A01760:369
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.
Beside these answers which are common in our adversaries Sect. 14 mouths, some of them have other particular subterfuges, which now I am to search. We must consider saith r B. Lindsey, the Ceremony 1it self (dedicated to, and polluted with Idolatry), (whether it be of humane, or Divine institution; If it be of humane institution, it may be removed, &c. but if the Ceremony be of Divine institution, such as kneeling is; for the same is commended by God unto us in his word; then we ought to consider whether the abuse of that Ceremony, hath proceeded from the nature of the action wherein it was used: for if it be so, it ought to be abolished, &c but if the abuse proceed not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent; then the opinion being removed, the religious Ceremony may be used without any profanation of Idolatry. For example, the abuse of kneeling in elevation, &c. proceeded not only from the opinion of the agent, but from the nature of the action which is idolatrous and superstitious, &c. and therefore both the action, and gesture ought to be abolished. But the Sacrament of the Supper, being an action instituted by God, and kneeling being of the own nature an holy and religious Ceremony, it can never receive contagion of idolatry from it, but only from the opinion of the agent: then remove the opinion, both the action it self may be rightly used, and kneeling therein, &c. Ans. 1. since he granteth that a Ceremony dedicated to, and polluted with Idolatry; may (he answereth not the argument which there he propoundeth, except he say must) be abolished, if it be of humane Institution: he must grant from this ground, if there were no more, that the Cross, Surplice, kneeling at the communion, &c. having been so notoriously abused to Idolatry, must be abolished, because they have no institution except from men only. But, 2. Why saith he, that kneeling is a Ceremony of Divine institution? Which he pronounceth not of kneeling, as it is actuated by some individual case, or clothed with certain particular circumstances, (for he maketh this kneeling whereof he speaketh, to be found in two most different actions, the one Idolatrous, the other holy,) but of kneeling in the general, per se, and praecise ab omnibus circumstantijs. Let him now tell, where kneeling thus considered is commended unto us in Gods word.
Beside these answeres which are common in our adversaries Sect. 14 mouthes, some of them have other particular subterfugies, which now I am to search. We must consider saith r B. Lindsey, the Ceremony