Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bishop_n	church_n	ordination_n	3,829	5	10.8464	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87226	Confidence encountred: or, A vindication of the lawfulness of preaching without ordination. In answer to a book published by N.E. a friend of Mr. Tho Willes, intituled, The confident questionist questioned. Together with an answer to a letter of Mr. Tho. Willes, published in the said book. By which the lawfulness of preaching without ordination is cleared, and the ordination of the national ministers proved to be a nullity. By Jer. Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1658 (1658)	Wing I1094; Thomason E936_1; ESTC R207711	43,652	64

erres in any thing as those do that go thither for Ordination then he being ignorant of their errors may lawfully be ordained there and that Christ will accept of it for you say That a sincere aim at the substance with ignorance of the errors in circumstance will excuse So that all that you have said though it will not justifie a mans going to Rome for Ordination that knows their errors and knows there is no necessity to go thither yet it doth justifie all that are otherwise minded and are still ignorant by your own confession for you confess that Christ accepts of all Ordinations that differ but in circumstance are you not indulging the Church of Rome But to proceed Quest 17 I demanded If the Protestant Ordination be the onely lawful Ordination then which of those whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent be that which Christ approves of c. Thereupon you query Whether you may not say All are approved by Christ But doth all you have said signifie Christ's approbation of all these have you urged any thing but that which is as disputable as the thing in question and so endeavour to prove one doubtful thing by another for you ask me If that I do not easily see all these viz. the Episcopal Presbyterian and the most sober Independents own the essence of Ordination that is say you a setting apart men to the Ministery by Ministers and that they do practice the purity of that Ordinance by setting apart fit men in a Gospel-way for those ends a Ministery is appointed without superstitious intermixtures Sir when you have proved this which you ask me If I do not easily see to be in all the Ordinations before mentioned then I shall grant your consequence viz. That Christ approves all these Ordinations but in the mean while I deny the Antecedent for all you say I might easily see it but if it was so easie for me to see why was it not as easie for you to have proved it is this to reason rationally or is it not that which a Scholar that values either credit or conscience would scorn viz. to take it for granted all these Ministers are such and that all their Ordinations are lawful and then conclude that Christ owns them all and give us no Text to prove any thing you say though the stress of the Controversie depends upon it Quest 18 And because I query if all those Ordinations of Episcopacie and Presbytery c. were lawful as you confess then why were these Ordinations opposed one to the other by the several Patrons of them This was the substance of that Query You thereupon ask me If I am not uncharitable to charge the error of one man meaning Dr. Taylor who opposed the Presbyters as Men that had no power to ordain upon the rest of the Episcopal way c. To which I answer That though I cited him for brevity sake yet I did refer the Reader to his Book called Episcopacie asserted where he cites the Fathers and the constant Opinion of the Churches for the proof of what he saith against Ordination by Presbyters to which you have said nothing but tell us a story at the third hand of what Bishop Usher told the King of the practice of one particular Church viz. of Alexandria and of what the Rubrick saith and of what Dr. Prid. saith But to these I may answer That it is nothing to the Opinion of most of the Bishops way and that not onely in England but where-ever that Government is practised And for your citing the London-Ministers are not they like to be good Witnesses seeing they are parties that would fain make all Antiquity speak for the things they profess that the novelty of them may not be suspected Quest 19 In my nineteenth Query I ask If that the Ordination by Bishops was lawful why then did the Presbyterians throw down Episcopacy and not rather reform it This was the sum of this Question To which in stead of answering you ask If I do still go on in my unchristian charges whereby you tell me I do not onely lay injustice but blood upon the head of Presbyterians c. But wherein do I speak any thing unlike a Christian if that be true as you say viz. That Episcopal Ordination was good and that they did practice it in the purity of it without superstitious mixture as you confess in your seventeenth Query then how do I exhibit an unchristian charge against them by asking why they did not reform the Government rather then cashier it c. You go on and further demand Whether I dare assert that the Presbyterians did throw down the Government of Episcopacy meerly for this error in Ordination c. I answer as before If they did erre in other things why were not those reformed and Ordination by Bishops still preserved seeing you say that their Ordination was in purity But further how comes this to pass that in your seventeenth Query you say That Episcopal Ordination was in purity and yet ask me Whether that Government was thrown down meerly for the error in Ordination how can it be in purity if it had errors And for your saying That the Anabaptistical Spirits are bloody witness those in Germany c. I answer This is an unchristian Charge indeed and therefore you thought you would cry out first That others were guilty that your self might not be suspected for what if that story of Germany were true which is doubtful in many things doth not this shew what Spirit you are of laying the cause of the late Wars at the Anabaptists Doors have they not been as serviceable to their Power to free their Country from slavery as any both in Purse and Person were they the cause of the first and second War in Scotland and the second War in England was any of them you call Anabaptists in the treasonable Engagement who of them did joyn to bring in King Charles again into Scotland first and afterwards into England was it the Anabaptist or who was it pray speak out that made all these Uproars both in City and Country But lest you should erre for want of Information let me shew you That the Presbyters have been inspired with a worse Spirit to carry on their Presbyterian-Usurpation then ever the Anabaptists were in Germany nay I am sure I should not be rash if I should say The same Spirit which they have cried down in their Adversaries the Jesuites hath been found breathing in them And for proof hereof I shall refer the Reader to the Histories and Writings that have been writ by great Patrons of the Presbyterian way I shall begin with Mr. Knox who in his History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland saith That without the Reformation which they desired they meaning the Covenanters would never be subject to any mortal man See Knox History of the Church of Scotland first Impression in Octavo page 265. They viz. the Presbyterians

though they should run from the errors of Rome into other errors that were as bad or worse But I therefore answer further That though a man cannot be a true Minister but by one of these ways it doth not therefore follow as I have already shewed in my Answer to Mr. Willes his Letter at the beginning of this Book that Mr. Willes is a Minister either of these wayes For though I grant these two to be the wayes of admission into the Ministery yet I do deny him to be entred by either of them though he succeed from those you call our first Reformers for I do deny that they were true Ministers of Christ either way or that they had either a lawful Succession or necessity to authorize them But of this more anon Quest 27 I demand If Mr. Willes be a Minister by succession whether he did not succeed from Rome You thereupon demand Why there may not be a lawful succession from the Apostles by Rome Your first Reason is Because the corruptions of the first Receivers could not null this Ordinance c. To which I answer What if that be granted That the corruption of Receivers could not null an Ordinance this doth not prove that corrupt Receivers of the Ordinance of Baptism can administer Baptism or that corrupt Receivers of the Lord's Supper can administer it lawfully after they have been separated from for their corruptions But your second Reason saith That the corruption of the Dispensers could not make the succession cease And this you would prove by many similitudes you say The Law doth not lose its force if it be pronounced by a wicked Judge c. I answer If this Judge be lawfully turned out of his place for wickedness then though the Law doth not lose its force yet this Judge hath no power to administer it so I say of your Ordination That if you had justly ejected the Pope he had after this no power to administer the Laws of Christ no more then a Judge that is thrown out hath power to administer the Law of the Land Thus your simile makes against you And for your simile of Judas and a hypocrite whence you would infer That their heart-corruption doth not null God's Ordinances that are administred by them I answer That it is true That so long as their sins are like your Name unknown if they do administer Ordinances they may be valued but what if their sins are known and that they shall be rejected as Hereticks or as scandalous Persons have they then any power to administer sacred things This Answer will serve for all the rest of your similitudes But further If the Church of Rome was Apostates and Hereticks and the Church of England had ejected her and separated from her and judged the Pope to be the great Antichrist as indeed they did then it followeth from Scripture That it is a sin to receive Ordination from them for the Scripture saith Matth. 18. If that any refuse to hear the Church he should be esteemed as a heathen and a publican Now then if the Church of England did reject Rome for her sin and Idolatry it was then as lawful for me to go to any Fellow under a Hedge and be ordained by him as it is to go to any ejected of excommunicated Persons for it and if the Church of Rome be not cut off from being a Church then are you very wicked in that you have not communion with them while they are of the Body if they are not of the Body then any of the Body hath as much power to administer Ordination as they And this is not my single Opinion but it hath been the Opinion of former times for Athanasius saith in Epist de Conciliis By what right can any be Bishops that do receive their Ordination from Hereticks And further he saith That it is impossible that Ordinations made by Secundus being an Arrian could have any force in the Church of God And further If the Pope be rejected as that great Antichrist it cannot be imagined that he whom all the Protestants judge to be Christ's greatest Enemy should so far serve the great designs of Christ's Glory as lawfully to ordain and impower men to preach Christ So that either you did not leave the Church of Rome and reject them as Hereticks or if you did you ought not to be beholding to them for your Ordination And further the Protestant Calvinists in France say in the Confession of their Faith Confes Art 21. That their Calling is extraordinary and do confirm the same by their practice in that they ordain anew such Priests as revolt from Rome but if the corruption of the Dispensers did not make their Ordination a nullity then there was no reason for such a practice in a reformed Church And Mr. Whitaker is of this minde for saith he We would not have you think that we make such reckoning of your Orders as to hold our Vocation unlawful without them And Mr. Fulk that famous Opposer of Rome tells them That they are deceived highly if they think we esteem of their offices of Bishops Priests and Deacons-better then Lay-Men See his Answer to a counterfeit Catholick p. 50 And further Mr. Fulk saith That with all our heart we meaning the Protestants abhor and detest all your stinking greasie Antichristian Orders And yet other of you glory in your succession See the contradictions among your selves who of you shall a man believe So that if I say You cannot have a lawful Ordination from Rome seeing they were by you judged Hereticks and such as were deservedly excluded I have the Scripture of my side that saith You should esteem such as Heathens I have several eminent Lights that shined in the Church of old I have some of the reformed Churches and therein many very famous both at home and abroad which are of my minde Your last Argument you bring to this Point is That Christianity was profest and therefore you ask me If I will say there was not a company of true Believers all the time the Pope ruled here c. Whence you infer If they were true believers then there was a Church and if a Church then there must be a Ministery because you say Christ promised Ephes 4.11 12 13. That the Saints should have such a Ministery till they come to be a perfect man c. If this be a good Argument why do you rail against the Anabaptists For dare you say There is not true believers among them if there be then by your Logick they are a Church and if a Church then they must have Christ's promise fulfilled and they then must have a true Ministery till they come to be a perfect man By this Rule Mr. Brookes his people are a true Church and must have a true Ministery or else you must say The people that walk with him are all Unbelievers Quest 28 I demanded in my twenty eighth Query Whether the Church of Rome

but what men take up by Necessity c. This is the substance of the question To which you say nothing but what hath been said and answered only you demand Whether there may not be a lawful succession from those that first took upon them this Office by Necessity and whether any in an ordinary lawful way can be in office but those that have it from that succession c. To this I answer That if what you here suppose be true then why did not our first Reformers go to the Ministers of other reformed Churches for Ordination rather then take it from Mr. Scory and that Faction since there was divers reformed Churches where they might have been ordained without receiving it from Rome or without putting themselves into the Office upon a pretended necessity So that if what you say be true That there may be a lawful succession from those who first became Officers by vertue of a necessity and that it is sinful to pretend to necessity afterwards then our first Reformers cannot plead Not Guilty since as I have said there was no necessity for them to own an Ordination from Rome because they might have have had it in more purity from those you call the reformed Churches which had separated from the Church of Rome before England And secondly There was no necessity for them to become Officers whithout Ordination no more then there is now because there were many reformed Churches in being to which they might have applied themselves for Ordination as in France and Germany c. Lastly if there was no true Church in the world that had power to ordain our new Bishops but they must make use of that which they received from Rome and that this be a lawful Ordination as you confess then you must needs say That the Churches of France Germany Geneva Scotland c. were no true Churches and had no true and lawful succession or if they had been true reformed Churches either by succession or necessity why then did not our first Reformers go to some of these to be ordained and since they did not doth it not manifestly appear that they were not true Ministers by succession because they received Ordination from Rome whom you call a Harlot when they might have had it from the Ministers of the reformed Churches then in being and because there was reformed Churches in being where they might have been ordained they had no reason to plead to any necessity then of preaching without Ordination any more then Mr. Brooks and others have whom Mr. Willes and you condemn Quest 40 I come now to the fortieth Question that I propounded which demands what Ground Mr. Willes had to baptize the children of wicked parents c. And to this you say nothing but what I have answered already only you beg a question viz. That children have a right to be members of a visible Church Which when you have proved it viz. That infants while they are in infancy have an immediate right to be members of a Church in the new Testament I shall confess they may be baptized but till then I shall be against the baptizing any infant for all you think I would conceal my Opinion in this matter Quest 41 In the next place I demand Whether to baptize the children of wicked parents be not contrary to the Opinion of the reformed Churches You reply That in the sense M. Willes doth assert the baptizing of the children of wicked parents it is lawful To which I answer That I have replied to Mr. Willes his sense about the baptizing the children of wicked parents in my Answer to his Letter at the beginning of this Book All that you say to this question besides what I have answered doth appertain to some practices of Mr. Brooks which I shall not meddle with because I am not acquainted with them only I take notice that in p. 48. of your Book before you end this question you say That if the Ministery of England be Antichristian then it will follow that those that they have baptized are unlawfully baptized c. How shamefully do you contradict your self did you not say before That the corruptions of the dispensers of Ordinances could not make the Ordinances a nullity though the Administrator was Antichristian And do you not now in effect say That baptism is a nullity if the Administrator be Antichristian for you say If the National Ministery be Antichristian as Mr. Brooks saith it will follow that it is unlawful Do you not now justifie all that I have said viz. If the first Reformers were ordained by Antichristian Ministers that then it followeth that their Ordination is a nullity and that till they are ordained again they all of them preach without Ordination from Christ Thus the Reader may see that rather then you would want an arrow to shoot at M. Brooks you would borrow one out of my quiver and you do as good as confess as much when you conclude and say That your heart trembleth and you heartily wish that you could not plead so strongly to sadden honest hearts to please me and such as I am It seems then your conscience told you That you had given away your cause to the grief of your self and others because you could not help it and therefore you wish heartily that you COULD not plead so much to please such as I am So that it seems you are now forced to yield to your own grief and others of your friends which you call honest hearts c. it seems then the truth is too strong for you But to proceed You come now to make Counter-queries upon my 42 43 44 and 45 Queries that are grounded upon Mr. Willes his decrying the Fifth-Monarchy-Men as the smoak of the bottomless pit to this I have already given answer And to the Counter-queries you propound upon my 46 question touching Mr. Willes his Discourse with me in private I have already answered in my Reply to M. Willes his Letter And for your Counter-query that you make upon my 47 question about Mr. Willes his perswading a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuite though you say I am too blame to receive an information from one man c. Sure you are more too blame to believe the Accused's bare negation but for the truth of what I object against M. Willes viz. That he did desire a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuite I shall refer the Reader to the Gentleman aforenamed who is ready to make oath for his further satisfaction And for your saying That I did live a concealed life about London for many yeers and therefore there might be some ground for people to suspect me Truely I think there is more reason why I should suspect you who are so concealed as that you refuse to let your Name or place of abode be known I am sure this I never did upon any occasion in all my life I come now to take notice of

Fulk and Whittingam and divers others when they have had to do with Papists have inveighed against Ordination from them as a stinking filthy thing as I have already observed So that the great loss they are at among themselves touching the Derivation of their Authority is one Reason why it may be questioned Whether they have any or no The second Reason is their unwillingness to answer those Objections that their Adversaries the Papists objected against their Ordination which is a shrewd sign they feared it would not abide the trial As 1. they objected That the English Reformers in Queen Elizabeth 's time went to a Popish Irish Bishop that was then Prisoner in the Tower and promised him his liberty and a sum of money if he would ordain them Bishops but he refused 2. It is objected by their Adversaries the Papists That they sought to be ordained by the Bishop of Landaff but he refused it 3. It is further objected That Parker and others of the Queens new Bishops were ordained by one Scory a Priest at a meeting which they had for this purpose at the Nags-head-Tavern in Cheap-side To these Objections no Answer was given till Bishop Masons time which was nigh fifty yeers after when most of the men were dead that were the chief Witnesses to these things though the Answer at that time much concerned them these Objections being then the common talk of their Adversaries A third Reason why they are to be questioned appears in the Case of the new-made Bishop of Winchester who indicted Bishop Bonner to which Bonner pleaded That Winchester was no Bishop according to any Law and the Judges in Queen Elizabeth's time did resolve That Bonner's Plea should be received See the Abridgement of Diers Reports 7 Eliz. 234. And that they were at this time no Bishops neither by Statute-Law or Canon-Law appears by the great industry and care that the new Bishops took to get themselves confirmed by Act of Parliament the words of the Act are these All Acts and things heretofore made and done about the consecration of Archbishops Bishops Priests c. by vertue of the Queens Letters Patents since the begining of her Reign be and shall be by Authority of this Parliament declared and judged good and perfect c. And a little after in the same Act it followeth That all Archbishops Bishops Priests c. be declared in very deed by the Authority aforesaid and enacted to be Archbishops Bishops Priests c. and rightly made ordered and consecrated any Statute-Law Canon-Law or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding 8 Eliz. 1. So that you may see that the Clergy of England were no lawful ordained Ministers neither by Statute nor Canon-Law till the 8 of Eliz. in the Opinion of the Judges in the Case of Bonner and Horn before mentioned which I desire may be considered by all judicious Christians and then I question not but they will see that the Clergy of England have little reason to glory in their Apostolical succession and to cry down others that stand upon a more religious foot of account then themselves POSTSCRIPT Reader WHereas Mr. Willes in the forementioned-Letter tells a story of a man that was in company with me at his house as though he should say He had rather hear the Devil then an ordained Minister Give me leave to tell thee That this scandal carries enough in the mouth of it to discover the untruth thereof to all sober and intelligent men for I think no man in his wits but had rather hear the worst of men then the Devil himself And if the Gentleman be points at be Mr. Vancourt as I know not who else he should mean I must tell thee That his dayly hearing such as are ordained in the sense that Mr. Willes calls Ordination is to all that know him a sufficient justification And though Mr. Willes would have put such a sense upon some words that sell from this Gentleman yet Mr. Willes cannot but remember that the Gentleman was offended at him for that he misrepresented him to the company then present and thereupon Mr. Willes was desired not to misconstrue these words and he promised that he would not though since he hath done it contrary to the Gentlemans then-declared meaning and his own promise Vale. Thou art desired to take notice of these two errors viz. in the Epist read organical for original pag 20. lin 20. for Mat road Mal. There is an excellent piece lately published entituled Gospel-worship no work for infants cleerly proving the folly vanity and deceit of infants Baptism and that the true Worshippers of God are believing men women converted by the preaching of the word not infants By H. Haggar Sound Doctrine or the Doctrine of the Gospel about the extent of Christs death with a brief compendium of Doctrine of the holy Scriptures clearing up the riches of God's love to all mankinde and his desires to save them that yet wilfully perish By William Pedelsden Both to be sold by Dan. White at the seven Stars in Pauls Church-yard FINIS