A01760:413
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.
But no mortal man hath domination over our consciences, which are subject to one only Law-giver, and ruled by his Law. I have showed in the first Part of this Dispute, how conscience is sought to be bound by the Law of the Ceremonies, and here by the way, no less may be drawn from Hals words, which now I examine. For he implieth in them, that we are bound to obey the Statutes about the Ceremonies, merely for their Authorities sake who command us, though there be no other thing in the Ceremonies themselves, which can commend them to us. But I have also proven before, that humane Laws do not bind to obedience, but only in this case, when the things which they prescribe, do agree and serve to those things which Gods Law prescribeth: so that, as humane Laws, they bind not, neither have they any force to bind, but only by Participation with Gods Law. This ground hath seemed to oP. Bath, so necessary to be known, that he hath inserted it in his brief exposition of the fundamental points of Religion. And beside all that, which I have said for it before, I may not here pass over in silence, this one thing, that pHall himself calleth it superstition to make any more sins, then the ten commandments. Either then, let it be showed out of Gods word, that Nonconformity & the refusing of the English Popish Ceremonies, is a fault, or else let us not be thought bound by mens laws, where Gods Law hath left us free. Yet we deal more liberally with our Opposites, for if we prove not the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies, both by Gods Word, and sound reason, let us be then bound to use them for Ordinances sake. 3. His comparisons are far wide: they are so far from running upon four feet, that they have indeed no feet at all: whether we consider the commandments, or the breach of them, he is altogether extravagant. God might have commanded ⟨p. 50⟩Adam to eat the Apple, which he forbade him to eat, and so the eating of it had been good, the not eating of it evil: whereas the Will & Commandment of men is not regula regulans, but regula regulata. Neither can they make good or evil, beseeming or not beseeming, what they list, but their commandments are to be examined by a higher rule. When Solomon commanded Shimei to dwell at Jerusalem, and not to go over the brook Kidron, he had good reason for that which he required: