A92138:1967
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.
Hooker. The question is, whether we may follow Rome in1 orders, Rites and Ceremonies, wherein we do not think them ⟨p. 100⟩blamable, or else ought to devise others, and to have no conformity with Rome, no not so much as in these.
Hooker. The question is, whether wee may follow Rome in1 orders, Rites and Ceremonies, wherein we doe not thinke them ⟨p. 100⟩blamable, or else ought to devise others, and to have no conformitie with Rome, no not so much as in these.
- 1133. l. 4.
Ans. We never dreamed of such a Question, it is as if one1 should have formed such a question to debate with Moses, Whither may we follow Egypt and Canaan in rounding the corners of our head, and cutting our flesh for the dea•, in sowing o•r land with mingled seeds, &c. or ought we to devise others the like, and have no Conformity with them, no not so much as in these? Now Moses gave never leave to Israel to devise either these, or any other the like. The Question supposeth two things for granted, which are plainly false. 1. That if we may refuse Popish Ceremonies as scandalous, because Papists devised them, that therefore the worship of God hath need of other Symbolical and religious signs of the like nature, which we ought to devise. But the worship of God neither needeth these nor any Phylacteries of that kind. 2. It supposeth, we do not think the Rites of Rome blamable, this is a begging of the question, for both we blame them as positive religious Rites beside, and so contrary to the Word, and because Romish, and so in a high degree scandalous.