Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	declare_v	parliament_n	2,663	5	6.5816	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30977	The genuine remains of that learned prelate Dr. Thomas Barlow, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln containing divers discourses theological, philosophical, historical, &c., in letters to several persons of honour and quality : to which is added the resolution of many abstruse points published from Dr. Barlow's original papers.	Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.	1693 (1693)	Wing B832; ESTC R3532	293,515	707

sit Antichristus was constantly held AffirmativÃ© as appears by their Questions Disputed in their publick Acts and Commencements which are extant in Print I have heard it so held in Oxon many times between the Years 1624. and 1633. The first who publickly denied the Pope to be Antichrist in Oxon was my late Lord Arch-Bishop Doctor Sheldon The Doctor of the Chair Doctor Prideaux wondering at it said Quid mi fili negas Papam esse Antichristum Doctor Sheldon answered Etiam nego Doctor Prideaux replied ProfectÃ² multum tibi debet Pontifex Romanus nullus dubito quin pileo Cardinalitio te donabit After this Doctor Hammond (c) In his Paraphrase and Annotations on 2. Thess 2.3 4. and in his Book against Doctor Blondellus deny'd the Pope and affirmed Simon Magus to be Antichrist But which is much more the Church of England has in her (d) See our Homilies Printed Anno. 1633. pag. 38. of the first part of those Homilies and the Homily against the peril of Idolatry and Superstition in the 2. part of these Homilies ' pag. 11 12. c. Homilies confirm'd by Acts of Parliament and Convocation and Subscribed by all the Clergy and all Graduates in the Universities declared the Pope to be Antichrist And then I desire to know whether they be true and Obedient Sons of the Church of England who publickly deny her Established Doctrine which they had before publickly Subscribed But if this be granted that the Pope is Antichrist then the Second Query will be whether the Church of Rome under him can be a true Church And in what sense she can be called so In answer to which Queries I shall crave leave to say 1. It is certain that the Seat of Antichrist shall not be amongst Pagans Jews or Turks but in the (e) 2. Thâ—ss 2.4 Temple of God that is even as (f) In Templo Dei. id est iâ— Ecclesia Dei Ecclesias occupalâ—it Hen. Helden Doctor Sorbâ—nicus in locum our Adversaries expound it in the Church of God the Christian Church and amongst Christians It is certain also and confessed by our Adversaries even the Jesuits (g) Jacobus Tirinus Stephanus Mâ—nochius in their Commentaries on Rev. 17.11 16 28. and on Rev. 18.4 themselves that Rome is the Mystical Babylon which is the seat of Antichrist though as they are highly concerned they would not have Rome at present to be the seat of Antichrist (h) As Doctor Hammond without any and against all Reason saith in his Annotations on Rev. 18.2 but say that he is not yet come or it must be Pagan Rome which is meant 2. But let Babylon or the seat of Antichrist be what Christian Church they will and some Christian Church it muâ—t be it is evident from the Text that God had a true Church even in Babylon in the Kingdom and under the Jurisdiction of Antichrist For speaking of Babylon or the seat and Kingdom of Antichrist God commands by his Angel (i) Rev. 18.4 come out of her my People lest you be partakers of her sins and Plagues God had his People his Elect as the Jesuits (k) Electos suos ut Ã¨ Babylone exeant admonet Stephanus Menochius in locum expound it a Church of his Servants even in Babylon For it had been impossible to call any of his People out of Babylon if none of them had been in it That People of God was in Babylon in the Antichristian Church or Synagogue but not of it they dwelt in Babylon and had external Communion with Antichrist and his followers but did not Communicate with them in their Sins and Antichristianism for then they could not have been what he who best knows calls them His People so that we may truly say that in the Kingdom of Antichrist even in Babylon it self there are two Churches 1. One visible consisting of Antichrist and those who adhered to him and this is not a true Church of Christ but the Synagogue of Antichrist 2. Another invisible consisting of the People of God who kept themselves from Antichristianism and this was a true Christian Church So in the Church of the Jews after Jeroboam had set up his Calves at Dan and Bethel and the Idolatrous Worship of those Calves was Established by Law and generaly received by the People There were two Churches in the ten Tribes 1. One visible consisting of all those who obey'd Jeroboam and received and practised that Idolatrous way of Worship he had set up 2. The other Invisible consisting of those 7000 who had not bowed (l) 1. Kings 19.18 Rom. 11.4 their knees to Baal These I call the invisible Church because though their persons as Men were as visible as the Idolatrous Worshippers of Baal yet their piâ—ty and rejecting that Idolatry which was by publick Authority of their Kings Authorised and set up and by the generality of the ten Tribes received and practised this was so far from being visible and known to others that Elijah the Prophet who lived amongst them and was a Prophet sent to the ten Tribes knew it not but thought that he (m) 1. Kings 19.10 14. Rom. 11.3 only remained a true Servant of God free from that Idolatry which Jeroboam had set up and the ten Tribes did generally practise Now this invisible Church of the Jews consisting of those 7000 it is numerus finitus pro infinito a definite for an indefinite number who had not polluted themselves with Idolatry were the true Church (n) Rom. 11.1 2 4 5. Rom. 9.27 of God in the ten Tribes and owned by him as his People But that which I called the Visible Church of the ten Tribes who professed and practised the Worship of the Calves set up by Jeroboam this was no true but an Idolatrous Church To bring this home to our present purpose 3. That the Church of Rome as it has for some Centuries last pass'd and still does lye under that fatal (d) 2 Thes 2.3 and 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. where we have two signal characters of that Apostacy and Antichrist the Author of it 1. Forbidding to Marry 2. To abstain from Meats which agree to that Roman Church evidently and to no other Church in the World Apostasie spoken of by St. Paul is very like the Church of the Ten Tribes after Jeroboam had set up Idolatry and caused them to sin For as that Church of the Ten Tribes was Idolatrous so the Church of Rome now is guilty of gross Superstition and stupid Idolatry This is not my opinion only all the Reformed Churches in Europe say the same particularly the Church of England as may and does evidently appear by her approved and authentick Writings established by the Supream Power of our Church and State attested by the Subscription of all her Clergy I mean our Homilies (a) See our Homilies Printed 1633 par 1. p. 36. in the 3d. part of the Sermon of good Works And the

and so the Doctrine it self have the approbation of those who are publickly authoris'd by the Roman Church to examine them 3. But what is much more which you well observe this Doctrine of Burning Cities with the Hereticks in them is expresly approved and taught in the Body of their Canon Law in Gratian's Decretum to say nothing of the Decretals and before him in Juo Carnotensis and before him in Burchardus Wormatiensis It is also registred for Law by the Author of their Pannormia Pannomia he would have said had he understood any Greek I need not cite the places because they are (a) In the Corpus Juris Canonici Paris 1612. ad Can. si audieris 32. c. The places in Burchardus Juo and the Pannonia are quoted in the Margent cited in the Body of the Law it self Now it will be evident 1. That this Law of firing whole Cities to consume Hereticks has been by the Church of Rome publickly receiv'd for Law almost for 700 (b) Burchardus flourish'd Anno. 1010. Bellarmine de Script Ecclesiast in Burchardo years last past and that without any contradiction as to this Canon we are now speaking of I find indeed that Thomas Manrique Master of the Sacred Palace at Rome almost an hundred years ago (a) Censura in Glossas Jur. Canonici ex Archetypo Rom. Coloniae 157â— censured many of the â—losseâ— of the Canon Law and he might have justly censur'd many more but he does not at all censure the Gloss (b) Glossa ad dictum Canonem verbo Omnes qui. of this Canon si Audieris we are speaking of which contains the sense of the Canon in short and therefore 't is evident that he did not dislike the Canon it self nor the burning an Heretical City though some Catholicks were consum'd in it 2. But after this in the (c) Vide Gregorii 13. Bullam datam Romae Anno. 1580. Juri Canonico praesixam year 1580. Gregory 13. appointed some Cardinals aliosque DoctrinÃ¢ pietate insignes as he tells us in his Bull to review the whole Body of their Law both the Text and Gloss and purge it from all faults and errors And Bellarmine says this was effectually done (d) Bellarmin de Scriptor Ecclesiast in Gratiano ad Annum 1145. Hoc opus a mendis purgatum suae INTEGRITATI RESTITVTVM FVIT Ã¢ Viris quibusdam eruditissimis authoritate Gregorii 13. And the Pope himself in the said Bull tells us That the whole work was committed to the Master of the Sacred â—alace Recognoscendum approbandum and then as it follows in the said Bull the Pope ex plenitudine potestatis Apostolicae confirms all this and commands all Catholicks to receive this incorrupt Edition of the Canon-Law by him publish'd tam in judicio quam extra judicium so as Nulli liceat quicquid addere detrahere aut immutare and if any disobey and (a) Contra inobedientes Rebelles etiam per censuras Ecclesiasticas etiam sapius aggravandas Invocato si opus fuerit auxilio brachii saecularis c. Ibidem in dicta BullÃ¢ rebell as he calls it they are to be compell'd by Ecclesiastical Censures and if that will not do deliver'd over to the Secular Power and so to death Now as what is in our Canons of the Church of England being approv'd and and injoyn'd by the King our Supream Power and received in our Courts and common use may justly be imputed to the Church of England so the Popish Canons having been receiv'd as Law and practised and used as Law in their Courts and Consistories for almost 700 years and confirm'd by the express Constitution of the Supream and if the Canonists and Jesuites say true and Infallible Power of their Church I say on those grounds whatever Doctrine Burning Cities or any other is contain'd in those Canons may justly be imputed to that Church But that which is much more to our present purpose is That the believing and receiving the Sacred (b) Caetera omnia Ã SACRIS CANONIBVS aecumenicis Conciliis praecipue a TridentinÃ¢ Synodo definita indubitanter recipio profiteor c. Hanc fidem Catholicam extra quam non est salus sponte profiteor eamque integram usque ad extremum vitae spiritum retinere c. Ego N. Spondeo Voveo Juro Vide Concil Trident. Antverp 1633. Sess 24. De Reformat in calce Cap. 12. Vbi extaâ— Bulla Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei Canons is made an Article of their new Trent-Creed and all their Ecclesiastiques Secular and Regular are to Promise Swear and Vow to profess and maintain them to their last breath 4. And when it is objected that their Canon Law was not received intirely in England or France and therefore all the extravagant Doctrines and Positions contain'd in it cannot be imputed to the Church of Rome In answer to this I say 1. That the Objection is inconsequent and a manifest non-sequitur For the errors of the Canon-Law may justly be imputed to the Church of Rome though England and France received it not because what the Pope the Supream Head of that Church and the far greater part of the Popish World do receive the Church receives Denominatio sequitur majorem partem 2. And that this is true that the Doctrines in the Canon-Law notwithstanding some may not receive them all are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome I have two Provincial Synods here in England expresly declaring it one at (a) Vide Concilia per Hen. Spelmannum Tom. 2. pag. 653. Â§. Nulius quoque Oxford another at (b) Apud eundem Spelman Ibidem Tom. 2. pag. 666. Â§. 9. London under Arch-Bishop Arundell in both which they declare That Articuli qui in Decretis aut Decretalibus continentur sunt Articuli terminati per ECCLESIAM the Church of Rome we may be sure they mean So that in the judgment of these two Provincial Councils the Canon-laws are the determinations and definitions of the Church of Rome and so whatever errors be in those Laws and Canons may justly be imputed to the Roman Church 3. The Canon-law was received Nulâ—us de Articulis termâ—nalis per Ecclesiam prout in Decretis in Decretâ—libus nisi ad habendum verum eorum intellectum dispâ—tare praesumat aut Authoritatem eorundem Decretorum aut Decretalium potestatemve condentis eadem in dubium revocet Paenas Haeresis relapsi incurrat c. here in England as is evident by the two Councils before cited and in the places cited It is certain that the Canon-laws were received both in England and France except where in some few things they clash'd with our Common or Statute Laws for then the Parliament would say Nolumus Leges Angliae mutari And so in France if they clash'd with the Liberties of the Gallican Church they would neither receive nor obey the Canons But if any can shew me

times a Loyal Subject and faithful Servant to his Prince and a true Son of the Church of England c. So that the commendation I can give him although it be great will be ivtra laudem sed infra meritum The old saying is still true Cicerone opus est ut dignÃ¨ laudetur Cicero I shall only name two passages which concern my Lord which shew his ingenuity and Learning Being with my Lord in Oxford some time after Dr. Hoyle was by the Rebâ—llioâ—s Parliament invited out of Ireland and by them design'd Regius Professor of Divinity it seems that we had not then amongst all our English Dissenters any one who durst undertake that Office although it was both for dignity and revenue very considerable Now Dr. Hoyle a known Rebell and Presbyterian being so exceedingly magnify'd in all our Mercuries and News-Books for a most Learned Divine I ask'd my Lord whether Dr. Hoyle was a person of such great parts as was pretended My good Lord presently told us only Dr. Morly since Bishop of Winton and my self were present That he very well knew Dr. Hoyle in Dublin and had him many times at his Table and that he was a person of some few weak parts but of very many strong infirmities This Character which my Lord gave of Dr. Hoyle is like himself very ingenious and the University did find it true Another thing concerning that very ingenious and Learned Lord and very well known to me and many others was this When Mr. Chillingworth undertook the Defence of Dr. Potter's Book against the Jesuite he was almost continually at Tew with my Lord examining the Reasons of both Parties pro and con and their invalidity or consequence where Mr. Chillingworth had the benefit of my Lords Company and his good Library The benefit he had by my Lord's Company and rational Discourse was very great as Mr. Chillingworth would modestly and truly confess But his Library which was well furnish'd with choice Books I have several times been in it and seen them such as Mr. Chillingworth neither had nor ever heard of many of them 'till my Lord shew'd him the Books and the passages in them which were significant and pertinent to the purpose So that it is certain that most of those Ancient Authorities which Mr. Chillingworth makes use of he owes first to my Lord of Falkland s Learning that he could give him so good directions and next to his civility and kindness that he would direct him But no more of this You desire to know some more Authors who in the War between Charles the I. and the Parliament writ for the King you name Dudly Diggs Dr. Ferne Dr. Hammond and you might have named many more all Ingenuous and Loyal persons and my Friends and Acquaintance but I do not think their Reasons so cogent or their Authority so great that we may safely rely upon them I shall rather commend unto you two Writers on this subject both of them of great Authority and in several respects of greater Judgment I mean 1. Arch-Bishop Vsher whose judgment in Antiquity is far greater 2. My Predecessor Bishop Sanderson the best and most rational Casuist ever England had whose judgment will be confest far greater 1. First Arch-Bishop Usher does expresly and datÃ¢ operÃ¢ make it his business to prove our King's Supremacy in all Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes against all Popes and Parliaments and to the same purpose does amongst others cite Bp. Andrews Hooker Dr. Saravia and which is very considerable there 's a long Preface to the Book of at least 20 pages in Quarto The Book was publish'd by Dr. Bernard Bishop Usher's Chaplain Anno 1661. and Printed at London and Sold by Richard Mariott in St. Dunstan's Church-yard in Fleetstreet The Title of the Book is this Clavi Trabales confirming the King's Supremacy and the Subjects Duty c. 2. This second Author I mention was Dr. Sanderson Bishop of Lincoln in his Tracts 1. De solemni LigÃ¢ Foedere 2. De Juramento Negativo 3. De Ordinationibus Parliamenti circa disciplinam cultum And that which adds honour and weight to these Tracts is this that although Dr. Sanderson then Regius Professor of Divinity composed them yet they contain not his judgment but the judgment of the whole Vniversity of Oxford for it is call'd in the Title page Judicium Vniversitatis Oxoniensis in plena Convocatione Communibus suffragijs nemine contradicente promulgatum 1 Junii 1647. In the last and best Edition besides the 3. Tracts above mention'd you have his excellent Prelections 1. De Obligatione Juramenti promissorii 2. De obligatione conscientiae The last and best Edition I above mention'd was at London Anno 1671. By Richard Royston in St. Paul's Church-yard For answering your other Questions I must as poor men do crave some more time The Circumstances I am in and the very many publick businesses which at this time trouble me did disable me to return to you a speedier answer with my thanks for your kind Letter I beg your pardon for the rude Scrible and my great Age Anno 85. currente and the Infirmities which accompany it consider'd I hope your goodness will grant it I shall only add that God Almighty would be graciously pleas'd to bless you and your Studies is the Prayer of Your Affectionate Friend and Servant Thomas Lincoln The Substance of a Letter Written by Dr. Barlow late Lord Bishop of Lincolne to Mr. Isaac Walton upon his design of Writing the Life of his Predecessour Bishop Sanderson AFTER he has Congratulated Mr. Walton upon his design to write the Life of Bishop Sanderson and that upon two accounts viz. Because he was satisfied both of his ability to know and his Integrity to write Truth And that he was no less assured that the Life of that Prelate would afford him matter enough both for his commendation and for the Imitation of Posterity He next proceeds to gratifie his desires in assisting him towards the said intended Work with the Communication of such particular passages of that Prelates Life as were certainly known to him and gives him a short Narration of which this is the substance First he professes he had known him about twenty Years and that in Oxford he had injoyed his Conversation and Learned and Pious Instructions when he was Royal Professor of Divinity in that University and that after he was by the cross events that hapned in the Civil Wars in the time of King Charles the First forced to retire into the Country he had the benefit of conversing with him by Letters wherein with great candour and affection he answered all doubts he proposed to him and gave him more satisfaction than he ever had or expected from others But to proceed to particulars he further says that having hapned in one of his Letters to the said Dr. Sanderson to mention two or three Books Written professedly against the being of Original Sin and asserting

Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Text snippets containing the quad