A92138:707
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.
The Argument will conclude, that not only the Church or Magistrate ought to admit those that have fellowship with the Devil to the Table of Christ, but they ought to command them to come, it being Christs will they should be admitted, and that they themselves who are Communicants are obliged, though keeping fellowship with the Devil, to come, and eat their own damnation: for Paul saith, by this reason in the place, 1 Cor. 10. No more (I will not have the partakers of the Devils table, to come to the Lords table) nor he saith, (I will not have the Elders to debar them) if Erastus say, they should try and examine themselves and come: He flees from the controversy, which is not, whether the worthy, but whether the scandalous and unworthy should come; Erastus saith, all should come. 5. Whereas Erastus will have the Apostle to speak of the external Communion of the Elements only: 1. It is false. 2. Nothing to the purpose, it is false, 1. ver. 16. It is called the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, and that must be more then external Communion. 2. ver. 17. We many are one body; this is not an external body only, for it is the unity of the body of Christ signified by one bread. 3. It is not external only, but internal and spiritual fellowship with Devils that is condemned, ver. 20. 21. Ergo, ⟨p. 276⟩It must be internal Communion with Christ in his death that is sealed and commanded. 4. This is mere Socinianism, to have the Sacraments only memorative signs, as is clear. 2. It is not to a purpose, for if the Church debar only from external society, from the Church and external Seals; this debarring being ratified in Heaven, Matth. 18. It is sufficient for our conclusion. 5. Paul his condemning of eating at the Idols Table, as inconsistent with eating and drinking of the Lords body, he must expressly forbid those who eateth in the Idol-Temple, to come to the Lords Table, except they repent, and try themselves: Hence it must follow, that if Christ have commanded his Stewards, to dispense the word of promise and threatenings, and comforts, according to the temper of the flock, so must they dispense the Seals, and so by good consequence Paul said (I will not have the Lord and Satan mingled, nor a partaker of Satan's Table admitted to the Lords Table) [Greek or Hebrew];
The Argument will conclude, that not onely the Church or Magistrate ought to admit those that have fellowship with the Devil to the Table of Christ, but they ought to command them to come, it being Christs will they should be admitted, and that they themselves who are Communicants are obliged, though keeping fellowship with the Devil, to come, and eat their own damnation: for Paul saith, by this reason in the place,