A92138:1972
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.
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 ⟨p. 102⟩had these, nor any in their stead, except they make us see that Peter and Paul dispensed the Word and Sacraments clothed either with lining Rochets, and crossing the air with the Thumb, or then they adorned Word and Sacraments, with other the like mystical Rochets, or some merry toys like crossing the air with the Thumb, and if not, they did worse then our Prelates, who raise bloody warr•s in three Kingdoms, for such fooleries, and for an office, which of old, for shame, had no kindred nor house, but mans law, jus humanum, by their own grant.
Ans. 1. It is a proud Reply. Wee retaine popish Ceremonies, because we judge them profitable, where as the question is not what the Prelates (who must bee called the Church) judge them to be, but what they are, for it is a farre 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 retaine 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 retaine them, is to passe a law and a judgement that they are profitable. But our argument is against their judgeing them to be profitable and against their retaining them. Might not Pharisees say as much? Wee retaine 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, lyeth on the Disciples. Christ said their Ceremonies were the doctrines of men, and so unlawfull: and the like argument bring wee against the Ceremonies, and so they must be unprofitable. 2. If the Church make, or retaine lawes beside, and without the Word, they are under the burden of proving them to be profitable, for they affirme, and affirmanti incumbit probatio, for they ought to give another reason, of their lawes, then we judge; We affirme, it is Gods prerogative to say that. 3. If Prelates should doe worse to have cleane removed these, or brought others in their place Then must the Prelaticall Church be better then the Apostolike Church, for they neither