Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	christian_a	church_n	faith_n	1,944	5	5.0013	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62542	The nullity of the prelatique clergy, and Church of England further discovered in answer to the plaine prevarication, or vaine presumption of D. John Bramhall in his booke, intituled, The consecration and succession of Protestant bishops justified, &c. : and that most true story of the first Protestant bishops ordination at the Nagshead verified their fabulous consecration at Lambeth vvith the forgery of Masons records cleerely detected / by N.N.	Talbot, Peter, 1620-1680.	1659 (1659)	Wing T117; ESTC R38284	70,711	150

THE NULLITY Of the Prelatique Clergy and Church of England Further discovered In answer to the plaine prevarication or vaine presumption of D. John Bramhall in his Booke intituled The Consecration and succession of Protestant Bishops justified c. AND That most true story of the first Protestant Bishops Ordination at the Nagshead verified their fabulous Consecration at Lambeth vvith the forgery of Masons Records cleerely detected by N. N. Non misi eos non precepi eis neque locutus sum ad eos visionem mendacem divinationem fraudulentiam seductionem cordis sui prophetant vobis Jerem. 14.14 J sent them not and I commanded them not neither have I spoken vnto them lying vision and deceitfull guilfulnes and seduction of their ovvne heart they prophecie vnto you Jerem. 14. v. 14. Printed at Antwerp in the yeare M.DC.LIX THE PREFACE CONTAINING The State of the Controversy and the Summe of the Authors reasons produced in the Treatise of the nature of Catholique faith and Heresy with some reflexions vpon D. Bramhalls impertinent digressions and expressions I. IN the second Chapter of a booke printed an 1657. and intituled A Treatise of the Nature of Catholique faith and Heresy Was occasionaly proved that the English Protestant Bishops were never validly or in very deed ordained And albeit the proofs were so cleere as to make the nullity of their Clergy and consequently of their Church manifest to the judgement of any vnpartial disinteressed Reader y yet I vvas content to presse him no further then to an vndemiable doubt this being sufficient for my purpose because a doubtfull Clergy is to the effect i intended as good as no Clergy for a doubtfull Clergy makes a doubtfull Church and a doubtfull Church is no Church as giving no assurance to Christian faith The arguments reduced to a brief summe were as follovveth II. First the Catholique Doctors as Stapleton Harding Bristouw Reynolds c. in their bookes printed some but fiue or six yeares some not long afther the pretended ordination of M. Parker of Canterbury and his fellovves vpon vvhose consecration confessedly depends the prelatique Clergie of England pressed these very persons frequently and earnestly to make good their consecration to shevv hovv and by vvhom they received episcopal orders and yet none of them could cleere this point either by Registers vvitnesses or any circumstances much less ever mentioned the nevv Records produced by M. Mason fifty yeares after of their consecration at Lambeth by certaine persons pretended to be Bishops vvhich they being in their vvits vvould never have failed to have donne if there had bin any such thing III. Secondly that these Records vvher vpon they vvholy rely are proved to be forged not only by their not appearing in so vrgent necessity but also by the manifest incoherence of the Prelatique Authors that writ of the ordination of the foresaid Parker and his fellovves vvith reference to the said records disagreeing in the persons of the Consecrators and in the time of their consecration Besides the admiration of ancient and learned persons at the first appareance of these nevv found vnheard of Registers and the exception made against them by Fitzherbert an ancient and knovving man and namely those vvho vvhere permitted to have sight of them but denied after to peruse them vvith leasure as they requested Furthermore if those Records vvere true hovv could it have bin objected that the ordination vvas not only not canonical but not so much as legal contrary to the very lavves of the land wheras the Records make it so precise and formal in this later point that there vvas no place of cavilling Besides the falsefying of Records is a thing neither hard nor vnheard of and easily presumed in those that so grossely corrupt Scripture and Fathers a crime both more abominable and more discoverable Lastly it is incredible that Iohn Stow should have concealed such a solemne buisnesse as Parkers consecration at Lambeth hapening in is ovvne tyme and having related the consecration of Cardinal Poole Predecessor to Parker and making it the greatest part of his buisnesse the choosing of Mayors of London the creation of Lords and such kinde of stuffe suitable to such a vvriter IV. Thirdly that no man of conscience or common sense can imagine that the Catholique Doctors of those times vvho had such care of their salvation as to suffer so much as they did vpon that account should vvilfully damne their soules by obliging posterity vpon misinformation to reordaine those that had bin validly or dained before for it is a known Tenet wherein the Catholique Moralists though infinite in number in these later ages vnanimously agree that we can not without commiting a damnable sinne no more reordaine then rebaptise and it is a practise wel knowen that as many of that Clergy as after their conversion have received orders a mongst vs have bin ordained absolutly and without any condition and consequently without any probability of having received orders I doe not say canonically but even validly V. Fourthly that although the foresaid persons had bin against all appearance ordained by true Bishops yet to omit the vncertainty of the matter the forme or words vsed in the act of consecration are at least of a doubtfull sufficiency and farre from that certainty which is required in a matter of so great consequence VI. Fiftly by publique Acts both in Q. Mary and Queene Elisabeths Reigne it is plainly discovered that the pretended Consecrators of Parker and his fellowes were looked vpon as in very deed no Bishops For in an article of Queenes Maries Acts and monum pag. 1295. cited by John Fox himselfe is declared that Edward the VI. his Clergy were not ordered in very deed And even in the Reigne of King Henry the 8. after his schisme there was such neglect and contempt of consecration that heretiques without it plaid the Bishops as it appeares in Ridley of London and Latimer of Worcester who being burnt for heresy in Queene Maries time were degraded only as Priests and not as Bishops the Judge telling Ridley as Fox recounts they were to degrade him only of Priesthood for that they did not take him for a Bishop Now Q Elisabeth supplying as you shal see hereafter at large the inhability not only of the number but even of the very State and Condition of the ordainors doth manifestly declare the defect not only in formality but reality and withal her presumption to supply any thing by her spiritual headship VII Sixtly Authors of credit have related and persons of judgment and knovvledge have generaly believed that the pretended Consecration vvas performed at the Nagshead taverne in cheapside in à manner so cleerly defective in the opinion now vniversally received amongst Prelatique Protestants that they are ashamed to heare of it little regarding the different Tenets of their Ancestours who as much contemned Consecration and caracter as they seeme now to esteeme them and cared for no more but

interest and makes it his profession to advance his ovvne and other mens interest by cheating Policy or foolish knavery then you had done a deed of Christian Charity by teaching me this lesson of your Stoical Philosophy CHAP. I. My first and second reason defended against the Doctors objections 1. TO the first argument deduced from the authority of our Catholique Doctors charging in their printed bookes your first superintendents vvith vvant of Episcopal consecration some five or six yeares after you pretend it vvas so solemnly performed at Lambeth you give no other ansvver Pag. 167. but that you regard not their judgment and authority beause they give no cause or reason of their Knovvledge Ipray Mr. Doctor vvhat greater cause of Knovvledge can ther be of the not being of a visible and publicque solemnity then the not being seene or heard of by knovving parsons vvho made it their busines to inquire after it in the very same time and place vvherin its pretended to have bin acted To say that D. Harding Stapleton Bristovv Reynolds and others should object in print against your protestant Bishops vvant of ordination vvithout inquiring and examining vvhether they vvere ordained or no is in equivalent termes to call them fooles and Knaves Pag. 207. hovvever averse you pretend to be from so unmanerly language your attributing the obiections of these great Doctors to credulity and preiudice doth rather increase then diminish the jury for you ought to knovv that credulity contradicted by publique and obvious evidence is of the grosser sort of foolery and prejudice that makes men slight such evidence is the most malicious knavery neither of both can be layd to the charge of so learned and honest persons as the foresaid Doctors who would never presse Parker and his fellovves to shevv the register and hovv and by vvhom they received Episcopal Orders if there had bin in those days as publique and authentique registers as now yee pretend 2. To this you say that none of our Doctors did ever vrge any such thing as required that yee should cite the registers in prudence And that the ●…re vvas no pressing to produce Registers What thē Doe not men in à suite of lavv produce what is for their manifest advantage of their ovvne accord I am sure you bring many things you thinke advantagious which neyther any person nor reason pressed you to doe But that they were pressed immediately after you may learne out of D. Harding We say likvvise to you M. r Ievvel Confut. apol fol. 57. 59. edit an 1566. and to each of your companions shevv vs the register of your Bishops c. Shevv vs the letters of your orders But order you have not for vvho could give that to you of all these nevv Ministers hovv soever else you call them vvhich he hath not himselfe Yet I must confesse it vvas prudence in your first Bishops not to cite the registers though D. Harding called for them because it was better by their silence to acknowledge the want of registers then to prove themselves impostors by producing them in a time wherin their forgery had bin discovered by thousands of witnesses incase they were forged then and not afterwards when ordination was growne into more credit And as I commend the prudent silence of your first Bishops so I must condemne your silly answer in averring that the registers or records vvere cited in print Pag. 112. and alleaged by the Parliament in the publique lavves of the Kingdome of which our Doctors that desired to see some evidence of Parkers consecration could pleade no ignorance wheras it is notorious that the act of Parliament 8. Eliz. which as yow pretend but without any grovvnd as shall be proved here after makes mention of the records of Parkers consecration at Lambeth vvas made at least à yeare after your Register was called for and our Doctors had objected to your Bishops the nullity and illegality of their ordination and the booke of the 70. Archbishops of Canterbury was printed 1572. seven yeares after that D. Harding had called for the same Register and Letters of their Orders Though he was a wise man I hope he might pleade ignorance of what then vvas not as much as thought of vvhen he vvrit nor indeed ever after by any but your selfe vvho confounds the records of Kings and Queens letters patents vvith the registers of the Archbishops of Canterbury 3. Another reason against the pretended consecration of your first protestant superintendents vvas the contradictions of your ovvne Authors vpon this subject disagreeing in the persons of the consecraters and in the time of their consecrations These contradictions you call innocent mistakes and thinke to excuse them by the retractation of the Authors who desired that they might be corrected by Mr. Masons newfound registers Pag. 176.177 178. which you compare to the sun diall wherby all clockes and Clerks must be regulated when the sun shineth out It seemes Mr Doctor that the sun never shined vpon your church vntill Mr Masons tecords were printed for if it had Mr Goduin Mr Sutcliffe and Mr Butler three of the most famous Clerks amongst you infallibly vvould have consulted the sundial and their judgements and bookes concerning your consecrations had not bin so different How comes this sun to be more then fifty yeares vnder a cloud if it vvas not that your new registers might participate in some measure of the ould invisibility of your Church Doe yow imagine that learned and sober men would venture to write and publish to the world a matter of such importance as the consecration of your first Bishops vvithout consulting the registers therof if any such had bin exstant or visible when they vndertooke the worke were they paradventure ignorant of the place where this sun did shine Or were they negligent in setting their clocks to it Nheiter can be presumed of so eminent persons as you make them But your comparison of Masons records to the sun or sundial is very improper for if the suns motion were as irregular as those registers are incoherent the sun would be as unfit for a measure of time as those are for a proofe of truth But if one should mistake for the sun à false Meteor called a Parhelion and set his clock by the light of a cloud he would guide the towne as you do your Church and men of understandingh would be as litle regulated by such a dial or clock as Fitzherbert was perswaded by Masons registers at their first appearance who suspected them of forgery by the latenesse of their discovry as you may see in his booke of D. Andrevvs absurdities falsities lyes c. 4. Pag. 158. But yovv regard not Mr Fitzherherts suspicions at all What are the suspicions of a private stanger to the vvel knovvn credit of a publique register If you Mr Doctor had not bin a stranger to such pious and learned bookes as Policy and Religion and