A01760:142
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.
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. 1. Cor. 6. 12. & 10. 23. The Corinthians objected that all indifferent things were lawful iThe Apostle addeth a limitation, esse licita quatenus conducunt, they are lawful to be used in so far as they are expedient. 3. It is the Apostles commandment, klet all things be done unto edifying: Therefore whatsoever ⟨p. 10⟩is not done unto edifying, ought not to be done. 4. lThe Apostle saith, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth. Now put the case the Apostle had been hindered from preaching the Gospel, for his precise abstaining from those meats, whereat his brother would be offended, would he in that case have eaten? Nay, he saith peremptory, that whiles the world standeth he would not eat. 5. Say not mour Writers, that we must flee and abstain from every thing which is not expedient for the edification of our brother? And doth not the Bishop of