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	succession_n	2,569	5	10.4652	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59119	A plain answer to a popish priest questioning the orders of the Church of England drawn up for the satisfaction of his parishioners, by a minister of that Church.	Seller, Abednego, 1646?-1705.	1688 (1688)	Wing S2458; ESTC R14595	3,325	9

A Plain Answer TO A Popish Priest Questioning the ORDERS OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND Drawn up for the satisfaction of his Parishioners by a Minister of That Church IMPRIMATUR Libellus cui Titulus A Plain Answer to a Popish Priest questioning the Orders of the Church of England c. April 16. 1688. H. MAURICE Rmo in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiepis Cant. a Sacris Domest LONDON Printed for John Howell Bookseller in Oxford 1688. A Plain Answer TO A POPISH PRIEST c. I Know nothing that useth to be objected against our Orders but that either 1. We have not a true Succession of Bishops Or 2. No true form of Orders Or 3. That our Ordainers are Schismaticks or Hereticks and so cannot ordain for as for that ridiculous silly exploded Story of the Nags-head Ordination it requires a very hard Forehead at this time of day to own it when We have so often prov'd from Authentick Records that Archbishop Parker was ordain'd in the Chappel at Lambeth by more than three Bishops and all his Brethren accordingly agreeable to the Canons of the Ancient Church and if this be deni'd I will be at any time responsible for an Authentick Copy of those Records Now to the first Objection That we have no true Succession I answer 1. That there is a double Succession of Doctrine and of Persons as to the Succession of Doctrine We have better proofs than They We believing all that hath been believ'd by the Catholick Church of Christ as necessary to Salvation while the Romanists have introduc'd too many both Doctrines and Practises unknown to Antiquity 2. That as to the Succession of Persons 1. That proves Nothing without Succession of Doctrines for many of the Heretical Churches as the Romanists account them of the East can shew as good a Succession as they can at Rome 2. We have had such a Succession from the very foundation of our Church and if it be objected that We cannot shew a compleat Catalogue of the Names of our Bishops 1. We say it is not necessary For must there have been no Burgesses sent from any Towns in England to Parliament because as I suppose no Man can show a List of the Names of all the several Persons that serv'd there for every Town since the first Institution And were there no Kings in many parts of the World because we cannot give an account who was the first and the second c. 2. Some of the Churches to whom the Romanists allow a Succession cannot shew compleat Catalogues as the Churches of Thessalonica Ephesus Philippi Corinth Smyrna c. and yet no man denies that they have Episcopal Succession amongst them 3. Nor is the Succession of the Roman Church so undoubted as They would make it for it is questionable whether St. Peter were ever Bishop of Rome in the true Ecclesiastical sense of the Word nor can Their best Authors to this day tell us who were his immediate Successors and among them how many of their Chronologists have made two Men and two Popes of One for Cletus and Anacletus were undoubtedly the same Person and if we consider how many Antipopes there were in the times of the great Schisms under which that Church labour'd and that there are many differences between the French and Italian Writers about the number of their Popes and who were the true Successors of St. Peter The Princes of each Country during those Schisms embracing the Interests of that Pope who was of greatest use and advantage to them we have no great reason to depend so much on their Succession And whereas 4. The Fathers to prove Hereticks to be men but of yesterday and to have no true Succession from the Apostles as Irenaeus Tertullian Austin Optatus c. instance in the Succession of the Church of Rome we are to remember that They were Western Fathers and so thought fit as it was most proper to instance in the Succession of the Western Patriarch not but that other Churches could plead the same Succession but that this Patriarchal See was the nearest at hand and They withall declare that They could with the same Reason instance in the Succession of other Patriarchs whose Seats Tertullian calls Mother-Churches as well as Rome The second Objection is That we have no true form of Orders and that none can confer that Power on Another which He hath not himself To which I answer in general That if that Aphorism be true then an Infidel that baptizeth in case of Necessity cannot give Baptism because He himself is not baptiz'd and yet the Roman Church allows such Baptism to be valid in case of Necessity But in particular we say 1. That neither Christ nor his Apostles instituted any form of Words and if Christ did not institute any form of Words then Orders are not a Sacrament from their own Principles for to every Sacrament is required as they say an outward Sign and an inward Grace and a form of Words to convey that Grace for I should be glad to meet that Man who would show me that any one else but Christ can institute a Sacrament or that our Saviour delivered the holy Vessels the Paten and Chalice to the Apostles and gave them power to offer Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead 2. We keep that Form which the Apostolical Church us'd in giving Orders viz. Imposition of Hands 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 3. Many of the Romish Church allow this to be a sufficient Form. 1. In the Case of the Greek Church whose Orders They allow to be valid tho They use not the Roman Form. And 2. For this Reason F. Walsh S. Clare and some others of the Roman Church allow our Orders to be good 4. We are sure that our Form is not only agreeable to the Apostolical Writings but to the Practise of the Ancient Church St. Chrysostom Hom. 14. in Act. says This is Ordination The hand of Man is imposed but God worketh All and it is his Hand that toucheth the Head of Him that is Ordained Nor can the Romanists themselves shew us any such Form as Theirs is of touching the Vessels deputed to the use of the Blessed Eucharist till above 800 years after our Saviour's time The third Objection is Your Church is Schismatical and Heretical and so cannot confer Orders To which we answer That the Charge is unjust and that in truth the Heresie and Schism lies at the door of the Church of Rome and if their Argument be good let them consider how They will be able to vindicate themselves But take the Charge for granted 1. The Ordination of Hereticks was lookt upon to be valid in the Primitive Church 2. The Greeks are accounted by the Romanists not only Schismaticks but Hereticks as well as We and yet their Priests are not re-ordain'd nay many Greeks are sent from the Seminary at Rome to be ordain'd by those Schismatical and Heretical Bishops in the East 3. If no Orders given by a Heretick be valid what becomes of their own among whom so many Popes were Heretical Liberius an Arrian Honorius a Monothelite John the 22d in some Points a Sadduce c 4. If Orders be as They reckon a Sacrament and the Sacraments give an indelible Character where is that indelible Character if He who was once duly order'd a Bishop when He turns as They call it Heretick cannot give Orders 5. Many of their Authors do say That bare laying on of Hands without using any Words at all is giving of Orders and some That the Pope's saying Be Thou a Priest is sufficient as if a Man should say that sprinkling a Child were baptizing it when the Minister said never a Word Or that saying Be Thou a Christian were sufficient to make it such without sprinkling the Child or dipping it in Water And 6. At last to make the most of it and to take it for granted that our Bishops were Schismaticks and Hereticks what is said of Laymens Baptism and such like Cases will be pleaded for this What ought not to be done is valid when it is done i. e. it ought not to be reiterated And when They Object that We had our Orders from them and yet have left them it is easily answered 1. That We had our Orders From them as They from the Apostes and We have separated no farther from Them than They from the Apostles 2. That this doth not make us any more beholding to Them for handing down our Orders to Us than They are to the Jews for handing down the Scriptures of the Old Testament to Them All being owing not to the Charity of the Men but to the Wise Providence and Goodness of God who hath so taken care of his Church To all which I subjoin That We have a greater assurance of the validity of our Orders than They can have of Theirs 1. Because They make the Intention of the Priest necessary to every Sacrament and amongst the Sacraments They reckon Orders Council of Trent Sess 7. Can. 11. and We know that no Man can be sure of another Man's Intentions and have been told that some of their Bishops have confess'd That whenever they gave Orders they never intended to make a Priest 2. Because if the Person Ordained or Ordaining be Simoniacal if the Pope who made the Bishop be so or there were no just Intention when either of them were baptized and so upward to the first Priest or Bishop who gave Baptism or Orders then all that is done by such Men is by their own Doctrine invalid FINIS