A92138:1973
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 that (saith Hooker) wherein the Israelit•• 1might not be like to the Egyptians and Canaanites, was such as peradventure as had been no whit less unlawful, although those Nations had never been, I would know what one thing was in these nations, and is here forbidden, being indifferent in it self, yet forbidden only because they used it.
But that (saith Hooker) wherein the Israelit•• 1might not be like to the Egyptians and Canaanites, was such as peradventure as had beene no whitlesse unlawfull, although those Nations had never been, I would know what one thing was in these nations, and is here forbidden, being indifferent in it selfe, yet forbidden only because they used it.
- 1138.
Ans. This is not our argument, I am not to say, the only reason, why the Lord forbade these rites, was because the Egyptians and Canaanites used them. But it is enough for our purpose, that God useth this reason, Ye• shall not do so to the Lord 1your God. Ye shall not do after the doings of the Land of Egypt, or of the Canaanites, Deut. 12. 30. 31. See that then inquire not after their Gods, saying how did these Nations serve their God? even so will I do likewise, Levit. 18. 3. 4. This is enough to prove that it is a strong argument, and Gods argument to prove that a worship, that Heathen useth to their Gods, though in it own nature indifferent, can not lawfully be given to the Lord, it wanting all warrant in Gods word, because heathens do so to their Gods and it is clear to me,