A92138:902
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. How could they desire the Apostle not to deliver him to Satan, that he might (as Beza expoundeth it) destroy his flesh, that is, bring him to repentance? How could Paul assent to such a Petition? How could the Apostle write that he did forgive him? Did Paul by forgiving him, permit him not to mortify and destroy his flesh, and sinful lusts?
Erastus. How could they desire the Apostle not to deliver him to Satan, that he might (as Beza expoundeth it) destroy his flesh, that is, bring him to repentance? How could Paul assent to such a Petition? How could the Apostle write that he did forgive him? Did Paul by forgiving him, permit him not to mortifie and destroy his flesh, and sinfull lusts?
Ans. Let Erastus answer, How could the Corinthians beseech Paul not to kill him, that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord? How could Paul grant such a Petition, as that the man should not be saved in the day of the Lord? How could Paul by pardoning the man, permit, that he should not be saved in the day of the Lord? for the saving of the mans soul, is no less a fruit of this delivering to Satan, then is the destroying of the lusts of the flesh. 2. They might well desire that upon the mans repentance Paul would take a milder way and course to effectuate these two desirable ends, the mortification of his lust, and the saving of his soul, then the last and most dreadful remedy, which is the censure of Excommunication. 3. The destruction of the lusts of the flesh is a Scriptural ⟨p. 341⟩remedy for saving of the soul in the day of Christ, at is clear, Rom. 7. 7, 8, 9, 10. Gal. 5. 24, 25. But whether miraculous killing be such a mean ordained of God is the question, and ought to be proved by some word of God, beside this place in controversy.
Ans. Let Erastus answer, How could the Corinthians beseech Paul not to kill him, that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord? How could Paul grant such a Petition, as that the man should not be saved in the day of the Lord? How could Paul by pardoning the man, permit, that he should not be saved in the day of the Lord? for the saving of the mans soul, is no lesse a fruit of this delivering to Satan, then is the destroying of the lusts of the flesh. 2. They might well desire that upon the mans repentance Paul would take a milder way and course to effectuate these two desirable ends, the mortification of his lust, and the saving of his soul, then the last and most dreadfull remedy, which is the censure of Excommunication. 3. The destruction of the lusts of the flesh is a Scripturall