A92138:406
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.
I. Con. TO adore Images is to give worship to God before Images, or, in, or through the Images without any Faith of a Godhead, or divine power in the Image according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. I prove this out of their Councils. aThe Council of Trent saith, Due honour and veneration is due to the Images, not because it is believed, that there is any Divinity and virtue in them, for the which they should be worshipped; but because the honour given to them is referred to the sampler, which they represent; that by these Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our head and bow down; we may adore Christ, and the Saints which these Images resembleth: Hence 1. the Image doth but, as a memorative object, excite the affection to give honour to God, in, and through the Images; but 2. Let these words be examined, the Council denieth any divinity to be in Images, but if they mean no divinity really to be in Images, so they say nothing against us; for we do not ascribe to Papists that they teach there is a real God-head in the Image, but that all that is really in it, is Wood, Gold, or Metal, and so did the Gentiles believe their Images to be teaching books, Hab. 29. Jer. 10, 8. Deut. 4. 19. Isa. 40. 18. & 46. 6, 7. Act. 17. 29. and gold and silver; but say they, What needed the Prophets to prove that gold and silver could not see, nor hear, nor deliver in time of trouble, reason would here convince them to be ten ⟨p. 158⟩times blind, who believed any such thing. Ans. The Prophets do2 well to do so: Nor that the Heathen believed there was any Godhead in them formally, but because they ascribed actions to these images, that were due to living creatures, and made them to be such as did see, hear, move, deliver; So Isaiah proveth Egypts horses not to be God, but flesh, yet they did not believe there was a Godhead in the horses, but Consequenter, by good consequence, when they laid that hope on the horse, that they were to lay upon God, he had need to say the horse was flesh and not God: So when men give to these things, bowing of the body, and say unto a stock, Thou art my Father: God may prove the stock is not a living man, and hath no senses, to convince them the more, that they can far less be Gods Vicar; for a Vicar or Deputy creature representing the living God, should be such as can do what God doth;