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
A82002	A sober and temperate discourse, concerning the interest of words in prayer, the just antiquity and pedigree of liturgies, or forms of prayer in churches : with a view of the state of the church, when they were first composed, or imposed. Together with a discovery of the weakness of the grounds upon which they were first brought in, or upon which Bishop Gawden hath lately discoursed, the necessity of a liturgie, or the inconveniency of altering the English liturgie, the utility of church musick, and the lawfulness of ceremonies : in which are mixed reasons justifying those godly ministers, who forbear the use of the Common-prayer, against the late out-cryes of the said bishop. / By H.D. M.A.	H. D. (Henry Dawbeny); Collinges, John, 1623-1690, attributed name.	1661 (1661)	Wing D449; Thomason E1086_14; ESTC R208152	100,305	119

question why should so many good Subjects be lost to a Nation why should they have temptations to estrange their hearts from the ancient and excellent government thereof But matters of policy we most humbly leave to the grave wisdom and deliberations of His Sacred Majesty and His Parliaments Onely we must add a word to one or two Suggestions more which the Bishop hath for the imposing of the Liturgy CHAP. XIV Bishop Gaudens two Arguments from the Authority of the Church the influence of Subjects Conformity in devotion to their Prince considered No necessity of using the Liturgy upon these accounts I. THe truth is in other parts of his Book the Bishop did but like the Lapwing fly far about from his main design and argument which p. 27. he toucheth and yet but very tenderly The Authority of the Church must not be baffled Here indeed is the bottom of all we must have Liturgies and Ceremonies imposed to maintain the Authority and pomp and grandieur of what they call the Church II. The name of the Church is a reverend name and her Authority is reverend and by no means to be baffled for Christ is in her But as the Name and Authority of a rightful King is reverend so both the name and authority of an Usurper is justly abominable And as no Magistrates command is to be obeyed where he hath no right to command so neither is any Church nor is denial of obedience in that case any contempt of the Authority either of the Magistrate or of the Church we must therefore enquire strictly what Church this is which is clothed with Authority and what power she hath in the things we dispute about III. The Church is either Triumphant or Militant The Militant Church is visible or invisible It must be the Militant visible Church this also is an homonimous term and either signifies the universality of the people or the messengers of the people The Universality of people baptized into the name of Christ over all the world make up the Catholike visible Church The whole Company of them in this of that Province Nation City Parish make such a National Provincial or Parochial Church But we do not think this is the Church clothed with Authority We understand by a Church in that sense The Officers of such a Church constituted according to Gods Word whether they be the Officers of a particular Church or the messengers of the particular Churches in a Lugentile Synod a National or Provincial Synod or if it were possible in an Oecumenical Synod To Churches in all these political senses vve ow great reverence and acknowledge that to their several capacities several degrees of authority to admonish suspend excommunicate deprive declare the doctrine of saith in doubtful cases appoint some things truly and properly relating to decency or order c. IV. But it is more then we know that any such Church as this ever established a Liturgie in England The Papists have devised a new notion of a Church to them the Pope and his Cardinals make the Church but that any such notion of Church is justifiable from Scriptures Protestants deny V. Our State hath been pleased in some Acts of Parliament to take Church in another notion and to call the Prelacy of England the Church of England That this application of the term Church is not to be justified from Scripture or Reason is plain nor is it needful they may if they please call the Prelacy of England the Parliament or by what other name they please what should hinder But they cannot give them that Authority which the word of God allows onely to a Church in another notion but may cloath them with vvhat civil power they please VI. Hence it appears that it is all one vvith us in England to baffle or despise the Church and State for that company of men whom vve call the Church of England by a new civil application of the term is nothing else Then a company of men by a Civil Power made Bishops and called to advise the State in things concerning Religion who have no more Authority then they derive from the King or Parliament for whence should they have it Not from Nature Surely no Ecclesiastical power is derived from thence Not from Scripture upon any pretence for if vvhen Christ gave the Keyes to Peter he intended his single person as the Papists vvould have it then St. Peter's successor only can pretend to them if he gave them to Peter as an Officer of the Church then there must be either a full Convention of such Officers or some persons chosen by them to use them If to Peter as a Christian then the Authority is in the Community VII It remains that according to the Constitution of English Synods the Churches Authority is but derivative from the Civil State and to disobey them is no sin further then it is a disobedience to the lawful Civil Magistrate to vvhom vve freely grant an authority so far as Gods vvord allows us and such an authority as none ought to resist or baffle as the Bishop sayes The Church of England which we so often hear of is a Civil Church not an authoritative Church in a Scriptural notion VIII We again say Far be it from us to oppose Civil Authority either exercised by Lay persons or Ecclesiastical persons We acknowledge it our duty to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars We further say vve are bound to obey the Civil Magistrate in all things in things lawful Actively in things unlawful in themselves or vvhich appear so to us by suffering their vvill and pleasure quietly and patiently That vvhich vve insist upon is onely a lawful means in order to our own preservation i. e. humbly desiring the Civil Magistrate to forbear imposing upon us in the tender things of God IX VVe freely allow to the Civil Magistrate a power to command us in all civil things and shall chearfully obey him 2. To command us to keep the Statutes and Commandments of God 3. To command us in the Circumstances relating to Divine Worship to do those things vvhich are generally commanded us in the vvord to appoint time and place and such circumstances vvithout vvhich the vvorship of God in the judgement of ordinary reason must be indecently and disorderly performed X. For his power in imposing Forms of prayer significant ceremonies c. vve do not dispute it but vve humbly crave leave to dissent in this and to have liberty to suffer his pleasure as becomes Christians rather then do those things vvhich our consciences vvould condemn us for And in this vve appeal to all sober Divines and all rational Christians vvhether vve speak not as becomes sober Christians XI VVe cannot vvithout some passion read vvhat the Bishop sayes p. 28. Doubtless Subjects cannot be so tite and firm or so zealous and firm or so chearful and constant in their Loyalty love and duty to their Soveraign if they

we needed not have troubled our selves with an answer he not doing this we must examine them all supposing that the Dr. took all these for conclusive Arguments in the case able to command reasonable and religious souls to this conformity III. For the pretended Antiquity of Liturgies his Lordship may gather from what is already said that we do not believe any such thing nor hath he spoke one word to prove it we living not in Pithagoras his School have not learned to submit to an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we desire him to shew us any authority for a Liturgie within the first three Centuries IV. As to what he saith p. 2. That his most Sacred Majesty in his Gracious Declaration hath not dispensed with the legal morall obediential obligation We conceive he means the obligation which lies upon mens consciences to observe the Civil Laws of the Nation we do not else understand his meaning If this be it the Dr. hath two things to do 1. To prove that the Common-prayer-Book vulgarly to be had is established by any Law of England we heard it was openly denied in the house of Commons in the last Parliament and we cannot find any Law to that purpose the Laws 1 Ed. 5 6. Ed. 6. 1 El. are such that our consciences tell us they daily violate the Law that read these books In the mean time we ingenuously confess That his Majesties Declaration as it cannot make an obliging Law so it cannot dissolve the obligation of it but where is the Law 2. If it could be found how far doth it oblige any mans conscience certainly not to any act of sin if we thought we could use these forms without sin we should never dispute the Law in the case but freely obey the least intimation of his Sacred Majesties pleasure V. For what he tells us p. 8. of the example of the Church since the first Century we can find no such thing VVe have said enough to that c. 3. It is an empty unproved Assertion though we know nothing but Gods Word obliging our consciences and are to learn that any examples oblige us but those of Christ and his Apostles and therefore for what he tells us p. 3. of some Ministers that have all this time used the Liturgy Others that lately have reassumed the use of it it signifies nothing to us who live by the unerring rule of Scripture precepts and presidents If others will sin surely it obligeth not us to do so too Though we dare not say they did or do sin in it VI. He urgeth it upon us next from an ingenuous Argument viz. Gratitude to his Majesty for his indulgence To which we answer That we with all humility acknowledge His Most Excellent Majesties gracious indulgence in it And in point of gratitude are willing to serve his Majesty vvith all that is dear unto us our souls only excepted vvhich we know he desireth not in token of thankfulness to his Majesty we are ready to part with any part of our livelyhoods and shall in that vye with those who pretend most to his Majesties service though many of us in several places have no benefit by his Majesties Declaration whiles some eager Lawyers and Justices still give the Statutes in charge against us and cause us to be indicted and prosecuted openly telling the people that the Kings Declaration is no Law though they also know that there is no Law for the Common-prayer yet we have an experiment of his gracious Majesties good will to us his poor Subjects and shall be vvilling by any vvay which our consciences tell us would not be sin to us to let his Majesty know our gratitude But vve are sure that his Majesty is more charitable to his peoples souls then to desire that to express their thankfulness to him they should commit the least sin against God And this is enough to excuse us from the Bishops rash charging us with Morosity Restiveness Peevishness Schismatical petulancy c. with none of which men can be charged for any action which they do or neglect that they may avoid the guilt of Sin before God whether their consciences inform them rightly or no. VII For the many Splendid words which the Bishop useth p. 23.31 to dazle peoples eyes at the apprehension of the Excellency of the Liturgy they are of no use at all for besides that if he would have made his words good he must have proved 1. That the Common-prayer hath in it a perfect Confession of such sins as all are guilty of Original Actual of Omission Commission a perfect summary of things necessary to be begged of God for all and a perfect form of thanksgiving for mercies received and all this expressed in most Significant Scriptural Language plain and affective expressions and cast into a lovely and usual method I say besides this the Excellency of no form of words in prayer can commend it to be imposed universally if such imposing be not lawful But in stead of this the Bishop gives us a parcel of fine words without a tittle of proof and contrary to the general apprehension of all Reformed Churches who never spake it more then tolerable and to the judgement of discretion which the Protestant Religion allows to all private persons so that this is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Drs. opinion which to us Protestants is not enough to make what he sayes a probable Doctrine VIII What he argues for it from the invalidity of the exceptions taken to it and the supposed unblameableness of it signifies as little for it is blameable enough as a form universally imposed 2. As formerly used in an idolatrous service and for many things which he never so much as indeavours to vindicate it from though told him of old by Mr. Cartwright V. The Common-prayer book unmaskt the Abridgment more lately by the book called Necessity of Reformation by Vavasor Powel c. besides for what he speaks to as to the point of Baptismal regeneration it is so without foundation in Scripture for all know those two Texts 3 Jo. 5. and in Titus have other and better senses V. The Paralel between the Mass-book and the Liturgie So contrary to the Analogy of Faith in the point of Justification Perseverance in grace c. and the Dr. hath said so little to ●lear it that those Exceptions will yet stand good so will that as to the translation of the Text in Ezech. for none is so simple to assert that we can as infallibly give the sense of a Text and put it in other words with our additions as Christ and his Apostles and sure we are the Text in Ezech. in the letter of it speaks no such thing as our Liturgy makes it to speak IX For what he urgeth as to the disorders and confusions in our Church since the disuse of the Liturgie which he much comments upon p. 7 18 40. It is no argument to evince the necessity