A92138:321
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.
If it be said, the particular goodness of Surplice and Crossing is good and showed to us in the general. I Answer, ⟨p. 120⟩goodness of indifferent Rites, is, Repugnantia in adjecto, and a flat contradiction, as who would say, cold fire, indifferent is neither good nor evil, neither Lawful, nor unlawful: 2. Then God hath not showed us all Moral goodness in his word, because he hath not showed to us the goodness of Ceremonies. 3. Lawfulness is an essential property of Divine worship resulting from Gods particular approving will in his word, as is clear, Hosea 8. 5. 1 Chro. 15. 13. Lev. 10. 1. 2 Sam. 7. 7. Jer. 7. 30. Act. 15. 24. Ergo, Arbitrary worship must have Gods approving will, commanding it, else it is not Lawful: I prove the Antecedent from the causes of worship: 1. The end of worship, which is the honouring of God maketh not worship Lawful; Idolaters may intend to honour God in their Idolatry, as well as true worshippers. 2. The matter of worship is not essential to Lawful worship, for Lawful and unlawful worship may have the same common matter, as Solomons Calves in the Temple were lawful, because ordained of God, and Samaria's Calves were unlawful, because they were from men, the matter of both might be one and the same metal, Hosea 8. 3. The Form of worship in general, is not the essential and specifice Form of Lawful worship, as the specifice Form of a living creature is not the specifice form of a man, the specifice form of a man is not the specifice form of a just man, as just. Also I may conceive Sacramental eating in general, and not conceive whether it be Lawful or unlawful: For if Lawfulness were the specifice form of worship, I could not conceive worship, but I behooved to conceive Lawfulness in it. Now then Gods commanding will, being wanting to Arbitrary worship, it cannot be Lawful; Ergo, unlawful. If it be answered, Ceremonies are negatively lawful, not positively lawful, and the Argument proceedeth of Lawfulness positive, which is commanded in the word. But this is, 1. a begging of the question. 2. Negative Lawfulness, is from mans will, which should not be a Creatrix of the goodness of things or of Lawfulness, nor can it Create goodness, except you make man to be God: 4.