A92138:790
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.
Ans. Though it be true, Matthew and Luke c. 17. speak both of scandals and scandalous sins in general, yet it is evident they speak of two sorts of scandals; Luke speaketh v. 3. of scandals between brother and brother, which may at first be taken away by rebukes; but he hath nothing of the Churches part touching these. But Matthew hath it at length, chap. 18. ver. 15, 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. The Luke 17. 4. and Matthew more distinctly, chap. 18. ver. 21. upon the occasion of Peters question, resolveth a case of conscience; how Christians are to pass by in love the faults one of another, even to seventy times seven; they are not scandals of one and the same nature, as Erastus conceiveth: The former is, how we may gain an offending brother from the guilt of active scandal in giving offence to us, and that is by free rebuking; and if that gain him not, then by taking witnesses and rebuking him; and if neither that can do it, by telling the Church, to which Christ hath given a more powerful way, to bind and loose in earth and heaven, saith Matthew: Luke speaketh only of simple rebuking, which tendeth to the other two. The latter way, is how we our selves may be freed from passive scandal, if our brother provoke us seven times, or seventy seven times a day: this must be by a private pardoning, and laying aside all grudge, or hints of revenge toward our brother, and this is a great mistake in Erastus, that he confoundeth those two scandals, which by two Evangelists are distinguished, for Peter upon occasion of the former Church-scandals, proposeth the second, Mat. 18 21. then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Peter asketh nothing of gaining the offender, and Christ answereth nothing of gaining him, having satisfied them fully in that before: But Peter came in with a new question, concerning private forgiving. 2. It is evident in the former, that Christ speaks not of sins, that one brother may forgive another; for then it were free to the offended, after two admonitions ineffectual to gain the offender, to forgive and desist, as he doth in the matter of forgiving: But it is not free to him to desist; if the offender refuse to be gained, and add contumacy;