A01760:541
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.
I begin with the Law of God. And first, let us see what is alleged Sect. 2 from Scripture for the Ceremonies in general: Then-after, let us look over particulars. There is one place which they will have in mythology to stand for the head of Medusa, and it they still object to us for all their Ceremonies: even that rthe Apostle, Let all things be done decently and in order: What they have drawn out of this place, sD. Burgess hath refined in this manner. He distinguisheth betwixt praeceptum & probatum; and will have the controverted Ceremonies to be allowed of God, though not commanded. And if we would learn how these Ceremonies are allowed of God, the gives us to understand, that it is by commanding the general kind to which these particulars do belong. If we ask, what is this general kind commanded of God to which these Ceremonies do belong? vHe resolves us, that it is order and decency: And if further we demand, how such Ceremonies as are instituted and used to stir up men in respect of their signification unto the devout remembrance of their duties to God, are in such an institution and use matters of mere order? As a Magisterial Dictator of Quodlibets; xhe tells us that they are matters of mere order sensu largo, in a large sense. But lastly, if we doubt where he readeth of any worship commanded in the general, and not commanded but only allowed in the particular yhe informeth us, that in the free-will-offerings, when a man was left at liberty to offer a Bullock, Goat, or Sheep at his pleasure, if he chose a Bullock to offer, that Sacrifice in that particular, was not commanded, but only allowed. What should I do, but he surd• contra absurdum? Nevertheless least this Jolly fellow think himself more Jolly then he is, I answer 1. How absurd a tenet is this which holdeth that there is some particular worship of God allowed and not commanded? What new Light is this which maketh all our divines to have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of God, but that which God hath commanded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship?