A92138:1165
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. Certainly, Jer. 26. 10. the Princes sate down in judgement, but that the Priests sate with them, we have not one word, only the Priests accused him as worthy to die in the question of Law, and so the people, ver. 8. Now the people undeniably cannot have been Judges. 2. Nor do we say, the Priests were both judges 1Civill to condemn Jeremiah to die, and accusers: that doth not hinder, but they in an Ecclesiastical way were Judges, touching the question of Law, whether he had spoken blasphemy or not, and also Accusers before the Civill Judges. 3. It is to beg the question to say, that all power even of Church-censuring was in the hand of the King. 1. The King might exclude none of the Lepers out of the Camp, the Priests only could by the Law of God do this, and excluded Uzziah the King, as a Leper out of the Congregation: The King could not judge who were clean, who unclean. 2. That all power was in the hand of the Kings, as if the Kings of Judah were by Gods Law absolute, can never be proved, but the contrary is evident, Deut. 17. And that inferior Judges were essentially Judges, and the Lords immediate Deputies, is clear by Scripture, Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 5, 6, 7. Exod. 18. 21, &c. Numb. 11. •6, 17, 18. Psal. 82. 6, 7. Rom. 13. 1, 2.
Ans. Certainly, Ier. 26. 10