A15061:413
An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written
An answer to a certain book, written by Master William Rainolds student of divinity in the English college at Rhemes, and entitled, A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cavils, etc. by William Whitaker ...An answere to a certeine booke, written by Maister William Rainolds student of diuinitie in the English colledge at Rhemes, and entituled, A refutation of sundrie reprehensions, cauils, etc. by William Whitaker ...
Printed at London : For Thomas Chard, 1585
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.
The third observation is,1 that the Greek testaments oftentimes omit that, which they should not. Examples in Luc. Chap. 1. v. 35. and Chapter. 17. v. 36. For the first, you might have found, that in many greek copies now extant and used, the words [Greek or Hebrew] of thee, are not omitted, and that hath Beza noted, and therefore supplied those ⟨p. 332⟩words in the greek of the last Genevian edition. Your reproach of Anabaptism is ridiculous. The same may be answered of the second. For that 3 6. verse of Luc. 17. is extant in sundry greek editions, as well as in your latin translation. But what maketh all this to purpose? Conclude hereof an argument, if you can, that therefore the greek testament is more corrupted, then the latin. What a pitiful syllogism will this be, that must severally of these places be concluded, that therefore the greek testament is more corrupt, then the latin vulgar edition, because the latin is in some places not so faulty, as some Greek copies either are, or have been supposed to be.
The third obseruation is,1 that the Greeke testaments oftentimes omit that, which they should not. Examples in Luc. Chap. 1. v. 35. and Chapter. 17. v. 36. For the first, you might haue found, that in many greeke copies now extant and vsed, the wordes 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 of thee, are not omitted, and that hath Beza noted, and therefore supplyed those ⟨p. 332⟩wordes in the greeke of the last Geneuian edition. Your reproche of Anabaptisme is ridiculous. The same maie be answered of the second. For that 3 6. verse of Luc. 17. is extant in sundrie greeke editions, as well as in your latine translation. But what maketh all this to purpose? Conclude hereof an argument, if you can, that therfore the greeke testament is more corrupted, then the latine. What a pitifull syllogisme will this be, that must seuerallie of these places be concluded, that therfore the greeke testament is more corrupt, then the latine vulgar edition, because the latine is in some places not so faulty, as some Greeke copies either are, or haue bene supposed to be.