Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	church_n	discipline_n	doctrine_n	4,176	5	6.2312	4	false

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

is the Churches meaning cannot be better manifested then in the words of Mr. Alexander Noel before mentioned who being Prolocutor of the Convocation in the year 1562. when this Article was disputed approved and ratified cannot in reason be supposed to be ignorant of the true sense and meaning of this Church in that particular And he accordingly in his Catechism publickly allowed of with reference to a local Descent doth declare it thus viz. Ut Christus corpore in terrae viscera ita anima corpore separata ad Inferos descendit pariterque Mortis ejus vis ad mortuos Inferosque adeo ipsos usque eò permanavit ut Animae incredulorum tristissimae ipsorum incredulitati maximè debitae condemnationis sensum perciperent ipseque Satanas Inferorum Princeps tyrannidis suae tenebrarum potentiam omnem afflictam profligatam ruina oppressam esse animad verteret Id est As Christ descended in his body into the bowels of the earth so in his soul separated from that body he descended also into Hell by means whereof the power and efficacy of his death was not made known onely to the dead but the Divels themselves insomuch that both the souls of the unbelievers did sensibly perceive that condemnation which was most justly due to them for their incredulity and Satan himself the Prince of Divels did as plainly see that his tyrannie and all the powers of darknesse were opprest ruined and destroyed But on the contrary the Lord Primate alloweth not any such local Descent as is maintained by the Church and defended by the most learned Members of it who have left us any thing in writing about this Article And yet he neither follows the opinion of Calvin himself nor of the generality of those of the Calvinian party who herein differ from their Master but goes a new way of a later discovery in which although he had few Leaders he hath found many followers By Christs Descending into Hell he would have nothing else to be understood but his continuing in the state of separation between the body and the soul his remaining under the power of Death during the time that he lay buried in the grave which is no more in effect though it differ somewhat in the terms then to say that he died and was buried and rose not till the third day as the Creed instructs us And yet to set out this opinion to the best advantage he hath laid out more cost upon it then upon all the rest of his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge thronging together so many citations concerning the word Hades out of old Greek Authors so many Critical Observations on their Words and Phrases out of Grammarians Scholiasts and Etymologists as serve abundantly both to amaze the ignorant and to confound the learned Nothing lesse meant in all those Collections then to assert the Doctrine of the Church of England in this particular no more then he hath done in the other Points before remembred though all of them are either to be found in the Book of Articles to which he had subscribed as Doctor Bernard hath informed us p. 118. or in the Book of Common Prayer which he was bound to conform himself unto both in judgment and practice as being impos'd by Act of Parliament on the Church of Ireland 7. I should now proceed to see what difference there is between the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Lord Primates own judgment in the point of Free-will which he hath given us in his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge p. 464. But because that point hath some relation to the Nine Articles of Lambeth I shall take no other notice of it then as it is comprehended in those Articles in the defence whereof the Lord Primate did appear with so great affection as made him very gracious in the eyes of the Calvinian Party both at Home and Abroad But this together with the little esteem he had of the Orders Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England is left to be the subject of the following Section SECT XI The Articles of Lambeth when made and on what occasion Dislik't and supprest by Queen Elizabeth and rejected by King James at the Conference at Hampton-Court Countenanced and defended by the Lord Primate who for so doing is much honoured by the English Puritans The History of Goteschalcus publisht by him and the great thanks he received for it from Doctor Twisse What else it was that made the Lord Primate so esteemed by the Brethren here His Inconformity to the Orders Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England in six particulars WE are informed by Doctor Bernard that the Lord Primate did fully approve the Articles of Religion of the Church of England in points of Doctrine as the same more enlarged in the Articles of Ireland and that he also did approve the Discipline and Constitution of both Churches p. 144. By which if Doctor Bernard means that the Articles of England were the same with those of the Church of Ireland though more enlarged in theirs of Ireland than in ours of England he is much mistaken there being many things contained in the Articles of the Church of Ireland extremely differing from the Doctrine of the Church of England as shall be shewn particularly in a place more proper But because the Lord Primate is no otherwise concerned therein then in relation to the Nine Articles of Lambeth which are incorporated and contained in those of Ireland I shall confine my self precisely unto that particular And I shall find enough in that to shew the Lord Primates further differences from the Church of England those Articles containing all the Calvinian Rigours in the Points of Praedestination Grace Free-will c. which have produced so much Disturbance in these parts of Christendom Those Articles first occasioned by some Differences which arose in Cambridge between Doctor Whitaker the Queens Professor and Doctor Peter Baro the Lady Margarets Professor in that University agreed on at a private meeting in Lambeth-house Anno 1595. None but the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop Elect of London and the Bishop of Bangor with some learned men of Doctor Whitakers own party being present at it and being so made were sent to Cambridge rather to silence Doctor Baro than to compose the Differences by any equal expedient So that being made on a particular occasion at a private meeting and by men not impowered to any such purpose they were never looked on otherwise than as private Opinions not as the Tendries of this Church So far disliked by Q. Elizabeth when she first heard of them that they were presently supprest by her command and so supprest that we hear no more news of them till the Conference at Hampton-Court where they found no better entertainment from the hands of King James for Doctor Reinolds having mov'd that the Nine Orthodoxal Assertions as he called them which were made at Lambeth might be added

followeth in that Statute Be it enacted c. that all the dayes hereafter mentioned shall be kept and commanded to be kept holy dayes and none other that is to say all Sundayes in the year the feasts of the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Epiphany of the Purification with all the rest now kept and there named particularly The like ennumeration we have also in the Book of Common-prayer the publick Liturgy of this Church by Law established where we shall find it thus expressed That these shall be accounted holy dayes and none other that is to say all Sundayes in the year the feast of the Circumcision the Epiphany with all the rest before specified in the Act of Parliament Nor doth the Church onely rank the Lords day with other holy dayes in that enumeration of them but hath appointed the same Divine offices the Letany excepted onely to be performed upon the Saints days other festivals as upon the Sundays each of them having his proper Lesson Collect Epistle and Gospel as the Sunday hath and some of them their proper Psalms also which the Sunday hath not And as for the attendance of the people it is required with as much diligence upon the Saints dayes and other Festivals as upon the Lords day by the Laws of this land For so it is enacted in the Statute of the first of Queen Elizabeth viz. That all and every Person and Persons inhabiting within this Realm c. shall diligently and faithfully endeavour themselves to resort to their Parish Church or Chappel c. upon every Sunday and other dayes ordained and used to be kept as holy dayes then and there to abide orderly and soberly during the time of common prayer preaching or other service of God Nor was it only enacted that men should diligently repair to their Church or Chappel as well upon the other holy dayes as upon the Sunday but that the same penalty was imposed on such as without any reasonable let did absent themselves as well upon the one as upon the other For so it follows in that Statute viz. That every person so offending shall not alone be subject unto the censures of the Church but shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence to be levied to the use of the poor of the same parish by the Church-wardens of the same c. Which grounds thus laid the Lord Primates Argument from the Book of Homilies will be easily answered For if the weight of his argument lie in the first words cited out of the Homily that in the fourth Commandment God hath given express charge to all men that upon the Sabbath day which is now our Sunday c. and therefore that the Sunday or Lords day may be called a Sabbath this will prove nothing but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a contention about words and not within the compass of the Homily neither it being declared in the former words of the same Homily that we keep now the first day which is our Sunday and make that our Sabbath that is our day of rest So that the destinating of the Sunday or first day of the week for the day of rest makes it at the most but a tanquam to the Sabbath neither entituling it to the name nor prerogatives of it But if the weight of the Argument lie in these words viz. That men upon the Sunday or Lords day should cease from all weekly and work-day labour c. and also give themselves wholly to Heavenly exercises of Gods true Religion and service For the first part thereof touching the forbearing of all weekly and work-day labour is no otherwise to be understood but of such labours as are prohibited by the Laws of the Realm or otherwise may prove an avocation from Gods publick service at the times appointed for the same And as for the last words touching mens giving of themselves wholly to heavenly exercises of Gods true Religion and service they are of a far differing meaning from the Article of the Church of Ireland for which the Lord Primate chiefly stickleth in which it is declared that the first day of the week which is the Lords day is wholly to be dedicated to the service of God For certainly there is a great difference between the dedicating of a day wholly to the service of God as in the Articles of Ireland and the giving of our selves wholly to heavenly exercises as in the Homilies of England the one implying that no part of the day is to be otherwise spent then in the service of God no place being left either for necessary business or for lawful pleasure the other that in the Acts and times of publick worship we should give our selves wholly that is our whole selves souls and bodies to the performance of those heavenly exercises which are then required It had before been told us in this very Homily that nothing in the fourth Commandment was to be retained but what was found appertaining to the Law of Nature but it appertaineth not to the Law of Nature either that one day in seven should be set apart for Religious worship or that this one day wholly be so imployed vel quod per totam diem abstineatur ab operibus servilibus as Tostatus hath it or that there be an absolute cessation during the whole day from all servile works By consequence there is no more required of us by the Law of Nature in this case but that at the times appointed for Gods publick worship we wholly sequester our selves yea our very thoughts from all worldly business fixing our souls and all the faculties thereof upon that great and weighty business which we are in hand with That does indeed appertain to the Law of Nature Naturale est quod dum Deum colimus ab aliis abstineamus as Tostatus hath it and to this point we have been trained in the Schools of Piety Orantis est nihil nisi coelestia cogitare as was said before So that the meaning of the Homily in that place will be onely this that for those times which are appointed by the Church for the assembly of Gods people we should lay by our daily business and all worldly thoughts and wholly give our selves to the heavenly exercises of Gods true Religion and service as in the Homily we are willed And that this only was the meaning of the Homily in that place may be convincingly concluded from the reasons following First from the improbability that the Authors of that Homily should propound a Doctrine so evidently contrary to the Declaration of the Act of Parliament in the 5 6. of Edw. 6. which was then in force and unto which not onely the Commons and the Lords Temporal but even the Lords Spiritual and the King himselfe did most unanimously concur or that the Queen should authorize a Doctrin in the Book of Homilies as by ratifying the 39. Articles she must be supposed to have done

which was so plainly and professedly contrary to her own Injunctions Secondly from the strong Alarm which was taken generally by the Clergy and the most knowing men of the Laity also at the coming out of Doctor Bounds Book about the Sabbath Anno 1595. In which book it is declared amongst other things that the Commandment of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is Natural Moral and Perpetual That there is great reason why we Christians should take our selves as straightly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath that there should be no buying of victuals upon that day no Carriers Packmen Drovers or other men to be suffered to travel no Scholars to study the Liberal Arts no Lawyers to consult the case of their Clients or peruse their Evidences no Justices to examine Causes for preservation of the peace no Bells to ring upon that day no solemn Feasts or Wedding Dinners to be made on it with so many other prohibitions and negative precepts that men of all sorts and professions looked upon it as a common grievance Thirdly from the great care which was presently taken by such as were in Authority to suppress those Doctrines the said Book being called in by Arch-Bishop Whitgift both by his Letters missive and his visitations as soon as the danger was discovered Anno 1599. and a command signified in the Queens name by Chief Justice Popham at the Assizes held at Bury in Suffolk Anno 1600. that the said Book should no more be printed though afterward in the more remiss Government of King James it came out again with many Additions Anno 1606. Fourthly and finally from the permitting of all sorts of Recreations even common Enterludes and Bear-baitings in the so much celebrated Reign of Queen Elizabeth as also by the Declaration about Lawful sports published by King James An. 1618. and revived afterwards by King Charles Anno 1633 which certainly those godly and religions Princes would neither have suffered nor have done had they conceived it to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England of which they were such zealous Patrons and such stout Defenders No breaking of Subscription here by the Historian no crossing or opposing of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies and consequently no such need of Sophistry to elude the Lord Primates Argument which was drawn from thence as the said Honourable Person N. N. must believe there was SECT VIII A further Argument to prove the meaning of the Homily as before laid down The high esteem which the Church of England hath of the ancient Fathers as also of the usages of the primitive times with her respect unto the neighbouring Reformed Churches No restraint from labour on the Lords day imposed by the Council of Laodicea Beza's opinion of the liberty in those times allowed of Law-suits and Handy-crafts prohibited in great Cities on the Lords day by the Emperour Constantine but Husbandry permitted in the country Villages Proof from Saint Jerome Chrysostom Augustine that after the Divine service of the day was ended the rest of the day was spent in mens several businesses Husbandry first restrained in the Western Churches in the Council of Orleans Anno 540. and by the Edict of the Emperour Leo Philosophus in the Eastern parts about the year 890. Several restraints laid on the Lords day by the Council of Mascon Anno 588. Pope Gregory offended at such restraints and his censure of such as did enioyn them The liberty allowed in the Lutheran Churches on the Lords day as also in those of the Palatinate till after the year 1612. Nor in the Churches of the Low-Countries till the year 1618. Not onely servile Works but Fairs and Markets continued on the Lords day in those Countries till the same year also Necessary labour permitted on the Lords day in the Reformed Churches of the Switzers and honest Recreations in the French and Genevian Churches as also in the Kirk of Scotland The conclusion and application of the last Argument IT hath been proved sufficiently in the former Section that the passage alledged by the Lord Primate from the Book of Homilies and that twice for failing is capable of no such sense and meaning as he puts upon it for if it were the Homily must not only contradict it self but the Authors of it must be thought to propound a Doctrine directly contrary to the Queens Injunctions and the publick Liturgy of this Church and several Acts of Parliament which were then in force And which is more the whole body of Gods people in this Land by following their necessary business and lawful pleasures upon the Sunday or Lords day when no attendance at the place and hours of Gods publick service was required of them must be supposed to have run on in a course of sin against Gods Commandments and of contempt and disobedience to the publick Doctrine of the Church for the space of 80. years and upwards without contradiction or restraint which to imagine in a Church so wisely constituted and in a State founded on so many good Lawes cannot find place with any man of sober judgement But there is one Argument yet to come of as much weight and consequence as those before that is to say that if any such restraint from labour and honest recreations was by the Doctrine of this Church imposed on the people of God this Church must openly oppose the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers the laudable usages and customes of the Primitive times together with the general practise and perswasion of all the Protestant and Reformed Churches in these parts of the world a matter so abhorrent from the principles of the first Reformers and from the Canons and Determinations of this Church and the Rulers of it that no surmises of this kind can consist with reason The Church of England hath alwayes held the Fathers in an high regard whether we look upon them in their learned and laborious writings or as convened in General National and Provincial Councils appealing to them in all Differences between her and the Church of Rome and making use of their authority and consent in expounding Scripture witness that famous challenge made by Bishop Jewel in a Sermon preached at Saint Pauls Cross Anno 1560. in which he publickly declared that if all or any of the learned men of the Church of Rome could produce any one sentence out of the writings of any of the ancient Fathers or any General or National Council for the space of the first 600. years in justification of some Doctrines by them maintained and by us denied he would relinquish his own Religion and subscribe to theirs Witness the Canon made in a Convocation of the Prelates and C●ergy of England Anno 1571. Cap. De concionatoribus by which it was ordered and decreed that nothing should be preacht to the people but what was consonant unto the Doctrine of the old and

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