To your question,1 whether I think it flat Atheism and Turkery, to deny that Christ was borne of a virgin, I answer, no Christian can think otherwise but that it is indeed plain Atheism, to deny this so principal an article of our faith. Then you require what scripture I have to prove this verity. I answer, I prove this verity by a plain text of scripture, in Matt. 1. v. 23.2 Behold a virgin shall conceive. &c. But this, you say, proveth nothing by mine own rule, by Bezaes common kind of scanning such citations, and by the protestants interpretation of this place. What rule, what scanning, what interpretation of ours can you allege against this most sufficient and evident proof? Did ever Beza, or I, or any other protestant speak any thing against this trueth? If you can charge any of us, we desire no favour at your hands. But what cause or reason have you thus to say? Because this text is not according to the Hebrew, but the ⟨p. 361⟩seventy as you affirm. Which to be a foul untruth and tending to Atheism and Turkism, who seeth not? For if the Angels words rehearsed in Saint Matthew be not agreeable to the verity of the Prophets words, then may Turks, Jews, Atheists, and wicked heretics indeed at their pleasure not only dispute against this article of our faith, but also condemn it, and we shall not be able to convince them. This advantage giveth M. Rainolds unto them, when he sayeth, Saint Matthew's text is not framed according to the Hebrew, but the Greek translation.3 Thus while you labour to prove that we in cleaving to the Hebrew text, do open a gap to Atheism, your self in denying S. Matthew's text to be fully agreeable to the Hebrew, have opened a broad gate to all Atheists and Turks in the world. God forbid that we should ever utter word so much serving for defence of Atheism as you have here done: or else set down in word or writing that S. Matthew's place is not according to the Hebrew. If you take part with the Jews, and openly maintain, that the Hebrew word signifieth not a virgin, but a young ⟨p. 362⟩wench, then will I answer you as the godly fathers have answered those wicked enemies of Christ, that […] signifieth a young wench indeed, but one that is a virgin, being derived of the root that signifieth to […].
To your question,1 whether I thinke it flat Atheisme and Turkery, to denie that Christ was borne of a virgine, I answere, no Christian can thinke otherwise but that it is indeed plaine Atheisme, to denie this so principall an article of our faith. Then you require what scripture I haue to prooue this veritie. I answere, I prooue this veritie by a plaine text of scripture, in Matt. 1. v. 23.2 Beholde a virgine shall conceaue. &c. But this, you saie, prooueth nothing by mine owne rule, by Bezaes common kinde of scanning such citations, and by the protestants interpretation of this place. What rule, what scanning, what interpretation of ours can you alledge against this moste sufficient and euident proofe? Did euer Beza, or I, or anie other protestant speake anie thing against this trueth? If you can charge anie of vs, we desire no fauour at your hands. But what cause or reason haue you thus to saie? Because this texte is not according to the Hebrewe, but the ⟨p. 361⟩seauentie as you affirme. Which to be a foule vntrueth and tending to Atheisme and Turcisme, whoe seeth not? For if the Angels wordes rehearsed in Saint Matthew be not agreeable to the veritie of the Prophets wordes, then may Turkes, Iewes, Atheists, and wicked heretikes indede at their pleasure not onelie dispute against this article of our faith, but also condemne it, and we shall not be hable to conuince them. This aduantage giueth M. Rainolds vnto them, when he saieth, Saint Matthewes text is not framed according to the Hebrwe, but the Greeke translation.3 Thus while you labour to prooue that we in cleauing to the Hebrewe text, doe open a gappe to Atheisme, your selfe in denying S. Matthewes text to be fully agreeable to the Hebrewe, haue opened a broade gate to all Atheists and Turkes in the world. God forbidde that we should euer vtter word so much seruing for defense of Atheisme as you haue here done: or els set downe in word or writing that S. Matthewes place is not according to the Hebrew. If you take part with the Iewes, and openlie maintaine, that the Hebrew worde signifieth not a virgine, but a young ⟨p. 362⟩wench, then will I answere you as the godlie fathers haue answered those wicked enemies of Christ, that 〈…〉 signifieth a young wench indeed, but one that is a virgine, being deriued of the roote that signifieth to .
- 1pag. 437.
- 2[Greek or Hebrew]〈non-Latin alphabet〉
- 3M. R. denieth the text of S. Matthew touching Christ borne of a virgin, to be according to the Hebrew.M. R. denieth the text of S. Matthewe touching Christ borne of a virgine, to be according to the Hebrewe.
