A92138:941
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 answereth, 1. All faults deserve not killing, but some1 other punishment of a lower degree. 2. The Lord himself appointed that the Magistrate should compel men to do their duty, why then should Beza speak against God, and call this a compelling of men to be Hypocrites?
Erastus answereth, 1. All faults deserve not killing, but some1 other punishment of a lower degree. 2. The Lord himselfe appointed that the Magistrate should compell men to doe their duty, why then should Beza speake against God, and call this a compelling of men to be Hipocrites?
- 1Pag. 236. 237.
Ans. If other sins, as drunkenness, fornication, extortion, do1 infect the Church, and be scandalous to the very Gentiles, as the Apostle saith of incest, 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6, 7. Upon the same reason Paul should have rebuked them, because they did not from the faith of Miracles pray that Paul might inflict some miraculous judgement by the Ministry of Satan, though less then death for other sins. But I pray you, Paul had either a warrant from God to kill this man, or he had none at all: If he had a warrant, why did he not that which is the part of a miraculous Magistrate without the prayers of the Corinthians? Did Paul chide them, because they prayed not to God that he might do his duty? if he had no warrant at all, Why should he chide the Corinthians, for that they prayed not that he might do a duty, which was not his duty? For that is not Pauls duty, for the doing whereof he hath no warrant from God; if it was his duty only conditionally; 1. What warrant is there in Scripture, to say, Paul should have miraculously killed the incestuous person, upon condition that the Corinthians had by the faith of Miracles, prayed that he might work that miraculous slaughter, which because they did not, Paul was either exonerated of that as no duty, or then Paul chided them, because they prayed not to prevene Pauls sinful neglect? 2. How was this revealed to