A01760:371
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.
For the elevation of the bread materialiter, is not Idolatrous, (more then the lifting up of the bread among us by Elders or Deacons, when in taking it off the table, or setting it on, they lift it above the heads of the communicants;) but formaliter only, as it is elevated with a will and intention to place it in state of worship. So likewise kneeling to the bread, materialiter, is not Idolatry, (else a man were a Idolater, who should be against his will thrust down, and holden by violence kneeling on his knees, when the bread is elevated,) but formaliter, as it proceedeth from a will and intention in men, to give to the bread elevated, a state in that worship, and out of that respect to kneel before it. 6. What can he gain by this device, that the abuse of kneeling in the Lords Supper proceeded not from the nature of the action, but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon infer, that kneeling in that action is to be retained, notwithstanding of any contagion of Idolatry, which it hath received? Nay then, let him say, that Hezekiah did not rightly, in breaking down the Brazen Serpent, which was set up at Gods command, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing it self, which had a most lawful, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse opinion and will of them who abused it to Idolatry.
For the elevation of the bread materialiter, is not Idolatrous, (more then the lifting up of the bread among us by Elders or Deacons, when in taking it off the table, or setting it on, they lift it above the heads of the communicants;) but formaliter only, as it is elevated with a will and intention to place it in state of worship. So likewise kneeling to the bread, materialiter, is not Idolatry, (else a man were a Idolater, who should be against his will thrust downe, and holden by violence kneeling on his knees, when the bread is elevated,) but formaliter, as it proceedeth from a will and intention in men, to give to the bread elevated, a state in that worship, and out of that respect to kneel before it. 6. What can he gaine by this device, that the abuse of kneeling in the Lords Supper proceeded not from the nature of the action, but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon inferre, that kneeling in that action is to be retained, notwithstanding of any contagion of Idolatry, which it hath receaved? Nay then, let him say, that Hezekiah did not rightly, in breaking downe the Brazen Serpent, which was set up at Gods command, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing it self, which had a most lawfull, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse opinion and will of them who abused it to Idolatry.