Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bishop_n	church_n	year_n	4,537	5	4.8354	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70766	Moderation a vertue, or, A vindication of the principles and practices of the moderate divines and laity of the Church of England represented in some late immoderate discourses, under the nick-names of Grindalizers and Trimmers / by a lover of moderation, resident upon his cure ; with an appendix, demonstrating that parish-churches are no conventicles ... in answer to a late pamphlet entitled, Parish-churches turned into conventicles, &c.	Owen, John, 1616-1683.	1683 (1683)	Wing O772; ESTC R11763	76,397	90

all times and upon all occasions of Difference and Contest to give clear and palpable Tokens of their Moderation to all Sorts and Conditions of Men. Still it appears that the Objects of Moderation are all sorts of Men and that the Subject Matter upon which it is exercised are Matters of Difference and Contest So he repeats his Notion again pag. 35. and again pag. 37. Now before I go further I desire the Reader to believe me that I approve of very much good Matter well-spoken and well-applied But I fear Prejudice and Partiality weighs too heavy upon his Bowle I do confess i● is a very good Notion and Doctrine that we should manage all our Differences with Temper But why should he single out this as the main if not whole of the Text which is but a good Behaviour in a particular Case and but one Instance of a general Duty seems not so clear Besides 't is like it is too narrow a Notion except a Christian have or may have some Matters of Controversy or Difference with all Men and that all Christians may have differing and contrary Opinions and Principles and each one is bound to maintain his own Side with Temper As he doth often repeat his own Sence of Moderation so he doth deliver a common but untrue Notion of Moderation in a Lay and Church-Capacity from p. 36 to p. 41. and then gives his Reasons against such a kind of Moderation as he is pleased to describe to pag. 48. It would be too tedious to examine all the Members and Parts of a moderate Man in a Lay-Capacity but what is most material First doth it become a moderate Man to be so positive as to say after an imaginary oratorical Description of a Lay moderate Man such as I and others never knew This saith the Preacher is no Fiction of mine no Creature of my Fancy but Matter of Fact visible to every Eye p. 37. That it is not difficult to prove such Men act against their Conscience for really a moderate Man in the common Notion if examined is but a softer Phrase for a Knave pag. 48. Upon this Character of a moderate Lay-man drawn pag. 36. I make some Observations and in the general observe That he takes some Parts and Vertues of a very honest Man to make a Knave of As 1. He is one who will frequent the Publick Churches 2. One who will seem devout at Divine Service and who doth to us and our Eye more than seem 3. One who talks much for Union and wishes for it but sees no Evil in Schism Whereas what can move him to wish for Union but the Good of Union and the Evil of Schism And I would fain know what Benefit any Knave can make of Union If he only talkt for Union and did not wish for it and if this might be known it were like a moderate Man in the softer Phrase but if he talks much of Union and wishes for it he talks and wishes like an honest Man 4. Suppose him to be one who thinks he doth God good Service and takes a good Course to promote Peace by frequenting unlawful Meetings and yet is clearly for the Religion established by Law Yet under favour 1. Suppose he may be mistaken in thinking so for all that he may be a very honest Man for honest Men are subject to Mistakes 2. If he mistake in the way to promote Peace for all that he may be very honest 3. If he thinks those Meetings which you call unlawful that is to say Meetings of Orthodox Preachers and Christians consistent with the Religion established by Law he may be a wise discerning honest Man and doth distinguish between the Religion and the mutable Appendages to which he never subscribed or declared being but a Lay-man But then Secondly Some Things are affixed to him which if true depends upon proof against some particular Men if any such there be which doth not affect more than those Individuals We know none that first work hard against the Church of England on the six Days and appear for her on the Sunday 2. Nor any that sees not harm in Schism but you may call that a Schism which is not 3. Nor any who are one with all Parties in designing against the Government 4. Nor that cry God forbid there should be any Alteration in it for there may be Alteration in it as in the natural Body from Youth to riper Age without its destruction or dissolution 5. Nor that look upon Bishops as necessary Evils for they who account them evil do not account them necessary 6. He may be a Son of the Church of England and yet chuse rather if he could that is if he lawfully could to be without the Ceremonies for the Church doth declare That those Ceremonies which remain upon just causes may be altered and changed in the Preface of Ceremonies why some be abolished Thirdly He delivers some Things positively which are dubious and therefore which may be untrue pag. 37. These are moderate Men in one sence i.e. they have a moderate Esteem of and a moderate Love for that Church in whose Communion they live and resolve to die so long as she is up but if she were down they could contentedly enough survive her Ruine and perhaps they might live the longer Now either this Picture of a moderate Lay Church-man is a Creature of his own Fancy or a real Being if a real Being and a true Man he is one of his own Acquaintance or not if not of his Acquaintance he paints him by the Ear by Report and not by the Eye of his own Knowledg Let him either reform him if he can or keep no Acquaintance with him If he be a real Man he speaks the Language of Abhorrers and Addressers who often promise to live and die for the Church as established by Law and they are concerned in the Character drawn one would think with too heavy a hand and Pencil made of too course Bristles for a moderate Man to use Fourthly A Moderate Man such as in some things he sets out in the Colours of a Knave wipes off the Dash and thinks he may with an honest Heart and Face in sincerity towards God Loyalty to the Government and Constancy to his Religion frequent the publick Churches and Conventicles too For first He is of the Judgment that God may be truly and acceptably worship'd under different Modes and Forms therefore he will frequent the publick Churches for which you cannot blame him and it may be go to Assemblies called Conventicles especially when he had the King's Indulgence 2. He believes there is a Communion of Saints not only in Faith and Affection but also in Worship and therefore if he cannot hold Communion with Orthodox Preachers in publick Churches he will make bold to enjoy it where he can which he thinks he may do without Sin because it is his Duty and knows no Reason or Law of God why he may not

to a particular Uniformity But you 'll say Here 's no Omission of any Thing required True but let us modestly see if there be not some Omissions also allowed which will make a Difformity from the Use of our rigid Interpreters and whether the Composers of our Book have not been accessary to propagate or countenance a Sect of moderate Men in the Church Suppose a Man affirm that a strict close constant Use of the Letany be enjoined every Sunday Wednesday and Friday how will he prove it We think not clearly and convincingly by the Rubrick which is the Rule of our Uniformity which is this Here followeth the Letany or general Supplication to be sung or said after Morning-Prayer upon Sundays Wednesdays and Fridays and at other Times when it shall be commanded by the Ordinary Here the strict constant Use of the Letany is not enjoined upon every Sunday Wednesday and Friday but upon Sundays Wednesdays and Fridays If so much had been said for the Use of the Letany on those Days as there is for the Order of Morning-Prayer without it there might have been more light to direct us to the constant Use of it for after it it is said Here endeth tho Order of Morning-Prayer throughout the Year when yet three of these Prayers are to be omitted by another Rubrick when the Letany is said and yet Sundays Wednesdays and Fridays fall within the Year By the Rubrick for the reading one or more of the Collects after the Offertory it is left to the Discretion of the Minister to use one or more of those Collects He that useth one conforms as truly as he that useth more and yet there is no particular Uniformity except every Minister use the same and as many one as another A strict and close Conformity to a general Rule is one Thing and a strict and close Conformity to some Mens Practice is another The Compilers of our Book and Rubricks did it seems so word the Rubricks as to leave some Latitude of Interpretation and Practice either to the Discretion or various Occasions of Ministers and Circumstances of Time Condition of People or to the Prudence of the Ordinary to keep up his Power Yet notwithstanding this Apology the Letany is as frequently read by moderate Ministers as by them that do not affect that Title Secondly Let us see if such a constant and exact Conformity be required in the Use of Ceremonies Some Ceremonies are required of the Ministers and some of the People Those required of the Ministers are the wearing of the Surplice and the signing with the Cross I have spoken of the Ring in Marriage before and bowing at the Name of Jesus and towards the Altar are no-where required by Law 1. The omitting of a Ceremony is no such great Crime in the Judgment of the Reformers of this Church as this Reverend Preacher exclaims against in that Account of Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained we read this moderate Passage And altho the keeping or omitting of a Ceremony in it self considered is but a small thing yet the wilful and contemptuous Transgression and breaking of common Order and Discipline is no small Offence before God We admit this and say that if sometimes we omit the Use of any of these Ceremonies suppose in compliance with tender Consciences or for some weighty reason we willingly do it but not wilfully and contemptuously and therefore occasional and sometimes necessary Omissions are but small Offences 2. Why may not a moderate Minister sometimes omit the wearing of the Surplice as well as the Brethren who seem to be the exact Patterns and Exemplars of Conformity omit the wearing of such Ornaments of the Church and Ministers thereof at all times of their Ministration such as Copes and Hoods as were in this Church of England by Authority of Parliament in the second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth See the Rubrick or Section And here is to be noted c. after the Order for Morning and Evening-Prayer 3. Is not the Rubrick as positive for dipping the Child in Water warily and discreetly if the Godfathers and Godmothers shall certify that the Child may well endure it as for sprinkling and signing with the Cross And doth this ingenious and urgent Preacher demand such a Certificate from them that he may observe this Rubrick which saith And then naming it after them if they shall certify that the Child may well endure it he shall dip it c. How many Children hath he dipp'd in St. Ethelbert How often hath he demanded such a Certificate Suppose in the South Parts Infants were dipt and in the North sprinkled what would become of Uniformity in a more considerable Ceremony than any of the rest 4. Why may not the Cross be omitted sometimes to gratify a tender scrupulous weak Conscience without blame as well as the Omission of dipping Infants out of respect to bodily Weakness Is bodily Weakness in an Infant a better Reason than a Weakness or the Judgment of Conscience in a Parent Should the one be omitted and not the other Or shall we declare our selves more tender of hurting a weak Body than wounding a weak Soul 5. Uniformity takes in the Part and Duty of the People The Rubrick which is the Law doth often require that the People should kneel or supposeth that they kneel As for instance before the Confession Absolution Lord's Prayer We know it is impossible or inconvenient for most People in great and crouded Congregations and in narrow Pews and Allies to kneel in Prayer the greatest part if not all in the most conformable Churches stand Why may it not be as excusable sometimes in a Minister for great Causes to omit some one Ceremony as it is for the greatest Congregations always or most commonly to omit that Gesture of Reverence as positively required as any other And why may not a Minister as excusably deliver the Sacrament to a Receiver sitting or standing as pray the People sitting or standing when they are required to kneel at Prayer as strictly as at the Communion Some Persons are lame and cannot kneel shall a Minister refuse them And if some Impossibility Inconvenience or natural Infirmity shall make a Nonconformity blameless why may not a consciencious Infirmity or unconquerable Prejudice and Fear in the Consciencious render the Omission of a Ceremony unblameable or excusable And I desire it may be noted That I only shew there is room for Moderation and do not justify any Practice inconsistent with the Laws interpreted according to Equity By what is said I presume it either appears this Conclusion is too big for the Premises or it may appear doubtful whether an exact constant Duty such as he means c. be required by the Act. Let us now see is such an Inference can be drawn from his other Topick which is 3 dly Our Oath of Canonical Obedience The Oath of Canonical Obedience binds us to lawful and honest