with the aid of
Charles the Emperor, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and
commanded the Service book of Saint Gregory universally to
be used. Well, Officium Gregorianum gets by this
means to be in credit, but doth it continue without change
or altering? No, the very Roman Service was of two
fashions, the New fashion, and the Old, (the one used in one
Church, the other in another) as is to be seen in Pamelius a
Romanist, his Preface, before Micrologus. the same
Pamelius reporteth out Radulphus de Rivo, that about the
year of our Lord, 1277, Pope Nicolas the Third removed out
of the Churches of Rome, the more ancient books (of Service)
and brought into use the Missals of the Friers Minorites,
and commanded them to be observed there; insomuch that about
an hundred years after, when the above name Radulphus
happened to be at Rome, he found all the books to be new,
(of the new stamp). Neither were there this chopping and
changing in the more ancient times only, but also of late:
Pius Quintus himself confesseth, that every Bishopric almost
had a peculiar kind of service, most unlike to that which
others had: which moved him to abolish all other Breviaries,
though never so ancient, and privileged and published by
Bishops in their Dioceses, and to establish and ratify that
only which was of his own setting forth, in the year 1568.
Now when the father of their Church, who gladly would heal
the sore of the daughter of his people softly and slightly,
and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with them
for their odds and jarring; we hope the children have no
great cause to vaunt of their uniformity. But the difference
that appeareth between our Translations, and our often
correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially
charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves
be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault,
to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at
us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that
are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities
to others. If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis,
Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar
Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended,
or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure,
that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them;
albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, than as S. Paul
was to the Galatians, for telling them the truth [Gal 4:16]:
and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it
them plainlier and oftener. But what will they say to this,
that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' Translation of the
New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his
Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted
Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever
charges was necessary for the work? Surely, as the Apostle
reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and
Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the
latter: [Heb 7:11 and 8:7] so we may say, that if the old
vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose
had labour and charges been undergone, about framing of a
new. If they say, it was one Pope's private opinion, and
that he consulted only himself; then we are able to go
further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief men
of all sorts, even their own Trent champions Paiva and Vega,
and their own Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their
own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a
Vio Caietan, do either make new Translations themselves, or
follow new ones of other men's making, or note the vulgar
Interpreter for halting; none of them fear to dissent from
him, nor yet to except against him. And call they this an
uniform tenor of text and judgment about the text, so many
of their Worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay,
we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris
edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them
both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth
not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he
meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of
translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking
occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did
strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a
variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that
nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them,
etc.? Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an
inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of
his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new
Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be
authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set
forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the
Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before
his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate
successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible,
containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus,
(and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be
authentic by all means. What is to have the faith of our
glorious Lord Jesus Christ with Yea or Nay, if this be not?
Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be?
Therefore, as Demaratus of Corinth advised a great King,
before he talked of the dissensions among the Grecians, to
compose his domestic broils (for at that time his Queen and
his son and heir were at deadly feud with him) so all the
while that our adversaries do make so many and so various
editions themselves, and do jar so much about the worth and
authority of them, they can with no show of equity challenge
us for changing and correcting.
NEXT►
|