Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	church_n	parliament_n	3,629	5	6.4769	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49609	A letter from a minister in the country, to a member of the convocation	N. L., Minister in the country.	1689 (1689)	Wing L46; ESTC R1292	16,508	32

Apocrypha made them Canonical To whom our reading of them may be thought to give too much countenance To this I may add the revising of the Psalter added to our Liturgy which though in its time and before a better could be had was of singular use The Protestant Peacemaker p. 120. 1682. yet seems now not so defensible when there is a more correct in our hands A more correct I call it after the Bishop of Cork since those that will take the pains to compare this with the original cannot but be sensible of the manifold variations of it from the Hebrew some while adding Phrases and Verses another while leaving out and frequently mistaking the sense of it And as learned men observe this so vulgar Readers may sometimes find the inconsistency of one Translation with the other which must needs create no little scruple in their minds by having inconsistent as well as confusion by having different Translations And whereas it 's pleaded the people are used to this and some so as to have it by heart I answer the people are used at home and by the Quotations from it in Sermons and Books and Paraphrases upon it in Print to the other And if we compute how few come to daily Prayers to those that do not and how few of those that do come can repeat the Psalms memoriter to those that cannot the number that may be presum'd will be for the old will be inconsiderable to those that will be for the new Besides if this were true it s an argument only for the present age and not for the next And which if it had been of any force there could never reasonably have been any second Translation of the Bible after a first for what they had they were more used to than what they had not These are things the aforesaid excellent Bishop thinks will easily be granted p. 120. 2. As for the Service I shall consider it in another place and shall therefore now pass to the 3. Rites and Ceremonies Here I take it for granted 1. That the Ceremonies that we are obliged to observe are no other than what are prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer and so Bowing at the Name of Jesus and toward the Altar being not therein prescribed are not concerned in the case before us 2. I take it for granted that the Ring in Marriage is now on all sides accounted a meer Civil and not a Religious Rite and so what remain are only the Surplice the Cross and Kneeling at the Sacrament 3. I take it for granted again that if the circumstances of times and state of the Church make it more necessary to lay any of them aside or alter them than to continue the use of them that it 's then lawful and reasonable according to the Doctrine of our Church to alter or abolish them And that though they have been never so venerable for Antiquity since even those that were once of Divine Institution and of Apostolical use have been changed or prohibited when the case was altered or need so required as it was in the posture at the Passover among the Jews the time of Celebrating the Lord's Supper the Holy Kiss and Love-Feasts in the Primitive Church But how indifferent soever the things are in themselves and that the nature of the thing varies not nor is bettered by the use or made worse by the alteration or forbearance of them yet I confess there is a difficulty in our circumstances how to proceed For without quitting or altering it seems the Dissenting party is not to be brought into the Church and without retaining them it 's likely many of our own will hardly be kept in it Both parties are in the Extremes and yet both are to be regarded the one that there be no Schism from the Church the other that there be no Schism in it And therefore to accommodate this matter some have thought it most convenient to leave the case wholly indifferent to wear or not wear a Surplice to use or not use the Cross to kneel stand or sit in the Lord's Supper but I am afraid instead of uniting this would more divide us and set Clergy against Clergy and People against People and sometimes People against Clergy And therefore in my poor opinion the best expedient is first of all to have some Rubricks drawn up to set forth for what reason the Church doth use and retain them without the Tokens and Dedications heretofore alluded to And then to find out some way for a mitigation As for instance if the Minister to be admitted yet scruples the use of the Surplice or Cross upon application to the Bishop another may be appointed to do that Service And if one of the Laity scruples the use of the Cross the Minister may be permitted in that case to Baptize without it Or if Kneeling at the Sacrament that the person so scrupling may have it delivered unto him in another posture provided it be not at the Table but in some convenient Pew or Place appointed by the Minister And the same course may be taken for Godfathers which if the Parent signifies he cannot procure or is not satisfied in it shall be lawful for the Minister to accept of the Sponsion of the Parent 4. Reordination This is the case of those that are not now against Episcopal Orders but having been Ordained by Presbyters they think it unlawful to renounce them and to be Reordained where they have been already Ordained And they plead for themselves That though by the late Act of Parliament none are to be admitted to officiate in the Church of England without Episcopal Ordination yet it was not so before For 1. the Ordination by Presbyters was by our Church accounted valid though not every way perfect and Foreigners were suffered to enjoy Ecclesiastical Preferments here without Reordination as was the case of Peter du Moulin c. 2. It was not only so with Foreigners Bp Spotsw Hist of Scotland but also those that were made Presbyters by Presbyters in Scotland were made Bishops without any New Ordination 3. They plead though their case is somewhat different yet it 's so near the same that the difference cannot as far as they conceive make that altogether invalid in them which was so far valid in the other as not to require a New Ordination 4. They plead Quod fieri non debet factum valet and that were it to do again they would not chuse it but being done and sometimes when they could not have Episcopal Ordination they think some favour is to be allowed for this once My business is not to enquire into the sufficiency of their Reasons but what may be done for the composing now of this matter and the preserving of the Right of Episcopal Ordination which St. Epist ad Evagr. Hierom himself makes the sole Prerogative and distinguishing Character of that Order and the quieting of the Consciences of those that