Selected quad for the lemma: prayer_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prayer_n	church_n	form_n	impose_v	2,118	5	9.7547	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39389	To en archy: or, An exercitation upon a momentous question in divinity, and case of conscience viz. whether it be lawfull for any person to act contrary to the opinion of his own consicence, formed from arguments that to him appear very probable, though not necessary or demonstrative. Where the opinions of the papists, Vasquez, Sanches, Azonius, &c. are shewed, as also the opinions of some Protestants, viz. Mr. Hooker, Bp Sanderson, Dr. Fulwood, &c. and compared with the opinions of others; the negative part of the question maintained; the unreasonableness of the popish opinions, and some Protestants, for blind obedience, detected; and many other things discoursed. By a Protestant.	Protestant.; Collinges, John, 1623-1690, attributed name.	1675 (1675)	Wing E718; Wing C5314_CANCELLED; ESTC R214929	62,722	96

Prayer to be imposed upon all Ministers in Mr. Cottons Discourse against Set Forms Against the Ceremonies in Dr. Ames his Fresh Suit In the Dispute against English Ceremonies in Mr. Bradshaw's Books Against Re●rdination in R. A. his Letter to a Friend Printed 1661. and A Serious Review of Presbyters Re-ordination by Bishops Printed about the same time As also in Altare Damascenum upon the two first Heads Besides many other Books they could never yet see Answered What shall these Men do You hear what they say you say nothing but rail at them and conclude them peevish wilful ungovernable without Answering an Argument but taking it for granted as a late Triumphant Author that they think all Lawful onely Scruple offending their Party Will you tell them as you do p. 61 62 63. That Melior est conditio possidentis He that is in possession hath the bettter Interest and that he is possessed of his Right in Commanding is unquestionable and therefore they are bound in Conscience to stand to his Command till it be evinced that his command is of a thing that is sinful or above the Sphear of his Authority Alas they will presently grant it you with this difference They will tell you they will not say their Superiour Commands things which are apparently and demonstrably sinful But the things Commanded are to them sinful being such as their Consciences so Judge and that from Arguments which appear to them highly probable enough to beget in them a Moral certainty You gag them at the Press what you can but they have found times from thence to tell you what those Arguments are what is their Answer You are a Company of peevish factious Schismatical Fellows Is this Righteous dealing Or had not these kind of Answerers think you need of some more Righteousness than their own works to justifie them They will presently grant That the Superiour is possessed of an unquestionable Right to Command in such things as God by his Word hath not forbidden either by some particular word or by some general Law requiring every one to use their Power derived from God for good for Edification not for Destruction to use it so as not to destroy Souls for whom Christ dyed And to all such Commands they profess themselves ready to stand And further when you have proved that either the Word of God or right Reason hath put the Superiour in a possession of a larger Right than this is They will tell you That the King of Spain is in a possession too of a Right to Command so was Queen Mary here in England who Commanded many things she or her Bishops or both which Cranmer Hooper Ridley Latimer c. in their Consciences judged unlawful how was it Evinced to use your term to those and other good Men that what these their Superiours Commanded was unlawful The Bishops affirmed them Lawful so that according to the Modern Divinity the unlawfulness of them could be but the Sufferers private Opinion and that against the Church Did these Men sin in not doing the things required Did they dye as Fools dye Or did they do their Duty in chusing to Suffer rather than Act If the latter why may not others do the same Will you say because those things to the Martyrs were evinced unlawful We ask how were they evinced Did they plead Scriptures against those things and do not the Non-Conformists do so now Had they not a far greater appearance of Scripture for Transubstantiation in that Text This is my Body than any can bring for a Liturgy a Surplis c. Will you say the Scriptures now pleaded are wrested and mis-understood Would not Bonner and Gardiner say so then Shall the Magistrate now determine betwixt the Bishops and dissenters And had not Queen Mary the same Right Or at least she and her Parliament See where you are Doctor Who shall Judge whether your opposite Objections be Scruples Doubts or Opinions Shall the Supreme Magistrate or the Bishops Had not Queen Mary and her Bishops the same Right And then all those Holy Men dyed as the Papists say as Rebels and Traytors and those things were all suffered in vain You have no way to avoid this unless you will say Queen Mary and her Bishops were no Superiours for you know Quod convenit alicui quâ tali convenit omni tali But it may be when this Doctor writes next he will think himself Obliged to speak strictly and not confound a Doubting Scrupulous an Opining Conscience Any School-man or Casuist will shew him the difference betwixt them § 18. The last we shall take Notice of speaking in this Case is one who calls himself Ireneus Freeman in a Treatise stiled by him The Reasonableness of Divine Service p. 33. he telleth us right That there are but a few Actions but are disputable and In disputable Actions we must Obey our Superiours Commands This is now right down that is There are very few Actions but let our own Consciences say what they will to us against them if our Superiours Command us to do them we must do them Or say what they will for them if the Magistrate Command us to forbear them we must forbear them In p. 15. Those he had to deal with having said that it was not clear to them That it was Lawful for all Persons at all times to limit themselves in Praycr by any stinted Forms This acute Author roundly tells them The Lawfulness of an Action is not clear to him that doubteth of its Lawfulness not being certain that the Action is Lawful nor yet certain that it is unlawful But yet such a Man is bound to do the Action when Commanded by the Magistrate The Reason is Because it is certain the Magistrate is to be Obeyed Commanding Lawful things But it is uncertain whether the thing be unlawful it is safer to Obey doubtingly than to disobey doubtingly Now in these words there is either a Notorious Cheat or else a Potion of Divinity which taken down will bring up all our Protestant Religion If there be a Cheat it lyes in those words Doubting and Certain A Conscience may be said to be doubting either strictly or largely Strictly Bishop Sanderson tells us what a doubting Conscience is when the Mind is pendulous the Scales hang even a Man hath as much to say for the Lawfulness of an Action as for the unlawfulness Largely One that is meerly Jealous Scrupulous or Suspitious of an Action may be said to doubt 2. One that is not fully perswaded a thing is unlawful but upon Arguments which he judgeth very probable he believeth it unlawful Again a Man may be certain of a thing by a certainty of Faith believing a Divine Revelation or by a certainty of Sense or arising from Demonstration 2. A Man may be Morally certain and of most things we have no other certainty than this latter If this Author had not designed to cheat his Reader he would have spoken distinctly

our private Opinion it utterly swerveth from that which i● right he understood Divinity a little better And this we think was his last Resolve in the Case If his first Conclusion reach not an Opining Conscience which we are sure it doth if probable Arguments be opposed to Revelation and Demonstrations for then a Moral certainty makes but an Opinion yet we weare sure the Second doth As to both he determines Acting unlawful which is all we contend for § 15. But there is another passage more usually quoted in this Case in a Sermon which that Reverend and Learned man hath on Rom. 14.23 which we will consider though not half so valuable as this 1. Because but in a Sermon where he spake to it collaterally 2. And in a Sermon Preached in his Younger Years But neither can we find any thing there to their purpose for having there determined concerning a Conscience fully Resolved about the unlawfulness of a thing viz. That a Man cannot without sin do the thing so by his Conscience judged unlawful He cometh in the next place to treat of a Mans Duty under a doubting Conscience where we desire the Reader to consider that he either comprehendeth the Opining Conscience under the Notion of the Conscience fully Resolved as one would think by that passage § 25. This is now where the Conscience apparently inclineth one way but say the Scales hang even c. Or else he quite leaps over the Opining Conscience as not so much concerned in his Text. § 25. He manifestly speaks not of it but of such a Conscience as he expresseth himself where the Scales hang even and a Man cannot resolve which way he should take And again § 29. Answering the Objection I cannot do it it is against my Conscience He saith It is not against thy Conscience for doubting is properly an indifferent motion to either part of a Contradiction when the Mind is held in suspence betwixt two ways uncertain which to take when the Scales hang even as I said before in aequilibro This manfiestly is not an Opining Conscience but perfectè dubia a Conscience which perfectly doubteth Now under such a Complexion of Conscience as to some matter of Practice he determineth That if the Liberty of the Agent be determined by a Superiour Power A Man is bound in Conscience to do the thing Commanded This is a very disputable point in Matters where the Soul is concerned but be it so or so it nothing concerns us in the present Debate That Conscience which we are speaking of is not a Conscience hanging betwixt the two contradictory parts of a Practical Proposition but upon Arguments which appear to it very probable though not demonstrative strongly inclining to judge one part unlawful and that the part Commanded and Morally certain of it The Question is Whether this Man can do it or no because he is not as Hooker saith fully and settledly perswaded or because as others say it is not plainly and demonstratively and apparently evil tending to debauch Men in their apprehensions of the God-head c. To this Dr. Sanderson either saith nothing or speaks quite contrary for indeed here the Conscience is repugnant in which Case like a good Protestant Divine he determines quite contrary to our Neotericks § 29. That no Repect nor Circumstance whatsoever can free such an Action from sin § 16. We find a late Casui●t speaking as honestly It is Mr. Fulwood whom the Author of Toleration not to be abused declares himself so much pleased with that he assures us he is much of his Mind and it is in one of the three Books he is in such Love with Entituled Some necessary and seasonable Cases 〈◊〉 126. though he adviseth That in such Cases where things are Commanded which the Inferiour Judgeth unlawful Men should suspect their private Judgments and read and search still yet at last saith he if the thing required appear to thee sinful still Thou art bound to the Peace of thy own Conscience Gods Vice-gerent within thee and thou mayest not Obey How come we then to be Felons de se and Sacrilegious Stealing our selves out of the Ministry when this is plainly the case Nothing could be spoken more truly or like a Divine and it speaks the more honesty in Mr. Fulwood because in saying this he spake against himself kicking down all the good Milk which his Conformable Brethren thought he had given in those three Books § 17. We find another Recent Doctor in a Pamphlet called Pulpit Conceptions Popular deceptions nibbling and but nibbling at this most important Question p. 61. He forms an Objection thus But suppose I should Scruple my Obedience thinking my Superiours impositions to be against the Command of God Why in this case I am Obliged to lay aside my Scruples and to bring such thoughts into Captivity to the Obedience of Christ who hath commanded me to Obey those that have the Rule over me Pulpit Concept p. 61. Right But had we been any of us at this Doctors Elbow who thus dictates we would have told him Doctors this none will deny you but they are not Scruples that are in our way but great Massie stones called Dialectick Arguments yea almost Mill-stones that is we have not o●ly a Jealousie or Suspition or Fear that the thing m●y 〈◊〉 unlawful But we are as sure or it as we can be of any th●●● that it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said in Scripture nor the Object of o●● Sense nor demonstrable from certain and necessary causes Good Doctor speak to the purpose may we Act against the Judgment of our Consciences made up from these or no The Men you deal with in that Boo●●●e many of them Men of great Learning and Reason whose Arguments none in in their wits will think you have Answered in that Book What shall be done in this case Doctor Speak to the point Is there nothing to do but up and ride your pace Where 's the Stirrup we see the Whip but we see not that Scrupulous Doctor you know it is a little stone a thing without the Foot much like an Ipse dixit for an Argument to prove an action Lawful if a Man indeed hath such a thing in his shooe vexing his Foot it is an easie thing for him to pull it out and case himself and run presently But suppose a Man hath the Gout or some intrinsick Humour which Lameth him is it no more than to say up and Run Good Doctor he must be cured first I hope The Divines which you have to deal with have such impediments intrinsick Arguments which maketh the unlawfulness of the things required very probable to them If you will call them Scruples they cannot help that but they are no more of Kin to ●hem than a grain of Sand is to a Mill-stone They are ready 〈◊〉 Argue the Case with you at any fair Barr of any Reformed Church in Europe You have their Arguments Against Set Forms of