Several Treatises of Worship and Ceremonies, Treatise 1
SEVERAL TREATISES OF Worſhip & 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. 1604.
Printed for Cambridge and Oxford, and to be ſold in Weſtminſter Hall, and Pauls Church-Yard, 1660.
A conſideration of certain Poſitions Archiepiſcopal.
1. Religion cannot ſtand without ſome Ceremonies, as kneeling, &c.
REligion is the fear of God, to ſerve him preciſely according to his Word, and therefore it is called Godlineſs, Iſa. 29.13. Acts 2.5. & 10.2. & 26.5. 2 Tim 3.5. Heb. 9.1. Jam. 1.27. As by Superſtition his Majeſty meaneth, when one reſtrains himſelf to any other Rule in the Service of God than is warranted by the Word. Bas. dor. p. 15. Which is therefore called Will-Worſhip. Col. 2.21, 23.
Howſoever it be Religion, out of the fear and love of God, to keep his Commandements as well of the Second as Firſt Table, yet the conſcionable obſerving of the Commandments contained in the firſt Table is, by an excellency, called Religion; And whereas man cannot judge of ſuch obſerving the firſt and third Commandments, therefore is he eſteemed Religions, who maketh conſcience of the ſecond and fourth Commandements; In ſanctifying the Sabbath with ſuch an outward manner of Worſhip, as is not after mans invention, but according to Gods Word.
So that by Religion, in this poſition is meant the outward (eſpecially publique) worſhip of God: Religion being put for Worſhip, becauſe the fear of God to ſerve him preciſely according to his Word, is, of all the actions of men, eſpecially to be manifeſt in worſhipping God, who will be ſanctified in all them that come near him, if they offer ſtrange fire, Lev. 10.3. Religion (then) being put for outward Worſhip, the Poſition is granted. For indeed the outward worſhip of God, doth conſiſt only of Ceremonies, that is, outward demonſtrations of inward Worſhip. But, how doth this follow, The outward Worſhip of God cannot ſtand without ſome Ceremonies, Ergo, It cannot ſtand without the Ceremonies in queſtion. As though Religion had no better ground than Dioceſan Biſhops have, according to this Maxim: No Ceremony, no Biſhop.
But more clearly to perceive the truth, it is to be conſidered, that ſome Ceremonies by nature, or general cuſtome demonſtrate inward worſhip, as not only ſigns thereof, but effects alſo. Other do the ſame, as ſigns only by Inſtitution. By which inſtituted Ceremonie; God is not worſhipped except they be by himſelf preſcribed; For as no fire could make any Sacrifice a ſavour of reſt to God, but that which came from God, Lev. 9.24. and 10.1, 2. So no warrant can make outward worſhip, or any part thereof acceptable to God, but that which cometh from God, Mat. 15.9.
Therefore it doth not follow, that becauſe kneeling in Prayer is lawful, therefore the Ceremonies in queſtion (namely the Surplice) be ſo too. For 1. Nature teacheth us to manifeſt inward reverence by outward geſtures. 2. General cuſtom amongſt us maketh kneeling the moſt ſolemn ſign of the greateſt reverence. 3. In true Worſhippers of God kneeling is not only a ſign of inward Worſhip, but an effect alſo. 4. It is warranted by the Word. And 5. It is not appropriated to the outward Worſhip of God: For men do uſually, and may lawfully, demonſtrate their inward reverencing of men by kneeling. Whereas the Ceremonies in queſtion (namely che Surplice) do not demonſtrate inward Worſhip by Nature: For then all religious Worſhippers would (at leaſt) have a diſpoſition to uſe the Surplice at all times, and in all places. (2.) None can affirm, that general cuſtome maketh a Surplice a ſign of inward Worſhip. Becauſe the publike uſe of it is moſtwhat omitted or enforced, and there is no ſuch matter as the private uſe thereof, and by private perſons. In both which conſiderations it may be (3) denied to be an effect of inward Worſhip, and the rather if it cannot be proved to be as effect of the obedience of faith to ſome commandment of God, preſcribing the ſame. Which (4.) cannot be; Seeing in all the New Teſtament there is neither Precept, nor Example, nor other matter of neceſſary concluſion warranting the ſame. And yet (5.) It is appropriated to the Service of God, and therefore ſuperſtitious, and not religious, eſpecially being urged as it is.
2. Ceremonies are lawful, when their doctrine is lawful.
If by Doctrine of Ceremonies be meant their ſignification, then the Theſis is denied: For then other Popiſh Ceremonies may be reſtored. As ſetting up of Candles, to ſignifie that the works of all Chriſtians, Phil. 2.15. eſpecially Miniſters, Mat. 5.14, 16. ſhould ſhine before men; and yet it is pronounced in the third Injunction to be deviſed by mans Phantaſie, beſides Scripture, and therefore Superſtitious. And unleavened bread in the Lords Supper may ſignifie Sincerity and truth, 1 Cor. 5.8. And yet by the Communion Book (Rubrick after the Communion, Sect. 5.) it is reformed, To take away the Superſtition, which any perſon hath, or might have: But many have, and may have Superſtition in Ceremonies retained.
If the meaning of the Poſition be this, Ceremonies are lawful, when they are warranted by lawful Doctrine, it is to be granted; but then the Hypotheſis muſt be denied. For it is petitio principii to affirm; that Ceremonies in queſtion are ſo warranted.
3. The Doctrine of Ceremonies is part of the Goſpel.
This Poſition is true, but only according to the diſtinction of the Doctrine of Ceremonies by inſtitution. Which Doctrine is either affirmative, ſhewing what Ceremonies by inſtitution are to be uſed, and thoſe be only the two Sacraments, which are indeed Seales, and not only Ceremonies. Or Negative, teaching what Ceremonies are not to be uſed, viz. Neither Ceremonies of the Jews, nor traditions of Elders, Joh. 4.20, 21, 23. Neither Carnal Rites, Gal. 3.3. Heb. 9.10. Nor commandments of men, Col. 2.22.
Which negative Doctrine of Ceremonies is indeed according to the truth of the Goſpel, Gal. 2.3, 5, 12, 14. and that is contrary to the Ceremonial Law of Moſes. Becauſe that Law ſtood in carnal Rites, Heb. 9.10, 11. That is, Ceremonies inſtituted to inſtruct and direct the outward man unto the inward Service of God, and therefore was that Law called, A carnal Commandment, Heb. 7.16. and thoſe Ceremonies accounted Rudiments of the World, Gal. 4.3. So that after faith (that is, the Goſpel) came, that Law, and the Ceremonies thereof gave place, as being leſs perfect, a childiſh Paedagogy and beggarly Rudiments, 1 Cor. 13.10, 11. Gal. 3.25. and 4.2, 3, 9. In reſpect of the more perfect Word of Chriſt, Col. 3.16. 2 Cor. 3.13.17, 18. Who is that Meſſias, who when he came, did tell us all things concerning the outward worſhip of God. Joh. 4.19, 20, 25, 26. But Chriſt never told us the Ceremonies in queſtion.
Therefore if the Negative Doctrine againſt Jewiſh Ceremonies inſtituted by God to the purpoſes aforeſaid, be part of the Goſpell, or Word of Chriſt, much more is the Negative Doctrine againſt Ceremonies inſtituted by man to the ſame purpoſes, without warrant of the word, part of the Goſpel, Col. 2.20, 22, 23. Galat. 1.6, 7, 8, 10. And the rather, becauſe the Word ſaith, That they, who burthen the Church with Ordinances of the world, which are Traditions after the Commandemens and Doctrines of men, do not hold Christ the he…d, Col. 2.19, 20, 22. and 3.1. and oppoſing ſuch Traditions to the Commandements of God, and Faith of Jeſus, maketh them part of the Beaſts Mark, Revel. 14.9, 12. Hereunto accordeth that which is affirmed in the BOOK of Common-Prayer, in the Preface of Ceremonies, viz. Christ his Goſpell is not a Ceremonial Law (as much of Moſes was) but it is a Religion to ſerve God, not in bondage of the Figure or ſhadow, but in the freedome of ſpirit.
4. Miniſters refuſing Conformity are Schiſmaticks.
This word Schiſme, according to the now received uſe thereof in the Church, ſignifieth A voluntary rending of the Church only for matters of the outward Government therof. So that, Schiſmaticks are by Dr. Bancroft, in his Notes before his Sermon at Pauls Croſs, an. 1588. defined as out of Auguſtine, to be ſuch, as retaining with us the true Faith, ſeperate themſelves, from Orders and Ceremonies. In which ſence though Browniſts (ſo called) may be deemed Schiſmaticks, yet cannot Miniſters refuſing only to conforme, be ſo accompted: Becauſe, their Deprivation or Suſpenſion notwithſtanſting, they do not ſeperate themſelves from the Church, neither do they (indeed) forſake the Miniſtry of the Goſpel, which they deſire (before all worldly benefits whatſoever) to execute with a good Conſcience, but are thruſt from it; and therefore, If men, driven by Excommunication out of the Church be not Schiſmatiques, much leſſe Miniſters driven by deprivation or ſuſpenſion only from the Execution of their Miniſtry.
This word Schiſme is ſometimes taken for any diſſention in the Church, whereby the Peace, but not the Unity thereof is broken. 1 Cor. 11.18. In which ſenſe they are to be called, Schiſmaticks, who are ſpecially to be blamed for ſuch Diſſention. But if all the Prelates cannot give one Argument ſoundly concluded from the word to prove, That the Ceremonies, in queſtion may be preſcribed by authority, and yielded unto by the Miniſtry, without ſin, then are they Schiſmaticks, according to the judgment of the Apoſtle, who beſeecheth the Brethren, To mark them diligently, who cauſe Diviſion and Offences, beſides the Doctrine which they have learned, and to avoid them. For they that are ſuch, ſerve not the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, but their own bellies, and with fair ſpeech and flattering deceive the hearts of the ſimple, Rom. 16.17, 18. By which Anſwer, Proteſtants do ſufficiently juſtifie their Separation from the Papiſts: Much more may Miniſters juſtifie their refuſing to Conforme, yet without Separation. But when any ſuch Argument ſhall be given (which hath not yet been heard of) then are Miniſters refuſing Conformity to be deemed Schiſmaticks. In mean while this Poſition is to be taken for Petitio Principii.
FINIS.