A92138:543
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.
Ans. Though the Violation of the general Law hurteth the Conscience, it being against the fifth Commandment; it followeth not that the Violation of every particular Law, even that that is merely Positive, hurteth the Conscience before God: For then the carrying of Armour in the Night, Suppose no Ruler on earth make a Law there anent, should be a sin before God, which no wise man can say. 2. The other reason is more important, and draweth with it that School-question agitated by Jurists also and Ganonists, An ulla detur lox pure paenalis; If there be a Law purely Penal, without sin in it: And if the Law of Rulers in things merely Positive, be merely Penal and co-active, and not formally obliging to sin. But I Answer, Rulers do justly punish the Transgression of a Positive Law, not as particularly humane and Positive: But as 1. It hath connection with the Moral Reason of the Law. 2. As the particular ⟨p. 217⟩transgression is scandalous and against order, in which case the formal object of the just punishment inflicted by the Ruler, is in very deed not the simple omission of the positive act of a particular humane Law, but the violation of the moral goodness annexed to it, and of the scandal given. Now in this meaning, the transgression of the positive humane Law is not kindly, Per se, of it self punishable, but by accident, and so it bindeth the conscience by accident; And in this sense, great Doctors, as aAmbrose, bAnselm, cTheodoret, dChrysostom, eNavarra, fFelinus, gTaraquel say, That humane Laws oblige the conscience. But the most learned of the Canonists aver, that not to obey civill Laws, laying aside the evil of scandal, is no mortal sin, and so doth not involve the conscience in guiltiness before God.