Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	bishop_n	church_n	presbyter_n	3,490	5	10.5633	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29237	The XXIV cases concerning things indifferent in religious worship considered, or, The resolver better resolved by his own principles, and non-conformists more confirmed also, the grand case touching ministers conformity, with the double supplement thereunto annexed, briefly discussed.	Bagshaw, Edward, 1629-1671.; Bagshaw, Edward, 1629-1671. Great question concerning things indifferent in religious worship briefly stated.	1663 (1663)	Wing B427; ESTC R12512	53,178	68

Nor against the Lawes of the Land 3. Nor against the Priviledges of Parliament 4. Nor against the liberties of the subjects 5. Nor against any former obligations God hath the first Obligation upon us by our Baptism and Christian Profession I say still each in his Place and Calling To contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints Jude v. 3. And consequently to endeavour to remove and root out all Doctrine Worship Discipline or Government contrary thereunto I shall not so much distrust the Understanding of any Reader much less the Judgment of the Learned Casuist as that they will deny the former Consequences upon my borrowed or begged Supposition or that they are not easily able if but willing to make Application thereof to all the Particulars named Much more might have been said to many things but I am warned by anothers Harm Not to fly too near the Candle lest I be scorched by the Flame 5. The Conclusion Concerning the Lawfulness of Re-Ordination c. There is one thing and but one thing he saies more in the Condition of Law required of Ministers by the Act and that is Re-Ordination of such as were Ordained by Presbyters only and Ordination of others by Bishops And both these are much scrupled by some men of hopeful and very useful parts The latter sort because they believing Bishops as such and as a distinct Order from Presbyters to be unlawful dare not come under unauthorized hands The former because they judge their Ordination valid by Presbyters and dare no more be re-ordained then re-baptized And indeed if their Ordination by Presbyters be invalid all their Ministerial Acts by vertue of that Ordination are null as some Prelates have told them and if not they themselves yet those baptized by them must be re-baptized or else they are scarce Christians which seems very harsh Doctrine from them who as thy cry out of Anabaptists for Re-baptization so in some Cases allow a Woman to baptize Let them consider it and I attend him He uses many Reasons to perswade the first sort though nothing to the second not to stick at Re-ordination As 1. Considering that Liberty is not denied them to keep their own sense whether Ordination by Presbyters is valid or not This is as if the Children of Anabaptists being forced by Law to be baptized should perswade their Parents to suffer it considering that Liberty is not denied them to keep their own sense whether this Baptism is valid or not and they may rebaptize them when at Age. Does an Ordinance of God depend upon mens sense thereof Or may men dally with it in this manner and not take his Name in vain However some Bishops tell them their first Ordination with all the Acts thereof are null and bid them repent of all Now if their Ordination be judged by them to be valid they in repeating of it offend against the Word the Ordainers and those Churches that have no Bishops as making theirs no Ministers no Churches If they judge it not valid they offend if but ignorantly against the Institution of Christ who hath placed Ordination in a Presbytery Bishops themselves being first Ordained by such even B. Timothy if a B. he was as Hierome with the Scripture hath proved and others follow him therein 2. The Act he saies makes it self no judge of the Ordination by Presbyters in forreign Churches In words and directly it does not but implicitly and consequentially it does Else why doth it so strictly so rigorously require Ordination by a Bishop But as making the former null and invalid to any Ministerial Acts Yea some Prelatical men stick not to affirm those Churches to be none that want Bishops 3. There is no other way saies he to exercise their Ministry in this Church by Law or to entitle them to a Charge or the Profits thereof How true this is appeares in that many Priests ordained by Popish Bishops are admitted to all those without Re-ordination It is a sad thing that a Presbytery of pious Learned Orthodox men should not find the same favour with Protestants But if Ordination by Presbyters be Evangelical it should seem reasonable it should be made Legal No Law of man ought to countermand the Institutions of Jesus Christ And what is this but a kind of Independant Principle on the one side who allow and require Re-ordination of their Ministers such as it is as oft as they remove from one congregation to another And on the other side a kind of Anabaptistical Fancy practise who allow require rebaptization of those baptized by our episcopa Ministers And lastly it seems a too near Complyance with Rome where they re-ordain those of ours that convert or apostate to them though ordained by our Bishops as our Bishops re-ordain those ordained by Presbyters This Retaliation may seem just and reasonable at least from God 4. To save himself a further Labour he refers us to Mr. Humphries Justification of his own and others Re-ordination Alas poor Soul A worse Perswasive could scarce have been brought whose Tracts are judged by some very weak and by others sufficiently confuted and which is more strongly really contradicted by a most vehement Abjuration of his 2d Ordination by a Bishop Concerning his own solemn Profession and Subscription ex animo That he hath not used one Argument but what he judges convincing c. I for my part am in Charity bound and willing to believe him For upon his Supposition I should easily be convinced my self that is if the Government Liturgy Ceremonies of this Church be in all and every thing true and lawful which are indeed all concerned and supposed in the Declarations but not by him at all proved but confessedly here taken for granted I should be ready to profess Conformity to them notwithstanding many Inconveniences in them But when his Opposites take many things to be unlawful and he presumes to take them all for lawful he may perhaps perswade some that are of his mind which few are but cannot in reason hope to make them his Proselytes who judge any thing in them unlawful There are some other things here repeated which have been spoken to elsewhere and I pass them by I have one humble request to make to the Rev. Casuist and I have done That at his next leisure he will be pleased to give some few new Arguments for the old we think are insufficient and sufficiently answered to prove I say not all and every thing in the Declarations to be necessary that would be too hard a Task but to prove the things controverted the Government Liturgie Ceremonies to be Lawful according to the Word of God and I shall engage my self and what little Credit I have either to give him a fair and full Answer with Meekness and Modesty or if I cannot to yield my self his Proselyte FINIS

clear Reason 3. The reason of their Prohibition may seem for I assert it not to be Moral and the same in all As 1. Things offered to Idols the eating of them especially in the Idol Temples seems to be two waies Scandalous first to the Idolaters to confirm them in their Idolatry by Christians Communion and communicating with them and next to encourage weak Christians to do the like with a doubting Conscience thus the Apostle argues against it 1 Cor. 8.10 Or else let the Rev. Cas give a Reason why it is unlawful to be present at and communicate of the Romish Mass 2. The not eating of things strangled and bloud is founded say some upon a Moral Reason because the Life is in the Bloud or is the Bloud Gen. 9.4 Lev. 17.14 and that is perpetually so 3. As for Fornication that say most is prohibited by a Moral Law the Seventh Commandment Now I shall leave this Case also with the Rev. Casuist to be resolved at his leisure However in the Interim I shall say these two things 1. That in some Cases those things besides Fornication are still obliging as to abstain from eating things offered to Idols in their Temples if a Christian should live amongst them for the Reasons given above and to abstain from things strangled and bloud if the Jewes lived with us if it might further their Conversion 2. That our Case is not the same with theirs For we abstain not from things meerly Indifferent or Inconvenient but from things in our Jugment and his also Inexpedient that is sinful in their use in Worship I shall not need now to say any thing to the Testimonies of Calvin Pet. Martry or Zanchy they are all satisfied by what is said and I hasten to conclude this Case I hope the Rev. Cas will now find his Scriptures answered better and himself better resolved by his own Principles as my self and I believe many others are more confirmed in our Inconformity by a prudent and sorious pondering of the Premises lent us by himself 3. Concerning the making of the first Declaration In managing the whole Discourse of the Grand Case of Conformity the Rev. Author deales not so fairly and fully as was expected nor under Favour so ingenuously as is desired For he carries on the Business so precariously so limitedly as if he cared not or intended not to satisfie all his Readers but to wave the main part of his work or leave it half undone as may thus appear 1. Pag. 2 4 12. He professes that he treats only with such as could conform were it not for one or both the Declarations which I believe for I have spoken with divers of them not one of a hundred of Non-conformers would have done And he speakes not one word to satisfie those who have other Reasons for their Inconformity 2. He professes also that he takes for granted that the Government Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church are all good and lawful waving the Necessity of them and esteemed such by them that refuse conformity p. 138. I confess I took the lawfulness of these in themselves for granted When as he knowes they have all been controverted more or less well nigh these last hundred years and are yet subjudice 3. As in his former Cases so here all along he takes also for granted both that Inconvenient and Inexpedient are both one and also that the Ceremonies and other things controverted are but inconvenient and not sinful Now it is an easie thing to make and resolve any Cases if a man may have liberty to suppose what he pleases to build as a Foundation his Resolutions upon And if he will give me the like liberty to suppose all those three named to be unlawful or but to have something in them untrue or unlawful how easily can I dissolve all his Resolutions and resolve and determine the contrary to his Opinion And this Advantage we have on our side that as he I say not cannot hath not proved all things in them lawful so if but one Particular in each of them yea in the whole Book as now established be either untrue or unlawful no conscientious man can make those Declarations without palpable Dissimulation if not something worse Had the Rev. Cas taken but half so much paines to prove them and all things in them to be true and lawful as he hath to perswade us to conform by supposing them lawful he might have had more Proselytes than now he can expect But I attend his motion His first Case with the Resolution thereof concernes not those at all that go upon other grounds for their Inconformity For as some of them never made the former Subscription nor took any Oath to the Ordinary so others of them have seeing just cause as they believe repented of their rash undertakings in their younger years through Ignorance and inconsideration And as the Objections by him started are not by these owned so nor do they think the Solutions by him given will be satisfactory to those for whom they are intended For the first Objection that though they could read the Expressions yet they do not so heartily like and approve them as seems to be required he resolves it thus The Object of your assent and consent is not the words but things not every word but every thing c. A poor elusion or rather delusion of his Readers For as the things are expressed in the words so the very words for it was sollicitously worded are a part of the all and every thing contained in the Book from which if a man should vary to use his own apprehensions and expressions he should quickly hear of it as is said with both his eares And to say we cannot heartily like and approve them as seems required and yet to give an unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing therein seems to me I say not Hypocrisie a contradiction as I say I cannot heartily approve them and yet I do heartily approve them For what is done unfeignedly is I take it done heartily ex animo His Distinction of absolute and comparative approbation applyed to the Second Objection will hardly please any Party 1. Not the Nonconformers for if their ground of refusal be good viz. the unlawfulness of but one thing therein they can neither absolutely nor comparatively assent and consent thereunto A comparative Approbation of a sinful thing is it self sinful 2. Not those he intends to perswade for an unfeigned assent to the Truth and Consent to the Goodness of all and every thing in that Book is as full and absolute an Approbation in their apprehension as can be given to the Book of God the Holy Scripture it self 3. Not to the Bishops or Prelates for it is supposed that their design in procuring and promoting the Act was to get the Assent and Consent and that unfeigned of all the Clergy that is their Approbation of the Truth and Goodness of all and every

thing in the Books of Prayer and Ordination of their Order of Episcopacy above Presbyters c. which was formerly attempted but miscarried in the caetera Oath And to say you do not absolutely approve of every thing in the Book as that you would chuse above all and as best in it self as it will hardly please them so it seems to put a slurre as upon the Book as not the best which yet was requisite in the publick Worship of God so upon the Composers of it as if something in it were scarcely true or good but at least very Inconvenient and to be yielded to only comparatively to prevent some greater Inconveniencies all which if they pleased they could have removed Lastly It will hardly satisfie the Imposers whose Design is supposed to be Unanimity as well as Uniformity a full and unfeigned Approbation of all and every thing contained in that Bulk or Body of Religion as now it is come forth and established for they three or four times besides this Declaration require in the Act an Approbation of all and every thing as if they intended to explain what they mean by those milder words of Assent and Consent as the R. Casuist cals them p. 8. viz. a full Approbation of all But he addes Had the word free been in the Act in stead of unfeigned as some male-contents out of a vile Design do buzze up and down there had been more colour of the former Objection To let pass the harshness of his words in this Paragraph the rather because he hath been so modest and moderate in his former Cases To the rest I should say Is not unfeigned as much or rather more than free Surely what I unfeignedly assent to as true and consent unfeignedly to as good and lawful I do it freely or grossely dissemble And may we not freely chuse things that we believe are true and good for themselves and of our own accord I believe many do so Assent and Consent to all and every thing as freely as unfeignedly and desire no other no better as thinking these the best And I suppose the Composers if not the Imposers expect this free choyce and will hardly thank them that do it for other Reasons as no sure friends to their Cause But the last Answer will perfectly remove any such scruple for ever Let the Act interpret it self The words foregoing are these Every Minister shall declare his unfeigned Assent and Consent to the use of all things in the said Book c. not simply to all things but to all things with respect to their use to the use of all things in the said Book As fine and nice a Cobweb Lawn as can be spun but transparent and fit only to catch weaker flies but easily broken by the stronger For. 1. He told us before p. 7. the Object of our Assent was not words but things not every word but every thing Now Assent as was said long ago is an Act of the Understanding whose Object is Truth Consent is an Act of the Will whose Object is Goodnesse If then I assent and consent to all and every thing contained in that Book do I not simply assent and consent to all things in it as true and good 2. Can any Conscientious man assent and consent to the use of all and every thing in the Book unless he be first convinced of the Truth and Goodness of all and every thing to be used And if the use had been intended only in this first Declaration it was superfluous to put it again in the second 3. The Intention of the Imposers may be collected rather from the Declaration it self than from the foregoing words They shall declare their Assent and Consent to the use of all in this manner by declaring their Assent and Consent to all and every thing in the Book their uniformity in practise by their unanimity in Judgment For this in reason must be supposed or they could not in any reason require the other to make men practise against their judgment And if this was not their design why did they so suddenly change the expression first to the use and now to all and every thing 4. And why do they afterwards so often use those words He shall declare his Approbation his Approbation of all c. which must be meant of the Truth and Goodness of all as well as of the use Lastly this nice distinction of use and things cannot be applied to all and every thing in this first Declaration For every Minister though he assent and consent to the use of all in the Book of Common-Prayer yet he cannot properly assent and consent to the use of all and every thing contained in the Book of Ordination for no Minister under a Bishop can Ordain a Presbyter or Deacon It must then necessarily be taken for their Assent and Consent to the Truth and Goodness of the Way of Ordination by Bishops and of the three Orders of Church Officers c. And thus much of the first Declaration 4. Concerning the making of the Second Declaration In the Subscription or second Declaration there are three main things that fall into consideration 1. The taking up Armes against the King 2. Corformity to the Liturgy 3. The Solemn League and Covenant Of which we know not what is best and safest whether to speak or be silent If we speak not very warily we run upon a rock of Law if silent we may be suspected to betray our own Innocence To the two first we shall say very little to the last a little more 1. To the first we humbly cr●ve leave to say this little They that refuse to make this Declaration do not stick at this but are ready to profess That as they never did take up Arms against the King which was constantly denied by the Parliament in all their Declarations and Protestations and they think in the Covenant it self but for the King So they hold it utterly unlawful for Subjects so to do and hold it as now by Law it is determined a Trayterous Position so to assert which they were taught before to abhor both by Scripture by the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy and by the Solemn Covenant it self 2. The second of Conforming to the Practise of the Liturgy as little is said here by the Casuist so it is sufficiently discussed and resolved according to the judgment of Non-conformists in the former Case The Result whereof is this If there be any thing any one thing in it either untrue or unlawful they dare not declare their unfeigned Assent and Consent to it or the practise of it 3. That of the Covenant is the Mountain to be removed not by the Faith but by the strength and skill of the Learned Casuist And this is acknowledged by the Refusers of this Declaration to be the main Business of contest and that not in the whole but in one particle thereof in the second Article as will appear In three