A15061:437
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.
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⟩