A92138:160
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.
that God gave them particular Laws, Judgements, Statutes, not only in Morals, but also in Ceremonials, and Policy: yet Hooker dare say, We may not measure the affection of God towards us, by ⟨p. 30⟩[…] ⟨p. 31⟩[…] ⟨p. 32⟩[…] ⟨p. 33⟩[…] ⟨p. 34⟩such differences. 3. It shall not hence follow God hath a greater love to the Jews then to us, because he gave them Laws, concerning civill policy, which he gave not to us. Except the Lord had given us power to make civill Laws, which laid Moral obligation on our consciences, even in civill things, which morality He expressed in particular Laws written to them, and not to us, as Formalists teach, for then he hath left us in Morals, to the darkness of natural reason, in which condition we could not but err and sin, and make that morally good and obligatory of conscience, which is morally evil, for reason knoweth not what is positive Morally good, except the light of Gods Word teach us; and in Morals, such as judicial Laws were to the Jews, the Lord should have been more careful in his particular directing of them, then of us, and more tender to have them preserved from the sin of will-worship, then us, which cannot consist with the Dispensation of less light; greater obscurity in regard of types and shadows toward them, and of the Daylight of the Gospel, and the arising of the Day-star, and the filling of the earth with knowledge of the Lord toward us, under the New Testament: But the comparison must go upon this supposition, that the Lord purposed to make Politic Laws in their Positives, Moral and Obligatory of the Conscience of the Jews, and the Civill Laws of the Gentiles under the New Testament in their Positives (such as is not to carry Armour in the night, and the like) not to be Moral nor Obligatory of the Conscience. But as touching that which is Moral in all Civill Laws, the Lord is as careful of our Temporal state, as of theirs, in condescending to particularize all Morals to us, as well as to them.
that God gave them particular Lawes, Iudgements, Statutes, not only in Morals, but also in Ceremonials, and Policy: yet Hooker dare say, We may not measure the affection of God towards us, by