To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
OVR Aduersaries conuinced by the truth it selfe, confesse some∣tymes, that the vulgar Edition not only is to be preferred before all other latin Editions, but euen before the Greeke text of the new Testament, and the Hebrew text of the old, for in many places reiecting them, they follow our vulgar translation, as may be seene in the Latin edition in the Chapters 8. 9. 10. 13.
notwithstanding that in many other places they exceedingly inueigh against it, and with great hostility oppugne it, partly for that they see the same to con∣tradict in many places their errors, and partly also, for that they labour by all meanes to perruert the text of the Scri∣pture by their new versions, to make thē speake in fauour of their errors, which they cannot do if the authority of the old interpreter continue in all thinges entire and vndiminished. As for Caluin, he is so deadly an enemy to the vulgar edition, that with great excesse he declameth a∣gainst it in this manner: So farre off is it, saith he, that there is one entire leafe, as there are scarse three verses togeather not defiled with some notable error. But to proue this his impu∣dent assertion, he bringeth only one place out of the new Testament, which a little after we will shew to haue byn excee∣dingly well translated out of the Greeke. He bringeth no other places out of the old Testament then such as he taketh out of the Psalmes, which (as it is euident) are translated word for word out of the Greeke version of the Septuagint interpreters. Nay in the same place, Caluin acknowled∣geth that the Latin interpreter hath, with all possible diligence, expressed
the Greeke translatiō. And as for the Greeke interpretation of the Septuaginta, it is most learnedly defended by Genebrard, so as it were superfluous to say any more. Indeed Caluins & Luthers disciples find fault with many other places in the vulgar edition, both of the old and new Testament, but we will lay foure generall grounds, out of which all their arguments may be easi∣ly answered.
2. The first is: If our Aduersaries will needes haue the present Roma•• Church condemned for following and authorizing the vulgar Latin interpreta∣tion, they must needes also condemne the whole auncient Church, and all the Fathers who liued in the first foure hun∣dred yeares after Christ, for they acknow∣ledged no other interpretation of the old Testament as authenticall, then that of the Septuaginta Interpreters, which much more departeth from the Hebrew text, now extant, then our vulgar Latin, as our Aduersaries themselues confesse. Wherfore if the Roman Church be to be con∣demned for the vulgar Edition, much more the Primitiue Church for the version of the Septuaginta: and heereof it follow∣eth further, that the Church is not to be condemned which followeth a transla∣tion
of the Scripture which in some thinges may be amended, so long as no∣thing is to be found in it which is repug∣nant eyther to fayth or good manners: For otherwise the auncient Church had erred in retayning the version of the Septuaginta, which was corrupted in some places, but those corruptions were not in any thing necessary to be knowne. More∣ouer Caluin himselfe con••esteth, that we must not depart from the Church, for errors of little im∣portance, the ignorance whereof neyther doth vio∣late Religion, nor preiudice our saluation. Wher∣fore albeit there should be some such er∣rors in the vulgar Edition, yet were not the Roman Church, which is so auncient & so hightly commended by the mouth of the Apostle (as speaketh S. Hierome) to be con∣demned or forsaken. And this may serue for answere to our Aduersaries argu∣ments, when they obiect certayne light faults of the vulgar Edition which haue crept into it, eyther by the negligence of the printers, or by any other accident. As also what our Aduersaries obiect a∣gainst the Psalter may heerby be conuin∣ced to be very weake, for seeing that no other version is followed in it, then that auncient version of the Septuaginta, they cannot condemne vs, vnlesse they will
condemne the whole primitiue Church, togeather with vs, yea the Apostles and E∣uangelists thēselues, who followed the same version, is as shewed in the 11. Chapter of the Latin Edition of this Contro∣uersy.
3. The second ground. A good in∣terpreter doth not ty himselfe to transtate word for word, seeing that euery tongue hath his proper phrases, and manner of speach, but contenteth himselfe to ex∣presse the true sense and meaning of that which he translateth. Wherefore all our Aduersaries argumēts are nothing worth by which they proue that certayne places of the vulgar edition are somewhat other∣wise in the Hebrew and Greeke, so that the sense of the whole period be one and the same, as most of the places are which they carpe at in the vulgar Edition.
4. The third ground. The places of holy Scripture are of two sortes, some are cleare & manifest, as almost all are, which set downe the history of the old and new Testament. Others are obscure, and full of difficulty, as are many places in the Psalmes and Prophets. Now if the interpre∣ter in such places as are euident and ma∣nifest, do interprete rightly all of them, ••nd in such places of Scripture as are ob∣scure,
expresse a sense and meaning agre∣ab••e to the Letter, though he come short of the best sense, and that there might be a better gi••en, he is not therefore to be thought to haue erred, or not to haue ful∣filled the office of a good interpreter. For so plentifull and profound is the sense of holy Scripture, especially in such places as are ob••cure, as it is not easy for any man to ••udge, which is the best sense. Nay if we must interprete a new, vntill wee haue found out the best sense, there will neuer be a•• end of interpreting, but we must euery yeare set forth a new inter∣••••••tation, or at least correct and amend the ••ormer, as our Aduersaries haue done, and Bezw by name, who hauing set out fiue diuers editions of the new Testament euery one much differing from the other, as himselfe freely confesteth, yet he plain∣ly acknowledgeth that in his first edition he hath neyther satisfyed eyther the great∣nes of the worke, or his owne desire. Out of which ground we answere to that which our Aduersaries obiect: to wit, that there are many places of the vulgar Edition which might much better and much more cleerly haue been translate••: for it is sufficient that they are well and rightly translated.
5. The fourth ground. We are not to reprehend the translations of holy Scri∣pture, only because they differ one from another, so long as they are not contrary the one to the other: and in this the holy Scripture differeth from other prophane writings. For euen as the holy Ghost in diuers places of holy Scripture teacheth thinges different, but not repugnant: so the same holy Ghost can in one place & in the same words teach diuers things. And heerehence it is, that S. Thomas tea∣cheth well, as did S. Augustine before him, that of one & the same p••ace of Scripture, there may be many litterall senses. For whereas the litterall sense is that which the author intendeth, and the proper and chiefe author of the holy Scripture is God himselfe whose intention and meaning is not tied to one verity only, as is mans vn∣derstanding, but he in one and the same moment comprehendeth all things; there is no doubt, but that he in the same words and at the same tyme, can intimate vnto vs diuers things.
6. The which thing is excellently declared by S. Augustin, for hauing said that he thought Moyses intended diuers senses in his words, he correcteth himselfe say∣ing, that without all doubt God who is
the principall author of the Scriptures did so. O ••ord, sayth he, seeing thou art God and not flesh and blo••d, if man be short sig••ted, can it be hidden from the spirit which will lead me into the right land, whatsoeuer thoug mast in those words to reueate to posterity, howsoeuer he by whome they were sp••ken, though per adueenture but of one seme only, 〈…〉〈…〉 many other no lesse true, so S. Augustin•• seeing there••or•• there are diuers litterall seme•• of one and the same place, one in∣terpreter may follow one sense, and ano∣ther 〈◊〉〈◊〉 another, so long as ney∣ther of them do say any thing not agree∣able to the word of God, but both the one sense and the other is godly, and conformable to other places of Scripture: and this maketh much for the dignity of the Scriptures, and profit of the Church, according to that which S. Augustin wri∣teth elsewhere: How could God (sayth he) better commend vnto vs the plentifull fruit of his Deuine wordes, then by so disposing, as the same words may be vnderstood diuers wayes.
7. Nay we see moreouer the holy Scripture it selfe to shew very manifestly, that there are diuers senses of the same wordes. For there is no doubt, but that commaundment o•• Deutero••omy, Thou shal•• not tye the mouth of the Oxe that thresheth, ac∣cording to the litterall sense, doth signify
that the mouth of an oxe is not to be tyed whilst he treadeth forth the corne in the floare, for so according to the Letter the Iewes obserued it, as indeed they were bound to do. Neuerth••les S. Paul mani∣fe••••ly reacheth, that God the proper Au∣thor of the holy Scripture, intēded chie••ly another sense▪ Is God, sayth he, so carefull of Oxen, or doth he not so say in regard of vs, for indeed these things are written for vs; h••therto it also apper••ayneth that in the Hebrew tongue one word hath many ••ignifica∣tions, as hath beene shewed in the seauēth Chapter in the Latin Edition.
8. Out of this ground we affirme, that there is no repugnance betweene the Septuagint Interprters, and the Hebrew text, and betweene the Hebrew text and the vulgar Edition, or lastly betweene the interpretation of the vulgar Edition of the old Testament, and that of the new, how much soeuer the same wordes are diuersly translated, to wit, otherwise of the S••ptu∣agint, and otherwise of the vulgar Latine interpreter, or otherwise of the vulgar E∣dition of the old Testament, and otherwise of the vulgar Edition of the new, where in both places the same wordes are cited, for the same places of Scripture are often∣tymes otherwise cited by the Apostles in the
new Testament, then hath the Hebrew text of of the old. But here is diuersity without any repugnance, or contrariety. And this hath place especially in the Hebrew text, because in the Hebrew tongue there is so different reading of one and the same word. See examples hereof in the Latine Edition of this Controuersy, in this Chapter.
9. It wilbe easy out of that which hath byn said to answere that which our Aduersaries obiect against diuers places of the vulgar edition. For albeit there be diuersity betweene it, and the He∣brew text, there is no repugnance or contrari••ty: and if our Aduersaries think otherwise it proceedeth from their igno∣rance of the Hebrew tongue, which hath many wordes subiect to ambiguity, and very many phrases much different from the Latin and Greeke phrase, as in the Chapters that follow may be seene in the Latin Edition from the 16. to the 20.
Caluin in Antidoto contra 4•• sess Concil. Tridentini
Geneb. i•• Psal ••
Calu. l. 4, Instit c. 1. sect▪ 12.
Rom. ••. v. 8. Hiero••••. Epist. 57. ••d Dam.
〈…〉〈…〉 1598.
1. p. q. 1•• art. vlt.
Aug. l. 12. confess. cap. vltimo.
Lib. 3. de Doct. Christ. c. 27.
Deut. 25. v. 4.
2. Cor. 9. v. 9. 10.