Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	head_n	pray_v	uncover_v	1,411	5	12.8622	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62542	The nullity of the prelatique clergy, and Church of England further discovered in answer to the plaine prevarication, or vaine presumption of D. John Bramhall in his booke, intituled, The consecration and succession of Protestant bishops justified, &c. : and that most true story of the first Protestant bishops ordination at the Nagshead verified their fabulous consecration at Lambeth vvith the forgery of Masons records cleerely detected / by N.N.	Talbot, Peter, 1620-1680.	1659 (1659)	Wing T117; ESTC R38284	70,711	150

and Coverdale the tvvo other pretended Confecraters had never received being made protestant Bishops in King Edvvards time episcopal ordination But this shift availes them not I produce two others who were called Bishops in King Henries time sate in Parliament and tooke vpon them to exercise all episcopal functions with as greate gravity and solemnity as Barlow and yet they were de-declared by publique sentence in Q Maries time to be no Bishops nor validly consecrated These were Latimer and Ridley to whom D. Brookes Bishop of Glocester in his last speech before they were put to death for heresy Fox pag. 1604. told that they were to degrade them only of priesthood because they were no Bishops To this you answer M. Doctor that they who made no scruple to take away their lifes would make none tot take away their Orders You are quite out Cranmer was burnt for heresy as well as Latimer and Ridley and yet they made a scruple to take away his Orders though they tooke away his life because they knew he had validly received orders and therfore was degraded the same would have bin practised with Latimer and Ridley if the omission of degrading them had not bin vvaranted by evidence that they vvere never validly consecrated 4. We have often sayth D. Bramhall asked à reason of them why the Protestants should decline their ovvne consecrations They give vs one that Barlovv as most of the Clergy in England in those times vvere Puritans and inclined to Zuinglianisme therfore they contemned and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome c. This reason the Doctor solidly refutes by saying It is a greate boldnesse Pag. 195. to take the liberty to cast aspersions vpon the Clergy of a whole Nation If it be a boldnesse to say that your first Protestant Bishops contemned and rejected consecration and that they were of the same opinion concerning it with Luther Zuinglius and other Reformers themselves and not I are guilty of the crime Did not M. Horne and the rest of your first Bishops publish to the world in print an 1559. the very same yeare of the pretended consecration their sense of Priesthood and Priestly functions in these words In the Habor an 1559. Protest Apology tr 2. C. 2. sect 10. subd 7. In this point vve must vse a certaine moderation and not absolutely in every vvise debarre women herein c. I pray you vvhat more vehemency vseth S. Paul in forbiding vvomen to preach then in forbidding them to vncover their heads and yet you knovv in the best reformed Churches of Germany all the maides be bare headed This your first Bishops tenet of admitting no other Priesthood but baptisme and consequently of allovving women to be Priests was so vvel knowne that D. Harding objects it to Ievvel Parker and the rest If yee allovv not every man yea and every vvoman to be a Priest Confut. Apol. fol. 60. vvhy drive yee not some of your fellovves to recant that so have preached Why allovv yee the bookes of your nevv Evangelists that so have vvritten 5. If this be not sufficient to excuse my boldnesse and condemne the Doctors mistake let him read the 25 article of his Creed which is this Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and extreame vnction are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Ghospel being such as have grovvne partly of the corrupt follovving of the Apostles partly are states of life allovved in the Scriptures but yet have not like nature of Sacraments vvith baptisme and the Lords supper for that they have not any visible signe or ceremony ordained of God It evidently follovveth out of this article that your first Bishops who made and published it an 1562. were of opinion that imposition of hands in ordination was not ordained by God vnlesse you will deny imposition of hands to be a visible signe and ceremony How doth this agree with your moderne Prelatique principles doth it not evince that Parker and the rest condemned in their judgment imposition of hands and contemned it as an idle superstition of Rome The evidence that the world had of their not being consecrated made them vtter so absurd doctrine and impose it as an article of faith vpon ignorant Protestants Whether they were Zvvinglians Lutherans Calvinists or vvhat you please their profession of faith showes what account they made of imposition of hands which is the buisines now in hand and makes them Svvinglians and Puritans in this point 6. Pag. 195. Yet you would faine know how cometh Barlovv to be taxed of Puritanisme because forsooth you find him in his Robes in his Rochet in his Cope officiating ordaining confirming Or because Swinglius his first sermon was in the 10. or 11. yeare of Henry the eight and Barlow sate in Parlament in the 31. therfore Barlow could not be a Svvinglian This is your learned discouse out of Chronology I must allow you more time to summe vp your numbers or to save you a labour tell you before hand that make what account you please you will find that Luther himselfe begun the contempt of sacred Orders though Swinglius after insisted more vpon it and there vvas time enough for Barlovv eyther to take it from Svvinglius or at least from Luther which is all one to our present purpose As for his ordaining others you vvill have much adoe to prove it at least those you would have for vve have proved your Registers to be forged but if any such thing be attemted you may conclude his presumption not his consecration And for his Robes Rochet Cope and Cap the spirit doth dispence with all puritans to weare them when they are named Bishops I hope John Hooper one of the purest brethren that England ever bred had as tender a conscience as William Barlovv but when he was to be made Bishop of Glocester Pag. 136. he vvas faine sayth Foxto agree to this condition that some times in his sermons he should shevv himselfe aparalled as the other Bishops vvere And yet it is evident that he vvas never consecrated though Cranmer and Ridley who were his enemies forced him to weare a square Cap and a linnend Rochet the only caracter of a protestant Bishop Though they vvanted the reality and truth of consecration yet they insisted vpon this formality and cloke of ambition in their sinister as Iohn Fox calls it and vnlucky contention 7. And that you may see what litle hazard your protestant Bishops did runn of Promunires by such practises Pag. 1456 John Fox tells you how D. Ridley that vvorthy Bishop of London called John Bradford to take the degree of Deacon according to the Order that then vvas in the Church of England vvhich was the forme of Edvvard the 6. but for that this order was not vvithout some such abuse as to the vvhich Bradford vvold not consent the Bishop then vvas content to Order him Deacon vvithout any abuse