A01760:374
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.
Paybody also will here talk with us, therefore we will talk with Sect. 16 him too. He fsaith, that God did not absolutely condemn things abused to Idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it was lawful to spare Idolatrous appurtenances: 1. If there were a needful use of them in Gods worship: 2 In case they were so altered and disposed, as that they tended not to the honour of the Idol, and his damnable worship, 3. If they were without certain danger, of ensnaring people into Idolatry. Ans. 1. Either he requires all these conditions, in every Idolothyte and Idolatrous appurtenance which may be retained, or else he thinks, that any one of them sufficeth: If he require all these, the last two are superfluous; for that which hath a needful use in Gods worship, can neither tend to the honour of the Idol, nor yet can have in it any danger of ensnaring people into Idolatry: If he think any one of those conditions enough, then let us go through them. The first I admit, but it will not help his cause, for while the world standeth, they shall never prove that kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, & the other controverted Ceremonies, have either a needful, or a profitable, or a lawful use in Gods worship. As for his second condition, it is all one with that which gI have already confuted: namely, that things abused to Idolatry may be kept, if they be purged from their abuse, and restored to the right use. But he allegeth for it a passage of Parker, of the Cross, cap. 1. sect. 7. pag. 10. Where he showeth out of Augustine, that an Idolothyte may not be kept for private use, except 1. Omnis honor Idoli, cum apertissima destructione subvertatur. 2 That not only his honour be despoysed, but also all show thereof. How doth this place (now would I know,) make any thing for Paybody? Do they keep kneeling for private use? Do they destroy most openly all honour of the Idol, to which kneeling was dedicated? Hath their kneeling not so much as any show of the breaden-Gods honour? who will say so? and if any will say it, who will believe ⟨p. 31⟩it? who knoweth not that kneeling is kept for a public, and not for a private use, and that the breaden Idol receiveth very great show of honour from it? He was scarce of warrants, when he had no better, then Parker could afford him.