A92138:1406
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.
and to prove some other qualification must be requisite, in those that come to the Supper before the Ministers, (without violation of the holy things of God, and being guilty of not distributing aright) can administer the Supper to them▪ and this is another visible qualification then is requisite in those that hear the word: For Erastus and Mr. Prynne require, That all that come to the Supper be rightly instructed. 2. That they promise amendment of life: But they cannot say, none are to be admitted to hear the word, while they be qualified thus; you exclude the ignorant from the Sacrament, do you exclude the ignorant from hearing the word? Farther, I desire to be resolved, why Erastus and his require any qualification at all in the one, more then in the other, according to their way: For suppose persons Baptized be only negatively blameless, and not visibly scandalous; yet Erastus and Mr. Prynne cannot deny the Supper to such. Suppose they know not whether they be as ignorant of God as Indians, and suppose they promise no amendment, and do positively profess no repentance at all: 1. Ministers can deny no converting Ordinances to persons, because ignorant; for if the Supper of the Lord be a converting Ordinance, it shall convert men from their ignorance; and an Indian ignorant of Christ, ought to be Baptized, to the end, that Baptism may convert him from his ignorance. Now I think our Brethren cannot say this, and therefore they must yield, that Ministers dare not admit all within the Church to the Seals, except they would be guilty of their sin, in eating to themselves damnation; and yet they dare not debar the ignorant within the Church from hearing the word, and so are no way compartners with them in the sin of unprofitable hearing. 2. Mr. Prynne may here see some ignorants debarred from the Lords Supper; yet I hope he would not be so rigid as to Excommunicate all ignorants, because ignorant: the most rigid Novatians would condemn that: and here is sole suspension without Excommunication, which Mr. Prynne saith is not to be found in all the word of God.
and to prove some other qualification must be requisite, in those that come to the Supper before the Ministers, (without violation of the holy things of God, and being guilty of not distributing aright) can administer the Supper to them▪ and this is another visible qualification then is requisite in those that hear the word: For Erastus and Mr. Prynne require, That all that come to the Supper be rightly instructed. 2. That they promise amendment of life: But they cannot say, none are to be admitted to hear the word, while they be qualified thus; you exclude the ignorant from the Sacrament, do you exclude the ignorant from hearing the word? Farther, I desire to be resolved, why Erastus and his require any qualification at all in the one, more then in the other, according to their way: For suppose persons Baptized be only negatively blamelesse, and not visibly scandalous; yet Erastus and Mr. Prynne cannot deny the Supper to such. Suppose they know not whether they be as ignorant of God as Indians, and suppose they promise no amendment, and do positively professe no repentance at all: 1. Ministers can deny no converting Ordinances to persons, because ignorant; for if the Supper of the Lord be a converting Ordinance, it shall convert men from their ignorance; and an Indian ignorant of Christ, ought to be Baptized, to the end, that Baptisme may convert him from his ignorance. Now I think our Brethren cannot say this, and therefore they must yield, that Ministers dare not admit all within the Church to the Seals, except they would be guilty of their sin, in eating to themselves damnation; and yet they dare not debar the ignorant within the Church from hearing the word, and so are no way compartners with them in the sin of unprofitable hearing. 2. Mr. Prynne may here see some ignorants debarred from the Lords Supper; yet I hope he would not be so rigid as to Excommunicate all ignorants, because ignorant: the most rigid Novatians would condemne that: and here is sole suspension without Excommunication, which Mr. Prynne saith is not to be found in all the word of God.