A92138:1540
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.
2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiastical judicature to the civill judge; for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer, and so Paul appealeth from an inferior civill judge, to a superior or civill judge, as is clear, Acts 28. 6. And when Festus had tarried amongst them more then ten days, he went down to Caesarea, and the 1next day sitting in the judgement seat, commanded Paul to be brought, vers. 10. And Paul said, I stand at Caesars judgement seat, where I ought to be judged; he refused, v. 9, 10. to be judged by Festus at Jerusalem, but saith, v. 11. I appeal to Cesar: Now he had reason to appeal from Festus to Cesar, for the Jews laid many grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove, vers. 7. And it is said vers. 8. That Festus was willing to do the Jews a pleasure, and so was manifestly a partial Judge; and though the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem could have judged in point of Law, that Paul was a blasphemer, and so by their Law he ought to die, for so Caiaphas and the Priests and Pharisees dealt with Jesus Christ, yet his appeal from the Sanhedrin, 1. corrupted, and having manifestly declared their bloody intentions against Paul. 2. From a Sanhedrin in its constitution false, and degenered far from what it ought to be by Gods institution, Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10. it now usurping civill business, which belonged not to them; Paul might also lawfully appeal from a bloody and degenerating Church judicature, acting according to the bloody lusts of men against an innocent man, to a more unpartial judge, and yet be no contemner of the Church; this is nothing against our Thesis, which is, that it is not lawful to appeal in a constituted Church, from a lawful unmixed Church Judicature to the civill Magistrate in a matter of life and death. 3. Paul appealed from the Sanhedrin, armed with the unjust and tyrannical power of Festus, a man willing to please the bloody accusers of Paul, as is clear, v. 9. And Festus willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiasticall judicature to the civill judge; for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer, and so Paul appealeth from an inferiour civill judge, to a superiour or civill judge, as is clear,