A92138:1168
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.
for the Jews say universally without distinction of causes, with two negations, which in the Greek Language is a strong and universal negation, [Greek or Hebrew], We have not power to kill any man, Ergo, the place will never prove that the Church men might not kill him, because the Jews might kill no man: you will say, How had they power with swords and staves to take the Kings free subject and bind him, which yet they 1did? I answer, it was an usurped power, for by Erastus his doctrine, they had no more power to take him and bind him for Treason, which was a civill crime, then they had to kill him for Treason, both was alike unlawful by the Roman Law, and Pilate being a man willing to please the people, as the event of the business showeth, did not in a legal way challenge them for binding him; but he durst not be answerable to his Prince Cesar, if he had past by such a high point, as their putting Christ to death: But we desire any Law of God (for practises especially of wicked men are no binding rule) that Priests or Levites, in the Old-Testament, might either bind a Jew or put him to death, and when Pilate did stand so much to put Christ to death, they would have used their own power, malice so necessitating them, if they had had any, and might well have said to Pilate, It is lawful for us to put him to death for blasphemy, but we vvill not use our power, we so love to be loyal to Caesar; but they say the contrary, We have no power to put any man to death. They say indeed, that by their law he ought to die. But that they had no power to put him to death, for the Common people said, that, as may appear, if we compare, Joh. 19. ver. 5. with ver. 12. with Matth. 27. 25. and with Act. 2. 36. Act. 3. 12. &c. and yet Erastus will not say that the common people were Members of the Sanhedrin, or had power of life and death, as the Civill Magistrate had.
for the Iews say universally without distinction of causes, with two negations, which in the Greek Language is a strong and universall negation, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, We have not power to kill any man, Ergo, the place will never prove that the Church men might not kill him, because the Iews might kill no man: you will say, Hovv had they povver vvith svvords and staves to take the Kings free subject and binde him, which yet they