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/16

side Bibles set forth by the Divines of Lovan: and the Councel of Trent willeth that the vulgar Latin text be in such points throughly mended, and so to be most authentical. Such faults are these In side, for, in sine: Præscientiam, for præsentiam: Suscipiens, for, Suspiciens: and such like very rare. Which are evident corruptions made by the copistes, or growen by the similitude of words. These being taken away, which are no part of those corruptions and differences before talked of, we translate that text which is most sincere, and in our opinion and as we have proved, incorrupt. The Adversaries contrarie, translate that text which themselves confesse both by their writings and doings, to be corrupt in a number of places, and more corrupt then our vulgar Latin, as is before declared.

And if we would here stand to recite the places in the Greek which Beza pronounceth to be corrupted, we should make the Reader to wonder, how they can either so plead otherwise for the Greek text, as though there were no other truth of the new Testament but that: or how they translate only that (to deface, as they thinke, the old vulgar Latin) which themselves so shamfully disgrace, more then the vulgar Latin, inventing corruptions where none are, nor can be, in such universal consent of al both Greek and Latin copies. For example, Mat. 10. The first Symon, who is called Peter. I thinke (saith Beza) this word πρωτος, first, hath been added to the text of some that would establish Peters Primacie. Againe Luc. 22. The Chalice that is shed for you. It is most likely (saith he) that these words being sometime but a marginal note, came by corruption out of the margent into the text. Againe ''Act. 7. Figures which they made, to adore them''. It may be suspect (saith he) that these words, as many other, have crept by corruption into the text out of the margent. And ''1. Cor. 15. He thinketh the Apostle said not νικος, victorie, as it is in al Greek copies, but νεικος, contention''. And ''Act. 13. he calleth it a manifest errour, that in the Greek it is, 400 yeares'', for, 300. And ''Act. 7. v. 16. he rekneth up a whole catalogue of corruptions: namely Marc. 12. v. 42. ο εζι κοδραντης, which is a farthing: and αστη εζιν ερεμος Act. 8. vers. 26. This is desert''. And ''Act. 7. v. 16.'' the name of Abraham, and such like. Al which he thinketh to have been added or altered into the Greek text by corruption.

But among other places, he laboureth exceedingly to prove a great corruption ''Act. 7. v. 14. where it is said (according to the Septuaginta'', that is, the Greek text of the old Testament) that Jacob went downe into Aegypt with 75. soules. And ''Luc. 3. v. 36. he thinketh these words του καιναν, which was of Cainan'', to be so false, that he leaveth them cleane out in * both his editions of the new Testament: saying, that he is bold so to doe, by the authoritie of Moyses. Whereby he wil signifie, that it is not in the Hebrew text of Moyses or of the old Testament, and therfore it is false in the Greek of the new Testament. Which consequence of theirs (for it is common among them and concerneth al Scriptures) if it were true, al places of the Greek text of the new Testament, cited out of the old according to the Septuaginta, and not according to the Hebrew (which they know are very many) should be false, and so by tying themselves only to the Hebrew in the old Testament, they are forced to forsake the Greek of the new: or if they wil mainteine the Greek of the new, they must forsake sometime the Hebrew in the old. But this argument shal be forced against them elsewhere.

By this litle, the Reader may see what gay patrones they are of the Greek text, and how litle cause they have in their owne iudgements to translate it, or vant of it, as in derogation of the vulgar Latin translation, & how easily we might answer them in a word why we translate not the Greek: forsooth because it is so infinitly corrupted. But the truth is, we doe by no meanes grant it so corrupted as they say, though in comparison we know it lesse sincere and incorrupt then the vulgar Latin, and for that cause and others before alleaged we preferre the said Latin, and have translated it.

If yet there remaine one thing which perhaps they wil say, when they can not answer our reasons aforesaid; that we preferre the vulgar Latin before the Greek text, because the Greek maketh more against us: we protest that as for other causes we preferre the Latin, so in this respect of making for us or against us, we allow the Greek as much as the Latin, yea in sundrie places more then the Latin, being allured that they have not one, and that we have many advantages in the Greek more then in the Latin, as by the Annotations of this new Testament shal evidently appeare: namely in al such places where they dare not translate the Greek, because it is for us and against them. As when they translate, δικαιωματα, ordinances, and not justifications, and that of purpose Rh