Selected quad for the lemma: prayer_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prayer_n	book_n	common_a	prescribe_v	2,784	5	9.6616	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

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 Rom. 15.22 Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he Alloweth And Happy is he that alloweth not himself in that thing which he Condemneth LONDON Printed in the Year 1663. Question Whether Things Inexpedient or purely Indifferent such as our English Ceremonies are may be Imposed by men lawfully in the Worship of God Or if Imposed may lawfully be submitted assented and consented unto THis Grand Question hath three Heads of Dispute Of the Lawfulness 1. Of the Imposition of them in Worship 2. Of Submission to them as to Practise 3. Of the Declaration of an Vnfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer or by the Late Act of Vniformity in Doctrine Worship Discipline The Probleme hath respect only or chiefly to Worship and to the Decision of it I shall do these three things 1. Explain the Terms 2. Shew how far the Dissenting Parties agree 3. Undertake to prove the Negative in all the Particulars upon the Casuists own Principles and Concessions I. Explication of the Terms 1. Ceremonies I begin with this partly to distinguish between Ceremonies and Circumstances of Worship which commonly in this Dispute are confounded and partly to draw down the Question a Thesi as discoursed in general under the Notion of Things Inexpedient and purely Indifferent as it is warily done by the Rev. Casuist and others which affords them some Creep holes and Liberty of Evasion ad Hypothesin in special to our Ceremonies of which the Controversie is And the Definition of a Ceremony will clearly difference it from a Circumstance of Worship Every Ceremony may be considered as a circumstance but every circumstance in or of Worship is not a Ceremony A Ceremony is a circumstance and something more And a circumstance may be made a Ceremony ex gr The colour of a Beast offered in Sacrifice was a circumstance in it self But in the Heiser of Expiation the colour was specified and required to be Red and no other Here a circumstance is made more then naturally it was a Ceremony Say the same of Time Place Habit c. abstractedly considered they were but circumstances of Worship but determined or instituted by God were made Ceremonies as were the Jewish Festivals Temple Ephod c. As for the Definition of a Ceremony for a circumstance is nothing but an Adjunct of any other thing substance or action it is variously given by divers Divines but all for the most part agree in this even Heathens also in any Religion That a Ceremony in Religion is a sacred Rite inst●●uted for the honouring of God in his Publick Worship and indeed a part of external Worship The Casuist cals them Sacred mystical Ceremonies significant symbolical Rites Pag. 145. Others call them Ritus colendi Deum not only circumstantial Rites to attend the Worship but Rites of Worship or Ceremonial Ritual Worship that is parts of Worship for worship is divided into Moral and Ceremonial which Distinction is idle and vain if Ceremonies be not worship or parts of worship The Learned Casuist and others fearing this may fall foul upon our Ceremonies have confounded Ceremonies with circumstances or at least have equivocally used the words For Pag. 6. He speaks of circumstances properly so called as time place habit purely indifferent in a general consideration abstractedly from Inconveniency But he knowes that those circumstances determined by God were made also Ceremonies Institution Divine made this alteration in or gave this addition to them And will not humane Institution also of Sacred mystical symbolical significant Rites do the same That shall be tried hereafter But in another place Pag. 145. speaking of such Ceremonies he confounds or darkens the sense by a Distinction To this effect Ceremonies may be appointed to signifie the Favour of God or the Grace of the Sacraments or to be a means of receiving any Blessing from God and this is very dangerous if corrupt and superstitious men at any time rule the Church c. But if by Rights and Ceremonies we mean only the circumstances of Divine worship and by significancy that they are fitted to commend the Exercise with Order and Decency to express the Gravity and Devotion of the worshippers I cannot discover so much danger But 1. Should not men speak Properly in such a controversie as this distinguishing Ceremonies from circumstances Do any that would be understood call meer circumstances of Order c. Ceremonies Are not natural and civil circumstances so far significant to express gravity and devotion and tend to Edification and yet no sacred Ceremonies 2. Though our Ceremonies do not signifie immediately the favour of God or the Grace of the Sacraments yet do they signifie Duties on our part Purity Constancy Humility and unless they be idle and vain and for that cause be cast out of Worship they are intended to be a means of receiving some Blessing from God by a moral operation of those Graces and Duties intended to be signified in their Institution And this will easily multiply their number and in his Judgment render them dangerous till as he saith they become stench in the Nostrils of God and of all sober and stayd men As in the Church of Rome More of this hereafter 2. Inexpedient things This word had need to be explained for it may have a double sense 1. Privatively it is as much as not expedient and so is the same almost with those things the Casuist cals purely Indifferent of which in the next place and often cals them Inconvenient 2. Positively as directly contrary to expedient which signifies things useful helpful in worship or to the worship He gives us this notion of them when he saies p. 49. Ceremonies of the Church ought to be expedient not hurtful to the Church not troublesom to good Consciences not burdensom Things inexpedient therefore in worship are such as are hurtful to the worship or worshippers troublesom burdensom in a word any things that violate those 7 Rules required in the Imposition of Indifferent things in worship Cas 8. p. 33. And in this sense I think the Rev. Casuist doth or should understand the word Inexpedient as a degree worse then purely-indifferent which also for their uselesseness in worship are unlawfully imposed by the Church or Magistrate as we shall hear him assert anon But yet which is observable in the process of his Discourse he confounds things inexpedient with things meerly or privatively inconvenient or unfit The Instances are many Pag. 80. Inconveniency and inexpediency Pag. 81. Any thing unfit and Inconvenient Pag. 89. Inconvenience only Pag. 91. An Inexpedient indifferent thing Pag. 109. Somewhat inexpedient barely inexpedient Pag. 105. But under

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-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