Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	form_n	prayer_n	use_v	4,815	5	5.9954	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56811	The conformist's third plea for the nonconformists argued from the king's declaration concerning ecclesiastical affairs : grounded upon the approved doctrine and confirmed by the authorities of many eminent fathers and writers of the Church of England / by the author of the two former pleas.	Pearse, Edward, 1631-1694.	1682 (1682)	Wing P981; ESTC R11263	89,227	94

Perswasions bearing date March 25 in the thirteenth Year of his Reign We in the Accomplishment of our said Will and Intent do authorize you to advise upon and review the said Book of common-Common-Prayer comparing it with the most ancient Liturgies of the purest Times to take to your serious Consideration the several Directions Rules Forms of Prayer and things in the Book of common-Common-Prayer contained to advise consult upon and about the same and the several Objections and Exceptions which shall now be raised against the same and if occasion be to make such reasonable and necessary Alterations Corrections and Amendments therein as shall be agreed upon to be needful and expedient for the giving Satisfaction to tender Consciences c. The Bishops c. answer On the contrary we judg That if the Liturgy should be altered as is there required not only a Multitude but the Generality of the soberest and most Loyal Children of the Church of England would justly be offended since such an Alteration would be a virtual Concession that this Liturgy was an intolerable Burthen to tender Consciences a direct Cause of Schism a superstitious Usage upon which Pretences it is here desired to be altered which would at once justify all those who have obstinately separated from it as the only pious tender-conscienced Men and condemn all those that have adhered to it in conscience of their Duty and Loyalty with the loss and hazards of their Estates and Fortunes as Men superstitious schismatical and void of Religion and Conscience For these Reasons and those that follow we cannot consent to such an Alteration as is desired till these Pretences be proved And now it might easily appear to them what afterwards came to pass but let us observe 1. There is no doubt but some of them knew what his Majesties Proposal was for the Propagation of the Protestant Religion being his Chaplains and chief Ministers about him and some of them if I am not mis-informed made some Alterations and Amendments in the King's Declaration 2. They do manifest an Opinion of the Reforming Divines inconsistent with the Character which his Majesty gave of them as grave and learned Ministers and proceed with them according to a mean and uncharitable Opinion 3. If they saw no necessity of any Alterations 1. They dissented from the Judgment of as eminent Divines of the Church See First Plea p. 22 c. p. 32. as any in it 2. They do not agree among themselves for Mr. Thorndike one of them thought a Reformation was necessary to Union 3. They made some Alterations such as were pleasing to them though not satisfactory to others 4. They destroy the King's Supposition and the reason of his Proposal for the Propagation of the Protestant Religion Peace of the Church satisfying tender Consciences c. 4. If they were commissioned to advise c. then had it not been a great Satisfaction to the whole Church and an effectual way to silence the cavilling Opponents if they were but Cavillers 1. To have answered their Reply 2. to have petitioned his Majesty for a longer time to have heard them out but when eight Points were to be disputed they had only time for one of them being the last day of their Commission If I am mistaken in any of these things as I believe I am not I shall be glad to be corrected by a trie History of those Passages It was about giving the Sacrament to Persons that scruple kneeling about which there was a Division among themselves Some of them held that we are not to refuse to give it to them that kneel not but to give it to them that kneel the words of the Rubrick being The Minister shall take in both kinds himself and deliver it into the hands of the People kneeling as if the sense were we are to give the Sacrament into the hands of the People kneeling but are not forbid to give it to them that do not kneel Dr. G. Dr. P. and Dr. S. were for this lax Interpretation Now Lord Bishops of Ely Chester Norwich other Dr. M. now Bishop of Winchester was for the rigid sense that the People must kneel or we must not give it And Dr. P. now Dean of Salisbury offered to maintain against Mr. Baxter See Mr. B's Defence against Mr. Cheney pag. 38. that it was an Act of Mercy to those that scruple and refused to receive the Sacrament kneeling to deny them the Communion of the Church therein but the Commissioners of his own side restrained him 4. How little did some of them care for the King 's conjuring them to acquiesce in and submit to his Declaration Or tho his Majesty thought himself competent to propose a Remedy they thought him not or else they would have advised a little further having so great a charge from him giving him hopes of their Compliance and seeing the Peace and Settlement of the Church so much concerned in it and the House of Commons approving of it to whom they owned an Acknowledgment for their Service done for them they might have made their Memorial blessed to all Generations as Healers and Peace-makers And now it is plain that those who ruled most in those Councils exercised a kind of Soveraignty over the Reason of all others and waited for a Parliament and Convocation that should at once silence Objections and answer Petitions Since those Transactions the reforming Divines never had but one or two Opportunities of treating and composing our doleful Differences the Composers agreed but the House of Commons hearing of it voted against bringing in a Bill of Compreehension and the Reverend Dr. Burnet in the Life of the Great Sir Matthew Hale gives us the Reasons that prevailed at that time against it And if I may not be too tedious I will crave leave totranscribe his Lines Pag. 70 71 72 73. But two Parties appeared vigorously against this Design of Comprehension by Law the one was of some zealous Clergy-Men who thought it below the Dignity of the Church to alter Laws and change Settlements for the sake of some whom they esteemed Schismaticks they also believed it was better to keep them out of the Church than bring them into it since a Faction upon that would arise in the Church which they thought might be more dangerous than the Schism it self was Besides they said if some things were now to be changed in compliance with the Humor of a Party as soon as that was done another Party might demand other Concessions and there might be as good Reasons invented for these as for those many such Concessions might also shake those of our own Communion and tempt them to for sake us and go over to the Church of Rome pretending that we changed so often that they were thereby inclined to be of a Church that was constant and true to her self and these Reasons wrought on the far greater part of the House of Commons There were others

4º An. 1559. And yet the Law for all these places is the same The Law is uniform but the Practice multiform But if the use of the book both Rules and Things ordered by it be enjoined then it seems strange that the Words should be after the manner of the Church of England for suppose any should compose a Form of Worship begin with some apt Sentences of Scripture then go to an Exhortation to Confession but use another Confession and throughout observe the Rubrick but not the same number of Psalms nor the same Canticles and Lessons or one of the three or ancient Creeds and other Prayers whether this would not be tho not the same things yet after the manner of the Church of England as being after the same Order But take the words as before That no Exercise of Religion to above four and the Family shall be lawful except they use the Common-Prayer Then may some be apt to think that 1. Here is a Conformity allowed by this Act to overthrow and weaken that required by the Act of Uniformity I query If a Minister shall in any publick place so he be neither Parson Vicar or Stipendary read the Common-Prayer altho he do not subscribe nor declare Assent and Consent whether he may not lawfully preach to as large an Assembly as will hear him And so may not a Man that is a Nonconformist in respect of Subscription and Declaration lawfully preach as publickly as he can and so be a legal Nonconforming Conformist as honest Mr. C. called himself and whether this Act doth not strike at the Act of Uniformity 2. Doth it not cast an ill look upon all other Modes of Divine Worship as if no other Form were consistent with the Peace of the Kingdom but what is according to the Liturgy 3. That all that dissent from all things in the Liturgy are Persons to be suspected of the King except such as say or hear the Liturgy and for that Cause are not and by Consequence whether the Execution of it doth not clearly tend to divide between the King and his Subjects and between Subject and Subject yea to make them that are religious appear more formidable than the irreligious 4. And whether it is not to set up a manner of Worship composed by Men above the matter of Worship appointed by God for let the Worship as to the Matter and End and Principle be divine it is not tolerable except it be after that one Manner and Practice I 'll add no more Doubts and Prejudices but come to plain Argument They who ought to be encouraged and protected by the King of England as Supream Governour ought not to be punished ☜ But our Protestant Nonconformists ought to be encouraged and protected Therefore c. They who set up no false and Idolatrous Worship contrary to the Word of God that worship God according to his Word ought to be encouraged and protected by the King of England as Supream Governour and his Laws But such is their Worship in every part Therefore c. I 'll touch the Minor first and then go to the Proposition That Worship which agrees in the right Object of Scripture-matter according to Scripture and to divine Ends is true Worship but such is their Worship Therefore c. To multiply no more Syllogisms I prove the Proposition by the constant Uniform allowed Doctrine of the Church of England And to strike home at one blow thus I argue They who ought to be encouraged and protected and not punished according to the allowed Doctrine of the Church of England explaining the King's Supremacy ought not to be punished by any new or subsequent Law that doth not condemn that allowed Doctrine of the Church as this Act doth not But according to the allowed Doctrine of the Church of England explaining the King's Supremacy they and such as they are to be encouraged and protected Therefore c. This is the Proposition I am to prove the Major being clear Those Reverend Fathers of the Reformed Religion which disputed against the Pope's and proved the King's Supremacy did thus state and explain it Set forth by Hen. 8th Vid. Dr. Bur. 1 Vol. History of the Reform p. 142. in the necessary Erudition of a Christian Man To them specially and principally it pertaineth to defend the Faith of Christ and his Religion to conserve and maintain the true Doctrine of Christ and all such as be true Preachers and Setters-forth thereof and to abolish Abuses Heresies and Idolatries and to punish with Corporal Pains such as of Malice be the occasion of the same and sinally to over-see and cause that the said Bishops and Priests do execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and specially in these Points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed to them and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof or would not diligently execute the same to cause them to redouble and supply their Lack and if they obstinately withstand their Prince's kind Monition and will not amend their Faults then and in such Case to put others in their room and places And God hath also commanded the said Bishops to obey with all Humbleness and Reverence both Kings and Princes and Governours and all their Laws not being contrary to the Laws of God whatsoever they be and that not only propter Iram but also propter Conscientiam With this Doctrine all our best Writers of unquestionable Authority agree See Jewel's Apology Part 1. p. 15. Edit 1570. Apol. c. 11. Divis 3. cut down Groves break down Images coerce and chastise Negligence and Falshood of the Bishop pag. 715. Joshua also Ap. c. 11. Divis 6 8 9 10 11. c. 15. Divis 1 3. c. 17. Divis 1 2. The Reproof of Mr. Dorman with a Defence of the chief Government of Christian Princes by Dr. Alexander Nowel London 1566. p. 24. b. p. 131 143 161. b. Dr. Jo. Rainold's Conference with Hart c. 10. We never affirmed that Princes might cammand what God forbiddeth or prohibit what God commandeth Bishops have their Authority to preach and administer the Sacraments from Christ himself only the Prince giveth them publick Liberty without let or disturbance to do what Christ commandeth Princes suffer and incite them with Peace and Praise to do their Duties Princes may by their Laws prescribe the Christian Faith to be preached the right Service of God in Spirit and in Truth to be used the Sacraments to be administred according to the Lord's Institution Bilson of Subjection pag. 216 217 c. We say that Princes as publick Magistrates may give Freedom Protection and Assistance to the preaching of the Word ministring the Sacraments and right using of the Keys pag. 227 236 240 249. See Bishop Bridges of the Supremacy against Stapleton and Saunders p. 672 673. I 'll quote no more of him There is neither Idolatry in Worship nor Heresy in the Faith of the Nonconformists for which they