A92138:157
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.
our Arguments nerves do not consist in the immutability, or the mutability of things themselves, or of the Laws, but on the immutability or mutability of things positive, or Laws positive, under this reduplication, so as they be immutable or mutable at the pleasure and will of men, without and beside the word of God, such as Cross ⟨p. 32⟩and Surplice, and such like Romish stuff are pretended to be. 2. Certain it is, that Christ concealed not any part of his Fathers will, Joh. 17. 8. But delivered all, and this place, with the place, Joh. 15. 15. We urge against the traditions of Papists, and say, because Christ spake nothing from his Father either in his own person, or his Apostles in the New-Testament, or in the old by Moses and the Prophets, of invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Worshipping of Images, and Relics and the rest of their unwritten Traditions, these being positives of worship, and more then unseparable, and connatural attendants, such as are common, Time, Place, Person, Name, Country, Habit, Gesture, are therefore unlawful, because Christ neither heard them of the Father, nor spake them to the Apostles, and just the like say we of Surplice, Cross, &c. That they are no part of the will of God, which the Father revealed to Christ, and these same Texts Papists use, to prove that the Scriptures are not perfect, because they speak nothing of the Traditions of the Church; so Bellarmine, Because the Council of Trent, Andradius, Stapleton, and all the rest, and they prove as well, if Cross and Surplice, and humane Offices, as Prelates, stand good and lawful, that yet the Scriptures are unperfect: 3. We say that the whole will of God revealed by the Father to Christ, and by Christ to the Prophets and Apostles, requireth the immutability of all Laws of Church-Policy in this sense, that men should not dare to make and unmake, erect, command, alter, and enjoin positive Laws, of doctrine or policy at their pleasure.
our Arguments nerves do not consist in the immutability, or the mutability of things themselves, or of the Laws, but on the immutability or mutability of things positive, or Laws positive, under this reduplication, so as they be immutable or mutable at the pleasure and will of men, without and beside the word of God, such as Crosse ⟨p. 32⟩