A92138:1100
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. 1. Beza said well the fact, and the putting of the man to death, which is the assumption and conclusion belonged to the civill judge, not to the Priests; But the questio juris, the question of Law belonged to the Ecclesiastical judicature of Priests, Levites and Elders; and it is evident, that it was a case of conscience, concerning a matter, or an admirable cause that cannot be determined by the judges in the city, they not being so well versed in the Law as the Priests, whose lips should preserve knowledge, Mal. 2. 7. Therefore it is not a fact, that may be cleared by Witnesses, there is not such difficulty in facts, except in adultery, or secret Murders, the word cometh from [Greek or Hebrew] to admire, or to be separated from sense and reason, Lament. 1. 9. Gen. 18. 14. Is there any thing hard to, or •id from Jehovah? 2. They are called [Greek or Hebrew] causes or matters of contention, Vatablus causa insolita & difficilior: Our translation hath it, matters of controversy. 3. It is said, thou shalt come 1and inquire or diligently search out. 4. The Priests and Levites shall show thee the sentence of judgement, so it is evident that the Priests and Levites did not so much judge, as declare and resolve the law-part of which the inferior judges did doubt, for the difficulty of the question, as Saul came to Samuel the Seer, to ask concerning his fathers asses, and it is true bloods and strokes came under the cognizance of the Priests, but as bloods comes before Lawyers, and those that are expert in the civill Law, in the Parliament of England and Scotland, the Lawyers as Judges put no man to2 death, the King could say, fall upon such an evil doer, and kill him, and the judges and Princes might put to death. But you never read that the Priests, yea or the High Priest said, fall upon such an ill doer and kill him, nor was this any Law of God, that the Ecclesiastic Sanhedrin, should put to death and politically condemn any man to die, or command any mans blood to be shed, they but declared and resolved a case of conscience to the judges, and a plea, and said, This is a matter of blood, and deserveth death by the Law of God, and he that hath done such a fact in point of Law, ought to die. But there were two things left to the civil