Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	apostle_n	church_n	word_n	1,664	5	4.2322	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03881	A treatise of the vvritten VVord of God. Composed in Latin, by the Reuerend Father Iames Gordon Huntley of Scotland, Doctour of Diuinity, of the Society of Iesus. And translated into English, by I. L. of the same Society. The first part of the first controuersy; Controversiarum epitomes. English. Selections	Gordon, James, 1541-1620.; Wright, William, 1563-1639.	1614 (1614)	STC 13996; ESTC S115737	32,568	73

they see the same to contradict in many places their errors and partly also for that they labour by all meanes to perruert the text of the Scripture by their new versions to make thē speake in fauour of their errors which they cannot do if the authority of the old interpreter continue in all thinges entire and vndiminished As for Caluin he is so deadly an enemy to the vulgar edition that with great excesse he declameth against it in this manner So farre off is it saith he that there is one entire leafe as there are scarse three verses togeather not defiled with some notable error But to proue this his impudent assertion he bringeth only one place out of the new Testament which a little after we will shew to haue byn exceedingly well translated out of the Greeke He bringeth no other places out of the old Testament then such as he taketh out of the Psalmes which as it is euident are translated word for word out of the Greeke version of the Septuagint interpreters Nay in the same place Caluin acknowledgeth that the Latin interpreter hath with all possible diligence expressed the Greeke translatiō And as for the Greeke interpretation of the Septuaginta it is most learnedly defended by Genebrard so as it were superfluous to say any more Indeed Caluins Luthers disciples find fault with many other places in the vulgar edition both of the old and new Testament but we will lay foure generall grounds out of which all their arguments may be easily answered 2. The first is If our Aduersaries will needes haue the present Roma● Church condemned for following and authorizing the vulgar Latin interpretation they must needes also condemne the whole auncient Church and all the Fathers who liued in the first foure hundred yeares after Christ for they acknowledged no other interpretation of the old Testament as authenticall then that of the Septuaginta Interpreters which much more departeth from the Hebrew text now extant then our vulgar Latin as our Aduersaries themselues confesse Wherfore if the Roman Church be to be condemned for the vulgar Edition much more the Primitiue Church for the version of the Septuaginta and heereof it followeth further that the Church is not to be condemned which followeth a translation of the Scripture which in some thinges may be amended so long as nothing is to be found in it which is repugnant eyther to fayth or good manners For otherwise the auncient Church had erred in retayning the version of the Septuaginta which was corrupted in some places but those corruptions were not in any thing necessary to be knowne Moreouer Caluin himselfe con●esteth that we must not depart from the Church for errors of little importance the ignorance whereof neyther doth violate Religion nor preiudice our saluation Wherfore albeit there should be some such errors in the vulgar Edition yet were not the Roman Church which is so auncient so hightly commended by the mouth of the Apostle as speaketh S. Hierome to be condemned or forsaken And this may serue for answere to our Aduersaries arguments when they obiect certayne light faults of the vulgar Edition which haue crept into it eyther by the negligence of the printers or by any other accident As also what our Aduersaries obiect against the Psalter may heerby be conuinced to be very weake for seeing that no other version is followed in it then that auncient version of the Septuaginta they cannot condemne vs vnlesse they will condemne the whole primitiue Church togeather with vs yea the Apostles and Euangelists thēselues who followed the same version is as shewed in the 11. Chapter of the Latin Edition of this Controuersy 3. The second ground A good interpreter doth not ty himselfe to transtate word for word seeing that euery tongue hath his proper phrases and manner of speach but contenteth himselfe to expresse the true sense and meaning of that which he translateth Wherefore all our Aduersaries argumēts are nothing worth by which they proue that certayne places of the vulgar edition are somewhat otherwise in the Hebrew and Greeke so that the sense of the whole period be one and the same as most of the places are which they carpe at in the vulgar Edition 4. The third ground The places of holy Scripture are of two sortes some are cleare manifest as almost all are which set downe the history of the old and new Testament Others are obscure and full of difficulty as are many places in the Psalmes and Prophets Now if the interpreter in such places as are euident and manifest do interprete rightly all of them ●nd in such places of Scripture as are obscure expresse a sense and meaning agreab●e to the Letter though he come short of the best sense and that there might be a better gi●en he is not therefore to be thought to haue erred or not to haue fulfilled the office of a good interpreter For so plentifull and profound is the sense of holy Scripture especially in such places as are ob●cure as it is not easy for any man to ●udge which is the best sense Nay if we must interprete a new vntill wee haue found out the best sense there will neuer be a● end of interpreting but we must euery yeare set forth a new inter●●●tation or at least correct and amend the ●ormer as our Aduersaries haue done and Bezw by name who hauing set out fiue diuers editions of the new Testament euery one much differing from the other as himselfe freely confesteth yet he plainly acknowledgeth that in his first edition he hath neyther satisfyed eyther the greatnes of the worke or his owne desire Out of which ground we answere to that which our Aduersaries obiect to wit that there are many places of the vulgar Edition which might much better and much more cleerly haue been translate● for it is sufficient that they are well and rightly translated 5. The fourth ground We are not to reprehend the translations of holy Scripture only because they differ one from another so long as they are not contrary the one to the other and in this the holy Scripture differeth from other prophane writings For euen as the holy Ghost in diuers places of holy Scripture teacheth thinges different but not repugnant so the same holy Ghost can in one place in the same words teach diuers things And heerehence it is that S. Thomas teacheth well as did S. Augustine before him that of one the same p●ace of Scripture there may be many litterall senses For whereas the litterall sense is that which the author intendeth and the proper and chiefe author of the holy Scripture is God himselfe whose intention and meaning is not tied to one verity only as is mans vnderstanding but he in one and the same moment comprehendeth all things there is no doubt but that he in the same words and at the same tyme can intimate vnto vs diuers things 6. The

which thing is excellently declared by S. Augustin for hauing said that he thought Moyses intended diuers senses in his words he correcteth himselfe saying that without all doubt God who is the principall author of the Scriptures did so O ●ord sayth he seeing thou art God and not flesh and blo●d if man be short sig●ted can it be hidden from the spirit which will lead me into the right land whatsoeuer thoug mast in those words to reueate to posterity howsoeuer he by whome they were sp●ken though per adueenture but of one seme only 〈…〉 many other no lesse true so S. Augustin● seeing there●or● there are diuers litterall seme● of one and the same place one interpreter may follow one sense and another 〈◊〉 another so long as neyther of them do say any thing not agreeable to the word of God but both the one sense and the other is godly and conformable to other places of Scripture and this maketh much for the dignity of the Scriptures and profit of the Church according to that which S. Augustin writeth elsewhere How could God sayth he better commend vnto vs the plentifull fruit of his Deuine wordes then by so disposing as the same words may be vnderstood diuers wayes 7. Nay we see moreouer the holy Scripture it selfe to shew very manifestly that there are diuers senses of the same wordes For there is no doubt but that commaundment o● Deutero●omy Thou shal● not tye the mouth of the Oxe that thresheth according to the litterall sense doth signify that the mouth of an oxe is not to be tyed whilst he treadeth forth the corne in the floare for so according to the Letter the Iewes obserued it as indeed they were bound to do Neuerth●les S. Paul manife●●ly reacheth that God the proper Author of the holy Scripture intēded chie●ly another sense Is God sayth he so carefull of Oxen or doth he not so say in regard of vs for indeed these things are written for vs h●therto it also apper●ayneth that in the Hebrew tongue one word hath many ●ignifications as hath beene shewed in the seauēth Chapter in the Latin Edition 8. Out of this ground we affirme that there is no repugnance betweene the Septuagint Interprters and the Hebrew text and betweene the Hebrew text and the vulgar Edition or lastly betweene the interpretation of the vulgar Edition of the old Testament and that of the new how much soeuer the same wordes are diuersly translated to wit otherwise of the S●ptuagint and otherwise of the vulgar Latine interpreter or otherwise of the vulgar Edition of the old Testament and otherwise of the vulgar Edition of the new where in both places the same wordes are cited for the same places of Scripture are oftentymes otherwise cited by the Apostles in the new Testament then hath the Hebrew text of of the old But here is diuersity without any repugnance or contrariety And this hath place especially in the Hebrew text because in the Hebrew tongue there is so different reading of one and the same word See examples hereof in the Latine Edition of this Controuersy in this Chapter 9. It wil be easy out of that which hath byn said to answere that which our Aduersaries obiect against diuers places of the vulgar edition For albeit there be diuersity betweene it and the Hebrew text there is no repugnance or contrari●ty and if our Aduersaries think otherwise it proceedeth from their ignorance of the Hebrew tongue which hath many wordes subiect to ambiguity and very many phrases much different from the Latin and Greeke phrase as in the Chapters that follow may be seene in the Latin Edition from the 16. to the 20. CHAP. IX The place of Genesis she shall breake thy head is shewed to be well translated IT wil be too long and little to my purpose to examine all the places of the vulgar Edition to which our Aduersaries take exception for many of them differ little or nothing from the Hebrew text of the old Testament or from the Greeke of new we will handle some few of greatest difficulty and which our Aduersaries do most often and with great bitternes vrge against vs that by them iudgment may be giuen of the rest which are of lesse importance 2. The first place which they say is depraued and or which they often and eagerly complaine is that of the third of Genesis v. 15. Ipsa conteret caput tuum for it is not ipsa in the Hebrew but ipsum as if it were spoken of the seed of the womā and not of the woman her selfe The Lutherans crie out of great iniury done thereby to Christ as to whome alone it appertayneth to bruze the head of the Diuel which we attribute to another to wit to the Blessed Virgin 3. Caluin also affirmeth that we haue found out a sacrilegious exposition whilst we accommodate that to the holy Mother of Christ which was spoken of the seed Christ himselfe And as for the Lutherans we haue lesse cause to blame thē for reprehending our version seeing they stoutly mantayne that by the seed of the woman Christ only is meant 4. But as for Caluin he sheweth the greedy appetite he hath to calumniate whē he calleth our version a sacrilegious exposition for he conuinced by the truth cōfesseth that by the seed of the woman not only Christ is meant but all his member● yea euen all mankind It is therefore wōderfull that he saith it is a sacrilegious exposition to apply to the Blessed Virgin Mary that which was spoken of the seed vnlesse he will not that the Blessed Virgin be any mēber of Christ or to appertayn● any thing to mankind For seeing that the promise of bruzing Sathās head appertayneth to Chris● and euery member of his as Caluin writeth in expresse wordes it must doubtlesse principally appertayne to the Blessed Virgin as who next after Christ hath most strongly crushed Satans head VVherfore euen the Lutherans themselues obserue that Caluin ha●h no reason to obiect this vnto the Catholikes 5. But to the end we may the better vnderstand whether it be any fault at all that we retayne in the vulgar version the particle ipsa we are first to declare the literall sense of this place and to examine after whether it be any error that we retayne the particle ipsa in our version For it was not out of any ignorance or drowsy carelesnes that the feminine gender crept in heere insteed of the masculine or neuter as Caluin calumniateth but it was done of purpose and for iust cause as shal be shewed CHAP. X. Of the true sense of these wordes Ipsa conteret c. THAT we may find out the true sense of these wordes we must first re●ute the f●lse expositions of our Aduersaries The Lutherās by the seed of the womā will needes haue Christ only to be mean● we confesse indeed that he is principally meant therby and that therefore the place may