A92138:250
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.
we were obliged in the New Testament to pray with our faces toward the Churches or meeting places in the New Testament, and we should have one famous and celebrious Church for all Jews and Gentiles, more holy then all the little holy Temples now consecrated as holy places, and where shall this be? And what typical signification shall it have? It must signify Christ to come, or already come, both is unlawful.
we were obliged in the New Testament to pray with our faces toward the Churches or meeting places in the New Testament, and we should have one famous and celebrious Church for all Iews and Gentiles, more holy then all the little holy Temples now consecrated as holy places, and where shall this be? And what typicall signification shall it have? It must signifie Christ to come, or already come, both is unlawfull.
2. Again, if habitual Dedication by virtue of Prayer make a place holy, by the same reason actual Dedication should make a place holy; and the belly of the Whale should have been holy because there Jonah prayed, and every place a believer prayeth shall be holy, his closet, a private corner of his Orchard or Garden where he prayeth shall be holy, for these may be habitually destined and appointed (if you call this Dedication) for prayer only, and it shall be unlawful to do any civill business there, more then it is unlawful (as Formalists teach) to do any other civil business in the Churches, or places of meeting in the New-Testament: 3. God himself appointed the place, the Time when it should be built, the person, by whom, by Solomon, not David; the length, the breadth, the Chambers, Porches, Ornaments of the only holy place at Jerusalem; he hath no where appointed and prescribed these for the meeting places of the New Testament, but hath said that all places are alike, as touching any Religious holiness, Joh. 4. 23. 1 Tim. 2. 8. 4. Shall we think God is not acceptably served, and that the Synagogues of the Jews, of which we read not any pattern or rule for Dedication, are Profane, because they are not Dedicated by the