A92138:1269
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.
but first may we not infinite falli, infinitely err in internal actions and thought, and acts of believing? are we more infallible in internal, then in external actions? New Theology: and are we not as well tied to what is expressly commanded in internal, as in external actions? I think the word is as strict a rule, and the Law of the Lord as perfect in the one as in the other. 5. The great error is here, that Erastus being sleeping when he wrote, thinketh that to eat and drink unworthily, to offer a gift at the Altar, the offerer being unreconciled to his brother, is an action internal and known to God; and that can no more be known to man, then the thoughts of the heart: A palpable untruth! is not worshipping of Baalim, murdering, stealing, whoring, killing the Children to Moloch, and coming to stand in the Temple of the Lord, which are called a profaning of Gods holy name, Jer. 7. 9, 10, 11. Ezek. 23. 38, 39. are not these actions visible, external, and as feasible to be judged by ⟨p. 462⟩man, as murder may be judged by a Magistrate? Yea, by this, let a Pagan come to the table of the Lord, we are not to hinder him, why? it is an internal action known, citra errorem, to God only, and we cannot then judge whither he have examined himself or not; if he be not against us here, he is with us saith Erastus, Quod deus 1facere jussit, ab eo revocari aut retrahi nullus ab hominibus debet: si modo extern sic fiat, ut precepit deus; Yea, so the Magistrate cannot hinder either Pagan or the open enemy, and persecutor, who will trample upon the Sacrament, from the Sacraments; the contrary whereof Erastus said, pag. 207. hunc ego minime admittendum censeo, and let Erastus give us Scripture, either express, or by consequence, where a Pagan or a persecutor may be impeded by Church or Magistrate from external receiving of the seals, except that we are not to give pearls to swine? But was it not as hard to judge whether Saul persecuting the Church out of blind zeal, was a swine, or a dog, as to judge whether he that killeth his son to Molech out of blind devotion, and cometh the same day to the Temple of the Lord, doth profane the Name of the Lord? 6. If we must do nothing in externals without the express commandment of God, nor may we without Gods command, either express, or a necessary consequence, admit dogs and swine to the Lords table. 7.