A92138:735
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. All this is a mere cavilling at the wisdom of God, in making such Ceremonial laws, and such punishments against the transgressors of them, as the wise Law-giver of his free-will thought fit, because these Laws seem ridiculous. But the foolishness of God is wiser then men. 1. We say not, that the punishment of legal and moral uncleanness is all one every way, and always; it is enough for our purpose that God will have those who are legally unclean separated from holy things, while they be purified, and little sin and guiltiness seem to be in legal uncleanness, as when bodily Leprosy came on persons against their will, yet when God will have them punished with being removed from the people of God, from the Sanctuary and the holy things, this could not be for it self; for as Paul saith, Doth God take care of Oxen? So we, doth God hate bodily diseases, which are his own just actions, not our sinful doings? since I say God hateth them not, and putteth not punishment on them for themselves; therefore it must be to signify what detestation and punishment the Lord our God, would have his Church to put upon moral wickedness: So we think Erastus might have spared paper and pains, in proving a difference (which no Divine denieth,) between Ceremonial and Moral uncleanness, and the punishment of the one and of the other, for it can never prove his conclusion. Ergo, Separation for legal uncleanness, cannot typify separation for Moral uncleanness. I could give eight and twenty differences between Isaac and Christ, as ⟨p. 284⟩Erastus giveth seventeen or eighteen between Legal and Moral uncleanness, and the punishment of both: But I hope that should never conclude against the Holy Ghost, Heb. 11. 17, 18, 19. Gal. 4. 28, 29, 30. Rom. 9. 9. that Isaac was not a type of Jesus Christ. 2. Night pollutions are not altogether against our will, they are sinful pollutions, except concupiscence, and lustful habitual day lusts, the cause of them, be not sinful pollutions; yea, and forbidden in the seventh Commandment.
Ans. All this is a meere cavilling at the wisedome of God, in making such Ceremoniall lawes, and such punishments against the transgressors of them, as the wise Law-giver of his free-will thought fit, because these Lawes seeme ridiculous. But the foolishnes of God is wiser then men. 1. We say not, that the punishment of legall and morall uncleannesse is all one every way, and alwayes; it is enough for our purpose that God will have those who are legally uncleane separated from holy things, while they bee purified, and little sinne and guiltinesse seeme to bee in legall uncleannesse, as when bodily Leprosie came on persons against their will, yet when God will have them punished with being removed from the people of God, from the Sanctuary and the holy things, this could not be for it selfe; for as Paul saith, Doth God take care of Oxen? So we, doth God hate bodily diseases, which are his owne just actions, not our sinfull doings? since I say God hateth them not, and putteth not punishment on them for themselves; therefore it must be to signifie what detestation and punishment the Lord our God, would have his Church to put upon morall wickednesse: So we thinke Erastus might have spared paper and paines, in proving a difference (which no Divine denieth,) between Ceremoniall and Morall uncleannesse, and the punishment of the one and of the other, for it can never prove his conclusion. Ergo, Separation for legall uncleannesse, cannot typifie separation for Morall uncleannesse. I could give eight and twenty differences between Isaac and Christ, as