Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n bishop_n great_a time_n 1,465 5 3.3468 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A53894 No necessity of reformation of the publick doctrine of the Church of England. By John Pearson, D.D. Pearson, John, 1613-1686. 1660 (1660) Wing P1001; ESTC R202284 20,122 29

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

in reference to this Homily when it saith it containeth a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times The second Objection is taken out of the Homily of Almes-deeds the second part The Design of which Part of the Homily is to shew How profitable it is for a man to exercise himself in Almesdeeds and particularly it proveth that to be mercifull and charitable is a means to keep a soul clean in the sight of God Which part of the Doctrine is grounded there on Luke 11.41 Give almes of such things as you have and behold all things are clean unto you and being thus stated and confirmed for a further Illustration or enlargement the Homily proceedeth to accumulate Authorities in which accumulation if any prove improper it cannot make the Doctrine false or doubtfull and that is still plainly true which the Article holds forth even in reference to the Homily of Almesdeeds that it containeth a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times The sixth sad consequence presenteth the Queens Majesty as having the chief power in the Realme of England and raiseth a strong doubt whether the 37. Article intend any power to any other person beside Queen Elizabeth But certainly the Kings Majesty hath the same power in his Dominions that the Queens Majesty had in her Dominions there is no difference in reference to the Sex or if there were it is not probable that the weaker sex should have the stronger power The Article hath expresse reference to the Queens Injunctions set forth in the year 1559. and those Injunctions take particular care that no other duty allegiance or bond should be required to the Queen then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the Eight her Majesties Father or King Edward the Sixt her Majesties Brother The words of the Article it self sufficiently declare that the Doctrine contained in it concerneth all the Kings as Kings The Title in Generall is of the Civil Magistrates and the words run thus Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the chief government we give not to our Princes c. shewing that what they gave to her they gave to all the Kings of England Which will appear more plainly out of the first Latine Copy printed in the time of Queen Eliz. in the year 1563. read and approved by the Queen the words whereof are these Cùm Regiae Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorundam calumniatorum offendi non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut Sacramentorum administrationem c. Being therefore the Article expressely mentioneth and concerneth the Kings of England as they are the Kings of England the mention of the Queens Majesty in the Article can make the Doctrine no more doubtfull then it doth our allegiance in that Oath which was made 1. Eliz. where the Heires and Successors of the Queen are to appoint who shall accept the oath the words of which are that the Queens Highnesse is the onely supreme Governour of this Realme But I hope the Heirs and successors of Queen Elizabeth did never appoint that Oath to be taken in the name of the Queens Highnesse but in their own I therefore earnestly desire not onely that divers Ministers of sundry Counties but that all the Ministers of all the Counties in England would acknowledge and confesse that it is the undoubted Doctrine of our Church that to the Kings of England their Heirs and Successors the chief government of all Estates whether they be Ecclesiasticall or Civil in all causes doth appertain as the 37. Article expresseth it The last sad consequence doth no way touch the present Articles and consequently doth not prove them doubtfull but onely suggesteth fears and jealousies that if the Kings Declaration should be continued we should have no setled or fixed Doctrine of the Church of England at all It seemeth very strange to me that King Charles of blessed memory should be suspected of unsetling the Church who dyed rather then he would make any alteration in it and left this as a Maxime to His Son that His Fixation in matters of Religion will not be more necessary for His Souls then His Kingdomes Peace It were very strange if His Declaration should threaten any alteration in the Doctrine of the Church when those very words which they cite out of it as a cause of their fears give the greatest assurance imaginable of the continuance and perpetuity of that which is already setled For these are the expresse words so much feared and impugned by them The Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation upon their humble desire shall have licence under our broad Seal to deliberate of and to doe all such things as being made plain by them and assented unto by Vs shall concern the setled continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now established from which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree What can be a greater assurance of a setled and a fixed doctrine in the Church what words can more satisfactorily prevent all alterations of the Publique profession of faith the whole power promised to the Bishops was onely for the setled continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline then established the Doctrine then established is acknowledged by the same Declaration to be that which is contained in the Articles the Bishops then were never to have any power from the King to make any alteration in the Doctrine of the Articles and if any should suspect the Bishops had a design or would ever attempt to alter the Doctrine in any particular we were sufficiently assured they should never have power to effect it by the word of a King who said of the doctrine established From which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree Thus have I dispatched the seven sad consequences so farre as they have in them any the least shew of proof of the Doubtfulnesse of the Publique Doctrine For the rest of this part of the Discourse pretending to prove the Publique Doctrine Doubtfull it consisteth in an Answer to an Objection whi●h Answer of it selfe makes clearly unnecessary and of none effect all which hath been said by them against the Declaration of the King of blessed memory The Objection is The Kings Declaration is no Law and may be taken away The Answer which they give is that this will signify nothing if Ministers be still tyed to Subscription If this be true to what purpose were those sad Consequences drawn from the Kings Declaration For if the taking it away will signify nothing of good then the continuing of it can signify nothing of evil for if it did the removing of that evil would be good The rest of that Answer is spent in arguing against the Judgement of two Eminent Lawyers which because it hath no relation to the Doubtfulnesse of the Doctrine I may