Aduersaries themselues are not able to deny it 3. This to haue byn the doctrine of the auncient Church sufficiently appeareth by the words of S. Augustine The vnhappy Iewes sayth he more vnhappy Heretikes whilst they attend only to the sound of the â—etter as a body without a soule so they remayâ—â— dead and voyd of the spirit which quickneth And els where All Heretickes which receiue the Scriptures and their authority will seeme to follow them whereas indeed they follow rather their owne errors and are therefore Heretikes not because they coâ—ntemâ—e them but because they do not vnderstand them And before him S. Hilary that honour of the French Nation RemeÌ„ber saith he that there is not one of the heretikes which doth not say that he preacheth now according to the Scriptures euen those things in which he blasphemeth albeit he lieth in so saying And a little after All of them speake Scriptures without the true seÌ„ce meaning they preteÌ„d sayth without fayth indeed for the Scriptures consist not so much in the reading as in the vnderstaÌ„ding neyther are they vnderstood of such as go into preuarication but continue and abide in charity Moreouer S Hierome Let vs not thinke sayth he the Ghospell to be in the words of the Scripture but in the sense not in the out side but in the inside or marrow not in the leaues of the words but in the sappe pith or roote of reason And a little after otherwise euen the Diuell himselfe speaketh Scriptures and all heresies according to Ezechiel make vnto themselues pillowes which they may lay vnder the elbow of euery age 2. By that which hath byn sayd answere may be made to our Aduersaries when they obiect against vs that we affirme the Scripture to be imperfect obseure like a nose of wax which a man may writh which way he will and lastly the origen and spring in a manner of all heresies for we affirme this of the naked and dead letter alone destitute of the true sense or rather of the letter to which the Heretikes adde their owne peruerse sense and meaning neyther haue our Aduersaries any cause to wonder at this seeing S. Paul himselfe saith of the bare letter alone that is killeth and bringeth eternallâ— death and damnation But neuer any Catholike did euer attribute any such thing to the liuing letter which hath conioyned with it the true and natiue sense and which alone is truly and properly the word of God CHAP. IIII. How we are to seeke out the true sense and meaning of the holy Scripture THERE is a great contentioÌ„ betweene vs and our Aduersaries about the meanes how to finde out the true and naturall interpretation of the lettâ—er a thing to necessary to eternall saluation They teach diuers thinges concerning this matter but deliuer nothing that is certayne One assigneth more rules to this purpose another fewer but when they haue sayd all they confesse at last that there was neuer any which hath not at sometyme erred in seeking out the true interpretation of holy Scripture For they giue not their assent either to the ancient Fathers or to their owne Maisters in all thinges they teach or write nay they cannot assigne any one whom they acknowledge not to haue erred sometyme nor dare affirme to be free from error seeing as they say euery man is a lyar and so at last all thinges are left by them doubtfull and vncertayne 2. But the Catholikes proceed after another manner who teach that the certayne vndoubted sense of the Letter is not to be taken from the iudgment of any particuler man but from the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers and especially from the iudgment and interpretation of the Catholike Church to whome it appertayneth to iudge of the sense and meaning of the holy Scriptures as the holy and Oâ—cumenicall Councell of TreÌ„t teacheth very well for there is no doubt but that it is nore safe to follow such an interpreter as cannot erre then such a oners erreth sometymes or at leastwise may erre but the Church cannot erre in her iudgment seeing that Christ and the holy Ghost remayne with her to teach her all truth wherof more herafter when we shall come to treat of the Church 3. It shall suffice to obserue and note here that according to the doctrine of our Aduersaries nothing either solide or certayne is contayned in the holy Scripture for wheras all dependeth of the true sense of the Letter and with them there is no certayne or sure meanes by which to finde out this sense it followeth that they call all into doubt which is in the Scripture wherby who seeth not how much they iniure them But contrariwyse according to the Catholike doctrine all thinges are euident and certayne which are contayned in the holy Scriptures appertayning eyther to faith or good manners the Catholikes hauing euer a certayne and faithful Interpreter to wit the Catholike Church And surely whosoeuer reiecteth the sense which the Church giueth and in place therof substituteth another altogeather repugnant to it doth all one with him who reiecting the holy Scripture should in place therof bring in a new Scripture of his owne forging the sense of the Scripture being no lesse a part of the word of God then the letter which in these few wordes Tertullian confirmeth out of the tradition of the auncient Church The sense adultered or falsified is no lesse repugnant to the truth then the letter or stile corrupted 4. And to conclude it may be inferred that saluation is to be found in the Roman Church only and none at all out of it which I proue thus Both the Scripture testifyeth all meÌ„ confesse that diuine fayth is necessary to saluation but such as forsake the RomaÌ„ Church cannot haue diuine â—aith which wholy relieth vpon the word of God only but meerly humane seeing their fayth is founded not in the word of God interpreted by the Church which cannot erre but in the word and interpretation of Luther Caluin or some other priuate man who as they themselues graunt may erre and be deceiued such an humane fayth then so doubtfull and vncertayne and only warranted by mans authority cannot iustify or bring a man to eternall saluation CHAP. V. How we may know which is the true letter of the holy Scripture ALL such as forsake the Roman Church and make little account of her authority are not only doubtfull vndertayne which is the true sense of the Scripture but they can haue no assurance at all eyther of the whole or of any part of the letter therof For whilst they goe about to call in question and make doubtfull certayne bookes only of the old Testament before they are aware they take away all authority from all other bookes both of the old and new Testament For whereas there is but one certaine and vndoubted Canon of these
bookes to wit that which is receaued and appreâ—ued by the iudgment of the Catholike Church which cannot erre our Aduersaries reiecting this Canon make all the bookes doubtfull conteined therin for no certayne testimony can be had of these bookes but eyther by this Canon only or by the auncieÌ„t tradition of the Church but they neyther admit this Canon nor wil stand to this vnwritten TraditioÌ„ or acknowledge it for the true Word of God 2. Now as for the Canons lately set out by themselues no man can safely belieue them seeing they neyther agree one with another nor with the auncient Canons of the Church nor are any where found in the writteÌ„ Word of God which as they teach is only to be belieued neyther can they bring any thing eyther concerning the Canon of the Hebrewes or any other auncient Canon which they haue not taken from the writings of the auncient Fathers whose authority without the expresse written Word of God they will haue to be in no wise sufficient to ingender fayth so as euen by the iudgment of our Aduersaries none of all these can establish fayth concerning this matter 3. Iohn Caluin indeed sayth that it is as easy for a faithfull man to discerne Canonicall Scripture from that which is not Canonicall as to one that seeth it is easy to discerne light from darknes and white from Black But in so saying he contradicteth both reason and experience for it is euident that in old tyme there was no small controuersy amongst the raythfull yea and amongst learned and godly men concerning many bookes of the old and new Testament yea and also euen now amoÌ„gst such as our Aduersaries esteeme faithfull men which Caluin himselfe in many places confesseth 4. Moreouer Caluins owne followers well perceauing this fly vnto their owne peculiar spirit by which they say they are chiefly perswaded and moued and not by the only consent of the Church But these speake nothing to the purpose for in faith two thinges concurre one is the cause or origen of fayth to wit God himselfe and the holy Ghost whereof there is no controuersy betweene vs and them for we all acknowledge the holy Ghost to be the principall cause of the assent we giue by fayth that is to say that it is the holy Ghost who chiefly perswadeth vs to belieue The other is the obiect of fayth or that which is to be belieued whereof we now dispute for the holy Ghost doth not induce vs to belieue the false vncertaine deuises of men but the pure and sincere Word of God only we aske therfore of our Aduersaries by what expresse Word of God he reuealeth vnto them that there are so many Canonicall bookes and neyther fewer nor more for we read not this any where in the Scripture and they admit only the written Word of God how can the holy Ghost then perswade theÌ„â—o belieue that which is not the Word of God for we are not now to expect new â—â—uelations from God as do the â—nabaptists and Libertines whom for this cause our Aduersaries condemne It is necessary therefore that if they will haue vs belieue that they are perswaded by the holy Ghost to belieue such books only to be authenticall as they doe say are such that they first shew this to be a truth expressely contayned in holy Scripture which they will neuer be able to do wherfore there is no certainty with them eyther of the sense of the holy Scripture or of the Letter nor euer wil be vntill they returne vnto the Church agayne But we Catholikes are certaine of both for we haue a most faythfull Canon receaued in the Church more theÌ„ a thousand and two hundred yeares agoe confirmed by a generall and Oecumenicall Councell 5. And this to haue beene the faith and doctrine of the auncient Church for the discerning of true and authenticall Scriptures that short but pithy sentence of S. Augustins whome Caluin acknowledgeth to haue byn the best and most faithfull witnes of antiquity sufficiently testifyeth saying I for my part would not belieue the Ghospell vnlesse I were moued by the authority of the Church of which place I will say more herafter in the Controuersy of the Church And else-where he saith VVe receaue the old and new TestameÌ„t in that nuÌ„ber of bookes which the authority of the holy Catholike Church deliuereth So S. Augustine 6. I know our Aduersaries obiect many thinges against many bookes contayned in our Ecclesiasticall Canon but their chiefe arguments do not only derogate authority from those bookes but also from many others which they receaue as Canonicall For they obiect that some Fathers did sometymes doubt of those bookes which they will not admit but they are not ignorant that some Fathers of old haue doubted of the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude of the second Epistle of S. Peter of the 2. and 3. of S. Iohn of the Epistle to the Hebrewes and of the Apocalyps of which bookes they dare not now doubt especially Caluins followers as is manifest by their confession of faith 7. They say further that in those bookes which they reiect there are many thinges obscure difficult and full of contradiction but what booke of Scripture in a manner is there in the which there do not occurre sometymes thinges obscure and hard to be vnderstood did not S. Peter acknowledge as much But as for true contradictions there are none at al howsoeuer there may be some things which at the first fight may seeme to imply contradiction yet indeed all thinges agree very well togeather such a contradiction is oftentymes found in those bookes which euen our Aduersaries receaue yea euen in the Ghospells themselues which for all that are not to be reiected but humbly soberly and piously to be â—nterpreted as S. Augustine many tymes admonisheth 8. To conclude all the arguments that our Aduersaries make against these bookes are fully answered by Catholike writers which haue set out Commentaries vpon those bookes to wit Cornelius Iansenius vpon Ecclesiasticus Ionnnes Laurinus vpon the booke of VVisedome Ioannes Maldonatus and Christopher à Castro vpon Baruch and Nicolas Serarius vpon the rest of the bookes of the old Testament which our Aduersaries call Apocriphall to omit the most Reuerend and famous Cardinall Bellarmine and his Champion Iacobus Gretserus as also Iames Gordon Lesmoreus For it is sufficient only to haue cited them seeing that I write only an abridgment of Controuersies not any long commentaries vpon the Scripture And therfore conteÌ„t my selfe to haue shewed in this place that our Aduersaries must either receaue the Canon of Scriptures approued by the Councell of Trent or be vtterly destitute of any certayne and assured Canon CHAP. VI. Of the Hebrew Text. OVR Aduersaries when they are vrged with Catholike argumeÌ„ts taken from the Scriptures are wont to fly to the Hebrew text of the old Testament and
to the Greeke text of the new perswading themselues by this meanes to attayne to the true and proper sense of the letter wherefore somthing is to be sayd in this place of the Hebrew Greeke text both which appertayne to the Letter of the holy Scripture 2. VVe grant indeed that when the Latin translation is either ambiguous oâ— lesse playne the Hebrew text is well and profitably looked into as also that diuers mystâ—ries which lye hidden in the Hebrew text and cannot sufficiently be explicated in Latin wordes may be the better vnderstood And lastly that we may the more fully attayne vnto the force and Emphasis of that holy tongue 3. But as for the Hebrew text now extant we do not acknowledge it to be of so great either authority or perspicuity as our Aduersaries pretend and we further deny that the vulgar EditioÌ„ wherinsoeuer it differeth from it is to be corrected by it and that for two reasons The first is for that the Hebrew text though neuer so incorrupt further then it is approued by the authority of the Church is much more doubtfull and vncertayne then the Latin The other reason is for that the Hebrew text which is now in vse is in many places corrupted and depraued in which the vulgar Edition is entire and vncorrupted Both these reasons shal be confirmed in the ensuing â—hapters which the learned Reader may see in the Latin edition from the seauenth Chapter to the 14. all which I haue omitted to put into English because I intend to help the lesse learned who are not so capable of that so profouÌ„d and learned a discourse CHAP. VII Of our Aduersaries new Translations of the Bible THE Catholike Church of Christ not without good cause doth reiect and condemne our Aduersaries new Translations of the Bible and that for many reasons The first and most iust reason is because such their translations are replenished with errors which haue byn inuented eyther by Iewes or Heretikes of which see many examples in the precedent Chapters of the Latin edition but we in this Chapter will set downe three other causes or origens from whence these errors spring wherby it shall further appeare that our Aduersaries can set out no transâ—ation which shall not be found full of many great errors 2. The first cause is for that our Adâ—ersaries eyther contemne or make little account of the translations and interpretations of the Fathers and imploy all their labour in finding out all the versions and interpretations and expositions of the Iewes which they highly extoll commend so as in their Commentaries vpon the old Testament you shall see them cite Thargus Rabins and such other Thalmudicall fictions but especially Rabbi Dauid Kimâ—i whom sometimes they call learned sometymes the most learned among the Hebrewes But of the auncient Fathers no mention at all for if there be it is for the most part eyther to taxe or manifestly to oppugne or euen to corrupt their writings 3. Now what can be more vnreasonable or absurd then to begge the true sense of the Scripture of the Iewes who lacke faith and who haue a veyle ouer their hartes when they read the old Testament with whome God is not pleased and who are Aduersaries to all men vpon whom the Angel of God is come to the end who peruert all the oracles of the Prophets that appertayne to Christ and lastly who are the most malicious enemies of Christians And on the other side to despise the excellent Doctors of Christs Church who euen in the iudgment of our Aduersaries were indued with the true faith full of the holy Ghost raysed by God and placed in the Church to the end we should not be carried about with euery wind of doctrine who haue defended the faith against all heresies who haue sincerely instructed the faithfull people in the mysteries of the Christian faith who haue faithfully sent downe to posterity the sense and interpretation of the Scriptures which they receaued froÌ„ the Apostles 4. Moreouer wheras no man can rightly interprete the Scriptures who hath not receaued from God the gift of the interpretation which is not giuen but to the members of Christ and his Church only it is apparent inough how much more safe it is to follow such holy Doctors then the impiouâ— Iewes which are wrapt in the snares of the Diuell and held captiue at his will And seeing that saying of Christ is most true if the blind lead the blind they both fall into the ditch it cannot be but our Aduersaries blind and destitute of the light of faith and led by the blind Iewes must needes fall downe headlong and breake their neckes 5. Hereâ—hence it is that our Aduersaries do insert into the new translations almost all the places of Scripture corrupted by the Iewes and that they deny togeather with the Iewes many oracles of the Prophets to be vnderstood of Christ and many wayes wrest euen those oracles which they caÌ„not deny to be vnderstood of Christ from that true sense in which they are cited in the new Testament by the Apostles Euangelists and Christ himselfe to prophane impious senses lately inuented by the Iewes out of their hatred to Christ. 6. The second cause is that they desire nothing more then in their translations to depart from the vulgar edition the which seeing it is most sincere and correct they which almost in all thinges leaue it must needes fall into many errors 7. The third cause is the malicious intention of our Aduersaries who set forth new translations of the Scripture for no other end then by them to oppugne the Catholike doctrine and to establish and confirme their owne errors and heresies and therefore when any plain text occurreth which maketh manifestly against their erroneous doctrine they seeke to make obscure the true and proper sense by their peruerse translation but if they light vpon any place somewhat obscure which may seeme to fauour their doctrine they so depraue it by their new translation that the Scripture it selfe may seeme to confirme what they falsely teach and so by this meanes they must needes stuffe their translations with infinite corruptions for these three reasons therfore not without great reason do we reiect our Aduersaries translaâ—ions which so swarme with corruptions Many other reasons are both learnedly and largely set downe by Iames Gretser which we for breuity sake omit CHAP. VIII Of the Latin vulgar Edition OVR Aduersaries conuinced by the truth it selfe confesse sometymes that the vulgar Edition not only is to be preferred before all other latin Editions but euen before the Greeke text of the new Testament and the Hebrew text of the old for in many places reiecting them they follow our vulgar translation as may be seene in the Latin edition in the Chapters 8. 9. 10. 13. notwithstanding that in many other places they exceedingly inueigh against it and with great hostility oppugne it partly for that
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 theÌ„ 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 translatioÌ„ 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 Romaâ— 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 conâ—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 theÌ„selues 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 argumeÌ„ts 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 â—nd in such places of Scripture as are obscure expresse a sense and meaning agreabâ—e to the Letter though he come short of the best sense and that there might be a better giâ—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 obâ—cure as it is not easy for any man to â—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 aâ— end of interpreting but we must euery yeare set forth a new interâ—â—â—tation or at least correct and amend the â—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 translateâ— 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 pâ—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 â—ord sayth he seeing thou art God and not flesh and bloâ—d if man be short sigâ—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 spâ—ken though per adueenture but of one seme only 〈…〉 many other no lesse true so S. Augustinâ— seeing thereâ—orâ— there are diuers litterall semeâ— 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 oâ— Deuteroâ—omy Thou shalâ— 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 Neuerthâ—les S. Paul manifeâ—â—ly reacheth that God the proper Author of the holy Scripture inteÌ„ded chieâ—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 hâ—therto it also apperâ—ayneth that in the Hebrew tongue one word hath many â—ignifications as hath beene shewed in the seaueÌ„th 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 Sâ—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 contrariâ—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 womaÌ„ 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 theÌ„ 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 wheÌ„ he calleth our version a sacrilegious exposition for he conuinced by the truth coÌ„fesseth that by the seed of the woman not only Christ is meant but all his memberâ— yea euen all mankind It is therefore woÌ„derfull 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 meÌ„ber of Christ or to appertaynâ— any thing to mankind For seeing that the promise of bruzing SathaÌ„s head appertayneth to Chrisâ— 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 haâ—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 reâ—ute the fâ—lse expositions of our Aduersaries The LutheraÌ„s by the seed of the womaÌ„ will needes haue Christ only to be meanâ— we confesse indeed that he is principally meant therby and that therefore the place may
be well vnderstood of Christ as many auncient Fathers haue expounded it but that Christ alone is meant hereby and not his members we deny to be the literall sense for the reasons following 2. First it is euident that the seed of the Serpent which is opposed against the seed of the woman doth not signify any one Serpent but a multitude it is therefore very probable that by the seed of the woman a multitude also is signified vnlesse we will haue the Scripture in so few wordes speak ambiguously Moreouer semen is a Nowne collectiue properly signifying a multitude neyther is there any thing in this sentence that forceth vs to departe from the proper signification of the Word This reason is of so great a force that Câ—luin was moued therby to forsake the exposition of the Lutherans which he would otherwise willingly haue imbraced the more strongly to assault vs for thus he writeth Some make no doubt but Christ alone is meant by the seed of the woman whose exposition I could willingly approue but that I see they offer too great violence to the word seed for who will graunt that a Nowne collectiue is to be taken for one man only Thus Caluin So strong is the truth that it extorteth a true confession from her greatest enemy 3. Secondly it is said of the seed of the woman that it shall crush and bruze the head of the Serpent but this crushing and bruzing the Scripture doth not attribute to Christ alone but to all that lead a godly life in him for to euery iust man the holy Ghost speaketh saying thou shalt walke ouer the Addar and Basiliske and thou shalt tread vnder thy seete the Lyon and the Dragon And Christ saith vnto his Disciples Behold I haue giuen you power to tread vpon the Serpents and Scorpions and vpon all the power of the enemy And the Apostle to the Romans prayeth saying The God of peace crush Satan vnder your feete quickly And lastly in very many places of Scripture the faithfull are said to ouer come the Diuell and to get victories against him which is all one as to crush him Seing therefore the proper worke of this seed agreeth also to the members of Christ the Word seed is not to be limited to Christ alone Ad hereunto that God in these wordes intended to comfort not only Eue deceaued by the craft of the Diuell but all her posterity Now the comfort is more generall if all the faithfull should be able by Christ to ouercome the Diuell then if that Christ alone should ouercome him euen as our comfort is greater that we togeather with Christ shall rise againe then if Christ only should rise and he alone attayne to eternall life 4. Thirdly Albeit we should graunt our Aduersaries that Christ alone doth crush the head of the Diuell which is the former part of the sentence yet the latter part can by no meanes be applyed to Christ alone where it is sayd that the Diuell shall crush this seed for Christ in his owne person cannot be crushed by the Diuell we must therefore needes by this seed vnderstand also the members of Christ for in the Hebrew text it is thus word for word ipsa velipsum coÌ„teret te in capite tu contereâ— cum vel eam in calcaneo for the Hebrew word is the same in both places both in the first and in the later part of the sentence and signifyeth câ—nterere 5. As for Caluins exposition interpreting by the seed of the woman all man kind it is not to be receaued for God in this place denounceth emnity betweene the seed of the Serpent and the seed of the woman but infidells and vngoodly persons haue no emnity with the Diuell and his seed but are rather the seed and sonnes of the Diuell according to those words of Christ You are of your father the Diuell they therefore cannot appertayne to this seed of the woman 6. But whereas Caluin in another place sayth that Christ and his members are signifyed by the seed of the woman wee like well of that his saying for it is the exposition of the Catholike and auncient Fathers and indeed the true litterall sense 7. For in that sentence God sayth first that he will put emnity wherefore he speaketh not of any naturall emnity as Caluin insinuateth but of a supernaturall proceeding from God Moreouer God signifyeth betweene whome this emnity shal be to wit betweene the Serpent and woman Now as by the Serpent the Diuell is meant whome that naturall Serpent represented and in whome God layed his curse vpon the Diuell so by the woman Eue is meant the spouse of Christ or his true Church represented by Eue whose force and victory against the Diuell was therefore foretold by God for that Eue represented the Church as Adam did Christ the Apostle plainely teacheth in his Epistle to the Ephes. and the same Apostle doth therfore elsewhere expound this place of Satan and the Church as doth S. Iohn in his Apocalyps where he declareth this emnity betwene the woman and the Serpent to be indeed the emnity betweene the Church of Christ and the Diuell wherfore here by the Serpent is signifyed the Diuell by the woman the Church by the seed of the Serpent the Children of the Diuell and all the wicked who are aliens from Christ and his Church but especially such as seduce others and oppugne the Church The seede of the woman are the Children of the Church especially such as keep Gods commaundments and haue the testimony of Iesus Christ as S. Iohn speaketh 8. Furthermore this woman to wit the Church shall crush the head of the Serpent as we haue proued by many places of Scripture But on the other side the womans heele shal be crushed by Satan for the Church ouercoÌ„meth the Diuell by her chiefe and more excellent members but she is ouercome in such her members as are base and worldly giuen which set vp their rest heere vpon earth and tast no other things but such as are terrene earthly worthily therefore signified by the heele of the Church let vs not therefore sayth S. Ambrose walke by loue and affection vpon t he earth and the Serpent cannot hurt vs. In the first combat is that the Church ouer cometh by open warre and therefore it is expressed by crushing of the head In the later combat in which a part of the Church is ouercome the enemy proceedeth by guiles and deceites and therefore that combat is signifyed by crushing the heele for the Hebrew word signifying calcaneum doth signify also properly insiaiari ex insidijs aggredi as appeareth by many places of Scripture And out of ignorance heerof Caluin without cause reprehendeth the vulgar interpreter for otherwise explicating this combat in the later part of the seÌ„tence then he had in the former for the Emphasis or force of the Hebrew word
required that he should interprete the later part as he did by these wordes tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius which is as much to say as thou shalt crush her heele not by open warre but by taking her at vnawares See further of this matter in this Chapter in the Latin Edition the 8. § And you shall see that our Aduersaries make a great adoe about a matter of small moment if the wordes be rightly vnderstood For whether we reade ipsa and so referre it to the Church or ipsum that it may be referred to the children of the Church the seÌ„se is all one for it is all on to say the seed of the woman shall crush the head of the Serpent or the Children of the Church shall doe it And heerehence it iâ— that the auncient Fathers whether they read ipse as S. Hierome and S. Chrysostome do or ipsa as read S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Gregory and other Latin Fathers all of them expound this place of the Church 9. Howsoeuer it be the reading of the vulgar Edition is to be preferred before the other for this victory is rather to be attributed to the Church as to the Mother of all the faithfull and to her who continueth for euer according to that promise of Christ the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her then to her children or meÌ„bers which are euery day changed for this promise is an explication of the promise made by God in Genesis for the head of the Serpent and the gates of hell signify one and the same thing And if the victory be attributed to the woman that is to the Church all thinges are better explicated for God first did foretell the emnity that was to be betweene the woman the Serpent and afterward he maketh mention of the seede of the woman and the Serpents seede so as the woman is opposed to the Serpent and the seede of the one to the seede of the other but the victory proâ—â—sed is sayd to be gotten against the Serpent himselfe and not against the seed wherefore the same appertaineth rather to the woman her selfe then to her seed for the words following betweene thy seed and her seed do not properly signify any new combat but a continuance of that combat which was betweene the woman and the Serpent and are put in by way of pareÌ„thesis for the combat of the Church and of her childreÌ„ is all one combat 10. But the chiefe cause that moued the Church to retayne at this tyme rather the word ipsa then ipsum or ipse was to controle the error of the Lutherans for if the reading had byn ipsum or ipse one might haue thought this promise to haue appertayned only to Christ as they though erroneously would haue it but by reading ipsa this promise must needes be vnderstood to haue byn made to the whole Church For such is the custome of the holy Church whether she interprete the Scripturs or administer the Sacraments to do all as is most profitable and most for the edification of the faithfull Neyther is Christ hereby excluded but he is rather included in the name of the Church as is also the holy Ghost for the true Church of Christ cannot consist or do anything that is good without the help of her supreme head Christ and the assistance of his holy spirit That the reading according to the Hebrew text iâ— ipsa or ipsissima and not ipsum or ipse is learnedly proued in the next Chapter of the Latin Edition of this Controuersy to which I referre the Reader and to the Chapters following in which other places of the vulgar Edition are defended CHAP. XI That the written Word is no fit Iudge of Controuersies concerning matters of fayth OVR Aduersaries in the beginning did stifly mayntaine that the holy Scripture was to be the only iudge of all Controuersies which arise in matters of fayth but when they were told that to make the Scripture a iudge was as much as to say the Scripture did heare speake liue for all these appertayne to a iudge that nothing is more vnreasonable theÌ„ to assigne such a iudge of Controuersies as can neyther heare nor speake but is vtterly voyd of lâ—â—e changing their opinion They begin now to â—ay that the Scripture is improperly called a iudge and that to speake properly the holy Ghost only is the iudge And thus hauing for many yeares togeather spoken vnproperly now aâ— last they fly to the holy Ghost of whome there is no doubt but that he is the supreme iudge of all 2. But they should haue added further that the holy Ghost at this tyme doth not immediatly propose any new reuelations to any particuler man concerning points of fayth but only proposeth veriâ—ies already reuealed and that by the mouth of the Church as shal be shewed heereafter in the next Controuersy where we shall haue occasion to say more of this matter Whosoeuer therefore contemneth the iudgment of the Church in so doing he despiseth the iudgment of Christ and of the holy Ghost for Christ himselfe saith he that despyseth you despyseth me Neyther doth the holy Ghost speake by the Scripture but when it is rightly vnderstood which is neuer but when we imbrace the interpretation of the Catholike Church as we haue already shewed in the fourth Chapter CHAP. XII Whether the Scripture be obscure or hard to be vnderstood THE Word of God is eyther written or vnwritten and preached Now certaine it is that the Word preached is not obscure for it is not hidden from such as perish the question thefore is of the written Word Our Aduersaries in the beginning did teach that the whole Scripture was easy and no part therof hard to be vnderstood but after that not only many obscure places but euen whole Chapters out of the Canticle of Canticles out of Izechiel and other Prophets were obiected by the Catholikes they changing their mind confesse that very many places of Scripture are obscure but that all points of doctrine necessary to saluation are be â—ound in places plains and easy 2. For resolution of this question we must answere with a distinction and say that if the word Scripture be taken for the bare Letter only then doubtlesse the Scripture is obscure or els S. Paul would not have sayd that it killeth and causeth death and damnation but if it be taken properly that is to say togeather with the true sense and meaning thereof then it is not obscure but plaine inough in al things necessary to saluation and in this sense speaketh S. Augustine as do also other Fathers whom our Aduersaries cite wheÌ„ they say that al things necessary to saluatioÌ„ are manifestly conteyned in the holy Scripture 3. Moreouer the holy Scripture is both manifest and obscure but not in regard of the same persons It is passing obscure and not to be vnderstood of the proud such
I meane as despise the sense and consent of the holy Fathers yea and of the whole Catholike Church but to little ones and such as are humble who follow in al things the foresayd sense coÌ„sent it is manifest and perspicuous The testimony of our Lord is faythfull sayth the Psalmist giuing wisedome to the little ones that is to such as are humble and not proud and Christ our Lord sayth thou hast hidden these thinges from the wise and reuealed them to little ones that is to the humble The Scripture indeed is obscure to such as want fayth are destitute of the holy Ghost but easy playne to those which abide perseuere in the faith of the Church by that meanes are guided gouerned by the holy Ghost 4. The Word of God shineth brightly the Word of God I say not the word of men not the word of the Diuell for that only is the true Word of God which is in the true sense not in the bare letter for the letter depraued by a false seÌ„se is not the Word of God but the word of men or rather the word of the Diuell the word of God doth illuminate the eyes but the eyes of such as haue eyes to see and not their eyes whose mindes Satan hath blinded so as the light of the Ghospell cannot shine to them 5. In vaine therefore do our Aduersaries heape togeather so many places of Scripture in which it is said that the Word of God is said to be cleare ful of light perspicuous for this is not attributed by the Scripture to the bare letter but to the letter ioyned with the true sense which true seÌ„se cannot be had out of the Catholike Church 6. Neyther doth the Scripture say that the Word of God is manifest to all indifferently but to such only as being indued with the true fayth are humble oâ— hart and therefore inspired by the holy Ghost if therefore our Aduersaries will haue the Scripture to be full of light and easy to be vnderstood of them it is necessary that they returne againe to the true Church in which only is true faith 〈◊〉 humility the true sense of the Scripture the true spirit of God without whiâ—â— the holy Scripture will neuer be plaine cleare and manifest for it is great imprudency I will not say impudency to contend so eagerly and with such hostility about the plainenes and perspicuity of the holy Scripture and to haue no will to returne into that way the which only leadeth to that plainenes and perspicuity CHAP. XIII Whether the holy Scripture be to be translated into the vulgar tongue THAT we may briefly dispatch that which hath beene so largely treated of by many concerning this matter we will reduce all vnto foure generall assertions The first is There is not doubt but the Word of God is to be preached to the people in the vulgar tongue so as the question is only of the bare written letter 2. The second assertion is Neyther the example of Christ nor of the Primitiue Church do coÌ„uince that the Scripture is to be translated into the vulgar tongue but rather the contrary for Christ neuer commaunded the Iewes to translate the Scriptures out of the Hebrew tongue into the Syriac and yet in Christs tyme the auncient Hebrew tongue was to the Iewes as the Latin is to the French Italians and Spanyards and only the Syriac tongue was in vse amongst the common people which euen our Aduersaris confesse such I meane as are the more skillfull in the Syriac and Hebrew tongue as namely these Sebastian Munster in his preface before his Siriacal Chaldaâ—cal Grammer Francis Iunius in his preface before the new Testament in the Syriac tongue of Termelâ—â—â— Peter Martin Morentine of Nauarre in the preface of his Caldaicall Grammer printed at Rochell the yeare 1590. 3. Neyther did S. Paul write in Latin to the Romanes but in Greeke though not the Greeke tongue but the Latin was their vulgar tongue So S. Luke did write the actes of the Apostles at Rome in Greeke and not in Latin And euen to S. Augustines tyme foure hundred yeares after Christ the Byble was not extant but in the three learned tongues Hebrew Greeke and Latin no not in the tyme of Rabbanus Maurus who liued eight hundred yeares after Christ as himselfe testifyeth in expresse words 4. Neyther can our Aduersaries alleadge any authenticall example of the auncient Church for the translation of the Scripture into the vulgar tongue they tell vs indeed of one Vulphilas a Bishop of the Gothes who is said to haue translated the Scripture into the Gothish tongue but he was not a Catholike but an Arian Heretike as witnesse Theodoret Socrates Sozomenus and Cassiodorus 5. For as for that which certayne late writers alleadge of S. Chrysostome his translating of the Scripture into the Armenian tongue as also of S. Hierome his translating of the same into the Dalmatical toÌ„gue there can no certayne proofe be brought thereof And they who write this do not affirme that all the Scripture was translated by them but certayne partes only vsed of old to be read in the prayers of the Church as the Psalmes Epistles Ghospels and Lessons which were song publickely at Masse in the Canonicall houres which we read to haue byn graunted by Pope Iohn the eight of that name to the Morauianâ— at their first conuersion to the faith of Christ but this was 880. yeares after Christ and this custome was of no long continuance amongst them as appeareth by that which Pope Gregory the seauenth writeth to the Duke of Bohemia is to be seene in Cesar Baronius 6. The third assertion To translate the Scripture into the vulgar tongue is neyther in it selfe vnlawfull nor forbidden by any Ecclesiasticall law so it be truly translated Nay such a translation serueth Preachers to great vse who are to cite and expound the Scriptures to the people in the vulgar tongue Hereticall translations are indeed forbidden especially of the new Testament because in them many places of holy Scripture are by false translating corrupted 7. The fourth assertion It is not a thing profitable to all to read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue yea to many it is rather pernicious for we are taught by the Apostle S. Peter that in the Scriptures are many thinges hard to be vnderstood which vnlearned and vnstayed persoÌ„s depraue to their owne destruction Many also there are vncapable of meate and solid sustenance who are therefore to be fed with milke as the Apostle speaketh and for such it is more wholesome to be fed by the sermons and instructions of their Pastors then to feede themselues with reading the Bible It was therefore great prudence of the Church to forbid that the Bible though translated and set forth by Catholikes should be read of all indifferently and without the approbation and leaue of the Bishop
Pastor or Ghostly Father 8. Our Aduersaries obiect certayn places of S. Chrysostome and S. Hierome in which they exhort to the reading of the Scripture but they should haue obserued that those Fathers speake of reading the Scripture in the Greeke tongue then extant or in the Latin according to the old edition which was neuer forbidden to any by the Church whereas our Controuersy is about the translations of the holy Scripture out of the Hebrew Greek and Latin into the vulgar tongue which are all for the most part corrupted 9. And it is worth the nothing that our Aduersaries spend their tyme in vayne in gathering togeather arguments by which to perswade men that it is necessary for them to read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue to the end they may learne out of them what they must necessarily know if they wil be saued for how truly or plainly soeuer they be translated no man shall euer recevue any fruite by them vnlesse he first belieue aright and be guided by the holy Ghost to whome it appertayneth to guide vs into the right land to make knowne vnto vs the way in which we are to walke to teach vs the will of God which we are to fulfill VVhich is manifestly to be seene in the Iewes who vnderstaÌ„d the Hebrew text much better then Christians in which there is so ample and cleare mention of Christ and yet for all that they do not belieue in Christ-Our Aduersaries therefore haue little reason to keepe such a do about the wordes of Scripture or the translation of them let them first imbrace the true Faith which is in the Church only let them seeke after the holy Ghost who is not to be found out of the Church let them seeke out the true sense of the Letter which the Church only conserueth vncorrupted and it will easily be graunted vnto them to haue the Scriptures in what tongue soeuer they will so they be truly and vncorruptedly translated and that they vse them to their owne saluation and not to their destruction as many do wherof we haue for witnesses not only the Scripture but dayly experience and this shall suffice concerning the translatioÌ„ of the Scripture into the vulgar toÌ„gue 10. For of the prayers in Latin eyther priuately made by the people or publikely offered by the Priest at masse and in the administratioÌ„ of the SacrameÌ„ts we wil treat hereafter in their proper places CHAP. XIIII That our Aduersaries vse many sleightes in corrupting the Word of God OVR Aduersaries often require vs to proue all that which we say out of the written Word of God but when we cite the same in expresse tearmes they haue many wayes by which they depraue it Wherfore before I make an end of this Controuersy concerning the written Word it shall not be from the purpose briefly to detect such their corruptions partly to the end that no man be deceaued by them and partly that euery man may vnderstand nothing to be so plainely and clearely set downe in the written VVord which by the Commentaries of crafty and subtile wittes may not be weakned and made of little force if no regard be had to the authority and iudgment of the Church And that no man may thinke that I herin calumniate them or deale lesse sincerely with them I will set downe out of their owne writings some one or two exaÌ„pls of each manner of corrupting wherof many exaÌ„ples will occure in each Controuersy 2. The first manner of shifting of places alleadged out of the written Word is to say that the originall text is corrupted and what is alleadged crept out of the margent into the text whereof see many examples in the 12. and 18. Chapter of the Latin Edition of this CoÌ„trouersy 3. Their second shift is to reiect the vulgar translation and instead thereof to cite some new and corrupt translation of their owne It is euident inough that Luther in his first version of the new Testament into the Germane tongue set forth in the yeare 1522. hath more then a thousaÌ„d errors as many haue obserued amoÌ„gst which neyther the last nor the least is his presuming to ad to the text of S. Paul the 3. Chapter and 28. verse the particle alone thereby the stronglier to establish his doctrine that Fayth alone iustifieth for this place of the Apostle VVe thinke a man is iustifyed by fayth he traÌ„slateth by fayth alone when a certaine friend of his to whome the same was obiected by a Catholike asked the cause why he so translated it he no lesse ridiculously then proudly answereth in a certayne little booke set forth by him in the yeare 1530. vnder this title A certaine information or answere made to two questions proposed by a certayne good friend concerning the translation of Scripture and the inuocation of Saints In which he aduiseth his friend to answere the Catholikes obiection after this manner D. Martin Luther will haue it so and saâ—â—h that a Papist and an Asse is all one thing so I will so I command let my will stand for a reason for we will not be the Papists schollers but their Iudges Luther will haue it so he saith that he is a Doctor aboue all the Popes Doctors So Luther concluding at last that the word alone shal remayne in his new Testament though it should make all his Aduersaries mad and he addeth further that he is only sory that he had not added two wordes more to the text and translated it after this manner we are iusâ—ifyed by only faith without any workes of any law 4. Zwinglius also who first in our age endeauored to perswade many that the body of Christ is not really contayned in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the better to establish this his error goeth about to proue that those words of Christ this is my body are very well translated thus this signifieth my body with this his new translation he is so rauished as if he had receaued the same from heauen for these are his wordâ— So therefore hath Luke with whome we content our selues without citing any other Euangelist And hauing taken bread he gaue thankes brake it and gaue it them saying this signifyeth my body which is giuen for you do this in remembrance of me Thou seest O faithfull soule but yet wrapped in absurd opinions how all thinges heere agree and nothing inviolently eyther taken away or added so as thou hast cause to wonder that thou hast not byn alwayes of this opinion and much more that any dare so boldly teare and rent the body of this speach so well ioyned togeather So Zwinglius in the praise of his new translation wherein he arrogates more authority to himselfe theÌ„ is due so as that of Cicero in his booke de diuinatione may well be applyed to him I neuer saw any man arrogate greater authority to himselfe and in the end say iust nothing 5. Moreouer concerning Caluins and