A18082:90
Sin theoni en christoni the answer to the preface of the Rhemish Testament. By…Syn theōi en christōi the ansvvere to the preface of the Rhemish Testament. By…
Sin theoni en christoni the answer to the preface of the Rhemish Testament. By T. Cartwright.Syn theōi en christōi the ansvvere to the preface of the Rhemish Testament. By T. Cartwright.
Edinburgh: printed by Robert Walde-grave, 1602Edinburgh: printed by Robert Walde-graue, 1602
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.
To the next section.
The Jesuits in knocking their heads against the original copies, have lost even the common sense & understanding of a man. For to prove that we (in many places) have left the Greek to follow the vulgar translation: they have not brought so much as one place, wherein Master Beza hath not showed that he followed better •ight, then that which he had of the old translator. In some places many Greek copies, in every place some one or other Greek copy, and that of singular note: beside the Syrian paraphrast ancienter then the old translator. And if Master Beza being but one man, was able (by the provision he had made of copies) to warrant his interpretation by one Greek book at the least: it is evident, that if it had been possible for him to have gotten ⟨p. 148⟩all the Greek copies in his study; he should have been able to have performed it more plentifully. Touching the first place Heb. 9. 1. It is false, that either M. Beza, or we have followed the vulgar, who translateth that place doubtfully. For his word former may aswell agree with the copies, which read the first Tabernacle, as with the first covenant. And Master Beza showeth that both Photius the Greek interpreter, and the Syrian Paraphrast, as also the Greek copy of Clermont read as the copy which the vulgar followed. And because both the discourse of the former chapter, and the direction of the verse next going before, argueth that this word former is referred to the covenant. Therefore (for more plainness) we put covenant in small letter▪ Which was so much more needful to be done, as certain readings join this word with Tabernacle. And yet because we are entered into question of this place, we will not fear to set down what we think in this case. Which is that (saving riper judgement) ⟨p. 149⟩the consent of the Greek copies in the word [Greek or Hebrew] may well and ought to be retained: not in proper signification, but in a Trope of the part for the whole outward and ceremonial worship of God: even as the writer of the Hebrews doeth afterward use it, where he sayeth, that we