A92138:191
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.
Now their Tradition is no more a part of the Scripture (but another part of the word of God contradistinguished from Scripture) then the body is a part of the soul, or Scotland a part of England, for both England and Scotland are collateral parts of great Britain; the Scripture (say they) is the unperfect rule of Faith, and not the complete will of God, as touching Faith or manners, but Scripture and Tradition together, are the perfect and total rule: so say Formalists, that Scripture is the complete and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Moral acts; But the other part of the distinction is, that Scripture is not a complete and full rule to regulate all our Moral Acts whatsoever, whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy, as it is no rule to my conscience and practise to believe, for orders, cause and obedience to my Superiors, and for decency that I am to wear a Religious significant linen creature called a Surplice, or not to wear it, or that I am to exercise, or not exercise that grave action of drawing my thumb Cross the Air above the face of a Baptized Child while I baptize, to betoken his dedication to Christs service: And hitherto neither Traditions, nor Positives of Church-Policy are added, as necessary parts of written Scripture: 2. Traditions are not added to the Scripture, by Papists, as coming from the immediately inspiring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture, more then our Ceremonial Positives of policy: Its true, Papists say they come from an infallible spirit: But Formalists (I hope) refer not their unwritten Positives to so noble blood; yet in this, they agree that Traditions are not added by them, as descending from the immediate inspiring ⟨p. 55⟩spirit of written Scripture: Therefore Cornelius a Lapide saith, Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor, aliquid, scilicet tanquam meum, vel a me dictum aut jussum, nulli enim homini licet prescripta aut precepta sua pro preceptis a deo (a spiritu sancto immediatè inspirante) dictatis, aut pro Scripturis sacris addere; It is not lawful for any man to add to the word any thing of his own, as his own, or as spoken and commanded by himself: For no man may broach his own injunctions and precepts, as if they were the precepts taught by the immediate inspiring spirit, speaking in the Scriptures.
Now their Tradition is no more a part of the Scripture (but another part of the word of God contradistinguished from Scripture) then the body is a part of the soul, or Scotland a part of England, for both England and Scotland are collaterall parts of great Brittain; the Scripture (say they) is the unperfect rule of Faith, and not the compleat will of God, as touching Faith or manners, but Scripture and Tradition together, are the perfect and totall rule: so say Formalists, that Scripture is the compleat and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Morall acts; But the other part of the distinction is, that Scripture is not a compleat and full rule to regulate all our Morall Acts whatsoever, whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy, as it is no rule to my conscience and practise to believe, for orders, cause and obedience to my Superiours, and for decency that I am to wear a Religious significant linnen creature called a Surplice, or not to wear it, or that I am to excercise, or not exercise that grave action of drawing my thumb Crosse the Air above the face of a Baptized Childe vvhile I baptize, to betoken his dedication to Christs service: And hitherto neither Traditions, nor Positives of Church-Policy are added, as necessary parts of written Scripture: 2. Traditions are not added to the Scripture, by Papists, as coming from the immediatly inspiring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture, more then our Ceremoniall Positives of policy: Its true, Papists say they come from an infallible spirit: But Formalists (I hope) refer not their unwritten Positives to so noble blood; yet in this, they agree that Traditions are not added by them, as descending from the immediate inspiring