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…

And what mean ^your Writers, when they say, that Kings have no spiritual, but only a civill power in the Church? As actions are discerned by the objects, so are powers by the actions: If therefore Kings do commendably by themselves make laws, about things pertaining to Gods worship, which is an spiritual action, then have they also a spiritual power in the Church. But if they have no spiritual power, that is, no power of spiritual jurisdiction, how can they actually exercise spiritual jurisdiction? That the making of Laws about things pertaining to Gods worship, is an action of spiritual jurisdiction, it needeth not great demonstration. For, 1. When a Synod of the Church maketh Laws, about such things, all men know that this is an action of spiritual jur•ction, flowing from that power of spiritual jurisdiction w• is called potestas [Greek or Hebrew]. And how then can the Princes making of such laws, be called an action of civill, not of spiritual jurisdiction? I see not what can be answered, except it be said, that the making of those laws by a Synod is an action of spiritual jurisdiction, because they are made and published with the commination of spiritual and Ecclesiastical punishments, in case of transgression; but the making of them by the Prince, is an action of civill jurisdiction only, because he prescribeth and commandeth, under the pain of some temporal loss or punishment. But I have already confuted this answer; because notwithstanding of the different punishments which the one and the other hath power to threaten and inflict, yet at least that part of spiritual jurisdiction which we call potestas [Greek or Hebrew] remaineth the same in both, which power of making Laws must not (as I show) be confounded with that other power of judging & punishing offenders. 2. Actions take their species or kind from the object and the end, when other circumstances hinder not.

And what meane ^your Writers, when they say, that Kings have no spirituall, but only a civill power in the Church? As actions are discerned by the objects, so are powers by the actions: If therefore Kings doe commendably by themselves make lawes, about things pertaining to Gods worship, which is an spirituall action, then have they also a spirituall power in the Church. But if they have no spirituall power, that is, no power of spirituall jurisdiction, how can they actually exerce spirituall jurisdiction? That the making of Lawes about things pertaining to Gods worship, is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, it needeth not great demonstration. For, 1. When a Synod of the Church maketh Lawes, about such things, all men know that this is an action of spirituall jurction, flowing from that power of spirituall jurisdiction w is called potestas . And how then can the Princes making of such lawes, be called an action of civill, not of spirituall jurisdiction? I see not what can be answered, except it be said, that the making of those lawes by a Synod is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, because they are made and published with the commination of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall punishments, in case of transgression; but the making of them by the Prince, is an action of civill jurisdiction only, because he prescribeth and commandeth, under the paine of some temporall losse or punishment. But I have allready confuted this answere; because notwithstanding of the different punishments which the one and the other hath power to threaten and inflict, yet at least that part of spirituall jurisdiction which we call potestas remaineth the same in both, which power of making Lawes must not (as I shew) be confounded with that other power of judging & punishing offenders. 2. Actions take their species or kynd from the object and the end, when other circumstances hinder not.