A92138:498
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.
If Christ should have sitten and caused his Disciples rise and wash his feet▪ in that he could not have said, (I have put the honour of Table-fellowship on you, for you stand and wash my feet, and I sit) this (I say) had been no table-honour, but most contrary to it: It had ⟨p. 200⟩been indeed servant-honour, Luk 22. 27. and more then sinful men are worthy of. To kneel to Christ is an honour, but to kneel at Tabling with him, as kneeling, is no more an expressing sign of table-honour, nor standing and serving Christ, while he did eat is an honour of table-fellowship. Now if any shall take away eating with Christ, at that table, he taketh away table-honour, as Papists do in taking away drinking with Christ from the people, yet eating with Christ maketh us not equal to Christ, but take away eating, and you take away Table-honour, so take away sitting at Table, and you take away (eatenus) in so far the Table-honour.
If Christ should have sitten and caused his Disciples rise and wash his feet▪ in that he could not have said, (I have put the honour of Table-fellowship on you, for you stand and wash my feet, and I sit) this (I say) had been no table-honour, but most contrary to it: It had ⟨p. 200⟩been indeed servant-honour, Luk 22. 27. and more then sinfull men are worthy of. To kneel to Christ is an honour, but to kneel at Tabling with him, as kneeling, is no more an expressing signe of table-honour, nor standing and serving Christ, while he did eat is an honour of table-fellowship. Now if any shall take away eating with Christ, at that table, he taketh away table-honour, as Papists do in taking away drinking with Christ from the people, yet eating with Christ maketh us not equall to Christ, but take away eating, and you take away Table-honour, so take away sitting at Table, and you take away (eatenus) in so far the Table-honour.
But by this mean (say they) you make it necessary to sit, and of Divine necessity. I answer, Table sitting is not so necessary, as that the want thereof doth annihilate the Sacrament, and make it to be no Sacrament at all, but it is (as I think) many ways necessary, as first it is morally or Theologically necessary, as being gesture sanctified by the practice of Christ and his Apostles, upon Moral grounds, and so to be imitated by us: 2. It is necessary, by necessity of expediency, as free from hazard of Idolatry, of which crime kneeling in this act, is guilty. 3. It is necessary, sacramentally, for the integrity of the Sacrament, as signifying our honour of Table-fellowship. 4. It is by natures grounds necessary, that as this banquet is material, having bread, wine, taking, breaking, distribution, eating, drinking, so the external solemnity of a banquet, such as is table-sitting, requireth the same. And 5. which is our 4. Argument,