A01760:527
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.
And besides all this, there is nothing which can urge us to say, that the two Tribes and the half, did commendably, in the erecting of this Altar iCalvin finds 2 faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they attempted such a notable & important innovation, without advising with their brethren of the other Tribes, & especially without enquiring the will of God by the high Priest. 2. Where as the Law of God ⟨p. 89⟩commanded only to make one Altar, forasmuch as God would be worshipped only in one place; they did inordinately, scandalously, and with appearance of evil, erect another Altar, for every one who should look upon it, could not but presently think, that they had forsaken the Law, and were setting up a strange and degenerate Rite. Whether also, that Altar which they set up for a pattern of the Lords Altar, was one of the Images forbidden in the. 2. Commandment, I leave it to the Judicious reader, to ruminate upon. But if one would gather from vers. 33. that the Priest, and the Princes, and the children of Israel, did allow of that which the two Tribes and the half had done, because it is said, the thing pleased the children of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God, and did not intend to go up against them in battle.
And besides all this, there is nothing which can vrge vs to say, that the two Tribes and the halfe, did commendably, in the erecting of this Altar iCalvine finds 2 faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they attempted such a notable & important innovation, without advising with their brethren of the other Tribes, & especially without enquiring the will of God by the high Priest. 2. Where as the Law of God ⟨p. 89⟩commaunded only to make one Altar, forasmuchas God would be worshipped only in one place; they did inordinatly, scandalously, and with appearance of evill, erect another Altar, for every one who should looke upon it, could not but presently thinke, that they had forsaken the Law, and were setting up a strange and degenerate Rite. Whether also, that Altar which they set up for a patterne of the Lords Altar, was one of the Images forbidden in the. 2. Commandement, I leave it to the Iudicious reader, to ruminate upon. But if one would gather from vers. 33. that the Priest, and the Princes, and the children of Israel, did allowe of that which the two Tribes and the halfe had done, because it is said, the thing pleased the children of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God, and did not intend to goe up against them in battell.