Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	archbishop_n	bishop_n	york_n	3,248	5	9.6221	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13322	The vvhetstone of reproofe A reprouing censure of the misintituled safe way: declaring it by discouerie of the authors fraudulent proceeding, & captious cauilling, to be a miere by-way drawing pore trauellers out of the royall & common streete, & leading them deceitfully in to a path of perdition. With a postscript of advertisements, especially touching the homilie & epistles attributed to Alfric: & a compendious retortiue discussion of the misapplyed by-way. Author T.T. Sacristan & Catholike Romanist.	T. T., Sacristan & Catholike Romanist.	1632 (1632)	STC 23630; ESTC S101974	352,216	770

by way of diuertion breefly to signifye to the reader how common a practise it is euen among the most famous of our aduersaries to maintaine their doctrine by lyes and false dealing of which I perceiue by a breefe vewe I tooke of some parte of his worke an industrious reader may discouer no smale stoare in the great primate doctor Vsher as well as his fellowes But now to returne to my direct purpose I yet more efficatiously confirme that which I haue said of Alfric by the chronologie of our English historians In his cata wulstan dunst For first according to the computation of Bishop Godwin ther passed onely some six yeares betwixt the decease of wlstā in the Archibishoprie of yorke the promotiō of S. Dūstan to the seat of Canterburie in which space as likewise in the tyme of wulstan himself it is quite incredible that ther was anie doctrine cōtrarie to the reall ptesence cōmōly toucght in England since S. Dunstan at the day and houre of his death expressely professed the same as out of our owne histories I haue alreadie showed by the relation of Harpesfeld Vid. Osborne in vita dunst Besides this it is certaine ther were but onely twoe wulstans Archbishops of yorke as appeareth by Godwins Catalogue the one as he reporteth deceased the yeare 955. which was at the least fortie yeares before Alfric possessed the seat of Canterburie according to the account of the same catalogue The other wulstan as the same Goduin recounteth began not his seat at yorke till the yeares 1003. which was more then 50. yeares after the death of the first wulstan now this conographie being thus established euen by one of our aduersaries Safe way sect 9. §. 2. I argue in this manner against knight Humbrey affirming that the homilie and Epistles which he alledgeth were translated by Alfric and appointed to be read to the people in his dayes my argument is this If this supposed homilie and Epistles were euer translated written or published by Alfric either it was when he was Abbat or Archbishop But neither of these is true Therfore it is not true that the homilie and Epistles were euer translated or published by Alfric The Minor which onely hath need of prose I conuince by the testimonie of my aduersarie whoe affirmes the translation and publication of the freifaid writings to haue ben a boute the yare 996. Sir Humf. page 92. and directed to wulstan Archbishop or yorke and wulfstius Bishop of sherborne by Alfric Abbat I meane the Epistles And yet at this tyme neither was Alfric Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie neither was either of the two wulstans Archbishop of yorke at that tyme. the one being dead 40. yeares before and the other not inuested in that dignitie vntill the yeare 1003. as Godwin doth witnesse soe that by this argument it manifestly appeares that the knights relation touching this matter of the publishing of the homilie and Epistles alledged by him against the reall presence and transsubstantiation is contradictious voyde of truth More ouer I finde in our English histories that aboute the yeare 950. which was some fortie and od yeares before Alfric was preferred to be Archbishop of Canterburie Vid. Harps in the tyme of Odo Archbishop of the same seat ther were some conuented before him whoe were in an erroreous opinion aboute the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the maintainers of it how soeuer Fox doth fable neither were manie nor did it long continue but was miraculously at an instant exstinguished For the pious zealous pastor Odo much lamenting the illusion of those miserable people prayed God with teares in masse that his diuine maiestie would be pleased by his infinit power manifestely to shewe some thing by which both the truth of the reall presence might appeare and the contrarie error might be confounded when sodainely at his seruants petition God almightie turned the consecrated bread in to visible flesh and the wine in to visible bloud Which wonderous spectacle being seene the incredulous persons presently complained of their owne perfidie and misbeleefe and all the rest of their dayes conserued their faith intire and sounde now this hauing happened aboute the same tyme at which that wulstan was Archbishop of yorke whoe hauing ben in that place some yeares deceased the yeare 955. as Godwin relateth it clearely appeares incredible that Alfric then Abbat should direct anie doctrine repugnant to the reall presence to wolstan Archbishop of yorke and to vlsine vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of sherbourne as our aduersaries affirme since that Odo Archbishop of Canterburie and Primate of England at the verie same tyme as of out of histories I haue rehearsed did by the power of God operate soe strange a miracle in confirmation of the same and confutation of the contrarie error More then this Vlsin or vlsius whome the knight calles wulfstius of which name neuerthelesse I finde none in Malesburies Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne could not possible haue anie Epistle directed unto him by Alfric while he was Abbat of Malesburie or Abington as Sir Humfrey and the rest of these tryfelers alledge for that while Vlsine or wulfstius was Bishop of Sherbourne which was but onely fiue yeares as our histories doe testifye Hrapsfeld saec 10. c. 9. being Abbat onely of westminister in the dayes of S. Dunstan and by his procurement whose death happened the yeare .988 as Stowe relates Alfric was no more Abbat but Bishop of wilton and consequently he could not as Abbat write to Vlsine Vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of Sherbourne but if he had writ anie such letters as our aduersaries attribute vnto him to that Bishop he should haue styled him selfe not Abbat but Bishop as in deed he was all the tyme yea and some yeares before the foresaid wulfstius was by king Ethelred preferred to the Episcopall seat of Sherbourne But that which doth strik this quite dead is that ther hauing ben but onely twoe wolstans Archbishops of yorke the first wolstan dyed before euer Alfric was Abbat to wit the yeare of our Lord 955. wher as Ingulphus in Edgar relates Alfric to haue ben created Abbat onely aboute the yeare 970. at the soonest soe that he could not possible write anie Epistles to the first wolstan while he was Abbat as our nouellists pretend bebause this wolstan was departed out of this life before Alfrics tyme of being Abbat And as for the second wolstan it is well knowne and testifyed by Godwin that he was not Archbishop of yorke before the yeare 1003. At which tyme Alfric was not Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie as our aduersaries them selues refuse not to graunte And soe this computation and collation of tymes vtterly destroyes the machination of our abuersaries in attrituting the foresaid writings to Abbat Alfric And touching Vlsius or Vlsinus I adde to this that Alfric was consecrated Byshop of wilton in the yeare 985. or ther aboutes some fourteeme yeares

aboute the yeare 996 neuerthelesse in two seuerall respects he proceedes most deceitefully and quite contrarie to common honestie and reason First for that he feigneth and prefixeth a title against the reall presence and transsubstantiation to the said homilie secondly because in his rehearsall of the tenor of the same he leueth our the relation of two most manifest and palpaple miracles for the proofe of both those points of the Catholique faith in it alledged by the author which craftie and vulpine trickes of Fox with which and manie others of like nature he farceth his huge volumes as it appeares seemed soe shamefull that his successor the late diuulger of the same homilie was ashamed to imitate him yea and not obstanding he was bounde vnder paine of losse of the labor of his translation and publication of that worke which otherwile he well considered would haue ben in vaine to taxe the said miracles of fiction as he did in a marginall note yet was he not soe impudent nor frontlesse as to raze thē quite out of the copie inexcusable deceipt in Fox And how be it I cā not denye but ther is a great difference belweene these twoe actions yet must they giue me licence to tell them that neither of them both is cleare of ill proceeding the one being guiltie of plaine imposture the other of plaine temeritie For supposing they would venture to make vse of the homilie for the aduantage of their denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation for all that they ought to haue taken it as they founde it for better or for worse not goe a boute to pick out what they finde for their purpose and cast a may the rest like such vnreasonable caterers as will needes buye flesh without bones And in deed those twoe bones that is those twoe most patēt cleare miracles by which both the reall presēce of the bodie bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ar manifestly demonstrated against the new doctrine of these our tymes were too harde for old Father Foxs teeth to chewe or for his stomake to disgeast therfore doubtlesse he left them out both in his saxon and English transsumpte But these sycophants as they deale with the scriptures them selues soe they deale with ancient authorities testimonies lib. de bono person c. 11. Suo quidem priuilegione dicam sacrilegio vtquod volunt accipiant quod nolunt reijciant as S. Augustin said of the Manichies Againe concerning the Epistles attributed to Alfric ther is yet more discorde among our aduersaries For the publisher of them and the homilie aboue mentioned in his preface vnto them affirmes ther were certaines lines rare zout of a booke extant in the librarie of worceter which lines saith he which contained the cheefe point of cōtrouersie that is as he supposeth against the reall presence and transsubstantiation were taken out of twoe Epistles of Alfric written by him as well in the Saxon tongue as in the latin But Doctor Iames and Sir Humfrey tell vs that the foresaid passage was razed in a latin Epistle manuscript of Bennitts Colledge in Cambrige yet there to be seene And wheras the author of the publication saith that the lines razed ar to be restored by twoe other Epistles of the same Alfric in latin extant in the librarie of Exceter contrarily D. Iames tolleth vs they ar to be restored not by anie latin copies but by certaine Saxon copies of the same Epistles which he affirmeth to haue ben in the publike librarie of Oxon when he writ his booke which was the yeare 1611. Besydes this the same Iames out of Fox saith the Epistle which he affirmes to haue ben thus mangled and torne was to wulfstan Archbishop of yorke and hath for title de consuetudine Monachorum wheras yet the foresaid publisher of Alfrics new founde writings intileth that Epistle of Alfric de consuetudine monachorum of the order or manner of monkes Egneshemensibus fratribus to the fryres or brothers of Egnesham Which iarres I confesse I am soe vnable to compose that I can not but vehemently suspect these mens reportes to be false and counterfet Especially considering that Iames affirmes the latin Epistle soe razed as they reporte to haue ben directed by Alfric to that wulstan whoe was Archbishop of yorke aboute the yeare 954. wher as yet the author of the pamphlet in which these writings ar contained in his prefate to the same saith that this Alfric to whome he attributes them was equall to Alfric Archbishop of Canterburie which he alsoe affirmes to haue ben in that seat six yeares before that wulstan to whome Alfric's Epistle was writen was Archbishop of yoke soe that the one reportes this Epistle to haue ben wriren to the first wulstan and the other to the second not obstanding all histories and Cathologues of Bishops among which is Godwins doe testifye soe long a space of tyme to haue passed betweixt their standings as it is from the yeare 955. and 1003. soe that these twoe relators drawe back warde and fore ward like twoe ill match asses More ouer the foresaid publisher will needs haue Alfric the supposed author the homilie and epistles to haue ben a distinct man from that Alfric whoe was Archbishop of Canterburie wheras neuershelesse Iohn Leland whoe professedly writ of the writers of England relating the seuerall workes of Alfric the Archbishop of Canterburie maketh noe mention of anie other writers of that name but of him onely neither doth he put anie epistle among his writings but onely one intituled de consuetudine Monachorum of the māner or custome of monkes which subiect how farre it disagreth frō the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation I leaue to the iudgement of the reader to consider In fine to conclude my whole discourse touching this matter I say first that if it were true as our aduersaries pretend that in the foresaid writings ther weere anie thing contained contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation yet haue I cōuinced by insoluable reasons that neither Alfric could be the author of them neither could anie such doctrine haue ben publikely maintained in the Church of England in or aboute his dayes But what soeuer doctrine was then published and tought in our countrie was canformable in all points with the doctrine and faith then professed in the Church of Rome with which the English Church and her Pastors had correspondence and subordination as I haue manifestly declared Secondly Althou I am not able to iudge determinately whoe might be author of those writings because I haue noe meanes to come to the view of them otherwise then in that patched and mangled manner in which they are published by our aduersaries neuerthelesse I persuade my selfe they were writ by some Romane catholique author soe that taken in their innocencie and prime puritie and piously interpreted they containe no vnsounde or erroneous doctrine but rather expresse testimonie and proofes of diuers points controuersed