A92138:822
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.
Now a Heathen to the Jews was no brother, and had no right to the Sacraments, either of the Jewish, or Christian Church, as is clear by the word of God, therefore he that heareth not a brother in secret, or the Church in public, is to be reputed as no brother (I mean in that public visible way he once was) but as a Heathen, who hath no right, Jure divino, by Gods Law to the Sacraments. 3. What means all this trifling about the Article:? Say that the Article; should restrict Heathens and Publicans, to such and such Heathens and Publicans: I shall deny, In eternum, this consequence, Ergo, He means no other but only such Heathens and Publicans, as did acknowledge no other Magistrate, but a Roman Magistrate. There is no shadow in the Scripture, or any Greek author for the Word, but rather [Greek or Hebrew] signifieth the quality and spiritual condition of any, especially when Christ speaketh of gaining of souls, as here, Mat. 18. 15. so I am sure [Greek or Hebrew] signifieth Joh. 1. 14. Ma•. 6 •0. 1 Pet. 1. 19. so doth [Greek or Hebrew] signify Mat. 6. 5. and elsewhere, enough I deny not but it may signify a civill or natural si••••tude, but Christ doth here speak of neither, as is clear. 4. If here a Publican as a Publican be meant, as Erastus saith; Ergo, All Heathens and all Publicans are here to be understood; Ergo, Not these only that had this common to them both, to wit, that they both acknowledged no civill Magistrate but the Romans, the contrary of which Erastus asserteth. 5. Yea, this is not emphatic and discretive of ⟨p. 307⟩Heathen and Publican, Christ acknowledged no civill Judge as King over the Jews at this time but only Cesar, when he said Mat. 22. Give unto Cesar, the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. And the Jews themselves did so when they said, We have no King but Cesar; If then to be as an Heathen and a Publican, be all one as to acknowledge no King, nor judge but Cesar, then to be as a Heathen and Publican, must be all one with this, to be as Christ and the Jews, for this was common to Heathens, Publicans, Jews and Christ, to acknowledge Cesar was their only King and civill Judge. 6. They were the worst of the Heathens and Publicans, who in a peculiar manner acknowledged no lawful Judge but Cesar, and hated the Jews, the only Church of God most at this time;