A92138:526
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.
Answ. We owe to equals, to Mahomet, conditional and cautionary faith and obedience; thus, I believe what Mahomet saith, so he speak Gods word, yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what, John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blind way, so they speak according to Gods word. 2. It followeth in no sort, if Rulers are only to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word, that then they are no more to be obeyed then equals & Inferiors, because there is a double obedience, one of conscience, and objective coming from the thing commanded; And in respect of this, the word hath no less authority, and doth no less challenge obedience of Conscience, and objective, when my equal speaketh it in a private way, yea, when I writ it in my muse, then when a Pastor speaketh it by public authority; for we teach against Papists, that the word borroweth •o authority from men, nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man, but as indeed the Word of God, as the Scripture saith: 1. There is another obedience official, which is also obedience of Conscience, because the fifth Commandment enjoineth it. Yet not obedience of Conscience coming from the particular, commanded in humane Laws, as humane, so I owe obedience of subjection, and submission of affection, of fear, love, honour, respect, by virtue of the fifth Commandment to Rulers, when they command according to Gods Word, and this I owe not to equals or inferiors; and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular, because they must warrant their mandates from the Word. But its always this mans hap to be against sound1 truth. But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this, (Thou shalt not murder) (Believe in Jesus Christ) when Rulers and Pastors command them, then when I read them in Gods word. I prove 1. If this from a Ruler (Thou shalt not murder,) challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees, but as I read it my self, or as my equal in a private way saith, (Thou shalt not murder) it challenge saith and subjection of four degrees only, then is it more obligatory of Conscience, ⟨p. 211⟩and so of more intrinsical authority, and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it, then when I read it, or my equal speaketh it to me.