A01760:1083
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.
O! but saith the D. that which they did either in swearing, or in performing their Oath, against the express Commandment of God, we may not draw into an ordinary example.
O! but saith the D. that which they did either in swearing, or in performing their Oath, against the expresse Commandement of God, we may not draw into an ordinary example.
Ans. It was against the Commandment of God; no man will say, that we should follow either their swearing or their performing of their Oath. Yet in the mean time the D. is pressed with this Argument: that if their unlawful Oath (in the case of Gods dispensation) did bind their posterity, much more doth that Oath of the Church of Scotland (which the D. hath acknowledged lawful and commendable,) bind us this day.
Ans. It was against the Commandement of God; no man will say, that we should follow either their swearing or their performing of their Oath. Yet in the meane time the D. is pressed with this Argument: that if their unlawfull Oath (in the case of Gods dispensation) did bind their posterity, much more doth that Oath of the Church of Scotland (which the D. hath aknowledged lawfull and commendable,) bind us this day.
But, 4. Albeit the D. hath hereby given us scope and advantage Sect. IV enough against himself. Nevertheless for the truths sake, I add, that it can not be showed how that Oath of the Princes of Israel was against the express Commandment of God: but it rather appeareth that it was agreeable to the same. For as zTremellius hath it noted, that Commandment Deut 20. Whereby the Israelites were commanded, to save alive nothing in the Cities of the Canaanites, was to be only understood of such Cities among them, as should make war with them, and be besieged by them. But the Gibeonites were