TO THE READER
remiseritis peccata, remituntur eis; and, Tunc reddet vnicuique secundum opere sua; and, Nunquid poterit fides saluare eum? Ex operibus iustificatur homo & non ex fide tantum; and, Nubere volunt, damnationem habentes, quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt; and, Mandata eius grauia non sunt; and, Aspexit in remunerationem. Are al these and such, Papistical translations, because they are most plaine for the Catholike faith which they call Papistrie? Are they not word for word as in the Greek, and the very words of the holy Ghost? And if in these there be no accusation of Papistical partiality, why in the other? Lastly, are the Ancient fathers, General Councels, the Churches of all the west part, that vse al these speaches and phrases now so many hundred yeares, are they al Papistical? Be it so, and let vs in the name of God follow them, speake as they spake, translate as they translated, interpret as they interpreted, because we beleeue as they beleeued. And thus farre for defense of the old vulgar Latin translation, and why we translated it before al others: Now of the maner of translating the same.
In this our translation, because we wish it to be most sincere, as becommeth a Catholike translation, & haue endeauoured so to make it: we are very precise & religious in folowing our copie, the old vulgar approued Latin; not only in sense, which we hope we alwaies doe, but sometime in the very words also and phrases: which may seeme to the vulgar Reader & to common English eares not yet acquainted therewith, rudenesse or ignorance: but to the discret Reader that deeply weigheth and considereth the importance of sacred words and speaches, and how easily the voluntarie Translatour may misse the true sense of the Holy Ghost, we doubt not but our consideration and doing therin, shal seem reasonable and necessarie: yea and that al sorts of Catholike Readers wil in short time thinke that familiar, which at the first may seeme strange, & wil esteem it more, when they shal otherwise be taught to vnderstand it, then if it were the common knowen English.
For example, we translate often thus, Amen amen, I say vnto you; which as yet seemeth strange. But after a while it wil be as familiar, as Amen, in the end of al praiers and Psalmes. And euen as when we end with, Amen, it soundeth farre better then, So be it: so in the beginning, Amen, Amen, must needes by vse and custom sound farre better, then, Verily verily. Which indeed doth not expresse the asseueration and assurance signified in this Hebrew word. Besides that it is the solemne and vsual word of our Sauiour to expresse a vehement asseueration, and therfore is not changed, neither in the Syriake, nor Greek, nor vulgar Latin Testament, but is preserued and vsed of the Euangelists and Apostles themselues, euen as Christ spake it, propter sanctiorem authoritatem as S. Augustin saith of this and of Allelu-ia, for the more holy and sacred authoritie therof. li. 2. Doct. Christ. c. 11. And therfore doe we keep the word Allelu-ia, Apoc. 19. as it is both in Greek and Latin, yea and in al the English translations, though in their books of common praier they translate it, Praise ye the Lord. Againe if Hosanna, Raca, Belial, and such like be yet vntranslated in the English Bibles, why may not we say, Corbana, and Parasceue: specially when they Englishing this later thus, the preparation of the Sabboth, put three words more into the text, then the Greek word doth signifie, Mat. 27, 62. And others saying thus: After the day of preparing, make a cold translation and short of the sense: as if they should translate, Sabboth, the resting: For, Parasceue is as solemne a word for the Sabboth eue, as Sabboth is for the Iewes seauenth day, and now among Christians much more solemner, taken for Good-friday onely. These words then we thought it farre better to keep in the text, & to tel their signification in the margent or in a table for that purpose, then to disgrace both the text and them with translating them. Such are also these words, The Pasch, The feast of Azymes, The bread of Proposition. Which they translate: The Passeouer, The feast of sweet bread, The shew bread. But if Pentecost Act. 2. be yet vntranslated in their Bibles, and seemeth not strange: why should not Pasch and Azymes so remaine also, being solemne feasts, as Pentecost was? Or why should they english one rather then the other? Specially whereas Passe-ouer at the first was as strange, as Pasch may seem now, and perhaps as many now vnderstand Pasch, as Passe-ouer. And as for Azymes, when they english it, the feast of sweet bread, it is a false interpretation of the word, and nothing expresseth that which belongeth to the feast, concerning vnleauened bread. And as for their terme of shew bread, it is very strange and ridiculous, Againe, if Proselyte be a receiued word in the English Bibles Mat. 23. Act. 2. why may not we be bold to say, Neophyte. 1 Tim. 3? Specially when they translating it into English, do falsely expresse the signification of
