A92138:1542
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.
of all which, though blasphemy according to the Jewish Law was something, yet sedition to the Romans, who only now had power of Pauls life, was all and some; and when the Deputies counted so little of Religion, the ⟨p. 590⟩Jews knew sedition and treason against Cesar behooved to do the turn, and Paul, seeing they pursued him for his life, appealed to Cesar to be judged in that. Now, except the adversaries prove that Paul referred the resurrection of Jesus, and of the dead, and his preaching Christ, and the abolishing of sacrifices, the Temple, the Ceremonial Law, to be judicially determined by Nero as by the head of the Church, they prove nothing against us: Hence their chief argument is soon answered; in what cause Paul was accused of the Jews, in that he appealed to Cesar: But he was accused not for his sedition, but for his Doctrine, Act. 26. 18. Ergo, Paul appealed to Cesar in the cause of Doctrine, not of sedition: For, 1. The Major is dubious, for in what cause he was accused of his head, which was the intent of the Jews in that he appealed, true; but in what cause he was accused, in all and every Article of the points of his accusation and challenge, I deny that; for as touching doctrinals, and his being judged by a lawful Church, and rightly constituted, he appealed neither from the Sanhedrin, nor from Festus, but declined Festus, nor in these did he appeal to Cesar; he only appealed in all cases, which might concern his head and blood. 2. The assumption is false, for he was accused of sedition, as is evident from Act. 25. 8. and 24. 5. 3. Though the Priests and Elders were most corrupt men; yet that they believed, that Cesar, or bloody Nero his lips should preserve knowledge, and that the Law should be sought from the mouth of Nero, as the head of the Church, can never be proved, which must be proved to justify Pauls appeal in the terms of the adversary.
of all which, though blasphemy according to the Iewish Law was something, yet sedition to the Romans, who only now had power of Pauls life, was all and some; and when the Deputies counted so little of Religion, the ⟨p. 590⟩