The Answer to the Preface of the Rhemish Testament, Part 18
To the tenth reaſon, and firſt to the proofe in the firſt ſection.
Th' originall copies of the newe Teſtament, are (by this paradoxe of the Ieſuites) leaſt beholden to Gods watchful prouidence, of all other writinges. For in all other learning the good liquor is beſt preſerued in the firſt tongue, as it were the firſt caske wherein it was put; and the water is alwaies ſweeter and holſommer in the fountaine, then in the ſtreames that ſtreame from it. Wherevpon it is holden by all learned conſent, that it is better to reade Plato, Ariſtotle, Xenophon, Euclide, and Galen, in Greek then in any language whereinto they hauehave bene turned, be th' interpreter neuer ſo wiſe and faithfull. And therefore (in their workes) the doubts which riſe of their meaning are voyded by their Greeke Copies, as by their higheſt court which taketh knowledg therof. Only in th' art of all artes, & learning of all learninges, which concerneth men ſo deeply, as al other knowledge (in cōpariſon) is ſcarce as one haire to the whole head: the prouidēce of God hath ſo ſlept, that therein th' originall as the gold is become ſiluer, and the olde tranſlator which would hardly goe for good ſiluer, is become the fineſt duplicate page duplicate page and pureſt golde. The prophane writers ſome hundreth yeares before the new Teſtament, hauehave bene maintained in that purenes, that their tranſlations, hauehave alwaies remained in ſubiection and obedience of their firſt copies, from whence they were drawn: only in th'original of the new Teſtament, the watchman of Iſraell hath ſo not ſlumbered only, but ſlept alſo: that that which was ſomtime the Ladie & Dame of all, is now become tributarie to th'olde tranſlator. Theſe are the golden cōſequēces of the leaden Ieſuites, which hovv brutiſh they be, let the reader iudge, of that vvhichwhich hath bene ſpoken in th'entrance to this queſtion. They might (vvith aſmuch truth) hauehave led the Lord himſelfe into captiuitie, and thraldome of th'olde tranſlator, as to put doun his ſcepter vvhichwhich is the new Teſtament in the Greeke tongue; by not ſuffering it to be born vp, in the preſence of th'olde tranſlator. But th'olde tranſlator himſelfe, from vvhence hath he receiued, the great welth & riches ſuppoſed to be in his tranſlation? from th'originall: for vvhat can they els anſvver? And hath they of Gods careful prouidence, bene more vponupon th'olde tranſlation, then vponupon th'originall: more vponupon a mans worde, then vponupon his owne. If therfore th'original, hauehave bene ſithence that time corrupted: hovv much more the tranſlation, that hath bene more the tranſlation, that hath bene dravven from it. It vvould require a booke by it ſelfe, to ſet forth the iudgment of th' fathers, directly fighting againſt the horrible blaſphemy of the Ieſuites: vvhichwhich olde fathers ſend men for reſolution of all doubtes, vntounto th'originall of the Greek for the new, & the Hebrew for th'olde Teſtament. Ierome ſpeaking hereof concludeth that the water of the fountaine, is to be beleued to flow more Hieron. aduerſus Heluidium Hieron. ad Li…tumpure, then that of the riuer or ſtreame. And againe as the truth of the bookes of the old teſtmēt, are to be examined by the Hebrew: ſo the bookes of the new Teſtament, require the triall of the Greeke: vvhichwhich ſentence Gratian citeth as it were out of Auguſtine. Diſtinct. 9 ad veter.Ambroſe ſpeaketh in a certaine place of the new teſtament, affirmethLib. 2. cap. 6 de ſpirit. ſanct. Auguſtine de ciuitate Dei lib. 15 cap. 13 Auguſt. in Pſal. 38 that th' authoritie of the Greek bookes, is to be preferred. Auguſtine ſaith, that we ought rather to beleue that tongue, from which it is (by interpreters) deriued into another. And againe, the former tongue expoundeth the later, & it is made certain and plain in one, that was doubtful in another. And if it be ſaide, that th' originall vvas then a virgin, vvhichwhich is ſithence defiled and deflovvred: vvhat reaſons can the Ieſuites alledge, vvhy the Hebrevv & the Greeke, vvhichwhich kept their integritie 400. years together after Chriſt, amiddeſt as bitter enemies, as euer they had, as troubleſome and tempeſteous times as euer vvere ſithence: ſhould after, in time of leſſe danger, & greater quiet, looſe not their beautie only but their chaſtitie alſo. And vve maruell that the Ieſuites are not afraide, to ſuffer this blot to fall vponupon their popiſh gouernment, vvhichwhich braggeth it ſelfe to be the piller of trueth, & yet hath had no better care to preſerue the truth. But th' abominable ſtinch of this blaſphemous opinion, vvill better appeare by the Ieſuites reaſones: vvhereby they hauehave raked, & ſtirred vp this dung of theirs. The firſt reaſon vvhereby they bring vp an euill report of th' undefiled virginity, of the Greeke originall: is that through multitude of hereticks riſing out of Grece it hath (as it vvere) loſte her maidenhead. But they remember not, that as many cloudes of haereſie roſe from thence, by occaſion of vvorldly vviſdome, & humane ſciences, vvherinto they (excelling) leaned rather then to the ſimplicity of the vvord: ſo there roſe from that ſame corner of the vvorld, great lights of Catholick doctrine, vvhereby thoſe miſtie cloudes vvere ſcattered. Neither was the diligence of the heretickes greater to deface them, then vvas the care of the Catholicks, to keepe them vndefaced. And ſeing they conuinced their hereſies out of the Scriptures, forſomuch as error is not confuted but by truth: it follovveth that if the falſifying of Copies by heretikes were proued; yet the ſame could be but in part, not ſo much as in the narrow compas of Grece, much leſſe in the vvide circuite of the vvorld, vvhere the Greek copies vvere ſpred, aſvvell as in Greece. And notvvithſtanding that there hauehave bene, for many 100. years, vveightie controuerſies betvveen the Greeke Church and the true, diuers alſo betvvene you and it: yet neither doe vve accuſe them, nor you are able to ſhevv one place of the new teſtament, vvhichwhich they hauehave attempted to corrupt for their aduantage, either in the proceeding of the holy Ghoſt, or in your ſole primate and vniuerſal Biſhop or othervviſe. This ſecuritie from incorruption of the Greeke Copies, is greatly ſtrenghtned by compariſon of the Lords ſafe conduct, giuen to th' originall Hebrevv for the ſpace of about a 1000. yeares, before the firſte comming of our Sauiour Chriſt. For hovvſoeuer that is alſo charged to be empaired and embaſed eyther throgh malice or negligence of thoſe that were put in truſt vvith the keeping thereof: yet the contrarie thereof is manifeſt. For men muſt conſider, who put them in truſt, not man which looketh only vponupon the preſent eſtate and face of men; but God himſelfe, which looketh into the ſecreteſtRom. 3 kidneyes of the heart, to diſcerne, not onelyonly ſuch as they were at the time wherein he committed his oracles vntounto them, but alſo what they ſhould be a thouſand yeares after. Whereupon it will be eaſie to vnderſtand, that if the Lord had eſpied any ſuch vnfaithfulneſſe in them of keeping thoſe euidences, whereupon the happy & good eſtate, not of them onelyonly, but of the great poſteritie of the Church depended, and whereby they ſhould hauehave both certaine & vndoubted entrance and ſeaſon of their inheritance; and finally, whereby they might confer the promiſes made vntounto the Fathers vnderunder the Lawe, with the full and exact accompliſhment of them in the Goſpel, he would hauehave made other choiſe of the Wardens of his bookes, then they were. And ſeeing the Law wentEſai 2 Iohn 4 out of Sion into all the world: it went forth pure & vndefiled, which otherwiſe had not beene the Lawe of God, but either of man, or man & God together. But what truſt the Iewes diſcharged herein, may appeare manifeſtlie in our Sauiour Chriſts time, of all other the moſt corrupt, yet was there no ſuch corruption of the text broghtMath. 5. 23 in, by either Phariſies, Sadduces, or any other the ſworne enemies of the trueth. For ſeeing our Sauiour taking them vp hotelie and ſharpely for corrupt interpretations which was petilarimie in regard of their famous robberies that ſhould change the text of the ſcripture: it is euident that if there had bene any ſuch church-robberie of raiſing the recordes, hee would hauehave made a ſcourge of Scorpions to hauehave laide vponupon their skinnes, for ſuch inſufferable treacherie. Yea when of the contrarie part he exhorteth the people to ſearche the Scriptures, ſuch as they were then: he alloweth them for theIohn 5. ſame, which the Prophetes had by diuine inſpiration left vntounto the Church. And this latter reaſon Origen vſeth toHicron. in cap. 6. Eſa. maintaine the perpetuall virginity of the Hebrew Text. As for their triflingIn the preface nomber 44. reaſons brought againſt in their diſcouerie of want and ſurpluſage, they are ſcarſe worth the naming. They alledg Pſalme 22. which they ſuppoſe to differ from the Euangeliſts words in Greek: whereas the Maſſorites doe witnes, that the moſte corrected copies hauehave, They pearſed my hands & feete, word for word with the Greeke. And your owne Genebrard Genebrard in Pſal. 21.will not hauehave the Iewes charged with any falſification in this place They further alledge, Pſal. 68. where there is no manner of difference of ſenſe, for the Hebrewe hauing Chriſt receaued gifts for men: doth in thoſe words declare manifeſtly that he gaue them vntounto men. For otherwiſe they could not hauehave bene to the vſe of men vnleſſe Chriſt had giuen. Howbeit in the very next vers there is added that God doth load vsus with gifts. So that the Hebrewe doeth not onelyonly tell vsus, that Chriſt gaue gifts, but that he gaue them as Mediatour, hauing receiued them. Beſide that it is knowne that the Apoſtles in alledging teſtimonies, doe not nomber the wordes but giuegive the waight of the ſentence, to which nombring of words, when not ſo much as tranſlators are alwaies (as it is ſaid) bound to; much leſſe were th'Apoſtles tyed vntounto it, which were no tranſlaters but expounders of the Scripturs. And all reaſonable men will iudge it good payment if for foure ſingle pence, he receaue a whole groate: or if th'opportunity ſo ſerue, eight ſingle half-pence. They proceed with the 40 Pſalme, where in ſtead of the Hebrew, Thou haſt pearced my eare, th'Apoſtle hath, Thou haſt prepared me a bodie. But they ought to hauehave vnderſtoode, that there is firſt a Trope of the part for the whole, which th'Apoſtle doth elegantly expres, when for the eare he ſetteth down the body. Secondly, they ſhould knowe that there is a manifeſt Metaphore in the worde pearcing vſed of the Prophet, which being drawn from the law, prouyding that the ſeruant which would willingly giuegive himſelf ouer to a perpetuall and whole ſeruice of his maiſter, ſhould ſo be ſerued: ſignifieth an inabling of the Prophet, for a willing obedience to be giuen vntounto the Lord. And therefore this Metaphore is elegantly expounded by th'Apoſtle when he ſaith, Thou hast prepared and fitted me a body, without the which our ſauiour Chriſt could not hauehave beene the ſeruant of God, to any ſuch purpoſe as he was ordayned. So that if as Dauid by Chriſt, ſo Chriſt for Dauid, muſte bring not a legall ſacrifice, but his ears bored through, that is, a bodie obedient vntounto the death: men may eaſilie ſee, that th'Apoſtle did expound and make plaine that, vvhichwhich vvas ſomewhat obſcure in the Prophete, whoſe ſenſe (and not whoſe words) he alledged. Further they alledge, 2. Chron. 28. 19. Achas King of Iſrael, for King of Iuda. As if they ought to be ignorant, that the place where Achas was buried, was firſt the place where the kings of Iſrael, that is, of the twelue tribes were buried, or euer it was the place of the kings of Iuda only. And if they had marked it, they ſhuld eaſily hauehave knowne both the Prophet Ieremie andLamé. 2. 2 Rom. 9. 4. 17. & 10. 21. & 11. 7. 16. & 29. 10. & 3. 1. & 29. th'Apoſtle to containe Iuda vnderunder Iſrael, and contrariwiſe Iſrael vnderunder Iuda. And the vulgare according vntounto the Hebrew in the laſt verſe, readeth, in the ſepulchres of the Kings of Iſrael. And as ignorance of the ſtory of the Scripture, deceiued you here: ſo in the next the ignorance of the tongue abuſeth you. For 1. Chron. 2. 18. that which you turne out of the Hebrewe, hee begat Azubah his wife and Ierioth: is falſlie and ignorantlie tranſlated. For ETH the particle, there is not a note of the accuſatiue caſe: but is a praepoſition, and ſignifieth that he begate of Azubah his wife, &c. as is confirmed by other places, vvhere it is ſo taken. AsGen. 44. 4 Ezech. 6. 9 for that out of 2. Reg. 24. 19. of putting brother for vncle, it argueth you vtterlie vnacquainted with the Scriptures in any tongue, ſeing the word brother is generall for all kinſmen both in the olde and new Teſtament. WheruponGeneſ. 13 Matth. 12. 16. 47 Abraham is called Lots brother, as your vulgar printed by Plantine 1576. himſelfe readeth; and ſo our Sauiour Chriſt is ſaide to hauehave brethren. Whereupon it is euident, howe free the Hebrew is from corruption: when th'obiections againſt it are ſo friuolous as nothing can be more. And as this is eaſy to conceiue of al that know the Church (which vntounto that tyme was alvvaies ſealed amongſt them) to be the piller of truth: ſo it ſhall much1. Tim. 3 more be ſetled firmely in their breaſt, if the Iewes carefull minde and indeuour of keeping the Hebrewe text fithence the time of their falling away, be conſidered. Which appeareth not onelie in that the greateſt teſtimonies vvritten by th'Apoſt. & Euangeliſtes (for the proof of Ieſus to be the Chriſt doe remaine as they vvere alledged: but alſo by the teſtimony of th'auncient Fathers 400. yeares after Chriſt,Hieron. in 6. cap. Eſ. Auguſt. de ciuita. Dei lib. 15, c. 13 Hier. epiſt. 74. ad Mar cel. Look in his epiſtle of diuers readings. vvhichwhich beare vvitneſſe to their innocencie heerein. Your owne men are nowe as much aſhamed of you in this charge of th'Ebrewe Text, as Ierome vvas of ſome in his time, charging the Hebrew as you doe. Look Arias Montanus vvhichwhich defendeth the Ievves innocencie in this behalfe. Looke Lucas Franciſ. lu eae Burg. an not at in ſa era Biblia. Looke alſo his epiſt. ad Cardinal. Sirlet.Burgenſis, hovv he defendeth the Hebrew againſt the vulgar Latin, where he cannot reconcile them. Read Iohn Iſaak a Popiſhe Ievve, againſt Lindan. Now let them anſvvere vvhether the Lordes care be not as great to keepe the newe Teſtament, as to keepe the olde: vvhether it be not as great to keep thoſe vvords vvhichwhich he ſpake by his ſonne, as it vvas to keepe thoſeHebr. 1. vvhichwhich he ſpake by his ſeruants. Finallie, whether he keepeth not his wrytings, as ſafelie by the Church, which is his friend, as hee keepeth it by the ſynagogue vvhichwhich is his enemie. Laſt of al, let the good reader vnderſtand, that this Popiſh allegation, is a verie haereticall practiſe, and ſhameleſſe ſhift of the deceauers of Gods people.Hieron. aduerſus Hel. bidium Hieron. For thus Ierome chargeth Helbidius, that he quarrelled with the truth of the copies, & did moſt fooliſhly perſwade himſelfe, that the Greeke bookes were falſified. The like practiſe vſed the monſtrous hereſie of theAuguſt. ad Hieron. epiſt. 19 Manichees, of vvhome Auguſtine vvryteth thus. The Manichees not able to wreſt many places of the holie Scripture, whereby they are moſte euidentlie conuinced; affirme the ſame to be falſe: yet ſo, that they attribute the ſame not to the Apoſtles which wrot them, but I knowe not to what other, which afterward corrupted them. Which becauſe they cannot proue, neither by the moſt copies, nor by the moſt auncient, nor by th'authority of the former tongue (from which the Latine bookes were tranſlated) they are confounded, &c. We may be bolde therefore to range you vnderunder the banner of heretickes, vvhichwhich beare their proper marke and recogniſance.
But let vsus come to the particular places, ſuppoſed to be corrupted. Wherein let the reader obſerue, firſt that to diſcredite nombers of the Greek Copies, reading as we do, they bring but th'authoritie of one only Doctor. For although in the third place they alledge the corruption, from the Tripartite ſtorie and Socrates: yet it being known, that the tripartite ſtory gathereth that which he writeth out of Socrates: vnderunder two authors there is but one authoritie. Which may alſo be ſaid of the ſecond places, where th' authors alledged ar not eye witneſſes, but hang al of the report of th' olde tranſlator. And if in Gods law, the witnes of one man is not ſufficient to take away a mans life: much leſſe may one mans witnes take away the life and authoritie of Gods word, which (without that witnes) ſhould vndoutedly be ſo taken. And if we ſhould weigh th' olde tranſlator with ſuch weightes; we might with far more right, daſh out a great part of your tranſlator, in th' olde Teſtament: Euen ſo much as he differeth and diſſentethIre. lib. 3 cap. 25 Tertul. apolog. c. 18. 19 H…l. pſal. 2 Auguſt de …iuit. Dei lib. 15. c. … in from the 70. interpreters. For there is a great conſent of th' old fathers, that the interpretation of the 70. interpreters in greek was written by the ſame ſpirit wherewith the Prophets wrote in Hebrew. Secondly it is to be obſerued that in proouing the Greeke copies in three places to be corrupted, by the Greeke heretikes: they alledg for two of thoſe places Latine writers and Latine tranſlators, ſuch as were vſed in the Latin Church: ſo that if the teſtimonies proue any thing of the corruption of th' originall; it proueth it more againſt the Latine, then againſt the Greeke Church. For notwithſtanding that Marcion were Greek born: yet was not his hereſie begoten in Greece, but in Rome, after that his father (being a Biſhop) had for his lewd behauiour caſt him out of the Church, in his natiue countrie. And ſeeing Rome taketh vponupon her, to be the piller of truth, and the Lords librarie: whatſoeuer can be proued of the corruption of th' originall, ſhall by their owne doctrine returne to the further diſcredite of the Latine, then of the Greeke Church. Now touching the firſt example of Marcions corruption: you doe belie Tertullian, and that in two ſortes. For firſt Tertullian ſaieth not, that the truth is as it is in ye vulgar. For Tertullian himſelfe readeth otherwiſe then the vulgar, after this ſort. The firſt man Tertu… a… reſurrection… carn…s.of th' earth earthy, that is ſlimie, which is Adam. The ſecond man is from heauen, that is the word of God, which is Chriſt, leauing out heauenly, which the vulgare hathCyprian de zelo & li…or & aduerſus ludaeos & a. libi. and you ſtriue for. And ſo his ſcholler Cyprian readeth. Secondly you falſifye him, for that he doth not ſay (as you ſuppoſe of him) that the Greek text which is now, is Marcions corruption. For ſo ſhould he hauehave accuſed himſelfe, aſwell as Marcion: conſidering that himſelf alſo departeth from that which is in the vulgar. Indeed Marcion had corrupted the place, by leauing out (man) in the ſecond place; therby to help his haereſie of th' untruth of Chriſts manhood. It may alſo be gathered, that Tertullian liked not the word Lord; but eſteemed it, a corruption of Marcion. This is therefore novv the queſtion, vvhether Lord in that place, be the true or heretical reading Firſt therefore let them ſhevv vsus, hovv this reading doth maintayn (in any ſort) the hereſie of Marcion: conſidering that the Greek hath (vvith full conſent) the ſecond man, which Marcion left out, vvherby the humanity of Chriſt is plainly eſtabliſhed. And it appeareth that the vulgar trāſlation, hath more coulour of that hereſie, thē the Greek reading. For he might hauehave eaſier abuſed the vulgare, to proue that Chriſt broght his fleſh from heauē; then he can do the Greek. And as the Greek reading is further from the hereſie of Marcion, then the vulgar: ſo it is (in diuers reſpects) more proper; both for the generall analogie of the true doctrine of the perſon of Chriſt, and for the circumſtance of that particular place. For firſt the Greek reading, containeth a notable teſtimony of the two natures of our Sauiour Chriſt, in th' unitie of one perſon; which the vulgar doth not ſo manifeſtly expreſſe. Secondly th' oppoſition of Adam from th' earth, and of Chriſt the Lord from heauen: is much fuller and liuelier: conſidering that he might hauehave bene both from heauen and heauenly, and yet hauehave bene but a naked creature as th' Angels. Thirdly the Greeke copies did not ſhunne the word heauenly, which Marcion is ſuppoſed to hauehave of purpoſe avoyded: conſidering that they call Chriſt heauenly. For in the next two verſes the Greek copies (with full conſent) apply the word heauenly vntounto Chriſt. Therfore the Greeke copies ſhunned not this worde heauenly in ſpeaking of Chriſt: but reſerued it vntounto a fitter place. For hauing in the former verſe called Chriſt the Lord from heauen: in the verſes following, he might (without danger) call him heauenly: whereas if he had not ſent that title of the Lord from heauen before, he might hauehave bene thought to hauehave bene called heauenly, in reſpect of the place, he came from, as the firſt man is called earthly in regard of the earth from whence he was taken. Again ſeing that Marcion did corruptly alledg verſe 45, as plainly appeareth by Tertullian, which corruption is not in the Greeke: there is no liklie-hood that one of the corruptions of Marcion ſhould continew in the Greeke, more thē th' other. Moreouer the Syrian & Arabian paraphraſis, auncienter then was Marcions reading as the Greek copies doe: it is euident that either Marcion brought not in this reading (of the Lord) or els he brought it in long before he was borne. Laſt of all ſeing the Greeke Fathers ſo reade, aLib. de orthod. fide cap. 3Damaſcene bIn … locu…Chryſoſtome, Theophilact, Oecumenius, al which deteſted the haereſy of Marcion: either this is no corruption, or elſe theſe learned mens noſes were ſtuffed, which coulde neuer ſmell the ſauour of any Marcioniſine. And althogh diuerſe ancient and other writers, accuſtoming themſelues to the reading of the vulgare tranſlation, followed it in this point, becauſe there is no manifeſt repugnance in it, to any article of faith: yet that is no let, but that this may bee (as indeede it is) the trueth, which is found in Greek copies, and not that which is in th' old tranſlator.
In the ſecond place Ierome alone is brought to diſcredite ſo many Greek copies. Againſt whome (beſide the great conſent of the Greeke copies)Baſil. lib. foreign we oppoſe the Syrian & Arabian Paraphraſis, Chryſoſtom, Theophilact, Oecumenius, & Baſile, who thriſe in one book doth ſo alledge it, as the copies ſuppoſed to be falſified. And laſt of al, wee oppoſe Ierome himſelfe: who for once alledging it thus for his benefite againſtHieron. aduerſus Helbidium▪ & ad Euſtoch de ſeruand. virginitate. 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, ſomeBeza annotat. in hunc locum. 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 vponupon 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 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 hauehave 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 eueryevery 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▪ vntounto 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 vntounto another. As in the 6. verſe of the ſame chap. He that knoweth God, heareth vsus, he that is not of God heareth not vsus. Againe in the 7. verſe, Whoſoeuer loueth is of God & knoweth God; he that loueth not, knoweth not god. Likewiſe 1. Epiſt. chap. 5. verſe 10, & verſe 12, &c. Thirdly, it is plaine that he which ſaith that Chriſt came in the fleſhe, condemneth him that diſſolueth Chriſt: ſo that it was to no purpoſe to change it ſo. Laſte of all, if we would examine your alone witnes in this cace, by the ſame lawe that your companion examineth the doubleCopus dialog. 1. pag. 154. witneſſe of Socrates and Sozomene, in the caſe of Paphnutius commendation of the miniſters marriage: wee might vtterlie diſ-able him, and throwe him from the bar. Who (to diſcredite the trueth of this ſtorie) ſaieth thus. The thing dependeth of Socrates and Sozomene, whereof th'one was a Nouatian, th'other greatlie extolled Theodorus whome the fifth Synod condemned. And a litle before, affirmeth it to hauehave ben a tale of th'Arrians, or of ſome vnchaſte perſons. Nowe if Socrates were not (as your man ſaieth) to beare witnes in the matter of Paphnutius: howe commeth it that you lift vp his credite ſo high, as not alone to counteruaile, but to praeuaile againſt ſo full a conſent of the Greek copies.