A01760:554
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our own arguments [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the answers and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Morton ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.
Leiden: printed by W. Christiaens, 1637
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Lastly, if Tau be not put for a common appellative noun signifying a mark or sign, but for the figure or character of the letter Tau as an Image of the Cross, by all likelihood this character only should have been put in the Hebrew text, and not the noun fully written; Vehithvitha tau, and mark a mark. As to the other place, Revel. 7. 3. iPareus observeth, that there is no figure or form of any sign there expressed, and he thinks that seal was not outward and visible, but the same whereof we read 2. Tim. 2. 19. and Revel. 14. 1. ⟨p. 98⟩Which can no be interpreted de signo transeunte: nam Christianum semper nomen filij & patris in fronte opportet gerere, saith kJunius.
Lastly, if Tau be not put for a common appellative noune signifying a marke or signe, but for the figure or character of the letter Tau as an Image of the Crosse, by all likelyhood this character only should have been put in the Hebrew text, and not the noune fully written; Vehithvitha tau, and marke a marke. As to the other place, Revel. 7. 3. iPareus observeth, that there is no figure or forme of any signe there expressed, and he thinks that seale was not outward and visible, but the same whereof we read 2. Tim. 2. 19. and Revel. 14. 1. ⟨p. 98⟩Which can no be interpreted de signo transeunte: nam Christianum semper nomen filij & patris in fronte opportet gerere, saith