A92138:417
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.
A third distinction is here, of bGabriel Biel on the Canon of the Mass, In the Adoring of images (saith he) and of other things which are adored by accident, though there be an external act of bowing both to the images and the sampler, yet there be two internal acts which are different, whereof one is terminated and bounded upon the image, not absolutely as it is such a material thing of stone, or metal, but as it is an image: This is an acknowledgement whereby I esteem the Image a thing ordained to represent Christ, or a complacency whereby I rest on such a thing, as to be honoured for Christ, and the other i• a recognition, and acknowledgement immediately terminated and bounded upon the sampler, whereby it is acknowledged to be the chiefest good. But the truth is, Religious geniculation before the image, or at the presence of the image (saith cDurandus) as if the sampler were there present, is one and the same adoration given to the image and the sampler; and all that dGregorius de Valentia saith against this, is, that Durandus minus circumspect locutus, he spake not so warily, as need were: And so did their eseventh pretended synod speak, as fLeontius expoundeth them, Non liguorum aut colorum naturam adoro, absit, and gVasquez saith, They displease some in so speaking, but they mean well: They meant all that which our Formalists do▪ and there is no discord (saith hGabriel Biel) in re, in the matter it self; for both say; 1. that the creature should not be adored with the highest honour (Lateria) of it self, as if it were the object of Adoration: 2. Both teach that the mind and affection is carried toward the sampler, which is adored: 3. Both mean that the adorer exerciseth some act upon the image, as it representeth the sampler, only the diversity is, if this act terminated on the Image, should be called an adoring of the Image; and all these three Formalists do to the elements in the supper: Hence I require of the Formalists, one difference betwixt the objective presence of the elements before the kneeler, in the act of receiving, and the objective presence of the Heathens image of God,