A01760:1090
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.
Ans. I marvel how it could enter in his mind to think this matter questionable, since the violation of that Oath lwas afterwards punished with three years famine. Yet let us hearken to his reasons. One of them is forged: for the Princes of Israel who sware unto them, put in no caveat at all. mThe Text saith only in the general, that they sware unto them. As touching his other reason, it is answered by nCalvin. Jurisjurandi religio saith he, cousque sancta apud nos esse debet, ne erroris praetextu a pactis discedamus, etiam in quibus fuimus decepti. Which that it may be made more plain unto us, let us with the Casuists distinguish oa twofold error in swearing. For if the error be about the very substance of the thing, (as when a man contracts marriage with one particular person, taking her to be another person,) the oath bindeth not. But if the error be only about some extrinsical or accidental circumstance, (such as was the error of the Israelites, taking the Gibeonites to dwell a far off, when they dwelt a hand,) the Oath ceaseth not to bind.
Ans. I marvell how it could enter in his mind to thinke this matter questionable, since the violation of that Oath lwas afterwards punished with three yeares famine. Yet let us hearken to his reasons. One of them is forged: for the Princes of Israel who sware unto them, put in no caveat at all. mThe Text saith only in the generall, that they sware unto them. As touching his other reason, it is answered by nCalvine. Iurisjurandi religio saith he, cousque sancta apud nos esse debet, ne erroris praetextu a pactis discedamus, etiam in quibus fuimus decepti. Which that it may be made more plaine unto us, let us with the Casuists distinguish o