A92138:1868
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.
Forbes, that Christian liberty is not restrained by doing, or not doing a thing indifferent, for so there should be no laws made at all by the Church, concerning things indifferent, but Christian liberty not hurt, if 1. the Ceremonies be free to the conscience, and not made necessary. 2. If they be not made necessary to salvation. 3. If they be holden alterable by mans authority. Ans. The question is perverted▪ for we question not if the use of things indifferent lay a bond on Christian liberty, but if the will of authority can make a law of things indifferent; when there is no intrinsical necessity in the things themselves, when necessity of edification layeth on a tie, Christian liberty is not indeed restrained, for God then layeth on a bond. 2. External eating of meats, and observing of days, is a part of the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free, Coll. 2. 21. Eat not, touch not, taste not, men eat not meat with their mind or conscience, but with the teeth of their body, and to such external eating, men are dead with Christ, as touching external observation thereof, and Paul, Gal. 2. 19. as dead to the Law, living to God, and crucified with Christ, is freed from such Judaizing, as Peter fell into, but that Judaizing did not bind Peters conscience, neither was it repute of him, as necessary to salvation, as he had taught, Act. 10. And the false Apostles pressed Circumcision, not, as tying the conscience, or as necessary for salvation, but Gal. 6. 12. [Greek or Hebrew], &c. only, that they may not suffer affliction for the cross of Christ, and yet to be circumcised externally without necessity of conscience before God, crossed directly the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, Gal. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 9. Have we not power to lead about a wife, and sister aswell as others? Yet if the Prelates at Corinth should have made an act, forbidding Church-men to marry, though they had esteemed not marrying, both free to the conscience, and also not necessary to salvation, they had laid bands upon Pauls liberty. 3. We see not how the Ceremonies are left free to the conscience, because they are alterable by the Church, for the reason of kneeling to bread, of humane days, of Surplice, is moral, not National;