Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	charles_n	king_n	lewis_n	2,106	5	10.5351	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50343	A vindication of the primitive church, and diocesan episcopacy in answer to Mr. Baxter's Church history of bishops, and their councils abridged : as also to some part of his Treatise of episcopacy.	Maurice, Henry, 1648-1691.	1682 (1682)	Wing M1371; ESTC R21664	320,021	648

before the Council of Toledo writeth a Sermon for them the Bishops wherein he tells them that every Parish that have twelve Families must have their proper Governor i. e. a Presbyter Whereas that is not part of the King's Sermon as Mr. B. calls that Prince his Letter to the Council but a Canon of the Council it self For the King's Letter ends long before with a Formal Date Dat. die 70 faeliciter 60 Regni Toleto In the same Page Mr. B. to shew his Skill makes Willibrood and Wilfrid to be the same I wonder the more at this because Binius in this very place from whence Mr. B. takes his account of Willibrood and Wilfrid does plainly make them to be two persons but when Mr. B. goes to play the Critick this is constantly his Success But Binius leads him into a mistake p. 253. where he transcribes out of his Author That Ludovicus deprives him Pepin of his Kingdom of Italy and divideth it between his two Sons by the Second Wife Charles and Rodolphus It is great news to Historians to hear that Lewis had two Sons by his Second Wife since no mention is made of any other but Charles the Writer of that Emperor's Life speaks of no other nor Ammonius who transcribes him nor the following Chronicles Girard Vignier Mezeraye who reckon up Lewis his Children have no such person and say expresly that Judith had but one Son She had a Brother indeed nam'd Rodolphus but he had no share of the Empire But this Division of Pepin's Kingdom was between Lotharius and Charles as the Annal. Franc. before mentioned do deliver Nor was Italy the Kingdom of Pepin the Son of Lewis as Binius and Mr. B. tells us but Aquitain Lotharius had been a good while before made King of Italy and Crown'd by the Pope in the place of Bernard Mr. B. by way of Remark p. 342. says That it was no wonder that Pope Benedict and his Company should condemn Berengarius but Lanfrancus in his Book against Berengarius writes that Leo the Ninth was the first that condemn'd him some Years after the Death of Benedict Anno Dom. 1050. We have a Conjecture of Mr. B's p. 356. that is not unpleasant and that shews his profound Skill in History He cites an Epistle of Gregory the Seventh to the King of Denmark where among other things he invites him to send his Son with an Army to conquer a Maritine province not far from Rome possess'd by vile and sluggish Hereticks What Province he means says Mr. B. I am not certain unless it be the Waldenses It is pretty well guess'd For Gregory the Seventh died in the Year 1085. and P. Waldo from whom the Waldenses had their Denomination began to be taken notice of about the Year 1160. But Fourscore Years break no Square nor is our Author much more happy in his Geography than in his Chronology For p. 421. He tells us that there was a Council held at Vienna near France As if a Man should say the City of Sarum near England But there would be no end of instancing all the Oversights of this Church-History the Reader may dip at adventure and if he do not light upon Mistakes as Remarkable as any of these he has but ill Fortune He that takes any pleasure to trace Beveus and Mistakes may find here an endless Comedy of Errors 5. But I had almost forgot one Qualification very requisite for a Church-Historian which must not be omitted the Learned call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the want of which betrays a Writer sometimes when Fortune is not propitious into great Absurdities I will not be so bold with Mr. B. as to say this was the Occasion of a strange Misadventure of his p. 122. For speaking of the Canon of Scripture concluded upon in a Council at Rome under Pope Gelasius Mr. B. makes a wonderful Discovery that in the Canon they put a Book called ORDO HISTORIARVM And now let the Church of Rome value it self if it dare for having preserv'd the Canon of Scripture entire and undiminish'd since Mr. B. plainly discovers a Book to have been once in their Canon which is not now to be found in any of the Pope's Bibles A strange thing this that no body should ever discover this before But I wonder that he did not find out another Book in that Canon every whit as strange as this and that is Ordo Prophetarum For there it is as a General Title before the Prophets as this Ordo Historiarum is before some Historical Books This mistake is as if a Man should find a Chapter in the Bible call'd Contents or a Book call'd Apocrypha I have given these few Instances out of many of Mr. B's great Abilities in Church-History that the Reader may perceive how much this Infamous Libel against Bishops and Councils is to be depended upon and let any Man that has any acquaintance with these Mattters judge impartially whether this History do really disgrace Bishops or Councils or any body else so effectually as it does the Author And if this be the Effect of having made History ones long and hard Study even let us burn Binius and Baronius and go make Buttons We may with honest Application employ our time so to much better purpose I must detain the Reader a little longer with this Preface while I endeavor to clear some Passages of this Book which may seem to be answered already the Effect of them being said in behalf of Episcopacy and replied to on the part of the Dissenters For some part of this Book being Printed 8 or 9 Months ago and the Subject having been treated by several Hands it could not be but that several things should be said to the same effect in Answer to Mr. B's Allegations for the Congregational Way and in Confirmation of Diocesan Episcopacy with what is written here and being replied to there seem already to have receiv'd their Answer Wherefore I conceiv'd it necessary to take off such Exceptions as prevented any Passages in this Book and because it could not be done conveniently in the Book it self to reserve them for the Preface But upon Examination I found them to be fewer than I did at first imagine For Mr. Baxter since his Church-History and Treatise of Episcopacy has made no farther Impression into this Controversie I have examin'd some Chapters of that Book that pursu'd the Design of this History by the Addition of several Historical Passages to disgrace the Episcopal Government as the occasion of all Mischiefs in the Church As for the first part about the Order of Bishops it had too many particulars to be minutely considered but the Substance of it having been said in short in the first Chapter of his Church and more at large in his Disputation of Church Government has been examin'd in the beginning of this Book Dr. O. hath follow'd Mr. B. in the Congregational way and as for his Allegations out of Antiquity they