Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	article_n	church_n	homily_n	2,467	5	11.7893	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45161	The two steps of a nonconformist minister made by him, in order to the obtaining his liberty of preaching in publick : together with an appendix about coming to church in respect to the people / published for a testimony in his generation by a lover of sincerity and peace.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1684 (1684)	Wing H3714; ESTC R32356	18,526	38

and through the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ no less than ours is who procured that Law for them and all the World as well as for Abraham and the Jews under the Old and for us under the New Testament The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and authority in controversies of Faith Art 20. The Church I think hath Power to Decree Rites or Ceremonies that is some Rites not any whatsoever provided she uses due caution not placing matter of Worship or Necessity much less Merit or Justification in them nor scandalizing her Members thereby and not imposing them when they need not as conditions of her Communion Yet if she does so and the Imposition be unlawful if those Rites or Ceremonies be not sinful in themselves we cannot I apprehend refuse our submission for all that so long as the Supream Power confirms the same Again the Church hath authority in controversies of Faith not to make any new Articles thereof for that were Antichristian but upon mature debate to judge what points are de fide or necessary according to the Scripture to be received and what not Only this authority when she hath done is Ministerial or Declarative not Constitutive of duty as Christ's the Lawgiver's is and as Princes or the Supream Magistrates in his Sphear is so also The Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them having first obtained leave under our broad Seal so to do and we approving their said Ordinances says the King in his Declaration before these Articles Whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained and approved by common authority ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear to do the like as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren Art 34. I assent to this Article as parallel with the last mentioned and I gain-say not but the open breakers of the Churches Traditions or Ceremonies may be reproved for the sake of others Yet in regard that some of these Traditions or Ceremonies may be repugnant to the Word of God in the judgment of some men which are not to others I apprehend both that the reasons of such ought to be heard and that we cannot condemn any for acting so among others as to have always a care never to do any thing against Conscience for Company The second Book of Homilies the several titles whereof we have joyned under this Article doth contain a godly and wholsome Doctrine and necessary for these times as doth the former book of Homilies which were set forth in the time of Edward the sixth and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently and distinctly that they may be understanded of the people Art 35. I receive this Article on an implicite faith and I desire that may serve because I have not read over the Homilies and cannot assent any otherwise therefore till I have The book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons lately set forth in the time of Edward the sixth and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering neither hath it any thing that of it self is superstitious and ungodly Art 36. I understand by Superstition and Ungodliness two perticular Species of that which is sinful I dare not say that there is nothing at all in the whole Book of Consecration and Orders here mentioned that is sinful The Article does not say so but that there is not any thing in it that of it self is Superstitious or Ungodly that is sinful upon the account of either of these particular species of sin And to this I think I may assent at least after I have added this caution that these Articles were agreed upon in the year 1562. and new published by King James and that this book therefore must be understood of the old book in his time and not of the book as it is of late altered with the new Preface put to it wherein there is one thing especially which I pass here nameless too too hard for my Approbation Having thus given my Explication with what I premised before it it is fit I make yet some little farther apology for this liberty There is a threefold Interpretation according to Suarez in his excellent Book De Legibus An Authentick Usual and Doctoral I think he calls it Doctrinal interpretation I have explained two of the terms in the beginning and the third needs no explanation and I need not it These Articles of the Church I suppose to be subscribed generally with this presumption that we may use a Doctoral Interpretation but the question indeed may be whether a man can strictly in point of Conscience give his assent or subscribe to any Article unless he believe it to be true in the Authentick sense or meaning of the Imposers I must confess I have had such an impression on my mind that unless I believe an Article in that sense which I take to be the sense of the majority of the Convocation that passed the Articles I could not choose but scruple the declaring my assent to it for fear of a Lye and yet do I find that an Usher and Hammond the Arminians and Calvinists do subscribe the same Articles without making any scruple about their diversity of interpretation I find also that in the Council of Trent the Doctors differ'd in most points yet as soon as they were but contrived into such words as might salve the contrary opinions they passed them as unanimous in the Council writing after one against another and citing the Council for them on both sides There is this difference therefore seems reasonable to be made between a Law and a Doctrinal Thesis for establishing consent in the matter of Religion That when the one must be taken still in the Authentick the other is to be construed in a Doctoral interpretation I have intimated it before I must now give my reason which is also said but not applied It is because the authority of a Law-giver is Magisterial or Imperative that constitutes duty and his will is uncontroulable but the Pastors authority or Convent of Bishops and Presbyters for agreement in points of Doctrine is Ministerial and Declarative only I may use the same terms I hope I have before and nauseate no body obliging not nisi sententia non errante or no farther than they be agreeable to Gods Word and while every one does judge of that there must be a diversity of interpretation it being not equal that so many Articles should be subscribed by all but upon that supposition I never could be satisfied therefore with that coming off which is proposed by some great