Advanced Search Filters
Filter search results by source, date, and more with our premium search tools.
" "For the other stuff which fills up this argument, that these 'changes and supplements are taken from the Mass-book, and other Romish rituals, and that by these the book is made to vary from the Book of England;' I cannot hold it worth an answer, till I see some particulars named... I would have them remember that we live in a Church reformed, not in one made new. Now all reformation that is good and orderly takes away nothing from the old, but that which is faulty and erroneous. If anything be good, it leaves that standing. So that if these changes from the Book of England be good, 'tis no matter whence they be taken. For every line in the Mass-book, or other popish rituals, are not all evil and corruptions. There are many good prayers in them; nor is anything evil in them, only because 'tis there. Nay, the less alteration is made in the public ancient service of the Church, the better it is, provided that nothing superstitious or evil in itself be admitted or retained.
William Laud (7 October 1573 – 10 January 1645) was an English archbishop and academic. He was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633, during the personal rule of Charles I. Arrested in 1640, he was executed in 1645. In matters of church polity, Laud was autocratic. Laudianism refers to a collection of rules on matters of ritual, in particular, that were enforced by Laud in order to maintain uniform worship in England and Wales, in line with the king's preferences. They were precursors to later High Church views. In theology, Laud was accused of being an Arminian and opponent of Calvinism, as well as covertly favouring Roman Catholic doctrines (see Arminianism in the Church of England). On all three grounds, he was regarded by Puritan clerics and laymen as a formidable and dangerous opponent.
Filter search results by source, date, and more with our premium search tools.
Related quotes. More quotes will automatically load as you scroll down, or you can use the load more buttons.
And one thing more I will be bold to speak out of a like duty to the Church of England, and the "house of David." They, whoever they be, that would overthrow sedes Ecclesiæ, the "seats of ecclesiastical government," will not spare, if ever they get power, to have a pluck at the "throne of David." And there is not a man that is for "parity," all fellows in the Church,—but he is not for monarchy in the State.
Whereas it hath been alleged before our well-beloved Sir Nathaniel Brent, knight, our vicar-general, that your said parish being very great and populous, divers of your parishioners have no seats in the church appointed to them, and that others that have been placed in seats are often disturbed, thronged, and sometimes kept quite out of their own seats by others that unmannerly and rudely thrust them selves in contrary to all good order, for the reforming of which disorder petition hath been made to our said vicar-general, that by our authority a commission might be granted to four particular persons to reform this disorder, and to place and displace the parishioners of the said parish according as upon examination of this business they shall in their discretion find to be agreeable to reason and equity, so as men and women may be placed in the church according to their conditions, qualities, and degrees.
As for that in which he is quite mistaken, it is his inference, which is this: "That I should therefore consider carefully, whether it be not more Christian, and less brain-sick, to think that the pope, being S. Peter's successor, with a General Council, should be judge of controversies, &c., and that the pastoral judgment of him should be accounted infallible, rather than to make every man that can read the Scripture interpreter of Scripture, decider of controversies, controller of General Councils, and judge of his judges: or to have no judge at all of controversies of faith, but permit every man to believe as he list; as if there were no infallible certainty of faith to be expected on earth; which were, instead of one saving faith, to induce a Babylonical confusion of so many faiths as fancies, or no true Christian faith at all. From which evils, sweet Jesus, deliver us!" I have considered of this very carefully; but this inference supposes that which I never granted, nor any Protestant that I yet know—namely, that if I deny the pope to be judge of controversies, I must by and by either leave this supreme judicature in the hands and power of every private man, that can but read the Scripture, or else allow no judge at all, and so let in all manner of confusion. No, God forbid that I should grant either: for I have expressly declared, "That the Scripture, interpreted by the Primitive Church, and a lawful and free General Council determining according to these, is judge of controversies: and that no private man whatsoever is or can be judge of these."