A92138:1155
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. 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 ⟨p. 423⟩Claudius and Tiberius both, gave them liberty of their own Religion, Ceremonies and customs at their pleasure, and that is much for us, the adversary so do reason from a corrupt, unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law.
Ans. Will then Erastus have Christ, Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanedrim, in gaining a lost brother; that is to cite him before the Roman Iudges: But 1. the Romans made high Priests from yeere to yeere, did Christ acknowledge the Sanedrim to be a restored Iudicature in this? 2. Say that the Sanedrim 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, Gospell, Sanedrim and all, and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government; especially when they set themselves against the Messiah? Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanedrim no more then it had before they were subdued; but before they were subdued, the Sanedrim 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 Sanedrim had the Law of God for it, and Aaron and his sonnes might beat, scourge, imprison, and kill, as they killed Steven, without Law or warrant, (except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperours, for which cause I judge their Sanedrim was then a mixed Judicature,) surely this is a vaine consequence. 4. It is like enough