Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	king_n	lord_n	say_a	16,658	5	7.1993	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86302	Respondet Petrus: or, The answer of Peter Heylyn D.D. to so much of Dr. Bernard's book entituled, The judgement of the late Primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party to by the said Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath, and by the said doctor in some others. To which is added an appendix in answer to certain passages in Mr Sandersons History of the life and reign of K· Charles, relating to the Lord Primate, the articles of Ireland, and the Earl of Strafford, in which the respondent is concerned.	Heylyn, Peter, 1600-1662.	1658 (1658)	Wing H1732; Thomason E938_4; Thomason E938_5; ESTC R6988	109,756	140

Mr. Ley accused by the Lord Primate for being too cold and waterish in the point of the Sabbath That by the Declaration of the three Estates convened in Parliament 5. 6. of Edw. 6. the times of publick worship are left to the liberty of the Church and that by the Doctrine of the Homilies the keeping of the Lords day hath no other ground then the consent of godly Christian people in the Primitive times No more of the fourth commandment to be now retained by the Book of Homilies then what belongs to the Law of Nature Working in Harvest and doing other necessary business permitted on the Lords day both by that Act of Parliament and the Queens Iniunctions No restraint made from Recreations on the Lords day till the first of King James The Sundaies and other Festivals made equal in a manner by the publick Liturgy and equal altogether by two Acts of Parliament The Answer to the Lord Primates Obiection from the Book of Homilies with reference to the grounds before laid down The difference between the Homilies of England and the Articles of Ireland in the present case Several strong Arguments to prove the Homily to mean no otherwise then as laid down in the said Answer Doctor Bounds Sabbath Doctrines lookt on as a general grievance and the care taken to suppress them WE are now come unto the third most material charge of all the rest by which the Historian stands accused for opposing the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies to which he had formerly subscribed and that too in so gross a manner that all the Sophistry he had could neither save him harmless for it nor defend him in it This is an heavy charge indeed and that it may appear the greater the Lord Primate layes it down with all those aggravations which might render the Historian the less able either to traverse the Indictment or plead not guilty to the Bill I wonder saith he in his Letter to an Honourable Person pag. 110. how Doctor Heylyn having himself subscribed to the Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Synod held at London Anno 1562. can oppose the conclusion which he findeth directly laid down in the Homily of the time and place of Prayer viz. God hath given express charge to all men in the fourth Commandment that upon the Sabbath day which is now our Sunday they shall cease from all weekly and week-day labour to the intent that like as God himself wrought six dayes and rested the seventh and blessed and consecrated it to quietness and rest from labour even so Gods obedient people should use the Sunday holily and rest from their common and dayly business and also give themselves wholly to the heavenly exercise of Gods true Religion and service This is the charge which the Historian suffers under wherewith the Lord Primate as it seems did so please himself that like a crambe his cocta it is served in again in his Letter unto Mr. Ley but ushered in with greater preparation then before it was For whereas Mr. Ley had hammered a Discourse about the Sabbath which he communicated to the Lord Primate to the end it might be approved by him the Lord Primate finds some fault with the modesty of the man as if he came not home enough in his Propositions to the point in hand Your second Proposition saith he p. 105. is too waterish viz. That this Doctrine rather then the contrary is to be held the Doctrine of the Church of England and may well be gathered out of her publick Liturgy and the first part of the Homily concerning the place and time of prayer Whereas you should have said that this is to be held undoubtedly the Doctrine of the Church of England For if there could be any reasonable doubt made of the meaning of the Church of England in her Liturgy who should better declare her meaning then her self in her Homily where she peremptorily declareth her mind That in the fourth Commandment God hath given express charge to all men c. as before we had it Assuredly a man that reads these passages cannot chuse but think that the Lord Primate was a very zealous Champion for the Doctrine of the Church of England but upon better consideration we shall find it otherwise that he only advocateth for the Sabbatarians not onely contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England but the practise also which that we may the better see I shall lay down plainly and without any sophistry at all upon what grounds the Lords day stood in the Church of England at the time of the making of this Homily both absolutely in it self and relatively in respect of the other Holy dayes And first we are to understand that by the joint Declaration of the Lords Spiritual Temporal and the Commons assembled in Parliament in the 5. 6. years of King Edw. 6. the Lords day stands on no other ground then the Authority of the Church not as enjoyned by Christ or ordained by any of his Apostles For in that Parliament to the honour of Almighty God it was thus declared viz. Forasmuch as men be not at all times so mindful to laud and praise God so ready to resort to hear Gods holy word and to come to the holy Communion c. as their bounden duty doth require therefore to call men to remembrance of their duty and to help their infirmities it hath been wholsomly provided that there should be some certain times and dayes appointed wherein Christians should cease from all kind of labour and apply themselves onely and wholly unto the aforesaid holy works properly pertaining to true Religion c. which works as they may well be called Gods service so the times especially appointed for the same are called holy dayes Not for the matter or the nature either of the time or day c. for so all dayes and times are of like holiness but for the nature and condition of such holy works c. whereunto such dayes and times are sanctified and hallowed that is to say separated from all profane uses and dedicated not unto any Saint or Creature but onely unto God and his service dayes●rescribed ●rescribed in holy Scripture but the appointment both of the time and also of the number of dayes is left by the Authority of Gods word unto the liberty of Christs Church to be determined and assigned orderly in every Country by the discretion of the Rulers and Ministers thereof as they shall judge most expedient to the setting forth of Gods glory and edification of their people Which Statute being repealed in the Reign of Queen Mary was revived again in the first year of Queen Elizabeth and did not stand in force at the time of the making of this Homily which the Lord Primate so much builds on but at such time also as he wrote his Letter to Mr. Ley and to that Honourable Person whosoever he was

But since he hath appeal'd to the Book of Homilies to the Book of Homilies let him go where he shall find as little comfort as he found in the Statute For in the Homily touching the time and place of prayer out of which the Lord Primate hath selected this particular passage it is thus doctrinally resolved viz. As concerning the time in which God hath appointed his people to assemble together solemnly it doth appear by the fourth Commandment c. And albeit this commandment of God doth not bind Christian people so streightly to observe and keep the utter Ceremonies of the Sabbath day as it did the Jewes as touching the forbearing of work and labour in the time of great necessity and as touching the precise keeping of the seventh day after the manner of the Jews for we keep now the first day which is our Sunday and make that our Sabbath that is our day of rest in honour of our Saviour Christ who as upon that day rose from death conquering the same most triumphantly Yet notwithstanding whatsoever is found in the Commandment appertaining to the Law of Nature as a thing most godly most iust and needful for the setting forth of Gods glory ought to be retained and kept of all good christian people So that it being thus resolved that there is no more of the fourth Commandment to be retained by good Christian people then what is found appertaining to the Law of Nature that the law of nature doth not tie us to one day in 7. or more to one day of the 7. then to any other let us next see by what Authority the day was changed how it came to be translated from the 7th to the first Concerning which it follows thus in the said Homily viz. This example and commandment of God the godly christian people began to follow immediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ and began to chuse them a standing day of the week to come together in the very same with that before declared in the Act of Parliament yet not the seventh day which the Jewes kept but the Lords day the day of the Lords Resurrection the day after the seventh day which is the first day of the week c. Sit hence which time Gods people hath always in all ages without any gainsaying used to come together on the Sunday to celebrate and honour Gods blessed name and carefully to keep that day in holy rest and quietness both man and woman child servant and stranger So far the Homily and by the Homily it appears plainly that the keeping of the Lords day is not grounded on any commandment of Christ nor any precept of the Apostles but that it was chosen as a standing day of the week to come together in by the godly christian people immediately after Christs Ascension and hath so continued ever since So then the keeping of the Lords day being built on no other grounds as is declared both in the Homily and the Act of Parliament then the authority of the Church the consent of godly Christian people it must needs follow thereupon that it is to be kept with no greater strictness with reference either unto worldly business or honest recreations then what is required of the people by the Law of the Land the Canons of the Church or by the Edicts and Proclamations of the King or other supreme Governour under whom we live And if we please to look into the Act of Parliament before remembred we shall find it thus in reference unto worldly business viz. It shall be lawful to every Huusbandman Labourer Fisherman and to all and every other Person or Persons of what Estate Degree or Condition he or they be upon the Holy dayes aforesaid of which the Lords day is there reckoned for one in Harvest or at any other times in the year when necessity shall so require to labour ride fish or work any kind of work at their free will and pleasure any thing in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding The like we also find as to worldly business in the Queens Iniunctions published in the first year of her Reign in which the Sunday is not onely counted with the other holy dayes but labour labour at some times permitted and which is more enjoyned upon it For in those Injunctions it is ordered with a non obstante That all Parsons Vicars and Curates shall teach and declare unto their Parishoners that they may with a safe and quiet conscience after Common-prayer in the time of Harvest labour upon the holy and festival dayes and save that thing which God hath sent And if for any Scrupulosity or grudge of conscience men should superstitiously abstain from working on these dayes that then they should grievously offend and displease God And though it may be said that the Queens Injunction and every thing therein contained was buried in the same Grave with her yet cannot this be said of the Act of Parliament which is still in force and gives as much permission unto Worldly businesse as the said Injunction And as for Recreations there was not onely permission of such civil pastimes and man-like exercises by which the spirits of men might be refresht and their bodies strengthned but even of Common Enterludes Bear-baitings Bull-baitings and the like fit onely for the entertainment of the ruder or more vulgar sort For though the Magistrates of the City of London obtained from Queen Elizabeth Anno 1580. that Playes and Enterludes should no more be acted on the Sunday within the liberties of their City and that in the year 1583. many were terrified from beholding the like rude sports upon that day by the falling of a Scaffold in Paris Garden whereby many were hurt and eight killed out right yet there was no restraint of either in other parts of the Realm till King James to give a little contentment to the Puritan party in the beginning of his Reign prohibited the same by his Proclamation bearing date at Theobalds May 7. 1630. But for all other civil Recreations they were not onely permitted as they had been formerly but a Declaration issued from that King about sixteen years after concerning lawful sports from which some of the preciser sort of Justices had by their own authority restrained the people In the next place let us behold the Sunday or Lords day comparatively with the Saints days and other Festivals and we shall find them built on the same foundation the same Divine offices performed in both and the like diligent attendance required on both For in the Act of Parliament 5 6. of Edw. 6. before remembred the appointing of all holy dayes and set times of worship being first declared to be left by the Authority of Gods Word unto the liberty of Christs Church to be determined in every countrey by the discretion of the Rulers thereof it is next signified what dayes shall be accounted holy dayes and what shall not For so it

the matter The matter of a Commandment how and in what sense made an Article of the Faith and made a matter of the faith in this particular of the Lords day by the Assemblie of Divines at Westminster The consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops as capable of being taken into the Creed as the Parity of Ministers No verdict passed in behalf of the Lords day Sabbath by the Church of England The great difference between the Lord Primate and the Church of England in this business of the Lords day Sabbath A parting dash bestowed by the Lord Primate on the Historian THis leads me on to the fifth and last charge laid on the Historian meerly extrinsecal as to the main concernments of the point in hand though such as hath better ground to stand on then the other four The Historian having carried on his design as far as he could by the help of Books was forced to take up two passages concerning the affairs of Ireland upon information an information not took up upon a vulgar hear-say but given to him by such hands from which he was confident he might receive it without doubt or scruple The first particular is this that at such time as his Majesties Commissioners in Ireland employed about the setling of that Church Anno 1615. there passed an Article touching the keeping of the Lords day by which the English Sabbatarians were much confirmed in their Courses and hath been often since alledged to justifie both them and their proceedings Hist Sab. p. 2. l c. 8. n. 9. But the Lotd Primate now assures us that the said Article was passed and the Book of Articles published in Print divers yeares before the Commissioners whom he meaneth came thither p. 109. And thereunto Doctor Bernard addeth that the said Articles were subscribed by the Arch-Bishop of Dublin then Speaker of the House of Bishops in Convocation by the Prolocutor of the House of the Clergy in their names and signed by the Lord Deputy Chichester in the name of King James If so as now I believe it was I must needs say that the Sabbatarians and the rest of the Calvinian party in England were wiser in their generations then the children of light who seeing that they had no hopes of thrusting the nine Articles of Lambeth their Sabbath Speculations and the rest of their Heterodoxies of which particularly hereafter on the Church of England they began to cast their eyes on Ireland which lying further off might be less looked after And in that Realm they made themselves so strong a party that they obtained those Points in the Convocation held at Dublin Anno 1615. which neither their seditious clamours in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth nor their Petition to King James at his first entrance on this Kingdom nor their motion at the Conference in Hampton Court nor their continual Addresses to the Houses of Parliament were able to effect in England The out-works being thus easily gained they made from thence their Batteries on the Fort it self of which they doubted not to make themselves Masters in short time as in fine they did For after this when the Sabbath Quarrels were revived and the Arminian Controversies in agitation no argument was more hotly prest by those of the Puritan faction then the Authority of these Articles and the infallible judgement of King James to confirm the same The other particular in which the Historian doth confess himself to have been too credulous in believing and inconsiderate in publishing such mistaken intelligence is that the Articles of Ireland were called in and that in their place the Articles of the Church of England were confirmed by Parliament in that Kingdom Anno 1634. For this mistake though it be only in the circumstance not in the substance of the fact which is now before us he stands accused by the Lord Primate of no less then shamelesness Nor shames he to affirm saith he that the whole Book of the Articles of Ireland is now called in which is a notorious untruth and that the Articles of the Church of England were confirmed by Parliament in this Kingdom Anno 1634. Which passage with some others in this Letter makes me apt to think that it was never the Lord Primates meaning or desire to have it published in Print though Dr. Bernard hath been pleased to adventure on it For if it had been so intended he would have shewed less passion and more civility towards a Doctor in Divinity Chaplain in ordinary to the King and one not altogether untravelled in the wayes of Learning then to brand him with Sophistry Shamelessness and extravagant Fancies to tax him with notorious untruths speaking inconsiderately and finally to send him back to School again to learn his Catechism Egregiam vero laudem spolia ampla tulistis Tuque puerque tuus Assuredly the Lord Primate and his Chaplain too have reapt great praise and micle meed for this notable victory by which notwithstanding they have gain'd nothing but the name and noise For if it can be proved as I think it may that the Articles of Ireland were called in and that those of England were received in their place then whether it were done by Parliament or Convocation is not much material But on the contrary it is affirmed by the Lord Primate That the House of Convocation in the beginning of their Canons for the manifestation of their agreement with the Church of England in the confession of the same Chrstian faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments as themselves profess and for no other end in the world did receive and approve of the Articles of England but that either the Articles of Ireland were ever called in or any Article or Canons at all were ever here confirmed by Act of Parliament may well be reckoned amongst Dr. Heylyns fancies This the Lord Primate hath affirmed but takes no notice that the receiving of the Articles of England imports no less then the repealing of those of Ireland of which since Doctor Bernard hath discoursed more fully in his following Paper I shall reserve my Answer unto this Objection till I come to him In the mean time we are to know that the Lord Primate having been wrought on to propose the Canon which he speaks of about the Articles of England did readily consent unto it conceiving it to be without any prejudice to the other and thereupon he did not onely propose it in the House of the Bishops but commended it to the House of the Clergy where by his motion many assented the more readily as Dr. Bernard hath informed us p. 118. But afterwards the Lord Primate upon further consideration conceiving that he had been surprized and that he had passed more away in that Canon then he first intended began to cast about for some expedient to salve the matter and keep the Articles of Ireland in their former credit And thereupon it was thought fit that both the Lord Primate himself and some other

we next proceed unto the Confirmation which he hath in hand And therein also pretermitting his whole Narrative touching the carriage of the business in the Convocation of the year 1634. we will pitch only on the examination of this point viz. whether the superinducing of the Articles of the Church of England were not a virtual repealing of the Articles of the Church of Ireland And for the better proceeding in it I think it not unnecessary to produce that Canon which is the ground of the Dispute The Title of it this viz. Of the Agreement of the Church of England and Ireland in the profession of the same Christian faith The Body of it this viz. For the manifestation of our Agreement with the Church of England in the Confession of the same Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments We do receive and approve the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops and the whole Clergy in the whole convocation holden at London Anno Dom. 1562. for avoiding of the diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion And therefore if any hereafter shall affirm that any of those Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto Let him be excommunicated and not absolved before he make a publick revocation of his error These are the very words of the Canon it selfe and from these words the Observator did conclude that the Articles of England were received in stead of the other but Doctor Bernard makes this construction of the Canon That there was not a reception of the one in stead of the other but the one with the other p. 119. That in the Canon the Articles of England are received not in stead but with those of Ireland p. 120. But which of the two is in the right will be best seen by the Arguments produced on both sides and by the Answers which are made to those several Arguments And first the Observator takes notice of some scandal given unto the Papists and the occasion of some derisions which they had thereby that in the Churches of three Kingdoms professing the same Religion being under the patronage of one soveraign Prince there should be three distinct and in some points contrary confessions and that for the avoiding of this scandal it was thought fit there should be one Confession or one Book of Articles onely for the Churches of England and Ireland not without hope that Scotland would soon follow after And thereupon he doth infer that if the superinducing or receiving of a new Confession be not a repealing of the old there must be two Confessions in the same Church differing in many points from one another Which would have been so far from creating an uniformity of belief between the Churches and taking away thereby the matter of derision which was given the Papists in two distinct and in some points contrary Confessions yet both pretending unto one and the same Religion that it would rather have increased their scorn and made a greater disagreement in Ireland it selfe then was before between the Churches of both Kingdoms The second Argument is taken from these words of Saint Paul Heb. 8. 13. viz. Dicendo novum veteravit prius c. that is to say in that he saith a new Covenant he hath made the first old as our English reads it and then it followeth that that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away that is to say the old being disanulled by the new there must necessarily follow the abolishment of its use and practice So that unless it may be thought that Saint Paul was out in his Logick as I think it may not the superinducing of a new Covenant must be the abrogating of the old His third Argument is taken from the Abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath by superinducing of the Lords day for the day of Worship By means whereof the Sabbath was lessened in authority and reputation by little and little and in short time vvas absolutely laid aside in the Church of Christ the fourth Commandment by vvhich it vvas at first ordained being still in force His fourth and last Argument vvas that the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth confirmed in Parliament vvith several penalties to those vvho should refuse to officiate by it or should not diligently resort and repair unto it as appears by the Statute 2 3. Edw. 6. c. 1. vvas actually repealed by the authorizing of the second Liturgy of the 5 6. of King Edw. 6. vvhich vvas forthvvith received into use and practice in all parts of the Kingdom the former Liturgy being no otherwise suppressed and called in then by the superinducing of this the Statute upon which it stood continuing unrepealed in full force and virtue and many Clauses of the same related to in the Statute which confirmed the second Upon which Ground it was inferred that the Articles of Ireland were virtually though not formally abrogated by the superinducing of the Articles of the Church of England Of the first and last of these four Arguments Doctor Bernard takes no notice at all and returns but one Answer to the second and third which notwithstanding may serve also for the first and last just as an Almanack calculated for the Meridian of London may generally serve for the use of all Great Britain The Answer is That the Apostles speech of making void the old Covenant by speaking of a new or taking in the first day of the Week to be the Sabbath instead of the last when but one of the seven was to be kept doth not fit the Case for in these there was a Superinduction and reception of the one for the other but in the Canon the Articles of England are received not instead but with those of Ireland which by his leave is not so much an Answer to the Observators Arguments as a plain begging of the Question For if this Answer will hold good in Ireland it might have held good also in the Land of Judaea and the Parts adjoyning where both the Lords-day and the Sabbath the old Law and the Gospel did for a time remain together As for the Doctors Arguments That the Reception of the Articles of the Church of England doth no more argue an Abrogation of the Articles of Ireland than that the Apostles Creed was abrogated by the reception of the Nicene and Athanasian p. 118. it is easily answered For as the Doctor well observes the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are but Enlargements of the other and that in some particular Points onely in which the Hereticks of those times had disturbed the peace of the Church So that those Creeds are but the Explanations of the other in the Points disputed and were received by the Church with reference onely to the condemnation of some Heresies and the Explication of some Orthodox or Catholick Doctrines which had been opposed by