A01760:797
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.
4. If neither Princes may command, nor we do any thing, which is not lawful and expedient, and according to the other rules of the Word, then the Laws of Princes bind not absolutely, but only in case the neglecting of them can not stand with the Law of Charity, and the rules of the Word. But the former hath been evinced and made good. Therefore the latter necessarily followeth.
4. If neither Princes may command, nor wee doe any thing, which is not lawfull and expedient, and according to the other rules of the Word, then the Lawes of Princes bind not absolutely, but only in case the neglecting of them can not stand with the Law of Charity, and the rules of the Word. But the former hath beene evinced and made good. Therefore the latter necessarily followeth.
5. If the Laws of Princes could bind absolutely and simply, so that in no case without offending God & wounding our conscience, we could neglect them, this bond should arise either from their own authority, or from the matter and thing it self which is commanded. But from neither of these it can arise. Therefore from nothing. It can not arise from any authority which they have, for if by their authority we mean their Princely preeminence & dignity, they are Princes, when they command things unlawful, as well, as when they command things lawful, and so if because of their preeminence their Laws do bind, then their unlawful ordinances do bind, no less then if they were lawful: but if by their authority, we mean the power which they have of God to make Laws, this power is not absolute, (as hath been said,) but limited: therefore from it no absolute bond can arise, but this much at the most, that gKings on earth must be obeyed, so far as they command in Christ. Neither yet can the bond be absolute in respect of the thing it self which is commanded.
5. If the Lawes of Princes could bind absolutely and simply, so that in no case without offending God & wounding our conscience, we could neglect them, this bond should arise either from their owne auctority, or from the matter and thing it self which is commanded. But from neither of these it can arise. Therefore from nothing. It can not arise from any auctority which they have, for if by their auctority we meane their Princely preeminence & dignity, they are Princes, when they command things unlawfull, as well, as when they command things lawfull, and so if because of their preeminence their Lawes doe bind, then their unlawfull ordinances doe bind, no lesse then if they were lawfull: but if by their auctority, we meane the power which they have of God to make Lawes, this power is not absolute, (as hath beene said,) but limited: therefore from it no absolute bond can arise, but this much at the most, that