fathers and Doctors as you report Luth. cont Regem Angl. fol. 342. vnius maiestatis aeter nae verbum Euangelium Dei verbū est super omnia c. but that he setteth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of Diuells the word of the onely eternall maiesty the Gospell And againe immediatly he saith The word of God is aboue all the maiesty of God maketh with me that I care not though a thousand Augustines and Cyprians stood agaynst me Gods word is of more authoritie then all men or Angels Is this to set his priuate iudgement against all the fathers is this pride is this presumption must Gods word and maiestie and Gospell yeald to the iudgement of fathers be they neuer so manie This forsooth is your modestie that though the Lord hath spoken it yet if the fathers saie anie thing against it you will not prefere your iudgement grounded on the scriptures before the auncient fathers Accursed be such modestie that doth soe great iniurie and dishonour vnto god This ciuilitie towards men is treason and blasphemie towards the lord Remember what Elihu saith Iob. 32. v. 21.22 I will not now accept the person of man neither wil I give titles to man For I may not giue titles lest my maker should take me away suddenlie If this affection was in Luther as it was what fault can you finde therin You aske of me the reason why I so busilie defend Luther I aske of you the reason why you so continuallie accuse Luther If you seeke for some reasons to accuse him I cannot want better reasons to defend him your accusations being so vntrue That you say we aduance him into the place of Christe or at least among his Apostles belike you imagine that Luther is to vs as your Pope is to you whome you more esteeme and honour then Christe and all his Apostles For saie they what they will their saying hath litle force or authoritie if it like not your holie father but his saying must preuaile whatsoeuer they saie to the contrarie You thinke it good reason I should giue ouer all defense of Luther seing he bare extreame hatred as you say against the Sacramentaries here you bring in much to that purpose which yet you know is not the matter you tooke in hand But it is alwaies the propertie of such discreet and worthie writers whatsoeuer they finde though from the cause to hale it in by some meanes in one place or other I answere in a word Luther dissented bitterlie from Zuinglius and O Ecolampadius in the matter of the sacrament as it falleth out often times that sharpe contentions may arise amongst Godlie and learned men yet it is no cause why we should not answere in Luthers behalfe when he is wrongfullie charged by you Therefore you come to scanne my defense of Luther particularlie pag. 48. and finde your selfe occupied in deuising diuers senses of Luthers words and then disputing against them First if all the fathers teach one thing and bring scriptures for them Luther the contrarie bring scriptures for him whether in this case Luther may preferre his iudgement before all the fathers This is not the case M. R. that Luther ment you must therefore proceade further yet in your suppose Next then you put case If a thousand Augustines Churches teache some doctrine citing no text for it and Luther bring some text of scripture after his sense against the same the matter is not in citing textes but in deliuering the doctrine that is approoued by the text Then leaue your childish trifling and take Luther as he meant If Augustine or Cyprian or any other father maintaine any thing against Gods word Luther or any other minister of Christ may in such case preferre his iudgement warranted by the word of God before theirs If you denie this you are not worthie to be called a Christian and yet closelie you doe denie it in that you reprooue Luther and condemne him for saying the same And where you saie I can bring no instance that euer the auncient fathers did so haue you forgotten what fell out in the Councell of Nice Socrat. l. 1. c. 11. when the fathers agreeing to dissolue the marriage of ministers were withstood by Paphnutius One man maintaining the trueth of Gods word may lawfully dissent from others although neuer so many August cont petil l. 3. c. 6. and yealded in the ende Here one Paphnutius iudgment was preferred before al the other three hundred fathers And so often times the iudgement of many hath beene corrected by one S. Aug. saith whether of Christe or of his Church or of any other thing that appertayneth to our faith and life I will not say we not to be compared to him that sayd though we but as he added If an Angell from heauen shall preach any thing besides that ye haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures lette him be accursed If we maie accurse them how many and whosoeuer they be that teach contrary to the Propheticall and Apostolicall scriptures then may we preferre our iudgement in such cases before them Saint Augustines words you see are very sharpe but he learned thus to speake of the Apostle him selfe August epi. 19. In an other place Saint Augustine saith For all these fathers yea aboue all these the Apostle Paul offereth himselfe I flee to him I appeale to him from all writers that thinke otherwise This was S. Augustine bolde to write euen to S. Ierome and feared not any suspicion either of arrogancie or heresie for the same such accoumpte then must be made of the trueth that we must stand with it against al the world and not for reuerence of mens persons giue it ouer or betraie it or be afraid to defend it If this be so as you will not I am sure for shame or feare denie openlie then haue you nothing to burthen Luther in this behalfe When you say Though the fathers in the Councells of Nice Ephesus Chalcedon had alleadged no direct and euident place against Arius Nestorius Eutyches yet the Christian people were bound to beleeue them grounding them selues onelie vpon the catholike and vniuersall faith of the Churches before them it is boldly and bluntlie spoken These godly and catholike fathers assembled in Councel against those heritikes confuted them by the authoritie of Gods word and as it were cut the throte of their heresies with the sworde of the spirit This was onelie the weapon then vsed and with this they preuayled The councels and fathers confuted all Heretikes by the scriptures as likwise haue all other godlie councels euer done against all heretikes and enemies of the trueth For in Religion there is no trueth but grounded vppon scriptures no errour or heresie but repugnant to scriptures no heretikes but refuted by scriptures They dealt not against the heretikes as you imagine omitting scriptures and grounding vpon the faith of Churches
not according to the Hebrew but according to the Septuagints First Master Rainolds your comparison is not equall What are ye to Christ to his Euangelists and Apostles will you be bolde to take as much vppon you as they might herein doubtles you haue not so wiselie be thought your selfe Then shew if you can a place alledged by our sauiour Christ or anie Euangelist or Apostle swaruing in sense from the Hebrew They cite not alwaies the words but they keepe most truelie the sense and meaning euer more Lastlie it is one thing to translate the scripture and an other to cite a place of scripture In citing a place it is sufficient to obserue the true meaning in translating it is necessarie to keepe the wordes as neare as maie be Our sauiour his Euangelists and Apostles were no translatours of scripture but they truelie deliuered the sense of such places as they alledged out of scripture The Apostle you say alledging a place out of the psalme Psa 19.5 Their sound is gone into all the earth followed not the Hebrew First I answere the sense is all one Rom. 10.18 whether you translate their sound or their line is gone forth secondlie Iohn Isaac can tell you Contra Lindā lib. 3. p. 148. that the hebrew word Kau must signifie not onelie a line but also as much as Kol a sound which if it be so Act. 13.41 then hath the Apostle kept the verie word The place in the Actes which S. Paul citeth out of the Prophet Habacuc hath no difference in substance The Prophet saith Behold among the Gentiles c. The Apostle citeth the place thus Habac. 1.5 Behold ye scorners Howsoeuer some diuersitie maie appeare in the wordes the purpose of the Prophet and Apostle is all one and this was the thing which the Apostles regarded in alledging authorities out of the old Testament Your third example in Saint Iames sheweth Iam. 4.6 that the Apostle cited the words of the Greeke not of the hebrew which is graunted to be oftentimes in the new Testament vsed But to alledge the sense of a place therin to follow some translation is another thing then to translate the text it selfe The Hebrew text is to this sense He mocketh the mockers and giueth grace to the meeke Pron 3.34 Saint James rehearseth the wordes thus God resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble The sense is not altered seeing these mockers are the proude men of this world and God mocketh them when he resisteth them But tell me now whether you think the Hebrew in these places to be corrupt or no. I think you dare not so affirme seeing your latine vulgar which you account authenticall agreeth with the Hebrew for the two last places Then what is your argument out of these examples gladly would I vnderstand if you could tell That Christ and the Apostles cited places out of the olde testament according to the Greeke Haue an eie to M.R. conclusion and it shal appeare he speaketh beside the purpose was it because the Hebrew was contaminated as you speake If it were then must you confesse your latine translation which you so much esteeme to be full of corruption Would you translate these places according to the Greeke because you finde them cited by the Apostles according to the Greeke Expound your dreame Master Rainolds your selfe and tell vs what you saw Caluine you charge for cutting the place of Iames cleane awaie Lay not the Printers fault vppon Caluine If he had meant as you surmise he would haue cut the same sentence out in Saint Peter also But there you haue it set downe in the text and expounded in the commentary Your spposes haue small weight to ground an argument vpon pag. 290. you may deuise and imagine any thing what you liste Euery canonicall booke of the olde testament is extant in the same language wherin it was written As for your bookes of Tobie Iudith Machabees it is no matter in what tongue or by whome they were set forth That S. Matthewe writ his Gospell in Hebrew is affirmed I graunt by auncient fathers but affirmed onelie not prooued and arguments there be manie to the contrarie But admit that so it were the Greeke was set forth in the Apostles daies as the same authors confesse and by them commended to the Church as the true and authenticall history written by S. Matthewe and of vs is so to be accounted As for the Hebrew of that Gospell now extant your selfe beleeue not I thinke it is the same that Saint Matthew writ if he writ anie at all in Hebrue Looke now to the force of this supposition a litle better your selfe if you haue grace to consider it aright which you saie is wanting in me you will confesse it prooueth nothing My words by you translated I acknowledge pag. 291. c. out of which three things you note First that I confesse you refuse not the fountaines but because you thinke them to be corrupt which yet is not by me any where confessed The fountaines indeed you refuse and of this refusall the reason you pretend to be that they are corrupt Yet thinke I not that so you are in trueth perswaded it being contrarie to all reason that the translation generallie should be more pure and incorrupt then the fountaine it selfe from whence it is deriued Secondlie that I affirme you thus to say because the fountaines be not so commodious for you as the translation This to be the true cause in deede any man may soone perceiue that throughlie indifferentlie considereth your dealing this in some examples I haue alreadie shewed and can more at large declare when occasion shall require Thirdlie that I tell you the fountaines are more pure and holesome then the latine edition Verilie this I beleeue and this can I prooue and this shal in the discourse following appeare whatsoeuer you haue alledged or can alledge to the contrarie In your entrie to the question you thinke to gaine credit to your vulgare translation by S. Ieromes authoritie pag. 294. who was requested by Damasus Bishop of Rome to correct the latine translation of the new Testament Hier. in prefat in nonū Test S. Ierome I reuerence Damasus I commend the worke I confesse to be godlie profitable to the Church But if Ierome or Damasus maie bring anie waight of commendation to your latine translation how much more ought we to haue in high and holie reuerence the Hebrewe and Greeke text which was written not by Ierome or anie such father of meane credite but by the Prophets by the Apostles and Euangelists not at the request of Damasus or other like Bishop but by commaundement from God and direction of the holie Ghost S. Ierome tooke paines at Damasus request in the foure Euangelists of his owne accord in manie bookes of the olde Testament but this maketh nothing for your assertion but
but they prooued their faith to be grounded vppon the scriptures So Cyprian a wise and Catholike Bishop writeth that in controuersies of Religion we must haue recourse to the origine of trueth Cypria de vnit Eccles in Epist ad Pompei whereby he meaneth the scriptures and that the cause of heresie is for that the head is not sought which he declareth further adding that the doctrine of the heauenlie Master is not kept And therefore if those fathers had obiected nothing but the common beliefe of the Churches against those heretikes they had taken a wrong course and should neuer thus haue stopped their mouthes But they had a surer waie to conuince heretikes then you haue whoe being of all heretikes the greatest would take awaie all means of confuting heretikes that so your selues might not be espied or not controlled As for Heluidius Ambrose Epist 81. 79. Hieron cont Heluid who denied the blessed virgine to haue remained a virgine afterward the fathers Ierome and Ambrose alleadged against him not tradition onely but the scriptures especiallie although what Saint Basill hath written of this wholl matter you maie reade in his sermon of the Natiuitie wherein he is not affraied plainlie to affirme that after she had borne our sauiour Christ Basil de Christi â—tiuit whither she married againe or remained a virgine still belongeth longeth nothing to the mysterie of faith Againe you imagine a third sense of Luthers wordes Pag. 51. by supposing a thing impossible that if all Churches and fathers teach against Scripture Luther with Scripture then Luther maie thinke him-selfe a better man then they al. What Luthers meaning was you haue heard and therefore it skilleth not what you suppose further Indeed M. R. as you saie the Church falleth not from Christ to Apostasie but this is true as well of the Church in the olde Testament as in the newe yet as the visible Churches of the Iewes fell awaie from God and became open enemies vnto our sauiour Christ so it might come to passe since Christ that the particular Churches and congregations did corrupte the doctrine of the Gosepll and slid into that Apostasie which the Scriptures foresaid should ouerspread the Churches afterward 1. Tim. 4.1 2. Thes 2.3 But the Catholike Church which is the number of Gods elect can no more fall awaie from Christe into Apostasie then the course of heauen can be chaunged For it standeth vpon Christ the rocke and hell gates shall not be hable to cast it downe Here againe you come in with Luthers opinion of the sacrament pag. 52. wherein as he dissented from vs the truth verie much so your popish Transsubstantiation then which was neuer a more impious and absurd heresie maintained in the Church he vtterlie abhorred And what though herein Luther somthing swarued from the truth might he not therefore being in other causes assured thereof out of the word of God reiect the opinions of such as dissented from the same By this reason no man in defense of Gods trueth may chalenge or bid defiance to the aduersaries thereof seeing they haue no priuiledge or Charter graunted to them but that them selues maie also be deceiued Luther was an excellent man and a worthie seruante of Christ whose Ministerie especiallie it pleased the Lord to vse in reuealing to these times that sonne of perdition whoe sitteth in the Temple of God and aduaunceth him selfe aboue God yet was Luther a man and therefore no maruaile if he were not exempted altogether from ignorance and infirmitie And what miserable peruersnes is it in you that being not able to maintaine your owne heresies against Luther will thinke to escape in the iudgement of men from beeing condemned because Luther him selfe in one pointe of doctrine erred Maie no man conuince error but such a one as is free from erring at all him selfe the scriptures are left vnto vs to be our rule of trueth by them must all doctrine be squared and directed they sit in the hiest seate of indgement to giue sentence in euerie cause With them did Luther cut downe your errours of them haue we learned to thinke of the sacrament otherwise then Luther did to them doe we submit our selues in euerie thing we teach and are contented that our wholl Religion be tried by them so that if you or anie other can shewe wherein we disagree from them we are readie and willing to be reformed But one error of Luther cannot serue to excuse infinite errors in the popish Church Thus haue you my answere as plainlie as I could deuise in this matter which though you haue handled at large as became a man of your learning leasure and discretion yet in the end you cast it awaie from you as not worthy to haue any time bestowed about it Now therfore I trust herafter you wil be better occupied CHAPTER 4. Of Priesthod and of the sacrifice continued after Christ SEeing you will needes be called accounted Priests that in the proper sense pag. 56. and signification of this word I require no pardon at your hands for terming you as I did For if Christ be the onelie Priest of the new Testament and his sacrifice neuer to be repeated as we are plainlie taught by the word of God what Priests can you be but Baalites and what sacrificers but Antichristian shewe your order your Author your institution otherwise we must esteeme and speake of you Heb. 5.4 The Popish priest hoode was not ordainied by Christ but is contrarie to the Priesthood of Christ and therefore worthie to be contemned detested of al faithfull Christians as such a generation deserueth It is not lawfull for any to take honour to him-selfe but he that is called of God as Aaron If you can prooue that God hath called you it is meet you be receiued reuerenced as the ordinaunce of God in all functions deserueth but this can you neuer doe and therefore both your name your profession is of al the godly to be detested as a venemous plant neuer planted by the heauenlie father Mat. 15.13 Two waies you haue chosen by which you will prooue your selues lawfull priests principally you say by mine owne words secondarily by deduction out of the scriptures Let vs consider of both these arguments in order and so it shall appeare in the end that your Priesthood was hatched of an ill egge pag. 57. And here you declare euidentlie to the world in the verie begininng your pitifull ignorance M. R. affirmeth that we denie Melchisedech to haue bene a Priest how vntruelie all the world caÌ„ witnes Gen. 14.18 Psal 110.4 Heb. 7.1 not knowing against whom you fight For was it euer of vs doubted that Melchisedech was a Priest and offered sacrifice doth not the scripture teach the same moste expreslie and that in manie places yet you saie you could neuer obtaine so much of our brethren which argueth that God
as I can possiblie The wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in latine worde for worde quem oportet quidem coelum recipere the wordes both in Greeke and latine are ambiguous as any man may see in which respecte Beza thought better to translate them thus quem oporter quidem coe locapi which in effect and true meaning is al one with the other but yet some thing plainer This worthie matter you handle by seuerall pointes as becommeth a man of such discretion First you say it is saucy and malapert for any man of purpose to restraine that pag. 172. which the holy ghost hath left at large If this be so then hath your vulgare interpreter bene ouer saucy and malapert often times Examples of such saucines I might alledge many in his translation if cause required I graunt a man cannot be too precise and religious in translating the wordes of holy scripture and that it ought to be the especiall care of a godly translator neither to restraine nor enlarge any thing as farre forth as he may performe by skill and diligence for so much as the text may afford a doctrine sometime in his original and naturall wordes which by altering in the translation is soone marred But these admitt no other sense then one therefore no matter whether a man say that heauen must receiue Christ or Christ must be receiued in heauen the meaning is all one For as for the conceite of some which you affirme may perhappes be true that Christ should receiue heauen it passeth al compasse of reason or diuinitie Howe I pray you doth Christ receiue heauen by his diuine power but the Apostle speaketh of Christs ascension as in the text appeareth and all interpreters vnderstande the wordes how then doth Christ receiue heauen in his humanitie wherein he ascended and whereof the Apostle speaketh tell vs if you can Againe why saith the Apostle vntill the time that all things are restored if he meane that Christs diuinitie receiued heauen which then receiued it no otherwise then it hath euer and shall euer receiue it for that by taking heauen should be meant the rule and gouerment of heauen which Christ at his ascension receiued this interpretation I know seemeth but absurd to your selfe and therefore you may leaue it for others to defend whome for this matter Beza hath fully answered Your second third points where in you vrge and prosecute M. Martins reprehension I omit as vn worthie of answere Beza transtated the place trulie in sense as your selfe cannot deny the cause that mooued him a litle to alter the wordes was to auoide doubtfull and ambiguous construction That Illyricus is not contented with this translation what maruel seeing he wil haue Christs body contayned in no place If you be of his iudgement you may vse his authoritie against Beza herein But where hath Caluine reprooued Bezaes translation of these wordes why haue neither you nor Gregorie Martine noted the place or set downe the reprehension you haue good cause to be ashamed of such egregious trifling pag. 175. Beza hath sufficientlie cleared his translation from charge of corruption in sense by S. Nazianzens authoritie Nazianz. de filio Conc. 2. whoe reporteth in Greeke these wordes of S. Peter euen altogether in such sorte as Beza hath expressed them in his latine translation So all you haue to say against Beza or me in this matter is for rendering a verbe deponent by a verbe passiue keeping threrein the sense moste trulie and exactly Your friuolus inuectiue against our translations and translatours I passe ouer pag. 176. M. Martine hath written of this matter so much already as your wholl Colledge of Rhemes could vtter vnto whose vnlearned and weake discourse which he calleth a discouerie a learned Doctor hath made answere long agoe Martins discouerie The answere you haue amongst you confute it if you can Otherwise in this behalfe thinke your selues fullie satisfied Here are we entred into a large treatise of Reall presence pag. 178. c. for which M. Rainolds seemeth to be verie zealous and carefull lest it should receiue some discountenaunce by the former words of S. Peter as needes it must translate them how you list so you translate them trulie For Saint Peter speaking of Christs humanitie saith that heauen must receiue him vntill the time that all things are restored Hereof it followeth Act. 3.21 that Christ as touching his humanity is not receiued or contained in the sacrament or els in any other place then heauen This is a plaine a certaine Christ ascending in his humanity into heauen hath left no place for Reall presence in the sacrament an inuincible trueth so not we haue taken from you Christs Reall presence but Christ in carying vp his bodie out of this world into heauen hath himselfe actuallie ouerthrowne your fantasticall imaginations of his bodelie and carnall presence on the earth Before you come to answere this argument according to your olde wont you speake and spend much idle talke wherein nothing asketh answere but that by conference of other places you would weaken the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Sainct Luke vseth in reporting S. Peters wordes For you saie that this prooueth Christs bodie to be contained in heauen no more then Saint Luke writing that Samaria receiued the word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8.14 affirmeth the word of God was contained in Samaria An obiection doubtles that came from a deepe vnderstanding to make the word of God which was to be preached ouer the wholl world of like nature with a bodie which must be contained in one place If you can see anie thing you may soone see that the word receiue is otherwise taken here as also in the two other places which you alledge of receiuing children and Apostles in Christs name Saint Peter speaketh of locall receiuing or containing the other places vnderstand a receiuing of reliefe or entertainement Your reproches as they well become your person so being vsuall require no answere but are to be contemned Being come to the matter in hand pag. 183. you shewe your selfe more hotte and hastie in words then discrete or pithie in your arguments For that I said it is a contradiction to maintaine that one and the same bodie should together both be visible inuisible circumscriptible and incircumscriptible as you do moste fondlie imagine and teach of Christs body you charge me with infidelitie for denying gods omnipotency which euerie Christian professeth in the first article of the Creede Of Atheisme and infidelitie take heede your selfe M. R you haue alreadie made a dangerous step The papists to prooue their Reall presence are faine to flee to Gods omnipotencie and thus to argue god is able to make his body Reallie present in the sacrament therefore so he doth God forbid I should be guiltie of that sin wherof you do without all conscience or
partialitie Our translations and translatours haue beene sufficientlie cleared for the most parte of such faults as were obiected and though it is not denied but in euerie on t of them some fault or other may be found worthy reproofe and correction yet maie it moste truelie be affirmed that of all our translations none can be noted so full of imperfections and errors as your latine vulgar translation is which you not onelie follow but commend for the best of all yea preferre before the originall texte it selfe against knowledge reason and conscience This whol chapter you might haue spared handling such thinges as haue bene so well handled in your iudgemente by Master Martin but the occasion seruing you to vtter some part of your humour which so boileth in your stomache that it would burst the vessel if it breathed not forth you could not prâ—termit Brieflie let vs peruse this litle or nothing rather that you bring You shall doe me mischiefe enough M. R. and be sufficientlie auenged on me pag. 264. c. if you can prooue all that you haue here propounded against me Bigge words bolde bragges terrible threats a man would thinke my case were verie miserable that haue to deale with so cruell and mightie an aduersarie I may indeed be sorie for my chaunce to be thus cumbred with an vnlearned and ridiculous trifler that seeketh onelie by shewe and multitude of words to dazle the eyes of simple men and somewhat disgrace the truth of god A man that hath but a drop of learning cannot be deceiued by such painted pelting stuffe the vnlearned that cannot iudge may thinke M. R. hath said some what to purpose First you say no wit nor learning will alowe me to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase And what came in your head to charge me with translating psuche a carcase where haue I so translated it or where is it so found in any of our translations For my part I neuer so translated it I neuer saw it so translated I neuer thought it lawful so to translate it Beza I graunt traÌ„slated it so in his latine translation once but afterwards vpon better consideration he changed his translation as you may see in the latter editions As for eidolon it is truly properlie translated an Image as any man will confesse that knoweth the nature of the word as it hath beene largely prooued in sundry discourses It was then farre from wit or learning in you Master Rainolds to say that as well might minister be translated a slaue or homo a dogge as eidolon an Image For among the words wherewith the learned Grecians commonlie expresse the same thing that we cal an Image is eidolon as fitt and naturall as any other Your sacred Images are eidola if eidolon signifie an Idole then are they Idoles as in trueth they are By vse and custome of speach an Idole and Image somewhat differ as euerie man knoweth All Idoles are Images not al Images Idoles But the Lord hath forbidden al grauen Images no lesse then grauen Idols to be made for worship sake Wherefore your Images All images made for worship sake are verie Idoles which you make which you garnish which you erecte which you worship in your vnholie Synagogues are Idoles The picture maketh not an Idole but the worship The pictures of Iupiter or Mars were no Idoles according to the receiued sense of this worde vnlesse they were worshiped so likewise the Images of Saints if they be abused to sacred worship in which respecte you cal them sacred Images are no better then profane wicked abominable Idoles Then your argument to prooue vs Idolaters for honoring the Queene in her Image c. is childish This honor to the Prince is ciuil not religious or diuine such as the honour is wherewith you worship your Images of all sortes so this honour is farre from Idolatrie your honour is meere Idolatry and you are Idolatrous worshippers of Idole Images That Ecclesia signifieth an assembly or congregation whoe can deny so may it rightlie be translated although we in our translations doe willingly vse the common word Church as you cannot be ignorant So Episcopus we translate most commonly a Bishop Euangelium the gospell and to conclude we refuse not the vsual phrase manner of speach but onely when the superstitious abuse of wordes was to be auoyded Therefore that forme of preaching which you haue here deuised of your selfe is fittest for such a preacher as your selfe we vse not so to preach or so to speake or so to write it was no doubt a wise conceite to occupy your selfe withall Thus appeereth secondly what shame or modesty was in you pag. 270. to obiect want of both to me For shew vs M. R. if you can anie worde in our Bibles absurdly or falslie translated by me maintained The same worde may wel be translated in diuerse places diuerslie so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io. 3.8 is rightly translated the wind which in other places is not so to be translated And are not you a modest man that because in this one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so translated as the word well beareth and the sense requireth would make men beleeue that it is euery where els so translated and that the holy ghost we call the holy winde you haue good cause to be ashamed of this so shameles and impudent dealing Eucharistia you will not haue translated thanksgiuing but Eucharist by Eucharist you meane the sacrament of Christs supper Now where is Eucharistia taken thus for the sacrament in the scriptures why haue your selues translated Eucharistia thanks giuing 1. Tim. 4.4 Nothing to be reiected that is receiued with thanks giuing Will you mende your translation thus Nothing to be reiected that is receiued with the Eucharist As Eucharistia is vsed by Godly writers both Greeke and Latine for the sacrament so we also vse the word Eucharist in the same manner as you might heare in our sermons may reade in our writings And so we call it the sacrament of Baptisme not of washing as you charge vs notwithstanding that Baptismus in the generall signification of the worde is nothing els but washing and so is vsed in scripture often times and so haue your selues translated it Marc. 7.4 Whether I haue truelie said of your translation that it is of all others moste corrupt I am content to refer it to the iudgement of all the wise and Godly readers pag. 271. c. Where haue I said or allowed any thing tending to such Atheisme as you charge vs withall Atheist I will not call you Master Rainolds but I may trulie say of you as you haue continually giuen vndoubted proofe that you haue no feare of God before your eies Speake or write of vs your pleasure falslie foolishlie boldelie your iudgement shall be as deepe as anie Atheist vnles you leaue your lying
had recourse to the Greeke copies and haue prescribed the same rule to be followed continuallie and Saint Hierome himselfe reformed the latin translations according to the Greeke then extant read in the Greeke Churches Thus then you maie perceaue that to be constant in the profession of Gods trueth and to be carefull to keepe the text of scripture from corruption are two diuerse things which you might haue soone considered if you had but looked backe to that your selfe haue written before For these are euen the same Grecians whose exemplars Saint Ierome followed in correcting the Euangelists and which he calleth waters of the moste pure fountaine and sundrie wise commendeth Hieron Marcellae For proofe that the Hebrew fountaines are by the Iewes corrupted pag. 303. c. you bring vs forth a place out of the prophet Esaie Chap. 9. First in that I say the Iewes haue not corrupted the hebrew text I say no other thing then that which the moste learned Papists of all times haue affirmed M.R. in this controuersie hath his master papists aduersaries to him namelie Isaac Clarius Valla Andradius Montanus Lucas Bellarmine and manie moe and that by the same argument which my selfe vsed that then this corruption moste certainelie would haue appeared in those places that directlie concerne our Sauiour Christ amongst the which this that you mention here is notable And although I wil not deny but that the Iewes might haue some purpose to wrest it from the sense that it might be aplied to any rather then to Christ yet the corruption is not so greate as you would haue it seeme consisting not in change of any letter but only of the pointes The letters remaining without alteration whatsoeuer is amisse in the pointes may easilie be corrected Furthermore if we reade the word with the same pointes which now it commonly hath in the Hebrew Bibles whereby the verbópassiue is turned into an actiue yet the place notwithstanding prooueth inuinciblie the Diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ For as well doth it confirme this doctrine if we read Vajikrae vocabit that is God the father shall call his name wonderfull c as if we read Vajikkare vocabitur his name shall be called wonderfull Although you that take vpon you such profound knowledge and cunning in the Hebrew language should not haue beene ignorant that this is the phrase of that tongue That the Iewes refer the last name onely which is the Prince of peace Sar-shaelom to the Childe borne all the rest going before to God him selfe this I graunt to be a malitious construction of the wordes but no corruption of the text One thing is it to expound the wordes in a wronge sense an other to falsifie the wordes You hoped no doubte to haue gained much more by this place then will any waies be yelded vnto you for that you adde of the Churches authoritie which you call the supreame grounde and stay is nothing worth being an olde worne and wasted sentence brought in rashelie without credite or countenaunce The wordes are plaine of them-selues and haue in them authoritie and stay sufficient to prooue the trueth of Christs diuinitie and to confute the enemies thereof An other such place you obiecte out of the Prophet Ieremie pag. 306. Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath bene committed either in letter or poynt may be imagined but cannot by euident demonstration be prooued ijcro What mooued S. Ierome to translate thus vocabunt eum They shall call him I will not dispute The reason might be in the variety and incertentie of poynts or in the ambiguous acception of the word But because M. Rainolds chargeth the Iewes with so foule a corruption of this place only to discredite the diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ he must remember that the Seuentie interpreters translated it in the singular number according to the Hebrewe now extant In comment ad Hier. ca. 23. as S. Ierom also maketh mention yet were they neuer chalenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures being as many write wonderfullie assisted gouerned in that work and not smallie had of auncient time in regard And this was long before our sauiour Christ was come in the flesh and therefore vndoubtedlie the place was not corrupted by the Iewes for such a cause as you imagine vnlesse you will saie the Iewes in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diuerse hundred yeares before Christ was borne and before they had cause to conceiue any malice or displeasure against our sauiour Christ And so your Lyranes surmise is plainelie disprooued in which you rest your selfe as in a certaine veritie and vpon his worde are boulde to pronounce sentence against the poore Iewes for committing a crime which by cleare euidence of greater authoritie they are not guilty of Neither maketh it lesse for Christs diuinitie to read it vocabit He shall cal him that is God the father or euerie faithful man shal call him The Lord our righteousnes then if we reade vocabunt They shall call him the Lord our righteousnes And Saint Hierome as you might haue seene had you looked on the place your selfe translateth the text after this manner Et hoc est nomen quo vocabunt eum sine vocabit eum Dominus iustus noster wherein he sheweth plainelie there is no substance of matter more in the one then the other If this be so shameful so notable a corruption as you in countenaunce and shew pretende S. Hierome was greatly ouerseene that not onelie gaue no warning thereof in his Commentarie but vsed the same also in the text it selfe But what wil you say to those learned men whoe hauing more skill in the Hebrew tongue then you Master Rainolds or els your Lyra thoug a Iewe borne haue translated the word as it is now read in the hebrew Bibles no otherwise then your selues would haue it to be translated I meane Arias Montanus and Vatablus as in their translations you may finde whoe if they haue rightelie and well translated the worde then may you see that no such wickednesse hath bene practized in this place as you haue fathered vpō the Iewes And furthermore compare an other like place in the same Prophet Chap. 33. v. 15. Where this worde is vsed in the singular number without controuersie the Prophet speaking againe of the same matter and almoste whollie in the same wordes Thus you may vnderstand that the integritie of this place may be auouched and the Iewes deliuered from your vniust accusation many waies One example more you giue mean an other kinde Pag. 310. wherein no kinde of corruption appeereth at all In the Prophet Esay chap. 53. vers 8. the old latine translation standeth thus propter scelus populi mei percussi eum For the sinne of my people haue I smitten him The Hebrew text is something otherwise Miphshahh 〈◊〉 mi negahh lamo propter defectionem populi
mei plaga ipsi that is For the transgression of my people was he plagued Your selfe confesse there is agreement in the sense as indeed euerie one maie see yet by and by as a man without memorie or reason you saie the sense is inuerted greatlie altered Something would you gladlie saie but nothing to purpose can you saie The sense in the Hebrew now extant agreeing so fullie with the translation of S. Ierome which you hold as authenticall and consonant to the veritie of the auncient Hebrew Bibles how can you probablie charge the Iewes with corruption of this place there being no difference and therefore no corruption in the sense by your owne confession If they corrupted the text it was because they would corrupt the sense but here the sense runneth as pure and clear in the Hebrew as in the Latine therefore this text is not corrupted by the Iewes What Luther hath written of the Iewes and Rabbines endeauour in this behalfe maketh nothing for your aduantage Yet as though it had bene by plaine demonstration declared that the bibles are corrupted by them M.R. taketh vpon him now to shew the sorts and manners of their corruption And two he noteth Pag. 314. the first is by plaine alteration of points letters and syllables the second by deuiding words which by the Prophets were ioyned together And that you maie knowe he hath plentifull store and varietie of examples Sernetus is alledged neither Iewe nor Rabbine whoe by diuiding a texte of the Apostle in the Greeke corrupted the sense Thus trimlie can M. R. prooue the matter he goeth about although he speake neuer a word to the question The controuersie is whether the Iewes haue thus corrupted the Hebrew Bibles M.R. alledgeth an example wherein Seruetus of late thus corrupteth the Greek Testament No man now can saie but he hath wel performed his parte prooued inuincibly both manifest corruption in the Bibles and shewed also the manners thereof More perhaps anon will come to his hands for as yet nothing hath he found pag. 316. * M.R. saith he could note sundrie other particular errors in the Hebrew but that he wanteth a peece of that insolent vaine which manie of his aduersaries haue If he wanted nothing els he need not greatlie to complaine but doubtles much greater want hath he of truth and learning then insolencie One thing here he confesseth which the Reader maie remember M. Rain hath made a notable confession against himselfe that howsoeuer some grosse errors haue crept into the fountaines and originals yet commonlie and for the most parte the text is true and sincere Thus M.R. hath voluntarilie protested for the Hebrewe and Greeke text And are there no grosse errors in your latine translation or not so manie as in the fountaines it shall be prooued there are not onelie grosser faults in yoâ—â— translation but also moe manifest corruptions then you can imagine in the text In that you demaund pag 317. what reason I haue to thinke the Hebrew text so pure I answere the care which God hath for the truth of his worde and the diligence of them to whose custodie the same was committed Against this reason you argue but without a good argument That diuerse bookes of scripture haue perished is not denied But the Canon of scripture being after the captiuitie gathered by Ezra and other Prophets and deliuered to the Church that since that time anie parcell hath bene lost you cannot prooue And those that are lost of which you recken some in some you are deceiued they are wanting without anie losse or decaie of necessarie doctrine for the Church in those times wherein they were not extant And that the Iewes haue bene more diligent to keepe their Bibles from corruption then Christians haue bene to keepe their translations sincere who can doubt considering that in S. Ieromes daies the common translations were moste faultie as himselfe is a witnesse but the Hebrew text remained true sincere incorrupt and was a rule to follow in reforming the translations vsed in the Church And your selfe euen now confessed of your owne good accord that the Hebrewe text was for the moste parte and commonlie voide of all corruption which being true sheweth a wonderfull prouidence of the Lord watching ouer the bookes of his heauenlie word to defend them from such infections as otherwise through negligence and malice of men they were subiect vnto Now if the Iewes were either so negligent or so malitious as you imagine and the Christians so carefull for preseruation of the Bible how then came it to passe that in the Hebrew copies was found so great truth sinceritie in the common translations such notorious errors corruptions Andrad Defens Concil Trident. lib. 4. and that for so many hundred yeares after Christ Andradius a doctor of your owne schools a great master in your Romane synagogue hath tolde you alreadie that you haue herein vnaduisedlie foolishlie deemed that therfore more credit is to be giuen to the latin edition then to the Hebrewe bookes for that these were corrupted through the treacherie of the Iewes saith you cannot either note the time or describe the authors of that hainous fact or assigne the place or shew such other circumstances which might conuict the Iewes of this sacrilege that therfore the whol matter hangeth vpon bare suspicioÌ„ for which we ought not to charge in this manner the holie bookes of the hebrewes so auncient so commended by our elders so renoumed by testimonies of al ages pag. 320. The likenes of some Hebrew letters betweene themselues hath beene a cause I graunt of some corruption in the Bible but that not greate and such as hath hapned of negligence rather then purpose and may easelie both be espied and amended and nothing so grosse or common as in your latine Bibles may be seen Is it reason thinke you that for as much as some letters haue bene mistaken in the Hebrew therefore the wholl text should be condemned Is there not such mistaking of letter for letter word for word in the latine vulgare translation who knoweth not there is shall we then vse your argument against the translation which you haue deuised against the fountaine There is no reason to the contrarie For if diligence hath bene bestowed in purging and reforming such errors of the translation More reason had it bene for the Councel of Trent to haue taken order that the fountaines might be clensed if there be in them anie fault then the latine translation why may not the same be done in restoring the originall text to the naturall truth and sinceritie The errors rising vpon the similitude of letters and words may in the Hebrew as wel as any other language be corrected That in these examples by you alledged out of the Psalmes 100. v. 3. 59. v. 10. any such errour of mistaking hath bene committed in the text would haue bene by
and two with Pe. Wherefore you see how litle proofe of corruption this reason maketh whatsoeuer you in your ignorance esteeme of it That which Master Rainolds hetherto hath saide as though it were greatly to purpose Pag. 333. and worthie to be remembred he gathereth now into certaine conclusions and as the smith he beateth stil vpon the same anuill I haue alreadie answered enoughe to the wholl If any thing further be offered in this repetition it shal be hand led First it is neither Iudaical nor iniurious to the Church to thinke more reuerentlie of the Hebrew fountaines then the latine translation as hath beene shewed Yea absurde and vnlearned is it to preferre the translation before the text vpon certaine I know not what blinde surmises Secondlie if the heresie of the Arrians corrupted the Latine Bibles as you imagine whereupon they needed such correction and reformation by Saint Ierome how came it to passe that the Greeke translation of the seuentie and the Greeke of the new testament was not by that meanes much more corrupted for so much as that heresie preuailed much more in the Greeke then in the latine Churches why notwithstanding this heresie doe the fathers appeale to the Greeke fountaines of the new testamēt by them amend their translations The Arrians would haue corrupted the spring rather then a streame and Saint Ierome had more cause in respect of them to suspecte the Greeke then the latine Whereby it is plaine that your geasse of the latine translations being troubled and corrupted by the Arrians is vaine and nothing but a geasse at all aduenture That you say the Canon of the scripture in those daies was not by generall authoritie confirmed and receiued though it be greate vntrueth yet for as much as it pertaineth not directly to the matter I will not stand vpon it Two authorities M. R. alleadgeth out of the commentaries of S. Hierome vpon the epistle to the Galathians The Apostle in the 3. Chap. citeth two testimonies out of Deuteronomie not altogether according to euerie word in the Hebrewe text Saint Ierome among other reasons hereof vseth that for one that the Iewes perhaps haue changed something in their originals If the Apostle had alwaies bound him-selfe to the wordes in rehearsing authorities out of the olde testament this reason had beene of waight but seeing the Apostle Saint Paul and other Apostles vse not preciselie to recite the words of the text but the sence Saint Ierome had no cause to suspecte such a matter in these places For compare the 〈…〉 Prophets and Apostles wordes together and no difference in sense shall ye finde Deuteronomie Chap. 27. v. 26. the words stand thus in the Hebrewe Accursed is whosoeuer performeth not the wordes of this lawe to doe them The Apostle to the Galat. chap. 3. v. 10. alledgeth them thus Accursed is euerie one that abideth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to doe them Here you haue moe words I graunt but what diuersitie is there in the sense againe Deuter. Chap. 21. v. 23. the wordes are these Accursed of God is he that is hanged Saint Paul Galat. Chap. 3. v. 13. alledgeth the words thus Accursed is euery one that is hanged on a tree in wordes a litle alteration in matter meaning none at all That the Hebrewe was corrupted either before S. Ierome or since Pag. 336. in such manner as you pretend when wil you prooue vnto vs M. R hetherto nothing haue you done as plainlie appeareth now are you spent almoste so that litle more maie be looked for at your hands Concerning points prickes distinctions resemblance of letters malice of the Rabbines and such like coniectures I haue before answered And lastlie touching the confession of some Protestants hath bene declared it maketh litle to your purpose Here M.R. answereth a question which reasonablie is demaunded Pag. 339. namelie when these corruptions came into the Hebrewe Bibles that is whether before Christs time or betweene that and S. Ieromes time or since He answereth as one nothing affraid that the Hebrewe was corrupted before Christ more after Christ vntill S. Ieromes age and moste from S. Ierome since These parts are handled by Master R. seuerallie First that the Bible was corrupted before the time of our sauiour Christ what cause haue we to thinke especiallie seeing our sauiour Christ neuer once chargeth the Iewes with any such corruption M. Rainolds saith it might be that Christ obiected the same vnto them although not recorded in the Testament Remember then that this be put amonge the traditions vnwritten of your Church and so you neede not to seeke for other answere as you doe Yet our sauiour Christ when he saith ye haue hearde it saide thou shalt loue thy neighboure Mat. 5.43 and hate thine enemie accuseth not the Scribes and Pharisies for corrupting the letter of the text by adding therunto the second member but for gathering out of the text wicked doctrine that for so much as we are commaunded to loue our neighbour that is as they expounded it our friende therefore we are licensed to hate our enemie This false exposition of the scripture not corruption of the text doth Christ correct For that in wicked Manasses daies diuerse books were loste I haue before answered If Christ reprooue not the Iewes therefore no maruell seeing that losse was not through their negligence but many hundred yeares before yet maintenance of open corruption in the text had deserued in them sharpe reproofe although them selues had not bene the first authores of that corruption S. Augustine in manie places by occasion speaketh of difference betweene the Hebrewe text and the translation of the 70. interpreters which he much esteemed euen as you do now your latine translation Yet in this diuersity doth he not at anytime accuse the Hebrew of corruption but rather imagineth some mysterie in the Septuagints translation Which plainlie prooueth that the Church beleeued not the Hebrew to be corrupted then Yea S. Augustine maketh it a matter not onelie of great absurditie August de Ciuit lib. 15. c. 13. but also notable impietie to say that the Iewes could conspire together in such sorte as that they might though neuer so peeuishlie and malitiouslie bent corrupt the bookes of Scripture being so manie and so generallie spred abroad That more corruption crept into the Bibles after Christ Pag. 340 you prooue by testimonie of Iustinus Martyr in his disputation with Tryphon wherein he alledgeth three examples of notable corruption committed by the Iewes A place of Iustinus Martyr answered A short answere may serue Iustinus spake of suspicion more then knowledge as being not verie skilful in the Hebrewe brewe tongue if we diligentlie examine the places it wil sone appeere that no such matter can be proued The first is out of Esdras Ch. 6 The words are these Esdras spake vnto the people this pascha is our sauiour
against murtherers that he whoe sheddeth the blood of man his blood shal be shedde by man these laste words by man establishing the Magistrats authoritie Baadam are not expressed in your traslation This to be a fault of great importance anie man may easilie vnderstand To proceede a litle further in this firste booke of holie scripture and to discouer some moe grosse corruptions of your latin translation therein committed for I may not stand to note euerie petie fault in the 36. Gen. 36.24 Chap. v. 24. the Prophet writeth that Ana the sonne of Zibeon found mules in the wildernes but your translator telleth vs he found warme waters Haijemim aquas calidas and so by his great cunning hath turned mules into water It maie be said there is great likenes between the wordes in Hebrew which I graunt to be so But this dischargeth not the translation from a faulte And howsoeuer those words are like yet from whence did your translator fetch his other worde Warme For though we suppose the word may signifie water yet to cal it warme water is more then can be warranted In the 41. Chap. v. 54. there passed in the former editions of your translation a notablefault Gen. 41.54 which yet of late for verie shame hath bene amended by Hentenius of Louaine For where the Prophet speaking of the generall famine that was ouer all countries saith that in all the land of Egypt was breade your bookes cleane contrarie to the text and storie reade that the famine also was in all Egypt And thus hath it gone maine hundred yeares in your Latine Bibles Nowe at length you haue bene content to acknowledge a fault in this place and whie not as well also in others wherein as euident faults may be found as this And seeing you can be brought to acknowledgement of some corruptions in your latine Bibles by like reason you maie be induced also to confesse moe faults where moe faults may be founde as there maie full many throughout your whole translation In the 49. of Genes v. 22. Gen. 49.22 Iacob compareth Ioseph his sonne to a fruitfull bough by the well side which wordes in your latine translation are otherwise set downe thus and he is comelie to beholde If you saie that in the sense is no difference yet you make no sufficient answere bhalei bhaijn Et decorus aspectu forasmuch as translating the text of scripture we must retaine the verie words as well as we may and not take libertie of leauing the wordes because we thinke we swarue not from the sense For the wordes may haue some other or farther meaning then we suppose euen in such places as seeme to be most easie And if you impute this as a fault to vs in translating why may not we likewise blame your translator for the same who hath so much offended therein But let vs go on In the 24. verse of this Chap. Iacob saith of Ioseph that his armes were strengthned in your translation it is as contrarie as may be that they were weakned or loosed Againe in the end of this Chapter a wholl verse together is omitted by your tranflators The purchase of the field and the caue that is therein of the children of Heth of which wordes not one is found in your translation and so where the Chapter contained 33. verses your translation hath 32. Tell vs by what reason it was lawful for the author of your translation to put so much our of the text or for you to allow him in so doing It were a worke of great labour and length to go through euerie book of scripture in this order and therfore it shal be for our purpose sufficient of infinite faultes that might be noted booke by booke Chapter by Chapter verse by verse to discouer onelie certaine as they come to my hand such as by reading and conference euerie one may obserue In Exodus the. 15 Chapter 19. verse your translator hath committed a double faulte first in translating a word second in pointing amisse The Prophet saith that Pharoes Horse went with his Charet and Horsemen into the Sea Sus Parbho And so is it in the Septuagintes translation truelie according to the Hebrew veritie But thus it standeth in your translation The Horseman went in Inâ—ressus est eques c. Pharoe with his Charets and Horsemen agreeing neither with Greeke nor Hebrew nor the right sense In the 21. of Exodus 3. verse Exod. 21.3 a law is set downe for hebrew seruants that they should be released of their seruice at the end of six yeares and then is further added in what sorte they should be sent awaie namelie that if the seruant bring with him nothing but his owne bodie Begappo that is if he come alone as the 70. haue interpreted the text hauing no wife then he should go out himselfe alone and not his wife with him as is in the verse following expressed Your translator hath misconstrued the law and marred the sense in turning the hebrew thus Cum quali veste intrauerit cum taliexeat with what manner of garment he entred with such let him go out And so also in the 10. verse following where God commaundeth that if one hath betrothed his maid to his sonne and after take him another wife he shall not diminish the foode of the former your translator hath made aother law for this that he shall prouide a mariage for the maide-seruant Prouidebit puellae nuptias which is vtterlie from the meaning of the law And in the seauenth verse of this Chapter before he hath also mistaken a plaine lawe concerning maide seruants wherein God forbiddeth to send them awaie after their yeares were out haehhabadim as the menseruants are sent away but your translator saith she shall not goe out as the maide seruants are accustomed to goe out Sicut ancillae exere consueuerunt then which nothing almoste can be deuised more contrarie to the Lawe in the. 24. Chapter 11. verse the Prophet speaking of the chosen men of Israel that went vp into the mount and sawe the Lord saith that God laid not his hand vpon them which thing he noteth for a speciall rememberaunce that althouh they sawe God yet because they presumed not but obeied the commaundement of God therefore â—o harme befel vnto them This in your translation is otherwise reported in these wordes Neither laid he his hand vpon them of the children of Isaell that had gone backe a farre of Qui procul recesserant Who seeeth not a manifest difference betweene the true text and this translation In Leuiticus Chap. 4. v. 8. Leuit. 4.8 Where is commaunded that the Priest shall take awaie all the fat of the bullocke that is offered for sinne your translator hath thus mistranslated the wordes and the fat of the calfe he shall offer for sinne Et adipem vituli offeret pro peccato and
verses ought not to haue anie roome in that Psalme and therfore that your Psalter hath in this place more then it should haue which I thinke we maie trulie and properlie call a corruption In the 34. Psalme the Prophet saith psal 34.8 that the Angell of the Lord doth pitch his tentes about them that feare him Choneh in your translation thus we read The Angel of the Lord shall send round about those that feare him Immittet in circuitu that is saith Genebrard his help and defense Well holpen doubtles Where the text is so plaine to make such a simple translation as this which without supplying some necessarie worde can haue no shew of good sense I know not how it maie be excused from a fault So in the 37. Psalme where the Prophet teacheth that we ought not to be vnmeasurablie greeued or disquieted at the prosperitie of the wicked and exhorteth vs to trust in the Lord Psal 37.3 Pascere side pasceris in diuitiis eius and to feede that is to liue by faith your translation saith thus Trust in the Lord c. and thou shalt be fed with his riches In the 51. Psalme thus speaketh the prophet in his owne tongue psalm 51.8 behold thou louesl trueth in the raines that is inwardlie in the affections and hast made me to vnderstand wisdome in secrete but your translator hath geuen vs an other sense Behold thou hast loued trueth the vncertaine and secret things of thy wisdome hast thou made manifest vnto me If the first be a true sense as it is the second must be reputed as it deserueth In the 62. psal 62.5 Psalme the Prophet speaking of his enemies deuising to ouerthrow him if they might saith They take counsell onelie how to cast him downe from his dignitie their delighte is in lies This construction agreeeth well this sense is plaine Now compare here with your translation and you shall see that it is most fond and disorderlie thus it standeth Veruntamen pretium meâ—â—â— cogitauerunt repellereâ—â—â—curri in sitt Notwithstanding they haue thought to put back my price I haue runne in thirst Is not this a proper kinde of translation yet something of late hath it beene corrected in one word but nothing at all amended in the sense I haue runned they saie should be changed into they haue runned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherin they graunt their latine translator was greatlie deceaued in translating the greeke word I haue runned for they haue runned and yet the hebrew word signifieth neither of both But as they acknowledge a fault in this word so when it is thus mended by them how much neerer are they to the right sense verelie no thing or but little and Genebrard though he make a poore sense of the wordes yet how his sense agreeth with the hebrew text he cannot declare Againe in the 9. verse of this Psalme the Prophet saith Trust in him euermore â—ecol hheth hham O people your translation hath an other reading thus Trust in him all the congregation of the people Omnis congregatio popul wherein is a manifest diuersitie The hebrew no man dare saie to be corrupt then it followeth that the greeke translator deceiued the latine and was deceiued himselfe In the 65. Psalme Psal 65.14 the last verse in stead of these wordes The pastures are clad with sheepe Induti sunt arâ—â—tes ouium The vulgare translation hath thus The Rammes of the sheepe are clad And because this is something obscure and vnperfecte therefore Genebrarde expoundeth the matter and telleth wherewith these Rammes are clade forsooth with store of fine and white wooll Yet in the text is no mention either of Rammes or wooll In the 68. Psalme the 7. verse the Prophet reckneth this amonge the praises of the Lord that he maketh such as are alone and solitarie to haue a familie wherein to dwell Your translation speaketh after an other sorte that he maketh those that be of one behauiour to dwell together in a howse Vnius â—oris This verelie was not the Prophets meaning And then it followeth in the Prophets owne wordes But the rebels he causeth to dwell in a drie or thirstie place which wordes in your vulgare Psalters are vnto wardlie translated thus Similiter eos qâ—iexasperant qui habitant in sepulchris Likewise those which exasperate which dwell in graues And yet hath Genebrade taken some paines here to frame a sense in some reasonable construction in this wise Those that exasperate and prouoke God by their sinnes and dwell in the graues of death God bringeth them forth by his mercifull and mightie hand Here we haue a sense indeede such as it is but a sense contrarie to the true manifest wordes of the Prophet For Dauid declareth how god will punnish his rebels by setting them in a drie place Genebrarde by his exposition hath made the Prophet to promis deliuerance vnto them from destruction Againe in this Psalme v. 14. Dauid saith though ye haue lien among the pots c. Your translation hath Pater â—â—diâ—s â—â—res in the middest of the clergie or of the lots And what should this meane forsooth Genebrarde saith by Lots is vnderstood extreame distresse and daunger as when the lots are cast vpon a mans life He hath deserued doubtles greate thankes for his paines especiallie seeing him-selfe confesseth that this place hath tormented all interpreters and that vpon the same as vpon a gibbet haue the wits of all hanged Now hath Genebrarde taken awaie the gibbet and released his friends from cruell vexation and that by chaunging without anie great trouble pots into lots In the 73. Psalme Dauid declaring the greate prosperitie of the wicked Psal 73.4 saith in the 4. v. that there are no bandes in their death or vntill their death and that their strenghth is lustie Looke now vpon this translation of yours Non est respectus morti eoruÌ„ firmamentum in plaga â—â—rum There is no respecte to their death and there is strength in their sore and tell vs how it accordeth with the text The wordes are diuerse the sense is changed and therefore the corruption cannot be excused In the 74. psal 74. â— Psalme the Prophet complaining of the wicked saith they haue burnt all the synagogues of God which text in your translation is straungelie altered and corrupted in this manner Let vs make all the festiuall daies of God to cease Quiescere faciamus omnes dies festos Dei Them-selues confesse the place is not faithfullie translated by reason that the Greeke worde was vtterlie mistaken of their translator For where in the Greeke it was translated thus Let vs burne the latine translator not looking so narrowlie to his copie as he ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tooke one letter for an other so hath giuen vs another word an other sense And notwithstanding they acknowledge both the
So that by his comparison the doctrine of the gospel doth infinitelie in largenes excel al the scriptures of the new testament Such mad wicked sentences hath he throughout his wholl booke manie Ambrose Catharine saith It is the Popes proper priuiledge to Canonize scriptures Catharin in epist ad Galat. cap. 2. Ipse canoniz at scripturas reprobat or to reprooue scriptures to Canonize true Saints and to reiecte false meaning thereby that the holynes authoritie and estimation of scriptures procedeth frō the Pope Wherein yet he seemeth to haue foulie forgotten that canonicall scriptures are a greate deale more auncient then the Pope and therefore could not receiue theire Canonization from him But thus they vtter their minde that scripture is no otherwise the word of God then as it is approoued authorized and Canonized by the Pope which is in effect to bring the holy ghost vnder the censure approbation of a man and such a man as he I omit because I will not be tedious a number of such sayings moe wherein the holie scriptures of God are shamefully intolerably dishonoured by these men in their writings and disputations and yet to procure a litle enuy to Luther they accuse him with out all measure continuallie for calling the epistle of Saint Iames a strawne epistle not absolutelie in it selfe but onelie in respect of S. Peter and Paules epistles Thus much now haue I thought good for satisfiing of the godlie to answere If you will not be satisfied you may write againe twise as much more whoe can let you this matter requireth no longer talke CHAP. 2. Of the canonicall Scriptures and English Cleargie FRom Saint Iames Epistle Master Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other bookes refused by the Church of England which yet he saith were not further disprooued in times past then that epistle of Saint Iames whereupon he would haue his reader beleeue that in alowing some bookes and reiecting others we are ledde by opinion fansie not by learning or diuinitie Wherein Master Rainolds your selfe haue shewed that opinion not learning ruled you when you writ this For Saint Iames epistle was neuer disprooued by the wholl Church of God but onelie by some of the Church but those bookes that are refused by vs were by the wholl Church distinguished from the canonical scriptures had no greater credit then they are of with vs as shall appeere The reason therefore of our refusing them is not as you imagine because they containe some proofe of your Romish Religion which we cannot otherwise auoid but by denying the bookes to be of Canonicall authoritie but because they doe bewray themselues of what stampe they are by most euident markes and therefore haue bin generally of the wholl Church heeretofore sette in the same degree that they are left by vs. These Reasons you sawe comming against you and because you durst not openlie encounter with them you steale by an other way let them passe But I must call you back a litle though it be to your griefe and trouble and require of you a plaine and direct answere how those bookes of the olde testament which are commonly called Apocryphall written first in Greeke or some other forraine language can be Canonicall For all bookes of holie scripture in the olde Testament were written and deliuered to the Church by the holie prophets of God being approoued by certain Testimonies to be indeed the Lords Prophets Therefore Abraham answered the rich man Lue. 16.29 requiring to send Lazarus to his fathers house They haue Moses and the Prophets whereby it is plaine that the wholl doctrine of the church then was contained in the bookes of Moses and the other Prophets 2. Pet. 1.19 And Peter saith we haue a more sure word of the Prophets meaning the scriptures of the olde testament And so the Apostle to the Hebrewes writeth that God spake to our fathers by the Prophets Heb. 1.1 By which testimonies of Scripture it is prooued that none could write bookes to be receiued of the Church for the Canonicall word of God but onelie they whome God had declared to be his Prophets But the writers of those Apocriphal books were no Prophets as may easily appeere For then they would not haue written their bookes in Greeke as is confessed most of these were nor in any other tongue then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time as Moses and the Prophets after him writers of the holie scriptures had done The Church was then amongst the Iewes and the Prophets were the messengers ministers of God in that Church and vnto it they deliuered dedicated their bookes Wherefore the Greeke tongue being not the tongue of Canaan nor of the Church then was not chosen by the Prophets to write and set forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord so that the verie tongue wherein these bookes were written being not the tongue of the Prophets doth plainlie conuince them to be no prophetical therefore no canonical bookes of the olde Testament And here I omitte particular arguments which might be brought against euery one of those bookes seuerallie whereby it may be prooued inuincibly that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical scriptures yet they had not the spirite of God for their father Agaynst this reason you bring Saint Augustines authoritie De doct Christ l. 2. 8. whoe reckoneth them amongst the Canonicall bookes of scripture and so you say did the Catholike Church of that age But that this is a moste manifest vntruth appeereth by S. Ierome Praesa in Pro. Solom whoe plainlie writeth that the Church readeth those bookes but receiueth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures So although Saint Augustine had thought them to haue bene of equall authoritie with the writings of the Prophets which are called properlie Canonicall yet was not this the common iudgement of the Church in those dayes as Saint Ierome doth let vs vnderstand who liued in the Church of that age In what sense S. Augustine calleth these bookes canonicall Saint Augustine calleth them indeede Canonicall by a general and improper acception of that word because they are red in the Church and containe profitable and Godlie instruction but yet not so as though there were no difference betweene them and the other which are vndoubtedlie Canonicall For in that very place Saint Augustine opposeth Canonical scriptures to such bookes as by perilous lies and phantasies might abuse the reader Periculosis mendacus phantismatibus and bring preiudice to sound vnderstanding And then giueth a rule to preferre those bookes that are receiued of al Catholike Churches before them that some Churches receiue of those that are not receiued of all to preferre those that the moste of greatest authority do receiue wherby you may see the vanitie of that you said before that the catholike church then iudged them to be canonicall And
Christ the truth You cannot pul in sunder these two offices but if you wil needs be priests that properly according to this order of Melchis then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdome inseparablie annexed to it it must necessarilie followe that you are also kinges and that properlie which were a verie proper thing indeede and greatlie to be accounted of Popish priests if they be according to Melchisedechs order must not be priests onelie but also kings If you deuide these offices in sunder it is blasphemy making a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech whoeis not also a king If you take both iointlie to your selues then will euerie hedge Priest be a gentleman a lord a King As this is most absurd monstrous so is that also that you should be priests according to Melchisedechs order For then further ought you to be eternall without beginning or ending of daies without father or mother as Melchisedech is described vnto vs in the scriptures and as Christ is in trueth and onely Christ So taking vpon you this priesthood of Melchisedech you commit horrible sacriledge and treason against the person of Christ our sauiour who will in time tread such vermine vnder his feete that creeping on the earth do presumptuously chalenge to themselues his speciall prerogatiues and royalties S. Augustine calling the ministers of the Gospell Priests speaketh improperlie Pag. 65. August de eiuit dei Lib. 20 cap. 10. as hath bene answered For although he saieth that all Christians are vnproperly called Preists and others in the Church are so called properly yet he meaneth not that there are anie such preists in the Church as Melchisedech or Aaron or Christ was but onelie that they are so termed by an vsuall and peculiar name which is not in custome of speach giuen generallie to all Christians This to haue bene S. Augustines meaning and the iudgement of the Church heretofore we may learne of Peter Lumbard How the fathers cal the ministers of the Gospell Priests Sent. lib. 4. Dist 12. â— to let the auncient writers passe For Peter first asketh this question whether that which the Preist doth may properly be called a sacrifice oblation His answere he maketh thus To this may be said briefly that which is offered and consecrated of the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation that was made vppon the altar of the crosse Yf then there remaine in the Church no sacrifice in proper and natural sense of the word as your owne doctour and Master of sentences confesseth there can not be remaining any Priests that maie so be called properlie For such as the kinde of sacrifice is such is also the kinde of priesthood if the sacrifice be not a sacrifice properly the priesthood cannot be a Priesthood properly but onely by a figuratiue and vnproper maner of speach That Augustine was a priest him-selfe Pag. 66. August Cofes Lib. 9. cap. 11.12.13 you labour to prooue out of his booke of Confessions in which place though he speak of an altar and sacrifice yet he meaneth not such altares and sacrifices as you haue erected and offered in all places This sacrifice that he speaketh of is the sacrament of Christes death the altar is the Lords table the remembrance of his mother in offering this sacrifice on the altar is giuing of thankes to God for her in celebrating the Lords supper Although I denie not but the superstition of praying for the dead was then crept into the Church so that if you will needes vrge that Monica desired to haue praiers made for her I will not greatly stand with you herein But that anie real sacrifice of Christ as you meane was offered for quick or dead in those daies that I denie and you can not prooue it by this or anâ— other testimonie of S. Augustine Where I saie that Christ hath committed his Church to be ruled by Pastors and Doctors for euer and not to Priestes pag. 67. you demaund whether this appointment had effect or no giue me warning to beware as though some danger were at hand what I answere But we shall easilie I trust driue awaie this craking Annibal from the gates of our Citie who commeth only to make a shew and hath no force to hurt Ephi 4.11 Ministers of the Gospell are ueuer called priests in the new Testament That Christ ordained Pastors and Doctors to rule his Church the scripture is plaine so that you may not forshame deny it now if these were priests trulie and properlie then should they haue bene so called and by this name commended vnto vs in the scriptures But wheras their office is declared diuerslie in great varietie of names yâ—t is this name neuer once giuen vnto them in no Gospell in no epistle in no booke of the new testament And maie we thinke that if the ministers of Christ in the new Testament were by Gods institution verie Priestes as these men beare vs in hand and had commission to offer so excellent a sacrifice as no Priest euer the like saue Christ himselfe may we thinke I saie or is it likelie that this name should neuer haue bene found in all the new Testament in this sense where are so manifold titles giuen vnto them as of Elders Ouerseers Rulers Shepheards Watchmen Ministers Stewards Seruants and such like Of all which names none pleaseth their humor but Priests they wil be called accounted as though Gods spirite which appointeth offices in the Church could not haue giuen fit names vnto them but would rather giue them anie name then that which is their proper name Anie man then that hath but halfe an eie maie soone see that the holie ghost in auoiding this name so carefullie hath giuen our Popish Priests a cleane wipe and both left them out of the dore and shut the dore against them though they striue neuer so much to creepe in yet are they to be driuen awaie by lawfull authoritie and kept forth as they that haue nothing at all to do in Gods howse But here M. Rainolds hath gotten a doughtie argument which I thinke because he knew not how to bring it in fitly in some other place hath halde it in here out of place He bids me shew where this Church for many hundred yeares was gogouerned thus which is as common an argument with them to vse his owne words as Dunstable hiewaie For this reason is euen their common pack-horse to beare the wholl burthen when all other faile where was your Church where were your ministers before Luther Whereunto that you may perceiue how farre we disagree from the Donatistes of whome you speake I answere that our Church was neuer so straited but that it might be found in all countreis christened and our ministers had the chiefest roomes till Antichrist by litle and litle had driuen them out and then afterwards
the blood of the new testament and this blood is the new testament in my blood If it may be lawfull for you to alter and expound the words at your pleasure then can you help your selfes wel enough but your exposition must be squared according to the wordes not the words framed to your exposition Againe pag. 240. you say where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence I raile at the first so that betweene Beza and me S. Luke hath neuer a word right wisely considered doubties The words are right your exposition is fond and wicked The cupp you make to be the blood of Christ whoe as yet was not crucified nor his blood shed If your doctrine be true Christes blood was shed alreadie and that reallie els it could not be in the cup reallie The papists teache that Christs blood was reallie in the cup before his passion But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table whoe was he M.R. that shed it whoe made the wound whoe opened his side who thrust his weapon in his heart whoe pearced his hands and feete This must you tell if you maintaine that his blood was then reallie shed and powred forth into the cuppe But by the cuppe M.R. is ment the wine in the cuppe which is the newe testament that is a sacrament of the newe testament in Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse This is a true and plaine sense agreeable to all analogie of faith standing with the words themselues followed of the auncient fathers When at length will you make an end of this railing it is to vnseemelie to lothsome pag. 241. to odious Indeed M.R. it must needes appeare a great absurditie to all learned godly Christians whoe know rightlie esteeme the price of our redemption that to be shed for our sinnes which was in the cup. Christs blood was shed for our sinnes which neuer came in the cup but remained in his bodie vntil the time of his death And if Christs blood was in the cuppe when he gaue the cuppe to his Apostles then must it follow necessarilie that his bodie then was without blood it being shedde already and contained in the cup. In the cuppe was onelie wine a sacrament of his blood which he gaue in the same to his Apostles to drincke whereof he drancke him selfe and so the scriptures expressely call it wine If this were the thing that was shedde for your sinnes then was true and naturall wine the price of your redemption then are you saued by wine then haue you no part in Christs blood But the true Church beleeueth her sinnes to be washed away not by that which was really contained in the cuppe but by the true blood of Christ which issued out of his body nailed on the crosse and wounded with a speare Your absurditie therefore needeth not to be further discouered it is so openlie blasphemous against the blood of Iesus Christ which was shed once not in the cup but on the crosse for our redemption If you vrge S. Lukes words as they stand in grammaticall construction I answere that as the cup is called Christs blood Christs testament that is by a figure the sacrament of his blood and testament so is it also said to be shed for vs by a figure sacramentallie But all men of skill and iudgement maie soone see that in these wordes there is some change of grammaticall disposition vsuall in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures is altogether vaine and friuolous To S. Basils testimonie you aunswere much in words and nothing in matter pag. 244. For what cause haue you thus to reproch Beza for his translation of these words seing you cannot denie but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke euen as Beza hath translated the same and you confesse that Saint Basil hath truelie deliuered the sense thereof so all that you haue said or can say spitefullie against Beza must appertaine to Saint Basil no lesse Basil in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whome yet you will not seeme to touch But the thing truelie and indifferentlie considered Beza is no more to be accused then S. Basil you tell vs of heretikes a long tale which is no better then waste paper Vse it your selfe or bestowe it at your pleasure Of such badde stuffe base account is to be made Whereas I spake a fewe words concerning figuratiue speaches pag. 251. which the aduersaries cannot abide to heare of in the sacrament I haue as it were opened at vnawares a flood-gate to M. Rainolds flowing vtterance Quâ data porta ruit The streame is so strong and runneth so violentlie carying all manner of baggage with it that vaine it were to resist it Let it therefore passe downe and doe what mischiefe it can great harme I trust it shall not doe Thus much you must confesse that in the sacrament figures are found and yet when we oppose against your monster of reall presence a most true and euident answere that the wordes were figuratiuelie spoken and must figuratiuelie be expounded you rage aboue all measure But quiet your selfe Master Rainolds and somewhat staie your intemperate affection neuer shall you prooue while papistrie hath a man liuing to speake in defense of it either by scripture or auncient writer that these words must figuratiuelie be vnderstoode This is my blood this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood more then these This cup is shed for you Leaue your babling Figuratiue speaches in the verie words of the supper by the Aduersaries confession and speake to purpose prooue this if you can Wherefore finding in the Euangelistes wordes such manifest figures what reason haue you to condemne vs for vsing the same being a moste common and familiar kinde of speach Because it standeth not with your reall presence Let your reall presence hardlie shift for it selfe we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures to forge monstrous interpretations to change the sacrament into a reall sacrifice of Christ which heathenish kinde of doctrine neuer anie but Antichrist and his ministers maintained The scriptures the olde fathers the auncient Church of Christ taught and beleeued otherwise as hath bene shewed and prooued inuinciblie to your faces Your pages following filled with rouing testimonies I pretermitt your contumelies being no lawfull arguments require no answere CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English Bibles MAster Martins boke of Discouerie is aunswered long since from head to foote in euerie part pag. 262. you haue the answere amongst you saie to it what you can with truth and learning To bragge of your fellowes booke which being throughlie and soundlie disprooued you cannot with all your skill maintaine is a childish vanitie to acknowledge no Replie which you cannot but knowe or to make light account of it whereunto you cannot truelie reioine is wilfulnes and
you more substantially prooued For my part I thinke not and so do the best Hebricians that I haue read both protestants papists The text in the hebrew is easie enough and yealdeth a true and godlie sense Your last example Gen. 3. v. 15. prooueth no error in the Hebrew but onelie in your latine translation The Hebrewe in all the copies olde and new vnles one wilfullie corrupted by Guido Fabricius hath one reading whereby a comfortable promisse is set forth that the womans seed shal bruse the serpents head your translation containeth grosse impiety blasphemie referring that moste excellent worke to the woman which onelie appertaineth to the seed of the woman About this you saie the Protestants keepe a sturre And cause I thinke M.R. is angry with vs for making sturr about the chiefe promises of our redemption Such regarde haue the papists either of their owne or of our saluation wherefore some sturre should be kepte vnles it be no matter if whatsoeuer belongeth vnto our sauiour Christ were applied to the blessed virgine his mother as in this place moste horriblie and in the Psalmes alreadie hath bene notoriouslie performed by you in token of your great loue to our Ladie but small regarde of our Lorde That we haue charged the Apostle with anie error is a bolde manifest vntruth Pag. 324. Betweene the Apostles citation 1. Cor. 2. v. 9. the Prophet Esayes authoritie Chap. 64. v. 4. there is some diuersity in one word The Prophet hath expectanti ipsum to him that waiteth for him the Apostle diligentib ipsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them that loue him Which diuersitie came not through ouersight or error in the Apostle but either that the Apostle followed the common reading of the Greeke or as his manner for the moste part is did take the sense not tying himself to the words For they that loue God are such only such as waite for him and this waiting for god ariseth of the loue of God You think the Apostle Prophet in these words declared the vnspeakeable ioyes of heauen which are prepared for the children of God and therefore you frame an argumente against iustification by faith Proude blasphemies vttered by M.R. against Gods word which you in your accustomed spirit of blasphemie call our mathematicall solifidian fansie because the Apostle writeth that God hath prepared so great things for those that loue him By the things which the eie hath not seene the eare not heard the heart not conceiued is meant the doctrine and mysteries of the gospell which the Lord hath reueiled to such as waite for him or loue him And to let you expound the wordes according to your owne sense doth this make any thing against the doctrine of iustification by faith onelie that God prepareth euerlasting inexplicable ioies for those that loue him For whome should they be prepared but for such as indeed loue him But is our loue worthie that rewarde Is it giuen to such as loue him in respect and for the merit of their loue This must you prooue if you will refell our doctrine in this behalfe But this was no matter to be handled in this place It was a poore glance and did no harme Here M.R. bringeth in a troupe of authorities together pag. 326. c. to prooue that false which I haue said and all true that he saith long sentences are translated out of Castalion D. Humfraie Pelicane and Munster wherby howsoeuer it fareth with his cause the volume of his booke is well increased For whereto serue these testimonies alledged That through negligence or ignorance of the writers printers some faultes may be found in the Hebrew Bibles I thinke there be none that wil denie but what makeh al this to purpose seeing there be a thousand times moe such faults in your translations then can be found in the fountaines your long speaches and discourses either in other mens words or in your owne when they come to scanning are short enough and therefore may in a short answere be discharged Your comparison of Iewes and Protestants in rayling at the Pope and Romane Church I passe ouer Two examples Master Rainolds willeth me to consider pag. 332. One the greate diuersitie of reading That in the text is such diuersity I deny The Iewes may perhaps in their Commentaries be of diuerse opinions touching the reading but in the text litle or no diuersitie shall you finde in so much that Ioannes Isaac affirmeth Lib. 2 pag. 69. there is soe great consent and agreement in the Bibles that no booke of the bible can be shewed written with the hand of a Iewe which either hath any thing that others want or wanteth any thing that others haue This may plainelie argue an exceading care to keepe their Bibles from all manner of corruption althoughe this that he writeth may almoste seeme incredible An other experiment is that the Hebrewe printes want something now which certainelie was in the first originals Example hereof you bring the psalme 144. Which being made according to the Hebrew Alphabete as diuerse other are one verse is wanting wholly therein the 14. in number which should beginne with Nun. What cause there was of omitting this Acrostiche I will not take vpon me to vnderstand It is not of later times corrupted seeing the Chaldee hath not that verse And as it is now in the Hebrewe so was it in Saint Ieromes time and before when the Hebrewe Bibles were accounted most pure and yet then in the Latine psalter a verse was supplied So that howsoeuer the matter stande this prooueth not the translation to be of greater puritie and credit then the fountaine Cause there was doubtles why the Prophet left out the order of the letter but whether such as the Rabbines and Talmudâ—sts haue deuised I cannot affirme The like example haue you in the. 36. Psalme of your edition which being made after the same manner of the Hebrew Alphabet you haue not in it the letter Am. Reasons thereof are alledged both by Iewes and learned Papists but the place for all that they thinke not to be corrupted as you peraduenture will rashlie pronounce As for that in the Greeke and Latine of this Psalme there is a verse answerable the first word whereof in Hebrew beginneth with Nun Nasman Fidelis Dominus c. this prooueth not the fountaine to be corrupte or vnperfecte but the Septuagintes finding no verse for the letter Nun and thinking perhaps there was some want repeated the. 17. verse following the first onely being changed For this verse supplied by them and the other following is al one excepting onely the first worde It seemeth not that the Prophet was altogeather so curious to keepe the order of letters that if any be wanting in a Psalme of that kinde we ought therefore to suspecte corruption in the Hebrew In the Psalme 25. no verse beginneth with Vau and two beginne with Resh
the vulgare translation corruptions of all sorts great plentie yea almoste innumerable therefore that your argument against the fountaines is absurd Infinite notorious corruptions in the vulgar latine translation authorized by the Tridentine assem blie and moste vnreasonable to condemne them because of some faultes imagined whereas you approue a latine edition ten times worse then you can once with shew of trueth suspect them to be In the first Chapter of Genesis v. 30. certaine wordes are wanting in your vulgar Edition Gen. 1. v. 30. which are not onelie in all Hebrewe bookes but in the Greeke translation aso which is by manie hundred yeares far more ancient then the latine and therfore if your latine wil be tried by the verdit of these two witnesses it shal be conuicted of manifest corruption For where the Prophet Moses plainlie writeth that as the Lord had giuen to man for his meat euerie herbe and tree that yeeldeth fruite so he had also prouided â—uerâ—e greene herbe to be meat for the beasts birds Col jerck â—â—eseb creeping things these words so materiall and necessarie are in your latine bookes no where to be found How can you thinke to excuse this from corruption In the second Chap. v. 8. Gen. 2.8 the scripture saith both in the hebrew and greeke text that God had planted a garden in the East Mikkedent and so is it vnderstood of the learned writers that the garden wherein Adam for a time remained was sited in the east but your translator maketh the Prophet to speake otherwise A Principio that the Lord God had planted a garden of pleasure from the beginning Is this kinde of translating to be allowed in the word of God I thinke none of sounde iudgement good conscience will so esteeme In the thirde of Genes v. 15. a Capitall and intollerable corruption hath beene committed and still is continued and maintained by you in the wordes Gen. 3.15 wherein the Lord made vnto man the first promise of that redemption which should be wrought by our Sauiour Christ and in which the summe of the Gospell and all hope of our saluation is contained that the seede of the woman should bruise the head of the Serpent For thus speaketh the Lord to the Serpent Hâ—â— I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman and betweene thy seed and her seede He shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heele Thus hath the Prophet Moses reported the wordes of almightie God and so haue the seuentie interpreters translated them according to the Hebrew originall veritie Which notwithstanding in steede of He shall bruise thine heade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your latine translation hath Shee shall bruise thine head Ipsae and this Shee is meant the blessed virgine A foule a daungerous a damnable corruption thus defended and expounded Yea the verie enemies them selues that haue neuer so litle conscience and feare of God doe confesse that it ought to be redde otherwise then it is in your latine translation seeing it disagreeth from the Hebrewe and some auncient copies also of the vulgar latine edition haue ipse Andrad lib. 4. Defens Trid. and not ipsa Yet howsoeuer not onlie the Hebrew and Greeke texts lead vs to the true meaning of Gods promise made to mankinde in Iesus Christ yea and further some copies of the vulgar translation agree therewith neuertheles the Church of Rome that you may the better perceiue whose Church it is not regarding al this embraceth alloweth maintaineth the euident corruption as as you may finde not onelie in the Latine bookes of the vulgare edition reformed according to the Tridentine Councels appointment but also in the Catechisme set forth by authoritie of the same Councell Catechis Trident in artic Et in Iesum Christum and in the bookes of sundrie Papists that haue willinglie soulde them selues to loue and defend all Antichristes doctrine In the margent of your Bibles is printed for a fashion the true reading howbeit this not onelie excuseth nothing your willfull maintenance of detestable corruption but may rather make the same appeere more odious to all the faithfull For if you can set the true worde in the margent why might you not receiue it also into the text but onelie for that you are determined alreadie to be ashamed of nothing that may any waies bring aduantage to your corruptions though it be to the certaine euerlasting damnation of your soules And what goâ—lie man shall patientlie indure this blasphemie in your English transalation of the olde testament when it commeth forth where our comforte and hope hath bene that he who is the womans seed our blessed Lord and sauiour Christ should bruise the serpents head now we must turne it another waie and say thus she shal bruise the serpents heade If still you will speake in defense of this corruption you shal but barke against heauen it is too manifest too hainous too impudent In the fourth of Genes v. 8. Genes 4.8 your latine translation hath these wordes Let vs goe forth â—â—â—odiamur 〈…〉 in Hebr. question which are not in the Hebrew text nor yet in the Chaldee paraphrast S. Ierome hath giuen a note vpon them that they are superfluous and ought to be remoued And in the 15. verse of this Chapter one Hebrew word â—aken that signifieth wherefore or doubtles is vntruelie rendred by your translator thus Nequaquâ—â—â—ra fieâ—â— it shall not be so For the Lord said not that none should kill Kain but that whosoeuer killed him he should be punished seuen fold It maie not be graunted to anie translator of scripture thus to thrust in words at his pleasure whereby the sense is manifestlie changed In the sixt Chapter and 5. verse Gen. 6.5 where the Lord complaineth of mans corrupte nature and saith that the verie frame of the thoughts of his hart is onelie euill alwaies your translatour hath left out two words of great moment frame and onely jetsee rak and so like wise in the eight Chapter following verse 21. Gen. 8.21 where againe the Lord setteth forth the wickednes of mans corrupt nature and saith that the imagination of mans hart is euill raâ—â— your translator of his owne head hath put into the text a pretie word and soe maketh God to speake otherwise then he spake In malaâ— proua that it is prone to euill Who seeth not that by this worde is diminished that corruption and sinfulness whereof almightie God accuseth mankinde and wherewith he declareth mans hart to be replenished from his infancie This translation liketh you well because it doth not so fullie bewraie the infection of originall sinne as the true text of scripture doth therefore not so plainlie confuteth your heresie of freewill in man to please God before he be regenerate In the 9. Gen. 9.6 Chap. 6. verse where God ordaineth an euerlasting law
so partelie by vntrue translation and partelie by misplasing of the wordes hath whollie corrupted the text In the 7. Chapter v. 19. Leuit. 7.19 the flesh that toucheth any vncleane thing is forbidden to be eaten and must be burnt with fire Then immediatelie it followeth thus in your translation the vncleane shal eat therof Iramundus Mundus of late for the vnclean in your reformed editions is put cleane So your translations affirme that either the vncleane or cleane shall eate of the flesh which god commaunded to be burnt and none to eate therof an euident corruption by râ—ason of a worde omitted in all your vulgare translations both olde and newe In the booke of Numbers Chapter 4. verse 46. Num. 4.46 your translation hath whome Moses and Aaron made by name Fecit Paekad in stead of this whome Moses and Aaron numbred In the margent indeed of your latter corrected editions there standeth the word to be reckoned Recenseri for no other purpose I think but to be a witnes of corruption against your translations For if that word must be supplied and if you see and confesse your selues so much as apprereth in that you print it in the margent why might you not wel receiue it into the text it selfe If it haue anie right to stand in the margent more right hath it to be admitted into the text In Deuteronomie Chapter 4. verse 33. is a like fault to this Deut. 4.33 but something worse in your latine translations Moses saith did euer people heare the voice of God speaking out of the middes of a fire as thou hast heard and liued Vajechi Et vidisti Et vixisti your translations all haue thus As thou hast heard and seene In some copies you haue giuen vs a marginall correction but that is not much truer then the corruption of the text saue that this speaketh of liuing and the other of seing So in the. 15. Chap. 10. v. in stead of these words God shal blesse thee in all thy workes Mahbaseca your translation hath God shal blesse thee at al times first taking time In omni tempore for workes then leuing out the affix thine In the. 33. Chap. 10. v. a worde of waightie and necessarie force is omitted by your translator in declaring the office of the Leuites which especiallie consisted in teaching the people the lawe of God and so saith the true text joru They shall teach Iacob thy iudgements Israel thy Law But in your latine bookes the worde that signifieth to teach which was moste to be respected and whereupon dependeth that which followeth is both in the text and margent of your translations wanting and thus stand the wordes They haue kepte thy worde and obserued thy couenant thy iudgments O Iacob and thy law O Israell Now I appeale to the conscience of all the learned whether this be not a notorious deprauing of Gods worde where it is prescribed that the Leuites should teach Iacob and Israell the iudgements and law of God to leaue out the worde whereby they were charged to teach and whereas the dutie of teaching Iacob Gods iudgements and Israell his lawe was laid vpon them to make therof an other sense so much repugnant that they haue obserued the iudgements of Iacob and the lawe of Israell Iudicia tua ô Iacob legem tuam ô Israel Ios 11.19 Harde it were for any man in translating so fewe wordes to make so many faultes In the booke of Iosue Chap. 11. v. 19. the holie ghost hath noted that not one Citie of all the land of Canaan made peace with the children of Israel hishlimah excepting those Hiuites that dwelt in Gibeon But your translation telleth an other tale as contrarie to this as can be tolde that there was not a Citie Quae se non tâ—ae deret which did not yeald it selfe to the children of Israel An other reading in your margent of late hath bene deuised and that neither agreeing in trueth with the text as by comparing the same together any man may perceiue In the booke of Iudges Chap. 15. v. 14. When the Philistines met Samson being bound Iud. 15.14 the scripture recordeth that the spirit of the Lord comming vpon him the cordes that were vpon his armes becam as flax that is burnt with fire Your translator in steade of flaxe hath put woode Ligna Odorem and for the heate of the fire or some such like worde he putteth the smell of the fire And yet that woode is so easilie consumed with the onelie smell of fire I thinke you wil not say for maintenance of your translation against the originall text What then remaineth but to confesse as needes you must that here hath beene and is a foule corruption In the 1. of Samuel Chap. 9. v. 25. these wordes are added to the text 1. Sam. 9.25 Strauitque Saul in solario dormiuit And Saul spred vpon the top of the house and slept there being nothing in the text either of spredding or sleeping or anie such matter If therfore you wl be tryed by either hebrew or Chaldee or sundrie exemplares of your latine translation you shall confesse a corruption in this place so in deed you do but will not yet amend it How be it better were it not to acknowledge a fault then acknowledging one still to retaine the same And in the 19. Chap. 24. v. the scripture telleth that Saull put of his cloathes prophecied before Samuel and fel downe naked all that daie and night So hath the Hebrewe so the Greeke and so your owne Masters confesse it should be Which notwithstanding as it were in open and presumptuous maintenance of your corruptions against the sinceritie of the text in your bookes you read thus Cociuit and he songe naked This came to passe by negligence in the writer mistaking one letter for another But why will ye not be brought in this cleare light of knowledge whereby such grosse faults are easilie espied to amend your bookes to remoue the fault to restore the right word to his place you see belike what daunger might ensue of mending anie thing if once you should beginne you wist not how to make an end and therefore you are determined to sturre nothing for feare you bring downe all vpon your heades In the second of Samuell Chap. 6. v. 12. a number of wordes are added together in your translation 2. Sam. 6.12 more then can be found in the true text that Dauid hearing how Obed edom had bene wonderfullie blessed by keeping the arke in his house Dixitque Dauid ibo reducam arcaÌ„ cum bene dictione in domum meam said I will goe and bring back the arke with a blessing into my house These wordes may seeme to be fitte for the place it may be supposed that so Dauid either spake or thought But what of that may
we therefore conuaie thus cunninglie into the text of scripture whatsoeuer we imagine fitlie to agree therewith The Hebrew hath no such saying nor the Chaldee nor yet the Greeke it is therefore a manifest corruption of your translator In the first of Kinges 1. Reg. 2.28 the 2. Chap. 28. vers your translator hath notablie falsified the text in putting Salomon once for Ioab and againe by and by for Absolom telling the storie thus And a messenger came to Salomon that Ioab had declined after Adonia and had not declined after Salomon Which is an absurd translation hauing no coherence with the storie and plainlie striuing against the text For thus the words should haue bene translated There came tydinges to Ioab for Ioab had declined after Adonia but had not declined after Absolom He that looketh on the place shall streight espie a foull fault in your translation In the 22. Chap. 26. verse of this booke Filium Amelech Ioas is called by your translator the sonne of Amelech for the Kings sonne by taking the word that signifieth in Hebrewe a King Hammelech for the proper name of a man The booke of Iob is a pretious parte of holie scripture as it hath bene alwaies esteemed in the Church of God and therfore great pitie is it to see the same so miserablie mangled by your translator as any of skill may perceiue it to be if he list to take a litle paines in conferring the true fountaine your translation together In the 1. Chap. v. 21. these words are added to the text Iob. 1.21 As it pleased the Lord so is it come to passe A godlie saying who can denie but that may not excuse your bookes from corruption vnles it can be shewed to be a part of the text which I am sure it cannot In the 3. Chapter and last verse the holy man saith Iob. 3.26 I had no peace I had no quietnes I had no rest yet trouble is come meaning that he liued in continual awe of God looked narroulie to al his waies fearing lest at any time he should prouoke the Lord to bring vpon him some greeuous iudgement and that now notwithstanding this endeuour care trouble miserie was fallen vpon him But your translator hath made him speake otherwise Haue I not dissembled haue I not kept silence Nonne dissimulauâ— c. haue I not bene quiet This translation accordeth not with the wordes and much lesse with the sense In the fift Chap. 5. verse Eliphaz saith Iob. 5. that the hungrie shal eate vp the haruest of the vngodlie and take it from amonge the thornes but in your translation he saith ipsum rapiâ—t armatus the armed man shall take him awaie which is an other thing though it be a true thing And in the verse that followeth v. 6 whereas Eliphaz saith that affliction and miserie commeth not out of the dust your translator hath put an other speach in his mouth Nihil in terâ—â— sine causa fit Nothing is done vpon the earth without a cause Againe in the. 7. verse he saith v. 7 Man is borne to trauaile euen as the sparkes flie vpwarde your translator saith Man is borne to labour and the birde to flie anis ad volatum turning the sparkes which the Hebrewe termeth the sonnes of the coles into a birde In the. 6. Chap. 1. v. Iob wisheth that his griefe were perfectlie weighed Iob. 6.1 your translator hath added hereto wordes of his owne applying a speach to Iob which whether he would acknowledge may well be douted I would my sinnes were waighed wherby I haue deserued wrath v. 16 In the. 16. verse of this Chapter Iob compareth his friends whoe had forsaken him to brookes that passe swiftlie awaie which brookes he saith are blackishe with yce and wherein the snow is hidde Of these wordes your translator hath framed a proper sentence or prouerbe They that feare the yce the snow shal fall vpon them Qui timent pruinaÌ„ â—rruet super eos nix Iob. 9.12 In the 9. Chapter he shewing at large the wonderfull and omnipotent power of God saith in the 12. verse If he take any thing by violence awaie who shall make him restore it againe The author of your translation not marking well the wordes hath turned them thus Si repente ininterroget quis respondebit If he aske suddenlie who shall answere him And in the. 13. Chap. 4. verse where Iob calleth his friends Phisitions of no value your translator nameth them Cultores peruersorum dogmatum Iob. 14.4 embracers of peruerse doctrines In the 4. verse of the. 14. Chap. Iob saith who can bring a cleane thing out of filthines not one your translation hath these wordes who can make a cleane thing that is conceiued of vncleane seed is it not thou whoe art alone In the 31. Chap. of this booke 19. v. he saith Iob. 31.19 Si despexi pretereuntem eô quôd non habuerit indumentum If I haue seene any perish for want of clothing c. which to be the true reading is confessed by your owne Masters and prooued by the Hebrew text But your translation maketh Iob thus to speake If I haue despised him that passed by for because hee had no garment Which wordes carie with them an other sense then the former wil admit And though in your last editions some of your reformers haue in stead of him that passed by placed in the text him that perished yet this salue hath not made the wounde wholl For first you keepe still the worde despising in steade of seeing and further that your vulgare translation ought not to be corrected in that other word as of late it hath bene by whose authoritie and iudgement soeuer may be knowne by Aquinas and Saint Gregorie and many moe whoe in their commentaries vpon this booke haue sett downe the wordes in such sorte as I haue rehearsed out of your translation If this be a fault as you haue graunted in correcting it in some parte then haue your latine Bibles beene faultie this thousand yeares together and if you may now by comparing your vulgare latine with the Hebrew reforme this corruption though it be of so long continuance whie may you not as well in all other places where your translation doth plainely disagree from the Hebrew as it doth in a thousand fyle it and make it as euen as you can with the Authenticall text In the 33. v. 6. Elihu saith to Iob Iob. 33.6 for that he had wished to haue God answere him beholde I wil be according to thy word for God This to be the true meaning the wordes do shew themselues and therfore it was a maruel that your translator would turne them thus Ecce mesicut te fecit Deus Behold euen me hath God made as thee And in the 25. v. where Elihu declaring how God dealeth with his children in punishing them
for a season and afterwardes restoring them to health saith thus his flesh is made fresh as in his childhood your translator hath altered the wordes and the sense in this sorte his flesh is consumed with punishments Consumpta est earo eiusà supplicits Such faultes as these which are indeede grosse and great faultes in translating the scriptures is your translation of this booke replenished withall I haue not laboured to note euerie particular fault for that had bene a busines too tedious But of manie I haue picked out certaine whereby the reader maie conceiue what to iudge aright of your wholl translation Now let vs come to the booke of Psalmes which of all bookes of scripture is in your translation most corrupted so as I maie truelie affirme that in some one shorte Psalme in latine moe may be founde then you shall euer finde in the Hebrew text of all the bookes of the Bible Which came to passe by this meanes for that in S. Ieromes daies the other bookes in the latine translation were corrected according to the Hebrewe but this booke onely although it needde as much correction as any other The booke of Psalmes in the latine vulgar translation moste corrupt yet because it was in the corruptions thereof so generallie vsed as it could not be chaunged without much trouble and offense in the Church was not dealt withall by S. Ierome but suffered to remaine as it was and to carie still about with it those manifolde greeuous sores which shoulde with diligence in time haue bene cured This being by the best of your owne side confessed it is a wonder that Genebrard your Hebrew Doctor of Paris would labour so much with all his wit and cunning to make some agreement betwene your translation the text wherin as he hath taken verie greate paines so hath he shewed himselfe in manie places altogether ridiculous in deuising such seelie shifts as he is enforced for some shew of consente in the meaning howsoeuer the wordes sound most diuerslie And when he hath searched all the corners of his heade for reasonable expositions yet is he faine oftentimes to giue ouer and let the wordes quietlie passe without his construction If I should gather and set downe in particulare discouerie the corruptions of this booke this onelie worke would be a volume of greater quantitie then is the Psalter it selfe Therefore as hetherto I haue done so wil I proceed to take a litle of much and in certaine euident examples of sundrie places set before the readers eyes how vnworthie your translation of this booke is to be called by the name of so worthie a scripture In the second Psalme a text that concerneth our sauiour Christ as notablie as anie almost in the olde Testament psal 2.12 is shamefullie peruerted in your translation For where the Prophet Dauid exhorteth al to kisse the sonne Naâ—heku-bar that is to submit themselues to Iesus Christ and his gospell setting forth in these wordes a plaine testimonie of his Godhead and distincte person your translation saith no more in this place but onelie thus Apprehendite disciplinam Apprehend discipline which though it be a good admonition yet is it farre short of the true sense and excellent doctrine therein contained And this maie be an argument of great weight to prooue that the Iewes are not honestly dealt withall by you in that you accuse them to haue corrupted the Hebrewe text for malice against our Sauiour Christ For if they had bene mooued indeed with such a diuelish intention would they haue suffered this text to haue stoode in such sinceritie especiallie hauing so great opportunitie to change the words as was offered vnto them by the Greeke and latine translations In the 3. Psalme the Prophet saith psal 3.8 Thou hast smitten all mine enemies vpon the cheeke boneâ— your translation hath thus Lechi thou haste smitten all those that are mine enemies without a cause Sine cansa Howbeit Genebrarde stoutlie defendeth your translation in this place and obiecteth ignoraunce to those that reprooue it Let all your Hebricians be iudges and let Iohn Isaac a Iewe and a learned Iewe in that tongue answere Genebrarde If this had bene so cleare a case as Genebrarde maketh it could Isaac with a number more as Vatablus Pagnine Tremellius all as good Hebricians as Genebrarde no disgrace to him haue bene ignorant thereof In the fourth Psalme psalm 4.3 being but a verie short one your translation hath three euident faultes which cannot by anie shift be excused reasonablie First there is how long will ye be of a heauie heart Vsque quo graui â—orde in stead of these wordes how long will ye turne my glorie into shame for this to be the true reading euen your Genebrard was compelled to acknowledge and therfore he deuiseth and imagineth what the Septuagints perhaps followed And about this place Lindâ—â—e hath kept a sturre if he might by anie meanes saue the credit of your translation But Isaac his master in the hebrew tongue hath sufficientlie taken him vp for his dealing herein v. 8 Againe there is a word in your translation added to the text in the 8. verse Olei as Genebrard confesseth saying it was done by the 70. interpreters propheticallie which yet he cannot prooue and we wil not graunt Comâ—ungimini for silete And before in the 5. verse is one word put for an other to some change of the sense In the 12. Psalme Psal 12.6 being according to your editions the 11. which difference in numbring continueth to the end almoste and this maie fuffice to haue bene once remembred where the Prophet bringeth in the Lord speaking I will vp and sett him at libertie though he laie a snare for him these wordes are thus translated in your latine Psalter I will deale boldlie in him Fiducialiter again in â—o of which wordes Genebrard himselfe cannot deuise a conuenient interpretation and therefore he wandreth vp and downe and vanisheth awaie in the mist of his owne conceite In the fourteenth Psalme your latine translation hath three wholl verses together moe psal 14. then are to be found either in the Hebrewe or Greeke and are taken out of Saint Paul in the third to the Romanes being gathered by him out of seuerall places of the scriptures Hier. in promoe 10. Esâ—i as Saint Ierome hath noted But some in former times more hastie then wel aduised seeing the Apostle alledge so long a sentence together thought the same was written in some place of the olde Testament as it was by the Apostle recited and finding it no where supplied it in this place because of some wordes which the Apostle there hath rehearsed out of this Psalme And thus much do your owne men confesse euen Genebrard him selfe testifying that in the Hebrew now extant nothing is wanting If then nothing wanteth as he confesseth is it not a plaine case that these three
in the verie conclusion Eccle. 12.14 God will bring euerie worke into iudgement with euerie hidden thing whether it be good or euill your translation goeth something wide from this true sense and telleth vs that God will bring into iudgement all thinges that are done for euerie error Pro omni errato Cant. 1.2 4.10 Cant. 2.17 be it good or euill In the booke of Canticles by mistaking an hebrew word your translator hath put thy pâ—ppes for thy Loue diuerse times In the 2. Chapter for Bether is put Bethel and so still is it standing in your text and of long hath stood as appeereth by Gregory S. Bernard yet is it a plaine corruption in the iudgement of al that can iudge anie thing insomuch as Genebrard hath not feared to make a chaunge of the wordes euen in the text it selfe which he hath printed with his annotations In the 4. Chapter in steede of these wordes betweene thy looks Cant. 4.1 your translation hath farre otherwise absque eo quod intrinsecus latet torque crine besides that which lieth hidde inwardlie and afterward for one chaine of thy neck it hath one heare of thy neck All this perhaps in your iudgement seemeth little who haue learned more highlie to esteeme the word of your Pope then of God and therfore so your Pope may gaine something or loose nothing you care not how corruptlie or sincerelie Gods word be red and set forth amongst you But they that consider how holie and precious a thing the word of God is and what charge the Lord hath giuen to keepe it faithfullie must needes confesse that these are indeed grosse corruptions and ought with all diligence to be searched and remooued out of the Scriptures The bookes of the holie Prophets allthough they are not so generallie and foulie defaced as some other Scriptures by this corrupt kinde of translating and by such faultes as haue since the translation growen by sundrie meanes yet are they not in your vulgar edition so incorrupt and sincere as they ought to be seeing they maie by the authenticall text easilie be amended I might set downe sundrie proofes and testimonies of such imperfections as I haue now done in other books And it were a thing greatlie to be wished that some man of learning and iudgement would throughlie and perfectlie discouer the corruptions of this wholl translation whereby it would fullie appeere what shame or trueth there is in the Church of Rome to prefer it before the faithfull originall bookes of holie scripture as it doth now in parte appeere by this that hath bene before alledged I verelie am afraid lest I haue alreadie wearied the reader with multitude of examples and the thing which I tooke in hand to prooue I haue not onelie in this treatise sufficientlie but also moste plentifullie performed The translation of the new testament is something more tolerable in respect then of the old Yet he that will looke narrowly into the same shall finde cause and matter enough of complaint against either the ignorance or negligence or malice of some by whose fault it hath bene noe better preserued in that holie purenes and integritie which the word of God doth require and especiallie this so singular a parte of his word Wherein alreadie both Valla and Faber and Erasmus and Beza and Camerarius and many mo haue laboured to shew the errors of that translation for which their paines as they haue deserued great thankes of all the godlie soe haue they receaued much hatred and discurtesie at the aduersaries hands For auoiding tedious length more then were in this answere conuenient I referr the readers for the new testament to those learned writers by perusing of whome and of that which I haue gathered here together and thus particularlie noted he shal manifestlie perceiue that in the Romish vulgar translation are manifold and almoste infinite faults of all sortes by adding by omitting by mistaking of letters pointes syllables and wordes by wronge interpreting the originall texte Which faultes they shal neuer be hable to approoue or iustifie though they weary themselues neuer so much with traueling and toyling and seeking some defense When they haue saide what they can say for maintenance of these corruptions it shall for all that still appeere by all learning and true euidence of reason that they haue neither the olde nor newe Testament in the entire and originall trueth thereof CHAp 13. Of the new Testament in latine and a comparison of the vulgar translator with all other of this age NOw M. R. beginneth to declame against pag. 361. the newe Testament in Greeke as he hath in the former Chapter done against the old Testament in Hebrew Wherein how vnlearnedlie and vnworthelie he hath behaued him-selfe the wise reader may perceiue by that which hath beene answered to his particular reprehensions And as no cause can be alledged to preferre the latine translation of the old Testament before the Hebrew fountaine so no lesse absurd and vnreasonable is it to leaue the Greeke and follow the vulgare translation in the new testament Their chiefest reason of greatest shew and likelyhood against the Hebrew text is the malice and impietie of the Iewes whoe being enimies of Christian religion may therefore be thought to haue in many places corrupted their bibles of purpose to disgrace and discredite the Gospell of Christ But as this is prooued moste vntrue so being graunted for true it can be no reason against the Greeke testament which euer since the writing and first publishing thereof remained in the custodie and handling of most godlie fathers Churches and Countries who had as great skill and care to preserue it from corruption as had the latins to kepe their translations pure and sincere Then what reason can you bring or what colour of reason can you pretend in the new testament to cleaue onelie to the latine and to reiecte the Greeke The latine you saie is purer then the Greeke So haue your fellowes of Rhemes indeede tolde vs and this they make their principall ground whereupon they haue bene bolde to followe the latine and not the Greeke in translating the new testament But what aduantage soeuer you thinke to make of this or any other such reason true it is and by triall so shall be found and hath heretofore by diuerse sufficientlie bene prooued that the latine translation of the new testament is more generallie notoriously corrupted then you shall euer be hable to auouch of the Greeke originall text That Beza writeth against Erasmus in commendation defense of the latine translation it is euident he meaneth not whollie to excuse it from corruption in all places but onelie in certaine which Erasmus found fault withall For otherwise Beza sheweth the vulgare translation to be full of corruptions as if you reade his annotations you may perceiue Wherefore this testimony of Beza serued your Remists to litle purpose but that they haue a sleight to
taken to binde a contentious heretike Thus it appeereth that although we had the verie same Autographall and authenticall copies which Moses and the other Prophets did write with their owne handes yet would this Seminary papist and his fellowes make lesse account of them then of their translation as being lesse hable to binde heretikes then it The reason is first the diuerse significations of euerie worde almoste which may seeme perhapes to some simple bodie to make for their translation against the Hebrew Whereunto I answere first that although the Hebrew were so vncertaine in respect of the manifold and diuerse significations of wordes as they would haue it yet were there noe cause whie the latine translation should more be allowed for the vndoubted word of God then the Greek or any other in the world They are all noe better then translations and what warrrant is there for one more then an oother but onelie in commendation of greater sinceritie and that in respecte of faithfully expressing the Hebrew Secondlie this variety of significations is not latelie begonne but was alwaies from the beginning which notwithstanding the Hebrewes could speake and write their mindes as plainlie and certainlie as anie other people and the scriptures were read and expounded in that language manie hundred yeares before anie parte of them was translated into Latine So that this reason maketh them now no lesse hable to binde heretikes then they haue euermore bene from the beginning And what tongue I praie you were the scriptures written in which the Apostle exhorteth Timothie to read that he might stoppe the mouthes of heretikes and which he saith are profitable to conuince the Aduersaries but in the Hebrewe and Greeke your latine translator was then vnborne when yet the scriptures in their original tongues were able to binde and confute all heretikes Your example out of the Psalme 55. ver 21. sheweth a plaine corruption in your translation For that Hebrew worde with these letters and prickes cannot signifie to reward as your translation hath but vpon those that haue peace with him as our translations for the moste haue according to the Hebrewe The second reason is pag. 433. that manie substantiues maie haue diuerse deriuations from diuerse verbes and one example is brought out of the 60. Psalme v. 6. To this maie be answered as to the former that if this diuersitie of deriuation cause a diuersitie of expositions it maketh no more against the Hebrew text now then euer since the hebrew was first written Thirdlie pag. 434. touching the literal sense of the hebrew words you demaund what masters we shall followe If a controuersie be about the signification of a word whome should we followe rather then the moste learned masters of that tongue they can best resolue vs that know the tongue best and as this for wordes in all other languages is the onelie waie so likewise if we doubt of some worde in hebrewe what meanes maie we vse to be instructed and satisfied but to learne of those that are moste skilful in the tongue and best know the naturall force of the words Who can denie that this is much better then as your translator oftentimes doth to call blacke white and to giue a signification of a worde which all Hebricians can tell is cleane amisse Examples hereof are in your translation plentifull as if before you knew not now by that which I haue alreadie alledged you maie vnderstand That which followeth of Caluine Beza and the rest hath nothing but a poore bragge not worth the mentioning To your question pag. 437. whether I thinke it flat Atheisme and Turkery to denie that Christ was borne of a virgine I answere no Christian can thinke otherwise but that it is indeed plaine Atheisme to denie this so principall an article of our faith Then you require what scripture I haue to prooue this veritie I answere I prooue this veritie by a plaine text of scripture in Matt. 1. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beholde a virgine shall conceaue c. But this you saie prooueth nothing by mine owne rule by Bezaes common kinde of scanning such citations and by the protestants interpretation of this place What rule what scanning what interpretation of ours can you alledge against this moste sufficient and euident proofe Did euer Beza or I or anie other protestant speake anie thing against this trueth If you can charge anie of vs we desire no fauour at your hands But what cause or reason haue you thus to saie Because this texte is not according to the Hebrewe but the seauentie as you affirme Which to be a foule vntrueth and tending to Atheisme and Turcisme whoe seeth not For if the Angels wordes rehearsed in Saint Matthew be not agreeable to the veritie of the Prophets wordes then may Turkes Iewes Atheists and wicked heretikes indede at their pleasure not onelie dispute against this article of our faith but also condemne it and we shall not be hable to conuince them This aduantage giueth M. Rainolds vnto them when he saieth Saint Matthewes text is not framed according to the Hebrwe but the Greeke translation M. R. denieth the text of S. Matthewe touching Christ borne of a virgine to be according to the Hebrewe Thus while you labour to prooue that we in cleauing to the Hebrewe text doe open a gappe to Atheisme your selfe in denying S. Matthewes text to be fully agreeable to the Hebrewe haue opened a broade gate to all Atheists and Turkes in the world God forbidde that we should euer vtter word so much seruing for defense of Atheisme as you haue here done or els set downe in word or writing that S. Matthewes place is not according to the Hebrew If you take part with the Iewes and openlie maintaine that the Hebrew worde signifieth not a virgine but a young wench then will I answere you as the godlie fathers haue answered those wicked enemies of Christ that 〈◊〉 signifieth a young wench indeed but one that is a virgine being deriued of the roote that signifieth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Saint Ieâ—â—â—â— writeth that this worde not onelie signifieth a young maide or virgine but more also a virgine kept hidâ— and secret by greate diligence of hee parents and further also a young virginus of tender age not an olde virgine as some be And although the word in Hebrew had signified onelie a wench yet the Angell and Euangelists expounding it of such a wench as was a virgine also this maie suffice all Christians to beleeue and holde that our sauiour Christ was borne of a true virgine let Iewes Turkes Atheists and heretikes say what they can to the contrarie Master R. is affraid lest men should thinke he studied to disgrace the Greeke Hebrew tongues pag. 435. c. which he confesseth to be great helps to the attaining of the true sense in sundrie places of scripture and sheweth what paines the Catholikes haue taken in
the English with the latine and all is right For he affirmeth and by some vnfitt examples would prooue that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to defend and Defendo signifieth to reuenge alledging also some Dictionaries for his opinion But to make a short replie let M. R. bring vs foorth any one example out of good author Greeke or Latine wherein the wordes are so vsed as he teacheth then shal we easilie yeald in this case By implication and consequence I graunt the one word maie perhaps be vsed sometime for the other but I appeale to all learned Grecians and Latinists in the worlde whether it be not true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properlie signifieth onelie to reuenge and not to defend and so likewise Defendo to defend and not to reuenge Therefore to translate the one for the other as it is altogether vnproper so is it moste daungerous in the scriptures because thereof may followe errors in iudgement and practise of life And it appeereth that Thomas of Aquine tooke the word Defendentes in the proper signification expounding it by Christs precept that if we be striken on the one cheeke we must be so farre of from defending our selues that we must be willing rather to turne the other also to him that smote vs and by Christs example who being buffeted on the face defended not him selfe Yet after he sheweth that some defense is lawfull by example of Saint Paule who procured him selfe to be defended from the Iewes that laie in waite for him Thus we maie see that your Saint Thomas vsed the worde simplie and properlie and thereby was faine to seeke some newe exposition which he nedd not to haue done had he bene as good a grammarian as you Master Rainolds are The other example is in S. Matthewe pag. 470. c. the 4. Chapter 16. verse wherein you haue also followed the Greeke rather then the latine translating not according to moste of your latine Testaments which I haue seene the people that walked in darknes but after the Greeke the people that sat in darknes A small matter in it felfe I graunt yet great enough to shew that you haue not so preciselie followed the latine translation as you would seeme which also in other places appeereth by comparing your translation with that For in the verie first Chapter of S. Matthew the 19. ver you haue omitted these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir cius Her husband which your latine bookes haue truelie translated according to the greeke Wherof reason it were that you should be accountable for what cause you haue remooued those wordes cleane out of the text if they were not rather left out by ouersight For I trust you are not ashamed that Ioseph should be called the husband of the blessed virgine Marie Againe in the 13. to the Rom. v. 9. instauratur you translate is comprised by no grammar I am sure nor dictionary I think The sense I graunt is true and well agreeth with the Greeke but the latine worde is left If you listed not to translate is renewed or repared as the word signifieth you might haue kept the worde and according to your new found manner of translating and speaking haue translated instaurated Such examples are there in your translation manie moe if we should peruse the wholl which is not necessarie Neither haue I much blamed your translation in this respect Master Rainolds for not iumping alwaies with your latine as you haue vntruelie tould your reader but for leauing the Greeke and following the latine translating onely a bare I wil not speake as you doe a bald translation and for translating it after such a fashion as neuer scripture was translated nor any other booke I suppose and for applying the text moste absurdlie and violentlie to some colourable maintenance of your Antichristian Church and religion CHAP. 16. Of the faults found in the Annotations of the new testament FRom the translation which how vaine and childish it is hath bene declared now let vs proceed with you to the Annotations which are meet handmaides for such a maistres But before you come to speake of the particular faults that were found therein you discourse of many matters according to your common custome idlely and railingly whereunto it booteth not to make answere and therefore passing ouer what you haue written of M. Iewell M. Horne c. of Tower and Tiburne disputation of the Churches stabilitie of M. Foxes monuments of Luthers iudgement concerning the sacramentaries I will come to examine your defense of those faults that were noted and that as brieflie as I can reserning these causes to the large confutation of those Annotations which in conuenient time through Gods goodnes wil be I hope performed to Gods glorie defense of the trueth and disproofe of popishlies and heresies Three kindes of faults were obserued the first of errours in matters historicall the second of false conclusions and arguments the third of certaine blaspemies against the holie Apostle In the first order were reckened certaine traditions pag. 484. c. which hauing no ground in Gods word nor much differing from mere fables are in your Rhemish Annotations notwithstanding gloriouslie auouched as behouefull for all Christians to beleeue And first of the wisemen that came from the East to visite our sauiour Christ three things are affirmed first that they were kings secondlie that they were three Popish traditions full of fables and vanities and lastlie that their names were Gaspar Melchior and Baltasar as now commonlie they are called For the first Master R. demaundeth a reason why I should thinke they were no kinges himselfe not hable to shew any why he should saie they were kings But if reason may rule him for which he calleth as though he would yeelde vnto it if it were giuen him three reasons will I propounde wherebie I am mooued not to beleeue that these men were kings First because the Euangelist calleth them by noe such names The wise me that came to worshippe Christ said to be kinges against reason which yet he would not haue omitted if the truth had bene according to your tradition considering how this would haue made for the honour of Christ that so soone as he was borne kings should haue sought him far and done vnto him homage and worship And when you maintaine your opinion by this argument for that it is honorable to the person of our sauiour Christ that so we should thinke of them you charge therein the holy Euangelist for omitting somewhat that might haue greatlie aduanced the honor of Christ if he had truelie and fullie reported the same Secondlie it is not credible that Herods would haue admitted into his kingdome and chiefe Citie three Kings with their troupes especiallie there being enemity betwixt him and the kinges of Persia neither could they haue so secretlie come to our sauiour Christ and escaped out of the countrie againe but that being kings and therefore
against your doctrines then the latine translation Which though M. Rainolds here closelie denieth yet in examples euerie where maie be seene and some I will sett downe partlie for M. Rainolds sake and partlie to shew I haue no neede of his excuse from a lie In the 14. Chapter of S. Iohns gospell ver 26. where our sauiour Christ telleth his Apostles The holie ghost shall bring into your remembrance whatsoeuer I haue said to you the Remish translators haue made him thus to speake shall suggest vnto you all things whatsoeuer I shall saie to you according to the latine vulgare that it might be more easilie supposed whatsoeuer the Church should afterwardes determine is from inspiration of the holie ghost Ephesians Chapter 2. vers 10. the Apostle in the Greeke writeth that we are created in Christ vnto good workes you translate after your latine in good workes This corruption is aduantage to your doctrine of good workes In the same epistle Chapter 5. vers 32. you translate this is a great sacrament to make men think that the scriptures affirme mariage to be a sacrament of the Church whereas if you had truelie translated it according to the Greeke This is a great mysterie the occasion of that surmise had bene remoued In the epist to the Pihl. Chap. 1. v. 27. the greeke word which signifieth a signe or token or proofe is in your latine vulgare translated a cause and this translation do you keepe the rather thereby to induce your readers to beleeue that as the malitious dealing of wicked aduersaries against the godlie maie truelie be said to be the cause of their perdition so likewise the patience of the godlie is a cause of their saluation whereas the Apostle onelie saieth in this place that the raging of the enemies against the Church is a manifest argument of their condemnation and the constant suffering of the godly is a certaine signe and testimony of their saluation who seeth not herein what cause you had to like better of the latine translation then of the originall text Luke Chap. 10. v. 35. the words are in the Greeke whatsoeuer thou spendest more which you translate whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate This corruption maketh some shewe for your workes of supererogation Luke Chap. 1. v. 48. the blessed virgine saith God hath looked on the lowe estate of his handmaid you translate the humilitie of his handmaid This corruption helpeth your doctrine of merites So an other corruption in the same Chapter v. 28. tending to the same purpose where you haue translated Haile full of grace the Greeke and originall texte hath onelie Haile thou freelie beloued In the Epistle to the Hebrewes chap. 13. v. 16. you translate with such hostes god is promerited which is both a fonde and false translation the Greeke words being with such sacrifices God is delighted meaning almes and distribution In the second Ep. of S. Peter Chap. 1. v. 15. you haue strangely translated the Apostles words I will doe my diligence you to haue often after my decease also that you may keepe a memorie of these thinges and vpon this disordered translation you haue made a long note of Peters care and protection of the Church after his death whereas the Apostle in his owne wordes saith no more but that he would endeuour dailie that they also might haue remembrance of those things after his departure A pretie sleight in translating for aduantage where the Apostle saieth he would endeuour that they might remember those thinges after his decease to make him saie that he would haue them in remembrance after his decease and then of this false translation to note what a pastorall care S. Peter hath for the Church after he was deceased In the epistle of S. Paule to the Romanes chap. 11. v. 6. the common translator hath left out this whol sentence together But if it be of workes it is no more grace or els were worke no more worke and these wordes haue you also in your English translation cleane omitted as though they were no parte of scripture being the Apostles vndouted words no lesse then the other that went before What cause was there of this dealing but onelie to smother that cleere opposition between merite and grace which the Apostle hath in his owne words declared if he might be suffered to speake all A number such places could I alledge where the vulgar translation differing and swaruing from the vndoubted originall text is by you followed because it carieth some sound and shewe of your opinions and errors Manie excuses may you make for your selues your translatours haue in their preface handsomely laid out their excuses which I doubt not shal be weied and examined throughlie but soone may anie man perceiue what cause indeede moued you to be so friendlie to the translation and soe harde to the text because the texte doth plainlie discouer your nakednes the translation bringeth some small ragges to hide it Before you answere my arguments alledged for defense of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte pag. 285. you set downe certaine words of mine wherein I seeme you say to auouch that onelie to be the worde of God which is written in the language wherein first the holie ghost by the Prophets and Apostles vttered it No cauill so simple which M.R. will not vse My words are plaine Master Rainolds my meaning cannot seeme ambiguous you seeke not for truth but for a cauill The word of God I know maie be vttered in other languages then wherein first it was by writing deliuered to the Church and translations agreeing with the originall texte are the word of God For Gods worde is not the language but the doctrine Howbeit translations set forthe by sundrie persons are so farre forth onelie the word of God as they faithfully expresse the meaning of the Authenticall text the which being written by the Prophets and Apostles chosen instruments for that purpose is wholly and vndoubtedlie the worde of God Then it may worthelie be wondered at in you whoe taking vpon you to translate the new testament into englishe haue not translated the text of the Apostles and Euangelists but the translation of S. Ierome or some other you know not whome which translation in verie manie places is corrupte and therefore in those places cannot be the word of God Religion and reason would haue required that in translating the scriptures you should haue followed the originall fountaines Absurd to translate a translation of Scriptures rather then the fountaines yea although the latine translation hadde bene much perfecter and purer then it is how much more ought you to haue soe done seing it be wrayeth soe manifest and manifold corruptions as it doeth But your reasons pag. 287. whereby you labour to iustifie your doing in this behalfe must be examined M.R. reasons why they might translate according to a translation answered Our Sauiour the Euangilists Apostles you say cited places of the old testament