A92138:394
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.
II. Conclusion. The Idolatrous Jews did not. Adore the golden1 Calf, as a creature, but as God by representation, Exod. 32. 4. And when Aaron had made thereof a golden Calf, they said, These be thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt. 5. And when Aaron saw it, he built an Altar before it, and Aaron made Proclamation, and said▪ To morrow is a Feast to Jehovah. Now that they believed not the golden Calf to be really and essentially Jehovah, is more then evident: 1. Because they believed not Moses to be essentially God, but their guide and leader under God; but ⟨p. 152⟩this Calf they made to supply the want of Moses, v. 1. The people gathered themselves together against Aaron, and said unto him, Up▪ make us gods which shall go before us: For as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the Land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. They made then the Calf only a visible God under Jehovah, to lead them in Moses his place. 2. There is no reason why they should have made Aaron rather the maker of the Calf then another; but because he being the Lords Priest, they thought by his holiness, the God head of Jehovah did slide into this Calf; and so they held the Calf to be a thing different from Jehovah. 3. They say to Aaron, Make us gods: Ergo, they believed Jehovah to be before this made Calf. 4. They saw the Calf melted before their eyes, & knew it was made of their ear-rings. 5. They call it Jehovah, & yet they made it Jehovah, and therefore they differenced betwixt the Calf & Jehovah: for they knew that Jehovah brought them out of Egypt before the Calf was framed, but the Calf was an Image of that Jehovah. aBellar. and bGregor. de Valent. say, They worshipped not Jehovah, but a vain Idol: Else how is it said, Psa. 106. when they made this Calf, that they forgot the Lord, if they worshipped God in the Calf, they were mindful of God. It is vain reasoning this, the wife that taketh another Husband to bed with her, Morally forgetteth her husband; and to worship God in a memorative sign forbidden of God, is a forgetting of God, and a false God indeed. 2. Those who acknowledge that the Heathen believe that some Godhead dwelt in Images, and gave Responses and Answers out of them;