A92138:1167
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. 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? Joh. 18. 31. The Jews expressly deny the power that Erastus giveth them: Pilate therefore said unto them, take him and judge him according to your Law, which was a salt mocking of them. I know, if you had power, you should not have brought him to me; therefore if ye have power, use it: The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, and the Evangelist addeth, ver. 32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die, that is, God had taken power of life and death from the Jews, in his admirable providence, that Jesus might die a Roman death, due for treason, that is, that he might be crucified; Ergo, the Jews had no power to put him to death. It is weak and empty that Erastus saith, They had not power to put him to death, for saying he was King, because that ⟨p. 426⟩was a civill crime: But they had power to put him to death, and to stone him for blasphemy;
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 numbred for the war, but set apart for the service of Gods house,