A01760:591
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.
That this Feast was unduly instituted and ungroundedly, it may appear by conference of the dedication of the first Temple under Solomon, and of the second, after the captivity returned from Babylon. In which dedication seeing there was no yearly remembrance by solemnity of Feast, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly celebration of this Feast for eight days, was not compassed by that Spirit that Solomon and the captivity were directed by: Which Spirit when it dwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the Prophets that stood at the stern of the captivities dedication, then it did in Judas, it was in him so much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter leg then they, he du• in that matter overstride them. And his rashness is so much the more aggravated, as each of them for the building of the whole Temple, with all the implements and furniture thereof, made no Feast to renew the annual memory, where Judas only for renewment of the Altar, and of certain other decayed places of the Temple, instituted this great solemnity.
That this Feast was unduely instituted and ungroundedly, it may appeare by conference of the dedication of the first Temple vnder Solomon, and of the secund, after the captivity returned from Babylon. In which dedication seeing there was no yearly rememberance by solemnity of Feast, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly celebrtion of this Feast for eight dayes, was not compassed by that Spirit that Solomon and the captivity were directed by: Which Spirit when it dwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the Prophets that stood at the stearne of the captivities dedication, then it did in Iudas, it was in him so much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter legge then they, he du• in that matter overstride them. And his rashnesse is so much the more aggravated, as each of them for the building of the whole Temple, with all the implements and furniture thereof, made no Feast to renewe the annuall memory, where Iudas only for renewment of the Altar, and of certaine other decayed places of the Temple, instituted this great solemnity.