A92138:815
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.
Erastus. Who ever by no law of God or command was execrable,1 and could for no just cause be hated, by no Law of God could be debarred from the Temple and holy things of God. But such were the Publicans; Ergo,
Erastus. Who ever by no law of God or command was execrable,1 and could for no just cause be hated, by no Law of God could bee debarred from the Temple and holy things of God. But such were the Publicans; Ergo,
- 1Page 191.
Ans. 1. The Major is false. The Leper because a Leper was by no Law of God cursed, and execrable, nor was he worthy of hatred, but of pity; yet was he by an express Law debarred from the Temple and holy things of God.
Ans. 1. The Major is false. The Leper because a Leper was by no Law of God cursed, and execrable, nor was he worthy of hatred, but of pitty; yet was he by an expresse Law debarred from the Temple and holy things of God.
2. The Minor is false in the sense we contend for, the office of a Publican in abstracto was not execrable, nor worthy of hatred:1 but the thing signified, and that which proverbially went under the name of a Publican amongst the Jews, to wit, a professed extortioner, a robber, a grinder of the face of the poor, is both execrable and hateful: the conclusion in the former sense is granted, and it is nothing against us: But in the latter sense, the Assumption being false, the conclusion followeth not; not to say that in ordinary, none was a Publican, but he that was either an heathen, and so execrable, or then an Apostate wretched lewd Jew.