A01760:667
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.
Our Opposites have no other distinctions, which they make any use of against this argument, but the very same which Papists use in defence of their unwritten dogmatical traditions; namely, that additio corrumpens is forbidden, but not additio perficiens: that there is not alike reason of the Christian Church, and of the Jewish: that the Church may not add to the essential parts of Gods worship, but to the accidentary she may add.
Our Opposites have no other distinctions, which they make any use of against this argument, but the very same which Papists use in defence of their unwritten dogmaticall traditions; namely, that additio corrumpens is forbidden, but not additio perficiens: that there is not alike reason of the Christian Church, and of the Iewish: that the Church may not adde to the essentiall parts of Gods worship, but to the accidentary she may adde.
To the first of those distinctions we Answer, 1. That the distinction itself is an addition to the word, and so doth but beg the Question.
To the first of those distinctions we Answer, 1. That the distinction itself is an addition to the word, and so doth but begge the Question.
2. It is blasphemous, for it argueth, that the commandments of God are imperfect, and that by addition they are made perfect.
2. It is blasphemous, for it argueth, that the commandements of God are imperfect, and that by addition they are made perfect.