In the second place Jerome alone is brought to discredit so many Greek copies. Against whom (beside the great consent of the Greek copies)1 we oppose the Syrian & Arabian Paraphrasis, Chrysostom, Theophilact, Oecumenius, & Basil, who thrice in one book doth so allege it, as the copies supposed ⟨p. 144⟩to be falsified. And last of all, we oppose Jerome himself: who for once alleging it thus for his benefit against2 his adversary in that book, where the Papists themselves cannot deny, but he abused diverse testimonies of th' Apostle shamefully, allegeth it twice as it is in the Greek copies, which they condemn. Let all men therefore judge what a worthy proof this is, brought from Jerome to discredit these copies, which is contraried of so many, and of himself: who after he was departed from his heat of disputation, to set down what was more agreeable to the truth, then what served best against his adversary, so readeth as we read. Beside all this, some3 Greek copies read as th' old translator doth. And therefore it is false which they say, that it is not in the Greek. The third pretended corruption, standeth only upon Socrates testimony; who affirmeth that in the Greek copies to be an heretical corruption. Howe so? What one word is there in the Greek copies, that leaneth to the Nestorian ⟨p. 145⟩heresy? What light footing thereof can you show? If you can show none, there is no likely-hood of heretical corruption: considering that Nestorius voice, differing far more from Saint Johns, then Jacobs did from Esau's, might even of a blind man have been discerned. Secondly, the Greek reading, falleth in far better with the phrase and circumstance, then that which Socrates commendeth. For in the verse before Saint John hath thus, Every Spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ to be come in the flesh, is of God. Whereupon he inferreth the words in question, that every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ to be come in the flesh, is not of God. Where it is evident not only that this doth aptly answer in opposition▪ unto the verse before: but that it keepeth the frame and phrase of speech, which is to amplify, and deeplier to imprint one thing in the memory of the hearer, by denial of one proposition directly opposite unto another. As in the 6. verse of the same chap. He that knoweth God, heareth us, he that is not ⟨p. 146⟩of God heareth not us.
In the second place Ierome alone is brought to discredite so many Greek copies. Against whome (beside the great consent of the Greeke copies)1 we oppose the Syrian & Arabian Paraphrasis, Chrysostom, Theophilact, Oecumenius, & Basile, who thrise in one book doth so alledge it, as the copies supposed ⟨p. 144⟩to be falsified. And last of al, wee oppose Ierome himselfe: who for once alledging it thus for his benefite against2 his aduersarie in that booke, where the Papists themselues cannot denie, but he abused diuerse testimonies of th' Apostle shamefullie, alledgeth it twise as it is in the Greek copies, which they condemne. Let al men therefore iudge what a worthie proof this is, broght from Ierome to discredit these copies, which is contraried of so manie, and of himselfe: who after he was departed from his heate of disputation, to set downe what was more aggreable to the truth, then what serued best against his aduersarie, so readeth as we reade. Beside all this, some3 Greeke copies read as th' old translator doth. And therfore it is false which they say, that it is not in the Greeke. The third pretended corruption, standeth only vpon Socrates testimonie; who affirmeth that in the Greeke copies to be an haereticall corruption. Howe so? What one word is there in the Greek copies, that leaneth to the Nestorian ⟨p. 145⟩haeresie? What light footing thereof can you shew? If you can shew none, there is no likelie-hoode of haereticall corruption: considering that Nestorius voice, differing far more from Saint Iohns, then Iacobs did from Esaus, might euen of a blinde man haue beene discerned. Secondlie, the Greeke reading, falleth in farre better with the phrase and circumstance, then that which Socrates commendeth. For in the verse before Saint Iohn hath thus, Euerie Spirite that confesseth Iesus Christ to be come in the fleshe, is of God. Wherupon hee inferreth the wordes in question, that euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ to be come in the fleshe, is not of God. Where it is euident not only that this doth aptly answere in opposition▪ vnto the verse before: but that it keepeth the frame and phrase of speach, which is to amplifie, and deeplier to imprint one thing in the memorie of the hearer, by denyall of one proposition directly opposite vnto another. As in the 6. verse of the same chap. He that knoweth God, heareth vs, he that is not ⟨p. 146⟩
- 1Basil. lib. [Greek or Hebrew]Basil. lib. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉
- 2Hieron. aduersus Helbidium▪ & ad Eustoch de seruand. virginitate.
- 3Beza annotat. in hunc locum.
