A01760:403
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.
There are others, who go about to sow a cloak of fig leaves, Sect. 13 to hide their conformity with Papists, and to find out some difference, betwixt the English Ceremonies and those of the Papists. So say some, that by the sign of the Cross they are not ranked with Papists, because they use not the material Cross, which is the Popish one, but the aerial only. But it is known well enough, that Papists do Idolatrize the very aerial Cross, for rBellarmine holds, venerabile esse signum Crucis quod effingitur in fronte, aere, &c. And though they did not make an Idol of it, yet forasmuch as Papists put it to a Religious use, and make it one of the marks of Roman-Catholics (as we have seen before) we may not be conformed to them in the use of the same. The Fathers of such a difference between the Popish Cross, and the English, have not succeeded in this their way, yet their posterity approve their sayings, and follow their footsteps. sB. Lindsey by name will trade in the same way, and will have us to think, that kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, and keeping of Holy-days, do not sort us with Papists, for that, as touching the former, there is a disconformity in the object, because they kneel to the Sign, we to the thing signified. And as for the latter, the difference is in the employing of the time, and in the exercise ⟨p. 45⟩and worship for which the cessation is commanded. What is his Verdict then, wherewith he sends us away? Verily, that people should be taught, that the disconformity between the Papists and us, is not so much in any external use of Ceremonies, as in the substance of the service, and object, whereunto they are applied. But, good man, he seeks a knot in the Bulrush. For, 1. There is no such difference betwixt our Ceremonies and those of the Papists, in respect of the object and worship, whereunto the same is applied, as he pretendeth. For as touching the exercise and worship whereunto holy days are applied, tPapists tell us, that they keep Pasche and Pentecost yearly, for memory of Christs Resurrection, and the sending down of the Holy Ghost; And I pray, to what other employment do Formalists profess, that they apply these Feasts, but to the commemoration of the same benefits?