A92138:1897
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. This argument may 1. be retorted against these who hold with us the same doctrine of Scandal, for, without eating of Swines flesh, my life may be preserved, and a malicious Jew may be, and necessarily is highly scandalized, that I, who possibly am a Jew converted to the Christian faith, do eat Swines flesh before him, for he conceiveth me to be an Apostate from Moses his law, therefore I should abstain from eating Swines flesh before a Jew, who out of Malice is scandalized, by my doing a thing not necessarie, hic & nunc. But the conclusion is absurd: nor do I think that many truly godly of the Strictest Separation do stumble at our Churches out of wickedness. Many truly Godly and Sincere refuse to come to our Churches, whereas many scandalous, well lustered hypocrites, who knoweth nothing of the power of godliness, but are sitten down in the Scorners Chair are admitted to the Lords Supper, and as the former cannot be excused, so I pray God, that the latter draw not down the wrath of God upon both Kingdoms. 2. Things not necessary which actively produce scandal must not be only indifferent Physically in their natural use, as This or this house, but they must be indifferent both Physically and Morally, for the Meats spoken of, Rom. 14. at that time, were both ways indifferent. 1. They were not necessary but indifferent Physically in an ordinary providence, both then and now, for ordinarily my life may be preserved, and suffer little loss by not eating Swines flesh, or such meats, in case of extreme necessity of starving, if any could have no other meat, they might eat then, as the case was, Rom. 14. because Mercy is better then Sacri••• at all times. 2. These things Rom. 14. were indifferent ⟨p. 69⟩Theologically or Morally in their own nature, 1. v. 3. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not: and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. 2. Because v. 17. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink. Sure, in Moses his time, to abstain from such meats, and eat such, as the Lamb of the Passover, the Manna, to drink of the water of the Rock, was worship, and so some part of the kingdom of heaven, but it is not so now, saith Paul. 3 Paul clearly maketh them Morally indifferent.