A92138:262
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.
Formalists, Answer: Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God, is unlawful; but not every worship holden as free, and not binding the Conscience, requireth that God Command it.
Formalists, Answer: Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God, is unlawfull; but not every worship holden as free, and not binding the Conscience, requireth that God Command it.
Ans. 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawful efficient and Author; you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship: But all worship hath necessity, and Divinity, and a binding power only from the Author God. For why is it Lawful to Abraham to kill or intend to kill his Son? Why is not eating the forbidden fruit Lawful? Only because God Commandeth; and if God forbid Abraham to kill his Son, and Command Adam to eat, it is Lawful. 2. If this be good, observe all the Ceremonial Law, so you lay not Divine necessity upon the observance thereof; offer Sacrifices to God under the New Testament, and you cannot fail in the worship against the Institutor▪ So slaying of the Children to Molech, so you count it free and changeable, shall not fail against ⟨p. 96⟩Gods Commandments of the first Table (I Command it not.) They Answer, To kill Children, is Man slaughter; but I Reply: God doth no•, Jer. 7. Reason against Offering the seed to Molech, as it was murder and forbidden in the sixth Commandment: but as false worship, and forbidden in the second Commandment: Else he proveth not, that it was unlawful worship against piety, but that it was an act of cruelty: Yea, so it be thought free and bind not the Conscience, it may be Lawful worship, and is not condemned by this (God Commanded it not) Ergo, It is not Lawful.
Ans. 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author; you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship: But all worship hath necessity, and Divinity, and a binding power only from the Author God. For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or intend to kill his Son? Why is not eating the forbidden fruit Lawfull? Only because God Commandeth; and if God forbid Abraham to kill his Son, and Command Adam to eat, it is Lawfull. 2. If this be good, observe all the Ceremoniall Law, so you lay not Divine necessity upon the observance thereof; offer Sacrifices to God under the New Testament, and you cannot fail in the worship against the Institutor So slaying of the Children to Molech, so you count it free and changeable, shall not fail against