Selected quad for the lemma: church_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A63995
|
Twenty-one conclusions further demonstrating the schism of the Church of England formerly offer'd in confutation of Dr. Hammond and Bishop Bramhall : to which are added some reasons tender'd to impartial people why Dr. H. Maurice, Chaplain to His Grace of Canterbury, ought not to be traduc'd as the licenser of the pamphlet entituled A plain answer to a popish priest, questioning the orders of the Church of England.
|
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing T3413; ESTC R26339
|
8,446
|
16
|
TWENTY-ONE Conclusions Further Demonstrating the SCHISM OF THE Church of England c. Formerly Offer'd in Confutation of Dr. Hammond and Bishop Bramhall To which are added Some Reasons Tender'd to impartial people Why Dr. H. Maurice Chaplain to his Grace of Canterbury ought not to be Traduc'd aâ— the Licenser of the Pamphlet entituled A Plain Answer to a Popish Priest Questioning the Orders of the 〈◊〉 of England 〈◊〉 Printed by 〈…〉 One of His Majesty's 〈…〉 Twenty-One CONCLUSIONS Further Demonstrating the SCHISM of the Church of England c. I. THat whatsoever the Extent of the Pope's Authority be or be not yet ' t is clear that all Roman-Catholicks that is all Communicants with the Church of Rome or Papists hold the substance of the Popes Authority that is hold the Pope to be Supreme Ecclesiastical Governor in God's Church This is evident from the very terms since to acknowledg the Papal Authority is to be a Papist oâ— Communicant with the Church of Rome II. The holding or acknowledging this Authority is to all that hold it that is to the whole Church of Rome or to all those particular Church's united with Rome a Principle of Unity in Government This is plain likewise from the terms since an Acknowledgment of one Supreme Governor either in Secular or Spiritual affairs is the Ground which establishes those Acknowledgers in submission to that one Government that is 't is to them a Principle of Unity in Government III. ' T is evident That all those Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome hold firmly that whatsoever the Living Voice of the present Church i. e. of Pastors and Fathers of Families directed by those Pastors shall unanimously conspire to teach and deliver to Learners and Children to have been received from their immediate Pastors and Fathers as taught by Christ and his Apostles is to be undoubtedly held as taught by them i. e. that this delivery from immediate Forefathers as from theirs as from Christ is an infallible and certain Rule of Faith that is a Principle of Unity in Faith This to be the Tenet of all particular Churches in Communion with Rome both sides acknowledg and it is hence evident that the Body made up of such Churches ever cast out from its Communion all those that did innovate against this Tenet IV. 'T is manifest that all the Churches in Communion with Rome equally held at the time of the Protestant Reformation in K. Henry's days these two Principles as they do now i. e. 1. The substance of the Pope's Authority or that he is Supreme in God's Church 2. That the Living Voice of the present Church delivering as abovesaid is the infallible Rule of Faith This is manifested by our Adversaries impugning those Churches as holding Tradition and the Popes Headship nor was it ever pretended that either those Churches held not these Tenets then or that they have renounc'd them since V. The Church of England immediately before the Reformation was one of those Churches which held Communion with Rome as all the world grant and consequently held with the rest the two foremention'd Tenets prov'd to have been the Principles of Unity both in Faith and Government VI. That Body of Christians or that Christian Common-wealth consisting of the then-then-Church of England and other Churches in Communion with Rome holding Christ's Law upon the said tenure of immediate Tradition and submitting to the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Pope was a true and real Church This is manifest by our very Adversaries acknowledgment who grant the now Church of Rome even without their Church to be a true and real one tho holding the same Principles of Unity both in Faith and Government which she held when the Reformers revolted from her VII That Body consisting of the then Church of England and her other Fellow-communicants with Rome was united or made one by means of these two Principles of Unity For the undoubted acknowledgment of one common Rule of Faith to be certain is in it's own nature apt to unite those Acknowledgers in Faith that is to unite them as Faithful and consequently in all other Actions springing from Faith And the undoubted acknowledgment of one Supreme Ecclesiastical Governor gave these Acknowledgers an Ecclesiastical Unity or church-Church-communion under the notion of Governed or Subjects of an Ecclesiastical Commonwealth Now nothing can more nearly concern a Church than the Rules of Faith and Government especially if the Government be of Faith and receiv'd upon its Rule Seeing then these two Principles gave them some Unity and Communion as Faithful and as belonging to an Ecclesiastical Commonwealth it must necessarily be Church-Unity and Communion which these two Principles gave them VIII The Protestant Reformers renounced both these Principles This is undeniably evident since they left off to hold the Pope's Supreme power to act in Ecclesiastical affairs and also to hold divers points which the former Church immediately before the breach had receiv'd from immediate Pastors and Fathers as from Christ IX Hence follows That those Reformers in renouncing these two Principles did commit the horrid fact of breaking church-Church-Communion or Schismatizing This is demonstrably consequent from the two last Paragraphs where 't is proved that those two Principles made church-Church-Communion that is caused Unity in that Body which themselves acknowledg a true Church as also that they renounc'd or broke those Principles therefore they broke that which United the Church And so broke the Unity of the Church or Schismatiz'd X. This renouncing those two Principles of Ecclesiastical Communion prov'd to have been an actual breach of Church-Unity was antecedent to the Pope's Excommunicating the Protestants and his commanding Catholicks to abstain from their Communion This is known and acknowledg'd by all the world nor till they were Protestants by renouncing those Principles could they be Excommunicated as Protestants XI This actual breach of Church-Unity in King Henry's Edward the Sixth's and the beginning of Queen Elizabeth ' s Reign could not be imputable to the subsequent Excommunication as to its cause 'T is plain since the Effect cannot be before the Cause XII Those subsequent Excommunications caused not the actual Breach or Scâ—â—sm between us For the antecedent renouncing those two points shew'n to have been the Principles of Ecclesiastical Unity had already caused the breach dis-union or division between us But those between whom an actual division is made are not still divisible that is thâ—â—… who are already divided are not now to be divided Wherefore however it may be pretended that those Excommunications made those Congregations who were antecedently thus divided stand at further distance from one another yet 't is most sensless and unworthy a man of reason to affirm that they divided those who were already divided e're those Excommunications came Especially since the Rule of Faith and the substance of the Pope's Authority consist in an indivisible and are points of that nature that the renouncing tâ—ese is a Principle
rigorous Demonstration is pretended by our Party for the proof of our Rule of Faith viz. immediate Tradition which they renounc'd and consequently for the proof of whatsoever was receiv'd upon it as was the Pope's Authority as yet unanswer'd by their side Nay their own side sometimes acknowledg our said Rule of Faith infallible even Dr. Hammond himself who affirms that Universal Attestation makes one as certain of a thing as if he had seen it with his own eyes XI ' T is the most absurd and impious folly imaginable to bring for their excuse That they were fully perswaded the thing was to be done or is to be continued For since a full perswasion may spring from Passion or Vice as well as from Reason and Virtue it signifies nothing in order to an excuse to say one was fully perswaded he was to do such a thing till he shew whence he became thus perswaded otherwise his perswasion might be a fault it self and the occasion of his other fault in thus acting 'T is not therefore his Perswasion but the Ground of his Perswasion which is to be alledged and lookt into Which if it were Reason whence he came thus perswaded and that he knew how he came to be perswaded without knowing which 't was irrational to be perswaded at all then he can render us this reason which perswaded him and reason telling us evidently that no reason less than demonstration is in our case able to breed full perswasion or conviction that it was better to act as hath been prov'd Conc. 19. It follows they must give us a demonstrative reason why 't was better to be done otherwise they can never justifie that perswasion much less the fact which issued from it But the fact being evidently enormous and against a present Order of highest concern and no truly evident reason appearing why 't was better to do that fact 't is from it self convinc'd and concluded irrational precipitate and vicious If they complain of this doctrine as too rigorous in leaving no excuse for weak and ignorant persons who act out of simplicity I reply either their first Reformers and themselves the continuers of the Breach thought themselves ignorant of those things they went about to reform or no. If they thought themselves ignorant and yet attempted to make themselves Judges 't is a plain self-condemnation and irrational If they were ignorant or in some degree ignorant or in some degree less ignorant then I ask what made them think themselves wiser than they were except their own Pride So that which way soever they turn their fault and guilt pursue them But if they were indeed knowing in those things then 't is apparent there are no truly sufficient convincing or demonstrative reasons to be given why they acted since they were never able to produce any such tho urg'd and oblig'd thereunto by the highest motives imaginable Whence they remain still criminal as in the former cases and indeed much more leaving it manifest that neither perswasion nor their fact which was originiz'd from it sprung from Reason in their Understanding but from Passion and Affection in their Will Therefore the Protestants are Guilty both of Material and Formal Schism since 't is evident they have done both a Schismatical Fact and out of a Schismatical Affection Some Reasons tender'd to impartial persons why Dr. H. Maurice Chaplain to his Grace of Canterbury ought not to be Traduc'd as the Licenser of the Pamplet entituled A Plain Answer to a Popish Priest Questioning the Orders of the Church of England 1. DR H. Maurice is not that weak illiterate Man as to let pass with his Imprimatur such a forg'd imputation as I find in the 5th and 6th Line Our Church of England Ordainers are Schismaticks or Hereticks and so cannot Ordain Forg'd I say because the Pamphlet says this useth to be objected whereas it is most notoriously false That Ordination from a Schismatick or Heretick is invalid and equally false that Papists argue from the Schism or Heresie of the Ordainer that the power of Conferring Orders is null And consequently it is not the Papists objection but a meer fiction that this hard forehead presumes to obtrude upon us as approv'd by Dr. Maurice 2. Dr. Maurice knows that Lambeth-Ordination as to the matter of fact depends on the Veracity of Dr. Parker and if Dr. Parker was so upright a man as never to have forg'd or corrupted Records which I hear the Papists pretend to prove the Nags-head-Ordination will require a very strong assurance to out-face Dr. Parker's Record But that his Ordainers were Three nay more than Three true Bishops is such a great point that the Papists must eternally be dumb if this can be made out and therefore it would be kindly taken if an Authentick Record were produc'd to prove they were all or any of them so And whereas in the Archives of Canterbury Dr. Maurice cannot find any such Record he could not suppose this Pamphleteer responsible for any such 3. All know That as to the Succession in Doctrine the Arians had it not tho they pleaded Belief of all Necessaries to Salvation believ'd so before Nice and the Papists say the Protestants Plea and Belief is no better whilst they submit not to the Decisions of Trent So that Succession in Doctrine is a Disputable point and Dr. Maurice has more judgment than to approve what is boldly said not prov'd at all 4. If then it be uncertain for Infallibility the Church of England pretends not to whether Protestants have that Succession of Doctrine the Pamphlet proves it not but only says we have it should have been prov'd that at least they have Succession of Persons to shew who have all along had true Orders and conferr'd them on other Ordainers till these times The Pamphlet says so in these words We have had such a Succession from the very foundation of our Church But neither tells us whence he times this foundation of his Church nor troubles himself to prove this Succession otherwise than by saying it is not necessary to shew it It will not easily be believ'd that Dr. Maurice cannot distinguish betwixt saying and proving or that he approv'd the Paper which does so 5. If those Western Fathers prove Innovation upon Hereticks because they wanted true Succession from the Apostles and by instancing in the Succession of the Church of Rome prove evidently they meant Succession of Persons then certainly stants must endeavour to answer better than they lest they seem to be only Yesterday-men and if their Plea of Believing all Necessaries to Salvation or Succession of Doctrine excus'd them not and if Succession of Persons not shew'n convinc'd them of Novelty something more Protestants must have to say than that it is not necessary to shew any And since this man does not and thence gives occasion to Papists to think it cannot be done I must not think Dr. Maurice would concur to expose his Church 6. He