A92138:319
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.
IV. Conclusion, It is a vain and unwarrantable distinction to divide 1worship in essential, which hath Gods; 1. Particular approving will to be the Warrant thereof, and worship accidental or Arbitrary, which hath only Gods general and permissive will, and hath mans will for its father; so Ceremonies (say they) In these, hath Gods general will, according to their specification, whether a Surplice be decent, or not, is from mans will, therefore they are called worship reductively, because in their particulars, they have no Divine institution, and they tend to the honouring of God, not as worship, but as ⟨p. 119⟩adjuncts of worship; so aMorton; so bBurges.
IV. Conclusion, It is a vain and unwarrantable distinction to divide 1worship in essentiall, which hath Gods; 1. Particular approving will to be the Warrant thereof, and worship accidentall or Arbitrary, which hath only Gods generall and permissive will, and hath mans will for its father; so Ceremonies (say they) In these, hath Gods generall will, according to their specification, whether a Surplice be decent, or not, is from mans will, therefore they are called worship reductively, because in their particulars, they have no Divine institution, and they tend to the honouring of God, not as worship, but as ⟨p. 119⟩adjuncts of worship; so aMorton; so bBurges.
- 1The distinction of worship essential and accidental of Gods general and particular will is to be rejected.