A92138:1729
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.
Proposit. 6. v. 10. 11. 12. a Christian should not condemn a Jew▪ no• one brother another, in things indifferent. 1. Because we are brethren. 2. Because it is Christs place to judge; and condemn. 3. Because every man must give an account for himself. Ergo. Laws of Rulers to condemn or punish, are not to be made in such cases.
Proposit. 6. v. 10. 11. 12. a Christian should not condemne a Jew▪ no• one brother another, in things indifferent. 1. Because we are brethren. 2. Because it is Christs place to judge; and condemne. 3. Because every man must give an account for himself. Ergo. Lawes of Rulers to condemne or punish, are not to be made in such cases.
Proposit. 7. v. 13. When the use of things indifferent is a stumbling block and scandal to our brethren they are against charity and unlawful.
Proposit. 7. v. 13. When the use of things indifferent is a stumbling block and scandall to our brethren they are against charitie and unlawfull.
Proposit. 8. v. 14. there is a Prolepsis. Meats clean, or not clean, may be eaten, but all meats are clean; and Paul is persuaded of that by Jesus Christ. Ergo, The Apostle answereth, 1. by denying the major Proposition in two cases, and setteth down a distinction. All things are clean in themselves, but they become unclean, in two cases. 1. If one weak in the faith believe▪ that the meat, that he eateth, is against the word of God, the me at to him is unclean. 2, If he eat before, one that believeth it is forbidden in Gods Law, to eat such meats, his eating is a stumbling block to the weak. But one might say, It is a taken Scandal, and not given: for it is lawful to eat, thy brother deemeth it unlawful out of ignorance of Christian liberty, so say Formalists Ceremonies be indifferent; if any offend at the use of them, it is a scandal taken, not given. O but Paul forbiddeth to scandalize, or to eat.