A01760:271
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.
But 4. If we were malicious in offending at the Ceremonies as things unlawful, and in urging of Non-conformity as necessary, should they therefore contemn our being scandalized? Those that would have Titus circumcised, were they not malicious? Did they not urge Circumcision as necessary? Held they it not unlawful, not to circumcise Titus? yet did the Apostle abstain, because they were to be scandalized, that is, made worse and more wicked calumniators, by the circumcising of Titus, as hI have showed; so that albeit we are not to care for the displeasing of men, that maliciously and contumaciously, urge (as necessary) abstaining from that which is lawful to be done; yet must we care for scandalizing them and making them worse: rather ere that be, we ought to abstain from the use of our liberty.
But 4. If we were malitious in offending at the Ceremonies as things unlawfull, and in urging of Non-conformity as necessary, should they therefore contemne our beeing scandalized? Those that would have Titus circumcised, were they not malitious? Did they not urge Circumcision as necessary? Held they it not unlawfull, not to circumcise Titus? yet did the Apostle abstaine, because they were to be scandalized, that is, made worse and more wicked calumniators, by the circumcising of Titus, as hI have shewed; so that albeit wee are not to care for the displeasing of men, that malitiously and contumaciously, urge (as necessary) abstaining from that which is lawfull to be done; yet must we care for scandalizing them and making them worse: rather ere that be, we ought to abstaine from the use of our liberty.
- hsupra cap. 8. sect. 6.
5. If an Ecclesiastical decree had commanded Paul at that time ⟨p. 46⟩