A01760:530
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. 1. After the Tribes were settled in the land of promise, Synagogues were built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could not come every Sabbath day, to the reading and expounding of the Law, in the place which God had chosen, that his Name might dwell there. what hath that case to do with the addition of our unnecessary Ceremonies?
For. 1. After the Tribes were setled in the land of promise, Synagougs were built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could not come every Sabbath day, to the reading and expounding of the Law, in the place which God had chosen, that his Name might dwell there. what hath that case to doe with the addition of our unnecessary Ceremonies?
2. If Formalists will make any advantage of the building of Synagogues they must prove that they were founded, not upon the extraordinary warrant of Prophets, but upon that ordinary power which the Church retaineth still. As for the Love-feasts used in the primitive Church. 1. They had no religious state in Divine worship, but were used only as moral signs of mutual Charity. kThe Rhemists will have them called C•nas dominicas. But what-saith Cartwright against them? We grant that there were such feasts used in times past, but they were called by the name of [Greek or Hebrew] or Love-feasts, not by the name of the Lords Supper: neither could one without Sacrilege give so holy a name to a common Feast, which never had ground out of the Word, and which after for just cause was thrust out by the word of God. 2. If it be thought, that they were used as Sacred Signs of Christian Charity, because they were eaten in the Church. I answer, the eating of them in the Church is forbidden by lthe Apostle. what? saith he, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God? Aperte vetat saith m