A92138:1232
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. Some of yours say, there is need of the Magistrates consent1 to Excommunication, but certainly he will never consent to be Excommunicated himself, Theodosius was not willing, nor will good Magistrates consent, when they see the danger on themselves, you would not bring in again the Church-penances of the ancients.
- 1Page 302. 303. How the Magistrates consent is requisite in Excommunication.
Ans. 1. We all think the Cumulative consent of the godly Magistrate, is necessary to Excommunication: Because he is obliged to join his sanction and authority to all Christs Ordinances, but we think not the privative, or negative consent is required; so as no mans sins should be bound in heaven, except the Magistrate say Amen. 2. Put Erastus his Arguments in form, and you shall see their weakness as thus: He whose consent is required to Excommunication, cannot be punished with Excommunication himself, because no man will consent, not Theodosius, nor the godliest man, that he be punished himself: But the Magistrates consent (say the Presbyterians) is to be had to Excommunication; Ergo, the ⟨p. 444⟩Magistrate cannot be punished with Excommunication himself.
Ans. 1. We all think the Cumulative consent of the godly Magistrate, is necessary to Excommunication: Because he is obliged to joyne his sanction and authority to all Christs Ordinances, but we think not the privative, or negative consent is required; so as no mans sinnes should be bound in heaven, except the Magistrate say Amen. 2. Put Erastus his Arguments in forme, and you shall see their weaknesse as thus: He whose consent is required to Excommunication, cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe, because no man will consent, not Theodosius, nor the godliest man, that he be punished himselfe: But the Magistrates consent (say the Presbyterians) is to be had to Excommunication; Ergo, the