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	john_n	year_n	2,821	5	5.0265	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74667	An answer to Monsieur de la Militiere his impertinent dedication of his imaginary triumph, to the king of Great Britain to invite him to embrace the Roman Catholick religion. / By John Bramhall D.D. and Lord Bishop of London-Derry.	Bramhall, John, 1594-1663.; La Milletière, Théophile Brachet, sieur de, ca. 1596-1665. Victory of truth for the peace of the Church.	1653 (1653)	Thomason E1542_1	53,892	235

AN ANSWER TO Monseiur de la Militiere his impertinent Dedication of his Imaginary Triumph To the KING of Great Britain to invite him to embrace the Roman Catholick Religion By John Bramhall D. D. and Lord Bishop of Derry HAGUE Printed in the Year 1653. An Answer to Monseiur de la Militiere his Epistle to the King of great Britain wherein he inviteth his Majesty to forsake the Church of England and to embrace the Roman Catholick Religion SIR YOu might long have disputed your Question of Transubstantiation with your learned Adversary and proclamed your own Triumph on a silver Trumpet to the world before any Member of the Church of England had interposed in this present Exigence of our Affairs I know no necessity that Christians must be like Cocks Plut. that when one Crows all the rest must Crow for Company Monseiur Aubertine will not want a surviving friend to teach you what it is to sound a Triumph before you have gained the victory He was no fool that desired no other Epitaph on his Tomb than this Here lyes the Author of this sentence Prurigo Disputandi scabies Ecclesiae Sir Henry Wotton the itch of disputing is the scab of the Church Having viewed all your strength with a single eye I find not one of your Arguments that comes home to Transubstantiation but only to a true reall presence which no genuine Son of the Church of England did ever deny no nor your Adversary himself Christ said This is my Body what he said we do stedfastly believe he said not after this or that manner neque con neque sub neque trans And therefore we place it among the Opinions of the Schools not among the Articles of our Faith The holy Eucharist which is the Sacrament of peace and unity rences in the Church directly about the Sacrament for the first 800. years ought not to be made the matter of strife and contention There wanted not abuses in the Administration of this Sacrament in the most pure and Primitive times as prophaness and uncharitableness among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11. The Simonians and Menandrians and some other such Imps of Sathan unworthy the name of Christians Theod. ex Ignatio did wholy forbear the use of the Eucharist but it was not for any difference about the Sacrament it self but about the naturall Body of Christ They held that his flesh and Blood and Passion were not true and reall but imaginary and phantasticall things The Maniches did forbear the Cup but it was not for any difference about the Sacrament it self They made two Gods a good God whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or light and an evill God whom they tearmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or darkness which evill God they said did make some creatures of the Dreg or more feculent parts of the matter which were evill and impure And among these evill creatures they esteemed Wine which they called the Gall of the Dragon for this cause not upon any other scruple they either wholy absteined from the Cup Leo. Ser. 4. de quad Epiph. haer 30. 46. or used Water in the place of wine which Epiphanius recordeth among the errors of the Ebionites Aug. li. de Haeres c. 64 and Tacians And St. Austine of the Aquarians Still we doe not find any clashing either in word or writing directly about this Sacrament in the universall Church of Christ much less about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament Bel. l. 1. de Sac. Euch. c. 1. Neque ullus veterum disputat contra hunc errorem primis sex centis Annis The first that are supposed by Bellarmine to have broached any error in the Church about the reall presence were the Iconomachi after 700. years Primi qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia in quaestionem vecarunt fuerint Iconomachi post Annum Domini 700. Bel ibid. Syn Nic. 2 Act 6. only because they called the Bread and Wine the Image of Christs body This is as great a mistake as the former Their difference was meerly about Images not at all about the Eucharist so much Vasques confesseth Disp 179. c. 1. that In his ●udgement they are not to be numbred with those who deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist We may well find different observations in those dayes Yet different observations as one Church consecrating leavened Bread another unleavened One Church making use of pure Wine another of Wine mixed with Water One Church admitting Infants to the Communion another not admitting them but without controversies or censures or animosity one against another we find no debates or disputes concerning the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and much less concerning the manner of his presence for the first eight hundred years And different expressions Yet all the time we find as different expressions among those Primitive Fathers as among our modern writers at this day some calling the Sacrament the sign of Christs Body the figure of his Body the Symbol of his Body the mystery of his Body the exemplar type and representation of his Body saying that the Elements do not recede from their first nature others naming it the true Body and Blood of Christ changed not in shape but in nature yea doubting not to say that in this Sacrament we see Christ we touch Christ we eat Christ that we fasten our teeth in his very flesh and make our Tongues red in his Bloud Yet notwithansting there were no questions no quarrels no contentions amongst them there needed no Councils to order them no conferences to reconcile them because they contented themselves to believe what Christ had said This is my Body without presuming upon their own heads to determine the manner how it is his Body neither weighing all their own words so exactly before any controversie was raised nor expounding the sayings of other men contrary to the analogy of Faith The first doubt about the The first difference abou● the presence of Christ in the Sacrament presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament seems to have been moved not long before the year 900. in the dayes of Bertram and Paschasius but the controversie was not well formed nor this new Article of Transubstantiation sufficiently concocted in the dayes of Berengarius after the year 1050. as appeareth by the gross mistaking and mistating of the question on both sides First Berengarius if we may trust his adversaries knew no mean between a naked figure or empty sign of Christs presence and a corporeall or Locall presence and afterwards fell into another extreme of impanation on the other side the Pope and the Councill made no difference between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation they understood nothing of the spirituall or indivisible being of the flesh and blood of Christ in the Sacrament as appeareth by that ignorant and Capernaiticall retractation and abjuration which they imposed upon Berengarius Penned by

you opened to the liberty and boldness of other men who if they should assume to themselves the same freedom that you have done might say as much with as much reason concerning the pressures of other great Princes abroad that God afflicts them because they will not become Protestants as you can say that God afflicted our late King because he would not turn Papist But if you will not allow his Majesties suffrings to be meerly probatory And if for your satisfaction there must be a weight of sin found out to move the wheel of Gods justice why do you not rather fix upon the body of his Subjects or at least a disloyall part of them Wee confess that the best of us did not deserve such a Jewell Soveraigns may be taken away for the sins of their subjects that God might justly snatch him from us in his wrath for our ingratitude Reason Religion and experience do all teach us that it is usuall with Almighty God to look upon a body politique or Ecclesiastique as one man and to deprive a perverse people of a good and gracious Governour as an expert Physician by opening a vein in one member cures the distempers of another Prov. 28. ● For the Transgressions of a Land many are the Princes thereof It may be that two or three of our Princes at the most the greater part whereof were Roman Catholiques Not above two or three of our Princes called Heads of the Church did stile themselves or give others leave to stile them the Heads of the Church within their Dominions But no man can be so simple as to conceive that they intended a spirituall headship to infuse the life and motion of grace into the hearts of the faithfull such an head is Christ alone No not yet an Ecclesiasticall headship We did never believe that our Kings in their own persons could exercise any act perteining either to the power of Order or Jurisdiction That is onely politicall heads 1 Sam. 15.17 Nothing can give that to another which it hath not it self They meant onely a Civill or Politicall head as Saul is called the Head of the Tribes of Israel to see that publick peace be preserved to see that all Subjects aswell Ecclesiastiques as others do their duties in their severall places to see that all things be managed for that great and Architectonicall end that is the weal and benefit of the whole body politique both for soul and body If you will not trust me Hear our Church it self When we attribute the Sovereign Government of the Church to the King Art 37. we do not give him any power to administer the Word or Sacraments but onely that Prerogative which God in holy Scripture hath alwayes allowed to Godly Princes to see that all Sates and Orders of their Subiects Ecclesiasticall and Civill do their duties and to punish those who are delinquent with the civill Sword Here is no power ascribed Expos Paraphr art Conf. Ang. Art 37. no punishment inflicted but meerly politicall and this is approved and justificed by S. Clara both by reason and by the example of the Parliament of Paris Yet by vertue of this Politicall power he is the Keeper of both Tables the preserver of true piety towards God as well as right Justice towards men And is obliged to take care of the souls aswell as the skins and carkasses of his subjects The Christian Emperours politicall heads This power though not this name the Christian Emperours of old assumed unto themselves to Convocate Synods to preside in Synods to confirm Synods to establish Ecclesiasticall Laws to receive appeals to nominate Bishops to eject Bishops to suppress Heresies to compose Ecclesiasticall differences in Councils out of Councils by themselves by their delegates All which is as clear in the History of the Church as if it were written with a beam of the Sun This power The old Kings of England politicall heads though not this name the Antient Kings of England ever exercised not onely before the Reformation but before the Norman Conquest as appears by the Acts of their great Councills by their Statutes and Articles of the Clergy by so many Laws of provision against the Bishop of Romes conferring Ecclesiasticall dignities and benefices upon foreiners by so many sharp oppositions against the exactions and usurpations of the Court of Rome by so many Laws concerning the Patronage of Bishopricks and Investitures of Bishops by so many examples of Church-men punished by the Civill Magistrate Of all which Jewels the Roman Court had undoubtedly robbed the Crown if the Peers and Prelates of the Kingdom had not come in to the rescue By the antient Laws of England it is death or at least a forfeiture of all his goods for any man to publish the Popes Bull without the Kings Licence The Popes Legate without the Kings leave could not enter into the Realm If an Ordinary did refuse to accept a resignation See Authorities for all these in Cawdries Case in Judge Crook his Reports the King might supply his defect If any Ecclesiasticall Court did exceed the bounds of its just power either in the nature of the cauie or manner of proceeding the Kings Prohibition had place So in effect the Kings of England were alwaies the Politicall heads of the Church within their own Dominions So the Kings of France are at this day But who told you that ever King Charles did call himself the Head of the Church Neither K. Charles K. James nor Queen Elizabeth stiled heads of the Church thereby to merit such an heavy Judgement He did not nor yet King James his Father nor Queen Elizabeth before them both who took Order in her first Parliament to have it left out of her Title They thought that name did sound ill and that it intrenched too far upon the right of their Saviour Therefore they declined it and were called onely Supreme Governours in all Causes over all persons Ecclesiasticall and Civill which is a Title de jure inseparable from the Crown of all soveraign Princes Where it is wanting de facto if any place be so unhappy to want it the King is but half a King and the Common-wealth a Serpent with two Heads Thus you see you are doubly and both wayes miserably mistaken First King Charles did never stile himself Head of the Church nor could with patience endure to hear that Title Secondly a Politicall Headship is not injurious to the Unity or Authority of the Church The Kings of Israel and Judah the Christian Emperours the English Kings before the Reformation yea even before the Conquest and other Soveraign Princes of the Roman Communion have owned it signally But it seems you have been told or have read this in the virulent writings of Sanders or Parsons or have heard of a ludicrous scoffing proposition of a Marriage between the two heads of the two Churches Sixtus Quintus and Queen Elizabeth for

Subjects He was no Changeling indeed neither to the right hand nor to the left Henry the Fourth his Grandfather did turn indeed to the Roman Church Had his change any such Influence upon the Protestant party in France I know no followers such a change would gain him but I foresee clearly how many hearts it would lose him Certainly Sir if you would do a meritorious piece of ●●…ice to his greatest Adversaries you could not fix upon any thing that would content them more highly than to see you successfull in this undertaking I have done with your Proposition Hee than compares it and your demonstration together will easily judge them to be twins at the first sight As a motive to his Majesties conversion you present him with a Treatise of Transubstantiation and desire that it may appear unto the world under his royall name P. 58. His improper choise of a Patron for his Treatise I meddle not with your Treatise some of your learned Adversaries friends will give you your hands full enough But how can his Majesty protect or patronise a Treatise against his Judgement against his Conscience so contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England not onely since the Reformation but before About the year seven hundred Serm. Saxon in fest● Paschat The body of Christ wherein he suffered and his Body Consecrated in the Host differ much The body wherein he suffred was born of the Virgin consisting of flesh and bones and humane members his Spirituall body which we call the Host consists of many grains without blood bones or human members wherefore nothing is to be understood there corporally but all spiritually Transubstantiation was neither held for an Article of Faith nor a point of Faith in those dayes You charge the Protestants in divers places P. 62. That they have neither Church nor Faith but have lost both And at the later end of your Treatise you undertake to demonstrate it P. 222. His unskilfulnes or his unfortunateness in his Demonstrations But your demonstration is a meer Paralogism You multiply your terms you confound your terms you change and alter your terms contrary to the rules of right arguing and vainly beat the air concluding nothing which you ought to prove nothing which your Adversary will denie You would prove that Protestants have no Church That you never attempt But you do attempt to prove how pittifully God knows that they are not the onely Church that is the one Holy Catholique Church This they did never affirm they did never think It sufficeth them to be a part of that Universall Church more pure more Orthodox more Catholique than the Roman alwayes professing Christ visibly never lurking invisibly in an other Communion which is another of your mistakes I should advise you to promise us no more evident demonstrations Either your skill or your luck is so extremely bad In the second place you affirm that Faith is founded upon divine Authority and Revelation and deposited with the Church All that is true But that which you add that it is founded in the Authority of Christ speaking by the mouth of his Church By this Church understanding the Church of this Age and which is yet worse the Church of one place and which is worst of all the Bishop of that one Church is most false The great advantage of the Prostant above the Roman Catholique in the choise of his foundation And so is that which you add that the faith of Protestants is founded upon their own reasonings which makes so many differences among them Reason must be subservient in the application of the Rule of Faith It cannot be the foundation of Faith Bad reasoning may bring forth differences and errors about Faith both with you and us but the abuse of Reason doth not take away the use of Reason We have this Advantage of you that if any one of us do build an erroneous Opinion upon the holy Scripture yet because our adherence to the Scripture is firmer and neerer than our adherence to our particular error that full and free and universall assent which we give to holy Scripture and to all things therein conteined is an implicite Condemnation and retractation of our particular error which we hold unwittingly and unwillingly against Scripture But your foundation of Faith being composed of uncertainties whether this man be Pope or not whether this Pope be Judge or not whether this Judge be infallible or not and if infallible wherein and how far the faith which is builded thereupon cannot but be fallible and uncertain The stricter the adherence is to a false uncertain or fallible rule the more dangerous is the error So our right foundation purgeeth away our error in superstruction And your wrong foundation lessens the value of your truths and doubles the guilt of your errors I will by your leave requite your demonstration and turn the mouthes of your own Canons against your self That Church which hath changed the Apostolical Creed the Apostolicall Succession the Apostolicall Regiment and the Apostolicall Communion is no Apostolicall Orthodox or Catholique Church But the Church of Rome hath changed the Apostolicall Creed the Apostolicall Succession the Apostolicall Regiment and the Apostolicall Communion Therefore the Church of Rome is no Apostolicall Orthodox or Catholick Church They have changed the Apostolicall Creed by making a new Creed wherein are many things inserted that hold no Analogie with the old Apostles Creed The Apostolicall Succession by ingrossing the whole succession to Rome and making all other Bishops to be but the Popes Vicars and Substitutes as to their Jurisdiction The Apostolicall Regiment by erecting a visible and Universall Monarchy in the Church And lastly the Apostolicall Communion by excommunicating three parts of the holy Catholique Apostolique Church Again That Church which resolves its Faith not into divine Revelation and Authority but into Humane infallibility or the Infallibilitie of the present Church without knowing or according what that present Church is whether the Virtuall or the representative or the essentiall Church or a body compounded of some of these hath no true faith But the Church of Rome resolves it Faith not into didine Revelation and Authority but into the Infallibility of the present Church not knowing or not according what that present Church is whether the Virtual Church that is the Pope or the representative Church that is a generall Councill or the Essentiall Church that is the Church of Believers diffused over the world or a body compounded of some of these that is the Pope and a Generall or Provinciall Councill Therefore the Church of Rome hath not true faith The greater number of your Writers is for the Pope that this infallibility is fixed to this Chair But of all other Judgements this is most fallible and uncertain for if Simony make a Nullity in a Papall Election we have great reason to doubt that that Chair hath not been filled by