First, you say, it is saucy and malapert for any man, of purpose to restrain that, 1which the holy ghost hath left at large. If this be so, then hath your vulgar interpreter been over saucy and malapert often times. Examples of such sauciness I might allege many in his translation, if cause required. I grant a man cannot be too precise, and religious in translating the words of holy scripture: and that it ought to be the especial care of a godly translator, neither to restrain, nor enlarge any thing, as far forth as he may perform by skill and diligence: for so much as the text may afford a doctrine, sometime in his original and natural words, which by altering in the translation is soon marred. But these admit no other sense, then one; & therefore no matter whether a man say, that heaven must receive Christ, or Christ must be received in heaven; the meaning is all one. For as for the conceit of some, which you affirm may perhaps be true, that Christ should receive heaven, it passeth all ⟨p. 174⟩compass of reason or divinity. Howe, I pray you, doth Christ receive heaven? by his divine power? but the Apostle speaketh of Christs ascension, as in the text appeareth, and all interpreters understand the words: how then doth Christ receive heaven in his humanity, wherein he ascended, and whereof the Apostle speaketh? tell us if you can. Again, why saith the Apostle until the time that all things are restored, if he mean that Christs divinity received heaven, which then received it no otherwise, then it hath ever, and shall ever receive it? for that by taking heaven should be meant the rule and government of heaven which Christ at his ascension received, this interpretation I know seemeth but absurd to your self: and therefore you may leave it for others to defend, whom for this matter Beza hath fully answered. Your second & third points, where in you urge and prosecute M. Martins reprehension, I omit, as unworthy of answer. Beza translated the place truly in sense, as your self cannot deny: the cause that moved him a little to alter the words, was to avoid doubtful and ambiguous construction. That Illyricus is not contented ⟨p. 175⟩with this translation, what marvel, seeing he will have Christs body contained in no place? If you be of his judgement, you may use his authority against Beza herein.
First, you say, it is saucy and malapert for any man, of purpose to restraine that, 1which the holy ghost hath left at large. If this be so, then hath your vulgare interpreter bene ouer saucy and malapert often times. Examples of such saucines I might alledge many in his translation, if cause required. I graunt a man cannot be too precise, and religious in translating the wordes of holy scripture: and that it ought to be the especiall care of a godly translator, neither to restraine, nor enlarge any thing, as farre forth as he may performe by skill and diligence: for so much as the text may afford a doctrine, sometime in his original and naturall wordes, which by altering in the translation is soone marred. But these admitt no other sense, then one; & therefore no matter whether a man say, that heauen must receiue Christ, or Christ must be receiued in heauen; the meaning is all one. For as for the conceite of some, which you affirme may perhappes be true, that Christ should receiue heauen, it passeth al ⟨p. 174⟩compasse of reason or diuinitie. Howe, I pray you, doth Christ receiue heauen? by his diuine power? but the Apostle speaketh of Christs ascension, as in the text appeareth, and all interpreters vnderstande the wordes: how then doth Christ receiue heauen in his humanitie, wherein he ascended, and whereof the Apostle speaketh? tell vs if you can. Againe, why saith the Apostle vntill the time that all things are restored, if he meane that Christs diuinitie receiued heauen, which then receiued it no otherwise, then it hath euer, and shall euer receiue it? for that by taking heauen should be meant the rule and gouerment of heauen which Christ at his ascension receiued, this interpretation I know seemeth but absurd to your selfe: and therefore you may leaue it for others to defend, whome for this matter Beza hath fully answered. Your second & third points, where in you vrge and prosecute M. Martins reprehension, I omit, as vn worthie of answere. Beza transtated the place trulie in sense, as your selfe cannot deny: the cause that mooued him a litle to alter the wordes, was to auoide doubtfull and ambiguous construction. That Illyricus is not contented ⟨p. 175⟩with this translation, what maruel, seeing he wil haue Christs body contayned in no place? If you be of his iudgement, you may vse his authoritie against Beza herein.
- 1pag. 172.
