Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	canonical_a	ordain_v	pelagius_n	45	3	16.5010	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42789	Tentamen novum continuatum. Or, An answer to Mr Owen's Plea and defense. Wherein Bishop Pearson's chronology about the time of St. Paul's constituting Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, is confirm'd; the second epistle to Timothy demonstrated to have been written in the apostle's latter imprisonment at Rome; and all Mr. Owen's arguments drawn from antiquity for Presbyterian parity and ordination by presbyters, are overthrown. Herein is more particularly prov'd, that the Church of England, ever since the Reformation, believ'd the divine right of bishops. By Thomas Gipps, rector of Bury in Lancashire.	Gipps, Thomas, d. 1709.; Pearson, John, 1613-1686.	1699 (1699)	Wing G782; ESTC R213800	254,935	222

determination of this Question which the Infallible Church has made by her Example To this purpose therefore we are put in Mind of the Ordination of Pelagius Bishop of Rome which happened about the Year 555 and is remembred by Anastasius who wrote the lives of the Popes Anastasius then relates as Mr. O. tells me how that Pelagius the first Bishop of Rome was Ordained by John Bishop of Perusia Bonus Bishop of Florence and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia Whereas by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop Before I make a direct Answer to this and to the Argument which Mr. O. builds upon the Fact it is requisite that I tell the story a little more largely For some Men have got a Scurvy Trick to leave out whatever is to their Disadvantage or In validates the Force of their Argument it being not the Truth but the Interest of the Cause which they labour to support The story then is thus Vigilius the Immediate Predecessor of Pelagius had been severely Treated at Constantinople by Justinian or rather Theodora his Empress and returning back to Rome fell Sick and died Pelagius was suspected to have had an Hand in his Death at least had been his Enemy and a cause of his Sufferings for which Reason the Clergy hated Pelagius so that he could not procure three Bishops to consecrate him He therefore in the place of the third admitted Andreas the Presbyter of Hostia and what will not such a Man as Pelagius do to establish himself in so considerable a Post as the Bishoprick of Rome But if such as these shall pass for good Precedents any Irregularity in the World may at this Rate be Justifyed Thus much being premised let us see what use Mr. O. makes of this Ordination of Pelagius He argues thus Either Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop c. or else a Presbyter has Intrinsick Power of Ordination c. that is either Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and then the Succession was interrupted in the Church of Rome and Consequently the English Bishops have no Canonical Succession Or c. Ans. I reply that though Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop i. e. not Canonically Ordained yet this notwithstanding the English Bishops have true Canonical Succession For 1. We need not pretend to derive the Succession of our Bishops from the Popes of Rome 't is more probable that they are the Successors of St. Paul or some other Apostolical Men who first planted the Gospel here in the Days of the Apostles or soon after So that we are not concerned at any Irregularity supposed in the Roman Succession 2. We had Bishops here in England or Britain long before Pelagius was Pope of Rome it being certain that some British Bishops assisted at the Council of Arles held in the days of Constantine the Great and at that of Ariminum called together by Constantius his Son above 200 Years before Pelagius And this Race of Bishops continued even unto Austin the Monks coming hither Whatever then becomes of Pelagius his Consecration 't is no matter to us His Irregularity affects not our English Bishops 3. Supposing what nevertheless is not true that the Heathen Saxons the Angli and the Danes quite extirpated Christianity in this Land until Austin the Monk coming from Rome with the Pope's Commission once more reduced and brought back the Inhabitants of this Isle unto the belief of the Gospel and gave us a new line of Bishops Yet still the Irregularity of Pelagius's Consecration will not at all disparage our Succession of Bishops as Mr. O. knows very well if he would not dissemble For I ought to believe that he has read the known History of Venerable Bede o'er and o'er and thoroughly digested him because he so oft and familiarly quotes him in the Plea c. He may then please to remember that Austin was not Created Bishop by Pope Gregory but by Etherius Archbishop of Arles in France Interea vir Domini Augustinus venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem Civitatis Etherio juxta quod jussa Sti. Patris Gregorii acceperant Archiepiscopus Genti Anglorum Ordinatus est So that from henceforth Mr. O. and the Papists may take notice that the English Bishops as to the Succession of their Orders are nothing beholden to the Bishops of Rome at least not unto Pelagius that if Etherius was a Canonical Bishop as I must believe till the Contrary is prov'd so was Austin a Canonical Bishop and so are our English Bishops unto this day whatever becomes of Pelagius his Consecration Without any farther fear of danger therefore I may Conclude that Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop that is was not Canonically Ordained and yet we have a true Succession of Canonically Ordained Bishops in England But Mr. O. goes on Or else he was a Canonical Bishop and what then Why then it follows a Presbyter has a Canonical Power to Ordain for so Andreas had if Pelagius was Canonically Ordain'd and then by another consequence that Presbyters have an Intrinsick Power to Ordain Because no Ecclesiastical Laws can give to any Order of Men a Canonical Power to that which they have not an Intrinsical Power to do Supposing this for I need not contend the truth of it the Answer then to the whole Argument is as before that Pelagius was not Canonically Ordained But now I think on 't what if a Man should affirm that Pelagius was Canonically Ordained and yet assert that a Presbyter has not an Intrinsical Power to Ordain The first Apostolical Canon decrees Let a Bishop be Ordain'd by two or three Bishops Pelagius's Consecration therefore was Canonical being performed by two Bishops according to this Canoh and Presbyter Andreas may stand for a Cypher True the Nicene and other Synods afterwards said by three Bishops Nevertheless the Apostolical Canons being always reckoned as part of the Code of the universal Church the Nicene and all other Canons ought in conformity to this to be favourably interpreted I mean that it did not intend peremptorily to command but rather prudentially advised that if it could be a Bishop should be Consecrated by three Bishops It is not improbable but Pelagius's Consecration was upon this very Account afterwards allow'd of For this is manifest that Pelagius what ever his Ordination was is not reckoned amongst the Schismatical Bishops of Rome but was acknowledged and peaceably submitted to Mr. O. then is too positive when he affirms that by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop Without all peradventure fewer might serve in cases of Necessity as this haply afterwards might be judged If God himself is pleas'd that his own Laws shall submit to those of Necessity much more the Canons of the Church shall Wise Men have so determin'd even in this particular case Gregory declared that Austin notwithstanding the Canons might himself alone Consecrate Bishops quidem in