A01760:108
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.
Thus we see, how the Apostles reasons hold good against our Sect. IV Holy-days: let us see next, what respects of difference the B. can imagine to evidence, wherefore the judaical days may be thought condemned by the Apostle, and not ours. He deviseth a double respect: and first ghe tells us, that the Jewish observation of days, was to a typical use, and whereas it is objected by us, that the converted Jews did not observe them as shadows of things to come, because then they had denied Christ: he answereth thus. Howbeit the converted Jews did not observe the Jewish days, as shadows of things to come, yet they might have observed them, as memorials of bypast temporal and typical benefits, and for present temporal blessings, as the benefit of their delivery out of Egypt, and for the fruits of the earth, which use was also typical. Ans. 1. This is his own conjecture only, therefore he himself propoundeth it doubtfully, for he dare not say, they did observe them as memorials, &c. but, they might have observed: to which guessing, if I reply, they might also not have observed them as memorials of those bypast or present benefits, we say as much against him, and as truly, as he hath said against us. 2. His form of reasoning is very uncouth, for to prove, that the observation of days by the converted Jews was to a typical use, he allegeth, that they might have observed, &c. Thus proving a position by a supposition. o brave! 3. There is no sense in his conjecture, for he yields, that they did not observe those days, as shadows of things to come, and yet he saith, they might have observed them as memorials of by past typical benefits: now they could not observe those ⟨p. 29⟩days as memorials of types, except they observed them also, as shadowing forth the antitypes. Pentecost saith hDavenant, & illa legis datae celebratio, Spiritus Sancti missionem, & legis in tabulis cordium per cundem Spiritum inscriptionem, adumbravit. Scenopegiae festum peregrinationem hominis pij per hoc mundi desertum ad caelestem patriam delineabat, &c. So that the Feast of Pentecost, if it had been observed, as a memorial of the promulgation of the Law, could not but shadow forth the sending of the holy Spirit into our hearts, to write the Law in them.
Thus we see, how the Apostles reasons hold good against our Sect. IV Holy-dayes: let us see next, what respects of difference the B. can imagine to evidence, wherefore the judaicall dayes may be thought condemned by the Apostle, and not ours. He deviseth a double respect: and first