Page:The New Testament of Iesvs Christ faithfvlly translated into English, ovt of the authentical Latin, diligently conferred with the Greek, & other Editions in diuers languages.pdf/15

Rh Quod elegerit vos primitias; απαρχας in some Greek copies. Gagn. & 2. Cor. 9. Vestra æmulatio, ο υμων ζηλος so hath one Greeke copie. Beza.

5. If al their copies be not sufficient, the ancient Greek Fathers had copies and expounded them agreable to our vulgar Latin, as 1. Tim. 6, 20. Prophanas vocum novitates. So readeth S. Chrysostom and expoundeth it against Heretical and erroneous novelties. Yet now we know no Greek copie that readeth so. Likewise Jo. 10, 29. Pater meus quod mihi dedit maius omnibus est. So readeth S. Cyril and expoundeth it ''li. 7.'' in Io. c. 10. likewise 1. Io. 4, 3. Omnis spiritus qui soluit, ex Deo non est. So readeth S. Irenæus li. 3. c. 18. S. Augustin ''tract. 6. in Jo. S. Leo epist.'' 10. c. 5. beside Socrates in his Ecclesiastical historie, ''li. 7. c. 22. and the Tripartite li''. 12. c. 4. who say plainely, that this was the old and the true reading of this place in the Greek. And in what Greeke copie extant at this day is there this text ''Io. 5, 2. Est autem Hierosolymis probatica piscina?'' and yet S. Chrysostom, S. Cyril, and Theophylacte read so in the Greek, and Beza saith it is the better reading. And so is the Latin text of the Romane Masse-book justified, and eight other Latin copies, that read so. For our vulgar Latin here, is according to the Greek text, Super probatica. and Ro. 5. v. 17. Donationis & Justitiæ. So readeth Theodorete in Greek, & ''Lu. 2. v. 14. Origen and S. Chrysostom read, Hominibus bonæ voluntatis'', and Beza liketh it better then the Greeke text that now is.

6. Where there is no such signe or token of any ancient Greek copie in the Fathers, yet these later interpreters tel us, that the old Interpreter did follow some other Greek copie. As Marc 7, 3. Nisi crebro laverint. Erasmus thinketh that he did read in the Greek πυχλη, often: and Beza and others commend his conjecture, yea and the English Bibles are so translated. Whereas now it is πυγμη which signifieth the length of the arme up to the elbow. And who would not thinke that the Evangelist should say; The Pharisees wash often, because otherwise they eate not, rather then thus, Unles they wash up to the elbow, they eate not?

7. If al such conjectures, and al the Greek Fathers help us not, yet the Latin Fathers with great consent wil easily justifie the old vulgar translation, which for the most part they follow and expound. As Jo. 7. 39. Nondum erat spiritus datus. So readeth S. Augustin ''Li. 4 de Trinit. c. 20. and li. 83. Quæst. q. 62. and tract. 52 in Joan''. Leo ''ser. 2 de Pentecoste''. Whose authoritie were sufficient, but indeed Didymus also a Greek Doctour readeth so ''li. 2 de Sp. sancto'', translated by S. Hierom, and a Greek copie in the Vaticane, and the Syriake new Testament. Likewise Jo. 21, 22. Sic eum volo manere. So reade S. Ambrose, ''in Psal. 45. & Psal. 118. octonario Resp''. S. Augustine and Vene. Bede Upon S. Johns Ghospel.

8. And lastly, if some other Latin Fathers of ancient time, read otherwise, either here or in other places, not al agreeing with the text of our vulgar Latin, the cause is, the great diversitie and multitude, that was then of Latin copies, (wherof S. Hierom complaineth) til this one vulgar Latin grew only into use. Neither doth their divers reading make more for the Greek, then for the vulgar Latin, differing oftentimes from both. As when S. Hierom in this last place readeth, ''Si sic eam volo manere, li. 1. adv. Jovin''. It is according to no Greek copie now extant. And if yet there be some doubt, that the readings of some Greek or Latin Fathers, differing from the vulgar Latin, be a check or condemnation to the same: let Beza: that is, let the Adversarie himself, tel us his opinion in this case also. Whosoever, saith he, shal take upon him to correct these things (speaking of the vulgar Latin translation) out of the ancient Fathers writings, either Greek or Latin, unles he doe it very circumspectly & advisedly, he shal surely corrupt al rather then amend it, because it is not to be thought, that as often as they cited any place, they did alwaies look into the book, or number every word. As if he should say: We may not by and by thinke that the vulgar Latin is faultie and to be corrected, when we read otherwise in the Fathers either Greek or Latin, because they did not alwaies exactly cite the words, but followed some commodious and godly sense therof.

Thus then we see that by al meanes the old vulgar Latin translation is approved good, and better then the Greek text it-self, and that there is no cause why it should give place to any other text, copies, or readings. Manie if there be any faults evidently crept in by those that heretofore, wrote or copied out the Scriptures (as there be some) them we grant no lesse, then we would grant faults now adaies committed by the Printer, and they are exactly noted of Catholike Writers, namely in al Plantins Rh