Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	church_n	scripture_n	3,566	5	6.5669	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20679	An aduertisement to the English seminaries, amd [sic] Iesuites shewing their loose kind of writing, and negligent handling the cause of religion, in the whole course of their workes. By Iohn Doue Doctor in Diuinity.	Dove, John, 1560 or 61-1618.; Walsingham, Francis, 1577-1647.	1610 (1610)	STC 7077; ESTC S115461	57,105	88

before one another in order but not in time because they are eternall the other three though in Gods booke they be also eternall in respect of his determination yet in respect of the men that are called iustified and glorified as they are acts proceeding from his decrees to execute and accomplish that in them which God hath decreed not only in order but also in time they follow after as they are not in eternity but in time These things being duly considered let vs come to the state of the question Our doctrine is that God by eternall decree hath ordeined some to saluation others to damnation the cause which moued him so to do being not in them but only in himselfe and that is onely his will and pleasure The subiects therefore of this disputation are two sorts of men Paucitas saluendorum the paucity or small remnant of them which are saued And concerning them Bellarmine his defence is all one with ours that they are saued no cause being in themselues but onely in God without any foresight of any thing in them He saith it is a doctrine consonant to Scriptures to the tradition of the Church to reason grounded vpon Scriptures and Fathers The difference betweene him and vs is only concerning them which are comprehended in the second ranke which is numerositas damnatoruÌ„ the great multitude of them which are damned Of them he saith Caluiniani contendunt homines ante praeuisionem paccati ad mortem destinatos quod cum Dei iustitiÃ¢ pugnat It caÌ„not stand with the iustice of God to ordeine men to destruction without foresight of some cause to be in themselues Our answer is God ordeined them to destruction of his owne will not for their sinnes and yet not being without sinne but bringing with them into the world from their natiuity and conception sufficient matter of condemnation before his decree should be put in execution as the Hebrues when they were in Aegypt did both build for Pharaoh and also finde straw their selues to make morter for the building We distinguish inter vasa ipsa vniuersam massam betweene the vessels in particular which are made to condemnation and the whole lumpe out of which they are fashioned and framed Though they were ordeined to damnation for no iniquity which was particularly in themselues yet that there might be no iniustice with God he had a generall respect to the mould of iniquity whereof they were made He hated Esau in his owne person not for any thing that was in Esau but there was matter enough in the whole lumpe out of which he was created wherefore he should hate him Saint Augustine saith Merito iniustum videretur quod fiunt vasa ad perditionem nisi esset in Adam vniuersa massa damnata It might seeme iniustice that any should be vessels ordeined to destruction had it not bene so that the whole lumpe out of which those vessels were formed had bene damned before in Adam So he maketh the foundation of this decree to be the fall of Adam and yet so that the fault and guilt of condemnation should rest in themselues and yet this fall of Adam not to be an antecedent or cause of this decree but a consequent or sequele of that decree But concerning the vessels in particular which are comprehended in this lumpe the Apostle saith God hated Esau that his purpose might remaine according to election not by workes but by him that calleth where he plainly deliuereth this doctrine That God in this reprobation of Esau respected nothing in his person but the cause which moued him to this hatred was onely in himselfe If the aduersay alledge as vsually he doth that albeit God did no hate him ex operibus for his euill workes which were in in him because then he was vnborne yet he did hate him ex praeuisis operibus because he foresaw those euill workes which afterward when he should be borne he would commit I answer That obiection is preuented and fully satisfied by the words themselues in that which followeth after Concerning the words themselues Saint Augustine saith Si futura opera quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaqum diceret non ex operibus sed ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quaestionem immÃ² nullam omnino quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem If the Apostle had vnderstood foresight of workes to be any cause he had not said as he did NOT OF WORKES but he would rather haue said God hated him because of the workes which he foresaw in him and so he would not onely haue resolued this question but also haue made it so plaine that it should haue bene without question But in the words which follow Saint Paul expresseth his owne meaning to be as I haue deliuered first by making answer to this obiection Is there iniquity with God God forbid For flesh would obiect that it were iniustice condemnare hominem non natum to condemne the child vnborne To which obiection he answereth It is no iniquity which answer in defence of Gods iustice had bene needlesse and the obiection as fruitlesse if it were so that God did in his decree condemne him out of a foresight of sinne which he knew he would commit forasmuch as God in his foresight could not be deceiued and his decree was not to be executed vntill the sinne were committed and that were in mans iudgement no iniquity or iniustice Secondly he cleareth the matter by inlarging that point to make it more apparant to mans capacity where he saith He will haue mercy vpon whom he will haue mercy and where he will he hardeneth And againe it is not in him that willeth meaning mans indeuours nor in him that runneth meaning the workes of man but in God that sheweth mercy There he reacheth that the onely law of iustice and rule whereby God in his predestination and reprobation is directed and the highest cause which moueth him thereunto is onely his will Non potest iniuste agere cuius volunt as est iusticiae regula He cannot do iniustice which is tyed to no other rule of iustice but his will Whatsoeuer is the will of God the same with him is iustice Hauing thus layed open the state of the question and shewed briefly what is our defence let vs examine what may be said against vs. Our aduersaries which we are to conclude withall are Bellarmine and Becanus two famous Iesuites Bellarmine seemeth in words somewhat to discent from vs by wilfull mistaking both of vs and of Saint Augustine from whom he would deriue the grounds of his disputation as a man that will not see that which plainly he seeth He goeth about the bush by sleights and subtilties that he might at the least beare the world in hand he standeth in opposition against vs but when he commeth to the point he discenteth not from vs. As for Becanus which hath written after

Rome Page 29. 30. I spake of the Popes supremacy and my words are these What authority soeuer the Pope had ouer the Latine Church or West part of the world it hath bene giuen him by humane constitutions onely and generall consent of Princes and States which they suffered him to enioy during their good liking and no longer And hauing thus shewed that the Popes authority ouer other Churches was not by diuine institution but onely by humane permission not certaine but during the pleasure of Princes and States my words fauour not his supremacy ouer vs in England out of which by consent of Prince and Parliament hee hath beene abandoned long since And therefore I say the Bishop of Rome is little beholding to me for his title of supremacy This is a very loose and negligent kinde of disputation Seuenthly saith he Doue Persw pag. 15. referreth the question what books be Canonicall Scriptures to the two Doctors S. Augustine and S. Hierom. His words be these Catholikes proue them to be Canonical out of S. Augustine we that they be Apocripha out of S. Hierome both which Doctors are of no smal authority in the Church of Rome therefore in this we differ no more from them then S. Hierome did from S. Augustine Therefore I hope for many causes Protestants will giue place to us in this question I deny not but the question being propounded concerning the bookes of Toby Iudith Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisedome the Maccabes and the fragment of Esther whether they were Canonicall as the Church of Rome doth hold or Apocripha as our Church maintaineth I answered that forasmuch as there is Canon fidei morum One Canon or rule of good life another of faith and that may be Canon morum quodnon est fidei Arule and patterne of good life for vs to follow which is not a sufficient ground of doctrine to build our faith vpon they were both Canonicall and Apocripha Canonicall according to Saint Augustins for rules of good life Apocripha according to S. Hierome because they were no true grounds of doctrine And so the Church of Rome and our selues rightly vnderstanding one another as Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine vnderstood themselues there needed not be any difference concerning this point betweene vs. But how can he inferre vpon this that therefore we must giue place to him in this question As Saint Hierome gaue no place to Saint Augustine so will we giue no place to any onely I wish they would better vnderstand both vs and themselues and giue place to the truth And forasmuch as they allow both of Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine to be Orthodoxall Doctors they cannot receiue S. Augustine his opinion but they must also embrace S. Hieroms exposition where it is explained what is the meaning of S. Augustine where hee alloweth those bookes to be Canonicall Eighthly saith he Concerning the vulgar Latine translation allowed among Catholikes D. Doue writeth thus pag. 16. We grant it fit that for vniformity in quotation of places in Schooles and Pulpits one Latine text should be vsed and we can bee contented for the antiquity thereof to preferre the old vulgar translation before all other Latine bookes and so much we yeeld to the Councell of Trent The praemisses are mine but what is his conclusion Because we ascribe to the vulgar edition more then to all other Latine translations and therein agree with the Church of Rome and because we yeeld to the Councell of Trent so farre as reason doth require and no further but disagree both from the Church of Rome and that Councel in things which are erroneous Concedendo vera negando falsa will he therefore take this for a Protestant proofe of his Catholicke religion Non taliauxilio nec defensoribus istis Roma caret If the Church of Rome had no better champions it would not stand Ninthly Doctor Couel writeth No translation whatsoeuer is authenticall Scripture And Doctor Doue addeth All translations haue many faults page 16. In so writing I write the truth For onely God is free from errour and therefore only the originall text is authenticall Scripture All men are subiect to errours Omnis homo mendax but all translations are the workes of men But how idlely is this brought in as a Protestant proofe of Recusancy well may it serue against Recusants which ascribe more to the translation theÌ„ to the originall If no translation be authenticall then it followeth as a firme consequent that the vulgar Latine edition cannot be authentical howsoeuer the Councel of Trent hath imposed it vpon vs as authenticall Tenthly For this time and place saith he I will only make amplification of Doctor Doue his grant confession which followeth in these words When the Masse was first put down King Henry had his English litourgie and that was then iudged absolute without all exception But when King Edward came to the Crowne that was coÌ„demned and another was in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucet did approue as very consonant to Gods word When Q. Elizabeth began her reign the former was iudged to be full of imperfections and a new was diuised allowed by consent of the Clergy But about the middle of her reigne we grew weary of that booke great meanes haue bene wrought to abandon it establish another which although it was not obtained yet we do at the least at euery change of Prince change our booke of Common praier we bee so want on we know not what we would haue Pag. 31. Hitherto his words and he freely confessed errours in all these states and changes For defence whereof besides that these words are written by way of obiection from them rather then any confession made by our selues I did not so much as intimate that there were errours in all these states and changes as he vniustly chargeth me but onely that in the Seruice bookes of King Henry and King Edward some things were iudged to sauor of the superstitions of the Church of Rome But as for the Seruice booke which was allowed by Queene Elizabeth it stood not only during her time without alteration but also it is ratified by his Maiestie and allowed of by the State albeit by some particularmen it hath bene impugned as nothing else can be by the wit of man so well deuised but mans wit can dispute against it And as for those errours which were reformed in the books of K. Henry and King Edward they were the superstitions onely of the Church of Rome the land being not then sufficiently reformed nor purity of religion so perfectly established as now it is because the Bishops Clergy men by whom those bookes were written their selues were too much so wred with the Romish leauen And our daily renouncing those superstitions and receiuing greater light of the Gospell could be no Protestant proofe that we should any way fauour their superstitions Eleuenthly he writeth thus Why may we not say with the Councell of Florence cited

by M. Williat for Generall and the Patriarkes of the Apostolike seas there present and the Councel of Constance not of vnequall authority the Councell of Trent to passe others with 6. Cardinals 4. Legats 3. Patriarkes 32. Arch-bishops 228. Bishops and 5. Abbots there assembled as Doctor Doue telleth vs that Protestancy in all places is false and Catholicke religion true where no Protestant Church can shew any one such like authority for their cause The third part of such an assembly would haue bene a great countenance to Protestant religion farre greater then euer it had or is likely to procure To which I answer First concerning the Councell of Florence in all those 25. Sessions which in it were held 15. of them being at Ferraria where the Councell began and the other at Florence where the Councel was concluded there is scarce any one point of religion touched of which there is any controuersie betweene Protestants and Recusants onely while it was at Ferraria before the acts of the first Session the question of Purgatory was superficially disputed Therefore that Councell was farre from coÌ„demning Protestancy or approuing Catholike religion Secondly of the Councell of Constance which he will haue to be of no lesse authority Bellarmine his selfe denyeth it to haue any authority at all or credit of a generall Councell alledging that it is in the Catalogue of those 15. Synods which the Catholicke Church hath not receiued It seemeth therefoe that this Author was not well acquainted with the generall Councels Thirdly as I confessed such a number of Prelates to be present at the Councell of Trent so I alledged reasons why it could not bee a lawfull councell which he is so farre from answering that he passeth them ouer with silence As also he spareth to repeate the residue of my words which make against him according to his accustomed fallacy wherein I derogated from the credit of this assembly shewing that they were there onely at the end of the Councell being then newly created by the Pope to countenace the Synod and so to subscribe to all conclusions for forme sake But at the beginning when matters were argued there were but forty Bishops and foure Legates too small an assembly to deserue the name of a generall Councell Albeit it is not a bare multitude of suffrages and presence of Bishops that can giue couÌ„tenance to a generall Councell For the whole multitude of Priests and others cryed against our Sauiour Christ Crucifie him The Kings stood vp and the Princes tooke councell together against the Lord and his annoynted So then if he argue from the Councell of Florence to condemne our religion I deny his antecedent If from the Councell of Constance I deny his argument If from the Councell of Trent it is but a Fallacy Petitio principij because hee taketh that for a proofe which is the matter in dispute THE ANSVVER TO A TREATISE INTITVLED A SEARCH MADE INto matters of Religion By FRANCIS WALSINGHAM Deacon of the Protestants Church before his change to the Catholicke Dedicated to the Kings Maiestie Against Luther Caluin Zuinglius Beza Iewel Williat Doue Rogers and other Protestants IEREMY 47. 10. Cursed be he that doth the workes of the Lord negligently LONDON Printed for SIMON WATERSON dwelling in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Crowne 1610. THE ANSWER TO A TREATISE INTITVLED A Search made into matters of Religion by FRANCIS WALSINGHAM Deacon of the Protestants Church before his change to the Catholicke dedicated to the Kings Maiesty Against Luther Caluin Zuinglius Beza Iewel Williat Doue Rogers and other Protestants IN my perswasion to the Recusants to reconcile themselues to our Church I vsed these words The ignorant Recusant pretendeth his conscience saying It is against my conscience to come to Church and whatsoeuer I do against my conscience is sin I confesse whatsoeuer is done without testimony or warrant of conscience is sin to them that do it be that which is done in it selfe neuer so lawfull because the Apostle saith He that doubteth is condemned if he eate because he eateth not of faith and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne In which words by faith is vnderstood conscience But by the way they must see that their conscience be rightly informed else it will bee their damnation Out of which words M. Walsingham maketh this collection That I seemed to him substantially to iustifie out of these words of S. Paul the Recusancy of Catholickes if they can proue they haue a good ground or motiue of conscience It is true one absurdity being granted many others will follow Therefore to this hypothetical proposition I answer by granting the Maior and denying the Minor For they cannot proue they haue any such good ground or motiue of conscience therfore their Reculancy is not iustified out of these words It is but Petitio principij a begging of the question Againe he saith If their conscience were erroneous and grounded vpon false grounds and principles yet so long as that perswasion endureth it seemeth they may not be forced The insufficiency of which argument I will lay open by the like Hee that hath not examined himselfe may not come to the Lords table lest he eate and drinke vnworthily and so eate and drinke his owne damnation not discerning the Lords body Shall this want of examination of a mans selfe be therefore a warrant to any man to liue like an infidell neuer to examine himselfe and so neuer to come to the Lords table and so to be exempted from the authority and coactiue power of the Church He must be forced to examine himselfe and communicate So the Recusant whose conscience is erroneous and founded vpon false principles must be forced to renounce his errours to build his religion vpon sounder principles to receiue instruction and informe his conscience better and so to come to the Church He taketh vpon him to disproue my definition of conscience which is that it is an application of a generall knowledge grounded vpon Gods word to particular actions and intents He saith This definition is defectiue being not so large as the thing that is defined because the heathens which know not Gods word yet haue a conscience grounded onely vpon the law of nature I answer that if conscience be by him vniuocally vnderstood as all things ought to be which are defined my definition cannot be disproued But when he instanceth in the consciences of heathen men he flyeth to equiuocation whereas an equiuocall thing cannot bee defined In like manner if I should define religion to be a rule of faith and life grounded vpon Gods word he might take the same exception against it and say that the religion of the Turkes is grounded vpon the Alcaron the religion of the Iewes is grounded partly vpon the Talmod the religion of the Catholickes partly vpon the Traditions of men If I define a man to be animal rationale a body indued with a reasonable

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad