A92138:1079
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.
Ergo, it is lawful for them to preach, it followeth not▪ for such positive ordinances as preaching Ministers, must be appointed by a positive command, for where hath God forbidden women to baptise? Ergo, they may baptise; is not the Lords commanding the Apostles to go teach and baptise all Nations, and his not giving any such commandment to others, as ⟨p. 394⟩good as a forbidding of them? But I hope this is examined already sufficiently. 2. For Samuel his being both Judge and Prophet, I grant it; but as an extraordinary dispensation of God, which Christ would not take on him to do, Luk. 12. nor is it left to us as a rule. 3. That Aaron's sons had no tribunal of their own different from the tribunal of Moses, is proved to be false from 2 Chr. 19, 8. 4. That the Priests were Magistrates having the power of the sword, cannot be proved by any word of God, the pl••e Ez•. 44. is every way for us, all the power given in that Cha▪ is Ecclesiastical, none Civill, as to keep the charge of the Lords holy things, to exclude the uncircumcised in heart and flesh, out of the sanctuary, to come near to the table of the Lord and Minister, v. 16, to enter into the gates of the inner courts, clothed in linen, &c. and many the like, did no more agree to a Magistrate then to burn incense, which to do, Erastus granteth was unlawful in King Uzziah; yet he would prove that it is lawful under the New Testament to exercise both, so the Magistrate were able to do both; because Samuel exercised both. But might not King Uzziah exercise both without impeachment of his business? and where was he forbidden? but in this God made choice of the tribe of Levi, and of no others, which also he has done under the New Testament▪ as is proved.
Ergo, it is lawfull for them to preach, it followeth not▪ for such positive ordinances as preaching Ministers, must be appointed by a positive command, for where hath God forbidden women to baptise? Ergo, they may baptise; is not the Lords commanding the Apostles to go teach and baptise all Nations, and his not giving any such commandement to others, as