A92138:426
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.
Presentemque refert quaelibet herba Deum. A man may Adore himself, his own hands, his legs, his Mothers Womb that bare him, &c.
Presentemque refert quaelibet herba Deum. A man may Adore himself, his own hands, his legs, his Mothers Wombe that bare him, &c.
As for Adoring of the Ark and foot-stool of God: 1. Joan. xGisenius, a Lutheran saith, The Jews had precept and promise to Worship God before the Ark, we have no Command to tie external Adoration to any place or Creature. 2. yDidoclavius saith, It is lawful to Adore God before the Ark, and the Symbols of his immediate presence, because God is there to receive his own Worship himself, by an immediate indwelling presence: For saith zMr. Weames, He appeared in glory above the Ark, betwixt the Cherubims, and it 4was a type of Christ who dwelt in our flesh; but it is not lawful to Worship him, before the Symbols of his grace. 3. The Ark was a type in the act of teaching, we grant; but that it was in the act of Adoring, God who was immediately present, and a Symbol Vicegerent of God, we read not. There is no need of mediate signs, where God is immediately present, and Adored as he was in the Ark; they were to fix both senses and thoughts immediately upon God. 4. They were to worship, not the Ark, but the precept is, & incurvate vos scabello, Worship toward the Ark. aArias Mont. turneth it, Worship to the Ark: The Greek Fathers of the second Nicene. Council, ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, would have the Lord Commanding to Adore his foot-stool; whereas the Particle ([Greek or Hebrew]) is a note of the Dative case, and often it signifieth motion to a thing, or at a place, [Greek or Hebrew] ad dextram, and doth not absolutely signify the accusative case.