A92138:380
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.
2. bSuarez objecteth, Adoration is a voluntary action proceeding from the will of the Adorer; and therefore excluding this will, it is not Adorations, but only the material action of adoring; also adoration is honouring, but none can honour without an intention of honouring, and therefore he who externally giveth signs of honour to an Idol without an intention to honour the Idol, doth not truly honour and adore the Idol, but only dissembleth.
2. bSuarez objecteth, Adoration is a voluntary action proceeding from the will of the Adorer; and therefore excluding this will, it is not Adorations, but only the materiall action of adoring; also adoration is honouring, but none can honour without an intention of honoring, and therefore he who externally giveth signes of honour to an Idol without an intention to honour the Idol, doth not truly honour and adore the Idol, but only dissembleth.
- bSuarez to. 1. in 3. q. 25. art. 5. S. 4. Objection of Suarez contending that intention of adoring is essential to Adoration, removed.Suarez to. 1. in 3. q. 25. art. 5. S. 4. Objection of Suarez contending that intention of adoring is essentiall to Adoration, removed.
Ans. Qui bené distinguit benè solvit: Our third distinction doth well answer this: The naked material action of bowing Physically considered, wanting all Religious will of adoring is not an honouring; if a Carpenter bow before an Image to drive a nail in it, he doth not worship the Image, because that is an action, In statu artis, non in statu Religionis; In a state of Art, not in […] Religious state: But the voluntary bowing before any thing in a state of worship, or Religion, as its here, is Adoration; for there is voluntary bowing in a Religious way of a state, but there is not required a particular intention to Adore the sign, that is accidental to the nature of worship.