A92138:497
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. But in this the disputer and we mean no other thing, then1 that kneeling which is a note of submission, and never used in banquets, cannot formally express, as an apt sign, the dignity of fellow-table-ship with Christ: 2. Poor Logician, it followeth not in sitting at table, which is the expressing sign of the honour of table fellowship, we may not call Christ, Lord. David sitting at Table with his Prince Saul, might well term him (my Lord the King) but if▪ David should be put to his knees at Table, and inhibited to eat at the Table, at which his Prince did eat; no wise man will say, that Saul had honoured David with fellow-Tabling with him. For the Act of kneeling, and non-eating were no expressing signs of fellow-Tabling, but by the contrary of no fellow-Tabling; the Disputer hath no mind to make us every way equal with Christ, so as there can be a case, wherein it is not Lawful to esteem or call Christ our Lord; King and Superior, this is Paybodies consequence; but take away Table-sitting, an honour put upon us by Christ in this Sacrament, Luk. 22. 27. and substitute kneeling for it, then you take away Gods expressing sign of Table-Fellowship in that gesture: for while the world standeth, kneeling shall never be a sign of Table-fellowship: sitting at Table is a sign, as the Scriptures clear, but sitting taketh never away our inferiority to Christ; you may worship and actuate the person of a co-heir, but not worship in an expressing visible sign of co-heirship, and then kneel. Farther he reasoneth with us, as if Table-sitting inferred an equality betwixt us, and that Lord who is the head of men and Angels; we reason for an honour of fellowship, not equality. David set at King Saul's Table, is not made equal with Saul, but in Table-sitting, he doth partake of Table-honour to feast with his Prince.
Ans. But in this the disputer and we mean no other thing, then1 that kneeling which is a note of submission, and never used in banquets, cannot formally expresse, as an apt signe, the dignity of fellow-table-ship with Christ: 2. Poor Logitian, it followeth not in sitting at table, which is the expressing signe of the honour of tablefellowship, we may not call Christ, Lord. David sitting at Table with his Prince Saul, might well term him (my Lord the King) but if David should be put to his knees at Table, and inhibited to eat at the Table, at which his Prince did eat; no wise man will say, that Saul had honoured David with fellow-Tabling with him. For the Act of kneeling, and non-eating were no expressing signes of fellow-Tabling, but by the contrary of no fellow-Tabling; the Disputer hath no minde to make us every way equall with Christ, so as there can be a case, wherein it is not Lawfull to esteem or call Christ our Lord; King and Superiour, this is Paybodies consequence; but take away Table-sitting, an honour put upon us by Christ in this Sacrament,