A92138:381
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. 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.
Ans. Qui bené distinguit benè solvit: Our third distinction doth well answer this: The naked materiall 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 naile 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 signe, that is accidentall to the nature of worship.
Suarez objecteth, The e•••nce of Adoration requireth the intention of the Adorer, therefore the adoring of this, or that thing, requireth a proportionable intention of adoring the thing.
Ans. 1. The Antecedent is not universally true, and is a begging of the question, because external adoring of an Idol may be without intention to adore an Idol. 2. Though the Antecedent were true; that an absolute Adoration of God requireth the intention of the doer, as it is not true; Lawful and sincere Adoration indeed requireth the intention, but not absolute adoration: Though (I say) it were true, yet it followeth not that a relative adoration requireth an intention of giving co-adoration or relative worship to the sign.