Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	ceremony_n	church_n	rite_n	2,845	5	10.3412	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53894	No necessity of reformation of the publick doctrine of the Church of England. By John Pearson, D.D.	Pearson, John, 1613-1686.	1660 (1660)	Wing P1001; ESTC R202284	20,122	29

presenteth nothing but the same complaint of want of Liberty to expound the Articles applied to a certain Particular Doctrine contained in the 16. Article which is Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptisme is sin against the Holy Ghost Now certainly this is in it self a most sound certain infallible plain and perspicuous Doctrine and being so the want of liberty to interpret one term of it deadly sin cannot render it Doubtfull For interpret it which way you will either say all sins are deadly or say all sins are not deadly it will be equally true that Every deadly sin is not the sin against the Holy Ghost In the like manner Whether we may fall from grace totally and finally or whether we cannot fall from grace totally and finally which hath been a great doubt without any question After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given of that there hath never been any question And so this Exception no way inferres the Doubtfulness of the Doctrine but rather gives a Testimony of the great Wisedome and Moderation of the Church which in Points doubtfull and controverted hath propounded onely that which with no sober man can be matter of doubt or subject of Controversy The third sad consequence addeth nothing to the former Objection but onely a new Particular of the 20. Article in which their Liberty of Interpretation is abridged whereas the Article it self takes away no such liberty neither doth it become the more doubtfull by any such liberty being taken away by virtue of His Majesties Declaration For whether the Church be taken for the Church Catholick or whether it be taken for the Church of England it is most certainly and undoubtedly true That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith which is the first Doctrine contained in the 20. Article And in the same manner whether it doth happen that the Church should ordain ought contrary to Gods Word or expound one place of Scripture repugnant to another or whether this do or shall never happen yet it is a Doctrine most undoubtedly certain That it is not lawfull for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word written neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another Which is the second Doctrinal Proposition propounded in the 20. Article and that howsoever they would endeavour to interpret it most indubitable The fourth sad consequence presenteth the same objection of want of liberty to expound the 34. Article which is therefore insisted upon because they conceive they have found a strange expression in it and they cannot understand how a Tradition may be said to be ordained This is the first Objection brought by them against any Part of the Doctrine contained in any Article neither is the Objection properly against the Matter but onely against the manner of Speech And yet they were forced to mutilate the Article before they could raise this objection against it For thus they print the words Whosoever doth openly breake the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God and be ordained by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly and so they joyn the word ordained both to Ceremonies and Traditions whereas the Article speaks plainly and distinctly thus and be ordained and approved by common authority that is to say respectively the Ceremonies ordained and the Traditions approved Thus if they please to take the Article entire they will be so far from shewing the Doctrine doubtfull that they will not be able to find in it so much as a strange expression The fifth sad consequence seemeth much more to the purpose then the former for here they endeavour to prove more then they undertook The Design propounded was to shew the Doctrine doubtfull here they undertake to prove it false The Article accused is the 35. and the accusation is that it teacheth the Bookes of Homilies to contain a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times from whence they say it will necessarily follow that he which subscribeth this Article must subscribe to false doctrines or assertions That therefore which the Article saith is godly wholesome and necessary they say is false The false Doctrines charged upon the Homilies are two The first is pretended to be taken out of Hom. 2. Of the place and time of Prayer That Homily therefore is charged with false Doctrine To which I answer that the second Part of the Homily Of the place and time of Prayer containeth in it these two Doctrines 1. Christians ought to be zealous and desirous to come to Church 2. God is grieved with them who despise or little regard to come to Church on the day set apart for Gods worship In reference to each of these the Article says very true that this Homily containes a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times and I can assure him whosoever subscribeth it shall subscribe in this to no false Doctrine or assertion The words which they affixe to this Homily and in regard of which they charge it with falsehood are these Pluralities of wives was by special Prerogative suffered in the Fathers of the Old Testament not for satisfying their carnall and fleshly lusts c. But it were very strange if these words should be produced in the Homily to prove the necessity of a place and time of Prayer certainly the Church would set no such example to extravagant preaching Indeed there are no such words in that Homily and the mistake is so plain that I cannot see how divers Ministers in sundry Counties could possibly concurre in it But though the words objected be not found in that Homily by them mentioned yet they may be in another and so I confesse they are and that in the page by them cited which makes the mistake the more remarkable But the Homily in which they are found is An information for them which take offence at certain places of the Holy Scripture and the onely Doctrine which that Homily undertaketh to defend is that the people ought to read the Scriptures which in it self is plain and true and so of no ambiguity Now the Objection made there to this Doctrine was that the People by reading the Scriptures were led into divers mistakes and the Homilist in answer to this Objection endeavours to prevent misinterpretations of some scriptures particularly such as taught that the godly Fathers had many wives and concubines the words then objected are but an Exposition of the Custome of the Patriarchs in answer to an objection raised against the Doctrine propounded and asserted and therefore though the Reason of the Exposition were not proper the Doctrine is never the lesse true never the more doubtfull and so long as that is true as certainly this Doctrine the People ought to read the Scriptures is most true the Article bindeth to no false Doctrine