A92138:806
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. This is no Argument at all, he speaketh of gaining an offending brother: Ergo, His scope is not to repair any civill loss: But I pray you, a brother argueth an injurious man, and convinceth him of his error; hath he not first gained him to God, and then to himself, while he maketh him of his enemy his friend? can there be a better way of compounding private injuries? if his conscience be healed, will he not leave off to be injurious?
Erastus. This is no Argument at all, he speaketh of gaining an offending brother: Ergo, His scope is not to repair any civill losse: But I pray you, a brother argueth an iniurious man, and convinceth him of his error; hath he not first gained him to God, and then to himself, vvhile he maketh him of his enemy his friend? can there be a better way of compounding private iniuries? if his conscience be healed, will he not leave off to be iniurious?
Ans. I may say, as he saith to that Apostolic servant of God, holy Beza, Egregia vero ratiocinatio: The question is now touching the scope of Christ, Matth. 18. Erastus proveth repairing of civill injuries to be Christs scope, and how proveth he it? Because he that is gained to God by repentance, is a made friend, and vvill leave off to do civill wrongs: Just as if one should say, the scope of the holy Ghost, in the history of the Creation, in the two first chapters of Genesis, is to make the Reader a good Philosopher: Why? because he that understandeth the works of Creation, the Heaven, Stars, Sun, Moon, Seas, dry Land, Trees, Herbs, &c. Must not this man be an excellent Astronomer, Geographer, Physiloge, &c? So may he say, the scope of the holy Ghost, in the ten Commandments, is to make a man an excellent Citizen of London, or Paris, Why? how is that the scope of the ten Commandments? by Erastus his Argument, What better way can there be to make a good social Civilian, then if he be well versed in the Doctrine of the ten Commandments? so may I say, the scope of Paul in the first eleven Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, is to make a man love his brother, why? Because if he know God, and free justification by faith in Christ, and our freedom from the Law, and the Doctrine of Election by Free-grace, and the like, he cannot but love his brother Now how can that be Christs scope, which is neither