A92138:520
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.
If the Pope (faith he) for his own vvill, and without necessity and utility should seclude works of supererogation, that command should tend to destruction, and we are to obey Christ, who is above the Pope. And therefore his mind is, that all obligation of Conscience, in humane commandments cometh from Gods will and law, that is, from the just and necessary matter of the law, not from the will of men.
If the Pope (faith he) for his ovvne vvill, and vvithout necessity and utility should seclude vvorkes of supererogation, that command should tend to destruction, and vve are to obey Christ, vvho is above the Pope. And therefore his mind is, that all obligation of Conscience, in humane commandments commeth from Gods will and law, that is, from the just and necessary matter of the law, not from the will of men.
6. Conclus. All humane or Ecclesiastic laws binding the conscience, have necessary, and not probable deduction only, by the warrant of both the Major Proposition and Assumption from the ⟨p. 206⟩Word of God, and Law of Nature. This conclusion is against eSuarez, he seeketh only a probable connection betwixt obliging Laws and the Divine law. And fGregorius de valent. is in very deed against Gerson, who teacheth three things of all humane laws. 1. That they are in so far just. 2. That they in so far oblige the Conscience, as they have necessary dependence upon natures law, or Gods word, and therefore compareth them to these precepts that Physicians give to sick persons, they oblige the conscience of the sick, (as I think) from the sixth Commandment, (Thou shalt do no murder,) for if the patient sleep at such a time, or drink wine in such a case, he killeth himself, but they have not obliging power from the fifth Commandment, not as if the King being sick were obliged by the fifth Commandment to obey the Physician, as his superior. 3. He will have all humane laws that properly obligeth, to be only declaratory, and to manifest only the Divine law, and to apply it to such and such a matter. The Conclusion is clear from what is said before, because all civil laws as merely positive, in the case of non-contempt do not oblige, and in the case of non-scandall, as