Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	church_n	head_n	mystical_a	8,581	5	10.6663	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11509	An apology, or, apologiticall answere, made by Father Paule a Venetian, of the order of Serui, vnto the exceptions and obiections of Cardinall Bellarmine, against certaine treatises and resolutions of Iohn Gerson, concerning the force and validitie of excommunication. First published in Italian, and now translated into English. Seene and allowed by publicke authoritie; Apologia per le oppositioni fatte dall' illustrissimo & reverendissimo signor cardinale Bellarminio alli trattati, et risolutioni di Gio. Gersone. English	Sarpi, Paolo, 1552-1623.	1607 (1607)	STC 21757; ESTC S116732	122,825	141

but in the Bull it selfe it is not sayd so It is true that it prohibites such appeales but the reason is because they haue reference to that which is not and of which there is no certaintie when it shall bee In the meane time the poore are oppressed by the mightie offences remaine vnpunished Rebellion is fostered against the first sea it is free for euery one to offend all Ecclesiasticall discipline and Hierarchicall orders are confounded where you may perceiue that Pius 2. doth not alleadge his superiority for a reason which had been an euident and pregnant argument because there is no appeale but to a Superiour Let no man reply that though it be not expressed yet it may be collected out of those wordes for there is no likelihoode that hee would so slightly passe ouer that which is most substantiall and insist with such diligence vpon so many thinges that are but accidentall Besides this before he doth alleadge these causes aboue mentioned he affirmeth that he omitteth others manifestly contrary to this corruption which argueth that the causes alleadged are the most principall and that the others are of lesse importance and therefore that poynt of Superioritie is of no force in this place Moreouer these wordes of our Author in the Councell of Mantua serue onely to abuse the Reader for it was neither done in a generall nor prouinciall nor any other Councell at all It is true that Pius the 2. was in Mantua as it lay in his way but he had no body with him saue onely his owne Court as by the wordes of the Bull it appeareth which sayth By the aduice and consent of our reuerend brethren the Cardinals of the holy Church of Rome and all the Prelates with the Ciuillians and Canonists which follow the Court But yet that which followeth in the Author is worse that Pius the 2. did excommunicate whomsoeuer should appeale from the Pope to the Councell And that Iulius the 2. did renew this Excommunication and that all the Popes succeeding them haue done the same in the Bull intituled In Coena If this Bull of Pius the 2. and that of Iulius the 2. and all the other Bulles of that title were not extant this Obiection would remaine vnanswered But I will maintaine that no Pope did euer excommunicate for appealing to a Councell Vnlesse it were to a future councell all these Bulls may be seen and read And because Poenae sunt restringende No Canonist will say that appellantes ad praesens concilium when any such is shal be excoÌ„municated by virtue of these Buls this then will not serue him to proue that the Pope is superiour to the councell But why did the author leaue out the word futurum If Gersons interpreter had committed such a fault what censure would haue beene thought seuere enough for him the reason of Pius 2. is good against those which do appeale to that which is not neither is it certaine when it shall bee that is a future councell but it is not good against appealing to a present councell and this is the reason that all Popes haue excoÌ„municated appellantes ad futurum concilium Let not vs then leaue out the word futurum howsoeuer our passions could bee contented to conceale it After this digression the author returnes once againe into Constance and saith that Pope Martin 5. with the consent of that councell did ordaine that they which should be suspected of heresie should be interrogated whether they did beleeue that the Pope had the Supreame power in the Church of God from whence he doth conclude that the councell did intend the Superiority to be in the Pope and that the decree in the 4. Ses is to be vnderstood of a Pope vncertaine according to his owne exposition for that otherwise the councell should be contrarie to it selfe but how this interrogation is vnderstood whereof the Pope and the councel do make mention let the author vouchsafe to peruse the 8. Ses where amongst the 45. condemned errours of Wickliff the 41. is Non est denecessitate salutis credere RomanaÌ„ Ecclesiam esse supremam inter alias Ecclesias The councell followeth Error est si per Romanam Ecclesiam intelligat vniuersalem Ecclesiam aut Concilium vniuersale aut pro quanto negaret primatum summi Pontificis super alias Ecclesias particulares This one point being read doth make it manifest that the councell of Constance did intend that the Pope had the superiority ouer all churches seuered but not vnited And here the author leauing the councell of Constance walks another way Bellarmine and takes vpoÌ„ him to proue by authority of scripturs by the conseÌ„t of councels and by reason that Gersons opinion is manifestly erronius saying But laying aside the councell of Constance it is most easie to bee proued by the authority of Scripture by Councells and by Reason that Gersons opinion is manifestly erronious The Scripture doth no where giue authority to the Church and to the councels aboue their Pastors much lesse aboue the supream Pastor but contrarily that Bishops are ordained to gouerne the Church of God appeareth Act. 20. where Saint Paul saith that God hath placed Bishops to gouerne the Church of God And by these wordes of our Sauiour in the 16. Mat. where he saith to his Viccar Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam where Christ making Saint Peter the foundation of his Church did make him the head of that mysticall body for that which a foundation is in respect of a house the same the head is in respect of the body and we see that the head hath power ouer all the rest of the body but the rest of the body hath no power ouer the head In like manner Io. 21. when Christ said to Peter Pasce oues meas he made him sheapheard ouer all his flocke and doubtles the flocke hath no authority at all ouer the sheapheard but the sheapheard ouer the flocke Lastly where as our Sauiour Luc. 12. Quis est fidelis dispensator prudens quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam saith Doubtlesse hee doth declare that a Bishop in his particular Church and the Pope in the church vniuersall is as it were a high Steward in Gods family and as the high Steward hath authority ouer the familie and not the familie ouer him so hath the Bishop ouer his Dioces and the Pope ouer the Church vniuersall and not the Diocesse ouer the Bishop nor the Church ouer the Pope though assembled in a generall councell and to this end it is that our Sauior in the same place addeth these wordes Quod si dixerit Seruus ille in corde suo moram facit Dominus meus venire coeperit percutere seruos ancillas edere bibere inebriari veniet Dominus serui illius in die qua non sperat diuidet eum partemque eius cum infidelibus ponet Out of which words it may be gather'd that

when the high steward of Gods house doth mis-behaue himselfe it is not Gods pleasure that the familie should proceede against him but reserues to himselfe the power both to judge and punish him so that according to the Scripture the Church and consequently the Councell which is a representation of the Church hauing no power ouer the Pope it followeth that it is vnlawfull to appeale from the Pope to the Councell but contrarily that it is lawfull to appeal from the councell to the Pope There was no necessity of writing so much vpon this matter in regarde of those few words wherewithall Gerson hath touched it and for my part I would forbeare to alledge that which Gerson others of the same opinion do answere Frier Paulo were it not that I woulde not interrupt the course which is begun of handling euery pointe in that order which is obserued by the author First he affirmeth that the holy Scripture doth nowhere giue the Church power ouer the pastours much lesse ouer the supreame pastor to this Gerson answereth that our Sauior Christ sent S. Peter to the Church when he said vnto him dic Ecclesiae for Gerson in his time read the place according to the auncient Missall and not according to the newly corrected Respiciens Iesus in discipulos suos dixit Simoni Petro si peccauerit c. As the author may see both in his workes as also in the text of the scripture which hee alledgeth to this purpose But to proue that the contrary is to bee founde in the scripture the author doth alledge a place Act. 20. where S. Paul saith that God hath placed the Bishops to gouerne his Church be it that S. Paul saith so although in truth there bee great difference betweene Posuit vos Episcopos and posuit Episcopos But though that bee granted he can conclude nothing out of this place that the Pope is aboue the Church no otherwise then any other Bishop is But from hence a man might strongly conclude that all Bishops haue their authority immediately froÌ„ God which peraduenture would not be very pleasing to our author Who would euer haue inferred this consequence God hath placed Bishoppes to gouerne his Church ergo Papa est supra concilium but this had beene a strong inference God hath placed Bishops to gouerne his Church therfore if they do not gouerne it they do not discharge that office whereunto they are assigned This is a true proposition God hath placed a King to gouerne a kingdome doth it follow therfore that a king is superior to his whol kingdom assembled together the author anone will tell vs that it is no good consequence and certainely it is not good neither in our authours opinion nor in the opinion of Iohn Mariana the Iesuit but I may say truly that it holdeth not in all kingdomes In the second place he alledgeth Matthew 16. Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam c. where he saith that Christ maketh Peter the foundation of his Church which as Gerson will not deny because S. Paul affirmeth that the Church is builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets And in the Apoc. the wall of Gods Citty hath twelue foundations with the name of the twelue Apostles so he will not beleeue that the authour would condemne another exposition which doth interpret super hanc Petram vpon Christ and vpon the confession of the faith of Christ especially seeing S. Augustine admitting both the expositions doth notwithstanding allow best of the second By this it doth appeare that the authour vppon a place of scripture which hath two interpretations and both probable will cull out that which serueth best for his purpose and make it absolutely a ground of an article But because it is true that Peter is a foundation is hee therefore superior to all the building Gerson will say it followeth not because hee is not a principall foundation but such a one as is it selfe founded vpon Christ and not a totall foundation but onely a twelfth part according to the meaning of the Apoc. And lesse then a 25. parte according to the meaning of S. Paul as concerning our authors comparison where he saith that when Christ maketh S. Peter the foundation of his Church he maketh him the head of his Church because a foundation to a building is the same which a head is to a body although it be true that S. Peter be a head notwithstanding the Analogie is not intelligible viz. that there should bee the same proportion betwixt a foundation a building as there is between a head and the body I do not see where it is possible to finde any part of this proportion who will say that as the foundation supporteth the house for that is the property of a foundation so the head supporteth the body this doth not hold Againe who vvill say that as the head giueth sense and motion to the body that the foundation doth so likevvise to the building vvhat then doth it communicate the propositions that wee entend to establish for doctrines ought not to be grounded vpon similitudes especially vpon such similitudes as are them selues grounded vpon similitudes but why do we trouble our selues with the proofes seeing we are both agreed of the conclusion that S. Peter is a head but what then the Illustriss Cardinall Pinelli is the head of the inquisition is he therefore superiour to the whole congregation of the inquisitors being assembled this followeth not in my vnderstanding vpon the like reason it is that Gerson will not admit this proposition viz. that the rest of the body hath no power ouer the head especially being such a head as the body it selfe hath constituted but as I said before articles are not to be grounded vpon similitudes In the 3. place he bringeth in Pace oues meas and lastly he to doth alleadge the 12. Luke Quis est fidelis dispensator prudens c. both which places Gerso will make one answer to wit that it cannot bee collected out of any place of Scripture that Christ instituting pastors in the Church hath exempted them from the Churches obedience shee being the common mother of all Christians as well Ecclesiasticall as secular the practise of those times which were freest from corruption euen when the holy Martyrs were Bishops was that Pastors were subiect to the censure of the Church whereof Saint Cyprian Lib. 1. Cap. 4. giueth an expresse testimony where speaking of the people he saith Quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes velindignos recusandi quod ipsum videmus de diuina auctoritate descendere vt Sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur c. Lib. 1. Epist 4. Our Author affirmeth that Christ doth euidently declare that a Bishoppe in his particular Church and the Pope in the Church vniuersall is as it were a high Steward in Gods family and hath power ouer the family and not

himselfe either to the Church or to the Councell The third that this decree can haue no force saue onely for the redressing of that Schisme for there beeing at that time no Pope in the Councell the Councell was a body without a head and consequently had no authoritie to determine any thing in matters of Fayth or in other matters of like importance And though Pope Martin the fifth did ratifie that Councell yet did he ratifie it onely so farre foorth as the decrees were made Conciliariter as those were which were decreed against the heresies of Iohn Wickliffe and Iohn Husse but that decree of the Superioritie of the Councell aboue the Pope was not decreed Conciliariter that is to say vpon deliberation and disputations preceding and by an orderly collection of the voyces of the Fathers but it was a decree simply intended for the redressing of that Schisme wherevpon afterwardes Pius the second in the Councell of Mantua did excommunicate whomsoeuer should appeale from the Pope to the Councell The selfesame excommunication was renewed by Julius the second as is testified by Siluâ—ster Vâ—rbo excoÌ„municatio 7. Nu. 93. And since that time all the Popes haue renewed it in the Bull intituled In caena Domini Finally Pope Martin the fift by the consent of that Councell of Constance declareth that they which are suspected of Heresie ought to be interrogated of many Articles and perticularly whether they doe beleeue that the Pope hath the supreame power in the Church of God and certainely if the supreame power be in the Pope the Pope cannot be inferiour to the Councell for so the superioritie should rest in the Councell and not in the Pope whereby it doth appeare that the Councell of Constance in that decree of the 4. Ses is so to be vnderstoode as wee haue expounded it otherwise it should be contrary to it selfe and admitting that there is a contrarietie wee ought rather to giue credite to the second decree beeing made by the Pope and the Councell together then to the first beeing made by the Councell without the Pope that is to say by a body without a head Frier Paulo I will not affirme the opinion of Gerson to be true or mayntaine either his doctrine or his reasons in this Apologie but this I will say that the reasons which the Author doth produce against him haue been considered and answered eyther by Gerson himselfe or by some other of his opinion which haue written since his time and here I will set downe some of those resolutions not that I intende to take vpon mee to determine any thing but onely to shew that the question is to be disputed with more sollide arguments and that Writers so excellent both for learning and pietie are not so hastily to be condemned Concerning that Councell of Constance alleadged by Gerson our Author hath three Obseruations The first is that that Councell hath no where declared it Heresie to denie the superioritie of the Councell aboue the Pope if the Authors meaning be that these expresse wordes it is Heresie to denie the superioritie of the Councell aboue the Pope are not to be found in the Councell he speaketh but the trueth if he will say further that the Councell of Constance hath not said that hee is Anathema which denieth the Superioritie of the Councell hee sayeth as truely Neuerthelesse Gerson doth deny that the Councell hath not determined it which I desire may be taken for Gersons opinion and not mine owne and after such manner as is vsuall in matters of Fayth and sayth that it was reputed Heresie to holde the contrary this is to be seene in the fourth Ses where these wordes are vsed Ordinat disponit statuit decernit declarat And in the fift Ses where the same doctrine is repeated in these wordes Ordinat dâ—fiâ—â—â— decernit declarat And because Gerson sayth in this consideration that it is Heresie condemned by most expresse constitution put in practise by the said councell of Constance as is else where more largely set down The author may read the places mentioned by Gerson in his workes where he shall see that which will serue for answere to these obiections The Councell of Trent hath doubtlesse condemned it for Heresie to denie Purgatorie yet you shall not find where it sayth that it is Heresie to denie Purgatorie or that he is Anathema which doth denie it But the doctrine of Purgatorie is sufficiently expressed in Ses 25. and 22. in such sort as it is euident that it is determined as a matter of Fayth and hee which in the question of Purgatorie should vse the Authors wordes and say that the Councell of Trent hath no where declared it Heresie to denie Purgatorie let him read ouer the Councell againe and againe and no such thing shall there be found should shew that hee is more ententiue to the wordes then to the meaning of the Councell In like manner it may be sayd of Gerson The second Obseruation of the Author against Gerson is That men of most learning doe expounde this Decree of the Councell of Constance as spoken of a Pope vncertaine which is most true and not of a certaine Pope this second Obiection doth in all and euery part of it contradict the former for if the Decree of the Councell bee it what it will doth not make him an Hereticke which is of a contrary opinion and that it be to be vnderstood of a Pope vncertaine then it is no Heresie to denie that a Pope vncertaine is subiect to a Councell But to say that such a Pope is not subiect to a Councell is manifestly heresie so that whosoeuer will affirme that the Decree is to be expounded of a Pope vncertain must acknowledge it to be such a Decree as maketh the contrarie opinion to be Hereticall And whosoeuer will affirme that it is not a Decree of this nature must affirme also that it is vnderstood of a Pope certaine It is true as the Author sayth that very Learned men doe expound it as spoken of a Pope vncertaine but it is as true that very Learned doe expound it as spoken of a Pope certaine yet this difference is to be obserued that they which doe expounde it of a Pope vncertaine were not present at the Councell But they which doe vnderstand it of a Pope certaine were all those which were present at the Councell and haue left any writings and besides them all those which suruiued and beeing not otherwise hindered were present in the Councell of Basill which of necessitie must be many because betweene these two Councels there was the space of fifteene yeares Furthermore the Author ought to obserue that Gerson doth not onely say condemned but practised and to consider the practise of that Councell and obserue if that Councell did not commaund as well the Popes certaine as vncertaine let him read the Ses 17. and there he shall finde that the Councell doth decree that no

Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Text snippets containing the quad