Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	3,184	5	9.3025	5	false

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

in controversie are either all or the greatest part of them such Ergo They are parts of Divine Worship and Service The Proposition cannot with any modest face be denied For else how could a sole Divine ratification of the present use of them make them parts of his true Worship If they were not used as parts of his Worship before The Assumption is as manifest For if Christ should by some Revelation from heaven signifie That it is his will that a Minister in Divine Service should wear a white linnen garment in Baptism make the sign of a Cross to these ends and purposes that are expressed in the Service Book then certainly they should be essential parts of his Divine Worship else the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies and our Sacraments are no parts thereof The second part of the Assumption of the first Syllogism That they are imposed only upon the pleasure and will of man This is evident For those things that God leaves as indifferent to the will and discretion of man to do or leave undone being imposed by man upon man are imposed only upon the will and pleasure of man The third part of the Assumption is That they are of necessity to be done in Divine Service Which is also out of all doubt For a Minister stands bound to do them upon pain of suspension and deprivation And God must have no solemn Worship in England except it be administred in the same Upon all this it follows That to use these Ceremonies in manner and form prescribed is to use such Ceremonies as are parts of Divine Worship imposed only by the will of Man c. The Second Argument It is a sin against God for him that is by way of Excellency a servant of Jesus Christ without a precise and direct warrant from him at any time especially in the Solemn Worship of God to give special honour to Antichrist and his members But to use these Ceremonies is in that manner aforesaid to give special honour to Antichrist and his members Ergo It is a sin against God to use them THE Proposition is manifest and clear to any that have an eye of Reason and any light of Divinity shining in it For what is a sin if this be not That a Servant of Jesus Christ even then when he is in the Service of Christ should perform special honour and service to Antichrist or any of his Limbs The Assumption is proved if our Adversaries will grant it that the Pope is Antichrist and that all the visible members of his Church acknowledging him their supream head are members of him by this reason Such a Conformity to Antichrist and his members in the Ceremonies of Religion and Form of Divine Worship as is not only besides the Word of God but in a special manner derogatory to all reformed Churches that have departed from the Synagogue of Rome is a special honour to Antichrist and his members But to use these Ceremonies in Divine Worship is such a Conformity to Antichrist and his members Ergo. To use these Ceremonies in that manner aforesaid is to give special honour to Antichrist and his Members The Proposition is without exception For if it should be a special honour to the Bishops of England and their conformed Cleargy for the Churches of Scotland voluntarily to leave conformity to the Churches of the Low Countries France and Germany and to conform themselves in Ceremonies and Form of Divine Worship to the Prelatical Clergy of England It must needs be a special honour to Antichrist and his Members for any to do the like to them The Assumption is thus proved For a Minister of Jesus Christ to conforme himself in such peculiar Rites Ceremonies and Formes of Divine Service to Antichrist and his members as other reformed Churches have rejected for vain foolish and superstitious is in a special manner derogatory to all other reformed Churches But to use these Ceremonies in controversie is in that manner to conforme himself Ergo It is in a special manner derogatory to all other Reformed Churches Both parts of the Syllogisme are such as may easily be proved if they be denyed The 3. Argument All Worship more than Civill performed to any besides God is a sin To use these Ceremonies in manner and forme prescribed is to performe a more than civil honour even a Religious only to a humane Power and Authority Ergo To use these Ceremonies is to sin THe Proposition needs no proof For there is no middle Honor between Civil and Divine and therefore that which is more than Civil is Divine Now Divine Honor is to be given only to God who will not have his Glory given unto another The Assumption is thus proved If these Ceremonies be Religious Ceremonies and all Religious Ceremonies be a part of Divine worship performed to that authority that instituteth and commandeth them If also the authority that instituteth and commandeth them is but meerly humane Then the Assumption is true But the first is true Ergo The latter is true also The Proposition cannot be denyed of any reasonable creature The Assumption hath three Parts I. That these Ceremonies are Religious Ceremonies This needs no proof For what shall we make to be Religious Ceremonies if those Ceremonies be not that are prescribed by the Church to the Church only tied to Religion only and Religious Functions Offices and Persons to be acted and performed only in Exercises of Religion and Divine Worship and are mystical shadowes and types of Religious Doctrine II. That all Religious Ceremonies are parts of Divine Worship This neither should need any proof If those that are adversaries unto us in this cause did not too much presume of the weakness of our Discourse and the strength of their own wit For there being an external Divine Worship which properly consists in the outward Rites and Ceremonies of Religion What Ceremonies can be called parts thereof if such Religious Ceremonies as these be not For if bowing the knee c. in Divine Worship though it be used also in Civil Worship be a part of Divine Worship much more are those Ceremonies that are peculiarly appropriated to Divine Service and Worship and wherein part of the forme thereof is made to consist But it may for further satisfying of men be thus proved All meer and immediate Actions of Religion are parts of Divine Worship All Religious Ceremonies are meer and immediate Actions of Religion Ergo They are parts of Divine Worship Further How can a man imagine that a meer Religious Ecclesiastical Act done by a Servant of God in the solemn Service and Worship of God by precise Canon of the Church should be no part of Divine Worship sith all the solemn Rites and Ceremonies that are used in the solemn Services of Civil States especially such as are done in their presence have been ever reputed parts of civil Honor and Worship Lastly Considering that God in his Divine Worship doth require the whole heart

do any act of Religion or Divine service that cannot evidently be warranted by the same 2. They hold that all Ecclesiastical actions invented and devised by man are utterly to be excluded out of the exercises of Religion especially such actions as are famous and notorious Mysteries of an Idolatrous Religion and in doing whereof the true Religion is conformed whether in whole or in part to Idolatry and superstition 3. They hold that all outward means instituted and set apart to expresse and set forth the Inward worship of God are parts of Divine Worship and that not only all moral actions but all typical rites and figures ordained to shadow forth in the solemn worship and service of God any spiritual or religious act or habit in the mind of man are special parts of the same And therefore that every such act ought evidently to be prescribed by the Word of God or else ought not to be done it being a sin to performe any other worship to God whether External or Internal Moral or Ceremonial in whole or in part then that which God himself requires in his word 4. They hold it to be grosse superstition for any mortal man to institute and ordain as parts of Divine Worship any mystical Rite and Ceremonie of Religion whatsoever and to mingle the same with the Divine Rites and Mysteries of Gods Ordinance But they hold it to be high presumption to institute and bring into Divine worship such Rites and Ceremonies of Religion as are acknowledged to be no parts of Divine Worship at all but only of Civil Worship and Honour For they that shall require to have performed unto themselves a Ceremonial Obedience Service and worship consisting in rites of religion to be done at that very instant that God is solemnly served and worshiped and even in the same worship make both themselves and God also an Idol so that they judge it a far more fearfull sin to add unto and to use in the worship and service of God or any part thereof such mystical Rites and Ceremonies as they esteem to be no parts or parcells of Gods worship at all than such as in a vain and ignorant superstition they imagine and conceive to be parts thereof 5. They hold that every act or action appropriated and set apart to divine service and worship whether moral or ceremonial real or typical ought to bring special honour unto God and therefore that every such act ought to be apparently commanded in the Word of God either expresly or by necessary consequent 6. They hold that all actions whether Moral or Ceremonial appropriated to Religious or Spiritual Persons functions or actions either are or ought to be Religious and Spiritual And therefore either are or ought to be instituted immediately by God who alone is the Author and Institutor of all Religious and Spiritual actions and things whether Internal or External Moral or Ceremonial CHAP. II. Concerning the Church 1. THey hold and maintain that every Companie Congregation or Assembly of men ordinarily joyning together in the true worship of God is a true visible Church of Christ and that the same title is improperly attributed to any other Convocations Synods Societies combinations or Assemblies whatsoever 2. They hold that all such Churches or Congregations communicating after that manner together in divine worship are in all Ecclesiastical matters equal and of the same power and authority and that by the Word and will of God they ought to have the same spiritual Priviledges Prerogatives Officers Administrations Orders and Formes of Divine worship 3. They hold that Christ Jesus hath not subjected any Church or Congregation of his to any other superior Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction than unto that which is within it self So that if a whole Church or Congregation shall erre in any matters of faith or Religion no other Churches or spiritual Church-Officers have by any warrant from the Word of God power to censure punish or controle the same but are only to counsel and advise the same and so to leave their soules to the immediate judgment of Christ and their bodies to the sword and power of the Civil Magistrate who alone upon earth hath power to punish a whole Church or Congregation 4. They hold that every established Church or Congregation ought to have her own spiritual officers ministers resident with her those such as are injoyned by Christ in the New Testament and no other 5. They hold that every established Church ought as a special prerogative by which she is indowed by Christ to have power and liberty to elect and chuse their own spiritual and Ecclesiastical Officers and that it is a greater wrong to have any such forced upon them against their wills than if they should force upon men wives and upon women husbands against their will and liking 6. They hold that if in this choice any particular Churches shall erre that none upon earth but the Civil Magistrate hath power to controle or correct them for it And that though it be not lawfull for him to take away this power from them yet when they or any of them shall apparently abuse the same he stands bound by the Law of God and by vertue of his Office grounded upon the same to punish them severely for it and to force them under civil mulcts to make better choice 7. They hold that the Ecclesiastical Officers and Ministers of one Church ought not to bear any Ecclesiastical Office in another but ought to be tyed unto that Congregation of which they are members and by which they are elected into office And they are not without just cause and such as may be approved by the Congregation to forsake their Callings wherein if the Congregation shall be perverse and will not hearken to reason They are then to crave the assistance and help of the Civil Magistrate who alone hath power and who ought by his Civil Sword and Authority procure to all Members of the Church whether their Governors or others freedome from all manifest injuries and wrongs 8. They hold that the Congregation having once made choice of their spiritual Officers unto whom they commit the Regiment of their Soules they ought not without just cause and that which is apparently warrantable by the Word of God to discharge deprive or depose them but ought to live in all Canonical obedience and subjection unto them agreeable to the Word of God And if by permission of the Civil Magistrate they shall by other Ecclesiastical Officers be suspended or deprived for any cause in their apprehension good and justifiable by the Word of God then they hold it the bounden duty of the Congregation to be continual suppliants to God and humble suters unto Civil Authority for the restauration of them unto their Administrations which if it cannot be obtained yet this much honour they are to give unto them as to acknowledge them to the death their spiritual Guides and Governors though they be rigorously

deprived of their Ministry and Service 9. They hold that though one Church is not to differ from another in any Spiritual Ecclesiastical or Religious matters whatsoever but are to be equal and alike yet that they may differ and one excel another in outward Civil Circumstances of place time Person c. So that although they hold that those Congregations of which Kings and Nobles make themselves members ought to have the same Ecclesiastical Officers Ministry worship Sacraments Ceremonies and Forme of Divine Worship that the basest Congregation in the Country hath and no other yet they hold also That as their Persons in civil respects excel so in the Exercises of Religion in civil matters they may excel other Assemblies Their Chappels and Seats may be gorgeously set forth with rich Arras and Tapestry their Fonts may be of Silver their Communion Tables of Ivory and if they will covered with gold the Cup out of which they drink the Sacramental blood of Christ may be of beaten gold set about with Diamonds their Ministers may be clothed in silk and velvet so themselves will maintain them in that manner otherwise they think it absurd and against common reason that other base and Inferior Congregations must by Ecclesiastical Tithes and Oblations maintain the silken and velvet suits and Lordly retinue of the Ministers and Ecclesiastical Officers of Princes and Nobles 10. They hold that the Lawes Orders and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the visible Churches of Christ if they be lawfull and warrantable by the Word of God are no wayes repugnant to any Civil State whatsoever whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical but do tend to the further establishing and advancing of the Rights and Prerogatives of all and every of them And they renounce and abhor from their soules all such Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction or Policy that is any way repugnant and derogatory to any of them especially to the Monarchical State which they acknowledg to be the best kind of Civil Government for this Kingdome 11. They hold and bel●eve that the equality in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and authority of Churches and Church-Ministers is no more derogatory and repugnant to the State and glory of a Monarch than the Paritie or equality of Schoolmasters of several Schools Captains of several Camps Shepherds of several flocks of sheep or Masters of several Families yea they hold the clean contrary that inequality of Churches and Church-Officers in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Authority was that principally that advanced Antichrist unto his throne and brought the Kings and Princes of the earth unto such vassallage under him and that the Civil Authority and glory of Secular Princes and States hath ever decayed and withered the more that the Ecclesiastical Officers of the Church have been advanced and lifted up in authority beyond the limits and confines that Christ in his word hath prescribed unto them CHAP. III. Concerning the Ministers of the Word 1. THey hold that the Pastors of particular Congregations are or ought to be the highest Spiritual Officers in the Church over whom by any Divine Ordinance there is no superiour Pastor but only Jesus Christ And that they are led by the spirit of Antichrist that arrogate or take upon themselves to be Pastors of Pastors 2. They hold that there are not by any Divine Institution in the word any ordinary National Provincial or Diocesan Pastors or Ministers under which the Pastors of particular Congregations are to be subject as Inferior Officers And that if there were any such that then the Word of God would have set them down more distinctly and precisely than any of the rest For the higher place that one occupieth in the Church of the more necessity he is unto the Church of the more necessity he is to the Church the more carefully would Christ the head of the Church have been in pointing him out and distinguishing him from other Hence in the Old Testament the High Priest his Title Office Function and special Administration and Jurisdiction is more particularly and precisely set down than the Office of any of the Inferior Priests and Levites Also in the New Testament the Office of a Pastor is more distinctly and more precisely set down than of a Doctor or any other inferior Church-Officer So that a man may as well call into question the whole New Testament as doubt whether there ought to be a Pastor in every Congregation or doubt of his proper Office and Function And if by Gods Ordinance there should be an ordinary Ecclesiastical Officer above the Pastors of particular congregations than Christ out of all question would with that special care and cost have set it forth by Titles prerogatives peculiar Offices Functions and Gifts that the Churches and people of God should have reason rather ●o doubt of any Office or Jurisdiction than of the peculiar office or Jurisdiction of the Primates Metropolitanes Arch-Bishops and Prelates of the world 3. They h●ld that if there were a supream National Eccles●astical Minister or Pastor that should be the Prince of many thousand Pastors that then also Christ as he did in the Jewish Church would have appointed a solemn National or Provincial Liturgy or worship unto which at sometimes of the year the whole body of the people should ascend and that unto the Metropolitan City as unto a Jerusalem and that he would as he did in the Jewish Church more precisely and particularly have set down the manner of solemnization thereof than of his parochial worship Forasmuch therefore as they cannot read in the New Testament of any higher or more solemn worship than of that which is to be performed in a particular Congregation they cannot be perswaded that God hath appointed any higher Ministers of his service and worship under the New Testament than the elect Ministers of particular Congregations 4. They hold that the High Priest of the Jews was typically and in a figure the supream head of the whole Catholique Church which though it were visible only in the Province and Nation of Jury yet those of other Nations and Countries as appears by the History of Acts even though they were Ethiopians were under this High Priest and acknowledged homage unto him So that he was not a Provincial Metropolitane but in very deed an Oecumenical and universal Bishop of the whole world And therefore they hold this being the best ground in the word for Metropolitane and Provincial Pastors or Bishops that the Pope of Rome who alone maketh claim unto and is in possession of the like universal Supremacy hath more warrant in the Word of God to the same than any Metropolitane or Diocesan not dependant upon him hath or can have So that they hold that by the Word of God either there must be no Metropolitanes and Diocesans or else there must be a Pope 5. They hold That no Pastor ought to exercise or accept of any Civil publique Jurisdiction and authority but ought to be wholly imployed in spiritual Offices

also to be observed even in Divine matters yet those Actions cannot be called Civil that are used only in Divine Offices and duties no more than those can be called Ecclesiastical and Divine that are used only in Civil affairs For it may be affirmed by as good reason that an Ecclesiastical Officer employed only in Ecclesiastical matters is a Civil Officer only Or a Civil Officer employed only in Civil matters is an Ecclesiastical Officer only as that a meer Ecclesiastical action done in and by the Church only should be a Civil Action The eighth Argument If it be lawful to use these Ceremonies in Divine Worship it is therefore lawful because they are either lawful in themselves or being things in their own nature indifferent are made lawful by the commandment of the Magistrate to be used in Divine Service But they are neither lawful in themselves to be used nor therefore lawful because the Magistrate commands them so to be used though they be Matters in their own Nature indifferent Ergo They are unlawful to be used in Divine Worship THE Proposition I think cannot be denied when it is I hope it may be proved The first part of the Assumption is clear For if they were in themselves lawful to be used then might a Minister of the Gospel being left to his own discretion by the Magistrate invent institute and use the like Ceremonies in the same manner without sin For any man left to himself may lawfully do that which of it self is lawful and indifferent But a Minister should sin against God if he should of his own head institute and use the like Ceremonies to these though permitted by the Magistrate except we should hold that it is lawful for a Minister to do any indifferent thing in Gods Service for a man may of any indifferent thing make a Ceremony like unto one of these The second part of the Assumption is thus proved If they be therefore lawful because being thing in their own nature ifferent the Magistrate commands them to be done in Divine Service Then whatsoever thing being in its own nature indifferent is or shall be commanded by the Magistrate is lawful to be done in Divine Service But all things that are in themselves matters indifferent are not lawful to be done in Divine Service though the Magistrate should command them Ergo They are not therefore lawful to be used in Divine S rvice because the Magistrate commands them though they be things in their own nature indifferent The Proposition cannot be denied For if some things indifferent in their own nature being commanded by the Magistrate are unlawful it can be no good Argument to say These things being indifferent are commanded by the Magistrate Ergo They may lawfully be done Much less therefore they ought to be done Or as the Doctors of Oxf. affirm that they bind the conscience The Assumption is more clear than the Proposition If it be considered either what things are indifferent indeed or go under the name and title of indifferent things Eating and drinking the avoiding the superfluities of Nature due benevolence between Man and Wife spinning and carding killing of Oxen and Sheep c. which of themselves have in them neither vertue nor vice are therefore indifferent Actions and yet I think none except professed Atheists but will hold it a foul sin to do some of these Actions in any Assembly much more in the solemn Worship of God though the Magistrate should command the same even upon pain of death But if it be further considered That Carding and Dicing Masking and Dancing for Men to put on Womens apparel and Women Mens Drinking to healths Ribald Stage-plaies c. are things indifferent to be done even upon the Lords own day May a Minister of the Gospel upon the Magistrates commandment do any of these in Divine Worship And yet there is none of these but may have applied unto them by the Wit of Man a Mystical and Religious sence and then by this Bishop of Canterburies Rule They must needs be good and lawful Ceremonies for his principal Argument to prove them lawfull at his last Convention of London Ministers before him was this They are Ceremonies that teach good Doctrine Ergo They are good Ceremonies Whereas the filthiest actions and things that are may teach good Doctrine The Holy Ghost resembleth the soul polluted with sin to a menstrous cloth A man fallen again into sin to a Sow wallowing in the mire might therefore a filthie Sow and such unclean Clothes be brought into the Church to be visible shadowes and representations of such things Nay What may not by this means be brought into Gods Worship and yet by this reason be defended to be a good Ceremony if the Magistrates and Bishops should decree the same A fools coat and a beggers worne in Divine Service may fitly teach this Doctrine Not many Wise Not many Noble A Minister clothed in such apparrel as those that act the Devils part in a play may teach this That by nature we are limbs of Sathan and firebrands of Hell Men might wear Womens apparel and Women mens The one to teach That the Church is Christs Wife The other to teach that Women in Christ are equall to Men. Bear-baiting may teach us How Christ was baited before the Tribunalls of the Pharisees or the combate between the flesh and the spirit But the grosseness of these Assertions will appear in our Special Reasons against the Ceremonies in particular The Ninth Argument To administer unto the Church of God Sacraments that are not of Divine Institution is to sin To use divers of these Ceremonies viz. The Cross in Baptism the Ring in Marriage the Surplice c. is to administer unto the Church of God Sacraments that are not of Divine institution Ergo To use these Ceremonies is to sin THE Proposition is granted of all both Papist and Protestant The Assumption is thus proved All mystical bodily Rites and Signs of spiritual grace administred to the Church of God in his solemn Service to confirm Grace and that by him that represents the Person of Christ are Sacraments The greatest part of these Ceremonies in controversie are such and not of any divine Institution Ergo To use them is to administer Sacraments that are not of Divine Institution The Proposition is most evident and cannot be denied of any that bears the face of a Divine The Assumption is as evident only this one clause may be doubted of Whether these Ceremonies be administred to confirm Grace which is thus proved Those Ceremonies that are administred to edifie the soul and consciences are administred to confirm Grace These Ceremonies are administred to edifie the soul and conscience Ergo They are administred to confirm Grace The Proposition cannot with any colour be excepted against For to edifie the soul to confirm Grace in the soul and to feed the soul are equivalent The Sacrament of the Supper therefore being for this only

cause a Sacrament because it is a mystical Rite whereby the soul spiritually feedeth upon Christ i. e. is edified in Christ These being Mystical Rites also whereby the soul is edified which it cannot be but also by feeding upon Christ It must needs follow That these Ceremonies are Sacraments The Assumption is their own for when they are urged with this That all things must be done to edification They all hold with one consent That they do edifie The tenth Argument It is a sin against Christ the sole Head of the Church for any one of his Ministers especially in the administration of Divine things either by Word or Signs solemnly to profess and acknowledge a spiritual homage to an usurped spiritual authority in the Church But to use these controverted Ceremonies in manner and Form prescribed is even in the solemn Service of Christ by solemn Signs to acknowledge a spiritual homage to the spiritual authority of Lord Archbishops and Bishops which is usurped Ergo It is a sin to use these Ceremonies THE Proposition may not be gainsaid For all spiritual power usurped over the Churches of God is an Antichristian authority and to profess spiritual homage thereunto is to profess spritual homage unto Antichrist which must needs be a sin The Assumption hath two parts 1. That these Ceremonies are an acknowledging by solemn signs a spiritual Homage to the spiritual authority of Archbishops and Bishops Which is most evident for it having been proved before that they are meer Ecclesiastical Religious and spiritual Actions enjoyned by an Ecclesiastical and spiritual authority They must needs be Signs of spiritual homage to the same authority For either the doing of a Religious and spiritual Action in obedience to a spiritual authority is a Sign of spiritual homage or no Actions can be a Sign thereof As therefore a Serving man being a civil person upon the Bishops pleasure wearing a Tawny Coat and a Chain of Gold holding up his Train going bare-headed before him holding a Trencher at his Table lighting him to the house of Office dressing his meat rubbing his Horses c. doth by these Actions as it were by solemn Signs acknowledge Civil homage to him being a Civil Lord and Master So a Minister of the Gospel and a Pastor of a particular Congregation being by his Office a meer spiritual man being commanded by the Bishop as he is a spiritual Lord and Master over the Church of God to wear a Tipper a square Cap a Priests Gown and Cloak a Surplice to make Crosses upon childrens faces to put Rings on Brides fingers c. and all this in their Divine Service I say a Minister doth thereby give solemn Signs and Tokens of spiritual homage to their spiritual Lordships even as by preaching the Word and administration of Sacraments and Prayer he professeth by solemn Signs a spiritual homage to the spiritual authority of Christ If they shall peremptorily affirm That they are only Civil matters as some in high place have done to my self then this will follow of it Whereas the Bishops command now Ministers to wear a Surplice a Priests Cloak c. he may command them to wear Tawny Coats and livery Cloaks and in their courses to wait and at end upon him as serving Creatures For there is no more Civil Authority shewed in requiring the one than the other if the one as well as the other be Civil matters Neither will it help their cause that the Magistrate requireth these things to be done For the Magistrate commanding Ecclesiastical matters to be done his commandment doth no more make them Civil than his commanding the Sacraments and other parts of Divine Worship to be administred duly doth make them Civil matters For the ratification by Civil authority the Constitutions of Ecclesiastical authority doth no more make them Civil matters than the ratification and confirmation of Civil matters by Ecclesiastical authority doth make them Ecclesiastical or spiritual matters Though therefore there is none of us that stand our in these matters but have ever been content to yield unto their Lordships all C●vil honour such as is given to Barons Earls Dukes and Princes yet except they were Gods and Christs we have no reason to give spiritual homage unto them which is it that in very deed they require in these things And therefore hence it comes to pass That as they turn out of their Palaces those Servants that refuse their Liveries and to do their civil Services So as though they were Lords and Masters in the Church they turn the Ministers out of their Offices and shut them out of the Church if they refuse to wear their spiritual Liveries and to do them spiritual and religious Service But I come to the second part of the Assumption 2. That the authority of our Lord Archbishops and Bishops is an usurped authority This is sufficiently proved of late by Mai. Jacob in his I. Assertion by many reasons only because the weight of the Argument leaneth upon it I will use one Reason Those Officers and Rulers in the Church that make claim to be of Divine Institution challenge to themselves Apostolical authority and jurisdiction as the only Successors of the Apostles to sit only in Moses Chair To have sole power of the Keys To cut from the visible Church and receive again To have power of creating and displacing all other Ecclesiastical Officers To be the Universal Pastors of whole Dukedoms and Kingdoms under whom all other Pastors are as Curates c. And yet for all this are such as stand and are supported only by humane Traditions and Ceremonies such as a Civil Magistrate may without sin put out of the Church and such as the true Churches of God may renounce and yet continue the true Church as Antichristian Usurpers and spiritual Tyrants I say all such Officers and Rulers exercise a usurped authority in the Church But our Archbishops and Bishops are such Rulers and Officers as are aforesaid Ergo They execute a usurped power over the Church The Proposition may easily be justified For if inferiour Officers viz. Pastors of particular Congregations have had and may have firm continuance in the Church without these humane devises and inventions If the Magistrate cannot without sin put them out of the Church And if those can be no true Churches that renounce to have particular Pastors and Ministers over them it must much more hold in such Church-Officers and Rulers as these are if their authority be lawful and good For whilest the Apostles lived they needed not any humane Traditions and devices to support their authority the Magistrates that sought to put them down sinned with a high hand And that was no Church that renounced and disclaimed their Office Authority and Jurisdiction The Assumption is as easily justified For 1. They make claim and title to all those Prerogatives before rehearsed in the first part of the Proposition and unto more than that as shall be proved if it

that is to pray in the Church to put upon himself a white linen Garment The second part of the Assumption is this That they are injoined as more necessary for Christians to do than those Actions that by the Word of God are necessary to Salvation Which I prove by this collection of Reasons 1. If the whole Solemn Worship and Mystery of Jesus must stoop and yield to these And these must not stoop or yield to them 2. If those that will yield to these are dispensed with for omission of some duties that God requires of the Minister to be performed as necessary to Salvation and those that are willing to do all necessary Services tending to the Salvation of Man cannot be dispensed with for the omission of these but must be turned out of Christs Service 3. If those that refuse only conformity to these are worse than Idolatrous Papists 4. If the bare omission of these though upon tenderness of conscience be Sedition Schisme Disloyalty Rebellion a denial of the Kings Supremacy Anabaptistry Frenzy worthy imprisonment Banishment losse of Goods and Living 5. If all that professe these to be unlawfull are to be delivered up to Sathan and anathematized as men holding wicked and damnable Errours 6. If a man being in that Church ought not to be of it where these Ceremonies are omitted 7. If the bare omission of these wake a Minister by our Law more subject to deprivation and suspension than the commission of the foulest Crimes even Drunkenness Blasphemy gross Ignorance uncleanness 8. If her late Excellent Ma. Religion consisted in these I say If all these Assertions be true then are they enjoined as more necessary to be done then those Actions that by the Word of God are necessary to Salvation But all these Eight points are to be justified Ergo These Ceremonies are enjoyned as more necessary to be done than some Actions that are necessary to Salvation The Proposition cannot be gainsayed It being a Topick Axiom Cujus privatio est deterior illud ipsum est melius to wit The worse the Privation of a thing is the better the thing is For Example If blindness be worse than deafnesse Then is the positive habit of seeing better than that of hearing So if Non-conformity be worse than Drunkennesse Blasphemy Idolatry Filthiness of Body c. It must needs follow that Conformity is a more excellent thing in it self than Sobriety the true Worship of God the glorifying of the name of God than a chaste and honest life But all these are urged by the Word of God as necessary means to Salvation For the Holy Ghost saith No Murderer Adulterer Unclean person Idolater c. shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven If therefore Conformity be more urged by our Lawes than these and the Privation more punished If this be more strictly required of Christians yea of principal Christians even the Ministers of the Word than the other they must needs be urged more necessary to Salvation than the other For of the more excellency a Christian vertue is the more necessary to Salvation it is The Assumption in every part and parcel thereof may be justified by the practice and Assertions of our Adversaries not only privately but in publick For the 1. God must not by Canon be Worshipped solemnly in England except these be mingled with it though without them he might be never so well worshipped For the 2. Those that yield to these need not preach at all in our Church except they will No nor to do any other part of Divine Service in their own person if they will maintain a Curate that will keep the Ceremonial Law and fairly re●d or sing the Kings Service as they call it And yet if Preaching were not necessary to Salvation Paul that was above an Archbishop should not have been under a woe if he had not done it For no Minister of the Gospel is under a woe that performeth all services to the Churches of God that are necessary to Salvation Neither was Pauls Preaching a Reading of Homilies or of a Service Book For the 3. Nothing is more notorious then for us that make scruple of these things to be reputed worse than Papists One that is a great Judge in these causes Ecclesiastical affirmed it unto my self Another openly at Pauls Crosse in mine own hearing made no doubt but the Papists were in the Church but he made great doubt whether the Puritanes were And yet we are Puritanes for nothing else but for refusing Conformity to their Ceremonies For howsoever they slander us with many other gross imputations yet they cannot lay any thing to our charge but our conscience in this For all other matters concerning their own Estates and Dignities considering how desperate they are and unreformable we can be content to leave them to the Judgment of God who as it seems intendeth to glorifie himself by some other means than by their Conversion For the 4. Read Scottish Genevat The Survey Remonstrance c. And ye shall finde all this laid to their Charge Also their practice sufficiently proveth it for the Ministers that are of late suspended and deprived only refusing to use these Ceremonies bear their condemnation under these Names and Titles The 5. and 6. is proved by their own late Canons For if they be to be excommunicated ipso facto as holding damnable and wicked Errours that shall Profess any of these Ceremonies to be unlawfull a man ought not to acknowledge himself a member of any such Church as doth affectedly cast them out of Gods worship For for what Error a particular person is not to be reputed as a member of the Church but as a Heathen and Publican for the same a whole Church is not to be reputed a Church but a Synagogue of Satan The 7. may be justified by many Instances of many vile and impious persons of those kindes tolerated in the Ministry The 8. is proved by him that answers the Plea of the Innocent who saith That they that call in question the lawfulness of these Ceremonies call in question her late Majesties Religion which they could not do except at the least part of her Religion consisted in them Further If this doth not sufficiently prove the main Assumption let these Reasons following be wayed 1. If the Church be necessary to Salvation and if the Pillars of the Church be necessary to the Church and if the Lord Bishops be the Pillars of the Church and these or such like Cermonies be the main Supporters of Lord Bishops then are these Ceremonies in the judgment of the Prelates necessary to Salvation For no Church no Salvation no Pillar of the Church no Church No L. Bishop no Pillar of the Church No Ceremony no Lord Bishop Ergo No Ceremony of this kinde no Salvation 2. All Divine Constitutions binding conscience are necessary to Salvation But by the late Doctrine of the Prelates and others these Ceremonies being not unlawfull when they are

Nay rather It is likely that by the commandementt the scandal will be the greater Especially in regard of the 27 Canon where ministers are commanded under pain of suspension not wittingly to administer the sacrament to any but such as kneel May not simple and superstitious persons take occasion thus to argue Why should kneeling be thus urged by authority if the sacramental signes of the body and bloud of Christ be no more to be reverenced than water applyed in baptizing children Seeing that is also a sanctified signe of Christ his bloud that washeth away our sins and iniquities To conclude If kneeling in the very act of taking eating and drinking the sacramental bread and wine in the holy communion be 1 an institution of man 2 If it be the taking of of Gods name in vain when it is without all respect of reverence 3 If God be not honoured thereby except it be according to his will 4 If it swarve from the example of Christ his sitting and therefore deserveth no praise 4 If it be a provoking sin to reject the exemplary sitting of Christ whereby we shew our selves to be in communion with Christ and the reformed Churches and to retain kneeling which for bread-worship ought to be banished and whereby we seem to be in communion with Antichrist and his synagogue 6 If it obscureth that rejoycing familiaritie in and with Christ which the Lords supper signifieth 7 If the argument from Christ his example be made the stronger in that he sat of purpose 8 If the lawfulness of chusing a fitter time than the evening cannot justifie our rejecting Christ his exemplary sitting 9 If the bits of prayer joyned with the words of institution do make kneeling the more sinfull 10 If kneeling be not as indifferent as standing nor best beseeming the holy communion and the King must appoint nothing but by the hand of the Lord. 11 If we ought to abhor kneeling as we abhor the worshipping of Images Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation 12 If to scandalize be grievously to sin and kneeling be a shew of the greatest evils and withall the greatest scandal And 13 If it be a begging of the question to affirm kneeling to be indifferent and the Kings commandement so called doth rather increase than lessen scandal by kneeling It may be averred that kneeling in the very act of Taking eating and drinking the sacramental bread and wine in the holy communion cannot be without sin A SHORT TREATISE OF THE CROSSE in BAPTISME Contracted into this SYLLOGISME No religious use of a Popish Idol in Gods publique service is indifferent but utterly unlawfull But the use of the Cross in Baptisme is a religious use of a Popish Idol in Gods publique service Ergo. The use of the Cross in Baptism is not indifferent but utterly unlawfull Printed in the yeare 1660. Of the Signe of the Cross in Baptism The use of the Cross in Baptisme is not a thing indifferent but utterly unlawfull For this reason IT is against the Apostles precept 1. John 5.21 Babes keep your selves from Idolls Profe of the Major For the explanation whereof two things are to be scanned first what is meant by an Idol Secondly how far we are to keep our selves from the Idol An Idol is whatsoever besides God is worshipped with divine honour And though some restrain an Idol to a visible form because it is derived apo tou eidous yet as a learned writer observeth a Zanch de redemp lib. 1. cap. 17. Thes 5. They which will treat of all sorts of Idolatrie must needs take the name of an Idol in a larger signification By the name therefore of an Idoll is understood whatsoever besides the true God a man doth propose or frame to himselfe to be worshipped either simplie or in some respect Neither is this spoken without good reason for nothing is properly an Idol as it is a visible form but as it is religiously worshipped If therefore it be worshipped it may be an Idoll though it be no visible shape otherwise the worshipping of Angels and the souls of just men were no Idolatrie seeing these are invisible spirits and therefore the signe of the Cross If it be religously worshipped may prove an Idol though it be transiens quiddam a thing vanishing in the Ayre and no permanent form For as that learned Zanchy speaketh there is a two fold Idol the one real the other imaginary conceived only in the mind How far we to keep our are selves from an Idol For answer to the second question Men may keep themselves from Idols two wayes vix a cultu ab usu Idoli from the worship and from the use of the Idol For the first b 1 Cor. 10.15 10.13 S. Paul is so strict that he alloweth not the Christians so much as to be present in the Temple at the Idolatrous feasts though they did it without any internal opinion or external action of worshipping the Idol But John in this place doth not speak so much of the worship as the use of the Idoll for as Aug. in psa 113. well observeth the Apostle commandeth that they avoid not only the the worship of the Images but also the Images or Idols themselves Now the use of an Image or Idol may be civil or religious and both of them publick or private That an Image even such an Image as is Idolatrously worshipped may be made and retayned for civill respects of ornament story or such like we make no question though the tolerating of them in open and publick places even extra cultum be offensive and turn into a snare as Gideons Ephod was to his posteritie when it was abused to Idolatrie And upon this ground we yeild that though the Cross be apparently an Idoll yet in Princes Banners Coronations Coyn Crown or any other Civil respect it may have a lawfull use But that any thing of mans devising being worshipped as an Idol should be used religionis ergo and in the worship of God seemeth directly against S. Johns precept for how do I keep my self from the Idoll or how do I shew my zealous detestation of that filthy Idolatry when I retayn it and use it so honourably as in the Temple in the Sanctuary in the service of God Which interpretation of this place of S. John the Church of England c Homil against peril of Idolatry part 2. Exod. 23. 34 13 Deut. 7 5 Psa 16.4 doth on the warrant of Tertullian approve and commend And this poynt is further strengthened by the second commandement which forbiddeth not only to worship but even to make an Image or any similitude whatsoever to wit ad cultum or for religious use as according to the Scripture the best interpretors d Calvin insti lib. 1 cap. 11 Ursin cathe in exposit secundi precept Pet. Martyr loc com cla 2. cad 5. sect 22 Hooper in 2 precept Zanch. de redempt lib. 1. cap. 15. Bagington on the 2