Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	archbishop_n	bishop_n	york_n	3,248	5	9.6221	5	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

Communion with a notorious Heretick though he had been Pope William Iohnson Num. 246. We have had essayes enough of what you can do I see you are much wiser and learneder then was St. Cyril who presided in the Ephesine Council He would be first informed from Pope Celestine whether Nestorius his opinion were Heresie or no before he avoided him you if you had liv'd in his time would have taken a wiser course and have had nothing to do with never a Celestine of them all but upon your own judgement avoided him And yet you thought just now that prudence made St. Cyril so cautelous as to proceed as he did and if it were prudence in him what was it think you that mov'd you to proceed otherwise yet you even in what you say here mistake grosly the state of the question which is not whether every one was then bound to avoid a notorious Heretick for none are notorious Heretiques but such as are sufficiently declared to be so by the Church and the very same authority which declared them obliged every one to avoid them but what was here questioned was this whether private men upon their particular judgement when a novelty ariseth not yet expresly condemned by the Church are to avoid the maintainers of it as Heretiques before they be declared to be so by publique authority of those who have power to judge them and their doctrine Mr. Baxter Num. 247. The long story that you next tell is but to fill up paper that Cyril received the Popes letters that Nestorius repented not that he accused Cyril that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council and many such impertinent words 2. Non-proofs 3. Corruption of my words William Iohnson Num. 247. Here are more of your non-proofs all belike is impertinent which you call so had I indeed said no more then what you make me say here I had been impertinent look upon p. 56. your Edit and you 'l find another story I say there that Celestines letters to Cyril were to execute Nestorius his condemnation and to send his condemnatory letters unto him this you dissemble which only makes the Epistle of Celestine to be a proof of his power over St. Cyril the first of the three Patriarchs before I related there the irrepentance of Nestorius I say p. 57. in your Edit that Celestine had given order in his letters to Cyril to send Celestines condemnatory letters to Nestorius this also you dissemble which is not withstanding a strong proof against you and you make me say no more then that Nestorius repented not never mentioning the occasion given him to repent Then you say I write that Theodosius writ to Celestine about a Council neither declaring as I do p. 57. that it was the general Council of Ephesus nor mentioning Pope Celestines answer both consenting to the assembling that general Council and prescribing the manner how he would have it celebrated which was my proof of Celestines Soveraign authority nor say you any thing of Celestines order given to his Legates that the Council should not again examine the cause of Nestorius but without any farther examination put his precedent condemnation of him in execution All this that is all the force of my proofs you handsomly conceal and foisting in non-proofs of your own making in place of my proofs and all this done you say my words are impertinent in what School of conscience learn't you these duplicities Mr. Baxter Num. 248. But the proof is that Cyril was the Popes chief Legate ordinary forsooth because in his absence he was the chief Patriarch therefore he is said Celestini locum tenere which he desired Corruption William Iohnson Num. 248. No that 's neither my argument nor the reason of his being Legate my argument is this p. 58. your edit Cyril being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East Con. Ephes. impres Heidelberg c. 16. ibid. c. 17. ibid. c. 18. ibid. c. 65. Concil Ephes. c. 15. Marcel comes in chron Liberat. in brev c. 5. Balsam in nomo can Prosp. in chron Id. contra collatorem c. and that before the Council of Ephesus was begun or indicted now his being constituted so by Celestine you again dissemble making me say only that he was the Popes chief Legate ordinary that is as you would have it by vertue of his being the first Patriarch of the East not by Pope Celestines institution whence appears you have given no answer to my argument but miserably mangled it because you could not answer it For sure Pope Celestine neither made Cyril in that letter Patriarch of Alexandria for he was so before nor that Patriarch the chief in the Eastern Church for he was declared to be so long before the Council of Nice but by vertue of a particular order constituted Cyril his Legate ordinary as he might have done any other Patriarch had he pleased Mr. Baxter Num. 249. Well let your Pope sit highest being he so troubles all the world for it Christ will shortly bid him come down lower when he humbleth them that exalt themselves William Iohnson Num. 249. This is not replying but prophesying and would better become an exclamation in a Country Pulpit then a reply in Controversie It had been timely enough to use such Phanaticismes as these after you had either prov'd unanswerably the Pope exalted himself too high or answered fully and cleerly the arguments which prove he hath not Mr. Baxter Num. 250. That Cyril subscribed before Philip you may see Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first you tell me not William Iohnson Num. 250. When I cited the sixt action immediately after those words you might have gathered that subscription as it is to have been in the fift Mr. Baxter Num. 251. But what if the Arch-bishop of Canterbury sate highest and subscribed first in England doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world no nor of York it self neither William Iohnson Num. 250. No. It follows not because such a Council would be only National not General as that of Ephesus was but it would follow according to the antient Canons that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury presiding as Primate of the English Church had power in Government over the Bishop of York in some cases as all true Primates have over all the Bishops and Metrolitans within their Primacies Mr. Baxter Num. 252. And here you tell us of Iuvenal Act. 6. Reply 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binius but many Tomes and Chapters but your words are in the Notes added by your Historian but how to prove them Juvenals words I know not nor find in him or you William Iohnson Num. 252 I think you would infuse the spirit of Prophesie into me too how should I know otherwise you had the Councils in no other Edition save that of Binius I cited the sixt action of the Council which is an usual citation and full

his eminent authority in that Kingdom he might do you some favour and he upon the receipt of those accusations should summon those Brethren of yours to appear before him and for not appearance condemn them and acquit and restore you would not all the World see that he exceeded his Commission No Patriarch by vertue of his Patriarchal dignity though preceeding the other in place had power to condemn any belonging to another Patriarchate if the fact were not committed within his jurisdiction without the consent of that Patriarch under whose Authority he was according to the Council of Nice Mr. Baxter Num. 176. Our own Communion with men is to be directed by the judgement of our own well informed consciences William Iohnson Num. 176. But our consciences if well regulated must avoid all those whose Communion is prohibited by the lawful Governours of Gods Church nor are private persons to avoid any whom the lawful Prelates of the Church retain in their Communion Mr. Baxter Num. 177. Julius desired not any man then to be one with a Council that should decide the Case William Iohnson Num. 177. There 's another non-proof make that appear Non-proof 18. Mr. Baxter Num. 178. Councils then had the Rule and the Patriarchs were the most honourable members of those Councils but no Rulers of them Non-proof 19. William Iohnson Num. 178. And that 's another let us see that prov'd Mr. Baxter Num. 179. Yet Zozomen and others tell you that Julius when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus could do no good nor prevail with the Bishops of the East till the Emperours commands prevailed Non-proof 20. William Iohnson Num. 179. And that 's another cite the place in Zozomen who be those others Mr. Baxter Num. 180. Yea the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his when he dealt with the Novatians seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another And so they took it ill that he interposed though but to call the matter to a Synode when a Patriarch was deposed William Iohnson Num. 180. What then Ergo the Pope had no Authority over them So did the Pharisees resist our Saviour the Jews Moses and Aaron and the late Rebels our most gratious Soveraign Ergo will you deduce thence they had no Authority over them But see you not how inconsequent you are to your self you said just now p. 148. that it seemed irregular that any Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge of the Patriarch of the preceeding Sea Ergo say you the Eastern Bishops seem I suppose you mean truly and with reason or you urge that reason p. 148. without reason to have proceeded irregularly in opposing Iulius If so either this your first reason is against reason or you against your self Tradition Mr. Baxter Num. 181. Any Bishops might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Julius did especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him William Iohnson Num. 181. Another non proof why give you neither instance nor reason for what you say Mr Baxter Num. 182. All your consequences here therefore are denyed It is denyed that because Julius made this attempt that therefore he was universal Ruler in the Empire 2. It is denyed that it will thence follow if he were so that it had been by divine right any more then Constantinople had equal previledges by divine right 3 It is denyed that it hence followeth that either by divine or humane right he had any power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire Had you all you would rack these testimonies to speak it is but that he was mad by Councils and Emperours the cheif Bishop or Patriarck in a National Church I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion as the arch-Bishop of Canterbury was in England But a national or imperial Church is not the universal and withal oppressed men will seek releif from any that may help them William Iohnson Num. 182. All those consequences are proved at large in other parts of this treatise The first because this proceeding of Iulius having been approved in all ages by the whole Church there can be no other reason given of his power over the Bishops of Alexandria and others of the East save this that he was head in Government over all the Churches through the whole Empire The second that it was by divine right for it was exercised by virtue of an ancient rule or canon received in the Church as Iulius affirms which could not be that of Nice for that was instituted a very few years before Hence followes the third for Christs institution was for the whole Church not for the sole Empire CHAP. IV. ARGUMENT St. Athanasius Theodoret St. Chrysostome Innocentius NUm 182. Mr. Baxter miscites his adversaries words and then accuses him of want of Conscience for writing what he never wrote ibid. What sense Chamiers words can have whether they be referred to a Iudge or to a friend ibid. c. St. Athanasius his recourse to Iulius and effectual proceding in it and that Iulius had authority to restore him ibid. Theodorets appeal as to a Iudge acknowledged by Chamier nor is it directly contradicted by Mr. Baxter If the Pope were Theodorets lawful Iudge by way of appeal then was he also Iudge of all the Bishops in the Church Num. 184. St. Chrysostomes appeal convinces the Popes soveraign power Num. 185. 186. His appealing first to a Council hindred not his appeal afterward made to the Bishop of Rome Num. 187. None but superiours to a Council can reverse the sentence given by that Council Num. 187.188.189 How Mr. Baxter declines and Sophisticates the words of St. Chrysostome Num. 193. Whether Arcadius and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Pope Innocentius In what year Eudoxia dyed Num. 194. Mr. Baxter involves and lames the words of his adversarie Num. 201. What authority St. Ambrose had to excommunicate Theodosius which act is falliciously instanced by Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter Num. 183. In your margin you add that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly by Pope Juliu s Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust Corruption Reply Take it not ill Sr I beseech you If I awake your conscience to tell me how you dare to write so many untruths which you knew or might know I could quickly manifest Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497. are untrue 1 the matter of fact is it that he denyeth He proveth to you from Zozomen's words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a judge but only fled for help to a friend he shewes you that Julius did not play the Iudge but the helper of the spoiled and that it was not an act of judgement 2 He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judging but only mentioneth his not hearing the

accused to shew that he did not play the part of a judge but of a friend as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him I pray answer his reasons William Iohnson Num. 183. Had I written as you print my words I had indeed deserved a sharper reprehension then you gave me Now whether I writ so or no I leave it to your judgement Here you cite my words thus in your margent say you you add that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust In which words you make me first wrong Chamier by affirming he sayes Athanasius was judged rightly by Iulius and then you make me wrong my self by delivering a manifest contradiction in two lines for first in your citation I say that Chamier affirms that judgement to have been rightly done and then presently that I affirm Chamier to have said that judgement to have been unjust that is not rightly done Now whether I affirm Chamier to have said the matter of fact to have been so that is to have been rightly done your own printing of my words will put the matter out of question therefore pag. 52. in the margin you cite my words thus concerning St. Athanasius being judged and righted by Pope Iulius Chamier cit acknowledges the matter of fact to be so Now one may be judged and righted that is set again into his right by one who hath no power to judge him and consequently judges not rightly that is duly juridically and Canonically now by changing righted into rightly you change the whole tenure and meaning of my words and then grate on me upon the Conscience with what not I but you or your printer was guilty of and truly I should have been most willing to have cast it upon him had your written copy shewed the contrary so here you have not righted but rightly neither do I finde these words to be so in my marginal copy but only thus Chamier confesses the matter of fact without to be so though I will not contend with you in this as not having seen the copy which was sent you True it is Chamier would have this judgement to have passed as from a freind but to prove this he contends that it could not be from a competent and canonical Judge because it was under the notion of a judgement unjust seeing both parties were not present to be heard in judgement so that he holds this to have been an unjust judgement if taken in a rigorous sense which is all that I said But in the mean time you answer not my arguments whereby I prove it just nor could you answer them without impeaching St. Athanasius of concurring with Iulius to an unjust judgement for though Iulius had past this judgement as a freind yet to proceed to execution before the adverse party was heard or things made so evident that there was no place for defence would have been an unjust proceeding and if matters were so undeniably clear it was not unjust for want of that formality so that if it were unjust in a freind according to equity or justice can justify a person accused without hearing what his accusers are able to make good against him much lesse can those accusors be condemned as manifest detractors and lyars when they are not permitted to speak for themselves and produce their evidences in quality of a judgement for want of the defendants being heard it would have been unjust in quality of freind-ship for the same reason for now to say that St. Athanasius concurred with Iulius either as an unjust Judge or as an unjust freind would to wrong that blessed Saint and your self too but I would gladly be satisfyed in this how one who had no judicatory authority above another Court could reverse the Sentence of that Court and restore the person injured by it to his right as Iulius here did by the Sentence given in a Council against St. Athanasius or what man in his right wits would address himself to a friend for relief in that which he knows is above his power should a Citizen of York injured in the Mayors Court frame an appeal to the Lord Mayor of London because he is his friend and the prime Mayor in England being the chief Officer of the Imperial City to reverse the sentence given at York against him would he not become a laughing-stock both to York and London Mr. Baxter 184. And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret I say again that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his Adversaries but not as to an universal Governour or Iudge no not as to the universal Iudge of the Church Imperial much less of all the Catholick Churches William Iohnson Num. 184. Here you say nothing at all to Chamiers granting it to be an appeal as to a Judge that was so plain belike that you could not answer it nor yet would you expresly grant it neither that had been too flat against you So you thought it best to huddle it up in silence and say nothing of it and thought it may be your adversaries would have past it over too but I hope all wise men will see your failing in this Baxter p. 51. in Margin The question in my Margin there is not what you say to it but what Chamier said Now lest it should appear that you and Chamier clash in this you give me only your opinion but dissemble his and yet sure his was as much the better as it was the ●●iuer Nor yet do you deny this appeal to have been as to a Iudge which was the only question in the Margin p. 51. Baxter but not to have been as to an universal Governour or Iudge no not within the Empire say you But by your good leave if this were not a forcible Instance supposing it were as to a Iudge which Chamier grants and you deny not to prove à paritate rationis that every Bishop both within the Empire and Church might have as well appealed to the Roman Bishop as to a Iudge as Theodoret did had he been injured as he was If I say this was not of force shew in your next some particular reason why the Bishop of Rome had power to judge the case of Theodoret rather then of any other Bishop in the Church which till you do See more of this supra your effugium that this appeal was not made as to an universal Governour or Judge speaks nothing for if he as in our sense be an universal Judge or Governour to whom every Bishop of the Church may appeal as to his Judge then seeing Theodoret's appeal to him as such proves every Bishop had as much right in the like circumstances which Theodoret then had it proves also that he appealed to him as to an universal Governour or Judge