Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	reason_n	see_v	3,316	5	3.1434	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77236	Several treatises of vvorship & ceremonies, by the Reverend Mr. William Bradshaw, one of the first Fellows of Sydney Colledge in Cambridge; afterward minister of Chattam in Kent, 1601. Known by his learned treatise De justificatione. 1. A consideration of certain positions archiepiscopal. 2. A treatise of divine worship, tending to prove the ceremonies, imposed on the ministers of the Gospel in England, in present controversie, are in their use unlawful. Printed 1604. 3. A treatise of the nature and use of things indifferent. 1605. 4. English Puritanism, containing the main opinions of the ridgedest sort of those called Puritans in the realm of England. 1604. 5. Twelve general arguments, proving the ceremonies unlawful. 1605. 6. A proposition concerning kneeling in the very act of receiving, 1605. 7. A protestation of the Kings supremacy, made in the name of the afflicted ministers, and oposed to the shameful calumniations of the prelates. 1605. 8. A short treatise of the cross in baptism.	Bradshaw, William, 1571-1618.	1660 (1660)	Wing B4161; Thomason E1044_5; ESTC R20875	92,680	129

of sorrow for him they are to denounce him to be as ye● no member of the Kingdom of Heaven and of that Congregation and so are to leave him to God and the King And this is all the Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction that any spiritual Officers of the Church are to use against any man for the greatest crime that can be committed 10. They hold that the Officers of the Church are not to proceed unto the extreamest Censure against any man without the free consent of the whole Congregation it self 11. They hold that the Minister or any other particular Officer offending is as subject to these Censures as any other of the Congregation 12. They hold that if any Member of the Congregation having committed a scandalous sin shall of himself forsake the Worship of God and the Spiritual Communion with the Church that then the Ecclesiastical Officers have no authority or jurisdiction over him but only the Civil Magistrate and those unto whom he oweth Civil subjection as Parents Masters Landlords c. CHAP. VI. Concerning the Civil Magistrate 1. THey hold that the Civil Magistrate as he is a Civil Magistrate hath and ought to have Supream power over all the Churches within his Dominions in all causes whatsoever and yet they hold that as he is a Christian he is a Member of some one particular Congregation and ought to be as subject to the spiritual Regiment thereof prescribed by Christ in his Word as the meanest subject in the Kingdom and they hold that this Subjection is no more derogatory to his Supremacy than the Subjection of his body in sickness to Physitians can be said to be derogatory thereunto 2. They hold that those Civill Magistrates are the greatest Enemies to their own Supremacie that in whole or in part communicate the virtue and power thereof to any Ecclesiastical Officers And that there cannot be imagined by the wit of man a more direct means to check-mate the same than to make them Lords and Princes upon Earth to invest them with Civil Jurisdiction and Authority and to conform the state and limits of the Jurisdiction to the State of Kings and bounds of Kingdoms 3. They hold that there should be no Ecclesiastical Officer in the Church so high but that he ought to be subject unto and punishable by the meanest Civil Officer in a Kingdom City or Town not only for common crimes but even for the abuse of their Ecclesiastical Offices yea they hold that they ought to be more punishable than any other Subject whatsoever if they shall offend against either Civil or Ecclesiastical Laws 4. They hold that the Civil Magistrate is to punish with all severity the Ecclesiastical Officers of Churches if they shall intrude upon the rights and prerogatives of the Civil Authority and Magistracy and shall pass those bounds and limits that Christ hath prescribed unto them in his Word 5. They hold that the Pope is that Antichrist and therefore that Antichrist because being but an Ecclesiastical Officer he doth in the height of the pride of his heart make claim unto and usurp the Supremacy of the Kings and Civil Rulers of the Earth And they hold that all defenders of the Popish Faith all endeavours of reconcilement with that Church all plotters for tolleration of the Popish Religion all countenancers and maintainers of Seminary Priests and professed Catholicks and all deniers that the Pope is that Antichrist are secret enemies to the Kings Supremacy 6. They hold that all Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Officials c. have their Offices and Functions only by will and pleasure of the King and Civil States of this Realm and they hold that whosoever holdeth that the King may not without sin remove these Offices out of the Church and dispose of their Temporalities and maintenance according to his own pleasure or that these Offices are Jure Divino and not only or meerly Jure humano That all such deny a principal part of the Kings Supremacy 7. They hold that not one of these Opinions can be proved to be contrary to the Word of God and that if they might have leave that they are able to answer all that hath been written against any one of them FINIS TWELVE General Arguments Proving that the CEREMONIES Imposed upon the Ministers of the Gospel in England by our Prelates are unlawful And therefore That the Ministers of the Gospel for the bare and sole omission of them in Churh-Service for conscience sake are most unjustly charged of disloyalty to His MAJESTIE Mat. 18.23 If I have spoken evil bear witness of the evill but if I have spoken well why smitest thou me Printed in the Year 1660. To the Reader GOod Reader We come not as voluntaries into this field of Contention but dragg'd into it by the very hairs of our head If our cause be righteous and good Thou wilt easily grant in so great Imputations and Extremities inflicted upon us for the same that we can do no less than give reasons for our selves and it All the favour I require of thee is That thou wouldst look into our cause not by the flashing lighting 's that come out of the mouths of our Adversaries the Prelates but by the light of our own Reasons by which if thou shalt see the goodness of our cause and innocency of our persons than embrace it with us and in pity pray for us that without shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience we may endure patiently and meekly whatsoever God shall suffer to be inflicted upon us for the same in these wicked and licentious times THE FIRST ARGUMENT All Will-Worship is sin To use these Ceremonies in Church-Service in manner and form prescribed is a Will-Worship Ergo To use them is sin THE Proposition cannot be denied for the Apostle Paul plainly condemneth Will-Worship The Assumption may thus be proved All parts of Divine Service and Worship imposed only by the will and pleasure of Man upon the Ministers of Divine Service and that of necessity to be done is Will-Worship But to use these Ceremonies in manner and form prescribed is to use such Ceremonies as are 1. Parts of Divine Service and Worship 2. Imposed only by the pleasure and will of Men upon the Ministers of Divine Service 3. Of necessity to be done therein Ergo To use these Ceremonies in manner and form prescribed is a Will-Worship The Proposition is as clear as the Sun at noon-day The Assumption hath three parts 1. That they are parts of Divine Worship and Service This is proved evidently by this Argument All Mystical and Ecclesiastical Rites and formes of Divine Service instituted by Ecclesiastical authority to be Ministerial actions in the solemn Worship of God and performed in that manner and having that use in Divine Service that if God should but ratifie and confirm the same use they should then be parts of his true Worship I say all such Ceremonies are used as parts of Divine Worship But these Ceremonies

common circumstance to every action for nothing can be done but in some time the particular time is not to be observed except Christ had sanctified it to the communion as God sanctified the 7 th day on which he rested Gen. 2.2 3. or at least chosen it of purpose as he did sitting But whereas it was upon speciall Matth. 26.31.45 Luke 22.53 and necessary occasion for the Passeover must be eaten before the L. Supper could be instituted in stead thereof and presently after Supper the hour came when Christ was to be betrayed Therefore if the Jews transgressed not the Institution of the Passeover by changing a gesture at the first prescribed by God according to that their present occasion into another fitter for a time of rest much less do Christians transgress the institution of the Lords Supper by changing the time taken by Christ upon occasion but not prescribed into some other fitter in discretion for the ordinary celebration of the Lords Supper as probably the Primitive Churches did For every ●●●st day of the week viz. the Lords day the brethren came together to break bread Acts 2.42 20.7 1 Cor. 16.2 Revel 1.10 i. e. to minister the Communion So that either they never met upon the L. day but in the evening or else they celebrated the Communion at some other times But for my alteration of the gestures of sitting especially into kneeling there is the least probability It is further objected That we may kneel in regard of prayers to be used by prescription of authority at the delivering of the bread and wine viz. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soule into eternall life and take and eate this c. Here unto these answers may be returned Seeing we reject Christs example of sitting for kneeling we must not stand upon what we may do but humbly consider what we must do For if there be not a necessary and a justifiable cause both of those prayers and of kneeling in regard of them do we not presume upon Christ's patience in rejecting his example Now what necessity is there of those prayers at that very time seeing prayers go before and follow after Again must we needs kneel at every bit of a prayer Is there more necessity to obey a needless direction to kneel at those prayers than to follow the example ●f Christ in sitting when we take eat and drink things required in the same sentences prescribed And why must the people kneel when they hear those prayers rather then the Minister who pronounceth them But it is a question whether those prayers be justifiable or no. For besides that by reason of them Kneeling devised and abused by Antichrist Mat 6 7 26.26 c. doth cross the practice of Christ and his Apostles and they may seem a vain repetition Even the adding of them to the words of Institution is contrary to the mind of Christ For he did first bless or pray and after gave the Elements in a Sacramentall form of words without any addition saying take eat Mark 14.21 Luke 22.19 c. c. Which order of administration and form of words Matthew Marke Luke and Paul do so constantly precisely and sincerely related that any may perceive the meaning of the spirit to be That the sacramental form of words ought precisely to be observed without any addition And the rather because Paul beginneth his relation thus 1 Cor. 11.23 24. I have received of the Lord that which I have also delivered c. So that it may seem to be against Religion and Reason that to a sacramentall forme of speech wherein the Minister should onely supply the person of Christ there should be added a prayer as in the name of the Church This confusion is fitter for Babylon than for Sion Lastly Why is not a short prayer after other going before as well joyned to the sacramentall forme of Baptisme viz. N. I baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. Rom. 14.5.23 If then this addition of Prayer to the sacramentall forme of words be not of faith how then can we with faith and a good conscience confirm or allow the same with our kneeling 10. Lastly for justifying of Kneeling it is affirmed That it is indifferent whether we sit stand or kneel seeing Christ did sit when he did eat the Passeover Whereas God commanded the children of Israel in Egypt to eate the Passeover standing and some Reformed Churches receive standing for all that Christ did sit at his last Supper Therefore the KING may appoint Kneeling as the most reverent gesture and best beseeming so holy an action For answer whereunto howsoever that which is already said may suffice Yet it may be further considered that though it be admitted that it is indifferent to sit or to stand yet it doth not follow that Kneeling is indifferent For sitting is the example and standing is a gesture sometimes used in ordinary eating and in the objection it is said to be prescribed at a Sacramentall feast Again it doth not follow That because Christ used a gesture fitter for eating in his time instead of a gesture prescribed upon occasion it is therefore lawfull to use a gesture nothing answerable to eating 1 Cor. 14.36 and that taken out of the Synagogue of Antichrist as though the Word of God came out of it or to it onely instead of a gesture most answerable to eating and of purpose used by Christ at the Institution of the Sacrament So that notwithstanding all that is said for Kneeling His Majestie upon whom the burthen as of this gesture so of other Ceremonies 2 Chro. 29.25 is layd may remember That Hezekiah appointed Levites in the house of the Lord with Cimbals c. according to the commandement of David and Gad the Kings Seer and Nathan the Prophet for the commandement was by the hand of the Lord and by the hand of his Prophets And withall consider that if Kneeling were the most reverent gesture and best beseeming the holy Communion our Lord and Master would not have sitten down of purpose at his last supper And that Ahaz was deceived in deeming the Altar at Damascus more honourable for Gods service 2 King 16.10 12.14.15 than the Altar of the Lord. 11. Having said that which may be sufficient to a man reasonable and not contentious against the institution of kneeling for supposed reverence in regard of God it remaineth that somewhat be said against the institution of Kneeling for reverence in regard of bread and wine which need not to be much For no sound Protestant of any knowledge will affirme it but rather presently consider That if kneeling be instituted for reverence in regard of bread and wine it must be either because they represent the body and blood of Christ though remaining bread and wine touching their substance And then for like reason we may worship the