A92138:1064
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.
Ans. Certainly, if Erastus deny the charge of the Priest and the1 King to be different offices, because once Moses did offer Sacrifice, (and so was Melchizedek both a King and a Priest, Heb. 7.) he must say that Moses offered Sacrifices, Levit. 8. not as a Priest. (Sure I am, Moses was a Prophet, and a Prince and Ruler, but no Priest.) But Moses by Erastus his way, must as a civill Magistrate have offered Sacrifices, and not as a Priest or privileged person by a special and an extraordinary commandment of God; for to deny the two offices of Priest and King to be different offices, because one man discharged some Acts proper to both Offices, as Moses both did bear the Sword of God, as a Prince, and did also discharge some Acts proper to the Priest, as Erastus saith he did, Leviticus 8. is a poor and naughty Argument: undeniable it is that Melchizedek was both King and Priest, but even then to be a King and to be a Priest, were two distinct offices, in nature and essence, because Melchizedek did not take away the life of a Murderer, as a Priest, but as King of Salem, Heb. 7. 1. Nor did Abraham pay tithes to Melchizedek as to a King, but as to a Priest. Tithes in Moses Law as tithes, were never ⟨p. 385⟩due to any but to the Priests: and therefore even in Melchizedek, the Kingly and Priestly office, were formally distinct Ordinances of God, just as David as a King and judge took away the head of the man who brought Sauls head to him, and not as a Prophet he did this; so as a Prophet he penned the Psalms, not as a King: If one and the same man be both a Musician and a painter, he doth paint excellently as a painter, not at a Musician, and he singeth excellently not as a Painter, but as a Musician; and though one and the same man do acts proper to both, that may prove that Music and the art of painting are one subjectively only, that they may both agree to one and the same man, but not that they are not two faculties and gifts of God different in species and nature. 2. Though Erastus confess that it was unlawful that Uzzias and Saul should sacrifice, yet he will have the Kings office, and the Ministers office under the New Testament not so different; for