A01760:568
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.
If we will make the text agree well with it self, how can we but take both these for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Secondly, saith he, the bond of it reacheth to all that religioni eorum voluerunt copulari vers. 27. then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need any Joining in religion for a matter of good fellowship?
Jf we will make the text agree well with it self, how can we but take both these for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Secondly, saith he, the bond of it reacheth to all that religioni eorum voluerunt copulari vers. 27. then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need any Ioyning in religion for a matter of good fellowship?
Answ. there is no word in the text of religion. our English translation reads it, all such as joined them selves unto them. Montanus, omnes adjunctos. Tremellius, omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis. The old latin version reads it indeed as the Bishop doeth.
Answ. there is no word in the text of religion. our English translation reads it, all such as joyned them selves unto them. Montanus, omnes adjunctos. Tremellius, omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis. The old latine version reads it indeed as the Bishop doeth.
But no such thing can be drawn out of the word hannilvim, which is taken from the radix lava, signifying simply and without any ⟨p. 100⟩any adjection, adhaesit, or adjunxit see. But let it be so, that the text meaneth only such as were to adjoin themselves to the religion of the Jews; yet why might not the Jews have taken upon them a matter of civility, not only for themselves, but for such also as were to be joined with them in religion? Could there be nothing promised for Proselytes but only a matter of religion?