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…

When ^aD. Field speaketh of the Power of Princes, to prescribe Sect. XXIV and make Laws about things spiritual or Ecclesiastical, he saith, That the Prince may with the advice and direction of his Clergy, command things pertaining to Gods Worship and Service, both for Profession of Faith, Ministration of the Sacraments, and conversation fitting to Christians in general, or men of Ecclesiastical order in particular, under the pains of Death, Imprisonment, Banishment, Confiscation of goods, and the like: and by his Princely Power establish things formerly defined and decreed against whatsoever error, and contrary ill custom and observation. In all this the D. saith very right: but I demand further these two things. 1. What if the thing have not been decreed before? and what if the free assent of the Clergy be not had for it? would the D. have said, that in such a case, the Prince hath not Power by himself & by his own sole Authority, to enjoin it, and to establish a Law concerning it. For example, that K. James had not Power by himself to impose the controverted Ceremonies upon the Church of Scotland, at that time, when as no free assent (much less the direction) of the Clergy, was had for them, so neither had they been formerly decreed, but Laws and Decrees were formerly made against them. If the D. would have answered affirmatively, that he had this Power, then why did he in a scornful dissimulation, so circumscribe and limit the Power of Princes, by requiring a former decree, and the free assent of the Clergy? If he would have answered negatively, that he had not such Power, we should have rendered him thanks for his answer. 2. Whether may the Clergy make any laws about things pertaining to the Service of GOD which the Prince may not as well by himself and without them, constitute and authorize? If the affirmative part be granted unto us, we gladly take it. But we suppose D. Field did, and our Opposites yet do hold the negative. Whereupon it followeth, that the Prince hath as much, yea the very same Power of making laws in all Ecclesiastical things which the Clergy themselves have when they are convened in a lawful and free Assembly, yet I guess from the D.

When ^aD. Field speaketh of the Power of Princes, to prescribe Sect. XXIV and make Lawes about things spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, he saith, That the Prince may with the advice and direction of his Cleargie, command things pertaining to Gods Worship and Service, both for Profession of Faith, Ministration of the Sacraments, and conversation fitting to Christians in generall, or men of Ecclesiasticall order in particular, under the paines of Death, Imprisonement, Banishment, Confiscation of goods, and the like: and by his Princely Power establish things formerly defined and decreed against whatsoever error, and contrary ill custome and observation. In all this the D. saith very right: but I demaund further these two things. 1. What if the thing have not been decreed before? and what if the free assent of the Cleargie be not had for it? would the D. have said, that in such a case, the Prince hath not Power by himselfe & by his owne sole Auctority, to injoyne it, and to establish a Law concerning it. For example, that K. Iames had not Power by himselfe to impose the controverted Ceremonies upon the Church of Scotland, at that time, when as no free assent (much lesse the direction) of the Cleargie, was had for them, so neither had they been formerly decreed, but Lawes and Decrees were formerly made against them. If the D. would have answered affirmatively, that he had this Power, then why did he in a scornefull dissimulation, so circumscribe and limit the Power of Princes, by requiring a former decree, and the free assent of the Cleargie? If he would have answered negatively, that he had not such Power, wee should have rendred him thankes for his answer. 2. Whether may the Cleargie make any lawes about things pertaining to the Service of GOD which the Prince may not as well by himselfe and without them, constitute and authorize? If the affirmative part bee graunted unto us, we gladly take it. But we suppose D. Field did, and our Opposites yet doe hold the negative. Whereupon it followeth, that the Prince hath as much, yea the very same Power of making lawes in all Ecclesiasticall things which the Cleargie themselves have when they are conveened in a lawfull and free Assembly, yet I guesse from the D.