A92138:189
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 truth is, a Nation of Papists answer this very thing for their Traditions. 1. Bishop Ans. to the 2. part of Refor. Catho. of Trad. §. 5. pag. 848. The words signify no more, but that we must not either by addition, or subtraction, change or pervert Gods Commandments, be they written, or unwritten: Else why were the Books of the Old Testament written afterward; if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught, beside▪ that one Book of Deuteronomy? Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many Volumes after this, had read these words, or understood them not, or did wilfully transgress them? D. Abbot answereth, What the Prophets wrote, serve to explain the Law, they added no point of Doctrine to Moses Law, for Exod. 24, 4. Moses wrote all the words of God, Deut. 31. 9, 10. Moses wrote this Law, then he wrote not a part of the Law, and left another part unwritten. The Jesuit Tannerus answereth the same in terminis with the Formalists: Colloquio Ratisbonensi foll. 11. & 13. D. Gretserus, ad dicta, Resp. Prohiberi additionem quae repugnet verbo scripto, non autem illam, quae verbo scripto est consentanea cujusmodi sunt traditiones—Post pentateuchum accesserunt libri josue, Prophetarum, &c. Tamen nemo reprehendit, quia illi libri fuerunt consentanei sacrae Scripturae: Additions contrary (say they) to the word are forbidden, not such as agree with the word, such as are all the traditions of the Church; for after Deuteronomy were written the Books of Joshua and the Prophets; so Cajetan. Comment in Loc. Prohibemur ne •ingamus contineri in lege, quod in ea non continetur, nec subtrahamus, quod in ea continetur, Gloss. Interline: Non prohibet veritatem veritati addere, sed falsitatem omnino removet. Lira. Hic prohibetur additio depr•vans intellectum legis, non autem additio declarns aut clucidans, Tostatus in Loc. Q. 2. Ille (pecat) qui addit, addit tanquam aliquid de textu, vel necessarium, sicut alia qu• sunt in textu velut dictum a spiritu sancto, & hoc vocatur propriè addere. Formalists (as Dr.
But the truth is, a Nation of Papists answer this very thing for their Traditions. 1. Bishop Ans. to the 2. part of Refor. Catho. of Trad. §. 5. pag. 848. The words signifie no more, but that we must not either by addition, or substraction, change or pervert Gods Commandments, be they written, or unwritten: Else why were the Books of the Old Testament written aftervvard; if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught, beside that one Book of Deutronomy? Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many Volumns after this, had read these vvords, or understood them not, or did vvilfully transgresse them? D. Abbot answereth, What the Prophets vvrote, serve to explain the Law, they added no point of Doctrine to Moses Lavv, for