A92138:1101
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.
A sitting in the Tribunal, and ⟨p. 402⟩saying, I or we command and decree such a man who hath shed such blood, hath inflicted such a stroke on this woman who is with child of living birth, to be stoned to death, to be hanged. Erastus hath not proved, nor never shall prove that the High Priests, Priests or Levites, by Gods Law did thus judge any: That Ananias commanded Paul to be beaten, and the lictors of the High Priest smote Christ on the face at the command of the Priests, was against Law, they had no power so to do by Law, yea, and our Presbyteries that judge of sorceries, witchcrafts, incests, adulteries, and other capital crimes, and of bloods in point of Gods Law, what is witchcraft, what is incest, that the husband that striketh his wife being with quick▪child, and killeth the birth is a Murderer; but that they judicially say, such a woman is a Witch, and so ordain her to be hanged and burnt, and such a husband is a Murderer, and discern him to die, is utterly unlawful, therefore this is an ignorant speech of Erastus: This synedrie of Priests and Levites, whether in point of Law, or in point of •act, did give out sentences of death, therefore they were politic judges, it followeth not; and that the Priests said, this man deserveth to die, and therefore they gave out, as civill judges, sentences of death, (for the civill judge draweth not the sword with his own hand,) is a foul consequence; for lawyers do say such a man is worthy to die, but it followeth not that Lawyers are civill judges to condemn a man to die; for the Priests said, this man deserveth to die in point of Law, not absolutely, as this man, but upon supposition that he hath committed the fact, deserveth to die, and their meaning is, any man whosoever he be, though they never hear, nor see the man who hath committed such a fact, ought to die. Now Gods Law never appointed any judge to condemn a man to die, whom the judge never did accuse, hear, or see, this were extreme unjustice: Now this supposition is, and was to be proved and judged by the civill Judge; and whereas Erastus saith, the judge draweth the sword with his own hand against no man; 1.
A sitting in the Tribunall, and ⟨p. 402⟩saying, I or we command and decree such a man who hath shed such blood, hath inflicted such a stroake on this woman who is with childe of living birth, to be stoned to death, to be hanged. Erastus hath not proved, nor never shall prove that the High Priests, Priests or Levites, by Gods Law did thus judge any: That Ananias commanded Paul to be beaten, and the lictors of the High Priest smote Christ on the face at the command of the Priests, was against Law, they had no power so to doe by Law, yea, and our Presbyteries that judge of sorceries, witchcrafts, incests, adulteries, and other capitall crimes, and of bloods in point of Gods Law, what is witchcraft, what is incest, that the husband that striketh his wife being with quickchild, and killeth the birth is a Murtherer; but that they judicially say, such a woman is a Witch, and so ordain her to be hanged and burnt, and such a husband is a Murtherer, and decerne him to die, is utterly unlawfull, therefore this is an ignorant speech of Erastus: This synedrie of Priests and Levites, whether in point of Law, or in point of act, did give out sentences of death, therefore they were politick judges, it followeth not; and that the Priests said, this man deserveth to die, and therefore they gave out, as civill judges, sentences of death, (for the civill judge draweth not the sword with his owne hand,) is a foul consequence; for lawyers do say such a man is worthy to die, but it followeth not that Lawyers are civill judges to condemne a man to die; for the Priests said, this man deserveth to die in point of Law, not absolutely, as this man, but upon supposition that he hath committed the fact, deserveth to die, and their meaning is, any man whosoever he be, though they never hear, nor see the man who hath committed such a fact, ought to die. Now Gods Law never appointed any judge to condemn a man to die, whom the judge never did accuse, heare, or see, this were extreame unjustice: Now this supposition is, and was to be proved and judged by the civill Iudge; and whereas Erastus saith, the judge draweth the sword with his owne hand against no man; 1.