A92138:217
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.
Ans. Then because the scripture hath not forbidden the killing1 of our children to God, as a false worship against the second Commandment, but only as an act of Homicide against the sixth Commandment, and hath not forbidden all the Jewish Ceremonies, so they ⟨p. 72⟩have a new signification to point forth Christ already come in the flesh, these must all be indifferent: For let Formalists give me a Scripture to prove, that Circumcision, killing of Children, sacrificing of Beasts, are any ways forbidden in this notion, but in that they are not commanded, or set down in the word as not necessary? 2. Such Divinity I have not read; That only the School of Christ is not able to resolve us what is good and evil: I mean Morally good and evil. For Hooker pag. 54. Book 2. saith, The controversy would end, in which we contend, that all our actions are ruled by the word: If 1. we would keep our selves within the compass of moral actions, actions which have in them vice or virtue: 2. If we would not exact at their hands for every action, the knowledge of some place of Scripture, out of which we must stand bound to deduce it. Then it is like the School of Christ, the word can and doth teach us, what is a Moral action good or ill, an action in which there is virtue or vice; and to me it is a wonder, that the Old and New Testament, which containeth an exact system and body of all Morals, whither natural or Civill, or supernatural, should not be the only rule of all Morals.
Ans. Then because the scrip•ure hath not forbidden the killing1 of our children to God, as a •alse worship against the second Commandment, but only as an act of Homicide against the sixth Commandment, and hath not forbidden all the Jewish Ceremonies, so they ⟨p. 72⟩have a new signification to point forth Christ already come in the flesh, these must all be indifferent: For let Formalists give me a Scripture to prove, that Circumcision, killing of Children, sacrificing of Beasts, are any wayes forbidden in this notion, but in that they are not commanded, or set down in the word as not necessary? 2. Such Divinity I have not read; That only the Schoole of Christ is not able to resolve us what is good and evil: I mean Morally good and evil. For Hooker pag. 54. Book 2. saith, The controversie would end, in which we contend, that all our actions are ruled by the word: If 1. we would keep our selves vvithin the compasse of morall actions, actions which have in them vice or vertue: 2. If we vvould not exact at their hands for every action, the knowledge of some place of Scripture, out of vvhich vve must stand bound to deduce it. Then it is like the School of Christ, the word can and doth teach us, what is a Morall action good or ill, an action in vvhich there is vertue or vice; and to me it is a wonder, that the Old and New Testament, which containeth an exact systeme and body of all Morals, whither naturall or Civill, or supernaturall, should not be the only rule of all Morals.