A92138:421
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.
The fourth expression of wit, is this distinction of nVasquez, That that internal submission to God, as to the Creator and chief God, is due to God only; and that the image, seeing it is a Creature, is not ⟨p. 168⟩capable of that high honour. But the external act of kissing and kneeling, he will have due to the image, for the excellency of the Sampler. And so he denieth contrary to Suarez, That the image separated from the Sampler, or the humanity of Christ separated from Divinity, can be Adored: But if external Adoration may be given to images; so also internal submission: (Thou shalt not bow down to them) Religiously it is expounded in the second Commandment, (Thou shalt not Worship them.) It is grossness in Vasquez to say, The Worshipping of images was forbidden the Jews in the second Commandment, as a Ceremonial inhibition, because of the Jews propension to idolatry: But Act. 17. 29. Paul expoundeth the second Commandment, Forbidding the similitude of God: And the Athenians were not under the Law of Ceremonies. Joannes ode Lugo saith, This is a probable opinion: But it is clear, Cornelius a devout man, one who feared and worshipped God, whose Prayers were heard in heaven for Christs sake, knew that Peter was a man which lodged in the house of Simon a Tanner; yet his Religious external bowing (though he knew Peter was not God, but a Divine man resembling God) by Peter is rebuked as idolatry, Act. 10. v. 25, 26. I cannot help Joan. pde Lugo, to say, That Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him, not because it was a sin, but for modesties cause. But 1. Peters Argument striketh against idolatry, ver. 26. (Stand up, (he forbiddeth Religious kneeling) for I my self also a man) The very Argument that Paul and Barnabas useth, Act. 14. •er. 15. We also are men &c. and used against the idolatry of Lystra, expressly condemned in that place: And the Angels Argument against the idolatry of John,