A92138:1361
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. If the Prophets rebuked the profaning of the Sacraments, then they also forbade profane men to use the Sacraments, could the Prophets rebuke any thing but sin? Ergo, they forbade the sin which they rebuked: Ergo, they forbade the man that had murdered his son to Molech, to come to the Sanctuary while he repented, for they could not rebuke but what they forbade. 2. If the bloody mans coming to the Sanctuary in that case, was nothing more acceptable to God, then the offering of a dog to God; then as the offering of a dog to God, was both forbidden to the people and to the Priest, so was the people and Priest both accused for the bloody mans coming into the Temple, the one should sin in coming, the other in admitting him to come. 3. The Priests are expressly accused for this, Ezek. 22, 25, 26. and 44. 23, 24. Hag. 2. 11, 12, 13. 4. Those were not only sins in foro Dei, before God, for so when they were secret, they were sins before God, but when openly known, as Jer. 7. 9, 10, &c. Ezek. 23. 38, 39. they were the Priests sins: The bloody are forbidden to come to the Sanctuary; what then? were not the Porters whose calling it was to hold out the unclean, to debar all whom the Lord forbade to come? Certainly, they excluded to their knowledge all whom God excluded, else how had they the ⟨p. 498⟩charge to keep the doors of the Lords House? and the Priests are not only rebuked for not instructing the people, but for erring in governing, Jer. 5. 31. they are not Prophets, but Priests and Governors both Ecclesiastical and civill, that the Prophet complaineth of, who did rule with rigour & cruelty over the people, beside that they feed not the flock but themselves, Ezek. 34. 1, 2, 3, &c. Jer. 23. 1, 2, 3, 4