The likeness of some Hebrew letters between themselves hath been a cause, ⟨p. 264⟩I grant, of some corruption in the Bible, but that not great, and such as hath happened of negligence, rather then purpose, and may easily both be espied, and amended, and nothing so gross or common, as in your latin Bibles may be seen. Is it reason, think you, that for as much as some letters have been mistaken in the Hebrew, therefore the whole text should be condemned? Is there not such mistaking of letter for letter, & word for word in the latin vulgar translation? who knoweth not there is? shall we then use your argument against the translation, which you have devised against the fountain? There is no reason to the contrary. For if diligence hath been bestowed in purging and reforming such errors of the translation,1 why may not the same be done in restoring the original text to the natural truth and sincerity? The errors rising upon the similitude of letters and words, may in the Hebrew, as well as any other language be corrected. That in these examples by you alleged out of the Psalms. 100. v. 3. & 59. v. 10. any such error of mistaking hath been committed in the text, would have been by you more substantially proved. ⟨p. 265⟩For my part I think not, and so do the best Hebricians that I have read both protestants & papists. The text in the hebrew is easy enough, and yieldeth a true and godly sense. Your last example Gen. 3. v. 15. proveth no error in the Hebrew, but only in your latin translation. The Hebrew in all the copies old and new (unless one wilfully corrupted by Guido Fabricius) hath one reading, whereby a comfortable promise is set forth, that the woman's seed shall bruise the serpents head: your translation containeth gross impiety & blasphemy, referring that most excellent work to the woman, which only appertaineth to the seed of the woman. About this, you say, the Protestants keep a stir. And cause, I think,2 wherefore some stir should be kept: unless it be no matter, if whatsoever belongeth unto our saviour Christ, were applied to the blessed virgin his mother, as in this place most horribly, and in the Psalms already hath been notoriously performed by you, in token of your great love to our Lady, but small regard of our Lord.
The likenes of some Hebrew letters betweene themselues hath beene a cause, ⟨p. 264⟩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,1 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 you more substantially prooued. ⟨p. 265⟩For my part I thinke not, and so do the best Hebricians that I haue read both protestants & papists. The text in the hebrew is easie enough, and yealdeth a true and godlie sense. Your last example Gen. 3. v. 15. prooueth no error in the Hebrew, but onelie in your latine translation. The Hebrewe in all the copies olde and new (vnles one wilfullie corrupted by Guido Fabricius) hath one reading, whereby a comfortable promisse is set forth, that the womans seed shal bruse the serpents head: your translation containeth grosse impiety & blasphemie, referring that moste excellent worke to the woman, which onelie appertaineth to the seed of the woman. About this, you saie, the Protestants keepe a sturre. And cause, I thinke,2 wherefore some sturre should be kepte: vnles it be no matter, if whatsoeuer belongeth vnto our sauiour Christ, were applied to the blessed virgine his mother, as in this place moste horriblie, and in the Psalmes alreadie hath bene notoriouslie performed by you, in token of your great loue to our Ladie, but small regarde of our Lorde.
- 1More reason had it been for the Councel of Trent to have taken order that the fountains might be cleansed, if there be in them any fault, then the latin 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.
- 2M.R. is angry with us for making stir about the chief promises of our redemption: Such regard have the papists either of their own, or of our salvation.M.R. is angry with vs for making sturr about the chiefe promises of our redemption: Such regarde haue the papists either of their owne, or of our saluation.
