Would someone be willing to check the accuracy of my translation here. Especially what the difference is between "Archetypo et Ectypo" and "Archetypa et Ectypa." Text is:
Ac primo quidem non stabo in vestibulo, qui Theologorum quorundam mos est, ut vocis etymon inquiram. Nimis hoc exile ac vernile est, planeque alterius Scholae. Philologi & Grammatici istam pulpam sibi habeant. Et quorsum foret istud? In tota Scriptura vox ista Theologiae non est, & ea fortasse multis ineptis & male sanis cogitationibus ansam dedit. Nec dicam operose de Theologiae, quas vocant, speciebus, in quas Theologiam analogice dividere quidam solent, videlicet de Archetypo et Ectypo, sive ut barbare quidam loquuntur, Archetypa et Ectypa.
My translation is:
And first, I will not stand at the entrance as is the practice of some theologians in order that I may examine the etymon (etymology) of the word. This is overly strict and servile and clearly belongs to another School. Philologists and Grammarians may keep that pulp for themselves. But why should this be? The word is not in the entire Scripture and it has perhaps given occasion for many inept and unsound thoughts. I will not speak elaborately about what certain men call the "kinds" of theology, namely, about the Archetype and Ectype, into which they often divide theology analogically, or as certain men barbarously call them, Archetypal theology and Ectypal theology.
Ac primo quidem non stabo in vestibulo, qui Theologorum quorundam mos est, ut vocis etymon inquiram. Nimis hoc exile ac vernile est, planeque alterius Scholae. Philologi & Grammatici istam pulpam sibi habeant. Et quorsum foret istud? In tota Scriptura vox ista Theologiae non est, & ea fortasse multis ineptis & male sanis cogitationibus ansam dedit. Nec dicam operose de Theologiae, quas vocant, speciebus, in quas Theologiam analogice dividere quidam solent, videlicet de Archetypo et Ectypo, sive ut barbare quidam loquuntur, Archetypa et Ectypa.
My translation is:
And first, I will not stand at the entrance as is the practice of some theologians in order that I may examine the etymon (etymology) of the word. This is overly strict and servile and clearly belongs to another School. Philologists and Grammarians may keep that pulp for themselves. But why should this be? The word is not in the entire Scripture and it has perhaps given occasion for many inept and unsound thoughts. I will not speak elaborately about what certain men call the "kinds" of theology, namely, about the Archetype and Ectype, into which they often divide theology analogically, or as certain men barbarously call them, Archetypal theology and Ectypal theology.
