[ 2 '54 ] But fay 'you ; It u but mutable Laws that they make? .Anfw. And are mutable Laws no Laws And is he no Legijlator that maketh but mutabl; Laws? Neither Kingnor Parli~·ment will believe this. · . · ' But you fay, Canons are not Laws. I thank you ·for that Conceffion. So faith Grotim de Imp. fum. Poteft. If fo, then they are but either Counfels or · · Agreements, (ContraCts.) It is not de nomine that we contend. A· Law , faith Grotius , · is Regula actirmum Moralium: More fully, A Law is the fig· nification of a R1-tler:S Willmak!,ng the Subjects D~ety.] IfaCanon be none, then Liter~t format£ are none : And where there is no Law;., there. is no Tranf– greffion. Then no Obedience is due to the ·Laws of the College of Bilhops. And then obeying them is not the only way of Concord. Authori– tas imperantu eft objeCfztm formate Obedienti£ : you difown alfo the word (Pars imperans) I rake your own [Pars Regens] which to me is of the fame Signification as to Ecclefiafiical Power. 1m re– gendi is that which I mean by Amhority, andDebi– tum Obediendi, by SubjeCtion. But I 'think that indeed authorized Pafl:ors may make proper Laws, e. g. At what Places and Hours to meet : what Tranflations, Verfion, Metre, and fuch Orders to ufe; but only to their proper SubjeCts, and not to all the Chrifiian World. . V. " You Copioufly blame us for denying that ''Obedience to the Univerfal Church, which we ttc give to every iingle Pafior; and thought that I ' ' ownedno Power but Parochial.] . ·· i tell you fiill, 1. I maintain 'that there were in the firfi Age (and perhaps except two Churches, for the fecond Age and more) no Bi£hops diftinet · ; · . ; · from ·
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=