A92138:1250
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.
for eating undecently before another, which would procure deadly sickness to your brother, ought to be forbidden by the Ruler, it being known to be so, and ought to be abstained from hic & nunc, as a sin, and a hurting of your brothers health, and yet the Ruler cannot forbid total abstinence from meat to him that eateth undecently, as the Elders cannot command total abstinence from the Sacraments [Greek or Hebrew] always and in all cases. 2. We draw no conclusion of erecting a Presbytery from those places, but those two we draw; Ergo, 1. It is a sin to the people themselves to sacrifice with bloody hands, because God condemneth such a manner of sacrificing. 2. Ergo, they are to be debarred by some who hath the charge of the holy things of God, but from the Antecedent, we neither infer; Ergo, Presbyters, nor, Ergo, the people, nor, Ergo, the Prince should debar them. 3. Calling on God is not to be forbidden, nor giving of alms, because they are abused, but the manner of the abusing those ordinances are forbidden by God, and may be hindered by the Church, and forbidden under the pain of Excommunication. The Church cannot forbid men of total abstinence from the Lords Supper, but they can command him that is not reconciled to his brother, and visibly under the guilt of blood, to leave the Table, as Christ Mat. 5. 23. commandeth the unreconciled man to leave his gift at the Altar, and go first be reconciled with his brother, and then at the next occasion, come to the Lords Supper; so the Church of the Jews could not forbid the Pharisees to pray, but they could pass such an act, as is, Act. 15. 22. We forbid Pharisees or any other to bring their private prayers to the Markets and streets, and when they are to give alms, we forbid them with sound of Trumpet to make proclamation to all men that they are the only holy and charitable men in the earth. Nor do we think that the Church can debar men from the Sacraments ⟨p. 452⟩for inward and and invisible unworthiness; but only for visible and professed uncleanness; and Levit. 9. 13. it is clear, the man that is unclean is forbidden to keep the Passover. Will Erastus say, O he is not forbidden to eat the Passover, but only he is forbidden to eat it tali modo being unclean?