A92138:983
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. it is false that Paul forbiddeth to eat with him who is cast1 out, for he forbiddeth not eating with a dead man.
- 1L. 3. c▪ 8. p. 247. 248▪
Ans. This is to beg the question, Erastus should teach us how Pauls argument cohereth; for the text saith, he must be cast out; why? you must not eat with him; then he supposeth he must be a living man, for Paul needed not fear they would eat with dead men, nor can this be Pauls consequence; you are not to eat with the incestuous, Ergo, he must be delivered to Satan, that he may be miraculously killed; for that is a false consequence, for then all covetous persons, all drunkards▪ all idolaters, all extortioners, should have been killed by Paul, because with none of these we are to eat.
Ans. This is to beg the question, Erastus should teach us how Pauls argument cohereth; for the text saith, he must be cast out; why? you must not eat with him; then he supposeth he must be a living man, for Paul needed not fear they would eat with dead men, nor can this be Pauls consequence; you are not to eat with the incestuous, Ergo, he must be delivered to Sathan, that he may be miraculously killed; for that is a false consequence, for then all covetous persons, all drunkards▪ all idolators, all extortioners, should have been killed by Paul, because with none of these we are to eat.
Erastus. It is false that Paul forbiddeth as to eat meat with such;