A92138:1672
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.
Amongst our late writers, I should conceive that renowned1 Salmasius, that rich treasure of Antiquity, can stand as one for all to speak for us in this point. The Emperors (saith he) had of old a suffrage in choosing of Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and Popes, and of convocating General Councils: So as Jerome maketh it a Mark of a General Council, that it was indicted by the Emperor; and there was reason, because, it concerned the consciences of the Magistrate as the Magistrate, what Pastors, Popes, and Doctors there were in their dominions to watch over their souls, and the souls of their subjects. It is true, de facto, Honorius the Emperor did ordain Marcellinus moderator of the conference at Carthage between the Catholics and the Donatists, The Emperors added the force of a civil Law to the Councils: So Justinian. Constitut. 130. sanxit ut quatuor conciliorum Canone• pro legibus haberentur; Ergo, the Councils had the force of Ecclesiastical Laws, without the Emperors; But they had not the force of civil Laws, having civil penalties annexed to them, without the Emperors; Ergo, the confirmation of Councils made by the Emperors, were politic and civil confirmations: for the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem, were Ecclesiastical decrees, without the will, Law, and Authority of any Emperor on earth, and laid an Ecclesiastical tie on the Churches, without the Emperor, Act. 16. 4, 5. So is that of Salmasius to be expounded, as he expoundeth himself.2 Principis est leges de Religione condere, de fide Catholicâ, de Episcopis, de Clericis, deque aliis huiusmodi que externam potestatem spectant, five [Greek or Hebrew] circa res et personas Ecclesiasticas, eaque fecere Christiani Imperatores in Ecclesia sui temporis, haeo enim est [Greek or Hebrew] sive [Greek or Hebrew] potestas qua principles legum sanctionibus non uni generi sibi subditorum consulere debent, sed in universum, omnibus tam laicis, quam Ecclesiasticis, quatenus Ecclesia est in Repub. et Reip. pars, non Respublica Ecclesiae.
Amongst our late writers, I should conceive that renowned1 Salmasius, that rich treasure of Antiquity, can stand as one for all to speak for us in this point. The Emperours (saith he) had of old a suffrage in chusing of Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and Popes, and of convocating General Councels: So as Ierome maketh it a Mark of a General Councel, that it was indicted by the Emperour; and there was reason, because, it concerned the consciences of the Magistrate as the Magistrate, what Pastors, Popes, and Doctors there were in their dominions to watch over their souls, and the souls of their subjects. It is true, de facto, Honorius the Emperour did ordain Marcellinus moderator of the conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists, The Emperours added the force of a civil Law to the Councels: So Iustinian. Constitut. 130. sanxit ut quatuor conciliorum Canone pro legibus haberentur; Ergo, the Councels had the force of Ecclesiastical Lawes, without the Emperours; But they had not the force of civil Lawes, having civil penalties annexed to them, without the Emperours; Ergo, the confirmation of Councels made by the Emperours, were politick and civil confirmations: for the decrees of the Councel of Ierusalem, were Ecclesiastical decrees, without the will, Law, and Authority of any Emperour on earth, and laid an Ecclesiastical tye on the Churches, without the Emperour,