A01760:794
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.
1. The Laws of an Ecclesiastical Synod, to the obedience whereof in things belonging to the worship of God, we are far more strictly tied, then to the obedience of any Prince in the world, who (as hath been showed) in this sort of things, hath not such a vocation nor power to make Laws: the Laws (I say) of a Synod can not bind absolutely, but only conditionally, or in case they can not be transgressed without violating the Law of Charity, by contempt showed, or scandal given. Which as I have made good in the first part of this Dispute; so let me now produce for it a plain testimony of fthe Bishop of Salisbury, who holdeth that the Churches rites and ordinances, do only bind in such sort, ut si extra, &c. That if out of the case of scandal or contempt, through imprudence, oblivion, or some reasonable cause enforcing, they be omitted, no mortal sin is incurred before God. For as touching these constitutions, I judge the opinion of Gerson to be most true, to wit, that they remain unviolated, so long as the Law of Charity is not by men violated about the same. Much less then, can the Laws of Princes about things Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, bind absolutely, and out of the case of violating the Law of Charity.
1. The Lawes of an Ecclesiasticall Synod, to the obedience whereof in things belonging to the worship of God, we are farre more strictly tied, then to the obedience of any Prince in the world, who (as hath beene shewed) in this sort of things, hath not such a vocation nor power to make Lawes: the Lawes (I say) of a Synod can not bind absolutely, but only conditionally, or in case they can not be transgressed without violating the Law of Charity, by contempt shewed, or scandall given. Which as I have made good in the first part of this Dispute; so let me now produce for it a plaine testimony of fthe Bishop of Sarisburie, who holdeth that the Churches rites and ordinances, doe only bind in such sort, ut si extra, &c. That if out of the case of scandall or contempt, through imprudence, oblivion, or some reasonable cause inforcing, they be omitted, no mortall sinne is incurred before God. For as touching these constitutions, I judge the opinion of Gerson to be most true, to vvit, that they remaine unviolated, so long as the Lavv of Charity is not by men violated about the same. Much lesse then, can the Lawes of Princes about things Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, bind absolutely, and out of the case of violating the Law of Charity.