A92138:156
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. I answer, as Christ did to the Jews in another case, Joh. 6. 32. Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you that true bread: So in this, neither Moses nor Solomon erected either that Tabernacle or Temple, as Law-givers, but the Father of our Lord Jesus, as the true Law-giver: Now both were but mere servants and Heralds in all that they did, for God showed to Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle, and to David and Solomon the form of the Temple, in all the pins, rings, chambers, cubits, length and breadth, Exod. 24 40. 1 Chron. 28. 11, 19. And the question is not if ever the Lord himself delivered mutable or immutable Laws, either in Doctrine or Policy: We grant he did, and may deliver Laws changeable and to endure for a time only in both the old and new Testament, Heb. 7. 18. Col. 2. 17. Act. 15. 28, 29. But the question is, if Moses as a man, if Christ as a man only, if the Church of Prelates, yea, or of Lawful Officers can be faithful, if they deliver laws to the Church, which may be altered, without the express will of God, speaking in his word at the pleasure of men, and which are positives of worship and Policy, such as humane Prelates, Surplice, Cross, &c. which varieth, dieth and liveth, falleth and riseth with the climate, Nation, civill-Government, Laws, Manners, and customs of People; and this is all one, as to move the question, whither the Ambassador as a man, may alter the Articles of his Commission, according to his own private lust, without an express and evident Warrant of the Prince and State, whose servant and Messenger he is in all that he doth, and if he be a faithful Ambassador, who doth his own will, and not the will of those that sent him, and if Christ be as faithful as Moses, if he had given Laws of policy under the New-Testament to be altered without an express and evident Warrant from the will of the Father, at the pleasure and will of men? This we deny; and certainly, say that Moses had erected a changeable Tabernacle at the will of man, and Solomon a Temple unchangeable at the will, and express Commandment of God, then had Solomon been faithfuller then Moses;