A92138:1824
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.
But I reason thus; It is the incommunicable power of the Supreme Law▪ giver to make the killing of Isaac, which otherwayes would have been imputed to Abraham as a matter of guiltiness, and cruelty, to be no sin. Ergo, Prelates have not power to make an act of soul▪murder, to be no sin, to scandalize a weak brother is to destroy him, for whom Christ died, Rom. 14. v. 15. 1 Cor. 8. v. 11. yea, and by the same law Rulers may make an act of Adultery, an act of Chastity, an act of lying, an act of truth speaking.
But I reason thus; It is the incommunicable power of the Supreame Law▪ giver to make the killing of Isaac, which otherwayes would have been imputed to Abraham as a matter of guiltinesse, and crueltie, to be no sinne. Ergo, Prelates have not power to make an act of soul▪murther, to be no sinne, to scandalize a weake brother is to destroy him, for whom Christ died, Rom. 14. v. 15. 1 Cor. 8. v. 11. yea, and by the same law Rulers may make an act of Adulterie, an act of Chastitie, an act of lying, an act of truth speaking.
2. If Rulers, even the Apostle Paul, be tied by the law of Nature, to Charity to their brethren, as Rom. 14. 15. Not to stay him for whom Christ died, not to seek their own things, but the good of their brethren, 1 Cor. 10. 24. Not to eat things sacrificed to idols, before the weak, v. 29. To do all for the glory of God, v. 32. Then is it sin in the Ruler himself to scandalize the weak. Ergo, Rulers cannot command to others that as obedience, which they cannot do themselves without prodigious disobedience to God. What Paul forbiddeth in Canonical Scripture as murder, that he cannot command in Church Canons as obedience Canonical to Superiors.