A01760:280
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 2. It is fall which he saith, for kneeling in receiving the Communion, is in its own nature evil and Idolatrous, because religious Adoration, before a mere creature, which purposely we set before us in the act of adoring, to have state in the worship, especially if it be an actual Image in that act representing Christ to us, (such as the Bread in the act of receiving,) draweth us within the compass of coadoration or relative worship, as shall be copiously proven afterwards.
But 2. It is falle which he saith, for kneeling in receiving the Communion, is in its owne nature evill and Idolatrous, because religious Adoration, before a mere creature, which purposly wee set before us in the act of adoring, to have state in the worship, especially if it be an actuall Image in that act representing Christ to us, (such as the Bread in the act of receiving,) draweth us within the compasse of coadoration or relative worship, as shall be copiously proven afterwards.
Other of the Ceremonies that are not evil in their own nature, yet were devised to evil, for example, the Surplice. The qreplier to Dr. Mourton's Particular defence, observeth, that this superstition about apparel in Divine worship, began first among the French Bishops, unto whom Caelestinus writeth thus. Discernendi, &c. We are to be distinguished from the common people and others, by Doctrine, not by Garment, by Conversation, not by Habit, by the Purity of mind, not by Attire: for if we study to innovation, we tread underfoot the order which hath been delivered unto us by our Fathers, to make place to idle superstitions; wherefore we ought not lead the minds of the Faithful into such things: for they are rather to be instructed then played withal: neither are we to blind and beguile their eyes, but to infuse instructions into their minds. In which words Caelestinus reprehends this apparel, as a novelty which •nded to superstition, and made way to the mocking and deceiving of the faithful.
Other of the Ceremonies that are not evill in their owne nature, yet were devised to evill, for example, the Surplice. The