A92138:1560
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 the conclusion is absurd; Ergo, some of the premises, but the Assumption is the word of God, Judah was carried captive, because they would not hear the Prophets rising early in the morning and speaking to them: Also in the New Testament, this is true to the second coming of Christ, He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me. And this, He that will not obey the servant of the supreme Magistrate, in that wherein he is a servant, and holdeth forth the Lawful commands of the supreme Magistrate, he will not obey the supreme Magistrate: The Major proposition is the adversaries, the assumption is express Scripture; let them see then to the conclusion. 2. When the adversary shall answer this argument with equal strength made against preaching and hearing the word, they will answer their own argument made against Church-government. 3. This argument is made against Synods Popish, that cannot err▪ as our Protestant Divines object; and therefore the adversary is Popish here, not we: Thus they are servants and slaves who are obliged to follow the judgement of Councils absolutely, without limitation; and because they say it, whether they warrant their decrees by the word of God, or not, that is a true Major proposition: But now the assumption is most false, for neither Magistrates nor any other, are to follow the judgement of the Church absolutely without limitation, and because they say it. The other part is, they are servants and slaves, who are to follow the judgement of the Church and Councils, with a reserve, and a condition, and limitation, in so far as they agree with the word; now the Major is false.
But the conclusion is absurd; Ergo, some of the premises, but the Assumption is the word of God, Iudah was carried captive, because they would not hear the Prophets rising early in the morning and speaking to them: Also in the New Testament, this is true to the second coming of Christ, He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me. And this, He that will not obey the servant of the supream Magistrate, in that wherein he is a servant, and holdeth forth the Lawfull commands of the supream Magistrate, he will not obey the supream Magistrate: The Major proposition is the adversaries, the assumption is expresse Scripture; let them see then to the conclusion. 2. When the adversary shall answer this argument with equal strength made against preaching and hearing the word, they will answer their owne argument made against Church-government. 3. This argument is made against Synods Popish, that cannot erre▪ as our Protestant Divines object; and therefore the adversarie is Popish here, not we: Thus they are servants and slaves who are obliged to follow the judgement of Councels absolutely, without limitation; and because they say it, whether they warrant their decrees by the word of God, or not, that is a true Major proposition: But now the assumption is most false, for neither Magistrates nor any other, are to follow the judgement of the Church absolutely without limitation, and because they say it. The other part is, they are servants and slaves, who are to follow the judgement of the Church and Councels, with a reserve, and a condition, and limitation, in so far as they agree with the word; now the Major is false.