A92138:480
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.
The Proposition is evident in Scripture,c.
- cProv. 2. •0. Eph. 5. 1. • Thes. 1. 16. 2 Thess. 3. 6, 7. • Cor. ••. Phil. 3. 17. 2. Tim. 3. 4. Sitting the only convenient gesture.
I prove the Assumption. 1. Sitting was either: 1. Miraculous. 2. Customable. 3. Occasional; or 4. Moral. None in reason can say the first; that sitting was a miracle: 2. Nor is it customable. For 1. Customs laudable are grounded upon decency and reason, and so moral, or grounded upon no reason at all.
I prove the Assumption. 1. Sitting was either: 1. Miraculous. 2. Customable. 3. Occasionall; or 4. Morall. None in reason can say the first; that sitting was a miracle: 2. Nor is it customable. For 1. Customes laudable are grounded upon decency and reason, and so morall, or grounded upon no reason at all.
But Christ did nothing in Gods worship, nor did he any humane moral actions for the mere fact and will of others going before, for these were not reasonable humane actions, and if it be customable only, it is not lawful to put away a customable action out of worship, and to put a moral action of kneeling and Divine signification