A01760:358
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.
Thus having both explained and confirmed the proposition Sect. 7 of our present argument, I will make me next for the confutation of the answers, which our opposites devise to elude it. And first, they tell us, that it is needless to abolish utterly, things and Rites which the Papists have abused to Idolatry and superstition, and that it is enough to purge them from the abuse; and to restore them again to their right use. Hence bSaravia will not have pium crucis usum to be abolished cum abusu, but holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away. cDr Forbesse his answer is, that not only things instituted by God, are not to be taken away for the abuse of them, but further, neque res mediae ab hominibus prudenter introductae, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendae sunt. Abusi sunt Papistae Templis, & Oratoriis, & Cathedris, & sacris Vasis, & Campanis, & benedictione Matrimoniali: nec tamen res istas, censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjiciendas. Ans. 1. dCalvin answering that which Cassander alleged out of an Italian writer, abusu non tolli bonum usum; he admits it only to be true, in things which are institute by God himself: not so in things ordained by men: for the very use of such things, or rites, as have no necessary use in Gods worship, and which men have devised, only at their own pleasure, is taken away by Idolatrous abuse. Pars tutior here, is to put them wholly away, and there is by a great deal more danger in retaining; then in removing them. 2. The proofs which I have produced for the proposition, about which now we debate, do not only infer that things and Rites, which have been notoriously abused to Idolatry, should be abolished, in case they be not restored to a right use, but simply and absolutely that in any wise they are to be abolished. e God commanded 4to say to the coverings, and the ornaments of Idols get you hence. It is not enough they be purged from the abuse, but simpliciter, they themselves must pack them, and be gone. How did Jacob ⟨p. 22⟩with the ear rings of the Idols; Elijah with Baals Altar; Jehu with his vestments; Josiah with his houses; Manasseh with his Altars; Moses with the golden Calf; Joshua with the Temples of Canaan; Hezekiah with the Brazen Serpent? did they retain the things themselves, and only purge them from the abuse?