Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	flesh_n	soul_n	word_n	5,587	5	4.4264	3	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

Gideon gave to Israel Right so the cross used by the Ancients to shew that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified being meerely civil and yet expressing a most Christian resolution having been abused yea continuing to be worshipped both in Image and in sign it seemeth that this filth hath made it unfit on any pretence of restoring it to his ancient use to be annexed to the holy things of the Sanctuary especially while there are so many Papists that superstitiously abuse it among us Now for the religious use of the cross by the Ancients it was never free from sin and superstition as afterwards is shewed and if it were yet being an humane Ordinance and now not onely abused to Idolatry but becoming it self a most abominable Idoll no water can cleanse it nor any pretext purifie it for the holy service of Jehovah But in very deed to speak as the truth is the cross is retained among us with opinion very superstitious and erronious for in the late Canons Canon 30. it is said that the child c is thereby dedicated unto the service of him that died on the cross What is this but to equal Mans Ordinance with Gods and to ascribe that unto the cross Tertullian de baptiz cap 7 8 Euseb lib 6. which is due unto Baptism a conceit fitter for ignorant Papists then learned Christians to consent unto Neither do we use it as the Ancients did for Cyprian Augustin Chrysostom and others m it is apparent that those times did consecrate the Elements therewith and did not cross the childs fore-head at all but referred that unto the Bishops confirmation so that our crossing the Infants fore-head and not the Element of Baptism is a meere novelty without any warrant of that antiquity Cap 24 Innocint ep st cap. 3 Rab. made inst c eric cap. 3. Du●and de ritib. Eccle. lib 1. cap. 20. Our use of the cross Novelty of some 60 years standing neither will that place of Tertullian De resurrectione carnis prove the contrary The flesh is washed that the soul may be purged the flesh is annoynted that the soul may be consecrated the flesh is signed that the soul may be guarded the flesh is shadowed by the Imposition of hands that the soul may be by the spirit inlightned the flesh doth feed on the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be filled and fatted of God In which words he joyning together divers ceremonies of the Christians doth indeed mention the signing of the faithful but it may as well be referred to confirmation expressed by imposition of hands as to Baptism understood by the washing of the body and that one better reason for it is more than probable that the sign of the cross was not yet used in Baptism As for Martial his Epistle are justly suspected seeing Justin Martyr in defens ad Antoninum Tertul. de Baptismo de corona militis do describe the form of Baptism used in those times and yet make no mention of the cross therein which in all likelihood they would not have omitted if it had been used therein especially Tertullian who in that place speaketh of the cross as used out of Baptism in the ordinary blessing of themselves Objection But the sign of the cross is not used in Baptism but when Baptism is ended Answer ●f you take Baptism only for that dipping and sprinkling of the party it is true and so none of the popish additions whereby they defile that holy Sacrament are in Baptism for those which Bellarmine accompanie Baptism are not impious but if you take Baptism as indeed we do for the administration of the Sacrament then both the prayers before the prayers after the actions after the dipping do all indifferently belong to one and the self same thing yea it is all one continual action of the Administration of the Sacrament Sure it is that it must be said to be either in Baptism or out of Baptism or no where if it be out of Baptism how is it by common consent of all said to be the sign of the cross in Baptisme Object The sign of the cross is very ancient Answer So are many other Popish Traditions And if on that ground we are to retain it why do we not give the baptized milk and hony accordingly Why do we not bring offerings for the dead For Tertullian the first of the Fathers that ever mentioned the cross doth establish these and the sign of the cross by one and the self same warranty Besides if upon the Fathers Tradition we use the cross then must we receive and use it as they have delivered it unto us that is with opinion of vertue and efficacy not only in the act of blessing our selves and in the expelling of Devils but even in the consecration of the blessed Sacrament For the first Tertullian is witnesse De coron mil. saying At every passage at every setting forward at every coming in and going out at putting on of our cloaths shoes c. We stamp our fore-head with the sign of the cross For chasing of Devils Jerom councelleth Demetrius to use the cross saying Epistola ad Demetriam Lib. 4. cap. 17. And with often crossing guard thy fore-head that the destroyer of Aegypt find no place in thee L●●tantius saith Christs followers do by the sign of the cross shut out the unclean spirit Chrysostom in Psalm 109. The cross guardeth the mind it taketh revenge on the Devil it cureth the diseases of the soul c. But these superstitions are small in regard of that efficacy which in the Sacraments antiquity ascribed unto the cross for Cyprian being the ancientest that maketh mention of the cross in Baptism speaking of it Whose virtue perfecteth all Sacraments without which sign nothing is holy nor any consecration taketh effect Cyprian de pasione and whosoever are the Ministers of the Sacraments whatsoever hands do dip or anoint the comers to Baptism out of whatsoever mouth the sacred word do preceed the Authority of Operation doth by the sign of the cross make effectuall Sacraments It were superfluous to rehearse the rest But hereby it is evident that the religious use of the cross was even at the first sinful and superstitious neither can it be shewed that ever it was used by the Fathers religionis ergô sine admixta superstitione and this invention did no sooner creep into the Sacrament but it drew unto it self such superstitious conceit of efficacy and necessity that without it the means which God appointed for the consecration of the Elements seemed over-weak Lately in Surry a child rebaptized because the cross was omitted yea unavailable according as some e amongst us account not their children lawfully baptized yea will have them rebaptized if the cross have been omitted out of which may be observed first how dangerous a thing it is to bring any humane invention into the service of God sith in the very pure age of the Church it was punished with such a spiritual curse of horrible superstition Secondly though at this time popery was not hatched yet the mystery of iniquity was then a working and the beginning as it were of the whorish fornications was found even in the Fathers times so that as worshipping of Angels in Paules time Colosi 2.18 prayers and oblations for the dead in Tertullians time be rightly counted Popish and Antichristian though as yet that monster was not born So this and other ceremonies ratified by the popish canons and constitutions may well be taken for Popish and Antichristian even in the Fathers times seeing they then made away for the beast and since have received further impiety and authority from him Esay 52.11 wherefore to conclude as Isay exhorteth Gods people to keep themselves from the rites and pollutions of the heathen saying depart depart ye go out from them and touch no unclean thing So the spirit in the same manner chargeth the Church not to meddle with the corruptions of Antichristian Babylon but go out of her my people saith he that ye may not be partaker of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues Apoca. 18.4 The fear of which curse doth keep us from all the superstitious and Idolatrous ceremonies of that whorish Synagogue

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 A Treatise of Divine Worship Tending to prove that the Ceremonies imposed upon the Ministers of the Gospel in England in present Controversie are in their use unlawful CHAP. I. Of Divine Worship in general DIvine Worship is any action or service that is immediatly and directly performed unto God himself whether the true God or a false whether commanded by Divine Authority imposed by humane or assumed upon our own heads and pleasures For in this latitude of sense is Divine Worship to be conceived that it may comprehend under it both true and false Worship 2. Though all Actions and Services that Man performeth unto Man are not parts of Civil Worship yet every Action and Service that Man performeth directly to God is a part of Divine Worship and ought meerly to concern his own glory It being impossible to imagine how the Creature should perform any service or do any action to the Creator himself but Worship For the ground of Worship is the sence of some excellent eminency of goodness in the Party worshipped and defect and inability to do an answerable good to a good received in the party worshipping for we need not to worship God if we could be as good to him as he is to us and therefore except we should mock him because receiving all good from him we are not able to do the least good unto him all that we can do is to worship him that is to glorifie him above all things and debase our selves before him as nothing in his presence 3. All special things therefore done in the Service and Worship of God is Worship and a part of that honour that is done unto him And whatsoever special thing done in Divine Service is not a special honour and worship unto God must needs be a dishonour and abuse of his Majesty who requireth nothing but worship at our hands and unto whom we cannot possibly do any other good 4. If therefore a man shall do any special Action in the Service of God of which there is no use out of the same and that Action so done bring no special honour to God the doing of it is a prophanation of the Name of God For all special Actions done in the Service of God must either bring special honour to God or else they must needs dishonour him 5. Divine Worship is Internal only or External also Internal worship is meerly spiritual and performed only within the temple of mans heart of which none are witnesses but God and a mans own conscience All the inward motions of the heart directed unto God are parts of this VVorship as Faith Hope Confidence Love Fear and Joy in God c. which are all of them divers acts and parts of Inward worship in every one of which God is honoured All which spring from the apprehension of our own wants and Gods infinite excellency and goodness towards us We need not proceed any further in handling of this Worship it nothing appertaineth to our present purpose 6. External Worship is an expressing and setting forth of the Internal by outward signs and rites By which as by certain outward bodily shadows and colours the spiritual and Inward Worship of God is made visible and sensible to others CHAP. II. Of Ceremonies in

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

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