A92138:989
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. 1. It is true, that avoiding of the company of scandalous Brethren, hath in it something civill; but it is a censure-spiritual, and a Church-censure, two ways: 1. Objectively, in its tendency, Respectu termini ad quem. 2. Effectively, in its rise and cause, Respectu termini à quo, it is a spiritual censure Objectively, because it tendeth to make the party ashamed, that he may repent, and become a Brother with whom we are to converse; and therefore is destinated for no civill use, but for the good of his soul, that is a member of a Church, that he may return to what he was. 2. This censure, though one private Brother may exercise it upon another, yea, a woman on a man, who yet hath no Authority over the man, is notwithstanding in its rise and efficient cause, a Church-censure. 1. If Christ will not have one Brother to condemn another, while first he rebuke him; and if he be not convinced, while he do the same before two or three witnesses; and if he yet be not gained, one private Brother may not after conviction, before two or three witnesses repute him as a Heathen, or complain of him before an Heathen Judge, as Erastus saith; How shall we imagine any one single Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowship from another Brother, by his own private Authority, while he first be sentenced before the Church? And the Church shall convince him to walk ⟨p. 359⟩disorderly, to cause divisions and offences, to be a Fornicator, a Covetous person, and so to be unworthy of the entire Brotherly fellowship of another? For if this order were not in the Church, every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother, and so break all bands of Religious Communion, and Brotherly fellowship, and dissolve and make ruptures in the Churches: Now certain it is, These Texts, Rom. 16. 17, 18. 2 Thes. 3. 11, 12, &c▪ in the letter, intimate no such order as is Matth. 18. But it is presupposed, as clear by other Scriptures, we are not to withdraw from an offending Brother, but after such an order: Now the places in the letter, except we expound them by other Scriptures, do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother, before we withdraw from him, contrary to