A92138:1166
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. You ask how Caiaphas, and the Priests had power against1 ⟨p. 425⟩Jesus: I answer: 1. From God: 2. From the Kings of Persia. 3. From the permission of the Romans: They apprehended him, and bound him, which was a part of Civill power, nor was this some of the confusion under the Maccabees: How can this be proved? Christ never rebuked it, nor his Apostles; the contrary is clear in Josephus.
Erastus. You ask how Caiaphas, and the Pri•sts had power against1 ⟨p. 425⟩Iesus: I ansvver: 1. From God: 2. From the Kings of Persia. 3. From the permission of the Romans: They apprehended him, and bound him, which was a part of Civill power, nor was this some of the confusion under the Maccabees: Hovv can this be proved? Christ never rebuked it, nor his Apostles; the contrary is clear in Iosephus.
- 1Pag. 276, 277.
Ans. A permissive power from God, can prove no Law-power. 2. Persians and Romans could not give to Priests and Levites the power of the sword, to do what the Law of God had exempted them from doing, they were not so much as numbered for the war, but set apart for the service of Gods house, Num. 1. 3. 45, &c. they might in some extraordinary cases judge in civill business with the Civill Judges in the same Judicature, but this was no standing Law, 2. Erastus seeketh we would prove that the practise of bloody Pharisees was not against Law: He knoweth, it is his own Argument, Affirmanti incumbit Probatio. 3. Christ and the Apostles rebuked not particularly many other sins. Pilate might have accused them for binding one of Caesars Subjects, of whom he had said, he found no fault in him. 4. That Joseph was a Priest, or a Levite, I read not, he was an Honourable Councillor, some think of Pilates Council. 5. That they had any Law of God to apprehend Jesus, or that Joseph had any hand in either condemning, or doing any thing in the Sanhedrin, but showing his judgement, as a Judge in the question of Law, what was blasphemy, we must deny, let Erastus prove it, if so be Erastus make him either Priest or Levite?