A01760:987
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.
hath said, evinceth no more but the indifferency of some actions considered only in respect of the work, not in respect of all the circumstances, (and by consequence, not quo ad individuum.) If he had considered Sempronia, her act of marrying, either in respect of the original of it, or in respect of the effect of it, (much more if he had (as he ought to have) considered it in both these respects) he might easily have seen, that it can not be called indifferent, because it either proceedeth from a good election and intention, or from a bad; and it hath either a good effect or a bad, I mean, it either edifieth or scandalizeth. In which two respects (we see) neither it nor any action is indifferent, in Pareus his judgement.
hath said, evinceth no more but the indifferency of some actions considered onely in respect of the worke, not in respect of all the circumstances, (and by consequence, not quo ad individuum.) If hee had considered Sempronia, her act of marrying, either in respect of the originall of it, or in respect of the effect of it, (much more if he had (as he ought to have) considered it in both these respects) he might easily have seen, that it can not bee called indifferent, because it either proceedeth from a good election and intention, or from a bad; and it hath either a good effect or a bad, I meane, it either edifyeth or scandalizeth. In which two respects (we see) neither it nor any action is indifferent, in Pareus his judgement.
2. Our question is of the indifferency of things considered absolutely Sect. VII & by themselves, not comparatively and in relation to other things, (as we show before.) If we speak of comparatives, there is no question, but there may be an action, which is neither better nor worse, then some other action. But if we hold us at positives, we truly maintain, that every action considered by it self, is either good or evil, and none indifferent. Now the D. only compareth Sempronia her marrying, with her living a single life, and her marrying of Titius, with her marrying of Caius or Pomponius. But if he had considered any one of all these things absolutely and by it self, and proven it to be in that respect indifferent, he had said something to the purpose. Nothing followeth upon that which he hath said, but that (these things being compared among themselves) Sempronia her marrying of Titius, is neither better nor worse, then her marrying