A01760:1100
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.
For, 1. The Discipline spoken of in the promissory part of the Oath, must be the same which was spoken of in the assertory part. Now that which is mentioned in the assertory part, can not be imagined to be any other, but that which was then presently used in this Church, at the time of giving the Oath. For yan assertory Oath is either of that which is past, or of that which is present. And the assertory part of the Oath whereof we speak, was not of any Discipline past and away: Ergo. of that which was present. Moreover, zThomas doth rightly put this difference betwixt an assertory and a promissory Oath; that the matter of a promissory Oath is a thing to come, which is alterable, as concerning the event. Materia autem juramenti assertorii quod est de praeterito vel praesenti, in quandam necessitatem jam transiit, & immutabilis facta est. Since then the Discipline spoken of in the asseriorie part, was no other then that which was used in this Church, when the Oath was sworn: and since the promissory part is illative upon and relative unto the matter of the assertory part: Therefore we conclude, the Discipline spoken of in the promissory part, could be no other, then that which was then presently used in this Church, at the swearing of the Oath.
For, 1. The Discipline spoken of in the promissorie part of the Oath, must be the same which was spoken of in the assertorie part. Now that which is mentioned in the assertorie part, can not be imagined to be any other, but that which was then presently used in this Church, at the time of giving the Oath. For yan assertorie Oath is either of that which is past, or of that which is present. And the assertorie part of the Oath whereof we speake, was not of any Discipline past and away: Ergo. of that which was present. Moreover, zThomas doth rightly put this difference betwixt an assertorie and a promissorie Oath; that the matter of a promissorie Oath is a thing to come, which is alterable, as concerning the event. Materia autem juramenti assertorii quod est de praeterito vel praesenti, in quandam necessitatem jam transiit, & immutabilis facta est. Since then the Discip•ine spoken of in the asseriorie part, was no other then that which was used in this Church, when the Oath was sworne: and since the promissorie part is illative upon and relative unto the matter of the assertorie part: Therefore we conclude, the Discipline spoken of in the promissory part, could be no other, then that which was then presently used in this Church, at the swearing of the Oath.