the Bible For proofe whereof Luther is charged to haue written contemptuouslie and contumeliouslie of the Epistle of Saint Iames which though it had beene true and could not haue beene denied yet did it nothing at all touch vs who therein agree not with Luther neither are bound to iustifie al his sayings priuat opinions no more then they wil be content to auouch what-soeuer hath beene spoken or published by any one or other famous man of their side We no more bound to defend Luther in all his sayings then they will be bound to defend whatsoeuer hath bin said by their writers Which thing if they will take vppon them to performe then let them professe it or els they offer vs the more iniurie that obiect still against vs a saying which was neuer either vttered or alowed by vs. This might suffice men of indifferent reason but our aduersaries will yet continue wrangling about nothing and will trouble the world with friuolous writings being neither ashamed nor wearied of any thing For what matter is it worthie soe much adoe and soe many wordes whether Luther euer spake so of Saint Iames epistle as Campian sayth he did or no If he had so spoken as in trueth he hath not for any thing I can vnderstand what haue they wonne what haue we lost what matter was it to multiplie words so much about Is this the controuersie between vs and them doe we striue about mens words and writings Is Luther our God or the author of our faith or our Apostle No they shall not bring vs thus from the defense of Gods trueth to skirmish with them about mens sayings we will not leaue the great questions of Religion and fall to dispute about matters of other nature condition such as this is concerning Luthers particuler iudgement of S. Iames Epistle The truth of Gods word is it for which we contend against the which if anie man haue spoken any thing let him beare the blame himselfe and let not the common cause be charged therewith So if Luther or anie other learned man of our side haue eyther interpreted the scriptures in something amisse or haue doubted of some one booke of Scripture whereof doubte also hath beene of olde in the Church of Christ we are not to defend their expositions or to approoue their iudgement and therefore in vaine do these men spend so much time and take such paynes to prooue that Luther vttered reprochfull wordes against the Epistle of Saint Iames which as though it had beene a principall matter for their aduantage not onelie the Censurer in his defense and Gregorie Martin in his discouerie haue spoken thereof but now also my new aduersarie Master Rainolds in his booke against me beginneth with the same and sayth he hath thought good to sett it downe and prosequute it somewhat more at large But I for my parte haue not thought good to spend my time and comber the reader about such vnnecessarie and impertinent discourses as these are which the aduersaries deuise and wherewith Master Rainolds hath stuffed his booke onely it shal be sufficient for answere to Master Rainolds whoe in trueth deserueth no answere playnlie and briefelie in euerie point to cleare the trueth from his cauils and slaunders for the satisfying of the godlie in this behalfe And first what a sillie argument he gathereth M. Rainolds argum that we haue left no ground of faith because Luther somwhat toucheth the credit of Saint Iames epistle for that Luther hath written somewhat hardlie of Saint Iames his Epistle that therefore the Protestants leue no one ground whereupon a Christian man may rest his faith I trust anie man of mean discretion can easilie perceiue For the iniurie done to Saint Iames Epistle by Luther should not be obiected against the Church of England which doth receiue the same as the Canonicall word of God but against Luther if he did so deserue and such as maintayne Luthers opinion herein But neither I nor any other that I knowe in our Church euer denied much lesse doth the whole Church denie that epistle to be worthely rekned among the bookes of sacred Scripture S. Iames Epistle not doubted of in the Church of England nor haue taken vpon vs to defend either Luther or any other for reiecting the same Indeed because Campian rayled vpon Luther charging him to haue disgraced that epistle with despitefull tearmes I answered that Luther had not so written of it as Campian affirmed which still I may truely holde for anie thing hath bene shewed either by any other or by Master Rainolds him selfe whoe like a profound scholler handleth this worthie matter thus at large Furthermore how doth that followe Maister Rainolds that if Luther thought Saint Iames epistle not to be Canonicall or equall in Authoritie with the epistles of Saint Paull and Peter that therefore he left no ground for a Christian mans faith to stay vppon are all the grounds of our fayth in Saint Iames epistle is all foundation of Religion ouerthrowne yf Saint Iames epistle should not be Canonicall Doe they that deny or doubt of that epistle destroy the credit of all other bookes of holie scipture God forbid that so we should thinke Diuers auncient learned men and Churches haue denyed the Epistle of S. Iames. Amongst the Auncient writers of estimation Eusebius calleth this same epistle of Saint Iames about which you make soe great adoe in playne wordes a Bastard I thinke you will not say that Luther hath written worse or more against it Euseb lib. 2. ca. 23. Ieron in catal And Saint Ierome saith It was affirmed that this epistle was published by some other vnder the name of Saint Iames whereby appeereth that many Christians in auncient tyme thought it to be in deede counterfait and yet did they not therefore ouerthrow al the foundations of our fayth Euseb lib. 7. ca. 25. Dionysius Alexandrinus writeth as Eusebius reporteth that many of his predecessours vtterly refused and reiected the booke of Reuelation Concil Laod. cap. 59. Iunil lib. 1. cap. 3. And so doth the Councell of Laodicea leue the same out of the number of Canonicall bookes Iunilius Africanus an auncient father reiecteth not only the bookes of Iudith Hester and Maccabees as they are worthy in that they are not canonicall but also of Iob Ezra and Paralipomenon which notwithstanding are canonical scriptures And neuerthelesse for al this they left some staie for Christians in the other bookes of Scripture wherein a man may finde sufficient ground to build his faith vpon Yea Ierome was not afraid to discredit the trueth of the historie written in holie Scripture concerning Dauids marrying with Abisag calling it according to the letter that is the true and natural sense Hier. epist 2. Vel. figmentū esse de mimo vel Atellanarum ludicra no better then either a poetical fiction or vnseemely iest and therefore deuiseth a proper Allegorie of Wisdome which cherisheth
of his flesh is absent from vs. Which though it be contrary to your Reall presence yet you say you beleeue as your Creede your beliefe perhaps is according to some new Creede for of this beliefe one parte cannot stand in the same Creede with another First the true auncient and Catholike creede teacheth that Christ is ascended into heauen touching his humanitie whereunto Cyril agreeablie writeth The true Catholike Creed is contraie to the Popish Creed that he is absent in flesh your new-fangled Popish Creede would haue vs beleeue that Christ touching the presence of his flesh is in the sacrament If his flesh be in the sacrament then is not his flesh absent but the scriptures and fathers and al Catholicke Creeds doe set it downe as a ground of faith that Christs flesh is onelie in heauen and there remaineth vntill he come againe in carnall presence to iudge the world What haue you to answere now forsooth now must you fal into your former contradiction that Christs flesh is visible in heauen and inuisible in the sacrament which doctrine is repugnant to diuinitie to reason to sense to all principles of truth as you haue hearde already or els must you say that Christ hath two bodies one visible and an other inuisible which though it be heretical yet is it lesse absurde and vnreasonable then the other But answere what you list this is sufficient to ouerthrow your reall presence before God and all his saints that Christs flesh is absent from vs the sacrament is with vs and therefore Christs flesh is not in the sacrament Your assertions are to grosse your answeres are absurd your Reall presence is a reall contradiction Cyrill you say was no sacramentarie No verely for your sacramentary heresie was vnhathced in Cyrills time But did Cyrill euer teach your reall presence a place you bring that maketh nothing to this purpose Cyrill speaketh not a word of the sacrament Cyrill in Ioh. lib. 4. c. 13. but generally that Christ giueth vs his flesh which is true of those also that neuer receiued the sacrament Wherefore Cyrill meant not any reall presence as you full ignorantly alledge him He onely disputeth against the infidelity or curiosity of such as enquire A popish ignorant argument Christ geueth vs his fleshe to eate Ergo we eate Christs flesh Really in the sacrament How it is possible that Christ should giue vs his flesh to eate we know that Christ can giue and doth giue his flesh to all faithfull and make no doubt nor question thereof But thinke you all meanes of eating his flesh is remooued if reall presence be denied Consider this point a litle better M. Rainolds and I doubt not but you shall easilie espie your owne ouersight That you bring out of Peter Martyr is idle That which he saith if Cyril should auouch it were not to be graunted your selues will not maintaine namelie that Christ doth dwell in vs corporallie and mingleth his flesh with our flesh Then to what vse serueth your reall presence tell vs if you can but prooue by scripture that which you tell els we shall not greatly regard what you tell vs. Damascen you are content to handle as lightly Damasâ—le orthod fide lib. 3. cap. 3. He teacheth against your reall presence that the nature of Christs bodie remaineth circumscript and visible as it was So your fantasie of Christs body being present in the sacrament reallie but incircumscriptly and inuisiblie is prooued to be vainer then any dreame Al you alledge at large for the reall presence out of him in an other place Lib. 4. c. 14. may shortlie be dispatched That Christ can make the bread his body we graunt For Christ being god can doe whatsoeuer he wil. Onelie shew that Christ wil make of real bread his real flesh and then this controuersie is brought to an ende The Catholike faith teacheth that Christs body was made of the virgine once the Popish faith that it is made of bread daily Christ indeede maketh the breade his body not really but sacramentallie For Christ hath not a body made of bread his body was made once of the pure substance of his blessed mother and other body then this or oftner made then once hath he none Whereof all doctrine that teacheth Christs bodie is made of bread is impious and hereticall the popish doctrine of Reall presence teacheth that Christs body in the sacrament is made of breade by changing the bread into his bodie through force of consecration wherefore we may boldlie and trulie conclude that the popish doctrine of Reall presence which Master Rainolds holdeth but miserablie defendeth is both wicked and hereticall CHAP. 9. Of certeine places of S. Chrysostome touching the Reall presence Two places out of S Chrysostome were alledged by M. Martin pag. 20â— c. to prooue thereall presence The first out of his second homilie to the people of Antioch Chryst hom 2. ad pop Antio wherein by an excellent and fit allegorie he compareth our sauiour Christ to the Prophet Elias For as Elias ascending bodelie into heauen left his cloake with Elizeus his scholler so Christ the sonne of God asâ—ending vp left his flesh with vs. S. Chrysostomes meaning to anie that readeth the place is euident ynough M. R. though he multiplie wordes after his simple manner yet my former answere he cannot disprooue That Christ left vnto vs his flesh in the holie sacrament who euer doubted that therein we receiue his true and natural flesh we beleeue we teach and alwaies did But the Real presence of his flesh such as you maintaine S. Chrysostome neuer knew and we vtterlie denie Christ left vs his flesh therefore he left it Really A false popish argument For can you reason thus and reason trulie that if Christ left vs his flesh he left it in reall presence this is the point this prooue if you can els you talke to no purpose Christ left his flesh that is a sacrament of his flesh wherein is most truelie and effectuallie but spiritually offered vnto vs and of vs receiued the very flesh of Christ Hauing spent manie vnprofitable and superfluous speaches at length you force the comparison and shew a threefold difference betweene Elias leauing his mantel and Christ leauing his flesh And are you indeed in your right vnderstanding who I praie you M. R. denieth this you migh alledge not three onley but three and three points of difference betweene Elias and Christs leauing the one his mantel the other his flesh This then being wholy graunted what is your argument will you reason thus There is great difference between Elias leauing his cloake Christ leauing his flesh Straunge arguments that M.R. hath learned of late to make therefore Christ left his flesh vnto vs reallie If this be not your argument frame an other your selfe as you can The first difference is that Elias left his cloake Christ his flesh Flesh indeed differeth
these men that modestie of minde that was in Augustine He was readie to be taught of all they will neuer learne but alwaies teach that they know not Thus hath Viues wtitten of you Master R. and such absurd and sensles fellowes as you that against reason and truth will defend your translations although differing neuer so much from the originall tongues because you are too stout and want modestie And for the Iewes thus much may be answered that howsoeuer they mislike and hate our religion yet the text of holy scripture they haue euermore and yet still doe keepe most religiouslie and carefullie Which may appeare for that there be Ioan. Isaac Contra Lindan lib. 2. pa. 77. as Ioannes Isaac a learned Iewe writeth aboue two hundred arguments against the Iewish opinions more euident and expresse in the Hebrew text of the old testament then they be in the latine translation And so likewise saith Andradius Andrad lib. 4. Defens Trident that they which holylie and religiouslie handle the Hebrew text finde therein farre more not able testimonies of Christ then in the Latine and Greeke copies which also Saint Ierome long since hath witnessed Hier. epist 74. ad Marcell saying that when he of purpose compared the Hebrew text with a Greeke translation to see whether the Iewes had not chaunged some thing in the Hebrew bookes through enuie that they bare to Christ he found therein much more for confirmation of Christian faith which could not haue beene so if the Iewes had of malice to Christ corrupted their Bibles as now is by our aduersaries vntruly surmised What madnes then should driue them to corrupt the text to no hindrance of our religion to no furtherance of theirs who doubteth but if they had meant such a thing they would haue practised their skill in those places especiallie that doe moste directlie concerne the Gospell of Christ which being otherwise your coniecture of the Iewes dealing about the Hebrew text is foolish and false You declame against the ignorance and reprobate minde of the Iewes you set forth the promises made to the Church of hauing alwaies the truth And thinke you that this maketh anie thing for you Do these promises of gods spirit and truth made to the Church belong onely to the latine Church are they included onelie in the latine translation What shall become then in your iudgement of so manie Churches in Greece in Armenie in Arabie in all places of the world that haue no skill of your latine Bibles Haue they no spirit no scripture no truth doth your Tridentine decree appertaine vnto them also of vsing onelie the latine text in sermons in lectures in expositions in disputations what meane you to talke in this manner You say God hath promised the Church that she shall be a faithfull and perpetuall obseruer of his word and testament that is according to your new commentarie that the Church shal lose the pure fountains of the Hebrew text but shal keepe a pure translation for euer And see you not the vanity of this deuise Confessed you not euen now that in Damasus daies all the latine translations were corrupt wherupon S. Ierome was intreated to take vpon him a labour of correcting them all Was not the promise whereof you speake made to the Church M.R. dreams hang not handsomelie together before S. Hierome set forth his correction and yet the Churches latine translations were as your selfe confesse in his time full of diuersities and corruptions Then if the Bibles in latine were so much corrupted before S. Hierome by your own confession notwithstanding the promise that God made the Church of keeping his word and testament can you by this argument prooue that by force of this promise the latine Bibles haue not bene corrupted since Saint Ieromes time and the Hebrew haue August epist 58. ad quaest 2. S. Augustine saith it came to passe by Gods special prouidence that the Iewes being so continuallie tossed to and fro and still continuing their hatred against our sauiour Christ yet kept the holy scriptures that the truth of Christs Gospel might so much the more be approoued amongst all men because it receiued so sure weightie testimonies of the most malitious enemies And to this purpose he applieth the verse of the Psalme Lord kil them not lest they forget thy lawe but scatter them Furthermore al that you can say against the malice falshoode and ignorance of the Iewes nothing toucheth the new testament for corruption whereof in the originall Greeke I maruaile what you can deuise seeing it was kept not in the custody of Iewes or paganes but of moste Godly and learned Christians Yet doe you reprooue it also as well as the Hebrew of the olde testament what reason haue you M. Rainolds so to doe was it also corrupted since S. Ieromes time as you said of the other The commentaries and writings of the Greeke fathers wil easily conuince you if so you say For the text that we haue is the same which they followed expounded and set downe in their writings except there be in some fewe places some small difference of reading If the latine Church had any promise to keepe Gods truth and testament in a latine translation will you denie that the Greeke Church had not the same promis to keepe it in the originall text while you seeme to auouch the truth of gods promis toward the latine Church as though you cared nothing how the Lord dealt with others so he kept touch and couenant with yourselues you make him by your argument to be vnfaithful toward the Church of Greece and all other Churches els in the world Thus are you driuen into absurdities and contradictions as needes you must when you mainetaine willfullie such false assertions as these That Caluine affirmeth the Romane Church to haue bene more constant Pag. 300. and lesse giuen to nouelties then the East Churches whereby she obtained greater fame and credit then the rest nothing concerneth this matter For though it be graunted the Grecians were more factious for the most part and wauering then the Romanes yet might they retaine the original text of scripture as faithfullie as they No people so froward so malitious so presumptuous so contentious so hard to be brought vnder the obedience of gods lawes as the Iewes and yet for all this peruerse disposition in them it is moste certaine that they had euermore and haue still the bookes of scripture in highest reuerence The Iewes alwaies most dilingent in keeping their Bibles from corruption and keepe them with greatest diligence so as they would not alter one letter in them for all the world And notwithstanding the Romanes greater constancie and staiednes then the Grecians yet were the latine Bibles in S. Hieromes time more corrupt for the new testament then the Greeke fountaines were Which maie be vnderstood vndoubtedlie thereof for that in anie controuersie about the latine translation they alwaies
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
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
setting forth the Bible in Hebrew and other languages I graunt you haue not disgraced the tongues but the scriptures written in those tongues you haue indeauoured as much as in you laie to disgrace although doe what you can you shall neuer be able to disgrace them truly And herein may you firlie be compared to the Iewes for as they keepe the Hebrew text moste carefullie but yet haue lost the true meaning thereof soe you haue indeed printed the old and new testament in Hebrew and Greeke with diligence and great cost but in the meane time you deny them to be the authenticall word of God This treatise you conclude ful discreetly that first we must be sure of our faith That is a verie good thing but how this should be wrought you tell vs not The latine translation is for this purpose no fitter then the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines but rather manie waies more vnfitte being onelie a translation and that an vnperfecte a corrupt an obscure translation though it were as excellent as euer any translation could be which God knoweth is far otherwise yet might it not attaine to the diuine perfection of the originall text that was written and published by the wisdome of Gods holie spirit and ministery of the Prophets Apostles and Euangelistes But saie you let vs holde the Church then our Greeke and Hebrew may do vs some good let vs departe from her our Greeke and Hebrew will turne to our perdition And I graunt M. R. that to talke of the Greeke and Hebrew vnles we hold the right faith in the true Church helpeth vs nothing but rather increaseth our condemnation But this is true no lesse I am sure of your latine then of the Greeke and Hebrew vnles there be some secrete vertue in that which is not in the other that to talke of it though a man hold not either faith or Church may be a profitable thing If this be not your meaning then haue your words no sense nor force of reason in them a meete conclusion for such a discourse CHAP. 15. Of the new testament set forth in the Colledge of Rhemes AS Master Rainolds hath heâ—herto defended with great indeuour pag. 443. c. and smal successe their latine vulgare translation so now is he come to maintaine in like manner their Rhemish late English translation of the new Testament whereof himselfe may seeme to haue bene a principall author or at least some speciall dealer in the worke First he rehearseth my words at large written in my preface concerning that translation and setteth vpon them six markes whereof he intendeth in order and seuerallie to speake But before he come to the particulare scannig of my wordes he breaketh out into immoderate and immodest railing wherein is nothing worthie answere and therefore suffering him to plaie his parte with Aiax or Hercules of whome he speaketh let vs procead to the seuerall points and so shall it appeere whether I haue vttered any thing but a certaine trueth or whether he had cause thus strangelie to behaue himselfe First I saide that since the world was made neuer was there set forth such a translation pag. 445. whereupon this man taketh occasion to talke of newe Testaments and translations hereof set forth 5000. yeares agoe And haue we not iust cause to admire his wisdome and granitie that could deuise and handle in this sorte such a simple fantasie of his owne braine since the world was created neuer was found such a translation as the Rhemish is therefore saith Master Rainolds there haue bene translations of the newe Testament euer from the creation of the world If anie man els can so vnderstand it I am content to let it be so taken To me it seemeth straunge that anie man of reason should thinke and write thus absurdlie thus peeuishlie thus falsely vnles it were to make him selfe ridiculous and odious to all the worlde But of this so foolish a conceit of his we neede not to speake moe words Now will Master Rainolds prooue indeed that worse translations of the newe Testament haue bene by vs set forth of late then theirs is and therefore that I haue saide vntruelie that theirs is worst of all His argument is thus framed pag. 450. c. a translation that transformeth God into a deuill must needs be worse then theirs But seuen of our translations whereof some haue bene set forth within these fiue yeares transforme God into a deuill Therefore these are worse then theirs His assumption he prooueth by a place translated in the first of S. Peter Chap. 2. ver 8. And here is made a great sturre with long sentences out of Illyricus Beza Castalion The indifferent reader wil be content with a short replie when a longer is not requisite Now then what is this hainous fault of our translations Because they haue translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the which thing they were ordained A greeuous accusation but a faint proose the translation is right and no more transformeth God into a deuil then doe S. Peters words themselues which were written by direction of Gods moste holie spirit Here is no place to make discourse of this question whether God be author of sinne which as it is a most impious assertion so haue you moste falselie obiected it vnto vs sundrie times and neuer could prooue it once This place of S. Peter we cannot otherwise translate vnles we would willinglie translate amisse S. Peters owne text being sound our translation agreeing fullie therewith cannot lead men into any such damnable opinion as that is whereof you speake Yet saith M. R. verie confidentlie finde you anie so wilfull and horrible an Atheisme in ours and hardlie set a fire on them all Take heede what you speake Is this wilfull and horrible Atheisme are all your bookes worthie to be burnt if anie such can be found in them will you stand to this How then haue you translated the place your selues Let vs looke now on your translation thus it is wherein also they are put This cannot be true following your latine which hath quo for quod and therefore in your margent you mend it thus whereto also they are orderned And how differeth this from ours what Atheisme is in ours more then in this or why deserueth ours to be burnt rather then this Burne your owne if you list Master Rainolds and if you speake as you thinke you haue pronounced them in your iudgement worthie to be cast into a fire and so perhaps you could be content so that ours might burne withall for companie The three points following pag. 455. c. 2.3.4 are hudled vp and answered together concerning vnaccustomed and monstrous nouelties of wordes whereof their translation hath such examples as the like in no other can be found so as a man may iustlie call it a new fangled and ridiculous translation deuised rather to amaze the readers and make the worde of God a laughing stocke