Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	according_a	bishop_n	church_n	2,848	5	4.3599	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41939	The great question, of the authority of the arch-bishops, bishops, & clergy of the present constitution of the Church of England estalished by law, whether truly apostolical, or only political, regal, and parliamentary? Faithfully examined, and clearly resolved.		1690 (1690)	Wing G1745A; ESTC R223655	11,009	15

of the King and Cranmer Of the three Assistants Scory and Coverdale were not Canonically elected but promoted by Commission and consecrated by Cranmer Hodskins and Ridley by a new Form composed by Persons appointed by the King and authorized under the Great Seal according to the Act of Parliament and so ordered that no Church of the Roman Communion tho' they all look upon it as no less than Sacrilege to re-ordain any who have been duly ordained before have ever since allowed the Ordination of any ordained by them or their Successors or permitted them to perform the Office of Priests without Re-ordination by some Bishop of their own Communion The last of the Three who did actually assist was Iohn Hodskins only Suffragan of Bedford consecrated indeed Anno 29. Hen. 8. but when Commissions were in use and therefore in the same case with those of that time before-mentioned and besides not rightly named in this Commission but by the Name of Richard v. Mason p. 414. Bramhall p. 1025. So that had he been without all other question yet his Legal Authority by this Commission to act in this Consecration is questionable And here before we proceed farther it may be observed what a lame Cause this of the Consecration of Matt. Parker is in all respects performed indeed by four Persons but of those the first and he to whom Parker is presented to be consecrated never consecrated himself that can be proved and most likely never was Again when these great Champions Mason and Bramhall after all their struggle cannot make that point out they fly to another Refuge and tell us that there were three Consecrators besides him and that that is the Canonical Number But here we find another not rightly named in the Original Record so that here is another Doubt and if this hold they fail of their Canonical Number even according to their own account But be that as it may if Three be the Canonical Number for others it is certain it is not the Legal Number for an Arch-Bishop and when an Arch-Bishop is not one as is plain in the Stat. 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. So that they do deceitfully in that and Parker therefore could be no Legal Arch-Bishop Nor was his Consecration and Constitution Canonical or according to the Orders or Usage of the Church of England in particular for near a Thousand Years before even from the beginning of the English Church and of the whole Catholick Church being confessedly the first of Seventy arch-Arch-Bishops consecrated in that manner and without Patriarchal Approbation a matter of no little Importance in the Kingdom of Christ as may be shewed upon another Occasion In the Register of this Consecration published by Bramhall I understand not how his Death c. could be noted in that manner as it is printed if it was not all written some time after that Nor am I satisfied that it was ever printed in his Life-time or so much as mentioned in any Book then in Print but the Book pretended for it said to be printed 1572. is so great a Rariety that a Bookseller told me he would give Five Pounds for it and what is by Mason alleadged out of it lib. 3. c. 18. n. 12. proves it not nor saith more than that he was elected and consecrated at such a time and by such Persons but not one word of any Register and what he alleadgeth out of the Statute 8 Eliz. c. 1. is false and grossly fallacious for the Statute hath not a word of any Register but of Records only as Statutes and Records of Law which he writing in Latin renders Archiva to deceive and abuse the Reader So that there is no proof of this Register in being at that time or in 20 years after those Records which are entred in it That such a thing should be done and in such extraordinary manner as of Seventy Arch-Bishops in that See none before him was so ordered as is related in his Life and yet no History of that time or Letter or other Writing be found which makes mention of the manner of it or any Person but only one Lord is so strange that it is incredible it should be done in any very publick manner as is pretended what-ever was done And that part intituled Rituum atque Ceremoniarum Ordo is so precise and punctual in things of little moment as if it was fitted up some time after to answer the Doubts and Questions which were made And to send for Priests out of Prisons to see and testifie this Register so long after doth not so much confirm the Credibility as the Suspicion of the Antiquity and Authority of it v. Mason lib. 3. c. 18. n. 11. And for farther Evidence if more need after so deceitful a Citation of a printed Statute how little Trust or Credit is to be given to the Authors of Mr. Mason's Book the Citation of Mr. Wadsworth's Letter Manuscript without noting the Date the Pretence of others who mention the Register in Print without the Names of the Authors or Titles of the Books and the alleadging Camden Dr. Collins and Dr. Hall without the time when their Books were printed which is all craftily done to impose upon the Reader both do that effectually and moreover shew how lame a cause it is in that particular also For Wadsworth's Letter which is now in Print is dated but April 1. 1615. and the other Books will be found printed I believe but about the same time which is nothing to the purpose And what mysterious dealings there were about that time the Convocation-Book not long since published which had been so long kept secret is a notable Instance But in what is without question in that Register because of Record elsewhere the Queens Letters Patent for his Confirmation and Consecration to which we may add the Opinion of the Six Doctors the most eminent of that Faculty England then afforded saith Fuller subjoined there is what may satisfie that there was then such Doubts and Questions concerning the matter of the Consecration by those Persons as made a special Clause for supply of all Defects by the Queens Supream Authority thought requisite to be inserted And yet it seems that would not serve the turn but afterward in the 8th year of her Reign a special Act of Parliament drawn with all the Skill that could have been used had it been for an Answer in Chancery was thought farther requisite to settle the Authority of the new Bishops And tho' it be pretended that they were only Questions at Law which may be true but with a Fallacy in it for they arose upon matters first determinable by the Canons and Orders of the Church as appears by the Judges Opinions reported by Brook concerning Leafes and Estates made by K. Edward's Bishops that they were not good because they were not consecrated and therefore not Bishops yet if we look into the Original of those Questions we shall find they were not then Questions

at Law but positive Determinations by the Church of the Nullity of their Consecration and Defect of Title So Taylor of Lincoln was deprived ob Nullitatem Consecrationis Defectum Tituli quem habuit à Rege Ed. per Lit. Patentes and others the like Ridley was degraded only of Priesthood because they did not take him to be a Bishop but Cranmer of his Episcopal Dignity because he had been duly consecrated And no Church of the Roman Communion have ever since allowed the Ordination of this Church of England established by Law to be good or permitted any Person ordained in it to the Office of Priesthood without Ordination by some other Bishop either of the Latin or of the Greek Church tho' they hold it no less than Sacrilege to re-ordain one who had been duly ordained before as was before noted Here was the Original of the Questions then made but there is another Original precedent to this which perhaps was not then taken notice of or not considered as it deserveth of other Questions as considerable as any which I have mentioned already the Commissions introduced undoubtedly by Cranmer Anno 1535. For they contain matter not only contrary to the most ancient Canons in those words Nos tuis in hac parte Supplicationibus inclinati for those Canons order such as apply to Secular Powers in such cases to be deposed and excommunicated but moreover monstrously Heretical in the Declaration and Schismatical in the Delegation before-mentioned Objections both of Heresie and Schism have been made by others but not for those matters and two things have been replied which may be likewise in this case The one that Bonner and all the rest and all Qu. Mary's Bishops were in the same case and therefore è verorum Episcoporum Albo in aeternum expungendi saith Mason p. 185. is true in part of those who were in before her time For Cranmer was not only the Projector and Promoter of that and other such wicked Inventions but also the Decoy to betray the rest into the Mischiefs as well as the Instrument to betray the King and Kingdom into the Sin and accordingly was charged with both by Brooks Bishop of Gloucester in that Queen's time as we are informed by the Historian who would help him out but 't is with an Answer impossible to be true yet as to the rest it is false and the Inference false For all those things were rectified in the Bishops of her time which cannot be said of any of the rest either before or since And the other when well considered will prove as false and deceitful and so both rather confirm than answer the Objection It is grounded upon an Opinion of the Schoolmen and the Councils of Florence and Trent that neither Schism nor Heresie can vacate the indelible Character of Episcopal Authority once duly and effectually conferred no more than Baptism duly administred But tho' generally the Baptism of Schismaticks and Hereticks hath been allowed for good upon their return to the Unity and Doctrine of the Church yet were there special cases anciently which were never allowed And so and much more in Orders tho' generally this may hold yet there may be such Special cases wherein it may not hold And such I take this to be For if either the declared Opinion or the matter of Fact or both together be inconsistent with the very End and Intention of Baptism or Ordination in such special case they can neither be allowed to be good or valid As if a Jew or a Platonist who denieth Jesus Christ to be the Messiah baptize another of the same Belief in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost this cannot be allowed to be Christian Baptism So if a Bishop believe and profess that there is no other Christian Sacrifice than vocal or mental Prayers and Alms and ordain another who believes and professes the same in manner and form otherwise sufficient for Priests Orders this cannot be thought a good Ordination to Priesthood or to confer more than Deacons Orders if so much And this is the common case of Protestants and hath been so ever since Luther's dispute with the Devil related by himself tho' there are some of the most learned of another mind And such is plainly the case of the Commissions before-mentioned which contain an express Recognition of all Authority in the King and by consequence a Renunciation of all other not only Papal but Episcopal more than what is derived from the Regal and a Delegation only of such And therefore the Consecrations how-ever performed of Persons on both sides acting under such Commissions could be no other than Solemnities tho' Religious of Investiture into such Authority as is delegated by the Commission and that could be but Political unless the King had had any truly Episcopal regularly derived from the Original Special Commission of Christ Nor could such Persons convey any other to their Successors In this there was certainly Digitus Dei the Wisdom of a Divine Providence to raise up an Adversary to correct the Obstinacy of the Church which would not reform and to raise an Emulation and give Admonition of divers things amiss but so as to be but for a time and therefore imperfect as hath been rightly observed by a late Author And the time seems now near expired And therefore hath the same most Wise Providence now lately raised up a New Question between the present Political Bishops of this Legal Church and such an Advocate for those of them who are deprived as had unanswerably asserted their Cause upon the true of the Kingdom of Christ had they themselves come in by those but effectually done more than ever he intended by such Evidence and Arguments as by a plain and easie application to the Deprivations by Stat. 1 Eliz. c. 1. much more strongly prove Queen Elizabeth's Bishops to have been meer Intruders and therefore Nulli and that the Contenders on both sides are no better themselves than they whose Successors they are and the Cause he is ingaged in besides indefensible without disclaiming the Principles of the Reformation and of the present Constitution of this Church This may be seen in the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops asserting their Spiritual Rights against a Lay-Deprivation printed Anno 1692. 40. if it can be had or in the Abstract of it lately printed and the Application in the Letter to the Vindicator What-ever may be allowed in matters of the World I think it a very profane and wicked thing in Arguments of Religion to use any thing of Deceit Fallacy or Cavilling for they ought not to be mentioned but with Reverence But when the Hand of God appears so manifest in bringing suppressed Truth to Light it is dangerous to neglect it much more to oppose it in such manner lest they who do it should be found to fight even against God And therefore I hope this will be very seriously and well considered by all sincere and