A15061:327
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.
Furthermore, all that you can say against the malice, falsehood, and ignorance of the Jews, nothing toucheth the new testament: for corruption whereof in the original Greek, I marvel what you can devise, seeing it was kept not in the custody of Jews, or pagans, but of most Godly and learned Christians. Yet do you reprove it also, as well as the Hebrew, of the old testament. what reason have you M. Rainolds so to do? was it also corrupted since S. Jeromes time, as you said of the other? The commentaries and writings of the Greek fathers will easily convince you if so you say. For the text that we have, is the same which they followed, expounded, and set down in their writings, except there be in some few places some small difference of reading. If the latin Church had any promise to keep Gods truth and ⟨p. 252⟩testament in a latin translation, will you deny that the Greek Church had not the same promise to keep it in the original text? while you seem to avouch the truth of gods promise toward the latin Church, as though you cared nothing how the Lord dealt with others, so he kept touch and covenant with yourselves, you make him by your argument to be unfaithful toward the Church of Greece, and all other Churches else in the world. Thus are you driven into absurdities and contradictions, as needs you must, when you maintain wilfully such false assertions, as these.
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 ⟨p. 252⟩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.