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
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A69617 Two arguments in Parliament the first concerning the cannons, the second concerning the premunire vpon those cannons / by Edward Bagshawe, Esquire. Bagshaw, Edward, d. 1662. 1641 (1641) Wing B401; ESTC R16597 30,559 46

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

this seems to be the meaning of that Act that the Parliament should have a power in establishing the Canons of the Clergie it appeares by that Act in the appointing of the 32. Commissioners for the making of Canons whereof 16. were to be taken from the Temporalitie out of the upper and nether House of Parliament and 16. more were to be taken from the Clergy So that the Clergie had not that power to do it alone without the Laity though they had the Kings Royall assent thereunto And that the practise was alwaies so that the Acts and Constitutions of the Clergy had their determination and conclusion in Parliament appeares by these examples The 6 Articles mentioned in the Stat. 31. Hen. 8. cap. 14. 31. H. 8. cap. 14. were debated in the Synod or Convocation of the Clergy but were not binding to the people without confirmation in Parliament as appeares clearly by that Act. 32. Hen. 8. cap. 26. The institution of a Christian man compiled in a book by all the Clergy of England containing matter of doctrine as likewise the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church were not binding to the people without the approbation and confirmation of the Parliament of 32. H. 8. c. 26. as appears by that Statute And whereas it was said under the Gallery that the Laietie have nothing to do to meddle with matter of Religion If he had pleased to have cast his eyes upon the Stat. of 1. Ed. 6. ca. 1. he would have found there a notable debate and dispute in Parliament by the Laitie onely against Transubstantiation m l. 5 In S Th. Cottons library and Communion in one kinde as may appeare in that Statute Besides I have seene the Diary of King Ed. 6. written with his owne hand wherein he hath this passage This day there was a notable debate in the Lower House of Parliament against the Communion in one kinde So the Statutes of 2. E. 6. cap. 21. and 5. E. 6. cap. 12. concerning marriage of Priests gave a finall determination to that point by a binding Law upon a debate had first in the Convocation The Canons and Constitutions made by the 32. Commissioners upon the Statutes of 27. H. 8. cap. 15.35 H. 8. cap. 16. and 3. Ed. 6. c. 11. were compiled 6. E. 6. and afterwards printed and published and all the Commissioners names I have seen under king E. 6. own hand and although they be singular good Laws and written in excellent language yet because they have not had the allowance of Parliament are not received as binding Laws at this day Lastly the 39. Articles of Religion made in the Convocation 1562. were not binding Laws to the whole Kingdome till they had their approbation and confirmation by the Stat. of 13. Eliz. cap. 12. Thus have I as briefly as I could run over the practise of all ages in making Ecclesiasticall Laws and the reasons of their practise are briefly these A comparatis by an argument a minori ad majus If property of goods cannot be taken from me without my assent in Parliament which is the fundamentall Law of the land and so declared in the petition of right why then property and liberty of Conscience which is much greater as much as bona animi are above bona fortunae cannot be taken from me without my assent Libertie of Religion and Conscience are as I take it within the words of magna Charta M Ch. cap. 29. graunted to me as mine Inheritance cap. 29. Nullus liber homo imprisonetur aut disseisetur de libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis And liberty of Conscience is the greatest liberty It is by a necessary Consequence and deduction within the words Imprisonetur for put the Case that the Clergy make Cannons to which I never assented and I breake these Cannons whereupon I am excommunicated and upon a significavit by the Bishop my body is taken and imprisoned by a writ de excommunicato capiendo now shall I lye in prison all the dayes of my life and shall never be delivered by a Cautione admittenda unlesse I will come in parere mandatis Ecclesiae which are point blank against my conscience And thus have I proved the first and chiefest point that no Cannons can bind the Laiety and Clergy without consent in Parliament and therfore these Cannons made against the Laiety as well as the Clergy without their assent cannot bind Point 2 I come now to the 2d. point which is this Admitting the Clergy have power to make Cannons without common assent The question is whether they had lawfull authority to make these by force of the Stat. of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19. I thinke they had not The words of the Statute by which the Clergy have power to make Cannons 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19. are penned in the negative That they shall not enact promulge or execute any Cannons or Constitutions c. in their Convocations and which alwayes shall be assembled by authority of the Kings writ unlesse the same Clergy may have the Kings most royall assent to make promulge and execute such Cannons upon paine of imprisonment and to make fine at the Kings will By which it plainly appeares that the Clergy have no power to make Cannons but in their Convocation and that to the making of these Cannons there must be the Kings royall assent Whether this were so or no comes now to be examined wherin is to be observed the severall writs and Commissions which they had for the making of these Cannons The first writ that issued forth About the first of Feb. 1639. was the Parliament writ directed to every Bishop for calling them and their Clergy which had this clause in the latter end Ad consentiendum ijs quae tunc ibidem de communi concilio regni nostri divina favente clementia contigerint ordinari The 20. of February following went foorth two Writs more called the Convocation Writs directed to the severall Arch-bishops of Canterbury and Yorke for the election of Clerks to the severall Convocations which had these words in the writs Ad tractandum consentiendum concludendum super praemissis alijs quae sibi clarius exponentur tunc ex parte nostra The Parliament began the 13th of Aprill following and on the 15. of Aprill issued out a Commission to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to alter amend and change the old Canons and to make new during the Parliament the like went to the Arch-bishop of Yorke On the fift of May following the Parliament was dissolved wherby as I conceive the Law to be the Convocation was likewise dissolved and determined which being so and no Cannons made by them all this time then could there be no Cannons made in the Convocation according to the words of the Statute And therfore the 12. of May following there went foorth another Commission to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to make Cannons c. during the Kings will
ca. 20. So by the Stat of 1. Edw. 6. cap. 2. before the Stat. of 1. Queen Mary which repealed that Sta. of Edw. 6. all Bishops were to keepe their Courts by Commission from the King and not in their owne names and the acts of the Court to be under the Kings seale and not under the Bishops and if they did the contrary they were to incurre fine and imprisonment in nature of a Premunire To apply this to our case the Kings Commission for the Clergy to make Cannons in their pretended Synod did beare date 12. May last paste being seven dayes after the dissolving of the last Parliament in which Commission there was an expresse proviso that no Cannons should be made 1. Contrary to the Rubrick 2. Contrary to the 39. Articles of Religion 3. Contrary to the Orders and Ceremonies already established and yet as if they would do things purposely against the Kings Commission the Cannons that they made were contrary to all these First They were contrary to the Rubrick of which because I will not be over-tedious I will give but one instance viz. the Rubrick before the Communion confirmed by Act of Parliament where it is expressely said that the Communion Table shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancell and the Priest shall officiate at the North-side of the Table by these Cannons viz. the 7. Cannon the Table is to be at the East end of the Chancell to stand Altar-wise and the sides of the Table are to stand East and West and not North and South and it is there called Altar and not Table and men are injoyned to kneele at the Table so removed all contrary to the said Rubrick and though this may seem but a light matter yet when I shall open to you the Reasons of this upon the first Reformation it will appeare to be a matter of great weight and consequence for the people were in the time of Edw. 6. who began our Reformation of Religion addicted to grosse Idolatry by holding the opinion of transubstantiation and by upholding that abominable Idoll of the Masse in the Adoration of the Hoast and the way then devised to reduce them from Idolatry was by this meanes First King Edw. 6. did by his injunction cause all Altars to be pulled downe and moveable Tables of wood to be in their Rooms Secondly he did appoint that the Sacrament should be no more called the Sacrament of the Altar but the Communion of the body and blood of CHRIST and that the Table on which the bread and wine did stand should be called a Table and not an Altar as may appeare by the Stat. of 1. Edw. 6. Cap. 1. Thirdly He did appoint the Table to stand in the body of the Church by his Common-prayer Booke 5● Edw. 6. to the end that the people might forget their adoration at the place where it stood before Fourthly and lastly To take away all manner of Superstition he caused a declaration to be made of the sence and meaning of the Church of England for the gesture of kneeling at the Communion which is set downe at large in the Common-prayer Book which was set out 5. Edw. 6. which because it hath given satisfaction to the Consciences of many hundreds and is now left out of our Common-prayer Books I will take the boldnesse to reade it to you word for word as I find it in that Rubrick because it is of singular use Although no order can be so perfectly devised but it may be of some either for their ignorance and infirmity or els of malice and obstinacy misconstrued depraved and interpreted in a wrong part and yet because brotherly charity willeth that so much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away therfore we willing to doe the same Whereas it is ordained in the Book of Common-prayer in the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants kneeling should receive the holy Communion which thing being well meant for a signification of the humble and gratefull acknowledging of the benefits of CHRIST given unto the worthy receiver and to avoid the prophanation and disorder which about the holy Communion might els ensue least the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise we do declare that it is not meant therby that any adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the Sacramentall Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any reall and essentiall presence there being of CHRISTS naturall flesh and bloud for as concerning the Sacramentall Bread and Wine they remaine still in their very naturall substances and therfore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithfull Christians and as concerning the naturall Body and Blood of our Saviour CHRIST they are in Heaven and not here for it is against the Truth of CHRISTS true naturall Body to be in moe places then in one at one time Secondly the 7. Cannon to name no more is against the 39. Articles which are confirmed by the Parliament 13. Eliz. cap. 12. which I prove in this manner the 35. Article doth maintaine the Books of Homilies to containe good and wholsome doctrine now the seventh Cannon approoving of the bowing in Churches and at Communion Tables is expresly against 3 Homilies of the Church of Eng. viz. 1. The Homily of the right use of the Church 2. The Homily of repairing the Church 3. And the second and third Homilies of the perill of Idolatry In all which Homilies you shall finde these passages 1. That Images and I dols are all one 2. That Altars and Images are one 3. That Idolatry is to Images in Temples an inseperable accident 4. That in time of Common-prayer private devotion is not to be used 5. That the true ornaments of the Church consist in preaching prayer due administration of the Sacraments c. and not by any outward Ceremonies or costly and glorious decking of the House of GOD with gold c. occasioning men thereby to commit most horrible Idolatry 6. That the Church is called holy not of it selfe but because GODS people resorting thereunto are holy with divers more passages in those Homilies to that purpose whereupon I inferre that in asmuch as the 7. Cannon and other Cannons are opposite to these passages they have made Cannons against the 35. Article of Religion and so have done contrary to the Proviso in the Commission Thirdly By the 7. Cannon and other their new Cannons they have done against their Commission in that they are against the Ceremonies of the Church of England now established since the Reformation For by the 82. Cannon in the Cannons 1. Jaco the Table is to stand in the body of the Church or Chancell to the end that the greater number may communicate at the Table and the Minister may be the better heard and seene But by the setting of the Table at the East end of the Chancell the greater number cannot communicate and the Minister in divers