A92138:542
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.
I proceed to answer other Arguments: As 1. We must not obey, Not only for wrath, but for conscience, the violation of a special Law, necessarily draweth with it the violation of the general Law of the fifth Commandment; But the violation of the general, (saith Learned tPareus) hurteth the Conscience; and the Magistrate punisheth not for general Violation, but for the Violation of this special Law; Ergo, this special Law obligeth in Conscience. And it seemeth to carry reason. Every just punishment presupposeth essentially a sin, else it is not a just punishment; but the Ruler doth justly punish the particular Transgression of an humane Law; Ergo, the Transgression of a particular Law of Rulers is sin. The Proposition is confirmed by grave School-men, uSoto, xSylvester, yand Joan, Eselius, Who think that there cannot be a Law obliging to a punishment, and not to a fault; because punishment hath an intrinsical relation to a sin, nor can it be a just punishment that is not proportioned to a sin; for the Law zsaith, That cometh not under damage, which cometh not under fault.
I proceed to answer other Arguments: As 1. We must not obey, Not only for wrath, but for conscience, the violation of a speciall Law, necessarily draweth with it the violation of the generall Law of the fift Commandment; But the violation of the generall, (saith Learned tPareus) hurteth the Conscience; and the Magistrate punisheth not for generall Violation, but for the Violation of this speciall Law; Ergo, this speciall Law obligeth in Conscience. And it seemeth to carry reason. Every just punishment presupposeth essentially a sin, else it is not a just punishment; but the Ruler doth justly punish the particular Transgression of an humane Law; Ergo, the Transgression of a particular Law of Rulers is sin. The Proposition is confirmed by grave School-men, u