A92138:736
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.
3. These pollutions Legal caused by invincible ignorance, were types or symbolical signs of our original iniquity, and give me leave to doubt, if all actual touching of things unclean, was no Moral sinfulness. I conceive the Jews, as the Christians also were obliged to walk [Greek or Hebrew], Ephes. 5. 15. and were to take heed to the outer-man, that they should come near no unclean thing, in some cases leprosy and other legal uncleanness came on them without either will or knowledge. 4. If the standing beside the dying friends be all one with touching the dead, I remit to the principles of Physic, and if the touching of any dead be excepted in the Law Ceremonial, let the learned judge. All the other differences assigned by Erastus I leave, as not concludent against us, they tend all either to blame God, who should punish some legal uncleanness, that is, altogether against the will of man, with any punishment at all, as the three first differences insinuate. Or, 2. that God punished some Legal uncleanness more severely then homicide and Moral uncleanness, as the 5. difference doth insinuate, and the 4. difference. And this is to challenge God, to whom I desire to ascribe a Sovereignty, both in punishing, or pardoning as he thinketh good: Or in punishing more severely, or more mildly these same sins, or in punishing greater sins with lighter punishment, and with a heavier rod lighter sins.
3. These pollutions Legall caused by invincible ignorance, were types or symbolicall signes of our originall iniquity, and give me leave to doubt, if all actuall touching of things unclean, was no Morall sinfulnesse. I conceive the Iewes, as the Christians also were obliged to walk 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, Ephes. 5. 15. and were to take heed to the outer-man, that they should come neere no uncleane thing, in some cases leprosie and other legall uncleannes came on them without either will or knowledge. 4. If the standing beside the dying friends be all one with touching the dead, I remit to the principles of Physicke, and if the touching of any dead be excepted in the Law Ceremoniall, let the learned judge. All the other differences assigned by Erastus I leave, as not concludent against us, they tend all either to blame God, who should punish some legall uncleannes, that is, altogether against the will of man, with any punishment at all, as the three first differences insinuate. Or, 2. that God punished some Legall uncleannes more severely then homicide and Morall uncleannes, as the 5. difference doth insinuate, and the 4. difference. And this is to challenge God, to whom I desire to ascribe a Soveraignty, both in punishing, or pardoning as he thinketh good: Or in punishing more severely, or more mildely these same sinnes, or in punishing greater sins with lighter punishment, and with a heavier rod lighter sinnes.