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 uttered 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 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 [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) [Ezr. 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 St. 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? [Tertul. de praescript. contra haereses.] — "Do we try men's faith by their persons? We should try their persons by their faith." Also St. 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 St. Augustine's third book
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? St. Augustine was not afraid to exhort St. Jerome to a palinodia or recantation, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities [S. Aug. Epist. 9; S. Aug. lib. Retractat.; Video interdum vitia mea, 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, portasses, and breviaries, but also of their Latin translation? The service book supposed to be made by St. 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, burned it — and commanded the service book of St. Gregory universally to be used [Durand. lib. 5. cap. 2.]. 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 Friars Minorites, and commanded them to be observed there; insomuch that about an hundred years after, when the above-named 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 major parcas insane minori — "they that are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others" [Horat.]. 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 St. 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 Pagnin to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work [Sixtus Senens.]? 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, 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. [Sixtus 5. praefat. fixa Bibliis.]? 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, published 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 and 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.