A92138:908
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. If the man was only rebuked; How was he to be delivered1 to Satan to be tormented and killed? Some Ancients answer, he was but delivered to Satan to be afflicted in his body with sickness, and at length delivered by Paul, others say more congruously to the mind of Paul; that Paul purposed not by himself to deliver the man to Satan, but to do it, with the Church congregated together, and ⟨p. 344⟩[…] ⟨p. 341⟩[…] ⟨p. 344⟩[…] ⟨p. 341⟩[…] ⟨p. 332⟩when the Church saw him swallowed up with grief, they deferred while they tried Pauls mind, and obtained pardon to him, and in the means time threatened him, if he should not repent; and obtained at length, that Paul should pardon him. Ans. Many learned Divines hold the former, yet so as they conclude Excommunication out of this Chapter; of this I say no more. But Erastus hath a way of his own. To which I say, 1. There is no Scripture, but this controverted one to warrant that the Apostles who had the gift of Miracles, 1. Suspended the working of Miracles, either on the prayers, or free consent of the whole multitude of believers. 2. That the execution of a miraculous work, was committed to Deputies and substitutes under Paul, who had it in their power miraculously to kill him, or in their free will and Christian compassion, to suspend the miracle, and not kill. 3. That the Apostles in acts of miraculous justice, sought advise of any, or might be broken by requests, to desist from miracles as they saw the party repent, or not repent, or friends intercede, or not intercede. 4. So many circumstances of the Text, laying a command on the Church of Corinth, to put him out and judge him, and yet the matter remain a miracle. These to me are riddles, if God had told us such a History, I could have believed it; but to gather these by uncertain conjectures. without any ground of other Scriptures, is a thing I can hardly believe. But since Excommunication is an ordinary censure, the Church might well, as they see the man penitent, or contumacious, cast him out, or not, pardon, or not pardon.