Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	christian_a	church_n	profess_v	3,448	5	8.0722	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B11734	The vnreasonablenesse of the separation Made apparant, by an examination of Mr. Iohnsons pretended reasons, published an. 1608. Wherby hee laboureth to iustifie his schisme from the church assemblies of England.	Bradshaw, William, 1571-1618.; Ames, William, 1576-1633. Manudicition for Mr. Robinson.	1614 (1614)	STC 3532; ESTC S113892	55,662	116

onely that which they iudge lawfull being as ready as any of the seperatiō to suffer rather then practis approue or assent vnto any thing which they judge vnlawfull and vnwarrantable Obj. But suppose they had some other lawfull calling yet they also retaining this vnlawfull calling of the Prelats this were but to halt betweene two opinions and to set their threshould by Gods threshoulds and their posts by Gods posts Ans How can such bee said to retaine the vnlawfull calling of the Prelats which protest against the same professe that they preach not by that but by another calling But if ther bee any such that exercise their Ministery by another calling besids that of the Prelats they therin refuse obeidience and conformitie to what soever in the Prelats calling they judge vnlawfull and so doe not joyne an vnlawfull and a lawfull calling together but reject the corruptions retaine the good and supplie the defect with another calling and this is the worste that can bee made of it But this is not to joyne mans Treshoulds to Gods c. but clean contrary to seperate them as much as may bee And how can they bee saide to halt betweene two opinions when so far onely as the truth in their iudgement and opinion is established by publique lawes they imbrace it acknowledging their subjection to the same lawes and contrarily wher they judge that the law swerves from the truth they take another course But still hee begs this which is the maine controversie that our Ministers haue receaued an vnlawfull calling from the Prelates In the next place hee labors to proue by reasons that howsoever some pretend another calling yet it is evident that the execute all the duties of their Ministeries by virtue of their calling taken from their Prelats But what of that This will stand him in noe steed vnlesse it bee given him of almes That every Ministery executed by virtue of a calling taken from the Prelats is an vnlawfull and an Antichristian Ministerie For proue it hee cannot And if wee should except this also bee given him That our Ministery is executed ONLY by virtue of a calling taken from the Prelats and not by any other power or virtue besids taken either from God or man But let vs see his reasons 1. They cannot stand publique Ministers except they receaue of the Prelats the Priesthood and Deaconry a foresaid 2. They are excommunicated ipso facto if they affirme that they whoe are made Bishops Deacons and Priests are not lawfully made vntill thie haue some other calling 3. The people haue not the liberty of the Churches of Christ nor power in this their estate to chose and submit vnto the true and lawfull Ministery appointed by Christ 4. Without and against the peoples consent they are by the Prelats a lone silenced depriued and degraded from exercisiing any Ministery in those Assemblies Theis reasons doe not proue That they exercise their ministery ONLY by virtue of a calling receaved frō the Prelats and therfore whether true or fals are nothing to the purpose and vnworthy any further Answer After this hee fetcheth another Rode out and laboureth to proue that our Ministers ought not to suffer themselues to bee silenced and deposed from their publique Ministery no not by lawfull Magistrats which is not onely fals and seditious as shall appeare afterwarde but idle and impertinent to the present controversie for if it were true that Ministers ought not to doe in this case as ours doe yet this doth not argue any corruption in the calling of their Ministery but a weacknesse onely in the Persons that execute it in yealding further from their owne right then they neede to doe But let vs consider the perticulers that hee objecteth against our Ministers in this respect Obj. The Apostles being true Ministers of Christ would not at the commandement of lawfull Magistrats leaue to preach much lesse should true Ministers at the appointement of vsurping Prelats Nether did the Apostles make their imediate calling from God the ground of their refusall but this That they ought to obey God rather then man which is a duty required of all Ministers and Christians Ans 1. Wher hee distinguisheth between silencing depriving by Prelats and lawfull Magistrats it is in our case wher the Prelats doe it by Authority and commission from lawfull Magistrats a distinction without a difference 2. Though the Apostles did not assigne their imidiate calling from God as the ground of their refusall in so many letters and sillables yet that which they doe assigne is by implication and in effect the same with it for it is as much as if they had said God himselfe hath imposed this calling vpon vs and not man therfore except wee should rather obey man then God wee may not forbeare this office which hee hath imposed vpon vs. For opposing the obeidience of God to the obeidience of man hee therin pleads a calling from God and not from man otherwise if they had receaved a calling from man there had bene incongruitie in the answer considering that in common sence and reason they ought so far forth to obey men forbidding them to exercise a calling as they exercise the same by virtue of that calling els by this reason A Minister should not ceas to preach vpon the commandemēt of the Church that hath chosen him but should be bound to giue them also the same answer which they Apostles gaue which were absurd So that by this grosse conceit of M. Iohnsons their should bee no power in any sort of men whomsoever to depose a Minister from his Ministery but that notwithstāding any comandement of Church or State the Minister is to continue in his Ministery But for the further answer of this his ignorant conceit plainly tending to sedition wee are to know That though the Apostles Prophets and Euangelists preached publiquely where they were not hindred by open violence And did not nor might not leaue their Ministery vpon any humain Authoritie and commandement whatsoever because they did not enter into or exercise the same vpon the will and pleasure of any man whatsoever yet they never erected and planted publique Churches and Ministeries in the face of the Magistrate whether they would or noe or in dispite of them But such in respect of the eye of the Magistrat were as private and invisible as might bee Neither were some of the Apostles onely forbidden so as others should bee suffered to preach the same Ghospel in their places but the vtter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly intended in the silencing of them But our Churches wherof wee are Ministers are noe private secreat Assemblies such as hide themselues from the face of a persecuting Magistrat and State But are publique professing their worship doing their religion in the face of the Magistrate and State yea and by his contenance authoritie and protection And wee are set over those Churches not onely by a calling of