Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	form_n	prayer_n	set_a	6,981	5	11.4340	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70165	Iudahs ioy at the oath layd out in a sermon on the 2 Chro. 15, 15 for Englands example in embracing the parliamentary covenant with readinesse and rejoycing : hereunto is annexed a briefe and moderate answere to The protestation protested, discovering the unsoundnesse of that interpretation of the nationall covenant, and the weaknesse of the grounds there suggested for separate and independant churches / by Iohn Geree ...	Geree, John, 1601?-1649.	1641 (1641)	Wing G597; ESTC R16455	37,528	68

they thinke and justly That the use of the Liturgy in the whole forme of it as a compleate service of GOD to be many waies vitious yet they think the use of some of the formes there which are without exception and most suited to the peoples wants to be in themselves lawfull Notwithstanding though not for his Arguments to prove them Popish yet for the exposition of the Protestation they refuse them and not only refuse them but lay imputation on those that use them as breakers of their Vow and Protestation Now as I have proved no use of the Service-Book is against the Protestation so nor the use of some prayers in such a manner out of the Booke can as I conceive be justly termed Popish for suppose that the forme we use be in the Masse-Book why may we not aswell ask the same Christian Graces that Papists and we both conceive to be necessary to a Christian soule as expresse the same faith touching the Trinity or any other point wherein we agree in the same words and that without the guilt or imputation of Popery And againe he that doth thus use the Booke not according to the whole frame of it but selecting what is most holy nor according to the set words of it but with liberty of correcting the expressions which to our times seeme harsh and unsutable doth hereby as I conceive avoid his second Argument the imposition makes it not Popish to him because he useth it with liberty of conscience To this we may add further There is I conceive a true and usefull distinction to be made of humane constitutions some are helps and so are in genere boni good in their kind the other have no ground but meere imposition and so are in genere mali in their kind evill Now formes of Prayer are humane helps and so good in their kind Prayer is an Ordinance of GOD it requires a forme of words especially in publique all men are not able to conceive a forme and therefore a composed forme to them is an helpe The forme of words in Prayer is not the service but modus the manner of serving God in that Ordinance and so good in its kind Now for the Governors of the Church where there is need of a form to tye to one forme which they conceive pure of purpose to exclude others which they conceive corrupt is I conceive no usurpation upon Christ And this was the end of our Godly reformers in appointing this Prayer Booke Now though many men need not this helpe and it may be can conceive better expressions yet being that formes are human helps and not in themselves evill I conceive we may use some of the Prayers without sin for though it s often said that we may not do evill that good may come thereon yet I never heard it proved that we may not sometime do a lesse good and not the greater for peace and order and to enjoy the greater good at other times more fully and freely This giveth me satisfaction and I beleeve many godly and so prevents division from the Church Assemblies which is desirable for breaches if they be not necessary are justly scandalous If any dissent from us we shall be more ready to contend with GOD then them with God I say that he would move the Parliament to remove this forme so excepted against and corrupt in the generall composure of it and what ever other they prescribe not exactly to tie the well guifted to it but leave a liberty to vary as God shall enable them as I have heard it hath been in our deare Sister Church of Scotland Or if they tie them to any forme that they will rather tie them to the matter then the words to prevent the broaching of errors in Prayers which some thinke was the first occasion of set formes There be Haereticall Prayers as well as Sermons A Socinian may vent his Haeresy against the person of Christ or the grace of Christ An Anabaptist may vent his Haeresy against the Magistrates of Christ or Ordinances of Christ in his Prayer as well as Preaching therefore the Governors may justly tie them to set heads of Prayer though they leave a liberty to the able to use their own expressions so Haeresy shal be prevented and no breach of liberty justly pretended but this I refer to the wisdome of that Honorable Court Another Evill of this Treatise which needed cure it hath bred in some and nourisht in others an opinion that our Churches are not Churches nor our Ministers true Ministers nor our Sacraments to be participated without sinne whereby some are drawne to and others confirmed in a neglect of the servants and service of God which is no small evill that deserveth cure Give me leave therefore a little to examine his grounds His first assay against our Churches is in the close of the proose of his third point the Discipline of our Church to be Antichristian whence he concludes we want Discipline and from the Book-prayer and pell mell admission to the Sacrament he affirmes in his judgment we want true Sacraments and that the Preaching of the word be generally corrupted then it wants a third marke of a Visible Church for answere I conceive a distinction suggested by the assertor of the Scotch Discipline to be very true and here pertinent P. 196. A Visible Church may be considered either Metaphysically or politically It is one thing to consider men as living Creatures indued with reason another thing to consider them as Magistrates Masters Fathers servants c. So it is one thing to consider a Visible Church in her essentialls as a Society of men and women separated from the blind world by divine vocation and professing together the Gospell of Iesus Christ another thing to consider it as a compleate politicall body in which the power of Spirituall government and jurisdiction is exercised som governing some governed Now a Church that wants government or hath one that is corrupt may be a true Church in the former sense though not in the latter being a tru Church in the former sense her mēbers may communicat together in these holy things which fall under the power of order which may be called Sacra mystica as word prayer Sacraments though not insuch things as are under the power of jurisdiction For his objections about Sacraments the first I hope hath received already sufficient answere For his second objection of Pell mell admission to the Sacrament if he dispute against the Church of England in generall he must consider what her Lawes are not what the practise of some is It s true the Law enjoynes all to come but it s as true that the same Law forbids those that are in contention or are otherwise offensive to the Congregation to be admitted till satisfaction given So the command is generall that men may not be let alone in prophanenes and the admission is restrained that men may not

is not to oppose lawfully but illegally and seditiously But now let us heare his Answer First saith he All Lawes are to be interpreted according to their cleere intention and end Now the Law for reformation never intended to allow or set up Popery in the Church of England Ans This rule for the interpretation of Laws in the a There is a twofold intention of Lawes one generall arising from mens goodnesse and that may be to remove whatsoever is evill the other speciall arising from mens light and that is to remove such particulars as are discovered to be evil the latter intention is the rule of interpreting Laws not the former and this Author speakes of the former sense he takes it is a device of his owne that hath neither authority nor reason for the confirmation of it Lawes are to be interpreted according to the minde of the Law giver which the Grammaticall sense of the words doth usually discover Indeed in matters doubtfull where the words are capable of a double sense the intention of the Law may there cleere what sense is most Genuine but that the generall intention of of the Law shall give a sense contrary to the letter of the Law is without doubt a groundlesse and dangerous fancy It s true the Law never intended to set up Popery but the question is whether it be destructive of all Popery The Law can reach no further then the light of the Law-givers who if they saw not all Popery could not by their Lawes condemne all nor did if the things in Question be Popery Lex Currit cum praxi The generall practise especially of those that are regular discovers the mind of the Law and the practise hath been to maintaine these things therefore it s not the meaning of the Law to condemne them nor of this Protestation to abjure them Secondly he saith If humane Lawes be found to be contrary to Gods word they are invalid and void ipso facto Ans This rightly understood is in part a truth but here misapplied we are subjected to all Terrene superiours by the Lord and under the Lord when they then command any thing contrary to GOD the Laws have noe binding power because by a superiour Law we are bound to the contrary But yet such Lawes are not Ipso facto void or if void yet they are void in foro conscientiae in the Court of Heaven not in foro politico in Courts on Earth though we are not bound to obey them yet we are without resistance to submit to such penalties under the danger of Sedition which were there noe Lawes we were free from Againe this Thesis of his is misapplied for thence he infers Thirdly that having made this Protestation we ought to have no communion with the aforesaid particulars notwithstanding they be confirmed by Law which inference is therfore faulty because the Protestation is onely against Popery as it is against the Doctrine of the Church and that which is confirmed by our law though it be Popery yet it is not Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England If the Lawes of the Land and the Doctrine of our Church had their establishment in different Courts then that which is establisht by Law might be against the Doctrine of the Church but the Doctrine of the Church and the Laws of the Lands having both their establishment in Parliament what is confirmed by Law cannot be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church and therefore this Authors arguing must needs be irrationall But now we are furnished with a second Objection which we are to consider of and whether this Author hath with any better successe taken of then he hath the former what saith hee If the Parliament did not by Popery understand the Liturgy Ceremonies Government of our Church and he gives good reason to conceive they did not for then many of them would not have taken it What shal we do then that is his Quaere now heare his Answers First saith he we are sure they intended in against all Popery To which I answere that its most cleare and so he himselfe expresseth in the former Page they only intend it against Popery as it is opposite against the Doctrine of the Church of England and such Popery the mentioned things cannot be Secondly saith he They expresse that the words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any forme of Worship Discipline or Ceremonies in the said Church What doth he thence inferre why forsooth that therefore we may not Protest for the maintenance of these why was that the Question whether we should be bound to maintaine them or whether we are bound to abolish them What ridiculous disputing then is this But hence I Argue If the Protestation do not include them for confirmation because they are no parts of Doctrine it doth not exclude them for abolition but leaves them for determination to another opportunity Thirdly saith he Suppose that at the first making of the Protestation that these particulars were not mentioned in the Catalogue of Popery yet no good Christian can or will deny that the House of Commons did not at all intend to exclude what ever should pertaine to Popery as a branch thereof This Author is very good at bold assertions but all as bad in confirmations for what a good Christian may do in weaknesse I will not determine but no wise Christian as far as I can conceive can judge that what ever shall be found to be Popery is included in this Protestation but what ever is found to be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church of England which is the terme limiting Popery in the Protestation Fourthly he Argues from the hopes that we have by this Parliament of such a Reformation as will not deserve the name of Reformation if all Popery be not made to be packing I joyne with him in all comfortable hopes from this Honourable House but what is this to his matter in hand All the Reformation to be expected from this Parliament is not expected by this Protestation this is one degree to reforme whatever Popery or Innovation is against Law established this done the Parliament is proceeding further to perfect hoped for Reformation by removing corruptions established by Law Fiftly Suppose saith he that it could be imagined by any reasonable man that the House of Commons had no thought implicitely to include the foresaid things in the fardell of Popery shall private and particular Christians knowing these to be Popery and Antichristian being bound by their solemne Vow and Protestation never reforme themselves c. I Answere no man can if as he is rationall he deale rationally But suppose that these things were not included in the Protestation according to the intention of the House of Commons which may appeare by unanswerable grounds 1. Because the expresse words be against that Popery which is against the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND which these things mentioned established