The due right of presbyteries, or, A peaceable plea for the government of the…

Name: The due right of presbyteries, or, A peaceable plea for the government of the…
Author: Samuel Rutherford

The due right of presbyteries, or, A peaceable plea for the government of the Church of Scotland ... by Samuel Rutherfurd ...

Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661London: printed by E. Griffin for Richard Whittaker and Andrew Crook, 1644

[24], 468 [i.e. 768] p. · 318k words · Wing R2378 · ESTC R12822

Title page typeset from the transcription.

[figure] › Chapter 7 › A more special consideration of Ruling Elders, Deacons, and Widow… › Objection 10: Ob. 10. But if ruling be the specific and essential note of the ruling Elder, he can…[figure] › Chapter 7 › A more speciall consideration of Ruling Elders, Deacons, and Widdow… › Objection 10: Ob. 10. But if ruling be the specifick and essentiall note of the ruling Elder, he cann…

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.

[ Earlier:682–695 of 2,256

:682p. 152

Ob. 10. But if ruling be the specific and essential note of the ruling Elder, he cannot be a special officer different from the preaching Elder, for what is essential to one species cannot agree to another, and what constituteth one species, doth not agree to another.

Ob. 10. But if ruling be the specifick and essentiall note of the ruling Elder, he cannot be a speciall officer different from the preaching Elder, for what is essentiall to one species cannot agree to another, and what constituteth one species, doth not agree to another.

:683p. 152–153

Answ. This connection may well be denied, and it is said well by one; The ruling Elder solùm regit, doth onely governe, sed non solus regit, but he doth not govern his alone, but with the Pastor and Doctor. From these things I infer that as this is not a good consequence, Mat. 26. Luk. 22. Mark. 14. the Spirit of God doth set down the Lords Supper in all its materials, and passeth over Baptism in silence, and goeth to another subject; ⟨p. 153⟩Ergo, Baptism is not the other Sacrament of the New Testament so neither is this a good consequence, (Paul, 1 Tim. 3. Describeth the Bishop, and over skippeth the ruling Elder, passing to the Deacon; Ergo, the ruling Elder is not an Ordinance of God) for while he describeth the Bishop, he teacheth what an one, both the Doctor, and ruling Elder should be, by clear analogy, and it had been superfluous for the Holy Ghost to say more, then he doth. And by this we may answer to what is tenthly objected, The ruling Elder is omitted in Christs roll,

[ Earlier passages Later passages ]

The due right of presbyteries, or, A peaceable plea for the government of the…

Ob. 10. But if ruling be the specific and essential note of the ruling Elder, he cannot be a special officer different from the preaching Elder, for what is essential to one species cannot agree to another, and what constituteth one species, doth not agree to another.

Ob. 10. But if ruling be the specifick and essentiall note of the ruling Elder, he cannot be a speciall officer different from the preaching Elder, for what is essentiall to one species cannot agree to another, and what constituteth one species, doth not agree to another.

Ob. 11. The Keys are not given to this ruling Elder, Ergo, he is no lawful officer: the antecedent is proved, the keys of jurisdiction, because they can operate nothing, but by the Key of knowledge, cannot be given to this new officer, now the key of knowledge is given only to the preaching Elder.

Ob. 12. But how is it proved that Ruling Elders are of divine institution?

Ob. 13. But the ruling in diligence, Rom. 12. 8. and the governments, 1 Cor. 12. 28. are generals, and so cannot constitute a special office, in the body: for it is against logic, that that which is general, and common to all the officers, can constitute a species, or a special kind:

Ob. 13. But the ruling in diligence, Rom. 12. 8. and the governments, 1 Cor. 12. 28. are generalls, and so cannot constitute a speciall office, in the body: for it is against logick, that that which is generall, and common to all the officers, can constitute a species, or a speciall kind:

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36

Ob. 10. But if ruling be the specific and essential note of the ruling Elder, he cannot be a special officer different from the preaching Elder, for what is essential to one species cannot agree to another, and what constituteth one species, doth not agree to another.

Ob. 10. But if ruling be the specifick and essentiall note of the ruling Elder, he cannot be a speciall officer different from the preaching Elder, for what is essentiall to one species cannot agree to another, and what constituteth one species, doth not agree to another.

Ob. 11. The Keys are not given to this ruling Elder, Ergo, he is no lawful officer: the antecedent is proved, the keys of jurisdiction, because they can operate nothing, but by the Key of knowledge, cannot be given to this new officer, now the key of knowledge is given only to the preaching Elder.

Ob. 12. But how is it proved that Ruling Elders are of divine institution?

Ob. 13. But the ruling in diligence, Rom. 12. 8. and the governments, 1 Cor. 12. 28. are generals, and so cannot constitute a special office, in the body: for it is against logic, that that which is general, and common to all the officers, can constitute a species, or a special kind:

Ob. 13. But the ruling in diligence, Rom. 12. 8. and the governments, 1 Cor. 12. 28. are generalls, and so cannot constitute a speciall office, in the body: for it is against logick, that that which is generall, and common to all the officers, can constitute a species, or a speciall kind: