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…

Finally, there is none of our Opposites, but saith so much as inferreth Sect. XVII the necessity of this Judgement of private and practical discretion, for every smatterer among them hath this much in his mouth, that if the King or the Church command any thing unlawful, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but when they command things indifferent and lawful, then their Ordinance ought to be our Rule. But (goodmen) will they tell us, how we shall know, whether the things which the King, or the Church (as they speak) do enjoin, are lawful or unlawful, indifferent, or not indifferent; and so we shall be at a point. Dare they say, that we must judge those things indifferent which our Superiors judge to be such, and those unlawful, which our Superiors so judge of? Nay, then they should deliver their distinction in other terms, and say thus: If our Superiors enjoin any thing which they judge to be unlawful, and which they command us so to account of, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but if they enjoin such things as they judge to be indifferent, and which they command us so to account of, then we ought to obey their Ordinance. Which distinction me thinks, would have made Heraclitus himself to fall a laughing with Democritus. What then remaineth? Surely our Opposites must either say nothing, or else say with us, that it is not only a Liberty but a duty of Inferiors, not to receive for a thing lawful that which is enjoined by Superiors, because they account it and call it such, but by the judgement of their own discretion following the rules of the Word, to try and examine, whether the same be lawful or unlawful.

Finally, there is none of our Opposites, but saith so much as inferreth Sect. XVII the necessity of this Iudgement of private and practicall discretion, for every smatterer among them hath this much in his mouth, that if the King or the Church commande any thing unlawfull, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but when they commaund things indifferent and lawfull, then their Ordinance ought to be our Rule. But (goodmen) will they tell us, how wee shall know, whether the things which the King, or the Church (as they speake) doe injoyne, are lawfull or unlawfull, indifferent, or not indifferent; and so we shall be at a point. Dare they say, that we must judge those things indifferent which our Superiours judge to be such, and those unlawfull, which our Superiours so judge of? Nay, then they should deliver their distinction in other tearmes, and say thus: If our Superiours injoyne any thing which they judge to be unlawfull, and which they command us so to account of, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but if they injoyne such things as they judge to be indifferent, and which they command us so to account of, then we ought to obey their Ordinance. Which distinction me thinks, would have made Heraclitus himselfe to fall a lauging with Democritus. What then remaineth? Surely our Opposites must either say nothing, or else say with us, that it is not onely a Liberty but a duty of Inferiours, not to receive for a thing lawfull that which is injoyned by Superiours, because they account it and call it such, but by the judgement of their owne discretion following the rules of the Word, to trie and examine, whether the same be lawfull or unlawfull.