Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	doctrine_n	prove_v	succession_n	2,866	5	9.7750	5	false

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

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