A92138:524
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.
They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition, in that which is moral, can be proved out of Gods word, but so, in their morality they are merely divine, and not humane and positive, and so the argument concludeth not against us. They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternal law, that is, as they are deduced from the eternal Law of God, in a Major proposition, without probation of the assumption, that we deny, and it is in question now. The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge, rejected God, not because Samuel had a power of making laws, without the warrant of Gods word. Neither Moses, nor Jeremiah, nor Ezekiel▪ nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God, for they were only to hear the word at Gods mouth. 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines ⟨p. 209⟩xhand, then Jackson saith. For Bellarmine saith, In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power, to make that which is sin, to be no sin, and that which is no sin, to be sin. So Jackson, the interposition of derived authority, maketh that which would be murder other ways, to be a good work; that is, men may do what God only can do. If Isaac then at the commandment of Abraham his father, offer his son Jacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice, then Abraham's derived authority maketh that a lawful sacrifice, as to strike a Prophet of it self, is a degree of murder, but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet, it is lawful. But can any blasphemer say, that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord, such as are humane positive laws, and our humane ceremonies, see the text, 1 King. 20. 35. And a certain man of the sons of the Prophets, said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord▪ smite me. This was immediate, divine and Prophetical authority, and not humane. Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawful? Court Parasites speak so, he refuteth himself. The Kings letter of Mart, for wrongs done to the State, maketh that which is Piracy lawful, then the Kings authority doth not here by a nomothetic power, and a law laid upon the Conscience, but the wrongs of Piracy by Spain, done to the State of England, may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawful war, and an act of justice flowing from the King as a lawful Magistrate.