A01760:774
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.
words, what he would have replied, namely, that the difference is great betwixt the Power of making Laws about things Ecclesiastical, in the Prince, and the same Power in the Clergy assembled together: for he describeth the making of a Law, to be the prescribing of something, under some pain or punishment, which he that so prescribeth hath Power to inflict. Whereby he would make it appear, that he yieldeth not unto Princes, the same power of Spiritual Jurisdiction, in making of Ecclesiastical Laws, which agreeth to the Clergy: because whereas a Council of the Clergy may frame Canons about things which concern the Worship of God, and prescribe them under the pain of excommunication and ⟨p. 146⟩other Ecclesiastical censures, the Ordinance of Princes about such matters, is only under the pain of some external or bodily punishment. But I answer Potestas [Greek or Hebrew] is one thing, and Potest [Greek or Hebrew] is another thing. When the making of a Law is joined either with the intention, or with the commination of a Punishment, in case of transgression, this is but accidental and adventitious to the Law, not naturally or necessarily belonging to the essence of the same. For many Laws there hath been, and may be, which prescribe not that which they contain under the same pain or punishment. bGratian distinguisheth three sorts of Laws. Omnis &c. Fvery Law saith he, either permits something, for example, let a valorous man seek a reward: or forbids, for example, let it be lawful to no man to seek the marriage of holy Virgins: or punisheth, for example, He who committeth Murder, let him be capitally punished. And in this third kind only, there is something prescribed under a pain or punishment. It is likewise holden by cSchoolmen, that it is a Law which permitteth some indifferent thing, as well, as it which commandeth some virtue, or forbiddeth some vice. When a Prince doth statute and ordain, that whosoever out of a generous and magnanimous Spirit, will adventure to embark and hazard in a certain military exploit, against a foreign enemy whom he intendeth to subdue, shall be allowed to take for himself in propriety, all the rich spoil which he can lay hold on: there is nothing here prescribed under some pain or punishment, yet is it a Law; and properly so termed.