A92138:1113
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. It is a conjecture of Erastus, that Moses speaketh Deut. 17. of the Priest or the Judge by way of disjunction, because of divers times, not of divers and distinct Tribunals, for all Moses his time, and Joshua's time, and for the most part, there were both Judges and Priests, and we had rather believe the Spirit of God then Erastus, for 2 Chron. 19. under Jehoshaphat at one and the same time, there were both civill Judges, and Priests and Levites, and these two Judicatures had two different sorts of causes, and two different Presidents; if then at one and the same time the man was to be put ⟨p. 408⟩to death, who did not stand to the sentence of the Priest, though he should stand to the sentence of the civill judge; and so if he was to be put to death, who should stand to the sentence of the Priests, and give an outside of obedience to the Ceremonial Law, if he should not stand to the sentence of the civill Judge, then were there at the same time these two sentences in these two judicatures: but the former is true by the express Law of God; Ergo, so is the latter: when God saith, Go up to the place that the Lord shall choose, he meaneth Jerusalem, and one determinate place at once, and if Moses had said, Go up to the place that the Lord shall choose; or to some other place that the Lord shall not choose, then could I infer well, that at one and the same time, they might have gone to either places, or to both places, having two sorts of causes, as there be ever two sorts of causes in the Church, some Civill, some Ecclesiastical. 3. Erastus should have shown a time when only the Priest as the Priest did govern, and there neither was a civill Judge, nor was that Priest who governed the civill judge: If Erastus show not this, he showeth nothing for his own cause, which is to make one confused Judicature of civill and Ecclesiastical Judges and causes, which the Scripture doth carefully distinguish. 4. In the place Deut. 19. nothing is said against us, but that only the civill Judge put to death the false Witness; which is much for us, that though the false witness was to stand before the Priests, and incur an Ecclesiastic censure, yet the Priest as Priest had no hand in putting him to death.