A92138:637
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.
But the former is true; Ergo; so is the latter. The Proposition is clear: As the word should not be divided aright, if wrath should be Preached to believing Saints, and life and salvation offered to the obdurate and wicked, so neither should the Stewards cut the seals of the word aright, if the Supper were given to wicked men: If they should say, This is the blood of the Covenant, shed for the ⟨p. 253⟩Remission of your sins, Drink ye all of it: They should save alive those that should die, with lying words; for the seals speak to the Communicant, and apply to him in particular, the very promise that in general is made to him; and this will prove as the Magistrate being no Steward of the word, and not called of God thereunto, as Aaron was Heb. 5. 4. can no more distribute the word and seals1 to whom he pleaseth, Ex officio, then he can Preach and Administer the Sacraments, nor should another man, who is no Steward, but a Porter or Cook, Teach, and that by his office how, and to whom the Steward should distribute Bread: nor is it sufficient, to say, by this one man, not the Church, is to debar from the Sacraments, for the seals being proper to the Church, as the Church, he must act here, in, and with the power of the Church. 2. It is another question, whether by the Minister, or by the Church any ought to be debarred, and whether there be any such Censure as debarring from the Seals; and its another question, by what power, whether by the power of order, or by the power of jurisdiction, Ministers may debar the scandalous from the seals; I conceive by both powers, they may keep the Ordinances pure; and if it belong to the Magistrate to debar any more then to preach the word, and by the way of Erastus: The Magistrate by his office, as he is a Magistrate only is deputed of Jesus Christ to Steward the seals to whom he pleaseth: Ergo, (say I) to cut the word aright to whom he pleaseth, must be his due.
But the former is true; Ergo; so is the latter. The Proposition is clear: As the word should not be divided aright, if wrath should be Preached to believing Saints, and life and salvation offered to the obdurate and wicked, so neither should the Stewards cut the seals of the word aright, if the Supper were given to wicked men: If they should say, This is the blood of the Covenant, shed for the