A92138:175
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.
The Law (saith he) was abrogated, V•rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat; The Jews were to be spared for a time, but only for a time, and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated; Paul said, Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ, and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Judaizing, Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face: Now, certain it is, Peter knew Christ was come in the flesh, and that his Judaizing did not lay bands on his conscience, he preached the contrary, Act. 11. And if Peter did Judaize, as Formalists observe Ceremonies, and the Galatians were circumcised the same way (for they knew Circumcision had no Typical Relation to Christ to come, they believed he was already come) then without cause, Paul, Gal. 2. and 5. did rebuke, and argue either Peter or the Galatians of sinful Judaizing; which to say, were to speak against the Gospel. But certainly the Uniformity, and immutability of all these Ceremonies was, that then when the Gospel was sufficiently Proclaimed to all, ⟨p. 46⟩to be under the Law of Ceremonies in any sort was damnable, and so is it now: And as the Apostles and Church then set up no Ceremonies, no Surplice, no Crossing, because they had no word of Christ to warrant them, neither can we do the like now; and they complied for a time with the Jewish Ceremonies, being yet indifferent, but not but by warrant of the commandment and resolution of the Apostles, and the like are we obliged unto now, had we a Warrant of the like indifferency of Prelates, Surplice, Cross, and that we were obliged to use them to gain the weak, in regard: 1. They were once obligatory Ordinances of God: 2. And if the day light of the Gospel were not yet sufficiently risen to shine upon those who are not wilfully ignorant, and had not yet acknowledged the Gospel to be Gods word, we should also be obliged to Ceremonies; yea, we durst not yield to any Law to lay them aside, as many Formalists, who hold them lawful, have done.
The Law (saith he) was abrogated, V•rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat; The Jews were to be spared for a time, but only for a time, and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated; Paul said,