A92138:1816
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.
Duplyers pag. 66.
It is certain we are freed from one of these precepts, for Gods precepts are not repugnant one to another. Ye commonly say, the precept of obedience to humane authority, must give place to the precept of eschewing Scandal, though it be causelessly taken, because the command of a Superior cannot make that fact to be free of scandal, which otherwise would be scandalous. But it is certain, that (laying aside the case of scandal) to deny obedience to the ordinance of our Superiors, enjoining and peremptorily requiring of us▪ things lawful and expedient, is really the sin of disobedience. Ye will say, that the scandal of weak brethren, may make that fact or omission▪ not to be disobedience, which otherwise would be disobedience; because we ought not for the Commandment of man. do that whereby our weak brother may be offended: and so the precept of obedience bindeth not, when offence of a weak brother may be feared. On the contrary we say▪ that the lawful commandment of Superiors, may make that scandal of our weak brethren, not to be imputed unto us, which otherwise would be imputed unto us, as a matter of our guiltiness. No scandal •f weak brethren causelessly taken, can make that fact, not to be the sin of disobedience, which otherwayes, that i• extra casum scandali, if it were not in the ⟨p. 32⟩case of scandal, would be the sin of disobedience.
It is certaine we are freed from one of these precepts, for Gods precepts are not repugnan one to another. Ye commonly say, the precept of obedience to humane authoritie, must give place to the precept of eschewing Scandall, though it be causlesly taken, because the command of a Superiour cannot make that fact to be free of scandall, which otherwise would be scandalous. But it is certaine, that (laying aside the case of scandall) to denie obedience to the ordinance of our Superiours, injoyning and peremptorily requiring of us things lawfull and expedient, is really the sinne of disobedience. Ye will say, that the scandall of weake brethren, may make that fact or omission not to be disobedience, which otherwise would be disobedience; because we ought not for the Commandement of man. doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended: and so the precept of obedience bindeth not, when offence of a weake brother may be feared. On the contrary we say that the lawfull commandement of Superiours, may make that scandall of our weake brethren, not to be imputed unto us, which otherwise would bee imputed unto us, as a matter of our guiltinesse. No scandall f weake brethren causlesly taken, can make that fact, not to be the sinne of disobedience, which otherwayes, that i extra casum scandali, if it were not in the