A92138:1102
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.
It is not to purpose, for the hangman is in Law the hand and instrument of the judge, but he is neither hand nor instrument of the Lawyer, of the Priests and Levites, who in matters criminal of life and death, judge of the Major proposition, and of the Law, except Erastus would have a Major proposition to prove an Assumption, which were to shame all Logic: For the Priest never commanded ⟨p. 403⟩this or this man, because he had done this fault, to be stoned by such & such executioners. 2. It is doubtful whether the judge did never with his own hand, cast a stone at any stoned to death. Lastly, there was no provocation from the great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, true, in matter of Law, what then? Ergo, they were politic judges? it followeth as the like consequences of Erastus doth follow. Yea, for the fact and the judicial condemning of the man, they were neither the highest judicature, nor any judicature at all, the civill Judges of the high Sanhedrin did that only. It is true, he was to die who would not stand to the sentence of the judge or Priest in the matter of Law, the man being judged to be guilty of the fact by the civill judge, but this shall never prove that the Priests were civill judges.
It is not to purpose, for the hangman is in Law the hand and instrument of the judge, but he is neither hand nor instrument of the Lawyer, of the Priests and Levites, who in matters criminall of life and death, judge of the Maior proposition, and of the Law, except Erastus would have a Major proposition to prove an Assumption, which were to shame all Logick: For the Priest never commanded ⟨p. 403⟩this or this man, because he had done this fault, to be stoned by such & such executioners. 2. It is doubtful whether the judge did never with his owne hand, cast a stone at any stoned to death. Lastly, there was no provocation from the great Sanedrim at Ierusalem, true, in matter of Law, what then? Ergo, they were politick judges? it followeth as the like consequences of Erastus doth follow. Yea, for the fact and the judiciall condemning of the man, they were neither the highest judicature, nor any judicature at all, the civill Iudges of the high Sanedrim did that onely. It is true, he was to die who would not stand to the sentence of the judge or Priest in the matter of Law, the man being judged to be guilty of the fact by the civill judge, but this shall never prove that the Priests were civill judges.