Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	ceremony_n	church_n	rite_n	3,560	5	9.9325	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69535	The grand debate between the most reverend bishops and the Presbyterian divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as commissioners for the review and alteration of the Book of common prayer, &c. : being an exact account of their whole proceedings : the most perfect copy.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.; Commission for the Review and Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer.	1661 (1661)	Wing B1278A; Wing E3841; ESTC R7198	132,164	165

we dare not think a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Christ his Church hath commanded Nor does the Act determine any thing about Lent Fast but only provide for the maintenance of the Navy and of Fishing in order thereunto as is plain by the Act. Besides we conceive that we must not so interpret one Act as to contradict another being still in force and unrepealed Now the Act of 1 Eliz. confirmes the whole Liturgy and in that the religious keeping of Lent with a severe penalty upon all those who shall by open words speak any thing in derogation of any part thereof and therefore that other Act of 5 Elizab. must not be interpreted to forbid the religious keeping of Lent Reply If when the expresse words of a Statute are cited you can so easily put it off by saying it does not forbid it and you dare not think that a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Christ his Church hath commanded and you must not interpret it as contradicting that Act which confirms the Liturgy we must think that indeed we are no lesse regardful of the Laws of the Governours than you But first we understand not what Authority this is that you set against the King and Parliament as supposing they will not forbid what it commands You call it Christs Church we suppose you mean not Christ himself by his Apostles infallibly directed and inspired If it be the National Church of England they are the Kings Subjects and why may he not forbid a Ceremony which they command or why should they command it if he forbid it If it be any Foreign Church ther 's none hath power over us If it be any pretended head of the Church universal whether Pope or general Council having power to make Laws that bind the whole Church it is a thing so copiously disproved by Protestants against both the Italian and French Papists that we think it needlesse to confute it nor indeed dare imagine that you intend it We know not the refore what you mean But whatever you mean you seem to contradict the forecited Article of the Church of England that makes all humane Laws about Rites and Ceremonies of the Church to be unchangeable by each particular National Church And that it is not necessary that Ceremonies or Traditions be in all places one or utterly like we most earnestly beseech you be cautious how you obtrude upon us a Foreign Power under the name of Christs Church that may command Ceremonies which King and Parliament may not forbid whether it be one man or a thousand we fear it is against our Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy for us do own any such Power And not presuming upon any immodest challenge we are ready in the defence of those Oathes and the Protestant Religion to prove against any in an equal conference that there is no such Power and for the Statute let the words themselves decide the Controversy which are these Be it Enacted that who soever shall by Preaching Teaching Writing or open speech notifie that any eating of Fish or forbearing of Flesh mentioned in this Statuie is of any necessity for the saving of the Soul of man or that it is the Service of God otherwise than as other Politick Laws are and be that than such persons are and shall be punished as the spreaders of false news are and ought to be And whereas you say the Act determines not any thing about Lent Fast it speaks against eating Flesh on any days now usually observed as Fish days and Lent is such and the senfe of the Act for the Lituigy may better be tryed by this which is plain than thus reduced to that which is more obscure The observation of Saints dayes is not as of Divine but Ecclesiastical Institution and therefore it is not necessary that they should have any other ground in Scripture than all other Institutions of the same nature so that they be agreeable to the Scriptare in the general end for the promoting piety and the observation of them was antient as appears by the Rituals and Liturgies and by the joynt consent of Antiquity and by the antient translation of the Bible as the Syriack and Ethiopick where the Lessons appointed for Holydayes are noted and set down the former of which was made near the Apostles times Besides our Saviour himself kept a Feast of the Churches Institution viz. the Feast of the Dedication S. Jo. 12. 22. The choice end of these dayes being not feasting but the exercise of Holy Duties they are fitter called Holydayes than Festivals and though they be all of like nature it doth not follow that they are equal The people may be dispensed with for their work after the Service as Authority pleaseth The other names are left in the Calender not that they should be so kept as Holydayes but they are useful for the preservation of their memories and for other reasons as for Leases Law-dayes c. Reply The antiquity of the Translations mentioned is far from being of determinate certainty we rather wish than hope that the Syriack could be proved to be made near the Apostles times But however the things being confessed of humane Institution and no Forreign Power having any Authority to command his Majesties Subjects and so the imposition being only by our own Governours we humbly crave that they may be left indifferent and the unity or peace of the Church or Liberty of the Ministers not laid upon them This makes the Liturgy void if every Minister may put in and leave out all at his discretion Repl. You mistake us we speak not of putting in and leaving out of the Liturgy but of having leave to intermix some exhortations or prayers besides to take off the deadnesse which will follow if there be nothing but the stinted Forms we would avoid both the extreme that would have no forms and the contrary extremes that would have nothing but forms But if we can have nothing but extremes there 's no remedy it s not our fault And this moderation and mixture which we move for is so far from making all the Liturgy void that it will do very much to make it attain its end and would heal much of the distemper which it occasioneth and consequently would do much to preserve the reputation of it As for instance it besides the Forms in the Liturgy the Minister might at Baptism the Lords Supper Marriage c. interpose some suitable exhortation or prayer upon special occasion when he finds it needful Should you deny this at the visitation of the Sick it would seem strange and why may it not be granted at other times It is a matter of far greater trouble to us that you would deny us and all Ministers the Liberty of using any other Prayers besides the Liturgy then that you impose these The gift or rather spirit of Prayer consists in the inward graces of the spirit not in ex