A92138:1343
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.
Erastus. God hath Excommunicated Drunkards, Hypocrites1 from the Sacraments except they repent: But where hath God commanded such, being Circumcised and Baptized to be excluded from the Sacraments? especially if they profess that they repent of their former ways: for it is one thing to be excluded of God, another thing to be cast out of the visible society of the godly.
Erastus. God hath Excommunicated Drunkards, Hypocrites1 from the Sacraments except they repent: But where hath God commanded such, being Circumcised and Baptized to be excluded from the Sacraments? especially if they professe that they repent of their former wayes: for it is one thing to be excluded of God, another thing to be cast out of the visible society of the godly.
- 1Page 335.
Ans. God hath Excommunicated Drunkards and Hypocrites, who are not known openly to be such to the Church, and therefore the Church cannot debar such from the Sacraments, and so we grant all, That it is one thing to be Excommunicated of the Church, and another to be Excommunicated of God. 2. He asketh, where hath God commanded to debar such from the Sacraments being circumcised and baptized? I Answer then, If they be uncircumcised and unbaptized, God will have the Church to debar them. But let Erastus show any Scripture for their exclusion, but such as warranteth ⟨p. 492⟩us to exclude the openly scandalous, though circumcised and baptized. 3. What warrant hath the Church or Magistrate, if Erastus so will, to debar all the uncircumcised and unbaptized from the Sacraments; Job, the Eunuch, are not Excommunicated of God▪ Ergo, if the Lords non-Excommunication be our rule, we cannot Excommunicate all the uncircumcised and baptized as such. 4. Erastus addeth, They cannot be excluded from the Sacraments, Presertim s pnitentiam vitae anteactae prae see erant, especially if they profess repentance. But this presertim especially, seemeth to infer, though they profess no repentance, but be dogs and swine, they ought not to be debarred from the Seal Is this piety, or rather profanity? But only he would say, they are far less to be debarred if they profess repentance. But we know, to profess repentance in Erastus his