A92138:1154
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.
Erastus. When Pompeius invaded and possessed Judea, and Gabinius 1having overcome Alexander, had changed the state of Judea, the Pharisees did reign wholly at Jerusalem. The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up, Joseph. bel. Jud. l. 1. c. 6. Joseph. antiq. l. 14. c. 10. [Greek or Hebrew]: The Synedrie for the most part, had its own authority under Hyrcanus, and under Archilaus it was more fully restored, as is clear by the Evangelists and Josephus. Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death, setteth forth an Edict, [Greek or Hebrew]; Joseph. Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them.
Erastus. When Pompeius invaded and possessed Iudea, and Gabinius 1having overcome Alexander, had changed the state of Iudea, the Pharisees did reigne wholly at Ierusalem. The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up, Ioseph. bel. Iud. l. 1. c. 6. Ioseph. antiq. l. 14. c. 10. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉: The Synedrie for the most part, had its owne authority vnder Hyrcanus, and under Archilaus it was more fully restored, as is cleer by the Evangelists and Iosephus. Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death, setteth forth an Edict, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉; Ioseph. Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them.
- 1Cap. 2. l. 3. 176, 177, 179.
Ans. Will then Erastus have Christ, Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanhedrin, in gaining a lost brother; that is to cite him before the Roman Judges: But 1. the Romans made high Priests from year to year, did Christ acknowledge the Sanhedrin to be a restored Judicature in this? 2. Say that the Sanhedrin in sacris, in in the holy things of God, had its full power, the Romans not impeding them; hath any man a face to deny, but Pharisees corrupted both Law, Gospel, Sanhedrin and all, and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government; especially when they set themselves against the Messiah? Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanhedrin no more then it had before they were subdued; but before they were subdued, the Sanhedrin was changed and corrupted. 3. This is to beg the question, to say they kept the power of the Sword: For 1. We utterly deny that by Gods Law they ever had any such power, and forsooth, because the High-Priests servant smote our Saviour on the face, and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles; What then? therefore the Sanhedrin had the Law of God for it, and Aaron and his sons might beat, scourge, imprison, and kill, as they killed Steven, without Law or warrant, (except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperors, for which cause I judge their Sanhedrin was then a mixed Judicature,) surely this is a vain consequence. 4. It is like enough