Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	believe_v	scripture_n	tradition_n	2,838	5	9.5550	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09106	A quiet and sober reckoning vvith M. Thomas Morton somewhat set in choler by his aduersary P.R. concerning certaine imputations of wilfull falsities obiected to the said T.M. in a treatise of P.R. intituled Of mitigation, some part wherof he hath lately attempted to answere in a large preamble to a more ample reioynder promised by him. But heere in the meane space the said imputations are iustified, and confirmed, & with much increase of new vntruthes on his part returned vpon him againe: so as finally the reconing being made, the verdict of the Angell, interpreted by Daniel, is verified of him. There is also adioyned a peece of a reckoning with Syr Edward Cooke, now L. Chief Iustice of the Co[m]mon Pleas, about a nihil dicit, & some other points vttered by him in two late preambles, to his sixt and seauenth partes of Reports.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1609 (1609)	STC 19412; ESTC S114160	496,646	773

about to refute ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ tradition VVhence is this tradition It is deriued from the Lords Authority or frâ—m the prâ—câ—pt of the Apostles For God willâ—th that we â—hoâ—d do those things which are written From whence ProtestaÌ„ts conclude that the Scriptures are of sufficiency for our direction in all questions of faith Bellarmine answereth that Cyprian spake this when he thought to defend an error and therfore iâ— is no meruaile iâ— he erred in so reasoning for the which cause S. Augustine saith he did worthily reâ—ute him The question is not what error Cyprian held but whether his manner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture were erroneous or no. Bellarmine pretendeth that S. Augustine did worthily reproue him But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specified shall find that this poynt by him is excellently commended That Cyprian warneth vs saith S. Augustine to runne vnto tâ—e â—ountaine that is vnto the tradition oâ— the Aposâ—les from thence to deriue a conduct to our tymes it is chiâ—fly good and doubtlesse to be perâ—ormed 105. This is M. Mortons whole obiection wherin we must examine what wilfull deceipt to falsification he findeth here in Cardinall Bellarmines allegation of Cyprian For if he find not this then findeth he nothing to his purpose he hauing intituled this his Paragraph of Bâ—llaâ—mines falsiâ—ications but if he find no falshood nor falsity at all either wilfull or not wilfull then is he more in the briers but most of all if finding nothing in his aduersary himselfe be taken in manifest falshood both witting and wilful Let vs examine then this poynt more particulerly 106. And first I do note that he proposeth this obiection very obscurely that for the cause which will presently be seâ—ne for he doth not explicate vpon what occasion these words of S. Cyprian were vttered by him nor alleadged by Protestants as an obiection against vnwritten traditions Wherfore the Reader must know that the holy man S. Cypâ—ian hâ—uing conceaued an infinite auersion froÌ„ hereticks and herâ—sies of his time did vpon indiscreet zeale â—all into this errour that as their faith was not goodâ—â—o neither their baptisme and consequently that â—uch as left them and were conuerted to the Cathoâ—icke religion should be baptized againe after the Catholicke manner and hauing found some other Bishops also of Africk vpon the same groundes to ioyne with him in the same opinion for that it seemed to them to be most conforme to Scriptures that detested euery where hereticks and heresies he wrote therof vnto Stephen Bishop of Rome who standing vpon the coÌ„trary custome alwayes vsed in the Church not to rebaptize such as were conuerted from heresie misliked S. Cyprians opinion and wrote vnto him against the same wherwith the good man being somwhat exasperated wrote a letter vnto Pompeius Bishope of Sabrata in Africk cited heere by M. Morton wherin amongst other sharp speaches he hath this interrogation here set downe Vnde est ista traditio c From whence is this tradition of not rebaptizing heretickes Is it deriued from our Lords Authority c. vpon which forme of arguing in S. Cyprian M. Morton saith that Protestants do lawfully argue in like manner this or that tradition is not in the Scriptures ergo it is not to be admitted 107. But saith Cardinall Bellarmine this was no good forme of arguing in S. Cyprian nor euer vsed by him but in this necessitie for defending his errour as Protestantes also are driuen to vse the same for defence of theirs and this he proueth by two wayes First for that S. Augustine doth of purpose out of the sense of the vniuersall Church of his dayes refute that inference and forme of argument and secondly for that S. Cyprian himselfe in other places where he was not pressed with this necessity doth yeald and allow the authority of vnwritten traditions which later proofe as the most conuincent M Morton doâ—h suppresse with silence in reciting Bellarmines answere and saith only to the first that S. Augustine is so farre of from condemning S. Cyprians mannâ—r of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scriptures as he doth excellently commend the same this then is briefly to be examined out of S. Augustines ovvne wordes 108. And first I graunt as S. Augustine also doth that when any Tradition or doctryne can cleerly be shewed out of the Scriptures optimum est siâ—e dubitatione facieâ—dum it is the best way of all and questionles to be obserued And for that S. Cyprian in that his errour did certainly perswade himselfe to be able to prooue the same out of holy Scriptures as appeareth by the many places alleadged by him to thâ—t effect though wrongfully vnderstood especially in the sayd Epistle to Pompeius and else wherâ— which places of Scripture S. Augustine doth particulerly ponder and refute and shew not to be rightly applied by S. Cyprian who seeing the generall custome and tradition of the Church to be contrary vnto him in this cause prouoked to the Scriptures alone as the Protestants do in as bad a cause But now let vs see what S. Augustine teacheth in this behalfe and how he confuteth S. Cyprians prouocatioÌ„ to only Scriptures in this case of controuersy betweene them notwithstanding he allowed for the best way to haue recourse to the fountaynes when things from thence may as I sayd cleerly be proued 109. Let vs heare I say S. Augustine recounting the case betweene S. Cyprian on the one side himselfe with â—ll Catholike meÌ„ of his dayes on the other NoÌ„dâ—â—â—râ—tâ—â—aith â—â—aith he diligentâ—rilla Baptismi quâ—stio pertracta c. The question of Baptisme or rebâ—ptizing heretiks was not in S. Cyprians tyme diligently discussed albeit the Catholike Church held a most wholsome custome to correct that in Schismatiks Heretiks which was euill not to iterate that which was giuen them as good which custome I belieue to haue come downe from the Apostles tradition as many others which are not found in their writings nor yet in the later Councels of their successours neuerthelesse are obserued through the whole vniuersall Church and are belieued not to haue beene deliuered and commended vnto vs but from the sayd Apostles This most wholsome custome then S. Cyprian sayth that his predecessour Agrippinus did begin to correct but as the truth it selfe being more diligently after examined did teach he is thought more truly to haue corrupted theÌ„ corrected the same Thus S. Augustine of the state of the question and of the authority of Customes and Traditions vnwritten Now Let vs see what he saith to S. Cyprians maÌ„ner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture as M. Morton tearmeth it 101. Ad Pompeium saith S. Augustine scribit Cyprianus de hac re c. S. Cyprian doth write to the Bishop Pompeius about this matter where he doth manifestly shew that Stephen whome wee vnderstand to haue beene Bishop of Rome at that tyme did not

only not consent vnto him verÃ¹m etiam contra scripsisse atque praeâ—â—pisse but also did write and gaue commandement to the contrary c. S. Cypryan did obiect Apostoli nihil quidâ—m exinde praeceperunt the Apostles did command nothing in the Scriptures about this matter It is true saith S. Augustine Sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorâ—m traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sâ—â—uâ— sunt multa quae Vniuersa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostâ—â—â—s prâ—câ—pta bene creduntur quamquam scripta non reperiantur But that custome which was opposed to S. Cyprian by the Church is to be belieued to haue taken beginning from the tradition of the Apostles as there are many things which the Vniuersall Church doth hold and they are therfore rightly belieued to haue beene ordayned by the Apostles though they be not found written Thus S. Augustine 111. Wherby we vnderstand first his full meaning about the Authority of traditions in the Church though they be not found written in the holy Scripture and secondly that albeit in some cases it is good and lawâ—ull to runne to Scriptures when the matter may be clearly by them decided yet is it no good argument alwaies to say It is not in the Scripture and therfore we are not bound to belieue it which was the argument of S. Cyprian when he was in errour and for maintenance of the same as M. Morton cannot deny nor dareth reproue S. Augustine and the Church of his time that condemned this manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian And what now doth there result against Bellarmine in all this obiection Is he found false in any one thing which heere is said Nay is not M. Morton coÌ„uinced of euident fraud in setting downe this accusation First for concealing the true state of the questionâ— then for that S. Augustine doth not reproue but excellently commend the manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian pretermitting all that I haue alledged out of S. Augustines expresse words to the coÌ„trary which he could not but know and haue read Thirdly by cutting of the words immediatly following in Bellarmine conteyning his second reason which was that S. Cyprian in other traditions besides this of not rebaptizing heretickes which erroneously he thought to be repugnant to Scripture he allowed vrged also the force of Traditions in the Church of God though they were not writtenâ— wherof Caâ—dinall Bellarmine himselfe alleadgeth two euident exaÌ„ples the one about the necessity of holy Chrisme or Vnction vrged by S. Cypriâ—n out of only Tradition lib. 1. Epist. 12. and the offering wine togeather with water in the Sacrifice which he vrgeth as Dominicam Traditionem a Tradition of our Lord lib. 2. Epist. 3. whereas notwithstanding nothing is found written in the Scriptures of either of these traditions And if I would alleage other traditions allowed by him though not written in the Scriptures I might be large heerin as for example that of renunciation accustomed to be made in the Church before baptisme wherof he treateth in his 7. and 54. Epistles and in his booke de disciplina habitu Virginum as also of the demaundes answeres accustomed to be made in the Church about the articles of the Creed Epist. 70. of Exorcismes to be made before baptisme Epist. 2. 72. lib. conâ—ra Demetrianum 112. The tradition of baptizing Infants Epist. 59. which S. Augustine holdeth to stand only vpon vnwritten tradition and the like This second argument then of Bellarmine being craftily left out and his former from S. Augustines authority wittingly peruerted M. Morton insteed of an obiectioÌ„ against the Cardinall hath brought in a flat condemnation of two notable fraudes against himselfe Let vs see another of like sort and suite if he can haue patience to heare it HIS SECOND OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine touching false allegations about Anacletus Â§â— XIIII SECONDLY saith he Bellarmine to establish the authority of the Pope doth giue this prerogatiue to S. Peter to wit That S. Peter was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their Orders from him which he laboureth to euince from the testimonies of Anacleâ—us Clemens Alexander Eusebius Cyprian where he is refelled by his owne doctors One saying that indeed those Fathers meane no such thing Another that the Epistles of Anacletus are counterfaite which many vrge more then is meete to the end they may aduance the authority of the Sea of Rome 114. Thus farre the obiection in his owne wordes Wherin I meruaile what wilfull falshood may be found such as the writer himselfe must needes know it to be so except it be on the behalfe of M. Morâ—oÌ„ who entreth presently with a shift at the first beginning saying as you haue hard that Bellarmine giueth this prerogatiue to S. Peter that he was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their orders from him wheras Bellarmines saying is some authors to be of opinion quÃ²d solus Petrus Ã Christo Episcopus ordinatus fuerit caeteri autem Ã Petro Episcopalem consecrationâ—m acceperint that only S. Peter was ordeined Bishop immediatly by Christ and the other receaued their Episcopall consecration from S. Peter So as in so litle a sentence he leaueth out first that S. Peter was ordeined Bishop alone by Christ and then changeth Episcopall consecration into holy Orders as though they had not bene made so much as Priests by our Sauiour himselfe but only by S. Peter wheras all authors agree that Christ in making them Apostles made theÌ„ all Priests though some do doubt whether immediatly by himselfe he made them all Bishops So as no one thing is sincerely handled heere by M. Morton without some nippe or other as you see 115 Secondly wheras he saith that Bellarmine laboureth to euince froÌ„ the testimonies of Anacletus Clemens AlexaÌ„drinus c. the proofe of this prerogatiue he abuseth him egregiously for that Bellarmine doth alleadg this opinion that Christ hauing made all his Apostles Priests did make only S. Peter Bishop with authority to coÌ„secrate the rest as the opinion of Turrecremata alleadging diuers manifest reasons and proofes for the same as namely one that either Christ did ordaine none of his Apostles Bishops or all or some certaine number or one only The first cannot stand for that if Christ had ordained none then should we haue at this day no Episcopall authority among vs. Nor can it be said that he ordained all immediatly for that S. Paul was ordained by imposition of handes by the Ministers of the Church as appeareth Act. 13. and by S. Leo Epist. 81. ad Dioscorum as also by S. Chrysost. in hunc locum S. Iames in like manner is recorded not only by Anacletus Epist. 2. but by Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. and by S. Hierome de Viris Illustribus in Iacobo to haue beene made Bishop by S. Peter 116. The third

ancient heresy but only that it was not altogeather the same with that of the Proâ—estants at this day and had an other foundation or â—otiue to wit for so much as those hereticks did â—ot belieue that Christ had taken any flesh at all â—hey consequeÌ„tly belieued not that he gaue it in the â—acrament But the Protestants though they beleeue â—hat he tooke true flesh yet do they not belieue that â—t is really giuen in the Sacrament for that they beâ—ieue not these wordes Hoc est Corpus meum in the â—ense that the Church doth so as these do formally â—mpugne the Reall Presence and the other but by a â—onsequence drawne from another heresy which â—s the cause that they caÌ„not properly be called Sacraâ—entaries as ours are but most ancient they are â—o in this he contradicteth not himselfe about their â—ntiquity 102. The last point of obiected contradiction in â—his place is that Bellarmine confesseth Caluin to hold that togeather with the Sacrament of the Eucharist God doth exhibit vnto the faithful not only a signe of Christs body but also the body and bloud it selfe yea and as Valenâ—ia addeth further that Caluin confesseth that our soules do coÌ„municate with the body of Christ substantially Wherto I answere true it is that in words Caluin doth affirme as much in some partes of his workes but denyeth it againe in others and therupon do both Bellarmine and Valentia conuince him of most euident and palpable contradictions in this matter he seeking to say something different not only from Luther but also from VVickliâ—â—e Zuinglius therby to make a sect of himselfe but yet not finding indeed wherin to subsist or be premanent in any deuise that he could find out for proofe wherof Cardinall Bellarmine dâ—th set downe seauen sâ—uâ—râ—ll propositions of his about this matter and proueth thâ— same substantially out of his owne wordes and discourses ech one of them different from the other and some of them so contradictory as by no possible meanes they may be reconciled or stand togeather As first that the flesh oâ— Christ is only in hâ—auâ—n and that in so certaine and determinate a place as it is as â—istant from the bread as the highest heauen is from the earth then this noâ—withstanding he saith as heere is cyted by M. Morton that in the supper the true body of â—hâ—ist is exhibitâ—d vnto the faithfull not only a signe yea that the very substance oâ— Christes body is giuen Next to that againe he saith that notwithstanding the distance bâ—tweene thâ— ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ of Christ the Sacramentall signes yet are they ioyned â—oâ—â—ather by so miraculous and inexplicable meanes as neyther â—â—â—guâ— nor pen can vtter the same And then further thaâ— ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ must not belieue that this coniunction is by any reall comâ—â—g downe of Chrâ—stes body vnto vs but by a certaine substaâ—â—ial force deriued from his flesh by his spirit Where he seemâ—â—â— to sâ—y that the coniunction is made not in the substance but in some essentiall quality And so in the fifth place more cleerly he saith that it is made by apprehensiâ—n of faith only wherby he contradicteth all that he sayd before of reall and substantiall coniunction And in the sixt place he confirmeth more the same by saying that wiâ—ked men receaue not the body at all quia corpus Christi solo ore fidei accipitur for that the body oâ— Christ is only receaued by the mouth of fayth And in theâ— and last place he concludeth that this Sacrament doth not giue the body oâ— Christ or faith vnto any that hath it not already but only doth testify and confirme that now it is there and so it is but as a signe or seale to vse his wordes of that which is thâ—re already And this being the variety of Caluins opinion it proueth no contradiction in Belâ—armine but in Caluin himselfe And so many corruptions hauing heere beene proued against M. Morton do conuince that in him which he would proue in Cardinall Bellarmine but cannot as how see and yet â—e concludeth so confidently as before yow haue heard saying All these contradictions do certainly euince â—hat he the Cardinall hath by publicke imputations slaunâ—ered those whome in his consâ—ience he did acquit and shall we â—hinke that his conscience could be sincere in alleadging other â—â—ns testimonyes and witnâ—sses who is sound thus persidiously â—â—iust in exâ—ibiting his owne Thus he And I remit me to â—he Reader whether he hath seene hitherto any one point of perfidious dealing proued against the Cardinall among so many as haue appeared on the part of M. Morton But yet now he will go forward as he saith to another subiect to wit to shew some exaÌ„ples oâ— falsifications out of Cardinall Bellarmine in allegation of other mens testimonyes Let vs see whether he performe any thing more then in the rest he hath done 103. But first before we enter into this other examen there occurreth vnto me a consideration worthy to be pondered by the Reader which is that all these six obiectioâ—s made against Cardinall Bellarmine for imputing old heresyes to Protâ—stants are taken out oâ— on only chapter of his which is the 9. of his 4. Booke Of the noâ—â—s of the true Church in which 9. Chapter as before yow haue heard he chargeth the Protestants of our time with different heresyes of twâ—nty seuerall condemned old Heresiarches or chiefe Heretiks and therof inâ—erreth that as the vnion and agreâ—ment in doctrine with the ancient Catholike Fathers is a note of the true Church and of true Catholiks so to participate with ancient heretiks in any one condemned heresy is a damnable note of the contrary which Chapter M. Morton perusing thought good to set vpon six only for clearing Protestants of them to wit the Pelagians the Nouatians the Manichees the Arrians and other two particuler heresyes wheras in reason he should haue eyther cleered all or none for so much as according to S. Augustines sentence and other ancient Fathers the holding of any one condemned heresy is sufficient to euerlasting damnation So as M. Morton picking out only a few leaueth all the rest as not excusable and vnder hand by his silence granteth thâ—t they are held by the Protestants which how markable a poynt it is I leaue it to the Reader to iudge and so shall passe to examine the other head of obiections that he hath against Cardinall Bellarmine THE â—HIRD PART â—F THIS CHAPTER CONTEYNING â—THER OBIECTIONS against Cardinall Bellarmine for falsifications in alleadging of othâ—r mens authoritiâ—s and first about S. Cyprian Â§. XIII MAISTER MORTON passing from Cardinall Bellarmines accusations imputations against Protestants for heresies vnto his allegations of their testimonies corruptly as he pretendeth â—andled by him he beginneth his accusation with a â—entence of S. Cyprian about traditioÌ„s in these words S. Cyprian saith he hath this quâ—stion he going

reason which God powred into man and which is a litle beame of diuine light drawne from that infinite brightnes of Almighty God therfore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce that there is no power but from God and that he which resisteth this povver resisteth God himselâ—e So M. Reynolds 49. In which wordes we see that M. Renoyldes is so farre of from debasing Kings in this his discourse or subiecting them vnto the people as he doth both extoll magnifie their dignity as proceeding froÌ„ God himselfe and reconcileth togeather the speach of P. Peter calling a King a humane creature with the wordes of S. Paul pronouncing it to be of God and vnder payne of damnation to be obeyed And can there be any more vntrue dealing then this Let vs see then how M. Morton will heere discharge himselfe you shall see him somwhat more humiliated then before would God to his conuersion and not to his greater obduration and confusion and yet will he in any case defend not ameÌ„d his error for thus he procedeth The pretended discharge 50 This Allegation is saith he of all which yet I haue fouÌ„d most obnoxious and alliable vnto taxation which God knoweth that I lye not I receiued froÌ„ suggestion as the Author therof R. C. can witnesse For at that time I had not that Rosaeus aliÃ¢s Reynolds neither by that present importunity of occasions could seeke after him which I confesse is greatly exorbitant for I receiued it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings So he And truly when first I read the beginning of this answere and heard him so earnestly and solemnly to protest before God that he receyued this fraud against M. Reynolds by suggestion I imagined he would haue said of the Diuell for that he coÌ„monly is the proper suggestour of all such vniust and wicked calumniations but when I saw the letters of R. C. follow insteed of the Diuell I began to muse and thinke with my selfe whether there were any Diuell of that name or no or if it were no Diuell himself what instrument or chosen seruant of Sathan it might be that had made this false suggestion which M. Morton himselfe confesseth heere to be greatly exorbitant from the truth and insteed of one thing to haue suggested the quite contrary that wittingly against his conscience yea with a double malice as may seeme The first to calumniatâ— M. Reynolds and Catholike doctrine by him and the other to disgrace M. Morton by making him put in print so notorious a lye and corruption 51. But when afterwards I was aduertised by some that would seeme to know the mistery that R. C. did signify Ri. Can. I was driuen into a farre greater meâ—uaile how M. Morton could be permitted to publish such a matter in print the thing hauing to pasâ—e the view of R.C. his officers and how he could presume to haue more care of his owne credit then of the others that is his head and Chiefteyne For as a scarre the more higher it standeth in the forhead the more deformity it worketh to the whole body so such a notorious cryme of wilfull falsification being proued to be in the Head it self euen by the asseueration and testimony of so principall a member of the same Head cannot be but very disgracefull to the whole body though it may be that M. Morton being the party most interessed might pretend in this not only his owne personall defence in this particuler escape but a protection also more generall heerby for all Ministers to vse this art with lesse reprehension when the Head of Ministers should be conuinced to vse the same with such liberty and lacke of conscience especially in a matter so odious preiudicious and calumnious to all the ranke of Catholiks I do confesse saith M. Morton that it is greatly exorbitant for I receyued it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings And from whome From R. C. But did he gather it himselfe thinke you or did he take it also by tradition of others vpon credit as you professe your selfe to haue donne The later were disgracefull the first hatefull For if he looked vpon the Authour himselfe he must needs see that M. Reynolds drift was to aduance Kingly authority and not to debase it and therfore for R. C to sett downe the quite coÌ„trary and make another to print it also with his allowance and approbation was a double or triple iniquity And surely if the like may be proued in any Prelate of ours let him haue for pennance neuer to be trusted after which is the greatest satisfaction that I would wish to be exacted of R. C if he acknowledge this accusation of M. Morton for true 52. But now though this charging of R. C. be some disburdening to T. M. that he inuented not the slaunder of himselfe yet doth it not wholy free him froÌ„ all falshood in the matter For he should not haue yealded to the false suggestion norâ— eâ— admitted so vniust a temptation for supposing that R. C. would needes play the part of the tempting and lying serpent yet ought T. M. not to haue followed the frailty of the credulous infirme womaÌ„ although R. C. had deliuered vnto him the note so baâ—ely as he puteth it downe out of M. Reynolds to wit Rex humana creatura est quia ab hominilus coÌ„stituta yet could not M. Morton but remember that the effect therof was in the Epistle of S. Peter and that in no sense it could be truly Englished as he doth A King is but a creature of mans creation both for that the word but which is a particle aduersatiue or exclusiue is not to be found in the latin wordes of M. Reynolds nor could it stand in any reasonable good meaning that a Kings authority is nothing els but a humayne creature as though it had no dependance or causation from God Wherfore as there was great malice in the suggestor of this false imputation so was there no lesse want of truth in him that so willingly yealded to so bad and false a suggestion But what saith he heere for his defence This which now ensueth 53. Vpon this presumption saith he if true to wit that M. Reynolds had spoken to the debasemeÌ„t of Kings authority as he did not but to the contrary it could be no falshood in me to insert the particle but especially being acquainted with the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine who that he may disable the authority of a King in comparisoÌ„ of the dignity of a Pope doth defend â—hat Kings being chosen by men are not immediatly created by God and yet the Pope elected by Cardinalls hath his authority immediatly from God 54. Wherto I answere that well he might say so for that Christ both God and man did institute in particuler and immediatly the Supreme Authority of S. Peter and his successors when he gaue to him and by him to them the keyes of

This is his demaund and for ground heerof he citeth these latin words of Bellarmine out of the forenamed place Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum originale praecipuÃ¨ in filijs fidelium Idem docent Caluinus Bucerus The Pelagians did teach that there was not Originall synne in men especially in the children of the faithfull And the same do teach Caluin Bucer which words if you conferre them with the words themselues of Bellarmine before cited who accuseth not Caluin Bucer of all the Pelagian doctrine in this poynt but only Zuinglius and as for the other two to wit Bucer Caluin he accuseth them for a part only Zuinglius denying originall synne in all and these later only in Christian Infantes two trickes at least of wilfull falsity are discouered the first that in his charge he wiâ—leth Bellarmine to be examined in confession about Caluin wheras he â—pake of three togeather to wit Zuinglius Bucer and Caluin the second that he accuseth Bellarmiâ—e as though he had charged Caluin with all the Pelagian heresie in this matter wheras he expresly profâ—ssâ—th to charge him only with one point therof coÌ„cerâ—ing the infantes of the faithfull Wherfore these words â—deÌ„ docent Caluinus Bucerus and this may be the third false tricke are not to be found in Bellarmine but are thrust in by M. Morâ—on nor cannot agree with the distinction of Cardinall Bellarmine before set downe these things then I leaue to the Readers discretion For though the points themselues for their substance be not of great weight yet is the mynd of the writer as much discouered in false tricks of small moment as of great see more of this matter before Cap. 3. num 62.63.64 c. 13. It followeth pag. 55. of this his preamble that treating of the prohibition made by the ancient Councell of Eliberis in Spayne consisting of 19. Bishops not to set vp Images in the Churches the diuers expositions of Catholicke doctours about the same what the causes and motiues might be of this prohibition for that tyme of the fresh and new conuersioÌ„ of that nation from Idolatrie to Christian Religion among other expositors he citeth the opinion of Sixtus Senensis for the last vpshot of the whole matter â—aying thus So that whatsoeuer the occasion of forbidding might haue beene this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis that the Councell of Eliberis did absolutly forbid the worship of Images And then â—etteth down the same in latin in his margent as out of Senensis alâ—o in these wordes Idcirco omnino veâ—uit Synodus Elibertina imaginum calâ—um But he that shall looke vpon the text of the Authour himself shall not fynd any such confessed conclusion or any such words of absolutly forbidding and consequently this is conuinced to be an absolute vntruth for it appeareth cleerly in Senensis that the prohibition was only for a time vntill the new conuerted Spaniards should be better instructed in Christian Religion and made to vnderstand better the difference betweene Pagan Idols and sacred Images so as heere are two grosse falsityes first in obtruding as the latin sentence of Senensis that which Senensis hath not in words or sense and then in translating the same so punctually into English setting it down in a different letter as though it were exactly so in good earnest and can there be any excuse for these sortes of procedings Let the Reader see more before c. 3. nu 38. 14. Gregorius de Valentia is brought in by M. Morton against Bellarmine as allowing of a sentence of Tertullian vsed by Bullinger the Caluinist as orthodoxall and iustifiable to wit Tres sunt in Diuinitate personae non statu sed gradu non substantia sed forma non potestate sed specie differentes and M. Morton stoutly cyteth in his margent for approuing therof Gregorius de Valentia Iesuita de vnitate Trinitate c. 9. Â§ item Bullingerus meaning therby to oppose the one of theÌ„ against the other in this matterâ— but when the thing is examined the wordes of Gregorius de Valentia are found to be these Bullingerus Sacramentarius c. Bullinger the Sacramentary affirmeth that there are three persons in Deity which differ not in state but degree not in substance but forme not in power but kind by which wordes sayth Valentia he doth not only ouerthrow the Godhead of the sonne but euen the whole Mystery of the most holy Trinity 15. So sayth ValeÌ„tia against Bullinger for whose defeÌ„ce against Cardinall Bellarmins accusation of Arianisme he is produced And let the reader iudge whether this be an allowancâ— of that sentence for orthodoxall which Valentia sayth as yow see to be so blasphemous as it doth ouerthrow the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity And the lyke lye yow may behold vttered by M. Morton against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in this very matter affirming him to expound as orthodoxall and iustifiable the forsayd hereticall paradox of Tertullian wheras he expoundeth only in good senâ—e the former part therof So as heere are two conuinced falsiâ—yes wherof yow may read more largely cap. 3. num 88.89 c. 16. There falleth out a question betweene M. Morton and Cardinall Bellarmine whether the forme of arguing vsed by S. Cyprian were good and sufficient or no whâ—Ì„ he defended the errour of rebaptizing hereticks Ã sufficientia scripturarum exclusiuÃ¨ to wit this or that is not in the Scripture ergo it is not to be defended it being the common forme of arguing in the Protestants of our dayes and Bellarmine sayth no alleaging S. Augustine for his Authority who defending the negatiue against S. Cyprians error to wit that men returning froÌ„ heresy were not to be rebaptized which was the opinion of the whole Church in his time grounded vpon vnwritten tradition of the sayd Church reprehended that forme of arguing in S. Cyprian as not goodâ— and sufficient shewing both that many thinges bâ—sydes this are taught and belieued in the Church by tradition which are not in Scripture that S. Cyprian himselfe wheÌ„ he was out of necessity of defending this article made recourse vnto vnwritten traditions wherunto M. Mortoâ— answereth thus But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specifyed shall fynd that this point by himselfe is excellently commended saying that wheras Cyprian warneth vs to runne vnto the fountayne that is vnto the traditions of the Apostles from thence to deriue a coÌ„duct vnto our times is chiefly good and doubtles to be performed So he 17. But when S. Augustines discourse is examined it is found wholy against M. Morton for though he do allow and prayse recourse vnto Scriptures when things may euidently be proued from thence yeâ— doth he not hold that only such things are to be belieued as are expresly therin conteyned but rather both in this controuersie of râ—baptization wherin S. Cyprian doth pretend to hold

Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Text snippets containing the quad