A92138:419
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.
God hath no other external bowing made to him in the act of receiving, then is made before these elements, in due regard of so divine a mystery, and because of so mystical union; the union is real, whether it be by consubstantiation, or transubstantiation, they will not define, the Lord Jesus is present in the elements, in a more real and spiritual manner, then he is in any groundless image of metal or wood; and therefore the image and elements do most really partake even by Durandus and Hulcot, and Mirandula their mind of that worship of (Latreia) due to God; only Durandus (as Vasquez, and Gregor. Valent. say) spake not so warily, but not so grossly, as to say, What ever is given to God, is given to the image: 2. It is not in the Adorers power that kneeling should be a sign of less worship, as referred to the image, and of greater, as referred to God; for the same material kissing, and Religious Prostration, which would immediately be conveyed to Christ, if he were in person present in the image and elements, is done to the image and elements, and Religious kissing, and Religious kneeling signifieth internal divine submission of heart to God, as the first author of all, and the last end, not by mans will, but by divine institution. 3. Kneeling to God is a protestation (saith kGregor, de Valent.) That we are willing to raise an opinion of excellency in God, as this excellency is in some manner, and relatively in the image. If therefore kneeling of its own nature, without any act of mans will, or the Churches institution, wanting Gods Word, do conciliate an opinion2 of excellency; to whomsoever kneeling is directed, in this it must conciliate the same opinion: if then it it be given to Images and elements, it must be a protestation that we are willing to conciliate an opinion of Divine excellency in these lifeless creatures, which is all we give to God by kneeling. 4. It is not enough that Valentia saith, This honour belongeth to Christ, in so far as it conciliateth ⟨p. 167⟩to Christ the honour due only to God, and is expressed by kneeling, & it belongeth to the images so, as Coram, & in illis, before, and in them this opinion is conciliated to Christ:
God hath no other externall bowing made to him in the act of receiving, then is made before these elements, in due regard of so divine a mystery, and because of so mysticall union; the union is reall, whether it be by consubstantiation, or transubstantiation, they wil not define, the Lord Iesus is present in the elements, in a more reall and spirituall manner, then he is in any groundlesse image of mettall or wood; and therefore the image and elements do most really partake even by Durandus and Hulcot, and Mirandula their minde of that worship of (Latreia) due to God; only Durandus (as Vasquez, and Gregor. Valent. say) spake not so warily, but not so grossely, as to say, What ever is given to God, is given to the image: 2. It is not in the Adorers power that kneeling should be a signe of lesse worship, as referred to the image, and of greater, as referred to God; for the same materiall kissing, and Religious Prostration, which would immediatly be conveyed to Christ, if he were in person present in the image and elements, is done to the image and elements, and Religious kissing, and Religious kneeling signifieth internall divine submission of heart to God, as the first author of all, and the last end, not by mans will, but by divine institution. 3. Kneeling to God is a protestation (saith