A92138:311
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.
Jackson saith, They sin, not by doubting, if the fear of evil after mature deliberation, be not extraordinary, and such as cannot be recompensed by the goodness which appeareth in the act of Obedience. Doubting is no internal part or essential cause of sin, we sin not because we doubt, but because while we doubt, we prefer an evil, or a less good, before a good, or a greater good. So their sin was not doubting, but they preferred not eating, which was a bodily loss only, to the evil feared, which was to be partakers of the Table of Devils, and being Apostates from the Israel of God. Ans. Paul expressly saith, doubting is sin, and condemneth it ver. 23. and requireth, ver. 5. Let every man be persuaded in his conscience, v. 21. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth, v. 23. Whatsoever (more or less in Moral actions) is not of Faith, is sin: 2. Internal persuasion, Rom. 14. 14. Is an internal cause of obedience, as v. 21. And therefore doubting being a sin that condemneth, Rom. 14. 23. must be such a sinful ingredient, as maketh the action sinful. 3. We both sin, because we doubt, and also because we prefer a less1 good, or an evil to a greater good. 4. No feared evil, though never so evil, whether of sin or punishment if it follow not kindly, but only by accident, and through the corruption of our nature, should or can make us do any thing doubtingly or sinfully, for then we might do evil, that good might come of it: No good of obedience can warrant me to sin, and disobey God, nor should that be called obedience, nor is it obedience to men, which is disobedience to God. 5. It is an untruth that non-eating was only a bodily loss, for non-eating Physical, is a bodily loss, but Paul urgeth non-eating moral, to eschew the fall of one for whom Christ died. 6. The Doctor saith Ibidem. No power under the Heaven could make a Law over the Romans, enjoining such meats, because Gods law (as they conceive) condemned them. Now how pleasant are right words? I assume, we conceive God hath denounced all the plagues written in his Book, upon practisers of humane Ceremonies, as upon adders to the word of God, Rev. 22. 19. Yea Heresies, to with, that Christ is not the consubstantial Son of God, may seem probable to us; shall the good of obedience in believing my Pastor, whom God hath set over me, hinder me to obey? 7.