A92138:1893
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.
These who oppose us, in this, can no more inhibit us by any law of God, of the •se of a creature granted to us by the law of the creation, then they can interdict us of the use of another creature, nor are we more warranted to demolish Temples and material houses which have only a physical and common use alike in all our actions, Natural, civill, and Ecclesiastical or Religious, then of eating swines flesh, or of other meats forbidden in the Ceremonial Law, and to answer to the Argument, this or that material house builded to the honour of Paul and Peter is every way as necessary in the worship of God▪ as a Temple builded of purpose for the worship of God, though another house may conduce as much for the worshipping of1 God▪ as this, yea it hath the same very necessary Use, and Physical convenience, for the serving of God, that any other house hath, which was never builded for the honour of a Saint, which I prove, 1. because no creature of God▪ that is useful to us, by the law of creation, is capable of any moral contagion to make• it ⟨p. 66⟩unlawful to us, but from the mee• will of God as the Gold and Silver, and Idol houses of the false Gods, and Images of Canaan are in•••secally, and by the Law of creation, as pure, and morally clean, as the Gold and Silver and Synagogues of the Jews, and had their Physical and civill necessity, the one, as the other had. But from whence was it that the Jews might make use of their own Silver and Gold, and houses, and not of the houses, or silver and gold of the heathen Gods and Idols? Certainly this was from Gods mere positive will and command, forbidding the Gold and houses of the Idols of Canaan, and not forbidding the other, the Adversaries can give no other reason: therefore they must give us the same positive Commandment, for not making use of the Gold and Silver, and Temples of the Popish Idols, and Saints under the New Testament, that the Jews had for refusing the Gold and Silver, and demolishing the Temples of the heathenish Idols of Canaan. And if they say, Th•• the very command that warranted the Jews to abstain, from the