A92138:1228
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.
Erastus. It is a vain thing to say, they Excommunicate not the1 Magistrate as the Magistrate, none but Kata-baptists and such as deny Magistracy to be an Ordinance of God, can say that: Every man might excuse rebellion so, and say, I persecute not the Magistrate as he is a Magistrate, but as he is a tyrant: But I say you may not reproach the Magistrate, Exod. 22. far less may you punish him. How can I obey him, whose whole life and actions, I may by Power, and coaction limit? The Magistrate so is but a servant to the Presbytery.
Erastus. It is a vaine thing to say, they Excommunicate not the1 Magistrate as the Magistrate, none but Kata-baptists and such as deny Magistracy to be an Ordinance of God, can say that: Every man might excuse rebellion so, and say, I persecute not the Magistrate as he is a Magistrate, but as he is a tyrant: But I say you may not reproach the Magistrate, Exod. 22. farre lesse may you punish him. How can I obey him, whose whole life and actions, I may by Power, and coaction limit? The Magistrate so is but a servant to the Presbytery.
- 1Page 301.
Ans. Erastus scorneth this distinction, to say, the Magistrate not as a Magistrate, but as a scandalous man is Excommunicated: Yet we can make him receive the distinction whether he will or not: For Erastus saith, that Pastors may rebuke, convince, and threaten the Magistrate? Good man, may Pastors threaten and rebuke the1 Magistrate as the Magistrate? or may they only threaten, and rebuke him as an offending man? Erastus dare not say the first, for so he were a gross Kata-baptist, for then Pastors were to rebuke the very office, and to condemn it; if he say the latter, as he doth in express words, then he acknowledgeth that Pastors may bind the sins of wicked Magistrates in heaven, is this, good Thoma, no Ecclesiastical coaction, no jurisdiction? and this is to receive the distinction whether you will or not. 2. The rejecting of this distinction is a tenet of Royalists, for certainly we use no defensive arms against the King as King, but as he is a misled man; and I think the King will say, he useth not offensive arms against the Parliament as the Parliament, but under another very undeserved notion, as Rebels. 3. It is less that we may not rail on rulers, which is a sin, (for to rail upon any cursing-wise is unlawful) then that we cannot punish the ruler, which is more? To punish the ruler as a sinful and wicked man, is a work of justice, and so less unlawful then sin. Erastus taketh for confessed (as his custom is) that which we deny, that to punish rulers with an Ecclesiastic censure is a sin, as to rail on them, and curse them is a greater sin.