A92138:494
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.
Now if Christ aim not to make Judas his fault the greater, because Judas and he sate at one table together, and that as an holy and Sacramental table, he had in this no more argued Judas of ingratitude, then any of the rest of the house who communicated not with Christ, because Christ and they did eat one material and ordinary bread together▪ And in this Ahithophel was a type of Judas, as David of Christ, and that not only in ⟨p. 198⟩this, that Ahithophel did eat bread with David, and so had a civill fellowship, but that they went together to Gods house, in company together, Psal. 55. 14. So had Christ and Judas fellowship together, at that same Sacramental table: And as tabling together signifieth civil fellowship, so must fellow-tabling at one sacred Feast signify Spiritual fellowship together. 6. Giving and not granting that fellow-sitting together were only a common honour, not a mystical honour by divine Institution, yet since to sit at a table with a Ruler, is an honour, 1 Sam. 20. 5. 2 Sam. 9. 13. Esther 7. 7. Prov. 23. 1. Mat. 8. 11. Luk• 16. 23. Luke 22. 30. And the Lords Disciples are admitted to sit with him, as is clear in that he sate down with the twelve, and he sate (Luke 24. 30.) at meat with them, and took bread and blessed it. No power on earth should dare to deprive the people of God of this honour, for this honour was bestowed on the Lords Apostles, as communicants, not as Apostles, and the want of Christs bodily presence, diminisheth nothing of the honour, seeing he is really, but in a spiritual manner present, as the Lord of the feast, with us, as he was with them. Paybodie saith, When Christ sate at table in the Passover, even then he schooled them from looking