A92138:1755
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.
3. In things indifferent, from whence ariseth a Scandal there be two things. 1. The use of the thing it self. 2. The use of it, with the non-necessitie of existence in it. As the causey stones are not scandalous, if any fall on them, nor the layer of the causey to be blamed therefore, because causey stones be necessary, but if any lay an huge block in the way, which hath no necessary use there, he who doth so is the cause of the fall, because he contributeth to the fall, that which is the occasion, and so the cause of the fall, for every occasion is a certain cause. 2. Because he contributeth such an occasion as hath no moral necessity of existence, so the brazen Serpent having lost its virtue of curing and being adored as God, is formally a scandalous object, and the Prince suffering that to remain, when it is ⟨p. 11⟩not necessary, and withal occasioneth the idolatry of many, doth culpably scandalize, and so these who for sole will commandeth such things as the worship of God may want, do also scandalize. They object, Christ might have healed on another day, then the Lords. Ergo, the non-morall necessitie maketh not the object formally scandalous, nor doth the contributer thereof culpably scandalize.
3. In things indifferent, from whence ariseth a Scandall there be two things. 1. The use of the thing it selfe. 2. The use of it, with the non-necessitie of existence in it. As the causey stones are not scandalous, if any fall on them, nor the layer of the causey to be blamed therefore, because causay stones be necessarie, but if any lay an huge block in the way, which hath no necessary use there, he who doth so is the cause of the fall, because he contributeth to the fall, that which is the occasion, and so the cause of the fall, for every occasion is a certaine cause. 2. Because he contributeth such an occasion as hath no morall necessitie of existence, so the brazen Serpent having lost its vertue of curing and being adored as God, is formally a scandalous object, and the Prince suffering that to remaine, when it is ⟨p. 11⟩not necessarie, and withall occasioneth the idolatrie of many, doth culpably scandalize, and so these who for sole will commandeth such things as the worship of God may want, doe also scandalize. They object, Christ might have healed on another day, then the Lords. Ergo, the non-morall necessitie maketh not the object formally scandalous, nor doth the contributer thereof culpably scandalize.