Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	henry_n	king_n	pope_n	16,586	5	6.9376	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59244	The schism of the Church of England &c. demonstrated in four arguments formerly propos'd to Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson, the late Bishops of Ely and Chester / by two Catholick disputants, in a celebrated conference upon that point.	Spencer, John, 1601-1671.; Gunning, Peter, 1614-1684.; Pearson, John, 1613-1686.; Lenthall, John, Sir, 1625-1681.; Sergeant, John, 1622-1707.	1688 (1688)	Wing S2591; ESTC R15805	5,784	13

yet living or united themselves to such as possest them Therefore Matthew Parker and all the first Protestant Bishops of his time were such schismatical Pastors The first proposition is evident of it self The first part of the second proposition That the Sees c. of living Bishops were possest and that others of these new Bishops united themselves to such as possest them is also clear as matter of fact out of Stow Speed Cambden Mason Goodwin Fern c. The second part viz. that those living Bishops were lawful Bishops even when they were deprived we prove thus Whosoever were once lawful Bishops and never did any thing after whereby they became unlawful remained still lawful Bishops But those deprived Bishops were once lawful Bishops and never did any thing after whereby they became unlawful Therefore those Bishops remained still lawful Bishops The first proposition is evident The first part of the second proposition viz. that they were once lawful Bishops we prove thus No National Church can be a true particular Church of Christ unless those who have the place of Bishops in it be lawful Bishops But the National Church of England in Queen Maries time was a true particular Church of Christ Therefore those who had the place of Bishops in it were lawful Bishops Now I subsume But those who had then the place of Bishops in that National Church were those deprived Bishops Ergo. The first proposition is clear For no true Church can unite it self to unlawful Pastors The second proposition is also clear from the confession of our Adversaries who grant That the Church of Rome and all those of her Communion are true Churches of Christ. See Bramhall and Fern upon this Subject We prove now the second part of the second Proposition That those Bishops did nothing whereby they became unlawful Bishops If those lawful Bishops did any thing whereby they became unlawful Bishops it must be supposed to be that for which they were deprived But that for which they were deprived did not make them unlawful Bishops Therefore they did nothing whereby they became unlawful Bishops The first proposition seems evident For no prudent man can suppose that they would deprive them for that which made them not unlawful Bishops if they had been convinced to have done any other thing which might make them unlawful Bishops The second we prove All the reasons for which they were deprived was resisting the pretended Reformation and refusing the Oath of Supremacy But those could not make them unlawful Bishops Therefore the causes for which they were deprived could not make them unlawful Bishops The first proposition being matter of fact is witnessed by Cambden Goodwin and others The second proposition we prove thus No proceeding in practice according to the common Tenets the holding whereof made them not unlawful Bishops can make them unlawful Bishops But resisting the pretended Reformation and refusing the Oath of Supremacy was only a proceeding according to the common Tenets the holding whereof made them not unlawful Bishops Therefore resisting that Reformation and refusing that Oath could not make them unlawful Bishops The first proposition is clear in it self For no man can be thought to become an unlawful Bishop v. g. by praying for the souls in Purgatory if the holding that such prayers are lawful make him not an unlawful Bishop and so of the rest The second proposition is also evident For whilst they were lawful Bishops in Queen Maries time they held it a common necessary point of Religion to resist that Reformation and refuse that Oath of Supremacy If it should be replied that as the Queen had power to deprive lawful temporal Officers at her pleasure so might she also deprive at her pleasure lawful Ecclesiastical Officers and Bishops as being no less chief Governour of the Church then of the Commonwealth we answer even that admitted not granted yet this second she could not do For the Kings and Queens of England pretended only to succeed into those prerogatives of Church-government which the Pope had before them as is clear in King Henry the 8th But the Pope himself had no power to dispossess a lawful Bishop remaining a lawful Bishop at his pleasure Therefore neither had the Queen any such power The Third Argument We prove in this Argument by another medium that Matthew Parker and his Associates and consequently all who adhered to them or adhere to their Successors were and are Schismatiques separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ. Matthew Parker was a Shismatique voluntarily separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ Therefore all those who were willingly consecrated by him and all their Successors and Adherents were such Schismatiques The Consequence is clear as appears in the former Argument The Antecedent we prove Whosoever was willingly consecrated by Schismatiques voluntarily separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ is himself a Schismatique voluntarily separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ But Matthew Parker was willingly consecrated by Schismatiques voluntarily separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ Therefore Matthew Parker was a Schismatique voluntarily separated from the whole true visible Church of Christ. The first proposition is already proved For to be willingly consecrated by such Schismatiques is schismatical and therefore separating from the whole true visible Church of Christ. The second proposition we prove as matter of fact Goodwin in the different lives of Barlow Coverdale Scory and Hodgkins who were the Consecrators of Parker acknowledges that the three first were possest of the Sees and Offices of other Catholick Bishops living Barlow was intruded into the place of Christopherson Bishop of Chicester Dec. 20. 1559 and elect to it before he consecrated Parker as appears by the Queens Letters Gulielmo Barlow nunc Cicestriensi electo Scory was put by King Edward the 6th into Day 's place then being Bishop of Chicester Coverdale into Vecey's place by King Edward the 6th Aug. 30. 1551 which B. Vecey was forced to resign as appears by his being willing to be restor'd as he was afterwards by Queen Mary Hodgkins was only a Suffragan but communicated with these three in this Consecration and thereby became Schismatique The Fourth Argument Whosoever subject themselves unto these as to their lawful Pastors who have no true jurisdiction over them are Schismatiques But English Protestants ever since Qu. Elizebeth's time have subjected themselves to those as to their lawful Pastors who have no true jurisdiction over them Therefore English Protestants ever since Qu. Elizabeth's time are Schismatiques The first proposition is clear from 1 Tim. 4. 3. where describing Heretiques c. S. Paul says Ad sua desideria coacervabant sibi Magistros c. according to their own fancies they shall heap up Teachers or Masters that is confusedly and tumultuously without power or authority And from Ro. 10. 15. Quomodo praedicabunt nisi mittantur How shall they preach unless they be sent Eor their adhering to such supposes the rejection of all those who are legally authorized to govern them which is formal Schism The second proposition we prove by Enumeration They could not have true Jurisdiction over the particular Bishopricks and Cures of England neither by the force of Orders which they receiv'd if they had any such for one may have true Order without any true Jurisdiction as appears in the Act of K. Henry 8th concerning Suffragans who had true Episcopal Order and yet had not Episcopal Jurisdiction as the Act expresly says and many are made Ministers in the Universities before they have any Jurisdiction over any particular Parishes Neither could they have it from those who consecrated them for never a one of them had any themselves as being either Suffragans or not design●d to any See or elected and not invested Neither was there then any Primate in England to give it them Neither had they it by general consent of the Bishops of England for they all resisted Neither would they have it from the Pope or Patriarch of Constantinople nor would either of them give it them Much less had they either from a General Council for that was against them Nor from the general Consent of Catholick Bishops either of the Eastern or Western Church for all oppos d them Neither did their fellowsuperintendents beyond Sea or could they confer Jurisdiction upon them for they were all as void of Jurisdiction as these themselves were Neither could they have it from the Queen or Parliament for that had been an heaping up of Teachers to themselves 2 Tim. 4. 3. now cited And Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being a Spiritual Government is declared 1 Cor. 12. 28. to be a supernatural gift and Institution of God in his Church and ver 6. Prophesying that is the Power of Preaching is declared to be a Gift of the Holy Ghost and therefore are above the politick power of Magistrates of any Commonwealth And Act. 20. 28. the Holy Ghost is said to appoint Bishops to govern the Church of God and so the giving Jurisdiction to them must be supernatural coming from the Holy Ghost and above the reach of politick Governors And if Kings Queens or Parliaments who are under the number of Scholars and Subjects in matters of Religion could communicate Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to their Prelates they would be Governors of their Governors and Masters of their Masters which is quite contrary to Mat. 10. 24. Non est Discipulus supra Magistrum The Disciple is not above his Master i. e. in those things wherein he is his Master which is here in Church-government As therefore our Saviour Joh. 20. and Mat. 28. sent his Apostles with power of Governing and Preaching and the Apostles gave that Spiritual Jurisdiction to others whom they sent to divers particular Provinces and those Ecclesiastical Persons only amongst all Orthodox Christians still communicated the like Jurisdiction to others both in the primitive and after ages and never did any Catholick Prince or State pretend to confer Jurisdiction upon their own Bishops or Pastors It is most manifest that neither Qu. Elizabeth nor her Parliament had any such power And consequently it follows from this Enumeration of parts that those Elizabeth Bishops and Pastors had no Jurisdiction at all or any of their Successors and therefore That all English Protestants attributing such Jurisdiction to them and adhering to them as their lawful Bishops and Pastors are Formal Schismatiques FINIS

THE SCHISM OF THE Church of England c. Demonstrated in Four ARGUMENTS Formerly Propos'd to Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson the late Bishops of Ely and Chester by Two Catholick Disputants in a Celebrated Conference upon that Point OXON Printed by Henry Cruttenden One of His Majesty's Printers MDCLXXXVIII The SCHISM of the Church of England Demonstrated in Four Arguments c. The Definition of Schism Schism is a Voluntary Separation of One Part from the Whole True Visible Hierarchical CHURCH of CHRIST The First Argument WHosoever make a voluntary separation of themselves from the whole true visible Church of Christ are Schismatiques But all those of the English Protestant party make a voluntary separation of themselves from the whole true visible Church of Christ Therefore all those of the English Protestant party are Schismatiques The first Proposition is evident and granted by our Adversaries when they allowed our Definition to be a true Proposition We prove the second Proposition Whosoever voluntarily separate themselves from all particular visible Christian Churches in the world of the same time with them make a voluntary separation of themselves from the whole true visible Church of Christ But all those who are of the English Protestant party voluntarily separate themselves from all the particular visible Christian Churches in the world of the same time with them Therefore all those of the English Protestant party make a voluntary separation from the whole true visible Church of Christ. The first Proposition is manifest For in the extent of all the true visible Christian Churches in the world must be contained the whole true visible Church of Christ. The second Proposition we prove Whosoever voluntarily separate themselves from the present Eastern and Western Churches and all Churches in their Communion voluntarily separate themselves from all the particular Christian visible Churches in the world of the same time with them But all those of the English Protestant Party voluntarily separate themselves from the present Eastern and Western Churches and all Churches in their Communion Therefore all those of the English Protestant party voluntarily separate themselves from all the particular visible Christian Churches in the world of the same time with them The first Proposition is certainly true For no Assembly or Congregation of Christians can be named which is not manifestly Heretical that is not contained in this Proposition We prove the second by enumeration If they do not so separate themselves let that Church be nominated amongst the forementioned from which they do not voluntarily separate themselves It is not confessedly the Roman for they all profess themselves not to be of her Communion Nor the Greek under obedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople for they have as little dependance or agreement with that either in Doctrine Subjection Discipline Rites or Communion as they have with the Roman our Adversaries producing but four Points wherein they seemed to agree with Protestants against us and those either not of Faith or clearly mistaken or not as they are controverted betwixt us And the same reason proceeds of all Churches in actual Communion with them Ergo The second Proposition is true It will avail nothing to alledge here that English Protestants communicate with many other Reformed Churches beyond Sea for all those are comprehended under our terms the English Protestant Party and it is as evident that each of those voluntarily separate themselves from all other Churches as it is that these of England separate Neither will it excuse them to say that they only refined that Church which they found corrupted and defiled which notwithstanding remains still amongst them the very same in substance that it was before For it is evident that all of them whether English or others separated themselves from all those National Churches and the Pastors of them who were in quiet possession of Church-government immediately before they begun rejected in all Countries respectively where they entred their Authority dispossessing them of their Sees and Cures intruding themselves into their places and gathering tumultuously among themselves particular Congregations and Conventicles instituting new and unheard of Rites and Ceremonies without dependance of any who were in possession of Church-government immediately before them through the whole world and all this as notoriously and undeniably as any Schismatiques ever did before their time In all which particulars we appeal to the Historians on both parts who have writ the Records of these two last Ages The Second Argument Whosoever adhere to Schismatical Pastors as Schismatical is understood in our Definition are Schismatiques But all English Protestants adhere to Schismatical Pastors as Schismatical is understood in our Definition Therefore all English Protestants are Schismatiques The first proposition is evident For those being only such as separate themselves from the whole true visible Church of Christ all who adhere to them must also separate with them and thereby become Schismatiques The second proposition we prove Whosoever adhere to those who are successively Ordained by such Schismatical Pastors maintaining the same cause which they begun adhere to Schismatical Pastors as Schismatical is understood in our Definition But all English Protestants adhere to those who were successively Ordained by such Schismatical Pastors maintaining the same cause which they begun Therefore all English Protestants adhere to Schismatical Pastours as schismatical is understood in our Definition The first Proposition needs no proof as being clear ex terminis The second viz. that those whom we say were so Ordained maintain the same cause which was begun by those who Ordained them is also clear it remains therefore only to prove that they were Ordained successively by Schismatiques understood in the sense of our Definition which we thus prove Whosoever adhere to those who were successively Ordained by Matthew Parker and the other first Protestant Bishops of his time adhere to those who were successively Ordained by such Schismatical Pastors But all English Protestants adhere to such as were successively Ordained by Matthew Parker and the first Protestant Bishops of his time Therefore all English Protestants adhere to those who were successively Ordained by such schismatical Pastors The second Proposition is clear and confessed by all We thus prove the first If Matthew Parker and the rest were such schismatical Pastors then whosoever adhere to those who were Ordained by them adhere to those who were Ordained successively by such Schismatical Pastors But Matthew Parker and the rest were such Schismatical Pastors Therefore all those who adhere to those who were successively Ordained by them adhere to those who were Ordained by such Schismatical Pastors The first proposition is clear we prove the second Whosoever either Possess the Sees and Offices of lawful Bishops those lawful Bishops yet living or unite themselves to such as possess them are such schismatical Pastors But Matthew Parker and other first Protestant Bishops of his time either possest the Sees and Offices of lawful Bishops those lawful Bishops