A01760:242
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.
It will be said, that they are to be thought obstinate, who after a reason given, are still scandalized. But the answer is in readinesse, iFieri potest ut quidam nondum sint capaces rationis redditae, qui idcirco quamvis ratio sit illis reddita, habendi sunt adhuc pro pusillis. They are rather to be thought obstinate in scandalizing, who perceiving the scandal to remain notwithstanding of their reason given, yet for all that, take not away the occasion of the scandal. But say ksome, whoever ought to be esteemed weak, or not capable of reason, Ministers must not be so thought of. Whereunto I answer with Didoclavius; Infirmitatem in doctiores cadere posse, neminem negaturum puto, & superiorum temporum historia de dimicatione inter doctores Ecclesiae, ob Ceremonias, 3idipsum probat. Parati etiam sunt coram Deo testari se non posse acquiescere in Formalistarum foliis ficulneis. The reason which they give us commonly, is Will and Authority; or if at any time they give another reason, it is such a one as can not clear nor resolve our consciences. But let their reasons be so good as any can be, shall we be thought obstinate for being offended not with standing of their reason? Dare they say that those who contended so much of old about the Celebration of Easter, and about the Fast of the Sabbath, were not weak, but obstinate & malicious, after a reason was given? Why consider they not, mthat men may for their science be profitable ministers, and yet fail of that measure of prudency whereby to judge of a particular use of indifferent things.
It will be said, that they are to be thought obstinate, who after a reason given, are still scandalized. But the answere is in readinesse, iFieri potest ut quidam nondum sint capaces rationis redditae, qui idcirco quamvis ratio sit illis reddita, habendi sunt adhuc pro pusillis. They are rather to be thought obstinate in scandalizing, who perceiving the scandall to remaine notwithstanding of their reason given, yet for all that, take not away the occasion of the scandall. But say