A92138:230
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.
FOR farther light in this point, it is a Question: What is the formal object of our obedience in all our our Moral actions? that is, Whether is the Faith practical of our obedience, & the obedience itself, in all the externals of Church Government resolved in this ultimately and finally. This and this we do, and this point of Government 1we believe and practise: because the Lord hath so appointed it, in an immutable Platform of Government in Scripture: or because the Church hath so appointed, or because there is an intrinsical conveniency in the thing it self, which is discernible by the light of nature? Ans. This Question is near of blood to the Controversy between Papists and us, concerning the formal object of our faith▪ that is, Whither are we to believe the scripture to be the Word of God, because so saith the Church: or upon this objective ground, because the Lord so speaketh in his own Word: Now we hold, that scripture it self furnisheth light and faith of it self, from it self; and that the Church doth but hold forth the light: as I see the light of the Candle, because of the light itself, not because of the Candlestick. Hence in this same very Question, the Jews were not to believe, that the smallest pin of the Tabernacle, or that any officer, High-Priest, Priest or Levite, were necessary, nor were they to obey in the smallest Ceremonial observance; because Moses and the Priests or Church, at their godly discretion, without Gods own special warrant said so: But, because so the Lord spake to Moses, so the Lord gave in writing to David and Solomon, 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. And so must it be in the Church of the New Testament, in all the Positives of Government; otherwise, if we observe Saintsdayes, and believe Crossing and Surplice, hath this Religious signification, because the Church saith so; then is our obedience of conscience finally resolved in the Testimony of men so speaking, at their own discretion without any warrant of scripture. 2. To believe and obey in any Religious Positives, because it is the pleasure of men so to Command, is to be servants of men, and to make their will the formal reason of our obedience, which is unlawful. If it be said, that we are to believe and Practise many things in natural necessity, as to eat, move, sleep, and many circumstantials of Church-Policy, because the Law of natural reason saith so;