A92138:1009
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. Erastus in this granteth he wrongeth Beza, as if he had ⟨p. 366⟩said, to deny a private table, and the Lords table, were one and the same punishment. Beza saith, the one is a less, the other a greater punishment. 2. If it be true in gifts, that he to whom less is given, more is given, then it holdeth here in our case; because private fellowship with the Saints is a gift of God, and if the Lords body given for us, and to us in the Lords supper, be not a greater gift, it is nothing: so then if a less gift be denied, the Lords supper a greater gift is denied. 2. It must hold in the private punishments, inflicted for an higher punishments cause, private communion with the Saints is denied, because the man is cast out of the Church; Ergo, far more are the highest privileges of the Church denied: as liberty is denied to a man, because he is condemned to dye; Ergo, far more is life denied to him; a mans house is denied to him, because he is banished; Ergo, far more is his city and country denied to him: But a man is not punished in his purse, because he is condemned to dye, it followeth no•; Ergo, he should rather dye, because the one punishment is not relative to the other. 3 Because not eating with a scandalous man is a spiritual punishment, as I have proved: therefore it is of that same kind with excommunication, and therefore it holdeth here. 4. Abstinence from the private fellowship of a scandalous brother is not free, but commanded of God, and so is debarring from the Lords supper, not free, but commanded.
Ans. Erastus in this granteth he wrongeth Beza, as if he had ⟨p. 366⟩said, to deny a private table, and the Lords table, were one and the same punishment. Beza saith, the one is a lesse, the other a greater punishment. 2. If it be true in gifts, that he to whom lesse is given, more is given, then it holdeth here in our case; because private fellowship with the Saints is a gift of God, and if the Lords body given for us, and to us in the Lords supper, be not a greater gift, it is nothing: so then if a lesse gift be denied, the Lords supper a greater gift is denied. 2. It must hold in the private punishments, inflicted for an higher punishments cause, private communion with the Saints is denied, because the man is cast out of the Church; Ergo, farre more are the highest priviledges of the Church denied: as liberty is denied to a man, because he is condemned to dye; Ergo, farre more is life denied to him; a mans house is denied to him, because he is banished; Ergo, farre more is his city and countrey denied to him: But a man is not punished in his purse, because he is condemned to dye, it followeth no; Ergo, he should rather dye, because the one punishment is not relative to the other. 3 Because not eating with a scandalous man is a spirituall punishment, as I have proved: therefore it is of that same kind with excommunication, and therefore it holdeth here. 4. Abstinence from the private fellowship of a scandalous brother is not free, but commanded of God, and so is debarring from the Lords supper, not free, but commanded.