Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	apostle_n	faith_n	scripture_n	1,714	5	6.0562	4	false

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

may be this They who are not to judge or censure one another in differences about circumstantial things or matters of indifferency they may not make a binding Law that all men shall be of one mind or of one practice in such things But the former is true Rom. 14.3 Let not him that cateth despise him that cateth not c. If it be said The place onely speaks of private Christians not of Church-Governours The place speaks of all Christians publick and private seeing it reserveth and referreth the Judgment of our Brethren in such things not to publick Persons but onely to Christ in the 4th 10th Verses 3. They who did accommodate themselvs in the use of indifferent things according to the judgment and practice of all Christians wheresoever they came they did not make any Laws to bind Christians to follow their Judgment and Practice in the use of things indifferent But the Apostles of Christ did accommodate themselves in the use of indifferent things according to the Judgment and Practice of the Christians wheresover they came As appeareth from the Apostle's Example 1 Cor. 9.20 21 22. To the Jews I became as a Jew c. But it may be said Though the Apostles chose rather to use their Liberty than their Authority in these things indifferent wheresoever they came yet if they had pleased they might have used Apostolical Authority binding all Christians to their Judgment and Practice in such things 1. Doubtless if they had received any such Authority they would in some place at some time or other have claimed it and practised it A Sword never used rusteth in the Scabbard And frustra est potentia quae nunquam venit in actum is a true Axiome whether we speak of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The Apostle himself cleareth this Point when he confesseth he did thus accommodate himself even to the weakness of Christians lest he should abuse his Authority in the Gospel Ver. 18 19 20. Oh that such Church-Gouernours as plead their succession from the Apostles and do challenge in sundry passage of Government Apostolical Authority would also be pleased to study and emulate an Apostolical Spirit For a fourth Argument let it be this If the Apostles and Presbyters and Brethren at Jerusalem did reach their Authority no further than to lay upon the Disciples necks the yoak and burthen of necessary things and that onely during the time while they continued necessary then may not any succeeding Synod reach their Authority to lay upon the Church Commandments and Canons of indifferent things For the Synod at Jerusalem was the pattern and precedent of all succeeding Synods For primum in unoque genere est mensura reliquorum And our Saviour teacheth us to confute Alterations from Primitive Patterns with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nou sic fuit ab initio But the Synod at Jerusalem reached their Authority no further than to lay a Commandment upon the Disciples onely touching necessary things Act. 15.28 Necessary I say either in themselves as abstaining from Fornication or at least in respect of present offence as Abstinence from blood c. 5. Let me conclude with this Argument taken from the Apostle Paul his enter-course with the Apostle Peter If the Apostle Peter was to be blamed for compelling the Gentiles by his example to observe the indifferent Ceremonies of the Jews then other Church-Governours will be to blame for compelling Christians by Law and by grievous Censures to observe the Ceremonies in Question though they were indifferent But the Apostle Paul telleth us Peter was to be blamed in this case Gal. 2.11 14. I suppose No man will here except as is wont to be excepted against such Arguments as plead for the refusing of our Ceremonies upon such grounds as Paul urged against yielding to the Jewish Ceremonies as they were urged by the false Apostles viz. with Opinion of necessity unto Salvation For Peter's yielding at that time to the Jewish Ceremonies was not out of opinion of their necessity to Salvation but only out of fear of offence and care to prevent it Ver. 12. The Sum of all this will lead us by the hand one step further If it be a sin in Church-Governours to command especially upon so strict panalt● indifferent decent things it shall be a sin also in Ministers and other private Christians to subscribe ex animo and to yield Obedience to such Command although the Ceremonies commanded were indeed as good as they be pretended which I believe are not indifferent decent things For doth not such voluntary Subscription and Conformity to them build up our Church-Governours yea and with them the Soveraign Civil Magistrate also in this confidence that such Commandments are as well lawfully given by them as received and obeyed by us Now to build up or edify a Brother unto sin is no better than to offend a Brother For the proper definition of an Offence is That which edifies a Brother unto sin as the original word expresseth it 1 Cor. 8.10 And so to sin against my Brother is to wound his Conscience yea and as much as in me lyeth to cause him to perish for whom Christ dyed which is no better than spiritual Murther even the Murther of his Soul Now if thus to edify my Brother unto sin be so hainous an Offence how much more hainous an Offence is it to edify our Governours to the giving and urging of such Commandments yea to the sharp censuring of all others as refractory and factious Persons who choose rather to undergo the loss of the greatest-Comforts they enjoy in this World than to wound the Consciences either of themselves or their Governours It is true by forbearing Obedience to these Commandments we offend the Spirits of our Governours and make them to be though causlesly offended with us but by yielding Obedience to these things we should offend their Consciences in edifying them unto Sin and provoke the Lord to be offended with them and us It is not for Christians much less for Ministers to redeem our peace and liberty at so dear a price as the hazard of the blood of so many precious Soul especially of our Governours in highest place Now I shall proceed to answer another great Question for clearing the Point in hand May not the Church in the Celebration of the Sacraments use other Rites significative than those expressed in the Scriptures or add to them of her own Authority No but she is to rest in the use of those Seals God hath appointed For all signs of mens devising cannot teach or stir up true devotion but delude and nourish Superstition Besides to do any thing which doth derogate from the Seal of Kings and their Prerogative therein we know how dangerous it is in the Common-wealth so certainly to joyn Seals with God's Seals in his Church is a Point will hardly be answered It beseemeth us to acknowledge God so wise in the Signs that

to be held unwarrantable In this case the devising of new Rites to signify the truths taught in Scripture or sealed in the Sacraments cannot be deemed less than an unlawful Addition Babing in com 2. pag. 95. upon this ground our Divines have cast Images out of the Church not onely for teaching ill but for teaching at all because God alloweth no Teacher but himself nor means of teaching but his holy Word and Sacraments And when the Son of God hath instituted the Sacraments and he hath commanded them to be administred in certain Rites instituted of himself It is a very hard Question saith Chenmitius whether Man be permitted to add others over and above Exam. Conc. Trid. part 2. tit de rit Bapt. under any pretence Dr. Willet reasoneth thus against the Rites of Popish Confirmation Willets Cont. 14. q. 1. par 5. pag. 719. Col. 2.17 All of them are superstitious having mystical and typical significations and shadows which agree not with the Nature of the Gospel for all shadows are now past the Body being come It is contrary to the Rule of the Gospel there should be such Types Shadows and Significations brought into the Service of God Id. Cont. 12. q. 8. Arg. 1. pag. 504. Therefore we dare not allow of these descriptions of unlawful Additions before-mentioned not onely because they cannot be justified by Scripture as all good Expositions Theological must and ought but also the whole current of Scripture plainly sheweth it to be too strict as may appear in part by that which hath been already said and remaineth to be proved more at large hereafter Unde jus prodit interpretatio quoque procedat Decret Grego lib. 5. Tit. 39. cap. 31. Innocent 3. Quis legum Aenigmata solvere idoneus esse videtur nisi is cui soli Legislatorem esse concessum est Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 14. leg 9. 10.11 Tit. 17. 2. As in matters of Faith so in matters of Ceremonies significative pertaining to the Worship of God an Argument doth hold from the Negative to disallow what is not found in the Scriptures expresly or by good consequence As to say such a thing is not expressed or revealed in the word therefore it is no matter of Faith nor such as a man is bound necessarily to believe such a sign is not warranted by the Scripture therefore it is not to be used in the Worship of God Jer. 7.31 19.5 Thus the Prophet Jeremiah reasoneth more than once against the idolatrous men of Judah who burned their Sons and Daughters in the fire to Baal The Lord did not command you he spake no such thing neither came it into his mind Therefore this ye ought not to have done The thing he reproved was not onely not commanded but forbidden and that expresly yet the Prophet chooseth rather to charge them with the fault of making a Law unto themselves Hook Eccle● Pol. lib. 2. Sect. 6. than the crime of transgressing a Law which God had made For when the Lord himself had once precisely set down a form of executing that wherein we are to serve him the fault appeareth greater to do that which we are not than not to do that which we are commanded In this we seem to charge the Law with hardness only in that with foolishness In this we shew our selvs to be weak and unapt to be Doers of his Will in that we take upon us to be Controllers of his Wisdom In this we fly to perform the thing which God seeth meet convenient and good in that we presume to see what is meeter and convenienter better than God himself For these and such like Reasons though the sin of Judah was directly prohibited yet it pleased the Lord by his Prophet to reprehead it for that he commanded them not so to do From these places some Divines do prove the perfection of Scripture against the Papists Dr. Reynolds thes Gatak of Lots cap. 7. S. 16. Others that in the Point of God's Worship the Argument holdeth from the Negative for the Substance of it And by the same Reason we may conclude that no Ceremony significant may be admitted in the Worship of God which carry not the stamp of divine approbation for the ground of the Prophet's Argument will bear all alike The purpose of God was to teach his People both unto whom they should offer Sacrifice and what Sacrifice was to be sacrificed therefore no Sacrifice is to be offered which God hath not commanded The Lord hath determined how he will be served therefore upon our own Will and Pleasure we must not add any thing unto it for Substance or take ought there-from And the Lord also hath appointed and determined what outward Signes shall be used to teach signify or represent by Analogy or Proportion Therefore no Sign is to have place in his Worship which cannot shew descent from above Numb 15.38.39 The Lord expounding the Use of the Fringes that he commanded the Israelites to make in the borders of their Garments saith It shall be to them for a Sign that they may look upon it and remember all the Commandments of the Lord and do them and that ye seek not after your own hearts and your own eyes after which you use to go a whoring Therefore he willeth that for ever they remember all his precepts even those that concern Ceremories or external Worship and on the contrary he will not that either in Ceremonies or external Worship they hear their own heart or institute those things that seem good unto them in their own eyes Nibil oporteat in rebus divinis facere sine Dei Verbo Bell. de Sacr. lib. 1. cap. 19. or follow them Nay in the Worship of God to follow that which is pleasing to us is to run a whoring from God because we follow them in the heat of adulterous Love It may be some will answer that Ceremonies of absolute necessity wherein the Substance of God's Worship consisteth and which absolutely binds Conscience must be instituted of God but not those that are appointed onely for signification and as things in themselves free and indifferent because these may be profitable to put men in mind of their duties to cherish Faith and recall from sin But what ground is there in Scripture for this distinction where is the liberty granted in the one denied in the other kind of Ceremonies Sicut owne aurum quodcu●que fuerit extra templum non est sauctificatum Wh●t de Pont. q. 1. c. 3. 8. q. 2. c. 2. q. 4. c 1. S. 2. Orig. in Matth. Hom. 25. In Philosophy no distinction is to be allowed which Reason doth not confirm In Theology what hath not evident foundation in the Scriptures themselves what is not native and taken out of them is to be held counterfeit and adulterate The Rule is where the Law distinguisheth not we must not distinguish it is not sufficient therefore

had not appointed them or they might have invented others of the same kind afterwards and have added to those God appointed but this they might not do It 's true that this would increase the multitude of Ceremonies and multitude of Ceremonies of one sort would make them (f) Dr. Morton protest appeal Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 3. inconvenient because this carryeth with it change of circumstances whereon conveniency or inconveniency doth depend But if one Ceremony be lawful hundreds of the same kind be lawful also for the definition of one is predicated of all of that sort It cannot be truly said That the Jewish Church had less liberty to devise Ecclesiastical Rites whatsoever some say (g) Dr. Sparks Perswasions to uniformity cap. 3.8 5. pag. 11. Josh 22.10 than the Christian Church hath except the Christian Church could under the Lord's Charter shew this Priviledge to be granted unto her Add further that the speciall Ground that the maintainers of Ceremonies do or can bring in for the now-urged Ceremonies is the fact of the Reubenites building the Altar If this Argument be of any force must they not grant liberty to the Church of the Jews as well as the Church of the new Testament Therefore if men deny the Jews that liberty which the Christian Church may rightfully claim they will prove themselves to stand upon no Ground 4. Such Vestiments cannot be used in Faith without which the use thereof is sinful Faith in this place is a firm assurance of mind and conscience Rom. 14.23 resting on assured Ground that the thing which a man doth is allowed of God to be done by him So that two things are here implyed 1. That the Act to be done Calvin in loc others Vid. Marlo in loc be allowed of God otherwise the conscience that doth it how confident soever it be is erroneous and faulty (h) Covel's ans to Mr. Burges Apol. pag. 9. citing Mooker No man can do evil with a good conscience 2. That the mind of the Doer certainly apprehend a lawfulnesse for the doing of it else the conscience sinneth through doubtfulnesse With this assurance of mind and conscience who can use such Vestiments as are meerly Ecclesiastical Mystical Rites when he cannot find a●● firm Ground out of the Scripture that God alloweth such under the New Testament 5. Whoseover doth not admit the Proposition he openeth a gap unto Oyl Cream Spittle Candles holy Water and other Popish Ceremonies to enter into the Church which our learned Divine● reject for this that they are mystical significant Rites devised by Man as is to be seen not by the Judgment of Forraign Divines onely As of the Church of Wittenburg Harm Confess part 2. artic 32. de Corem Ecclesiasticis The Churches of France and the low Countries in their Observations upon the Harmony of Confessions Ibid. Sect. 17. ad Sax●n Confess Observ 1. Calvin in Esay 20.2 Mat. 21.25 Beza Epist 8. But also our own Divines Dr. Whitgift Defence of Answer to the Admon Tract 7. cap. 7. divis 8. pag. 291. Mr. Perkins in his Commentary on Gal. 3.23 24 25. who dissallow such signification of Apparrel in Ecclesiastical use as Peter Martyr in his Epistle to Hooper would put upon it Loc. commun pag. 1088. Edit 1613. And further if the Proposition be not true Perkin's Demonstration of Probl. in Title Apurten to Masse Sect. 6. Dr. Morton's protest appeal Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 5. Pag. 58. Might not a man reason thus for the bringing in of Popish Rites of the same nature and kind Vestiments instituted by man and appropriated to God's Worship and of mystical signification are lawful Therefore Oyl Cream Spittle Candles and other such like Popish Rites are lawful also 6. To conclude worthy Divines have condemned all Ceremonies when they have been parts of and appropriated to Worship As Calvin Institut Lib. 4. Cap. 10. Sect. 8. Perkins Reform Cathel p. 136. And doth not Dr. Abbott call all Priestly Garments whereby they are distinguished from the rest of the Church a spiritual Character of the Beast Antichr Demon. Cap. 11. Sect. 26. And whereas for eight hundred years after Christ there were but eight Vestures used in the whole mysteries of Religion and now among the Papists there be fifteen six Priestly and nine of the Bishops What reason is there to prove them or such of them unlawful which our Law hath rejected if this Proposition be not true The Assumption proved In the proof whereof it is requisite that I insist upon these three Heads 1. That the Surplice in our Church is appropriated to God's solemn Worship as to meet to Ecclesiastial use 2. That it is appointed for signification of spiritu●● Duties 3. That this is done by Man without Warrant from the Word of God The first of these 3 Heads is apparant by the Reasons following 1. Albeit young Students in the Universities who by their matriculation did receive their primam tonsuram into the Clergy The Surplice to be appropriated to Ecclesiastical use Queristers in the Cathedrall Churches being antiently reputed of the Clergy and some Clerks in some Parochial and Collegiat Churches have heretofore and still do retein the Surplice Yet we see that the use is still restrained to Worship viz. Prayers reading Scripture administration of Sacraments c. And out of that use it is not to be found neither is there any civil use made of the Surplice As for buriall of the dead it is used by none but by a Minister or one initiate into the Clergy and that with solemn prayers accompanying Who then can say that the use of the Surplice in Burials is a withdrawing of it from Ecclesiastical use 2. I might urge what I observe out of Dr. Whitgift who denying Pope Hadrian to be the Inventer of the Surplice Spark's persw●sion to Uniformity cap. 5. pag. 19. Def. Tract 7. cap. 6. Divis 1. would draw the Original thereof from Stepha●●● Bishop of Rome whose testimony if it be ought worth proven that holy Vestments are not to be touched of any save the Priest Ibid. cap. 5. divis 2. and consequently that they are not of civi use Socrates hominibus Luc. Osiand Epitom Histor Ecclesiast Cent. 3. Lib. 3. Cap. 14. 3. In Popery the Surplice was appropriated to God's solemn Worship without which no Priest might say Service Missal Rom. part 1. Missa in Galli cantu Missa in die Nativitatis D●●●● Neither could Water or Bells or any thing else be hallowed Dr. Humphry his Antidiploma missal Rom. part 3. pag. 96. And if it were not of the essence of the Masse that every Priest that sayth it have a Surplice on yet some Priest cannot say Mass without it Durand rational Lib. 3. Cap. 1. Numb 9. Neither can any Priest make his breaden-god except he have it on Rh●●● a●●tat in 1 Cor. 11.29 This I omit to urge though I must confess that hough o●r Church