A01760:851
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.
Part 3 › Chapter 8 › Digression 2: DIGRESSION II.Part 3 › Chapter 8 › Digression 2: DISGRESSION II.
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.
But that this be not thought a Tenet of Antiepiscopall Writers alone, let us heart what is said, by qone of our greatest Opposites. Neque defendi•s ita, &c. Neither do we so defend, that this right of convocating Council, pertaineth to Princes, at that the Ecclesiastical Prelates may no way, either assemble themselves together by mutual consent, or be convocated by the authority of the Metropolitan, Pri•t, or Patriarch. For the Apostles did celebrate Councils, without any convocation of Princes. So many Councils as were celebrate before the first Nine, were without all doubt gathered together, by the means alone of Ecclesiastical Persons: for to whom directly the Church is fully committed, they ought to bear the care of the Church. Yet Princes in some respect, indirectly, for help and aide, chiefly then when the Prelates neglect to convocat Councils, or are destitute of power for doing of the same, of duty may, & use to convocat them. Where we see his judgement to be, that the power of convocating Councils, pertaineth directly to Ecclesiastical persons, and to Princes only indirectly, for that they ought to give help and aide, to the convocation of the same, especially when Church men either will not, or can not assemble themselves together. His reasons whereupon he groundeth his judgement, are two, and those strong ones.
But that this bee not thought a Tenet of Antiepiscopall Writters alone, let us heart what is said, by qone of our greatest Opposites. Neque defendi•s ita, &c. Neither doe wee so defend, that this right of convocating Councelle, pertaineth to Princes, at that the Ecclesiasticall Prelats may no way, either assemble themselves togither by mutuall consent, or be convocated by the auctority of the Metropolitan, Pri•t, or Patriarch. For the Apostles did celebrat Councells, without any convocation of Princes. So many Councells as were celebrate before the first Ni•ne, were vvithout all doubt gathered togither, by the meanes alone of Ecclesiasticall Persons: for to vuhom directly the Church is fully committed, they ought to beare the care of the Church. Yet Princes in some respect, indirectly, for help and aide, chiefly then vvhen the Prelats neglect to convocat Councells, or are destitute of povver for doing of the same, of dutymay, & use to convocat them. Where we see his judgement to be, that the power of convocating Councells, pertaineth directly to Ecclesiasticall persons, and to Princes only indirectly, for that they ought to give help and aide, to the convocation of the same, especially when Church men either will not, or can not assemble themselves togither. His reasons whereupon he groundeth his judgement, are two, and those stronge ones.