A92138:244
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.
for bowing to God hath from the object, that it is a Religious bowing, though you intend not to direct that bowing to God, as bowing to Jupiters Portrait, is a Religious Worshipping of that Portrait, though you intend not to worship the Portrait: for the act and Religious object together, maketh the act of prostration or kneeling, to be essentially Religious, though there be no intention to bow to these; indeed the intention to bow to God, maketh kneeling to God to be more Morally good, laudable and acceptable before God, then if there were no such intention, but the want of the intention, maketh it not to be no Religious worship, nor can it make it to be civill worship. Hence let this be observed, that intention of bowing can, or may change that bowing which otherwayes were but civill (if there were no such intention of over-esteeming the creature) into a Religious bowing, but neither our over or under-intention can change a Religious kneeling to God, or to an Image into a civill kneeling, because civill or natural bowing to creatures, is more under the power of an humane and voluntary institution of men, then Religious bowing, which hath from God without any act of mans free will, its complete nature. When we kneel to Kings, we signify by that gesture, that we submit our selves to higher powers, not simply (saith P. Martyr.) but in so far as they Command not things1 against the Word of the Lord. When we Adore God, we Adore him as the Supreme Majesty, being ready to obey him in what he shall Command, without any exception; the Adoration of men, signifieth a submission limited, if it go above bounds, it is the sinful intention of the Adorer, who may change the civil Adoration into Religious, and may ascend: But the Adoration of God cannot so descend, as it can turn into Civill Adoration, only keeping the same object it had before.
for bowing to God hath from the object, that it is a Religious bowing, though you intend not to direct that bowing to God, as bowing to Jupiters Portraict, is a Religious Worshipping of that Portraict, though you intend not to worship the Portraict: for the act and Religious object together, maketh the act of prostration or kneeling, to be essentially Religious, though there be no intention to bow to these; indeed the intention to bow to God, maketh kneeling to God to be more Morally good, laudable and acceptable before God, then if therewere no such intention, but the want of the intention, maketh it not to be no Religious worship, nor can it make it to be civill worship. Hence let this be observed, that intention of bowing can, or may change that bowing which otherwayes were but civill (if there were no such intention of over-esteeming the creature) into a Religious bowing, but neither our over or under-intention can change a Religious kneeling to God, or to an Image into a civill kneeling, because civill or naturall bowing to creatures, is more under the power of an humane and voluntary institution of men, then Religious bowing, which hath from God without any act of mans free will, its compleat nature. When we kneel to Kings, we signifie by that gesture, that we submit our selves to higher powers, not simply (saith P. Martyr.) but in so far as they Command not things