A92138:1356
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. The Major is manifestly false, and a begging of the question: For Erastus saith, pag. 207. He thinketh such ought not to be admitted to the Sacraments who will trample on the Sacraments and profane them. For though the Magistrate dare not punish them, which is his sinful neglect, if they be dogs and swine (as often they are) and bloody men, such as Joab, they ought not; yea, they never were by any Law of God, admitted to the Temple and Sacraments, what they did, de facto, or the Priests permitted, is not the question. It was Davids sin that he took not away the head of bloody Joab when he killed Abner and Amasa. 2. How doth Erastus prove that David neglected to punish the incest of Absalom (his sinful neglect in not punishing his murder I yield) for Absalom was never in Davids power to punish after he committed that incest; possibly he neglected to punish his own Concubines, that is but a conjecture. It is as like Absalom forced the Concubines to that incest as any other thing. 3. For that Psal. 14. There is none that doth good; it is spoken of the natural corruption of all mankind, who therefore cannot be justified by the works of the Law, as Paul expoundeth it, Rom. 3. 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21. and not of scandals punishable by the Magistrates; and where this corruption did break out, in bloods within the Church, it ought to have been punished, both by the Magistrate and Church: so it is an argument yet, a facto ad jus, and a great inconsequence. 4. I ask for what cause doth ⟨p. 496⟩the Spirit of God rebuke killing of the Children to Molech, and coming that same day to the Temple? Because it was a sin and particularly a profaning of the Sanctuary, which was one special holy thing to God, Ezek. 23. 38, 39. Jer. 7. 8▪ 9, 10, 11. It was no sin to come to the Temple: Sure it was commanded of God in his Law, as Erastus yieldeth. What was the sin then? to come with their hands full of blood, and of the unnatural blood of their own Children was the sin; and yet if they had repented, to come after they had killed their Children, was no sin, nor any profaning of the Sanctuary of God. Then all their sin was, that being Morally unclean, they came to the Sanctuary; Ergo, God forbade such bloody men to come to his Sanctuary; because God forbiddeth all sin in his perfect Law;