A92138:1855
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. 37. n. 51.
Thirdly, these offices or duties, which we owe to others by way of Justice, are more strictly obligatory, then these which we owe to them, only by way of charity. But we owe the duty of obedience1 to our Superiors, by way of justice, and therefore it is more obligatory, then the duty of eschewing scandal causelessly taken, which is a duty only of charity. 1. The major is a maxim not only of Scholastics▪ and of Popish casuists, but also of our Divines. So Amesius, The major is clear for the duty of obedience which we owe to the public Laws of the Church and Kingdom is▪ Justitia legalis, a general legal Justice, and as it is in subjects, it is a virtue inclining them to the obedience of all laws made for the benefit of the Common-wealth, as Aristotle saith. 2. It is debitum obedientiae, the debt of obedience which we owe to our Superiors, grounded upon the proper right which our Superiors have to exact this right of us, so that they may accuse us of injury, and censure us, if we perform it not. Debitum justitiae fundatur in proprio jure alterius; and also it is debitum morale, a debt of duty unto which we are tied by moral honesty in Gods commandment. There is a great difference betwixt these two debts; As for example, a man oweth moneys to the poor by a moral debt, but to his creditors he oweth them by a legal debt, or debt of justice: and therefore he is more strictly obliged to pay his creditor then to give alms. Such like by moral honesty, and Gods precept also; a man oweth to his neighbour, a pious carefulness, to imped sin in him, by admonition, instruction, good example, and by omission even of things lawful, when he seeth that his neighbour in respect of his weakness, will be scandalized by them. But his neighbour hath not such a right to exact these duties of him, neither can he have action against him, for not performing of them, as our lawful Superiors have for our due obedience?
Thirdly, these offices or duties, which we owe to others by way of Justice, are more strictly obligatorie, then these which we owe to them, only by way of charitie. But we owe the dutie of obedience