Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
land_n earl_n king_n warwick_n 1,392 5 11.3189 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A55825 The validity of the orders of the Church of England made out against the objections of the papists, in several letters to a gentleman of Norwich that desired satisfaction therein / by Humphrey Prideaux ... Prideaux, Humphrey, 1648-1724. 1688 (1688) Wing P3419; ESTC R33955 139,879 134

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Statute to be made must be Consecrated by the Roman ordinal only And therefore if the Argument will not hold as to Ridley yet certainly it must as to this other Holy Martyr that it was not for any defect in the ordinal by which he was consecrated that those Marian Persecutors that brought him to the stake would not allow him to be a Bishop But 2. Having looked over all the Statutes of the first year of King Edward the sixth I find no such thing as you say in any of them There is an Act indeed for a new way of Electing of Bishops but nothing as to the manner of their Consecration And there is another Act also which complains of Abuses in Matters of Religion and particularly as to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper but this refers only to irreverent and abusive speaking of those Holy things and not to any innovations and changes made concerning them 3. In the third year of that Kings Reign there was I must confess an Act passed of the nature of what you say whereby the reformed Liturgy was first authorised in the Preamble of which mention is made of divers forms of prayers and different Rites and Ceremonies used both in Cathedral and Parish Churches not only in the daily Service but also in the Administration of Sacraments and that some of them had been lately introduced which are there called new Rites and Innovations And if this be that which you refer to as I suppose there are these two things to be said concerning it 1. That those various differences and disagreements of Rites and Ceremonies then used in the Church which this Act refer's to were not all from the Protestants but most of them from the Papists themselves who had different Forms of Prayers and different Rites and manners of Worship of long time before in this Land according to the different uses of Sarum York Bangor and Lincoln as the Act expresseth there being no such thing as a Uniformity of publick Worship in this Land till this Act and therefore you are not to understand that all those things were the innovations of Protestants which are prohibited therein 2. That it cannot be denied that Innovations caused by Protestants also are mentioned in this Act and that several zealous people in the Reign of King Edward finding the Government to favour a Reformation made too much hast to lay aside those Superstitions and Corruptions which offended them and went before the publick Authority herein in Reforming the publick Worship before any Law was made to give them Warrant so to do And hence came as various manners of Worship among Protestants as were among Papists before for the prevention of both which and bringing all things to an exact Uniformity this Act was made But that any of the Innovations mention'd in this Act were in the manner of Ordaining or that any Bishop in giving of Orders did ever vary from the old Ordinal used in King Henry the Eighths time till the Act made in the 4th year of King Edwards Reign did Authorise them so to do I utterly deny And that for these following Reasons First This Act plainly refers those Innovations to popular Zeal but those that had the power of Ordaining were only the Bishops the same persons who had the chief hand in making this Act and therefore there is no likelyhood that they should be guilty of those Innovations which are there so much complained of Secondly The Preamble of all Acts ever bearing Reference to the subsequent Law Enacted by them the former never useth to recite any other Abuses but what the later is made to be a Remedy against And therefore there being no Remedy in this Act against any Innovations made in the manner of Ordaining the Liturgy then Authorised not having the Ordinal in it or any the least mention therein that there was any such thing it is demonstration that none such could be meant or intended by the Preamble Thirdly It is so far from being likely that any Innovations should be made in the manner of Ordaining till the Law authorised it that if you please to ask your Brother who is a Lawyer he will tell you that it is impossible any such thing could be done by reason of the severe penalties and forfeitures which both the Ordainer as well as the Ordained must necessarily incur thereby For 1. For any Bishop to ordain by any other than the Legal Form or at all to vary from it which only the Roman Ordinal was for the three first years of King Edward the 6th's Reign would bring him into a ●raemunire which is one of the severest penalties the Law inflicts as containing a forfeiture not only of Lands Goods and Preferments but also of Liberty and Protection too during Life And whereas Hooper appointed to be Bishop of Glocester in that Kings Reign desired only to be Consecrated without the Episcopal Vestments and Oath of Canonical Obedience and got the Earl of Warwick then the greatest man in the Kingdom and who at that time govern'd all at his pleasure to intercede for him yet the Arch-Bishop would not consent thereto for his Answer was it would make him incur a Praemunire And 2. As to the Persons Ordained should they have received Orders by any other than Legal Forms it would have drawn a Legal Invalidity upon the whole Administration and left the persons so ordained although they might have had all the Essentials of Orders thereby utterly incapable of any Ecclesiastical promotion whatever a Legal Ordination being always a necessary requisite to make any man capable of an Ecclesiastical Benefice And therefore should Bishop Ridley or Bishop Farrer have been ordained by any new Form different from the Roman which was then the only Legal Ordinal in this Land they could not be Legally invested with their Bishopricks could acquire no right to their Temporalties or to have a place in Parliament or would any of their Acts or Leases have been good in Law and we never heard that any of those things were ever disputed till the Cruelty of the Marian Persecution came upon them Fourthly Sanders himself one of the most virulent Adversaries of our Reformation says the contrary for treating of this Parliament which authorised the new Ordinal in the Reign of King Edward he says it was then Enacted That whereas the Bishops and Presbyters of England were even unto that time Ordained in the same manner almost as with Catholicks excepting the Oath of Obedience to the Pope which all denied for the future Ordinations should be performed by another altogether differing Form prescribed by themselves Which is a plain Testimony from a Writer whose Authority I suppose none that are against us in this matter will deny that till the Parliament Enacted the making of a new Ordinal in the 4th year of King Edward the 6th Bishops and Priests were still ordained according to the Roman Ordinal in all things excepting the Oath of Obedience