A92138:1971
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.
But (saith he) we retain these, because we judge them profitable1 yea so good, that if we had either simply taken them clean away or else removed them, so as to place others in their stead, we had done worse. But who authorized them to sit judges? the burden of proving them inconvenient lieth on them.
But (saith he) we retaine these, because we judge them profitable1 yea so good, that if we had either simply taken them cleane away or else removed them, so as to place others in their stead, wee had done worse. But who authorized them to sit judges? the burden of proving them inconvenient lyeth on them.
- 1134. 135.
Ans. 1. It is a proud Reply. We retain popish Ceremonies, because we judge them profitable, where as the question is not what the Prelates (who must be called the Church) judge them to be, but what they are, for it is a far other question, who should sit Judges (though we can prove Christ never made Prelates at all, and so he never made them judges) and whether the Ceremonies be profitable or not? When Prelates say, we retain Popish Ceremonies, because we judge them profitable, it is to say, We judge Popish Ceremonies to be profitable, because we judge them profitable. For we say to retain them, is to pass a law and a judgement that they are profitable. But our▪ argument is against their judging them to be profitable and against their retaining them. Might not Pharisees say as much? We retain the precepts and traditions of men used by our fathers, because, we judge them profitable: and who authorized Christ and his Disciples to judge the Church? the burden of proving them inconvenient, lieth on the Disciples. Christ said their Ceremonies were the doctrines of men, and so unlawful: and the like argument bring we against the Ceremonies, and so they must be unprofitable. 2. If the Church make, or retain laws beside, and without the Word, they are under the burden of proving them to be profitable, for they affirm, and affirmanti incumbit probatio, for they ought to give another reason, of their laws, then we judge; We affirm, it is Gods prerogative to say that. 3. If Prelates should do worse to have clean removed these, or brought others in their place Then must the Prelatical Church be better then the Apostolic Church, for they neither