A92138:349
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.
5. Here be a most vile distinction, That we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished, but not to Surplice, or to such means and particular admonishers, but only collaterally: But •. is the Church ordaining Ceremonies a collateral Mistress over the conscience, & who is the other collateral judge here? who but Christ? ⟨p. 135⟩2. We owe this collateral subjection of Conscience to the Image of 1the Trinity: for though we owe not subjection of Conscience to the image, as such an admonisher, or such an exhorting object; seeing the Word of God may also admonish us of God, yet we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished, to wit, to the blessed trinity. 3. Neither owe we subjection of conscience to the word, as written with ink on paper, nor to the sound of the word Preached; yea, nor do we owe subjection of Faith to the Word as the Word; but only collateral: when we say, (I hope in the Word, (I believe the Word,) I rejoice in the Word of God) we take the Word, for Objetum quo, and God for Objectum quod, for the word is not the formal object of any subjection of Conscience; I owe to the Word, not a subjection of Conscience collateral or coequal with the subjection that I owe to▪ God, but only subordinate as to a mean, and to the Word for God, and because it is instituted by God; but I owe subjection of Conscience to God solely, independently, and only; yea, subjection of Conscience is not due to the Word for its manner of working, and not due to the Ceremonies; because they work not as the Word of God doth (as no wonder, they being but hay and stubble) but subjection of Conscience is due to the Word, because God is the Author of it, and speaketh in it himself, as is clear, Jer. 13. 15. Amos 3. 8. Heb. 2. 3. Hear, for the Lord hath spoken, and it is to be received only, and in Conscience yielded unto, as it is the Word of God, Isa. 1. 2.