A01760:140
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.
Do they not dput this clause in the very definition of Ecclesiastical Rites, that they be profitably ordained; considering, that otherwise they are but intolerable misorders and abuses? Do they not teach, ethat no idle Ceremony, which serveth not unto edifying, is to be suffered in the Church; and fthat Godly brethren are not holden to subject themselves unto such things, as they perceive neither to be right nor profitable? gThat whatsoever either would scandalize our brother, or not be profitable to him for his edification, Christians for no respect must dare to meddle with it? Do they not stand so much upon expediency, that this tenet is received with them? That the negative precepts of the Law, do bind, not only at all times, but likewise to all times, (whereupon it followeth, that we may never do that which is inconvenient or scandalous,) And that the affirmative precepts though they bind at all times yet not to all times, but only quando expedit; (Whereupon it followeth, that we are never bound to the practise of any duty commanded in the Law of God, except only when it is expedient to be done?) But hMr. Sprint excepteth against this rule, that it is not generally true; for evidence whereof, he allegeth many things, partly false, partly impertinent, upon which I hold it not needful, here to insist. As for such examples objected by him, as carry some show of making against this rule, which he dare not ⟨p. 9⟩admit, I will make some answer thereto. He saith, that some times even negative precepts have been lawfully violated: for these precepts were negative; none but Priests must eat show-bread, yet David did lawfully violate it: Thou shall do no work upon the Sabbath; yet the Priests brake this, and are blameless: let nothing of Gods good creatures be lost; yet Paul and his company did lawfully cast away their goods in the ship, to save their lives, &c. Ans. Mr. Sprint might easily have understood, that when Divines say, the affirmative precepts bind at all times, but not to all times, the negative precepts both at all times; and to all times, they ever mean, specie actionis manente eadem: so long as a action forbidden in a negative precept, ceaseth not to be evil, as long the negative precept bindeth to all times: