Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	age_n	die_v	year_n	6,258	5	4.9578	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46981	Novelty represt, in a reply to Mr. Baxter's answer to William Johnson wherein the oecumenical power of the four first General Councils is vindicated, the authority of bishops asserted, the compleat hierarcy of church government established, his novel succession evacuated, and professed hereticks demonstrated to be no true parts of the visible Church of Christ / by William Johnson.	Johnson, William, 1583-1663.	1661 (1661)	Wing J861; ESTC R16538	315,558	588

happened after St. Chrysostome's banishment Arbazachius was sent by the Emperour against the Isaurians where after he had spent some time depraving himself and exercising so many corrupt proceedings and oppressions as he was guilty of c. which would require the space of a year or two and thereby extend to the year 407. or thereabouts wherein St. Chrysostome died being accused and cited to answer the accusations made against him gave rich presents to the Empress and thereby escaped punishment Now these things could not happen but in a long tract of time it is not morally possible they should have been done in four dayes as those say who follow Socrates and Marcellinus Comes affirms that the troubles of Isauria happened anno 405. under the Consulate of Stilico and Anthemius So that Arbazachius must have had much more time before he was accused and consequently the Empress must have lived some years after the banishment of St. Chrysostome Nor makes Palladius any mention of her prodigious death so suddenly after the banishment of St. Chrysostome And George Patriarch of Alexandria who wrote 1000. years ago and is cited by St. Io. Damasc Orat. de Imagin affirms that Arcadius and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Innocentius and Zonaras affirmes the same Nor do the Authors you cite against this Bull affirm what you say Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. hath not a word of Eudoxia's death or that St. Chrysostome died three years after his banishment there 's your two first errors Zozomen seems to put the death of Eudoxia before that of St. Chrysostome but speaks not a word in that place here cited by you that he was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia there 's your third error Blondel p. 277. cannot deny this relation of Zozimus but questions whether the Empress he mentions were Eudoxia Now if it were not Eudoxia he should have told us what other Empress there was living at that time in Constantinople to whom those presents were given For Arcadius lived six years after this and Theodosius his Son was not capable of marriage presently after his Fathers death being then a child of no more then seven years of age having been born in the year 401. and Arcadius dying the year 408. Nor can it be thought that Arbazachius remained in Isauria till Theodosius junior was married for the expedition in a short time was finished against the Isaurians And presently upon that victory Arbazachius fell upon oppressions and complaints were not long after raised against him Mr. Baxter Num. 200. In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope to which you say that never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over William Iohnson Num. 200. I like not your writing my words by halves they were not so many but you might have quoted them intirely as they lay as you printed them pag. 52. I adde there after Diocesses these words viz. But alwayes collected together in a Synode by common voice and that in regard only of their neigbouring Bishops which you mask under an c. And then I adde whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed as you have it here whereby the difference appeared more clearly betwixt the authority of the Roman and other Bishops which you by your c. have rendred obscure there being no express reason by way of opposition in their proceedings to adde this all the Church over which is clearly opposed to this other in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops in my words and by omitting those words but alwayes collected in a Synode by common voice you hide from your Reader that their convening was by order of their Arch-bishop Metropolitan Primate or Patriarch respectively who commonly had authority over those who were restored For all Synodes were to be Canonically convened by consent and authority of Ecclesiastical Superiours either granted or presumed And this happily may be one reason why you wish those to whom you recommend this book as I am certainly informed from a person of great worth who heard you to read your last answer only and not to trouble themselves with perusing my Text to which you pretend to answer Mr. Baxter Num. 201. Reply 1. It seems you took Chamier's words on trust peruse that page and see his words William Iohnson Num. 201. I took only upon trust of my own eyes and I think they deceived me not Mr. Baxter Num. 202. 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed member of his charge and he remitted the censure Fallacy William Iohnson Num. 202. You answer fallaciously proceeding à toto ad partem When I speak of persons out of their Diocesses I mean clearly such as are neither in them actually by way of habitation nor habitually by birth and education for my words are general And you give an instance of one who though not habitually yet actually was within the Diocess of him who censured him as then Theodosius was in the Diocess of Milan where St. Ambrose was Bishop You cannot sure be ignorant that domicilium fixum a settled habitation makes one an inhabitant and part of that City where he lives and that crimen commissum a crime committed in that place makes one subject to the Tribunal of that City Besides the Emperour could not be said by reason of his universal dominion to be fixt to any part of his Empire for his Empire was his dwelling so that wheresoever he was actually and committing any thing deserving excommunication there the Bishop of that City had power to excommunicate him With such sophismes as these you inveigle your credulous Readers I beseech God to forgive you and enlighten you Mr. Baxter Num. 203. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat l. 6. c. 14. William Iohnson Num. 203. Socrates hath no such matter in that Chapter nor any thing like it nor indeed could he for either you mean Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina who was dead 42. years before Dioscorus was excommunicated for that Epiphanius died anno 402. and Dioscorus was excommunicated anno 451. or as I think you do Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople and Dioscorus was dead 70. years before Epiphanius was installed in the See of Constantinople Nor did Socrates produce his History farther then to the year 439. that is 90. years before Epiphanius was Bishop of Constantinople Who wrongs his soul now by taking authorities upon trust Mr. Baxter Num. 204. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating and again receiving to Communion by particular Bishops even as to those that were not of their charge Non-proof William Iohnson Num. 204. I

mox quanta potentia super caeteros excussit ostendit summum se intra Ecclesiam contra peccata recoluit He corroborated himself as the highest within the Church against sin N. B. he sayes summā intra Ecclesiam non intra imperium the highest within the Church not within the Empire And ep 32. ad Maurit Cunctis ergo Evangelium scientibus liquet quod voce dominica sancto omnium Apostolorum Petro principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est cum totius Ecclesiae principatus ei committitur tamen universalis Episcopus non vocatur It is manifest to all who know the Gospel that by the voice of our Lord the care of the whole Church is committed to Peter the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him and yet he is not call'd the universal Bishop Nor can you say with reason as you pretend that the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church committed to them by our Saviour as St. Peter had For he had it sayes St. Gregory as being Prince of the Apostles themselves and so had not only the care of the people and inferiour Pastors and Prelates but of the very Apostles committed to him and in this exceeded all the other Apostles as having the care of the whole Church people Pastors Bishops Apostles committed to him by our Saviour which no other had the same nor said he to any of them absolutely feed my Lambes feed my Sheep that is all my Lambes all my Sheep but to him Thus St. Paul when he saith the care of all Churches lay upon him he includes not the Apostles themselves as never having challenged nor ever having ascribed to him by antiquity to be princeps Apostolorum Prince of the Apostles as St. Peter had Beside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 11.28 signifies a soliditude or anctious care which he took for all the Churches which might have been taken for them out of an excess of charity extended to all though he had had no power or care commited to him by our Saviour as St. Peter had over them See you not the care not of the Churches within the Empire as you fancy but of the whole Church as now declared not by humane right from Fathers or Councils as you imagin but by the voice of Christ himself was committed to St. Peter and this was no secret in St. Gregories dayes nor a thing known to many or most but to all sayes this holy Doctor who knew the Gospel And hence also appears the difference betwixt the title of universal and the thing it self controverted betwixt you and me which you would have signified by that title of having care and power committed to one from Christ over the whole Church this second sayes St. Gregory St. Peter had but not the first and this difference appears yet more evidently for the holy Pope instances also in the high Priest in Moses Law as you acknowledge page 265. who as all men know had not only precedency of place but real power and authority over the whole Church of the Jews and yet sayes he was not call'd universal Now this being St. Gregories doctrine in relation to St. Peter and our Saviour having subjected his Church under the care and providence of St. Peter as supream visible Governour in his place after his Ascention into Heaven it will follow that our Saviour judged this government alwayes necessary for his Church for the very same reason which made it necessary in the Apostles time evince it to be necessary in all succeeding ages this government therefore was to be perpetuated in his Church and seeing it was fix'd upon St. Peter by our Saviour it must fall upon St. Peters lawful successors after his death and seeing none can claim that succession save the supream Bishop for he of Antioch succeeded him in his life time and therefore could not have that soveraign power derived to him for St. Peter retained that as long as he lived as all acknowledge none save the Bishop of Rome can claim the care of the universal Church committed to him by vertue of Christs institution Ergo he and he only is the ordinary supream visible Governour of the whole Church of Christ in St. Gregories principles 46. But St. Gregory is not only positive in the principle but in the sequel also in relation to St. Peters successour at Rome for l. 4. ep 36. ad Eulog Alexandrinum Anastas Antioch speaking of the Constantinopolitane Synod which had given the title of universal to Iohn of Canstantinople he sayes thus Idem decessor meus ex authoritate sancti Petri directis litteris cassavit That his Predecessor had annul'd that Council by the authority of St. Peter behold the Roman Bishops used the authority of St. Peter and by power of that invalidated a Council collected out of their Patriarchate which shews that St. Peters authority descends down to his successors the Roman Bishops and that having been extended over the universal Church the successors also have the same extent of authority in vertue of their first predecessor St. Peter Now this phrase of exercising acts of government in the Church was ordinarily exprest by doing them by the authority of St. Peter as appears in a hundred passages of the ancients This annulling the acts of that Constantinopolitan Synod is again asserted by St. Gregory lib. 4. ep 34. ad Constant. Agustam where treating of Iohn of Constantinople he sayes Ita ut sanctae memoriae decessoris mei tempore ascribi se in Synodo See the like Text cited above lib. 7. ep 65. lib. 2. ep 37. lib. 7. ep 64. lib. 1. ep 72. tali hoc superbo vocabulo faceret quamvis cuncta acta illius Synodi sede contradicente Apostolicâ soluta sunt So that he John of Constantinople procur'd himself to be honour'd with that proud title in a Synod although all the acts of that Synod be dissolved the Apostolical See contradicting them Nor shews St. Gregory the authority of his predecessor only but his own also over the Bishops of Constantinople for lib. 4. ep ep 38. ad Ioan. constant Quicquid facere humiliter debui non omisi sed si in mea correptione despiciar restat at Ecclesiam debeam adhibere whatsoever I ought to do in humility I have not omitted but if I be despis'd in my correction it remains that I must use the Church that is as he treats immediately before use the authority of the Church in casting him out of it as a Heathen and Publican because he refused to hear the Church And again lib. 7. ep ep 70. ad Episcop Thessalon alios complures After he had strictly prohibited them to give any consent to the title of universal Bishop he addes si quis neglexerit a beati Petri Apostolorum principis pace se noverit segregatum If any one of you neglect this my command let him know