A01760:990
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.
Go to then; let us see how the D. reasoneth. He saith, it is indifferent & free to the widow Sempronia either to marry or not to marry; and if she marry, she hath liberty to marry either this man or that man: and that because none of all these things is either commanded or forbidden of God. Just so, might the strong among the Romans and Corinthians, have reasoned against Paul. Why do you go about to adstrict or limit our use of such things, as God hath neither commanded nor forbidden? it is indifferent and free to us, either to eat flesh or not to eat flesh, and if we eat flesh, either to eat this kind, or that. Nay, but the Apostle will not have the indifferency of the thing it self, in its own nature, to be ground enough for the use of it: but he will have their practise and use of it, to be ever either expedient or unlawful, in respect of the circumstances, and according as these rules of Piety, Charity, & Purity (which Gods Word gives concerning the use of things indifferent,) are observed or not observed. And so do we answer the D. That if a widows act of marrying be according to the rules of the Word, that is, if it tend to Gods glory, if it be expedient for edifying, & if she be rightly persuaded in her conscience that she hath a warrant from the Word for that which she doth, (of which rules, I have said enough before) then is it good, not indifferent. If it be not according to these rules, then is it evil, not indifferent.
Goe to then; let us see how the D. reasoneth. He saith, it is indifferent & free to the widowe Sempronia either to marry or not to marry; and if she marry, she hath liberty to marry either this man or that man: and that because none of all these things is either commanded or forbidden of God. Iust so, might the strong among the Romans and Corinthians, have reasoned against Paul. Why doe you goe about to adstrict or limite our use of such things, as God hath neither commanded nor forbidden? it is indifferent and free to us, either to eat flesh or not to eat flesh, and if we eat flesh, either to eat this kind, or that. Nay, but the Apostle will not have the indifferency of the thing it self, in its owne nature, to be ground enough for the use of it: but he will have their practise and use of it, to be ever either expedient or unlawfull, in respect of the circumstances, and according as these rules of Pietie, Charity, & Purity (which Gods Word gives concerning the use of things indifferent,) are observed or not observed. And so doe we answeare the D. That if a widowes act of marrying be according to the rules of the Word, that is, if it tend to Gods glory, if it be expedient for edifying, & if shee be rightly perswaded in her conscience that shee hath a warrant from the Word for that which shee doth, (of whioh rules, I have said enough before) then is it good, not indifferent. If it be not according to these rules, then is it evill, not indifferent.