A92138:1927
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.
A. But sure, all out jus and right that men have over their1 houses, and that Captives and servants have to their Masters and Lords, is jus limitatum, a right ruled, limited▪ bounded by the word of God, nor is the work they perform morally indifferent, (physically it is) and Captive Christians, if for danger of their life, they may prepare necessary instruments of war against Christians, they may kill Christians also: for what power the conquering Lords have over Captives to command them to prepare fire and sword, against the innocent witnesses of Jesus Christ, because they are such, the same jus right have they to command to kill the innocent. But for no cause the most weighty, can we choose either to shed innocent blood, or to co-operate with the shedding of it, nor to co-operate with the works of darkness, for it is shameful that a servant may lawfully co-operate with, and thrust his master in at a window, to go▪ ⟨p. 86⟩to a whore, the jus or dominion of Masters to command, and the right of servants to obey is only in the Lord. Yea to kill a man is Physically indifferent, for that is physically, yea morally without relation to any law indifferent, which is capable of lawfulness, or unlawfulness, according as it shall be commanded of, or forbidden by God. But for a man to kill his son, is of it self such, certain, if God command a Judge to kill his son, it is lawful for the father to kill his son, if the Lord forbid Abraham to kill his son, it is unlawful for Abraham to kill his son. And therefore Caspensis hath no more reason to use the Instance of captives preparing war against innocent Christians and of a servant thrusting his Master in at door or window to a whore, then of captives killing the innocent, or of servants breaking a house, and taking away the goods of a man in the night▪ or of servants committing whoredom at the command of their Conquerors or Lords, the one kind of action in it self is as indifferent and susceptible of moral lawfulness, and unlawfulness, as the other.
A. But sure, all out jus and right that men have over their1 houses, and that Captives and servants have to their Masters and Lords, is jus limitatum, a right ruled, limited bounded by the word of God, nor is the worke they performe morally indifferent, (physically it is) and Captive Christians, if for danger of their life, they may prepare necessary instruments of warre against Christians, they may kill Christians also: for what power the conquering Lords have over Captives to command them to prepare fire and sword, against the innocent witnesses of Jesus Christ, because they are such, the same jus right have they to command to kill the innocent. But for no cause the most weighty, can we choose either to shed innocent blood, or to co-operate with the shedding of it, nor to co-operate with the works of darknes, for it is shamefull that a servant may lawfully co-operate with, and thrust his master in at a window, to goe