Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	ecclesiastical_a	judge_n	1,591	5	7.2679	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45157	A second discourse about re-ordination being an answer to two or three books come out against this subject, in behalf of the many concern'd at this season, who for the sake of their ministry, and upon necessity, do yield to it, in defence of their submission / by John Humfrey, min. ; together, with his testimony, which from the good hand of the Lord, is laid upon himself, to bear, in this generation, against the evil, and to prevent, or repress (as much as by him may be possible) the danger, of the imposition.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1662 (1662)	Wing H3709; ESTC R9881	127,714	152

expedient to us and obliging and obliging without some other greater reason because expedient to us for the sake of the Gospel To advance this yet farther There be some learned men do give much here to the Magistrate Grotius saies Mr. Baxter commendeth the saying of Musculus that would have no Minister question his Call that being qualified hath the Christian Magistrates Commission I observe Grotius himself does allow Confirmation of a Minister distinctly to the Magistrate and Dr. Seaman hath quoted Gerrhard to the same purpose I might I think adde some●hing out of Peter Martyr Chemnitius and most others Now if these great men held that Ordination made a Minister the M●gistrate could have no part assigned him at all about that business but if Ordination only declares a mans Ministry If it be Christ alone gives us our Office and man only procures us an outward Authority for repute and reception as Ministers in the Church where we are called which I take it is true then as I doe not doubt but that upon supposition there were no Ministers in a place to ordain the Magistrates allowance is good So do I propose it to be considered whether the Magistrates appointing who shall be Ordainers Presbyters or Bishops may not still determine the validity by either in the Church where he is S●preme and consequently though our Orders before were of force now the pleasure of our Law-givers is otherwise whether we may not be re-ordained upon that accourt This l●o●er because there may be some consciences perha●s that can act upon such a ground as this when they cannot otherwise though I intend to lay no fur●her stress upon it I return then to my Opposer who p. 67 68. is hunting some of my ex●ressions but should do well to take the substance with them I am in my last Proposition there proposing such Scriptures which concern the fift Commandment Our Superiours are to be obeyed in all things 1 Pet 2.13 Col. ● 22 This thing is what they require and impose u●on us and that I take therefore to be a plain ground for our submission There is a late book of some tender and learned Di●ines concerning the interest of words in prayer who when they have told us p. 72. that what we call the Church of England is nothing else than a company of men by a Civil Power made Bishops and called to advise the State in things concerning Religion do add p. 73. We again say far be it from us to oppose Civil Authority either exercised by Lay-persons or Ecclesiastical persons We further s●y we are bound to obey the Civil magistrate in all things in things lawful actually in things unlawful by suffering I do note this passage as that which may do good to many and tend to healing when the rest of that book may make them but very sore to wit that though they should have received such prejudicate and hard thoughts of the Government by Bishops as if they were anti-C●ristian against their Covenant or the like yet may they see here how or under what notion they may obey them for all that to wit as the King is Supreme both in causes Ecclesiastical and Civil the Bishops I perceive are taken with them for Magistrates appointed under him in the one as the Judges Justices are in the other so they allow obedience to them is to other Superiours so long as they require only things lawful and that our matter in hand is such it suffices I count that it is no where forbidden in the light of Nature or Scripture directly or consequentially and therefore it is lawful for which I have quoted that known Text Where there is no Law there is no transgression In his rebus sayes Austin de qu bus nihil certi statuit Scriptura instituta majorum pro lege tenenda sunt That which can be supposed to be replied to this is only that it is like the Law forbids the repetition of such an Ordinance and therefore I do clear this by other instances The first was of Marriage which hath been ordinarily by the Magistrate and the Minister both in these times I m● se●f have had a comple come to me after they were long married and had a child and I made no question to marry them again for the satisfaction of their consciences The like apprehensions therefore I have perceived in me about this matter I see indeed some others are ready to question perhaps whether such who have done thus have done lawfully but why not I pray as well as contract themselves and give their mutual consent fi●st and be married after Such a consent de proesenti no doubt does pon●re fundamentum relation it so that they are Man and Wife coram Deo thereby and what does the solemnity after but declare them so coram hominibus and give them that account legally in the world Now if this testification be not sufficient but men will account them as unmarried unless it be by a Minister nay suppose the Laws of any place would not allow it otherwise who would advise but they should do it again Nay this is not enough who would advise that they rather part quite leave one another and be no more Man and Wife rather than be married again Such is the case and question of ours in hand for ought I can see and no less in this matter of Re-ordination For the form he objects I answer the impropriety of some words in s●ch a case as to the one will not argue and infer the same I hope altogether in the other whereof it suffices that I have spoken before already A second instance I have is of the Oaths of Alleagiance and Supremacy These are taken at our Degrees at our Orders and upon particular occasions as the Law and Magistrate requires and yet cid I never hear any plead against this that it would be taking an Ordinance in vain Holy Bradford the Martyr tells his Judges that he had taken the same Oath against the Pope six times Unto this my Opponent sayes nothing and indeed no●hing can be said If that only argument of his varied in words be good that a man cannot be Ordained twice because the end of Ordination is attained as one Administration then a man may not have either of these Oaths twice administred to him because the end to wit the obliging a man to the contents is attained at once and so the Laws and Magistrate that require this on sundry occasions do require the taking Gods Name in vain Let my Author come off here if he can The swearing by Gods Name we know is a solemn Ordinance part of Gods Worshi Deut. 10.20 and if this may be repeated upon the forms of Courts be order of the Law command of our Superiours let this be satisfaction likewise to us that what is in vain as to one end is not so to another that what is in vain in regard of ones self is not in