Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	abandon_v	church_n	only_a	17	3	6.2685	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10197	A quench-coale. Or A briefe disquisition and inquirie, in vvhat place of the church or chancell the Lords-table ought to be situated, especially vvhen the Sacrament is administered? VVherein is evidently proved, that the Lords-table ought to be placed in the midst of the church, chancell, or quire north and south, not altar-wise, with one side against the wall: that it neither is nor ought to be stiled an altar; that Christians have no other altar but Christ alone, who hath abolished all other altars, which are either heathenish, Jewish, or popish, and not tollerable among Christians. All the pretences, authorities, arguments of Mr. Richard Shelford, Edmond Reeve, Dr. John Pocklington, and a late Coale from the altar, to the contrary in defence of altars, calling the Lords-table an altar, or placing it altarwise, are here likewise fully answered and proved to be vaine or forged. By a well-wisher to the truth of God, and the Church of England.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1637 (1637)	STC 20474; ESTC S101532	299,489	452

none whom we ought more or rather to follow then God and Christ. S. Cyprian therfore tying himselfe and all men thus strictly to Christs institution example in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament And Christ his Apostles never administring it at an Altar nor stiling the Lords-Table an Altar his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar I cannot but from hence conclude that these Passages certainely are none of Cyprians But to come to the particular scanning of these authorities 1. I answer That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lords-Table an Altar nor expresly affirme that Christians then had Altars being a meere allusion to the Preists and Altars under the Law relating to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itselfe doth evidence Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers Prayers Sermons when we had no Altars in our Church for them to waite at nor Communion Tables called or knowen by the names of Altars 2. That it mentions a Canon and Constitution made at least 60. yeares after S. Cyprians time to wit in the Councell of Anegra An. 314. Canon 1. 2. 3. there being no such Canon extant in any Councell held in his age which makes it suspuious if not spurious written long after his decease 3. If this Epistle make any thing for Altars then it makes farre more against our Bishops tenets power now since it expr●sly affirmes that the people have power are boundin conscience to reject alwayes and not to receive any man for their Bishop or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopricke who shall fall away from the truth to heresie or Idolatrie that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopricke and becomes no Bishop neither ought to be admitted to his former degree of a Bishop but the people are to elect a new in his ste●d the maine scope drist of this Epistle To the second I answer that this Epistle mentions a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Councell not in S. Cyprians age for ought appeares before whose dayes we read of no such Councell but long after Yea Pamelius notes that this Epistle was written in some Councell in what he knoweth not belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Councell of Carthages an hundreth yeares after that under S. Cyprian In which Councells the Constitution mentioned in this Epistle written as is evident by the subject of it after these 3. Councells was made and decreed so not S. Cyprians And indeed the words Non est quod pro dormitione ejus fiat oblatio a●t deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur discover it rather to be some late Popish Friers then his But admit it his yet the word Altar and expression herein used is but an allusion to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. doth not expresly define the Lords Table to be an Altar or so named or reputed in his age or that the Christians then had Altars And if it makes any thing for Altars in that age yet that expresly condemnes Clergiemens intermedling with any secular offices or imployments whatsoever since they ought wholy yea solely to addict and devote themselves to Gods service prayer preaching and other spirituall duties of their ministeriall function A shrowde checke to some of our present Prelates Clergiemen now most zealous for Altars who dare presume to take upon them temporall offices honors imployments so farre to ingage themselves in Secular Temporall Civill or State affaires that many of the● almost wholy neglect their spirituall functions and duties serving the world and Mammon more then God himselfe To the third I answer that this savors not of Cyprians age in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrisme or the Sacrament on an Altar much lesse the Doctrine of that time that Chrisme or the Eucharist could not be cōsecrated without an Altar which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius I may farther affirme it to be a l●●e Popish fo●gerie and imposture then S. Cyprians And so 〈◊〉 all the premises I may now safely conclude notwithstanding these objected authorities in the Coale that the Primitive Church and Christians for above 250. yeares after Christ had no Altars neither did they repute or call the Lords Table an Altar and so my ● 9. Argument still holds good maugre all those spurious Fathers newminted evasions I now proceed to my 10. Argument 10. Those things and names which the whole Church State most approved writers of our Church of England have censured abandoned condemned upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore ought not to be patronized used written preached for revived or new erected in our Churches now But the whole Church State most approved writers of the Church of England have censured abandoned and condemned Altars with their names and the calling of the Communion Tables upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore Therfore they ought not to be patronized used written for or preached revived or new erected in our Churches now The Major is unquestionable the Minor evidently proved in by the premises which yet to make more perspicuous I shall further cleare by these ensuing authorities Osotius Dormian Harding the Rhemists Hart and other Papists complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their time that they had taken away broken downe demolished all the Altars and cast them out of the Church setting up prophane Tables or Oister-boards as they termed them in their steeds using only such Tables not Altars to consecrate the Lords-Supper on blaming our Church in the selfe same manner for the selfe same cause as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon A cleare Confession and apparant evidence that the Church of England both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes abolished and condemned Altars Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward dayes that they had no Altars but Tables and Boardes to eat and drinke at to which Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford in King Edwards dayes returned this answer What use is there of an Altar where no fire burnes nor beastes are slaine for Sacrifices And concerning bowing to Altars a Popish Ceremony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practised both without Scripture Canon he there thus determines If an Angell from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacraments or Altars let him be accursed I doe not thinke sayth hee that any of the Fathers were polluted with so grosse Idolatrie as to bow their bodyes before Altars especially when there is no Communion but if at any time they shall be discovered to have done thus let none of us be lead by

they have once overswolm'd the bankes of due moderation or growen impudent and unrulie especially in Bishops Having thus represented to your Majesties Royall view these 3 grand forgeries and corruptions give me leave I humblie beseech your Highnes to adde to these two other late Jmpostures obtruded on the Church of England 1. The first by Dr. then Mr. Iohn Cosens and his confederates Who Anno 1628. the same yeare your Majesties Declarations were published sett forth a Booke intiteled A collection of private Devotions or the Howers of Prayer Wherein was much Popish Trash and Doctrine comprized and at least 20 several points of Popery maintained to countenance all which in the Title and Epistle of this Booke he writes That these Devotions of his were after this maner published by Queen Elizabeth and were heretofore published among us by her High and Sacred Authority to witt in the Preces of Horary sett forth by her Royall Authority Anno 1573. VVhen as there is no Analogie at all either in matter forme or method between these Devotions of his and those devout Prayers of her Majesty nor any of his points of Popery in them as hath been proved by two particular Answers to his Devotions in print Yet these Devotions of his were never yet suppressed but publikely sold among us approved by a Bishops license and now reprinted to abuse your Majesties poore Subjects encourage Papists and scandalize that ever-blessed pious Queen as the Authour and Patronesse of his grosse Popery An abuse not tollerable in a Christian State 2. The second is as bad or worse Anno 1631. One Iohn Ailward not long before a Popish Priest published a Booke intiteled An Historicall Narration of the judgement of some most learned Bishops concerning Gods Election Affirming the Errours of the Arminians to be the Iudgement and Doctrine of the Church of England and of the Martyrs and Reformers of it both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes This Booke though written in professed opposition to your Majesties Declaration before the 39. Articles to Suppresse Arminianisme yet now made the only iustrument to advance it and suppresse the truth was licensed by Mr. Martyn then Chaplaine to the Bishop of London now Arch-Bishop of Canterbury The whole Booke except some 3. or 4. leaves containing nothing else but a Coppy ef an Answer to a Letter wherein the Answerer purged himselfe and others from Pelagian Errours c. This Master-peece forsooth is pretended to be sett out by the Bishops and Reformers of our Church in the inception of Queen Elizabeths raigne by publike Authority and the Doctrine then taught and professed When this new Booke was printed no Coppies must come abrode as the Stationer then affirmed before the Bishop of London had presented it to your Majesty and gained your Royall approbation thereof Not long after this it flies abrode ouer all the Realme to the great amazement and disturbance of many of your Subjects One of them comming to that learned Knights hands Sir Humphry Lynde better read in Fathers and Popish Authours then English Antiquities he was so much stumbled and greiued at it that he presently repaired with it to a Gentlemans study of his acquaintance Telling him there was a new Booke freshly published which proued the Martyrs and Reformers of our Church to be professed Arminians and that this was the Doctrine publikely taught and printed by Authority in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths-raigne Saying withall it would doe infinite harme and desiring him to take some paines to answer it The Gentleman no sooner turned ever two or three leaves of the Booke but he presently discovered the grand Imposture Informing the Knight that this Coppy of a Letter c. was written by one Champenies whom Iohn Venon Divinity Lecturer of Paules in the first yeare of Queen Elizabeth expresly affirmed to be then a ranke Papist and a Pelagian and that in answer to this Verons Lectu● es of Predestination then publikely preached at Paules dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and printed by Authority in the second yeare of her Highnes raigne He likewise acquainted him that this Coppy of his Letter was printed about the third yeare of her Dominion without any Authours or Printers name thereto or place where or yeare when it was printed or any intimation at all that it was ever licensed All which were plaine evidences that it was printed in a corner without any license at all And whereas sayd he you desire a speedy Answer to it if you will give me but a paire of gloves I will show you two Answers to it already in print above ●0 yeares since by publike Authority and one of the first printed Coppies of this Letter to boote To which the Knight replied J am sure you doe but jest with me No sayd the other I am in good earnest wil you give me or wager a paire of gloves hereupon That answered he I will doe with all my heart Then sayd the Gentleman reach me hither those three Bookes he pointed to He did so The first was a Coppy of the Letter without name of Authour Printer date of time or place Which compared with that in this new Booke proved the same verbatim Now sayd the Gentleman you have seen the Originall I will shew you the Authour of it which he did in Verons Apology f. 37. and likewise two severall Answers in print The first by Iohn Veron himselfe fore-named intitled An Apologie in Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and imprinted at London by Iohn Tisdale in the fourth yeare of her Raigne Wherein this whole Letter is fully answered The second by that famous Learned Man and exile for Religion in Queen Maries dayes Robert Crowly In his Apologie of those English Preachers and Writers which Cerberus the three-headed Dogg of Hell chargeth with false Doctrine under the name of Predestination Seen and allowed according to Her Majesties Injunctions and printed at London by Henry Denham Anno 1566. Wherein this whole Letter is at large recited in severall Sections and then answered Verbatim This Booke being nothing else but a particular professed Answer to it by publike Authority As directly contrary to the truth and Doctrine of the Church of England then taught and established When the Gentleman had shewed him these two printed ancient Answers to this new Booke He likewise turned to some passages in Bishop Latymer which answered and cleared his words cited in this Booke from any such sence as it would fasten on them And to answer the Passage in it out of Bishop Hoopers Preface before his Exposition on the ten Commaundements He shewed him first the Confession and Protestation of the Bishops Faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and the whole Parliament and printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. Secondly A briefe and cleare Confession of the Christian Faith containing 100 Articles London 1584. Thirdly An Exposition upon certaine Psalmes London 1510. Jn all

alwayes hath been our hearts desire to befound worthy of that title which we accompt the most glorious in all our Crowne Defender of the faith NEITHER SHALL WEE EVER GIVE WAY TO THE AUTHORIZINGE OF ANY THINGE WHERE BY ANY INNOUATION MAY STEALE OR CREEP INTO THE CHURCH but preserue the vnity of Doctrine discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth where by the Church of England had stood florished ever since Wee doe here professe to maintaine the true Religion Doctrine esta blished in the Church of England without admitting or conniving at ANY BACKSLIDING EITHER TO POPERY OR SCHISME Wee doe also declare that wee maintaine the ancient just Rights Liberties of our Subjects with so much constancy justice that they shall haue cause to acknowledge that under our goverment gracious protection they live in a more happy and free estate then any Subjects in the Christian world But the turning of Communion Tables into Altars so terming them the rayling of them in Altarwise so standing the forceing of the Communicants by seuerall rankes files to come vp to them there to receive kneeling at the rayle the enjoyning of Ministers to read the second service as they now Tearme it at the Table when there is no Communion to ducke to bow vnto it going to it returning from it at their ingresse to egresse from the Church all which Bishop Wren others in their late visitation Articles instructions have most strictly enjoined suspending excommunicating such Ministers Churchwardens who have refused to submitt to these otherlike Romish Nouelties are all of them direct Innouations not used nor heard of from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth raigne till of late they are contrary to the Purity of that Doctrine Discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth where by the Church of England hath stood florished euer since they are an apparent backsliding to Popery borrowed from the Papishs and brought in only to simbolize with them sett vp Masse and that all Popish Doctrines Rites Ceremonies againe by degres as the premises experience witnes They are contrary to the ancient and just Rights Liberties of the Subjects who ought not to have any such Nouelties thrust vpon them much lesse to be excommunicated fined suspended imprisoned thrust from their freeholds Lectures Cures but by the Law of the Land some speciall Act of parleament as the Statute of Magna Charta c. 29. The late Petition of Right 3. Garoli with other Acts therein recited expresly resolve Therefore they are all directly contrary to his Majesteyes Declarations this his most solemne Christian Protistation both to God All his Loyall Subjects Neither hath his Majestey given the least way to the Authorising of them or any of them or given any admittance or conniuance to them or given any authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churches committed to them as the nameles Author of the Coale most impudently falsely to his Mayesteyes great dishonor reproach hath a vowed in print the Bishops their officers given out in speeches to couler ouer these all other their late Popish Innouations brought in fomented by themselves alone in affront of this his Majestoyes declaration royall pleasure signified this is print by Speciall Command to all his Loyall Subjects whose heares were not so much overjoyed at the sight of it at first as now they are overgreiued to see the Metropolitanes Bishops Ordinaries this blacke Collier in his blushlesse Coale from the Altar so insolently apparantly to thwart affront bid defiance to it by all these with other their dangerous Popish Innouations by suspending silencing excommunicating all such faithfull Ministers Lecturers Church-wardens People who out of Conscience towars God Loyalty to his Mayesteyes Lawes obedience to this his royall Declaration refuse to submit vnto them which they hope his Mayestey vpon information of this their most desperate insolency exorbitant disloyalty rebellion against his Lawes Declaration will not only consider but most seuerely punish to his poore Subjects comfort releife 4. His Mayesteye to shew his further detestation against these Innouations in his Declaration before the 39. Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes commaundment London 1628. which Declaration was made vpon mature Deliberation with the advise of so many of our Bishops as might conueniently becalled together thus signifieth his royall pleasure therein That wee are supreme Gouernour of the Church of England and that if ANY DIFFERENCE ARISE about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions what soeuer thereto belonging THE CLERGIE IN THEIR CONVOCATION not euery Bishop or ordinary in his Dioces as the Coale order of the Councill Table oited in it which doubt lesse in this was not rightly entred or Copied and determines IS TO ORDER AND SETTLE THEM But how of their owne heades without any speciall Commission from his Minyestey Noe I warrant you having FIRST obtained LEAVE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE SO TO DOE AND WEE APPROVING THEIR SAID ORDINANCES AND CONSTITUTIONS providing that none bemade CONTRARY TO THE LAWES AND CUSTOMES OF THE LAND That of our Prinely care that the Churchmen may doe the worke which is proper vnto them the Bishops Clergie from time to time in Convocation vpon their humble desire SHALL HAVE LICENCE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE to deliberate of and to doe all such things as being made plaine by them ASSENTED TO BY VS shall concerne THE SETLED CONTINUANCE OF THE DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE of the Church of England now established FROM WHICH WE NOT ENDURE ANY VARYING OR DEPARTING IN THE LEAST DEGREE Where his Mayestey the Bishops themselves expressely determine against the Coales Doctrine Bishops Practise 1. That if any difference arise about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions what soever thereto belonging or the true sence and meaning of them not the Metropolitane or Ordinaries in their seuerall Iurisdictions nor yet the High Commissioners but the whole Clergie in Convocation is to order them Therefore this difference concerning Alters the situation ray ling in of Communion Tables the reading of the 2. service at them receiving at them the like which euery Bishop Arch-deacon Chancellor Surregare now takes vpon h●m perempterily to order Alter at his pleasurs 2. That the whole Clergie in Convocation can neither deliberate on nor Order or settle any thing in these or such other particulars or differences unlesse they first obtaine leave from his Mayestey vnder his brode seale so to doe He also approve their said ordinances Constitutions by his or● a●d seale Letters Parents Therefore the Metropolitane himselfe the Bishops Arch deacons other Ordinaries with their vnder-Officers can order or settle nothing in these particulars or others nor