A92138:1915
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. I deny not but Churches dedicated to Saints, and in regard of their vain and ostentive spaciousness unprofitable for hearing the Word, may be employed to civill uses for ordinary dwelling; But I see no ground how this can be according to the places cited by our godly Brethren of the contrary mind except the Churches were first purified, in some Ceremonial way, as God prescribeth that the spoil of Midian be purified, which our Brethren cannot say, except we would make our selves debtors to the whole Law, for so the law was, Num. 31. and so Paul doth reject Circumcision, Gal 5. 3. and if it be said the necessity of the poor requireth that these Temples be not loosed, but employed for the poor, as David in point of necessity eat the Show-bread. I answer 1. The poor, as the case was, Rom. 14. might eat Swines flesh, and so ruin him, for whom Christ died, which is absurd for their necessity might require it. But certain it is, Davids necessity was laid on him by the sixth Commandment as an act of mercy in the point of starving, and if any poor Jew were in the like case, I conceive it should have been scandalizing to that Jew to eat Swines-flesh, before another weak Jew. Providential necessity may make that which is a sinful scandalizing to be obedience to the sixth Commandment, but the will of Superiors can make no such providential change as the D▪ of Aberdeen do dream▪ But if the necessity be less then the Necessity in point of starving, it could justify the poor Jews eating of meats conceived to be against the law of God, as the case was, Rom. 14. But that the Church or house dedicated to a Saint, should have no physical use in the worship of God, to defend us from the injuries of Sun and Heaven, and yet have the same use▪ in common, for the poor to dwell in, wanteth all shadow of reason, for how can it be proven that the same physical use in the worship is unlawful, and yet out of worship is lawful▪ except there intervene some Ceremonial and religious purging of the ⟨p. 79⟩house, by fire or some other way, which were Judaical under the New Testament, for the necessity of the poor, is not like the necessity of Davids eating of Show-bread: