Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	church_n	old_a	testament_n	6,574	5	8.1314	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80635	Some treasure fetched out of rubbish: or, Three short but seasonable treatises (found in an heap of scattered papers), which Providence hath reserved for their service who desire to be instructed, from the Word of God, concerning the imposition and use of significant ceremonies in the worship of God. viz. I. A discourse upon 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently and in order. Tending to search out the truth in this question, viz. Whether it be lawful for church-governours to command indifferent decent things in the administration of God's worship? II. An enquiry, whether the church may not, in the celebration of the Sacrament, use other rites significative than those expressed in the Scripture, or add to them of her own authority? III. Three arguments, syllogistically propounded and prosecuted against the surplice: the Cross in Baptism: and kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's Supper.	Cotton, John, 1584-1652.; Nichols, Robert, Mr.	1660 (1660)	Wing C6459; Thomason E1046_2; ESTC R208022	73,042	79

hath varied and changed somewhat from out immediate fore-fathers the Papists from whom it cometh to us yet they did not remove it from Ecclesiasticall Places and Services or instituted a civil or ordinary use of the foresaid Vestment Doth not the Stature in the first year of Queen Elizabeth appoint such Ornaments in the Church to be retained as were in the Church of England by Authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward the sixth Cap. 2. untill other Order be taken by the Authority of the Queen c. at the time of the Communion and other administration c. Was Order taken No. We must judge then for what kind of use the Surplice by the Stature of King Edward the sixth was instituted and allowed The words of the Book of Common-Prayer in the second year of his Reign are these Upon the Day and at the time appointed for the Ministration of holy Communion the Priest that shall execute that holy Ministery shall put on him the Vestures appointed for that Administration c. If the use of the Surplice stand by Statute it is for any thing that I know by this which declares it to be retained for meer Ecclesiastical use If it be so as Dr. Sparks saith in his Perswasion to uniformity Cap. 5. pag. 20. 21. That Queen Elizabeth by vertue of the said Statute by the consent of the Arch-Bishop and High Commissioners in the seventh year of her Reign appointed the Surplice to be worn instead of the Albe yet it hindreth not but proves what I say in this Section Can. Eccles 14. 17. But because this I think is confessed I pass to the second Head in the Assumption That the Surplice is significant of spiritual Duties is clear 1. All our Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies are such In the Treatise of Ceremonies prefixed to that Book They are neither dumb nor dark saith the Book of Common-Prayer but apt to stirr up the dull mind of man to a remembrance of his Duty by some notable and special signification Mr. Hooker saith Ceremonies destitute of signification must be vain also he calleth them visible Signs Eccl. Pol. Lib. 5. Sect. 55. Ibid. Lib. 4. Sect. 1. which are undoubtedly most effectuall to open such matter as when men know and remember carefully they must needs be a great deal the better informed Thus much also Dr. Covell doth avouch against the Plea of the Innoc pag. 58. 2. To omit that the Papists say All their Priestly Garments have mysticall signification Bell. de miss lib. 6. cap. 14. And that the Priest must be cloathed in White to signifie innocency and purity Lindan de C●lebr miss ob reverentiam Salvatoris totius Coelestis curiae quam Sacra●●into altar consiciende confecto non est dubium interesse Those Learned men who were set awork in the dayes of King Edward the Sixth and since and who therefore were most likely to know the meaning of our Church in imposing have avouched That it is Hook Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. Sect. 29. and ought to be continued for signification Bucer opera Anglican pag. 682. Pet. Mart. Loc. Comman pag. 1088. Now concerning the third Head The Surplice in that foresaid use and signification is without warrant of the Word of God It may thus be proved 1. The Surplice being a garment of a special nature and use in that it is a meer Ecclesiastical and Mystical Rite ought to have a special Divine Institution as such garments have had in the Church of the Jews for Reason requires that the ground be suitable to the nature of the thing But such a ground it hath not neither can any shew any special Institution 2. There is not so much as any general warrant for it in the Book of God First there is none in the Old Testament The Priestly garments were tyed only to the place of Ceremonies Exod. 28.43 Ezek. 42.14 Mornaeus de Eucharist not used in any of the Synagogues of the Land nor in any of those 460 which are reported to be in Jerusalem Were typical wherein it stands not with the nature of the times of the New Testament to mitigate them Ezek. 42.13 14. 44.15 17 19. 1 Chron. 15. Spark perswas to uniformity cap. 5. pag. 22. Neither were they used in the Peoples sight except once extraordinary by occasion of the presence of the Ark before the People So that if there had been any further use of them viz. for glory and comeliness as one saith Spark Ibid. not considering that in the use also they were typicall yet they cannot possibly warrantize Vestiments in the sight of the People If the Prophets did use ordinarily any apparel whereby they might be known from other men which doth seem doubtfull to some that read 1 Sam. 9.18 1 King 20.41 yet that which they did wear was of common and daily use worn in Town and Field c. 2 King 1.8 Esay 20.2 Zach. 13.14 So that it matters not in this case Whitg def tract 7. cap. 2. pag. 262. though the Prophets were discerned by a peculiar form of Cloke seeing it was not of Ecclesiastical and Mystical signification and withall was extraordinary as their Function was Our Divines condemn the Popish Massing Garments because they are Jewish To seek ground for the Surplice out of the Levitical Law is it not then to overthrow our own grounds Further Matth. 3.4 in the New Testament there is no ground for the Surplice The habit of John Baptist was daily and common not Ecclesiastical and Mystical That Christ or his Apostles did use or institute any Mystical or Ecclesiastical attire none can shew by the holy Scriptures and the relation of other Histories is but humane and fallible not the ground of faith The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 14.40 requiring all things to be done decently and in order in the Assemblies of the Saints did give commandment for the right and seemly performance of such Ordinances as were before established but laid no ground for the institution of mystical Rites in religious services This speech of the Apostle is a Precept and hath a Divine binding power which not to obey is death How can this concern the institution of the Surplice which is no such matter but reputed indifferent by the Urgers What the Apostle commands is necessary and indispensable by Man But the Surplice and other Rites are arbitrary and may be dispensed with and utterly abolished D. Morton in Protest Appeal lib. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 2. numb 3. pag. 54. The Surplice is confessed to be but an humane tradition Spark Perswas to Uniform cap. 5. pag. 21. Who can prove hence that there is any better ground for the Surplice than for the 15 Priestly Robes used in the Church of Rome Thus doth it appear that the Scripture affordeth not any warrant for the Surplice in our use I know many Testimonies are cited forth of the ancient Writers but their

so to distinguish unless it can be shewd which yet hath not been done that the distinction hath footing in the Word of God The Papists and Lutherans do in this manner plead for the Use of Images in their Churches Images are Lay-men's Books by them they are put in mind of the Death and Passion of Christ they may see more at once represented by them than they can read in many hours What Answer do our Divines return unto them but this That the Word and Sacraments were appointed of Christ to teach Conc. Seno sense Harm Conf. Helver cap. 4. fol. Synt. Tom. 2. l. 6 7. 19. in secundo praec Par. in Gen. 28.18 De secundo praec tit de Imag. c. 15. resp ad Arg. 9. 10. Faith cometh by hearing not by seeing or gazing Jew art ador div 10. Mart. in 1 Reg. 7. Gualter in Heb. 2.18 and that to add to them is presumptuous against the Lord in●urious unto his Ordinances that teaching to the Eye is sufficiently performed by the Sacraments and that the Lord for Instruction of his People commanded his Ministers to preach not to paint Faith saith Zanchius is to be promoted but by what means such as God hath ordained viz. The Word and the Sacraments God would have us to be taught divine things and all men as well vulgar as others to know things belonging to their Salvation But whence or of what Instructors Of those that he hath given to be Teachers unto us not of those that do please our selves He hath given unto us the Book of the Creatures whence we may know many things of God He hath given us the Book of the Scripture which he would have continually to be read and to be explained in the Church What canst thou desire more He hath given Sacraments Glasses of divine mysteries He hath instituted us a Ministry and ●●arged us to exercise our selves daily in the Law of God Ought not these Books and Teachers to be sufficient for us Now a significant Ceremony is an Image or a Representation to teach by striking the sense and what is said against Images must necessarily hold against them also so that either we must take part with the Lutherans and Papists against the Worthies of our Church or acknowledge the former distinction to be vain and of none effect Nay let this distinction be of any weight and the Papists must be acquitted in their Oyl Cream Salt Spittle Crosses Lights Tabers and the rest of their rotten Customs wherewith they have besmeared and defiled the Ordinances of God for none of these be held by them to be of absolute necessity A second Answer there is given to this Argument of no more strength than the former viz. That to devise Signs of spirituall things is unwarrantable but not to ordain Ceremonies that shadow forth some moral duty which Man oweth to God But this is barely spoken not proved by any passage of holy Writt and may as easily be cast off as it is brought forth The Scripture doth not teach it lawful for Man to devise mystical Signs appropriated to the solemn Worship of God to represent moral duties when it forbiddeth by any devised Sign of that Nature to shadow forth spiritual duties and what we learn not thence in matters of this kind we dare not receive When the Lord was pleased to instruct his Church by Types and Figures he himself appointed not onely those that did prefigure Christ but such also as served by their signification to teach moral duties All mystical Rites the Lord himself precisely prescribed Exod. 25.9.38.39 39.42.43 1 Chro. 28.12.19 2 Chro. 29.25 1 Chro. 24 19. 2 Chro ● 8.14 laying a strict charge upon Moses to make all things according to the pattern shewed him which Rule was religiously observed by all religious and worthy Reformers of Religion afterwards not one adventuring without special direction from the Word of God to add any thing thereto or alter ought therein Again Duties moral and spiritual are parts of God's inward worship and Ceremonies ordained to teach either of them by mystical Representation are parts of his outward Worship and Service and so the matter is one whether the Sign doth shaddow forth a morall or spiritual duty for it is not the particular good thing signified by the Sign but the Institution of it to that end that makes the Worship true or false If it be appointed of God it is true Worship let the signification be moral or spiritual if of men it is false Worship whatsoever it be set a-part to represent or teach in our intention in the solemn Worship of God In defence of Images it is objected that Paulinus Nolanus Bishop commanded the History of the Old and New Testament to be painted in his Church and that to this end that the People might be drawn from surfetting and drunkenness when they met together to banquet in that place being busied in viewing and beholding Images See Jewel's Apol. par 5. cap. 3. div 1.2 Our Divines reply that the Authority of man ought not to seem any thing against the plain and manifest Word of God and Nolanus and his followers did offend the more grievously Martyr part 2. c. 5. S. 23. that they adventured to do that which the former Fathers did alwayes disallow whereby we see what the judgment of Ancient and Modem Divines is touching Images setup in the Church to represent or put in mind of Moral duties And if Images must be abolished significant signs of mens devising by the same reason remain under condemnation for they are Images that is certain figures having relation to the exemplar or certain pictures with relation of representations 3. No Act Ordinance nor Institution contrary to a general Negative Commandment is lawfull unless that Act Ordinance or Institution be in special warranted by the Word of God for the Scripture should not be sufficient to make the man of God that is the Minister or Prophet perfect to every good work if an Act in special might be lawful without particular approbation which is in general condemned as unjust and evill If we find that holy men of God did some particular things 1 Sam. 7.17 1 King 18.32 D●●●● 2.5 6 7 13 14. which were generally forbidden in the Law as Samuel built an Altar at Ramath Elias the Prophet on Mount Ca●mel when by the Law it was not lawfull to offer any Sacrifice but before the Lord in the place which he should chuse We must know they did this by special direction and extraordinary instinct The Lawyers say Generi per speciem derogatur Sext. de lib. 5. tit de regulis Juris 33. Digest l. 50. tit 17. regul 80. That a particular doth derogate from the general And in these places where a special fact doth not agree with a general Precept there the Scripture is not repugnant unto it self but by the special it is derogated from the general But though it