A92138:982
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.
The proposition I prove, 1 Cor. 5. 11. he saith, v. 9. I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with fornicators, the same word that in the abstract is spoken of the incestuous man, v. 1. by which it is clear Paul had forbidden any company with such incestuous men. Now he had not forbidden them to keep company with dead men, if the man was to be miraculously killed, Ergo, it was his will before, that such a one should be judged, and put out, else he could not so sharply rebuke them, for not casting him out, and if now only he had first taught, and written to them to cast him out: as if excommunication had been in this same very Chapter instituted by Paul, and v. 11. [Greek or Hebrew] now I have written unto you, not to keep company with one named a brother, who is a fornicator; this must be in the same Chapter, for [Greek or Hebrew] now I have written, must be in relation to this v. 9. I wrote unto you in a Epistle before: now if here at this present he wrote to them, not to keep company with him, it must be when he commandeth to cast him out v. 13. and to judge him v. 12. so that not to keep company with such fornicators, must necessarily presuppose a casting out, and that the fornicator, with whom we are not to keep company in a familiar manner, is a man cast out of the Church, and so excommunicated. 2. Paul would never forbid brotherly familiarity with any remaining a brother, a member of the Church, and of a body with us in visible profession of the truth, as partakers of one body and blood of Christ, as all the members of the Church eating at one Lords table are, 1. Cor. 10. 16, 17. 3. The Apostle saith such a fornicator is but [Greek or Hebrew] named▪ a brother, and so in the esteem of the Church no brother, and so not of the visible body of Christ. 4. Paul ⟨p. 357⟩bringeth in this as a reason why they should cast out the incestuous man, v. 9. did not (saith he) I write to you before, and do I not now write, v. 11. even now that you are not to keep intimate familiarity with such titular brethren, who are brethren in name only? Therefore put out from amongst you this man, v. 13. the Apostles argument to infer they ought to judge, and put such a man out of the Church; because they are not to eat with him, were of no weight, if this eschewing of familiarity with one who is a brother only in name, did not infer the Churches casting of him ou.