A92138:1463
The divine right of church-government and excommunication
The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peaceable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justified, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examined; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.
London: printed by John Field for Christopher Meredith, 1646
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.
then he is not the feet, though he have need of the feet, for then the eye should be both eye and ear, and hand, and therefore the King cannot be all. Pareus in Rom. 13. saith, the King cannot do some things ob defectum juris ex Dei limitatione, He cannot preach. Ans. Ergo, Preaching belongeth by Divine right to another, and its not subordinate to him, jure Divino. 2. Saith Pareus, he wanteth law to use the wi•• of another man as his own. Ans. Then the right of Husband and Wife is not subordinate to the King, so as he may use the right of a Husband, because it is against the seventh Commandment, nor can he invade the right of Pastors to dispense Word and Sacraments, it being against the second Commandment, he not being called thereunto. 3. Other things (saith he) he cannot do for want of skill, as to teach in a College, and others he cannot do, because they are sordid, as to sew shoes. Ans. If God have not called the Prince to these, it is not only sordid, but unlawful for him to thrust his sickle in another mans field, for God must call to a lawful calling, else men use a lawful thing unlawfully, so it is sordid and unlawful for him to judge those, and the like. Erastus I know roundly granteth that the King or any Magistrate may lawfully dispense the Word and Sacraments, nothing hindereth him, but want of time, which is a better Answer then others give, who hold the same principles with Erastus, and that the King hath the same Royal power in things civill and Ecclesiastic, except the adversary flee to our ⟨p. 557⟩distinction of power and persons, and of things civill and sacred, they shall never expede themselves. But the King (say they) is 1not capable of 1. The power of Order, he cannot be a Pastor, or a Doctor. 2.
then he is not the feet, though he have need of the feet, for then the eye should be both eye and eare, and hand, and therefore the King cannot be all. Pareus in Rom. 13. saith, the King cannot doe some things ob defectum juris ex Dei limitatione, He cannot preach. Ans. Ergo, Preaching belongeth by Divine right to another, and its not subordinate to him, jure Divino. 2. Saith Pareus, he wanteth law to use the wi of another man as his owne. Ans. Then the right of Husband and Wife is not subordinate to the King, so as he may use the right of a Husband, because it is against the seventh Commandement, nor can he invade the right of Pastors to dispense Word and Sacraments, it being against the second Commandment, he not being called thereunto. 3. Other things (saith he) he cannot doe for want of skill, as to teach in a Colledge, and others he cannot doe, because they are fordid, as to sew shooes. Ans. If God have not called the Prince to these, it is not onely sordid, but unlawfull for him to thrust his sickle in another mans field, for God must call to a lawfull calling, else men use a lawful thing unlawfully, so it is sordid and unlawfull for him to judge those, and the like. Erastus I know roundly granteth that the King or any Magistrate may lawfully dispence the Word and Sacraments, nothing hindereth him, but want of time, which is a better Answer then others give, who hold the same principles with Erastus, and that the King hath the same Royall power in things civill and Ecclesiastick, except the adversary flee to our