A92138:1665
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.
2. Bullinger and Gualther do think, that the Lords Supper, which is an action of public thanksgiving and communion, should ⟨p. 640⟩not be turned into a punishment, which is a Use that Christ and his1 Apostles hath not taught us: But this is easily answered, 1. The pearls and holy things of the Gospel are not turned into another Use then Christ hath ordained; because they are denied to dogs and swine as a punishment of their swinish disposition; and if these pearls were given to swine, should they not be turned to another Use then is ordained by Christ? Is not the union of members in a Church-body a sweet bound? is this communion translated to a bastard end, unknown to Christ and the Apostles? because the incestuous man is cast out of that Communion? This is as who would say, the Table of the House is a symbol of a sweet Communion of all the children of the House; Ergo, the Table is turned from its native Use, and is abused, if a flagitious and wicked son be turned out at the doors and removed from the Table. I think the contrary is true; the Lords Table ordained for children, is converted into an Use not known to Christ and his Apostles, when the Table is prepared for dogs and swine; and this argument is against Christ, Mat. 7. as much as against us. 2. By this the excommunicated cast out of the House, is not debarred from the Table of the House. What sense is here? the offender is cast out from amongst the children of the Lords family, and yet is admitted to the Table of the family?
2. Bullinger and Gualther do think, that the Lords Supper, which is an action of publike thanksgiving and communion, should ⟨p. 640⟩not be turned into a punishment, which is a Use that Christ and his1 Apostles hath not taught us: But this is easily answered, 1. The pearls and holy things of the Gospel are not turned into another Ʋse then Christ hath ordained; because they are denied to dogs and swine as a punishment of their swinish disposition; and if these pearls were given to swine, should they not be turned to another Use then is ordained by Christ? Is not the union of members in a Church-body a sweet bound? is this communion translated to a bastard end, unknown to Christ and the Apostles? because the incestuous man is cast out of that Communion? This is as who would say, the Table of the House is a symbol of a sweet Communion of all the children of the House; Ergo, the Table is turned from its native Use, and is abused, if a flagitious and wicked son be turned out at the doors and removed from the Table. I think the contrary is true; the Lords Table ordained for children, is converted into an Use not known to Christ and his Apostles, when the Table is prepared for dogs and swine; and this argument is against Christ,