Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	appeal_v	bishop_n	rome_n	1,804	5	7.3555	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A73451	Bels trial examined that is a refutation of his late treatise, intituled. The triall of the nevve religion By B.C. student in diuinitie. VVherein his many & grosse vntruthes, with diuers contradictions are discouered: together with an examination of the principal partes of that vaine pamphlet: and the antiquitie & veritie of sundry Catholike articles, which he calleth rotten ragges of the newe religion, are defended against the newe ragmaster of rascal. In the preface likewise, a short viewe of one Thomas Rogers vntruthes is sett downe, taken out of his booke called. The faith doctrine and religion, professed and protected in the realme of England, &c. with a short memorandum for T.V. otherwise called Th. Vdal.	Woodward, Philip, ca. 1557-1610.	1608 (1608)	STC 25972.2; ESTC S125583	118,782	210

the decree were otherwise where I wish the reader to obserue with me these two points seriously Frist that the Pope coulde not and therefore did not alleadge any better reason sor his vsurped and falsely pretended supremacy then the authority and decree of that famous Councell of Nice Secondly that the Pope Celestine falsified the canon and decree of the Councell so to gayne credit and authority to himselfe if it might be THE ANSWERE TO the first of these two points I answere that there was no question betwixt them whether the Popes iurisdiction did extende into Afsrike or no or whether appeals in rigor might not be made to Rome but whether it were a thinge coÌ„uenient for on the one side not to allowe appeales seemeth to giue occasion to Metropolitanes and Bishops to oppresse their subiects and on to the coÌ„trary to allowe appeales seemeth the next way to make endlesse quarells often to vexe Bishoppes without all cause of which inconuenience and great trouble of the church holy men haue complained This doubtfull pointe then was defined by the Councell of Nice or Sardica which declared that it was expedient for Priestes to appeale from their Bishoppes vnto a prouinciall Councell and for Bishoppes to appeale vnto Rome For that it was lawfull and vsuall before the tyme of this Councel to appeale vnto Rome is euident out of S. Cyprian who reporteth how Fortunatus and Felix deposed by himselfe appealed vnto Cornelius Bishope of Rome Lib. 1. ep 3. And one Basilides deposed in Spaine appealed to Pope Stephen as the same S. Ciprian recounteth Not to speake of Marcion that auncient heretike Lib. 1. ep 4. who excoÌ„municated of his Bishope in Pontus came to Rome for absolution as Epiphanius relateth and Heres 42. therefore Pope Leo calleth it an auncient custome to appeale vnto Rome This was the cause why Epist. 89. the Bishoppe of Rome vrged especially the decree of the Nicene councell to shewe that it was not only lawfull but also very expedieÌ„t sor albeit the Affricane Bishoppes desired that Appeales might not easily be admitted for the great iniury to iustice vaine protraction of sutes which they dayly perceiued to followe thereof yet knowing full well that they coulde not forbid such appeales of them selues they humbly made petition to the Pope for more moderation therein In their epistle which they wrote to Pope Celestinus these be their wordes The office of dutifull salutation premised wee earnestly beseech you that hereafter you woulde not easily giue audience to such as come from hence Had they bene of Bels minde they woulde neuer haue vsed any deprecatory petition but haue roundly and readily told him that he had no authority to admit any appeales neither was his iurisdiction ouer them and therefore that they did owe him no obedience or subiection But farre were they from any such conceipt as being not ignorant of his iurisdiction ouer them according to which beliefe they proceeded in like manner For which cause the same verie Bishops of Affrica when this matter of Appeales and the Nicene councell was one foote and Pope Sozimus had sent vnto their councell three legates wrote vnto Bope Bonifacius the Successour of Sozimus in this maner Because it hath pleased our Lord concerning such thinges as our holy hrethren haue handled with vs Faustinus our fellow Bishop and Philippe and Asellus our fellowe Priests that our humilitye can not write vnto Sozimus a Bishop of blessed memory from whom they brought both precepts and letters but to your veneration who by Gods ordinance are succeded in his place we ought briesely to insinuate those thinges which by the agreement of both parts were determined in which we stayed indeede without breach of charity but not without great altercation in which wordes making relation of their Acts to Pope Bonifacius and testifinge that they had receiued precepts or commandements from his predecessor Pope Sozimus what do they els but acknowledge their obedience and subiection to the Apostolicke sea Beside not longe after this Councell â—pist 87. Pope Leo writinge to the Bishops of Mauritania in Affrike saith that he restored the communion to Bishop Lupicinus because he appealed to him out of Affrike and likewise that he sent vnto them for his legate Bishop Potentius who shoulde in his steade haue care of the affaires of Affrike All which abundantly testify both the authority of the Bishop of Rome in Affrica and that appeales were made to him and also that the Affricane fathers denied not this though for the reason before alleadged they desired more moderation therein to be vsed And albeit S. Augustine was one of these Bishops and so his voyce passed in the common letters with others yet because Bell doth here so magnify him as though he had bene a mighty enemy to the Popes supremacy I will in particular shewe out of that venerable and learned father what reuerence subiection and dutifull respect he carried to the Pope contenting my selfe only with that which hee writeth of this very pointe or of the three Popes in whose tymes this matter of appeales was handled and some of which the minister very bodly yf not some-what saucily but out of all question most falsly pronounceth to haue corrupted the Nicene canons This holy father writinge most plainly how him selfe and other Bishops came to Cesarea by the commaundement of Sozimus what doth he but clerely proclaime his primacy ouer Affrica The same Augustine was most Epist 157. subiect and deare to Pope Bonifacius as we learne out of the beginninge of his first booke against the two epistles of the Pelagians directed to the same Bonifacius The same Augustine writing to Pope Celestinus referreth the cause of a certayne Africane Epist 221. Bishop to him after this manner O holy Pope most blessed Lorde venerable for piety and with dutifull charity to be receiued labour together with vs and commaunde all thinges which are sent to be recited vnto thee and on the contrary Pope Celestinus doth highly commende S. Augustine Epist. ad Gallos as one that had alwayes remayned in the communion of the Romaine church and had bene reputed alwayes of him selfe his predecessours for a great Doctor Out of that which hath bene saide the ministers first doubt is solued why the Pope rather alleadged the decrees of the Nicene Councel then any other prooffe out of the Gospell because as I said the question was not about his supremacy in generall as Bell cuningly or malitiously maketh it but of Appeales which though it be a thinge consectary to his supreame iurisdiction yet for the reasons before mentioned som doubt might be made about the exercise thereof for the satisfying of which no better resolution coulde be deuised then of a generall Councell The good reader also can not but sufficiently gather out of the premises an answere to the second question to witt that neither Celestinus the Pope nor any of his predecessors

still keepe his former custome of celebrating Easter and also performe due obedience to Anicetus was because Anicetus would not for so smal a controuersiâ— or variety breake peace but was content to tolerate the same and therfore false it is that Bell sayth to witt that Polycarpus would and must haue yelded to Anicetus if he had acknowledged him for his superiour seing no such thinge was commaunded him but the matter left to his owne election Bels II. obiection SEcondly Ireneus and other holy and learned Bishopps of Fraunce ioyning with him reproued Victor then Bishoppe of Rome very sharply and roundly as one that had not due respect to the peace and vnity of the church which doubtelesse those holy and learned Bishops would not haue done if the Bishoppe of Rome had had in those dayes the supreame soueraignty ouer them THE ANSWERE HAd Bell recounted the cause why those Bishopps reprehended so roundly as he speaketh Pope Victor with other necessary circumstances he had marred all his market and proued the Popes superiority by that argument by which as he perfidiously handleth the matter he would ouerthrowe it The blessed martyr Ireneus with other reprehended Victor not for any wrong opinion about the keeping of Easter him selfe they being of the Popes minde as also the Prorestantes now be but for that he excommunicated the Bishops of Asia refusing to conforme them selues to the Church of Rome neyther did S. Ireneus this vppon conceipt that the Pope exceeded the limits of his power for no such thing appeareth in Eusebius from whom this story is fetched but for that he did vse it out of due season to the great trouble of the Church and for a small matter as he and they thought which sheweth playnely that they made no doubt of his authority otherwise many misliking his fact would easyly haue contemned his censure and iustly haue obiected presumption in vsurping that authoritye which belonged not to him where of no mention is made Superiours yea and the Pope him selfe may with due respect be admonished and reprehended especially by Bishoppes yf any great scandall or trouble of the Church be feared S. Paul resisted S. Peter in face because he was reprehensible Galat. 2. v. 11. wherof our Protestants absurdly gather that S. Peter had no sup riority ouer the Apostles a collection not known to an iquitye when as the matter was then so famous and certaine that wicked Porphiry that Paganicall philosopher reproueth S. Paul of sawcines for that he presumed Proaem com in Galatas epis 11. ad Aug. inter epistolas Augustini to reprehend Peter the Prince of the Apostles as S. Hierom reporteth S. Cyprian highly commendeth the humilâ—ty of S. Peter that tooke so quietly the reprehension of S. Paul being his inferiour For neyther Peter sayth S. Cyprian whom our Lord chose the first and vppon whom he built the church when Paul disputed with him about circumcision arrogantly tooke any thinge to him self saying that he had the primacy and therfore Epist 71. ad Quin. the latter disciples ought rather to obey him S. Augustin sheweth excellently by this example that S. Cyprian erring about rebaptization could not nor would not haue bene offended to haue bene admonished by others his followers or inferiours much lesse by Lib. 2. de Baptis cap. 1. a Councell VVe haue learned sayth he that Peter the Apostle in whom the Primacy of the Apostles by excellent grace is so praeeminent when he did otherwise concerning circumcision then the truth required was corrected of Paule the later Apostle I thincke without any reproach vnto him Cyprian the Bishoppe may be compared to Peter the Apostle howbeit I ought rather to seare least I be iniurious to Peter sor who knoweth not that the principalitye of Apostleshipp is to be perferred before any dignity of Bishoppe whatsoeuer but yf the grace of the chaires differ yet the glory of the martyrs is one These authorities shew two things the first is that S. Peter was reputed with the auncient fathers head and prince of the Apostles and also that the very Pagans were not ignorant of that thinge which I suppose will not greatly content Bell for certayne deductions that may be drawne from thence The second which is the cause why I haue alledged this of S. Peter and S. Paul is that dislike or reprehension of an other mans action doth not argue the man reproued not to be the others superior how soeuer Bell would inferr that when as hath bene sayd S. Paul inferiour to S. Peter reprehended him And therefor the most that can deduced out of the ministers idle discourse is that if him selfe wer a Bishoppe he would looke as the deuill God blesse vs is sayd to haue looked ouer Lincolne and none might without incurring of is mortall indignation admonish him of any fault or scandalous demeanure Great pitty surely it is that one qualified as he is and endowed with such an humble spirite should not be preferred to an Episcopale or to vse his owne phrase some ouerseing dignitye Thus by dismol destiny Bels argument hath rather hurt him then giuen him any help at all But one necessary adiunct belonged to this controuersie which he thought good not to touch for scalding of his fingers to witt that S. Victor excommunicated the Bishopps of Asia as I noted before for seing Bell confesseth that the old In his Fâ—neral lib. 2. cap. 2. Bishopps of Rome were very godly men and taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done afore them and most certayne that S. Victor was one of those holy Martyrs it followeth that he vsurped no authority but exercised that which lawfully he might neyther that he taught any doctrine but that which S. Peter had done before him Out of which and the precedent discourse three or foure memorable notes may be inferred against Bell. The first and principall is that the Primacye of the Bishoppe of Rome began not six hundred yeares after Christ as befor he mayntayned hauing bene practised four hundred yeares before by S. Victor and descended to him from S. Peter The second is that Bels argumeÌ„t against the supreame authority of the Bishoppe of Rome being duly and truly examined proueth the cleane contrary The third is that the minister cunningly coÌ„cealed the cause why S. Ireneus reproued S. Victor as nothing fitting his purpose The fourth may be that most perfidiously he inferreth out of the reprehension of S. Ireneus that he contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees and supposed supremacy as before hath bene noted I add lastly that whatsoeuer S. Ireneus and others thought yet blessed Pope Victor proceded most prudently for as much as he perceiued how that obseruation which in the time of Anicetus was only variety of rite without preiudice of religion began now to corrupt the soundnes of the Catholike fayth one Blastus who liued in Victors time as Lib. 5. hist cap. 15. De proscript in

quoth he to doe that which becommeth Christian and royall piety to witt that the foresayd Bishoppe would be obedieÌ„t to the fathers haue regard to peace and not to thinke that it was lawfull for him to ordaine the Bishoppe of Antioch without any example against the decrees of Canons as he presumed which thinge we would not make void for the desire we haue to restore faith preserue peace Lastly writinge to the Empresse Pulcheria about the same argument he vtterly maketh voyd whatsoeuer Anatolius had cunningly caused to be decreed coÌ„cerning the Primacye of Constantinople VVe make Epist 55. voyd quoth he the consent of the Bishopps repugning to the rules of holy Canons established at Nice by the vnited piety of your fayth with vs and by the authoritye of the blessed Apostle Peter doe with our generall definition wholy frustrate and make of no effect Now to return to Bell I say that he ouerreacheth when he enfourmeth his reader that the famous Councell of Chalcedon gaue the Bishope of Constantinople equall authoritye with the Bishop of Rome in all ecclesiastical affaires for it cannot truly be called a decree of the Councel which was not confirmed by the head Should a Parlament in England make ten seuerall acts nine very good and beneficiall to the realme but one cleane opposite to former acts and preiudiciall to the soueraigne dignitye of his Maiestie wherevppon he confirmed the nine but the tenth he did vtterly irritate and make voyde would Bell call that an act of Parlament or could he with out an vntruth so terme it in true and good meaninge most certayne he could not what followeth I leaue to Bels collecting vaine But it may be he will say that the confirmation of the Councell belonged not to the Pope It is not possible that he dare offer it will he make Pope Leo so auncient for time so renoumed for vertue so famous for learning such a simple or arrogant creature as to send his legats to be Presidents of the Councell in his place to write vnto the Empresse how he did make frustrate that decree yf his authoritye had not bene certayne in that behalfe and so made him selfe a laughing stocke to the Empire and the whole world and would the Councell haue admitted of his legates or euer haue made suite to him for the confirmation of their decrees as they did when they wrote to him in this manner And we beseech thee say they honour our iudgment Act. 3. in fine with thy decrees and as we with willinge mindes haue agreed together in good things so thy highnes also would accomplish that for thy children which is conuenient which CeÌ„tur 4. â—ol 551. petition of theirs is also formally recorded by the Lutheranes of Magdeburge The good reader hath also further to note that this pride of Anatolius was so exorbitant that at length he gaue it cleane ouer excusing him selfe to Pope Leo as we reade in the letters of the same Pope which he wrote vnto Anatolius in which after he had giuen order about certayne things in the church of Constantinople an argument of his iurisdiction in that place he cometh to that excuse which Anatolius alleadged in his owne behaulfe for hauing laboured about the primacye of his owne church and writeth thus But as touching that synne Epist. 71. which you committed as you say by the persuasion of others concerninge the encrease of authoritye your charity should more effectually and sincerely haue washed away if that which could not be attempted without your likinge you had not layd only vppon the counsell of the clergie for as offence is committed by giuing of bad counsel so likewise by giuing of badd consent But it is very gratefull to me most derely beloued brother that your charitye professeth that it doth now displease you which ought not then to haue liked you The profession of your charitye and the attestation of the Christian Prince is sufficient for your returne into common grace neyther doth that amendment seeme late which is accompanied with so venerable a witnes Let the desire of vnlawfull authoritie which made dissension be wholy cast away This wâ—â— at that tyme the end of that arrogant presumption but had Bell then liued it seemeth he would haue stoode more to his tackling and neuer haue shewed him selfe so base minded as to haue giuen ouer any title of honour or any wise submitted him selfe to the Pope who now pleadeth so earnestly in defence of that outragious ambition Here also the good reader hath to note that as the minister doth make that the decree of a Councel which as hath bene sayd was non at all so doth he make bold with truth beside a tricke of corruption for no where doe I read in the actes of that Councell that it gaue equall authoritye to the Bishop of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome in all ecclesiasticall affaires as Bell affirmeth that worde all is foisted in by the malice of his ministership neyther haue they the word authoritye but priuiledges which consisted for as much as I can learne out of those Actes in these two pointes The first was that the Metropolitanes of the dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thrace should only be consecrated and ordained by the Bishops of Constantinople as also such Bishops as liued in the same place amongst barbarous people The second was that Constatinople might haue the second place in dignity next after Rome These I say were the priuiledges which Anatolius desired should be confirmed by the Pope for to thinke that he desired to haue euery wayes superiority and as Bell writeth equall authoritye in all ecclesiasticall affaires with Rome is contrary to all reason and not agreable to the recited words out of the Actes for though Anatolius with others decreed that Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges yea in ecclesiasticall matters yet is that straight limited to the consecration of Merropolitanes and to haue the second place in dignitye as before was sayd and is euident also out of the 15. Action can 28. and out of the 16. Action and lastly out of their relation to the Pope in which they craued his confirmation for there they mention nothinge of equall priuiledges and aduancemeÌ„t in ecclesiasticall causes causes but only speake of consecratinge the Metropolitanes of Asia Pontus and Thrace and of hauing the next place after Rome and yet they affirme that they did there signifye vnto him all the force of the Actes whereof it followeth that other priuiledges or eminencye in ecclesiasticall dignitye was not then desired and surely it were meere madnes to thinke that Anatolius would euery way haue had equall authority in all ecclesiasticall causes as the minister affirmeth seing then we must graunt that he desired iurisdiction in Italie and Rome it selfe nay what were it els but to condemne Anatolius of grosse foolerye in suyng for that superextrauagant grace of the Pope to the iniury of his owne See and dignitie

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad