A92138:1407
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.
I wondered much when I read those words of the learned and1 reverend Master Prynne: That God, who bestoweth no Ordinances on men in vain, must intend in instituting the Supper, that visible moral unregenerate Christians, may be converted thereby, as well as real Saints be confirmed: to which I reply: 1. Neither word nor ⟨p. 526⟩Sacraments, nor any thing on the part of the Almighty can be intended in vain, though the end of the Ordinance be not obtained, I should have expected some such divinity from the pen of Arminians and Socinians, who make God to intend the salvation of all, and every one in both the promises of the Gospel, precepts and Sacraments, and yet he falleth from this end: so you may read, in Arminius Anti-Perkins, pag. 60. that God is disappointed in his end, in both Law and Gospel, and God shooting beside his mark misseth the salvation of many, say the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort, pag. 216. and in their confession, c. 7. sect. 3. and because Socinus thought it hard thus to take from God wise intentions; he did no less then blasphemously deprive him of his omniscience: So Socians contra puccium, c. 10. and in prelectionib. Theolog. c. 11. made all things that are contingently to come, uncertain to God: But if you speak of intentio operis, non operantis, that the Supper, in its nature, is ordained (this may rather be your meaning) that moral men like Cicero, and Seneca, and Judas, and the like, (for all are alike in regard of the nature of the ordinances, and of that which is the genuine intention not of God, but of this Sacrament) then you speak not of the supper as divided from the word, but as the word going before the Sacrament hath converted the man, and the Sacrament following doth add to and confirm in grace. So, Sir, you depart from the question, for we grant that the Sermon going before in the same day of the celebration of the Supper, may, and doth convert; and thus if an Indian hear a Sermon, to which the celebration of the Supper is annexed, if he be converted by that Sermon (as you teach the heart in those, is only known to God, the Church is not to judge) he may forthwith, ere he be baptised, come at the same time to the Lords supper, which were much precipitation, little speed, and so the word formally converteth, not the Sacrament;
I wondred much when I read those words of the learned and1