A01760:714
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.
The next example which the B. allegeth, is out of 2. Chron. 35. Sect. 8 where we read that Josiah did set the Priests and Levites again in their charges. Which example cannot prove that Kings have the supreme power of governing Ecclesiastical causes, unless it be evinced that Josiah changed those orders and courses of the Levites & Priests, which the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29. 25. and that he did institute other orders by his own Regal authority. Whereas the contrary is manifest from the Text. For Josiah did only set the Priests and Levites those charges and courses, which had been assigned unto them after the writing of David and Solomon vers. 4. and by the commandment of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun the Kings Seer, vers 15. Neither did Josiah command the Priests and Levites, any other service then that which was written in the book of Moses vers. 12. So that from his example it only followeth, that when Princes see the state of Ecclesiastical persons corrupted, they ought to interpose their authority for reducing them to those orders and functions, which Gods Word commandeth.
The next example which the B. alleadgeth, is out of 2. Chron. 35. Sect. 8 where we read that Iosias did set the Priests and Levites againe in their charges. Which example cannot prove that Kings have the supreme power of governing Ecclesiasticall causes, unlesse it be evinced that Iosias changed those orders and courses of the Levites & Priests, which the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29. 25. and that he did institute other orders by his owne Regall authority. Whereas the contrary is manifest from the Text. For Iosias did only set the Priests and Levites those charges and courses, which had been assigned unto them after the writing of David and Solomon vers. 4. and by the commandement of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Ieduthun the Kings Seer, vers 15. Neither did Iosias command the Priests and Levites, any other service then that which was writen in the booke of Moses vers. 12. So that from his example it only followeth, that when Princes see the state of Ecclesiasticall persons corrupted, they ought to interpose their authority for reducing them to those orders and functions, which Gods Word commandeth.