A92138:687
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.
Hence I argue, The men whom they convened together were1 to judge, to deliver to Satan, to purge out, to put away [Greek or Hebrew] out of the midst of them, ver. 2. or from amongst them, v. 13. This man they did Authoritatively either put from amongst them, as they were Christians, from their common Table, or out of their fellowship, as they were men, to kill him, Or 3. out of their Church-Communion, that they should not keep the feast of the Lords Supper with them: Let Erastus give a fourth: now we cannot dream of the first two: for 1. Would the Apostle command a Church-meeting, to interdict a man of Tabling with them in common eating and drinking? What needeth a Church-court, for they were [Greek or Hebrew], when they did this? And what needed a judging Court for this? for, not to eat with him, was no censure of the Church, as Erastus saith. 2. It is no Grammar, nor can it bear sense, that the Corinthians could say, we Corinthians gathered together in the name and power of the Lord Jesus, do cast out such a one out of the midst of us, that is, from our common-Table, this would say, they had all one common Table; and that all the Church of Corinth met at this time to some Feast, to cast him out of their love-Feasts; a dream no man ever conceived.
Hence I argue, The men whom they convened together were1 to judge, to deliver to Satan, to purge out, to put away 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 out of the midst of them, ver. 2. or from amongst them, v. 13. This man they did Authoritatively either put from amongst them, as they were Christians, from their common Table, or out of their fellowship, as they were men, to kill him, Or 3. out of their Church-Communion, that they should not keep the feast of the Lords Supper with them: Let Erastus give a fourth: now we cannot dream of the first two: for 1. Would the Apostle command a Church-meeting, to interdict a man of Tabling with them in common eating and drinking? What needeth a Church-court, for they were 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, when they did this? And what needed a judging Court for this? for, not to eat with him, was no censure of the Church, as Erastus saith. 2. It is no Grammar, nor can it bear sense, that the Corinthians could say, we Corinthians gathered together in the name and power of the Lord Iesus, do cast out such a one out of the midst of us, that is, from our common-Table, this would say, they had all one common Table; and that all the Church of Corinth met at this time to some Feast, to cast him out of their love-Feasts; a dream no man ever conceived.