A92138:621
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.
set keepers of the charge of the Lords house for themselves, that is, for their own carnal ends, and not for the honour of the Lord: And that ver. 7. They brought into the Sanctuary of the Lords house uncircumcised in heart, that is, such as were morally unclean, then had the Priests a power to debar from the Sanctuary such as were morally unclean, and if the Priests are said to bear rule by their means, Jer. 5. 31. Then the Priests did bear rule and govern, though they abused their Power, and the word [Greek or Hebrew] signifieth to have dominion over any, Psal. 72. 8. Psal. 110. 2. 1 Kin. 4. 24. Levit. 26. 17. And the Scripture gives a power of judging and governing to the Priests. And 2 Chron. 30. 6, 7. The Posts that Hezekiah and the Congregation of Israel sent through the Land, commandeth a moral preparation to those that were to keep the Lords Passover, to wit, that they should turn again unto the Lord God of Abraham, and should not be like their Fathers, nor like their Brethren, that trespassed against the Lord God of their Fathers. And ver. 11. divers of Ashur, and Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves, and came ⟨p. 247⟩to Jerusalem to keep the feast of the Passover. This proveth clearly that people under the Old Testament were no less to try and examine themselves, by the King and Priests commandment, carried to them by Posts before they should eat the Passover; then they are to try themselves before they eat and drink at the Lords Supper: only the adversaries say, the Priests by preaching were to debar from the Passover those who were morally unclean, but not to debar those who were morally unclean, so they were not typically and ceremonially unclean, by any power of Discipline, or by Porters set at the gates to keep them out of the Sanctuary. But I answer, 1. How are the Priests Ezek. 22. 26. reproved for violating the Law of God, and profaning his holy things, in that they put no difference between the holy and profane, the clean and the unclean? Surely the Priests profaned in the highest way, the holy things of God, in admitting into the Sanctuary, those who were not only ceremonially, but morally unclean, as murderers, adulterers, Who cried the temple of the Lord,