A15061:318
An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written
An answer to a certain book, written by Master William Rainolds student of divinity in the English college at Rhemes, and entitled, A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cavils, etc. by William Whitaker ...An answere to a certeine booke, written by Maister William Rainolds student of diuinitie in the English colledge at Rhemes, and entituled, A refutation of sundrie reprehensions, cauils, etc. by William Whitaker ...
Printed at London : For Thomas Chard, 1585
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
In your entry to the question you think to gain credit to your vulgar translation by S. Jeromes authority,1 who was requested by Damasus Bishop of Rome to correct the latin translation of the new Testament.2 S. Jerome I reverence, Damasus I commend, the work I confess to be godly & profitable to the Church. But if Jerome or Damasus may bring any weight of commendation to your latin translation, how much more ought we to have in high and holy reverence the Hebrew and Greek text, which was written, not by Jerome, or any such father of mean credit, but by the Prophets, by the Apostles and Evangelists, not at the request of Damasus, or other like Bishop, but by commandment from God, and direction of the holy Ghost? S. Jerome took pains at Damasus request in the four Evangelists: of his own accord in many books of the old Testament: but this maketh nothing for your assertion, ⟨p. 242⟩but much rather against it. For of this it plainly appeareth at the first to every one, that in S. Jeromes days, the vulgar translations were greatly corrupted, and that S. Jerome reformed the same by the Hebrew and Greek text,3 which argueth that the text was in those days generally without contradiction acknowledged to be purer then all translations whatsoever. Then if such corruption crept into the Hebrew and Greek text, as you affirm, it was after S. Jeromes days: but when & in what manner, you cannot tell. Again that you say this edition of S. Jerome was by Damasus supreme authority commended to the Church, may easily be disproved: or if he laboured to have it in the Latin Churches received, yet could he not bring it to pass.4 For both other Churches used it not, and in the Church of Rome it was not in any singular estimation for the space of two hundred years after S. Jerome, and Damasus, as we may understand by S. Gregory, who writeth, that in his days the Roman Church used two translations, an old and a new. This new is the same, which now is called the old. The name of High Priest, if you think it maketh any thing ⟨p. 243⟩