A01760:333
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.
Hooker hath been of opinion, that the holy days were so advanced above other days by Gods great and extraordinary works done upon them, that they should have been holier then other days, even albeit the Church had not appointed them to be kept holy. Yet B. Lindsey would have us believe, that they think them holy, only because of the Churches consecration of them to holy Political uses. But that now at last, I may make it appear to all that have common sense, how falsely (though frequently) it is given forth by the Bishop, that holy days are kept by them only for order and policy, and that they are not so superstitious, as to appropriate the worship to those days, or to observe them for mystery and as holier then other days.
Hooker hath bene of opinion, that the holy dayes were so advanced above other dayes by Gods great and extraordinary workes done upon them, that they should have bene holyer then other dayes, even albeit the Church had not appointed them te be keeped holy. Yet B. Lindsey would have us believe, that they thinke them holy, onely because of the Churches consecration of them to holy Politicall uses. But that now at last, I may make it appeare to all that have common sense, how falsely (though frequently) it is given forth by the Bishop, that holy dayes are kept by them onely for order and policie, and that they are not so superstitious, as to appropriate the worship to those dayes, or to observe them for mistery and as holier then other dayes.
First, I require the B. to show us a difference betwixt the keeping Sect. 10 of holy days by formalists, & their keeping of the Lords day: for upon holy days they enjoin a cessation from work, and a dedicating of the day to Divine worship, even as upon the Lords day. The kBishop allegeth five respects of difference, but they are not true. First, he saith, that the Lords day is commanded to be observed of necessity, for conscience of the Divine ordinance, as a day sanctified and blessed by God himself. Answ. 1. so have we heard from Hooker, that holy days are sanctified by Gods extraordinary works, but because the B dare not say so much, therefore I say. 2. This difference can not show us, that they observe holy days only for order and policy, and that they place no worship in the observing of them, as in the observing of the Lords day, (which is the point that we require) for worship is placed in the observing of humane, as well as of Divine ordinances; otherwise worship hath never been placed in the keeping of Pharisaical and Popish traditions. This way is worship placed in the keeping of holy days, when for conscience of an humane ordinance, they are both kept as holy, and thought necessary to be so kept. 3. The B. contradicteth himself, for