Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	england_n	reformation_n	4,105	5	9.0185	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88612	A landskip: or a brief prospective of English episcopacy, drawn by three skilfull hands in Parliament: anno 1641.	Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643.; Fiennes, Nathaniel, 1607 or 8-1669.; Vane, Henry, Sir, 1612?-1662.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1660 (1660)	Wing L324; Thomason E1045_13; ESTC R202705	20,959	20

the Law of this Land it is against the Law and Light of Nature it is against the Law of GOD it is against the Lawes of this KINGDOME and that no obscure Lawes nor concerning any mean or petty matters It is against the Law of the Kings Supremacy in that it maketh Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons c. to be jure Divino whereas the Law of this Land hath annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm not only all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but also all Superiority over the Ecclesiastical STATE and it is to be derived from him by Commission under the Great Seal and consequently it is Jure humane Again it is against the Oath of Supremacy established by Law point-blanck for therein I am sworn not only to consent unto but also to assist and to the uttermost of my power to defend all Jurisdictions Preheminences c. annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm of which this is one and that which immediately precedeth this Oath in the Statute and whereunto it doth especially relate that his Majesty may exercise any Jurisdiction or Ecclesiasticall Government by his Commission under the Great Seal directed to such persons as he shall think meet so that if he shall think other Persons meet than Arch-Bishops Bishops c. I am sworn in the Oath of Supremacy not only to assent thereunto but to assist and to the utrermost of my power defend such an appointment of his Majesty and in this new Oath I shall swear never to consent unto such an alteration In the like manner it is against the Law and Light of Nature that a man should swear to answer c. to he knowes not what It is against the Law and Light of Nature that a man should swear never to consent to alter a thing that in its own nature is alterable and may prove inconvenient and fit to be altered Lastly It is against the Law of God for whereas there are Three Rules prescribed to him that will swear aright that he swear in Judgement in Truth and Righteousness He that shall take this new Oath must needs break all these three Rules He cannot swear in judgment because this Oath is so full of ambiguities that he cannot tell what he swears unto not to speak of the unextricable ambiguity of the c. there is scarce one word that is not ambiguous in the principal part of the Oath as first what is meant by the Church of England whether all the Christians in England or whether the Clergy only or only the Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans c. or whether the Convocation or what In like manner it is as doubtfull what is meant by the Discipline and what by the Doctrine of the Church of England for what some call Superstitious Innovations if others affirm to be consonance to the Primitive and that the purest Reformation in the time of Edward the 6. and in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and so for the Doctrine of the Church of England if all the Positions that of later years have been challenged by some of our Divines to be Arminian and Popish and contrary to the Articles of our Religion and which on the other side have been asserted and maintained as consonant to the Doctrine of our Church and the Articles of Religion were gathered together they might make a pretty Volumne nay Sancta Clara will maintain it in despire of the Puritans That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the Doctrine of the Church of England Truly it were very fit that we knew what were the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England before we swear to it and then Sir give me leave to say that I should be very loath to swear to the Discipline or to the Doctrine and Tenents of the purest Church in the World as they are collected by them farther than they agree with the Holy Scriptures Lastly It is as doubtfull what is meant by the Doctrine and Discipline established and what by altering and consenting to alter whether that is accompted or established which is established by Act of Parliament or whether that also that is established by Canons Injunctions c. and whether it shall not extend to that which is published by our Divines with the allowance of Authority and so for consenting to alter whether it be only meant that a man shall not be active in altering or whether it extend to any consent and so that a man shall not submit to it nor accept of it being altered by the State More ambiguities might be shewen but these are enough to make it clear that he that shall take this Oath cannot swear in judgment Nor can he swear in truth for it is full of untruths It is not true that Discipline is necessary to Salvation It is not true that Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons c. are Jure Divino as they must needs be if the Law-makers ought of right to establish them as they are established for the Law-makers are not bound as of right to frame their Lawes to any other than the Lawes of God alone Now whether Bishops be Jure Divino we know it is a Dispute amongst the Papists and never did any Protestant hold it till of late years but that Arch-bishops Deans Arch-Deacons c. should be Jure Divino I do not know that ever any Christian held it before and yet he that taketh this Oath must swear it Lastly As he that taketh this Oath cannot swear in judgment nor in truth so neither can he swear in righteousness for it is full of unrighteousness being indeed as hath been well opened a Covenant in effect against the King and Kingdome for if the whole STATE should finde it necessary to alter the Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops c. a great part of the Kingdome especially of the Gentry for not onely the Clergy but all that take degrees in the Universities are bound to take it will be preingaged not to consent to it or admit of it Again it is a great wrong to those that shall be Parliament men that their freedome shall be taken away being bound up by an Oath not to consent to the altering of a thing which it may be fit and proper for a Parliament to alter And suppose that for the present it be no hinderance to the service of God nor yet burdensome to the King and Kingdome yet if it should prove so hereafter for a man to be bound by an Oath never to consent to alter it may be a great wrong to God in his service and to the King and Kingdome in their peace and well-fare and therefore this Oath cannot be taken in righteousnesse For the other Oath de parendo juri Ecclesiae stando mandatis Ecclesiae though it make lesse noise than the other yet is it not of leste dangerous consequence If I remember well the Story this was the Oath that the Pope made King John to take and when he had

right as founded in the fabrick and frame of the policy and Government but of Grace or by Commission as Doctor Beal affirmeth I have done with the first Canon only I shall add this That considering the Principles and Positions that are laid down therein and comparing them with a clause toward the end of the Canon that in no case imaginable it is lawfull for Subjects to defend themselves we may judge how farre forth these Canons were to prepare mens mindes for the force that was to follow after if the Accusation against my Lord of Strafford be laid aright For the matter it self I hope there will never be any need to dispute that Question and I do believe they had as little need to have published that position had it not been upon designe As for the second Canon therein also they have assumed to themselves a Parliamentary power in taking upon them to appoint Holydaies whereas the Statute saith in expresse words That such daies shall be only kept as Holidayes as are named in the Statute and no other and therefore though the thing may be bonum yet it was not done benè because not ordained by Parliament notwithstanding what hath been alledged to the contrary It seemeth to me to be the appointing of an Holiday to set a time apart for Divine Service and to force men under penalties to leave their labours and businesse and to be present at it And of the same nature is that other clause in the same Canon wherein they take upon them without Parliament to lay a charge upon the People enjoyning two Books at least for that day to be bought at the charge of the Parish for by the same right that they may lay a penny on the Parish without Parliament they may lay a pound or any greater Summe As to the Third Canon I shall passe it over only the Observation that my neighbour of the long Robe made upon it seems unto me so good as that it is worth the repeating That whereas in the Canon against Sectaries there is an especial Proviso that it shall not derogate from any Statute or Law made against them as if their Canons had any power to disanull an Act of Parliament There is no such Proviso in this Canon against Papists from whence it may be probably conjectured that they might have drawn some colour of exemption from the penal Lawes established against them from this Canon because it might seem hard that they should be doubly punished for the same thing as we know in the point of absence from the Church the Law provideth that if any man be first punished by the Ordinary he shall not be punished again by the Justices For the Fourth Canon against Socinianisme therein also these Canon makers have assumed to themselves a Parliamentary power in determining an Heresie not determined by Law which is expresly reserved to the determination of a Parliament It is true they say it is a complication of many heresies condemned in the four first Councels but they do not say what those Heresies are and it is not possible that Socinianisme should be formally condemned in those Councells for it is sprung up but of late therefore they have taken upon them to determine and damn a Heresie and that so generally as that it may be of very dangerous consequence for condemning Socinianisme for an Heresie and not declaring what is Socinianisme it is left in their brests whom they will judge and call a Socinian I would not have any thing that I have said to be interpreted as if I had spoken it in favour of Socinianisme which if it be such as I apprehend it to be is indeed a most vile and damnable Heresie and therefore the framers of these Canons are the more to blame in the next Canon against Sectaries wherein besides that in the preamble thereof they lay it down for a certain ground which the Holy Synod knew full well that other Sects which they extend not only to Brownists and Separatists but also to all persons that for the space of a moneth do absent themselves without a reasonable cause from their own Parish Churches do equally endeavour the subversion of the Discipline and Doctrine of the Church of England with the Papists although the worst of them do not bear any proportion in that respect to the Papists I say besides that they make them equall in crime and punishment to the Papists notwithstanding the great disproportion of their Tenents there is another passage in this Canon relative to that against Socinianisme which I shall especially offer to your consideration and that is this If a Gentleman coming from beyond Seas should happen to bring over with him a Book contrary to the Discipline of the Church of England or should give such a Book to his friend nay if a man shall but abett or maintain an Opinion contrary thereunto though it were but in Parliament if he thought it fit to be altered by this Canon he is excommunicate ipso facto and lyeth under the same consideration and is lyable to the same punishment as if he had maintained an Opinion against the Deity of CHRIST and of the Holy Ghost and of our Justification by the satisfaction of Christ Sir If in these things that are in their own nature indifferent if in things disputable it shall be as heynous to abett or maintain an Opinion as in the most horrible and monstrous Heresies that can be imagined What Liberty is left to us as Christians What Liberty is left to us as men I proceed to the Sixt Canon wherein these Canonists have assumed to themselves a Parliamentary Power and that in a very high Degree in that they have tak●n upon them to impose new Oaths upon the Kings Subjects Sir under favour of what hath been alledged to the contrary To impose an Oath if it be not an higher power then to make a Law it is a power of making a Law of a most high nature and of higher and farther consequence than any other Law and I should much rather chuse that the Convocation should have a power to make Lawes to binde my person and my Estate than that they should have a power to make Oaths to binde my conscience A Law bindes me no longer than till another Law be made to alter it but my Oath bindes me as long as I live Again A Law bindes me either to obedience or to undergo the penalty inflicted by the Law but my Oath bindes me absolutely to obedience And Lastly A Law bindes me no longer than I am in the Land or at the farthest no longer than I am a member of the State wherein and whereby the Law is made but my Oath once being taken doth binde me in all places and in all conditions so long as I live Thus much I though good to speak concerning the power of imposing new Oathes as to the matter of this new Oath it is wholly illegall It is against

the right stating whereof we must remember the Vote which past yesterday not only by this Committee but the House which was to this effect That this Government hath been sound by long experience to be a great impediment to the perfect Reformation and growth of Religion and very prejudicial to the civil State So that then the Question will lie thus before us Whether a Government which long experience hath set so ill a Character upon importing danger not only to our Religion but the civil State should be any longer continued amongst us or be utterly abolished For my own part I am of the opinion of those who conceive that the strength of reason already set down in the Preamble to this Bill by yesterdaies Vote is a necessary decision of this Question For one of the main ends for which Church-government is set up is to advance and further the perfect reformation and growth of Religion which we have already voted this Government doth contradict so that it is destructive to the very end for which it should be and is most necessary and desirable in which respect certainly we have cause enough to lay it aside not only as useless in that it attains not its end but as dangerous in that it destroys and contradicts it In the second place we have voted it prejudicial to the civil State as having so powerful and ill an influence upon our Laws the Prerogative of the King and Liberties of the Subject that it is like a spreading leprosie which leaves nothing untainted and uninfected which it comes near May we not therefore well say of this Government as our Saviour in the fifth of Matthew speaks of salt give me leave upon this occasion to make use of Scripture as well as others have done in this debate where it is said that salt is good but if the salt hath lost its savour wherewith will you season it It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and troden under foot of men so Church-government in the general is good and that which is necessary and which we all desire but when any particular form of it hath once lost its savour by being destructive to its own ends for which it is set up as by our Vote already pasted we say this hath then furely Sir we have no more to do but to cast it out and endeavour the best we can to provide our selves a better But to this it hath been said that the Government now in question may be so amended and reformed that it needs not be quite pulled down or abolished because it is conceived it hath no original sin or evil in it or if it have it is said regeneration will take that away Unto which I answer I do consent that we should do with this Government as we are done by in regeneration in which all old things are to pass away and all things are to become new and this we must do if we desire a persect reformation and growth of our Religion or good to our civil state For the whole Fabrick of this building is so rotten and corrupt from the very foundation of it to the top that if we pull it not down now it will fall about the cars of all those that endeavour it within a very few years The universal rottenness or corruption of this government will most evidently appear by a disquisition into these ensuing particulars First Let us consider in what soil this root grows Is it not in the Popes Paradise do not one and the same principles and grounds maintain the Papacy or universal Bishop as do our Diocesan or Metropolitan Bishops All those authorities which have been brought us out of the Fathers and antiquity will they not as well if not better support the Popedom as the order of our Bishops So like wise all these arguments for its agreeableness to Monarchy and cure of Schism do they not much more strongly hold for the acknowledgment of the Pope than for our Bishops and yet have Monarchies been ever a whit the more absolute for the Popes universal Monarchy or their Kingdoms lesse subject to schismes and seditions whatsoever other Kingdoms have been I am sure our Histories can tell us this Kingdom hath not and therefore we have cast him off long since as he is forteign though we have not been without one in our own bowels For the difference between a Metropolitan or Diocesan or universal Bishop is not of kinds but of degrees and a Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop is as ill able to perform the duty of a Pastor to his Diocess or Province as the universal Bishop is able to do it to the whole world for the one cannot do but by Deputies and no more can the other and therefore since we all confess the grounds upon which the Papacy stands are rotten how can we deny but these that maintain our Bishops are so too since they are one and the same In the second place let us consider by what hand this root of Episcopacy was planted and how it came into the Church It is no difficult matter to find this out for is not the very spirit of this order a spirit of pride exalting it self in the Temple of God over all that is called God First exalting it self above its fellow-Presbyters under the form of a Bishop then over its fellow Bishops under the title of Archbisnops and so still mounting over those of its own profession till it come to be Pope and then it sticks not to tread upon the necks of Princes Kings and Emperors and trample them under its feet Also thus you may trace it from its first rise and discern by what spirit this order came into the Church and by what door even by the back-door of pride and ambition not by Christ Jesus It is not a plant which Gods right hand hath planted but is full of rottenness and corruption that mystery of iniquity which hath wrought thus long and so fit to be plucked up and removed out of the way Thirdly Let us consider the very nature and quality of this tree or root in its self whether it be good or corrupt in its own nature we all know where it is said A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit nor a corrupt tree good fruit Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles By its fruit therefore we shall be sure to know it and according as the fruits of the Government have been amongst us either in Church or Common wealth so let it stand or fall with us In the Church 1. AS it self came in by the back door into the Church and was brought in by the spirit of Antichrist so it self hath been the back-door and in-let of all superstition and corruption into the worship and doctrine of this Church and the means of hastening us back again to Rome For proof of this I appeal to all our knowledges in late years past the memory whereof is