A92138:918
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.
Ans. That the Ancients in the Apostolic Church, which is our rule, did defer baptism till they died, Erastus cannot prove, the Ancients after them is not our rule. 2. That these were admitted to the Supper, a Sacrament of the nourishment of these in whom Christ liveth, before they were baptized, which is the Sacrament of Regeneration, and our first birth, cannot be defended by Erastus, and so he argues from an unlawful practise. 3. We reach not that any is damned, because he is excluded from the Supper, that Exclusion is a punishment; men are damned for sins, not for mere punishments, but his sin is bound in heaven, because of a great scandal; such as incest, and that, if he repent not, is the cause of damnation: and therefore Erastus should have compared sin with sin, the scandal with sinful refusing of Baptism, and not have made a halting and lame comparison, an argument that concludeth nothing. 4. Though those ⟨p. 337⟩who deferred baptism till death, should not have been delivered to Satan, yet will Erastus say, they should not have been otherwise censured? for these behooved with Socinians to hold Baptism but an indifferent rite, and by this many lived in the contempt of a necessary ordinance, (though not simply necessary) and so died with the sinful want of Baptism many times.
Ans. That the Ancients in the Apostolique Church, which is our rule, did deferre baptisme till they died, Erastus cannot prove, the Ancients after them is not our rule. 2. That these were admitted to the Supper, a Sacrament of the nourishment of these in whom Christ liveth, before they were baptized, which is the Sacrament of Regeneration, and our first birth, cannot be defended by Erastus, and so he argues from an unlawfull practise. 3. We reach not that any is damned, because he is excluded from the Supper, that Exclusion is a punishment; men are damned for sins, not for meer punishments, but his sin is bound in heaven, because of a great scandall; such as incest, and that, if he repent not, is the cause of damnation: and therefore Erastus should have compared sinne with sinne, the scandall with sinfull refusing of Baptisme, and not have made a halting and lame comparilon, an argument that concludeth nothing. 4. Though those ⟨p. 337⟩who deferred baptisme till death, should not have been delivered to Satan, yet will Erastus say, they should not have been otherwise censured? for these behooved with Socinians to hold Baptisme but an indifferent rite, and by this many lived in the contempt of a necessary ordinance, (though not simply necessary) and so died with the sinfull want of Baptisme many times.