A92138:1266
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.
But how doth Erastus prove this consequence, if our Exposition stand, and if we were to do nothing in offering gifts at the Altar, except we be first reconciled to our brother, and if God approve nothing which we do, which deviates from this perfection, we should do nothing that is good and right, and so all must be excommunicated. 1. Is Christ here enjoining a work of perfection, and of supererogation? Is Erastus popish in this? 2. As it is impossible not to offer gifts aright, so is it not to eat and drink worthily, while first we be reconciled to our brother: Erastus was so surfeited with charity, as we heard before, that if any but desire the Sacrament and profess repentance, he thinketh he is obliged to believe he is fit for the Lords Supper; and here, if Christ require, but that the party be reconciled to his brother, ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament, this is too great strictness, it should excommunicate us all, and we shall so never do any thing that is right and good. 4. It is false that Christ speaketh here of internal acts only, and of that which our mind enjoineth, for the Lord speaketh of three external visible acts; 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar. 2. Of delaying and suspending of the offering. 3. Of a previous visible reconciliation to an offended brother. 5. He saith not, if the Presbyters bid you, (saith he) leave your offering; true, he saith not that in words; but supposing this, that the Presbyters know that the same very day that he bringeth his offering, he had been killing his own son to Molech, as Ezek. 23. 38. 39. Whether were the Presbyters to forbid him to come and offer, while he should testify his repentance; and finding him impenitent; whether should they not judge him both to be debarred from the holy things of God, and to be cast out of the Church, as 1 Cor. 5. Certain this is Christs order, Be first reconciled to thy Brother, and then offer; try thy self first, and then eat; and if the Church see this order neglected, whether are they to suffer ⟨p. 460⟩clean and unclean to come and eat, and holy things to be profaned?
But how doth Erastus prove this consequence, if our Exposition stand, and if we were to doe nothing in offering gifts at the Altar, except we bee first reconciled to our brother, and if God approve nothing which we doe, which deviates from this perfection, we should doe nothing that is good and right, and so all must be excommunicated. 1. Is Christ here injoyning a work of perfection, and of supererogation? Is Erastus popish in this? 2. As it is impossible not to offer gifts aright, so is it not to eate and drinke worthily, while first we be reconciled to our brother: Erastus was so surfetred with charity, as we heard before, that if any but desire the Sacrament and professe repentance, he thinketh he is obliged to beleeve he is fit for the Lords Supper; and here, if Christ require, but that the partie be reconciled to his brother, ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament, this is too great strictnesse, it should excommunicate us all, and we shall so never doe any thing that is right and good. 4. It is false that Christ speaketh here of internall acts onely, and of that which our minde injoyneth, for the Lord speaketh of three externall visible acts; 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar. 2. Of delaying and suspending of the offering. 3. Of a previous visible reconciliation to an offended brother. 5. He saith not, if the Presbyters bid you, (saith he) leave your offering; true, he saith not that in words; but supposing this, that the Presbyters know that the same very day that he bringeth his offering, he had beene killing his owne sonne to Molech, as