Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	good_a	law_n	transgression_n	4,529	5	10.4346	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26703	Cheirothesia tou presbyteriou, or, A letter to a friend tending to prove I. that valid ordination ought not to be repeated, II. that ordination by presbyters is valid : with an appendix in which some brief animadversions are made upon a lately published discourse of M. John Humfrey, concerning re-ordination / by R.A., a lover of truth and peace.	R. A. (Richard Alleine), 1611-1681.; Humfrey, John, 1621-1719. Question of re-ordination.	1661 (1661)	Wing A984; ESTC R3821	66,750	87

in calling such persons to be ordained by a Bishop they did not call them to Reordination but to Ordination their former Ordination being not only irregular and non-Canonical but also null And had they not fled to this they must of necessity have been brought to repeat the Ordinations that during the distractions were made by Bishops they being not done without manifold irregularities as to time or place or some other such circumstances I prove thirdly that he who is ordained with a valid ordination ought not to be again reordained because by submitting to such reordination he doth take an Ordinance of God in vain You are not of the number of those who deny Ordination to be an Ordinance of God if you be I must turn you over to D. Seaman M. Lyford the London Ministers who have largely discussed that question and irrefragably proved that Ordination is so necessary that no man can ordinarily without breach of Gods Law enter the Ministry without it You will rather say that by being reordained a man doth not contract the guilt of taking an Ordinance of God in vain but if that be your answer I thus assault you To take an Ordinance of God either for no end or for no such end as God hath appointed it unto is to take an Ordinance of God in vain but to be reordained after preceding valid Ordination is to take an Ordinance of God either to no end or to no such end as he hath appointed it unto Ergo. If either Proposition need confirmation it is the minor but of the truth of that you will not long doubt if you will but a little consider what the end of Ordination is and that cannot better be gathered then from the definitions that are usually given of Ordination they are to this purpose Ordination is an act whereby in the Name of Christ meet persons are separate and set apart to the work and office of the Ministry Now I ask when you were ordained were you thus separate and set apart or not If you were not then you were not ordained if you were what use serves your reordination unto Perhaps you 'l say by that means you shall procure institution from the Bishops and be the more acceptable to the people But I pray you where do you find any I will not say precept but allowance of God to take Ordination to satisfie the humour of unreasonable men what example in Antiquity to incourage you to such a compliance Friend think on 't impartially was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle speaks of conveyed to you by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery if it was not you have much to answer for taking upon you to command the people to recieve you as one of Christs Embassadors they might have told you that they were as much Embassadors as your self if it was do you think it would be any thing less then ludere sacris to submit to another examination and to have the Bishop and his Chaplains pray that you may now receive that gift I will conclude this first head of my discourse when I have first minded you that it is not long since through the iniquity of the times some Episcopally ordained were constrained to have their residence either in the Gallican or Belgick Churches where there is no Ordination but by Presbyters would these Divines have been content to be reordained after the mode of those Churches before they had been permitted to receive the double honour due to them as Ministers if they would not as I presume they would not why do they require that from others which they would not have been content others should have required of them If you should plead on their behalf that their Ordination was valid so is not Ordination by Presbyters that I shall prove to be false and Popish by and by If secondly you should alledge that our Prelatists would not require reordination from Divines ordained beyond the Seas because they were not in a capacity to receive Ordination from a Bishop but so were we that lived in England and therefore deserve to be looked upon and dealt with as Laicks till we have repented of our Schisme and Heresie and that there 's no better way to manifest our repentance then by humbling our selves and receiving orders from them Unto this allegation I have two things to say 1. Supposing but not granting that it was Schisme for our young Divines to take Orders from Presbyters when as with some little cost and trouble they might have received them from some Bishop I say that mens being Schismaticks doth not invalidate or make null either the Orders which they give or receive nor hath the Church of God ever been wont to punish Schisme by compelling the Schismatick to receive new Orders For this you may please to read Gisber Voetius Desper causa Papat lib. 2. sec 2. cap. 13 14. Nay nor do our Episcoparians call such as were ordained by Episcopal hands to reordination though sundry of them have fallen off from their Government and joyned in with Presbyterians which yet they must have done if Schisme do evacuate and annihilate their Orders if by being ordained by Presbyters we fell into Schisme repentance and the bloud of Christ must take off the guilt of that sin not reordination and paying fees to the Bishop or his Officers But secondly I am still so blind as not to see that it was any Schisme to be ordained by Presbyters for all Schisme is sin and all sin is a transgression of some good and righteous Law but there was no transgression of any good righteous Law in receiving orders from Presbyters for if so then either of a divine or humane Law not of a divine for there is not a Law of God requiring us not to be ordained by any but a Bishop not of humane Law For 1. I cannot find any Law of the Nation enacting that all Ordinations shall be made by a Bishop and his Presbyters and no otherwayes 2. If there had been any such Law it might be questioned whether it could oblige the conscience in such times of confusion as we were fallen into 3. If a man had been ordained by a Bishop in those daies he could not have got any Ordination every way argeeable to the Laws of the Land Our Bishops tell us that the Canons of 1603. are Law if they be so they themselves during the late distractions did transgress them with a witness What if I should further add that seeing our Bishops had clogged Ordination with Subscription to things unnecessary disputable to our apprehension sinful they are the Schismaticks who enjoyn such Subscriptions not we who refuse them Several weighty Arguments to prove this might be transcribed out of Mr. Hales his Tract of Schisme a Discourse so solid and yet become so scarce that if in stead of being re-ordained your self you would get that reprinted it would much oblige me But it is time to