An other such place you object out of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath been committed either in letter or point, may be imagined, but cannot by evident demonstration be proved.2 What moved S. Jerome to translate thus, vocabunt eum, They shall call him, I will not dispute. The reason might be in the variety, and incertainty of points, or in the ambiguous acception of the word. But because M. Rainolds chargeth the Jews with so foul a corruption of this place, only to discredit the divinity of our Saviour Christ, he must remember, that the Seventy interpreters translated it in the singular number, according to the Hebrew now extant,3 as S. Jerome also maketh mention, yet were they never challenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures, being (as many write) wonderfully assisted & governed in that work, and not smallie had of ancient time in regard. And this was long before our saviour ⟨p. 257⟩Christ was come in the flesh, and therefore undoubtedly the place was not corrupted by the Jews for such a cause as you imagine, unless you will say the Jews in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diverse hundred years before Christ was borne, and before they had cause to conceive any malice or displeasure against our saviour Christ. And so your Lyra's surmise is plainly disproved, in which you rest your self, as in a certain verity, and upon his word are bold to pronounce sentence against the poor Jews for committing a crime, which by clear evidence of greater authority they are not guilty of. Neither maketh it less for Christs divinity, to read it, vocabit, He shall call him, that is, God the father, or, every faithful man shall call him, The Lord our righteousness: then if we read, vocabunt, They shall call him the Lord our righteousness. And Saint Hierome (as you might have seen, had you looked on the place your self) translateth the text after this manner, Et hoc est nomen, quo vocabunt eum (sine vocabit eum) Dominus justus noster, wherein he showeth plainly there is no substance of matter more in the one, then the other. If this be so shameful ⟨p. 258⟩& so notable a corruption, as you in countenance and show pretend, S. Hierome was greatly overseen, that not only gave no warning thereof in his Commentary, but used the same also in the text it self.
An other such place you obiecte out of the Prophet Ieremie, 1Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath bene committed either in letter or poynt, may be imagined, but cannot by euident demonstration be prooued.2 What mooued S. Ierome to translate thus, vocabunt eum, They shall call him, I will not dispute. The reason might be in the variety, and incertentie of poynts, or in the ambiguous acception of the word. But because M. Rainolds chargeth the Iewes with so foule a corruption of this place, only to discredite the diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ, he must remember, that the Seuentie interpreters translated it in the singular number, according to the Hebrewe now extant,3 as S. Ierom also maketh mention, yet were they neuer chalenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures, being (as many write) wonderfullie assisted & gouerned in that work, and not smallie had of auncient time in regard. And this was long before our sauiour ⟨p. 257⟩Christ was come in the flesh, and therefore vndoubtedlie the place was not corrupted by the Iewes for such a cause as you imagine, vnlesse you will saie the Iewes in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diuerse hundred yeares before Christ was borne, and before they had cause to conceiue any malice or displeasure against our sauiour Christ. And so your Lyranes surmise is plainelie disprooued, in which you rest your selfe, as in a certaine veritie, and vpon his worde are boulde to pronounce sentence against the poore Iewes for committing a crime, which by cleare euidence of greater authoritie they are not guilty of. Neither maketh it lesse for Christs diuinitie, to read it, vocabit, He shall cal him, that is, God the father, or, euerie faithful man shal call him, The Lord our righteousnes: then if we reade, vocabunt, They shall call him the Lord our righteousnes. And Saint Hierome (as you might haue seene, had you looked on the place your selfe) translateth the text after this manner, Et hoc est nomen, quo vocabunt eum (sine vocabit eum) Dominus iustus noster, wherein he sheweth plainelie there is no substance of matter more in the one, then the other. If this be so shameful ⟨p. 258⟩& so notable a corruption, as you in countenaunce and shew pretende, S. Hierome was greatly ouerseene, that not onelie gaue no warning thereof in his Commentarie, but vsed the same also in the text it selfe.
- 1pag. 306.
- 2ijcro.
- 3In comment. ad Hier. ca. 23.
