A01760:676
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.
As for the third distinction, of adding to the accidentary parts of it, Sect. 13 remember, that J heard in the logics, of pars essentialis or Phisica, & pars integralis or mathematica; of pars similaris, & pars dissimilaris; of pars c•ua & pars discreta. But of pars accidentaria heard I never till now. There is (I know) such a distinction of Pars integralis, that it is either pr•alis and necessaria, or minus principalis and non necessaria. But w• cannot understand their pars cultus accidentaria, to be pars integ•alis non necessaria, because then their distribution of worship into essential & accidentary parts, could not answer to the rules of a just dist•bution: of which one is, that distributio debet exhauri•e totum distributu•. Now, there are some parts of worship, which cannot be comp•hended in the foresaid distribution, namely, parts integrals necessary What then? Shall we let this wild Distinction pass, because it cannot […] well nor formally interpreted? Nay, but we will observe their mean• who make use of it, For unto all such parts of worship as are not espial (and which they are pleased to call accidentarie) they hold, […] Church may make addition. Whereunto I answer, 1. Let them m• us understand, what they mean by those essential parts, to which th• Church may add nothing: and let them beware least they give us a• • ticall description of the same.
As for the third distinction, of adding to the accidentary parts of it, Sect. 13 •emēber, that J heard in the logicks, of pars essentialis or Phisica, & pars integralis or mathematica; of pars similaris, & pars dissimilaris; of pars c•ua & pars discreta. But of pars accidētaria heard I never till now. There is (I know) such a distinction of Pars integralis, that it is either pralis and necessaria, or minus principalis and non necessaria. But w cannot vnderstand their pars cultus accidentaria, to be pars integalis non necessaria, because then their distribution of worship into eentiall & accidentary parts, could not answer to the ruls of a just distbution: of which one is, that distributio debet exhaurie totum distributu. Now, there are some parts of worship, which cannot be comphended in the foresaid distribution, namely, partes integrales necessar What then? Shall we let this vvilde Distinction passe, because it cannot well nor formally interpreted? Nay, but we will observe their mean who make use of it, For unto all such parts of worship as are not essiall (and which they are pleased to call accidentarie) they hold, Church may make addition. Whereunto I answer, 1. Let them m us understand, what they meane by those essentiall parts, to which th Church may adde nothing: and let them beware least they give us a ticall description of the same.