A92138:1832
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.
I answer, it is most false, that eating and not eating, in case of scandal was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co▪ rinth. For these most indifferent acts in their use, and clothed with their Circumstances, when, where, and before what persons, were under the unalterable law of nature, as (destroy not him, with thy meat for whom Christ died) a law which as the gcourse of conformity saith well, cannot be dispensed with by no power but Gods. And Paul proveth by stronger arguments, to eat in the case of Scandal, was not indifferent, but simply evil, Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford, as Rom. 14. by eight Arguments, as we have seen, that it fighteth against Charity, v. 15. Now walkest thou not charitably. 2. It is a destroying of him for whom Christ died, and so murder. 3. Contrary to Christs love, who died for that weak brother. 4. It maketh Religion and Christian Liberty to be evil spoken of. v. 6. &c. It is a sham then to say, that eating, or not eating, was indifferent, because free from any tie of a Church Canon, seeing eating before a weak brother is under the tie of unanswerable Arguments taken from the law of nature, and Gods Canons written in the heart, forbidding under the pain of Goa's anathema, and curse, (heavier then the Church anathema,) that we should, for meat, destroy him for whom Christ died, and so are the Canon-makers, and Lords of Ceremonies under a curse, if they for crossing, kneeling, surplice, destroy him for whom Christ died, or command him to be destroyed, by the practice of Ceremonies. 3. If this be a good reason the Church of Rome, and Corinth might have made such Ceremonies as these.
I answer, it is most false, that eating and not eating, in case of scandall was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co▪ rinth. For these most indifferent acts in their use, and cloathed with their Circumstances, when, where, and before what persons, were under the unalterable law of nature, as (destroy not him, with thy meat for whom Christ died) a law which as the gcourse of conformitie saith well, cannot be dispenced with by no power but Gods. And Paul proveth by stronger arguments, to eat in the case of Scandall, was not indifferent, but simply evill, Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford, as