A01760:204
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.
4. If the manner of contending be observed, our Opposites will Sect. V be found reprovable; not we: we contend by the grounds of truth and reason: but they use to answer all objections, and resolve all questions, by the sentence of Superiors, and the will of the Law, we contend from Gods Word and good reason, they from mans will and no reason. This was clearly seen at the first conclusion of the five Articles at Perth Assembly.
4. If the manner of contending be observed, our Opposites will Sect. V be found reproveable; not we: we contend by the grounds of truth and reason: but they use to answer all objections, and resolve all questions, by the sentence of Superiours, and the will of the Law, we contend from Gods Word and good reason, they from mans will and no reason. This was clearely seene at the first conclusion of the five Articles at Perth Assembly.
B. Lindsey him self relating the proceedings of the same, ftells us, that Mr. John C•icholl and Mr. William Sco•e alleged, that if any would press to abolish the order which had been long kept in this Church, and draw in things not received yet, they should be holden to prove, either that the things urged, were necessary and expedient for our Church, or the order hitherto kept, not meet to be retained. This was denied, upon this ground; that is was the Prince (who by himself had power to reform such things as were amiss in the outward policy of the Church) that required to have the change made: Well, since they must needs take the opponents part, they desired this question to be reasoned: […] […] or […] at the Communion were the fitter gesture? This also was refused, and the question was propounded thus. His Majesty desires our gesture of sitting at the Communion to be changed into kneeling: why ought not the s•me to be do•? At lentgh when Mr. John Carmichael brought an Argument from the custom and practise of the Church of Scotland,