A92138:879
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.
And if the matter had been Excommunication, while the man should repent, (saith Erastus) they knowing this ought to be in the Church, they should rather have rejoiced, then bin sorry. And I answer, if the matter had been a miraculous killing of him, that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord: should they not rejoice at his saving in the day of the Lord, whether this saving be wrought by bodily killing, or by Excommunication? And so this conjecture may well be retorted. 2. They were not to be sorry at the mans repentance, but to rejoice; yet were they to be sorry at the violent mean of cutting him off from Christs body, as a father may be glad at the life and health of his child, and and yet be sorry that by no other mean his health can be procured, but by cutting off a finger, or a hand of his child. 3. They knew that miraculous killing (as Erastus dreameth) was also a saving ordinance (the remaining in the Church, or not remaining is all one) because Paul chideth them, (as he dreameth,) that the man might be miraculously killed.
And if the matter had been Excommunication, while the man should repent, (saith Erastus) they knowing this ought to be in the Church, they should rather have reioyced, then bin sorry. And I answer, if the matter had been a miraculous killing of him, that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord: should they not reioyce at his saving in the day of the Lord, whether this saving be wrought by bodily killing, or by Excommunication? And so this conjecture may well be retorted. 2. They were not to bee sorry at the mans repentance, but to rejoyce; yet were they to be sorry at the violent mean of cutting him off from Christs body, as a father may be glad at the life and health of his childe, and and yet be sorry that by no other mean his health can be procured, but by cutting off a finger, or a hand of his childe. 3. They knew that miraculous killing (as Erastus dreameth) was also a saving ordinance (the remaining in the Church, or not remaining is all one) because Paul chideth them, (as he dreameth,) that the man might be miraculously killed.
Erastus. What need was there that the Corinthians with such1