A01760:141
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.
whereas even whiles an action commanded in an affirmative precept, ceaseth not to be good, yet the affirmative precept bindeth not to all times. So that the rule is not crossed by the alleged examples; for Davids eating of the shewbread; the Priests labour upon the Sabbath; and Pauls casting of the goods into the sea; were not evil, but good actions (the kind of the action being changed by the circumstances.) In the mean time, the foresaid rule still crosseth Mr. Sprints tenet. For he holdeth, that even whiles certain Ceremonies remain evil in their use, and cease not to be scandalous and inconvenient, yet we are not ever bound to abstain from them, but may in the case of deprivation practise them. Which directly contradicteth the rule.
whereas even whiles an action commanded in an affirmative precept, ceaseth not to be good, yet the affirmative precept bindeth not to all times. So that the rule is not crossed by the alledged examples; for Davids eating of the shewbread; the Priests labour upon the Sabbath; and Pauls casting of the goods into the sea; were not evill, but good actions (the kind of the action beeing changed by the circumstances.) In the meane time, the foresaid rule still crosseth Mr. Sprints tenet. For he holdeth, that even whiles certaine Ceremonies remaine evill in their use, and cease not to be scandalous and inconvenient, yet we are not ever bound to abstaine from them, but may in the case of deprivation practise them. Which directly contradicteth the rule.
The position therefore which we maintain against Mr. Sprint, and Sect. VI from which we will not depart the breadth of one nail, is this, that we can never lawfully conform (no not in the case of deprivation) unto any Ceremony which is scandalous and inconvenient in the use of it. For further confirmation whereof, we say, 1. Every negative precept of the Law of God bindeth to all times, in such sort, that the action which it forbiddeth, (so long as it remaineth evil, & the kind of it is not changed,) can never lawfully be done. Therefore, forasmuch as to abstain from things scandalous and inconvenient, is one of the negative precepts of the Law of God; and the Ceremonies whereunto Mr. Sprint would have us to conform in the case of deprivation are, and remain scandalous and inconvenient in our practise and use of them, according to his own presupposall; It followeth, that the use and practise of the same is altogether unlawful unto us. 2. That which is lawful in the nature of it, is never lawful in the use of it, except only when it is expedient for edification, as teacheth the Apost.