A92138:408
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.
If the worship of [Greek or Hebrew], the higher service due to God, be given to Images, as I prove hereafter, then also some deity or Divine virtue; for Gods highest honour can no more be communicated to any, save to God, then the Godhead it self; for a Relative Godhead is as due to stocks, as a relative worship. 3. If the Tridentine Canonists will have divine Adoration given to God Coram imaginibus, before Images, or at their presence, as only memorative signs, & active objects exciting us to worship God, then is our Thesis proved: But if they mean that God is Adored, Coram imaginibus, before images, as not only memorative and active objects, but also before them as passive objects, that are compartners under God of some divine adoration; then I say 1. they contradicted themselves, for Gods highest honour called [Greek or Hebrew], can not be given to them but by a figure, because they are Gods, & have divinity in them only by a figure, and not really: for Suarez & Vasquez denieth that we can fix our hope and faith in Images, or make prayers to them, Nisi modo figurativo & tropo duriore, by a figure, and a hard troop, and most improperly and by that same reason must be given to stocks and stones most improperly, and that is, men do religiously bow before them, as before memorative objects. 2. Gabriel bVasquez saith well, There can be no footstep of holiness in the image, beside the excellency of the sampler, nor any divine virtue wherefore it should be worshipped; for there is nothing in the ⟨p. 160⟩image of it self, but that which is senseless, and lifeless, and spiritless and no man can in a Religious way submit himself to such a creature? Hence it must be a naked memorative sign, and therefore the kissing of the Image, though Physically it be real, and not Metaphysical, yet moral it is not proper, seeing all religious affection in that kissing is transferred to God. And we know Vasquez alloweth, that every thing, as it is a being, and resembleth God the first being, is to be Adored, and so stones,—Frogs, the Devil, Judas lips that kissed Christ, are to be Adored.
If the worship of 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, the higher service due to God, be given to Images, as I prove hereafter, then also some deity or Divine vertue; for Gods highest honour can no more be communicated to any, save to God, then the Godhead it self; for a Relative Godhead is as due to stocks, as a relative worship. 3. If the Tridentine Canonists will have divine Adoration given to God Coram imaginibus, before Images, or at their presence, as only memorative signes, & active objects exciting us to worship God, then is our Thesis proved: But if they mean that God is Adored, Coram imaginibus, before images, as not only memorative and active objects, but also before them as passive objects, that are compartners under God of some divine adoration; then I say 1. they contradicted themselves, for Gods highest honour called , can not be given to them but by a figure, because they are Gods, & have divinity in them only by a figure, and not really: for Suarez & Vasquez denieth that we can fix our hope and faith in Images, or make prayers to them, Nisi modo figurativo & tropo duriore, by a figure, and a hard troop, and most improperly and by that same reason must be given to stocks and stones most improperly, and that is, men do religiously bow before them, as before memorative objects. 2. Gabriel