A92138:1249
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.
This also; I will have mercy, and not Sacrifice, or, I will have mercy rather then Sacrifice, doth imply that both mercy and Sacrifice are lawful, and acceptable to God in their own order and way. But where saith God, I will have sacrificing rather then sacrificing with bloody hands, so as both sacrificing, and sacrificing with bloody hands, shall be lawful and acceptable to God in their own order? for Sacrificing with bloody hands was never lawful, never acceptable to God in any order. Nor said God ever he would choose the coming of those to his Sanctuary, who the same day they came in had slaughtered their sons to Molech: God always hated it, and never chose it, if at the same time both mercy and sacrifice cannot be, as David starving cannot both abstain from eating shewbread, as the Law in its letter required, and show mercy to his life; and the life of his followers, and eat, yea, he is to eat, and the Priests knowing his case, do give him the Shewbread to eat, & forbid abstinence, as they would forbid self-murdering, and self-starving, so here, where at one time eating at the Lords Table, and reconciliation with the widow and fatherless, cannot be co-existent together at one time and place, an exigence of divine providence forbidding both, the bloody man is to debar himself from the Lords Supper, it being as sacrificing and less necessary if we speak comparatively; and the Elders are not to give those holy things to the bloody man, while [Greek or Hebrew], first he be reconciled to the widow and Orphan, which now comparing the one with the other is mercy, whereas eating and drinking at the Lords Supper is but Sacrifice, but it should be as sacrificing with bloody hands, which God condemneth and forbiddeth, and the Priests and Elders knowing it to be such a sin, ought to forbid and to ⟨p. 451⟩hinder it: Hence as this, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, hath this sense, I will have you to omit Sacrifice, when it cannot be done without neglect of mercy, which is more acceptable to me then all Sacrifices; so I vvill have reconciliation to the offended widow and Orphans, and not coming to the Lords Supper without the former; for the former is more acceptable to me, and should be to you and the Elders in your practice, then the latter; and therefore the comparison of eating, and eating undecently halteth;
This also; I will have mercy, and not Sacrifice, or, I will have mercy rather then Sacrifice, doth imply that both mercy and Sacrifice are lawfull, and acceptable to God in their owne order and way. But where saith God, I will have sacrificing rather then sacrificing with bloody hands, so as both sacrificing, and sacrificing with bloody hands, shall be lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order? for Sacrificing with bloodie hands was never lawfull, never acceptable to God in any order. Nor said God ever he would chuse the coming of those to his Sanctuary, who the same day they came in had slaughtered their sonnes to Molech: God alwaies hated it, and never chose it, if at the same time both mercy and sacrifice cannot be, as David starving cannot both abstaine from eating shewbread, as the Law in its letter required, and shew mercie to his life; and the life of his followers, and eate, yea, he is to eate, and the Priests knowing his case, doe give him the Shewbread to eat, & forbid abstinence, as they would forbid selfe-murthering, and selfstarving, so here, where at one time eating at the Lords Table, and reconciliation with the widow and fatherlesse, cannot be co-existent together at one time and place, an exigence of divine providence forbidding both, the bloodie man is to debarre himselfe from the Lords Supper, it being as sacrificing and lesse necessary if we speake comparatively; and the Elders are not to give those holy things to the bloodie man, while , first he be reconciled to the widow and Orphane, which now comparing the one with the other is mercy, whereas eating and drinking at the Lords Supper is but Sacrifice, but it should be as sacrificing with bloodie hands, which God condemneth and forbiddeth, and the Priests and Elders knowing it to be such a sinne, ought to forbid and to