A01760:253
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.
3. Since it can not be a lawful ordinance which ordaineth a thing inexpedient, it can not be a lawful obedience which is yielded to such an ordinance.
3. Since it can not be a lawfull ordinance which ordaineth a thing inexpedient, it can not be a lawfull obedience which is yeelded to such an ordinance.
4. If by a lawful ordinance he mean (as it seems he doth) an ordinance prescribing, that which is lawful in it self, then his answer is false. What if an ordinance of Superiors, had ordained the Corinthians to eat freely of all meats which were in themselves clean? Durst the Bishop say, that this ordinance of Superiors had been of greater weight and superior reason, then the Law of Charity which is Gods Law? Had no man given scandal by obedience to this ordinance? And would not the Apostle, for all that, have forbidden as he did the using of this liberty with the offence of others?
4. If by a lawfull ordinance he meane (as it seems he doth) an ordinance prescribing, that which is lawfull in it selfe, then his answere is false. What if an ordinance of Superiours, had ordained the Corinthians to eate freely of all meates which were in themselves cleane? Durst the Bishop say, that this ordinance of Superiours had beene of greater waight and superiour reason, then the Law of Charity which is Gods Law? Had no man given scandall by obedience to this ordinance? And would not the Apostle, for all that, have forbidden as he did the using of this liberty with the offence of others?
5. When any man is offended at a thing lawful prescribed by an ordinance, the cause thereof is indeed in himself (yet it is not always his perverseness, but ofttimes weakness:) but the occasion of it, is the thing at which he offendeth, which occasion should ever be removed when it is not a thing necessary, as I show already.