A92138:1920
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.
3. That the Lord our God will have a bodily necessity as the smaller, to yield to a soul-necessity as the greater, is a ground not so sure, but it ought to have been proved, except by a soul-necessity, you mean a necessity of saving the soul, and not sinning against God, and oppose it to a mee• bodily necessity, including no sin in it▪ then I shall grant the Assertion, That the one necessity i• greater then the other. But otherwise, Cateris paribus, other things being alike, I conceive it is contradicted by Jesus Christs saying, Matth. 12. cited out of Hosea, Chap. 6. I will have me•••, and not sacrifice: And here we must determine the case of scandal to the soul from the exsuperance of necessity to the body and life. The case falleth out, David and his followers are at the point of starving for hunger (it may be a question if the presen• necessity be so great) there being no bread for them, but the Show-bread, which by a Ceremonial Law of God, only the Priests should eat: If any of the followers of David out of a groundless scrupulosity of conscience should have taken Pauls Argument, Rom. 14. and said to David▪ I will starve rather ere I eat this bread; for a divine law forbid• me; and if▪ thou eat of it, it shall be a scandal to ••, and wilt thou for bread destroy him for whom Christ died? The Apostle Paul would not, for so small a thing, as to eat swines flesh before a weak Jew, in the case, Rom. 14. destroy the soul of one for whom Christ died, by laying before him a stumbling block, by his unseasonable and scandalous eating. I think (if Scripture cannot possibly be contrary to Scripture) this doubt might easily be removed, by answering the case was ⟨p. 81⟩not alike with David in his hunger, and so in a Physical and natural necessity to save his own temporal life, that by all probability was in great danger, and these who being in no such necessity, did eat such meats scandalous, and so destructive to the souls of weak ones, and having variety of other meats to keep them from starving, and so a mere necessity of preserving the bodily life, if we compare one affirmative command of God, with another, may remove that which may be supposed a soul necessity.