A92138:566
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.
Object. 2. But by this place of Scripture, I should rebuke any brother whom I know to sin against God, to the end I may gain him to repentance, and that before two witnesses? Now this is absurd: my Father, my King and Prince before two Witnesses; And therefore by the Church is meant a number of private Christians before whom I am to convince my brother, and that I am not to rebuke any offender whatsoever, is clear in that Solomon saith, it is a mans glory to pass by an offence, and we are not to over-hear our servant cursing us, Ergo, We are not to rebuke every one, nor to bring them before any Church Court.
Object. 2. But by this place of Scripture, I should rebuke any brother whom I know to sinne against God, to the end I may gaine him to repentance, and that before two witnesses? Now this is absurd: my Father, my King and Prince before two Witnesses; And therfore by the Church is meant a number of private Christians before whom I am to convince my brother, and that I am not to rebuke any offender whatsoever, is cleare in that Solomon saith, it is a mans glory to passe by an offence, and we are not to over-heare our servant cursing us, Ergo, We are not to rebuke every one, nor to bring them before any Church Court.
Answ. 1. This argument is against Christ, as well as against us, for it tendeth to conclude that it is not universally true, that I am to rebuke every offending brother, which I will grant in some sense. For 1. If the fault be small, and possibly a matter of goods, with which I may dispense, without less hurt to my brothers soul, then the evil of scandal may be, if I complain to either the Church or Magistrate, I am rather to suffer wrong, 1 Cor.1 6. 7. But because I am not to rebuke my brother imprudently, may I not conclude from Christs words, I may rebuke him? Or because a mean person may not rebuke a Ruler, or a Prince, or King? Will it follow that a Nathan may not rebuke King David, and because Jonathan may not rebuke King Saul his Father, shall it follow that no other may rebuke King Saul? Or because I may not rebuke a scorner, though a professing brother, or because I may not rebuke my brother before two or three witnesses, who to my knowledge bear the offender ill will, and so I see my rebuking shall be so far from gaining him to repentance, that it shall provoke him to a greater offence, shall it therefore follow I am to suffer sin in my brother and not to rebuke him at all, which the Spirit