Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	church_n	good_a	king_n	1,394	5	3.5072	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45377	Some necessity of reformation of the publick doctrine of the Church of England. Or a modest and brief reply to Dr Pearson's modest and learned, No necessity of reformation of the publick doctrine of the Church of England. Directed to Dr Pearson himself. By William Hamilton gent.	Hamilton, William, gent.	1660 (1660)	Wing H489; ESTC R207963	20,948	32

a testimony of the great wisdome and moderation of the Church which in points doubtfull and controverted hath propounded only that which with no sober man can be matter of doubt or subject of controversie if you mean it that they should not be so farre reformed as the Assembly of Westminster did by explication and addition to them though retaining themselves you thereby condemne the procedures of a wiser Church than your own the Church Universall in her best oecumenick Councels of Nice Chalcedone c. which thus reformed the Apostles vulgarly so cal'd Creed its self by explaining it and adding to it their own and Athanasius's Creeds to the exclusion of Arrianisme and other Heresies and therefore it is meet you be desired to explaine your selfe about Arminianisme which you so farre obliquely at least and afarre off pleade for 4. In the third sub-paragraph or sad consequence the doubtfullness of the generality and indefiniteness of the 20. Article is spoken to and of its publiqueness 1. As it is cal'd the Doctrine of the Church and yet what is meant by the Church is not in the Articles explained but left generall and doubtfull nor might it be inquired after or laboured to be explained as the Articles were stated in their publiqueness by that Declaration and Proclamation of the Kings and therefore also all the publiqueness and authority that they could have from the Church must remain doubtfull till it be known whether it came from the Church habente potestatem to give them publiqueness and authority or from the right Church having just and undouted power to make and authorize with a sufficient ecclesiastick publiqueness and authority such Articles of Religion as a Confession of her faith 2. For as much as it left doubtfull beside the former respects influencing this part also and generall only what rites she may ordain suppose the Church were distinctly explained and set forth And 3. How farre her authority extends in controversies of faith with an absurdity that follows upon adherence to or urgeing that doubtfull generality and indeterminateness of the Articles according to considerations aforesaid To all which you answer nothing but that the Doctrines of that Article as considered in themselves are undoubted truths Which is true enough but nothing to Rhombus as we have often said For the Ministers speak of the doubtfullness as proceeding from their too great generality and unfitness to exclude errors by and of their doubtfullness of publiqueness and authority and therefore though the Article take not away the liberty of right interpretation in these respects yet the publiqueness of it as flowing from that Declaration and depending on it doth and the the Article it self gives not that due sense of its self fully enough pro ratâ sùa portione for its own ratable proportion that is requisit for a present Confession of faith and sufficient obviation of errours and therefore is so farre under a necessity of reformation and being supplyed Thus also doth this Section of the Ministers stand firm against any thing that you have answered as I suppose I have here sufficiently shown But yet concerning this 20. Article I have this further to adde about the doubtfullness of it and it may make the rest also the more suspected that when Mr Burton accused it that it was interpolated and a clause added to it that the true and best Copies had not Bishop Laud in the Star-chamber when they were about to Pillory Burton in his speech as I take it June 14. 1637. could not deny that some Copies wanted it but saies that he sent to the publique Records in his Office and had returned him under his Officers hand who was a publique notary the 20. Article with the affirmative clause in it that other Copies wanted and that there also the whole body of the Articles was to be seen Then he saies it was likest that the pure faction themselves i.e. the Puritans did rather take away that clause from the Copies that want it because it is known saith he who did then ride the Church meaning Leicester as I think a great favourer of Non-conformists and a favorite of the Queens rather than that any did adde it to the Copies Recorded c. But first If the Articles will not give us a good enough description of their Church Bishop Land will give us this That she was one that might be ridden by any great favorite of the Prince and so neither so respective to God nor her King whatever she pretended as Bucephalus was to Alexander which neither of his greatest favorites could ride though the one was Philobasileus and the other Philalexander by Alexanders own Confession 2. It hath often been found that Bishops and their servants or favourers have falsified Copies and Records of that nature witness the Bishop of Rome but never was proved I think that Non-conformists and Puritans did it Moreover the Bishops reason failes him because this diversity of Printed Copies as to that clause controverted was in the very year wherein they were agreed upon that is 1562. i. e. the 4. or 5. of Eliz. long before Leicester could ride the Church or any for him so farre as I can learn in favours of the Puritans as to that time And is it a thing likely that so soon after the Convocation Puritans durst or would do such a thing and pass so quietly away with it and without noise made by the Bishops as that diversity of Copies was past over if the Bishops had not made the diversity themselves to their own advantage or some of theirs for them by their privity and allowance 3. Since the Act 13. Eliz. or of Anno. 1571 referres only to a Printed Book of Articles 1562 the same year wherein they were agreed upon but specifies not what Printed Copy of that year the Act leaves it therefore doubtfull whether it hath confirmed that affirmative clause which the Bishops said that his Records had seeing in that very year there were two printed Editions of the Articles one in English and another in Latine whereof the one had the clause and the other wanted it and by this not specifying the Impression that it follows as undoubtedly uncorrupt it leaves some doubt upon the rest that they might be corrupt as well as this before that Act confirmed them Yea it leaves a great doubt whether there were any better Copy to be followed than that they refer'd to since it is not like the Parliament would referre to a printed Copy if they had known of any Autograph And what if both the Bishop and his Officer egregiously imposed upon the Star-chamber and neither his Office nor he had any thing to show but that printed Copy which Burton complained of subscribed with the hands of the Bishops and lower house of Convocation at diverse times I have heard as much and I believe some honest Puritans can and will make it good that during the long Parliament and sitting of the Assembly