Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	pope_n	prince_n	1,609	5	5.8946	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13169	The examination and confutation of a certaine scurrilous treatise entituled, The suruey of the newe religion, published by Matthew Kellison, in disgrace of true religion professed in the Church of England	Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629.	1606 (1606)	STC 23464; ESTC S117977	107,346	141

saying of Masse or offering their wafer Cakes in honour of our Lady from the Marcionistes the baptisme of Christians by women and their limbus patrum from the Valentinians Manicheies their opinion of the being of Christs body in the Sacrament without soliditie from the Pelagians the denyall of originall sinne in the blessed virgin the perfection of iustice and impeccabilitie of Christians Finally they haue deriued diuers other branches of old condemned Heresies from other Heretickes as at large I haue shewed in my late challenge His fift marke of an Hereticke is want of succession A simple marke if wee doe well consider it For neither in the beginning of the world nor in the time of Aaron was there anye succession of knowne priestes in the world Likewise neither our Sauiour Christ nor Peter did succeede the priestes of the Lawe For Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedech and Peter was by Christ designed an Apostle hauing none to goe before him But to confesse succession to bee a marke of the Church and want of succession a marke of an Hereticke yet would this one property of Heretickes much blemish the Romish See For neither are the Popes Bishops or Peters successors nor can the Papists deriue their Doctrine of the popes vniuersall power of his two swords of his espousals with the church of his indulgences of the carnal eating champing Christs flesh with the tÃ©eth of TraÌ„substantiation of the CoÌ„munion vnder one kinde of adoring the Sacrament and the Crosse with diuine worship of making vowes confessions and prayers to Saintes and such like pointes of decretaline Doctrine from the Apostles or any Apostolike men which as Tertullian sheweth is a necessarie point in succession Ego saith he sum Heres Apostolorum sicut cauerunt testamento suo sicut fidei commiseruÌ„t sicut adiuraueruÌ„t ita teneo As if he shold say none can be the Apostles heires but such as kÃ©epe the doctrine coÌ„tained in their testameÌ„t The same father in the same place excludeth heretikes as strangers enemies holding a contrary doctrine to the Apostles Furthermore the pole-shorne Masse-priests sacrificing Christes body and blood really in the Masse for quicke and dead and diuers purposes caÌ„not deriue their pedegree eyther from the Apostles or from the Priestes and ancient Doctors of the church Finally this forme of gouernment and Doctrine which is now in the Church of Rome cannot bee confirmed by any succession of Bishops and Priests Nay that rotten succession of Popes whervpon the cause of Papists doth hang as vpon a thrid of a Spider-web hath no other ground and certainty then the testimonie of Anastasius the Popes blinde bibliothecary Martin Polonus Platina Sanders Genebrard Illesca and such like base fellows which no Christian I trow wil admit for the Basis and foundation of his faith His sixt marke of heretikes is dissension in Doctrine and this he prooueth in a long and tedious discourse But with this mark he brandeth his owne consortes for Heretikes For they dissent not onely from the auncient Fathers But one from another most manifestly That is aparent by diuers treatises written of controuersies This is prooued by the differences of Thomistes and Scotistes and of all Schoolemen one from an other Neither doe they differ in small matters but in the highest pointes of Religion as namely whether the holy Ghost proceede more principally from the Father then the Son about the diuine notions about the atributes of God about Meritum Congrui about the cause of predestination about the thing designed by the word hoc in these wordes hoc est corpus meum about the conception of the blessed Virgin and all matters of diuinitie as the treatises of Schoolemen doe plainely shew Bellarmine also doth in moste controuersies no lesse earnestly dispute against his owne consortes then against vs. Neither is it materiall that all of them professe themselues willing to abide the Popes determination For vntill he determine somewhat their contentions are endlesse And albeit they then cease to contend yet their differences in opinions appeare neuerthelesse The seauenth chapter of his second Booke discouâ—seth of a seauenth marke of Heretikes and therein he endeuoreth to prooue al to be Heretikes that follow a particular sect Nowe who seeth not that this toucheth the Papists in generall that restreining themselues within the Romish Church followe the Popes sect And are bound by their Doctrine to follow him although he leade them with him to the pit of hell The Monkes also and Fryars follow the heades and rules of their seueral sectes without looking whither they leade them The eight marke of an Heretike saith he is to be condemned by the church or else as he saith afterward by generall Councels which doth no lesse touch his holy Father then the rest For coÌ„trary to the forme of the Nicene councel c. 4 He giueth libertie to Abbots to consecrate Bishops and contrarie to the 5. Cannon absolueth those that are excommunicated by other Bishops Contrary to the 6. Canon hee inuadeth the dioceses of other Patriarkes contrarye to another order hee separateth Priestes from their wiues With Eutyches condemned in the councell of Chalcedon hee beleeueth the Christ hath a bodie neither solide nor palpable nor like to ours For such is that body which he supposeth to be in the Sacrament Likewise all the old Heresies which hee holdeth are condemned by the whole Church Lastly all true Christians doe inwardly abhorre Popish impieties idolatries and Heresies Finally the Papists generally in the Chapt. ad abolendam de haeret condemne them for Heretikes that teach contrarie to the Doctrine of Christes Church concerning the Sacraments But this doth notoriouslye touch themselues For where the Scriptures mention onely baptisme and the Lordes supper as seales of Gods grace they increase the number of Sacraments and make seauen Where Christ said take and eate they say offer heaue hang vp and carry about Where Christ ordeined that all communicating one kinde should also receiue the other they sacrilegiously depriue the people of the cuppe Finallye they teach that Christians are iustified by confirmation and extreame vnction and that all their Sacraments haue like effectes Thus we see hee hath marked his owne consortes with the markes of Heretikes But hee shall neuer bee able to fasten his markes vppon vs. In the beginning of his second Booke hee talketh after his declamatorie manner of the diuels disguising himselfe in the habit of a young gallant like percase to the young Iebusites and Masse-priestes that going about to seduce simple soules attire themselues like gallants or of a Fryar Hee assureth also his disciples that he is discryed eyther by his staring eyes or stinking sauor or horned head or forked feete or base voice But first we would gladly knowe of him why the deuill should rather speake in a base then in a meane voice and next how hee commeth so well acquainted with him that hee knoweth his whole description from his hornes

the Pope and say that the King therin is but an vsurper Fourthly we say that not only lay-men but also all Masse-priestes Monkes and Fryers ought to be subiect to the Prince These fellowes exempt their Clergie and their goods from Princes gouernement as appeareth by Bellarmines treatise de exemptione Clericorum and diuers decrees of Popes Finally we make Princes and Kinges soueraigne coÌ„maunders ouer their subiects and immediate exequutors of Gods lawes Contrariwise the papistes make them most base exequutioners of the Popes Lawes and therein preuaile so farre that they not only set Princes together by the eares one with another but make them the Popes hangmen and force them to persecute their owne innocent subiects if they wil not admit the Popes Idolatrous and Hereticall Religion But saith Kellison Lib. 6 c. 1. they teach that no Prince can binde a man in conscience to obey his Lawes and commaundements and giue subjectes good leaue to rebell and reuolte This he sayth and how prooueth he that which hee saith forsooth saith he Luther exhorted the Germaines not to take Armes against the Turke And in his Booke against the King of England called him all to naught Secondly he telleth vs of the Rebellion of the Boores in Germanie Thirdly he citeth certaine places out of Luther shewing that the Popes lawes or Princes positiue lawes binde not to mortall sin nor rule the conscience Lastly he spendeth much idle talke about the tumults in France Flaunders and Germany But first what maketh all this to lawes binding in conscience Secondly the Articles of his accusation containe manifest vntruthes For neither doe wee giue subiectes leaue to reuolt neither doe wee deny that Princes lawes doe binde in conscience as oft as they commaund any thing commaunded in Gods word or prohibite thinges by God prohibited If Luther respected not the Pope nor his decretale lawes it is no maruell seeing hee is no lawfull Prince but an Vsurper and the head and maintayner of Antichristes Kingdome Furthermore where hee and Caluin defend Christian mens libertye as touching their conscience they say no other thing then that which they haue learned and which euerie man may gather out of Saint Iames Chap. 4. where hee sayth there is owne Law-giuer that can saue and destroy As for Kellisons proofes they are eyther grounded vpon false reports or else containe matters impertinent First false it is that Luther exhorted the Germains not to take armes against the Turke Nay hee rather encouraged them to defend their countrie against the Turke onely shewing them that if they meant to preuaile against him they must first correct their liues and reforme their errors in Religion But whatsoeuer he said in this argument it concerneth this matter in question nothing Secondly hee was not King Henries subiect but dealt against him more freely as being by subtiltie of Papists set foorth to countenance the Popes leud cause Thirdly wee defend not the RebellioÌ„ of the rustical Boores in Germany neyther did Luther spare to reprooue them and to write against them Beside that the cause of their insurrection was not Religion but temporall oppression Fourthly wee haue before declared what is Luthers Caluins meaning concerning the binding of mens consciences Fiftly the Germains and States of the low Countries are well able to cleare themselues from all blot of rebellion or imputation laid vpon them by this sycophant as may appeare to any that will reade their defences Finally the Christians in France neuer rebelled but onely tooke armes in defence of their liues against such as broke the Kings edictes and therefore haue beene iustifyed in their actions by the Kings themselues and by their edictes at diuers times Wherfore seeing their owne Kings did cleare them this swad hath no reason to accuse them In his second Chapter of his sixt booke he chargeth vs that our Doctrine dooth bring iudges and tribunall seates into contempt And his reason is partlye for that Luther and Caluin teach that the positiue lawes of Princes bind not in conscience and partlye for that they doe condemne the Popish Doctrine of freewill But his reason is so simple and soppish that it falleth of it selfe without our helpe For albeit the positiue lawes of Princes that haue no strength of Gods lawe doe not reach so farre as to binde the conscience yet all the lawes of Princes that haue their ground in Gods law doe binde the conscience also Likewise the authoritie of Princes is of God and therefore no man may resist theÌ„ without offence of conscience Furthermore albeit positiue lawes of Princes binde not in conscience yet they doe bind men to susteine the punishment inflicted by Princes lawes not direct contrarie to Gods lawes Finally albeit maÌ„ haue not freewil after the opinion of the Papists in discerning spirituall matters and dooing works pleasing to God tending to the ateining of eternal life yet he hath freewill to doe lewdly and therefore iustly deserueth to be punished This fellow therefore rather deserueth to bee punished that vnderstandeth our cause no better then admired for his profound sophistrie He addeth that it followeth by the Doctrine of these nouuellants that Princes haue no authoritie to commaund But then these olde hacsters must bring in new strange conclusions For as wee haue before declared wee maintaine the Princes authoritie against the vsurpation of the Pope and obey his lawes better then Papistes who for a long time haue stood for the Pope against their Princes both in France and other places Kellison like an old sycophant may therefore doe well seeing the Popes tyrannie is so newe to abstaine from charging others with noueltie and forbearing to rayle and lye to produce some better arguments In the third chapter of his sixt booke hee concludeth that wee bring Princes lawes into contempt and in the fourth and last Chapter that by our Doctrine neither the Prince is to rely vppon his Subjects nor Subiects vpon the Prince nor one vpon another And all this because Luther and Caluin teach that Princes meere positiue lawes doe not binde in conscience But as leapers that mistake their rising fall oft in the midst so disputers fayling in their groundes come short of their conclusion This position of Luther and Caluin I haue heeretofore shewed to haue beene quite mistaken by Kellison But had they taught so as he imagineth yet doe they neither bring lawes into conteÌ„pt nor breed any distrust or euil correspoÌ„dence betwixt Princes subiects For al Gods lawes binde in conscience mans lawes as farre as they haue vigor froÌ„ Gods law The authority of Princes is grounded vpon the Law of God From the same also not onely our duty towards our parents but also of husbands to their wiues wiues to their husbands of children to their parents contrarywise for the moste part receiueth strength Finally the same authoriseth diuers contracts willing vs so to doe to others as wee would haue others to doe to vs. Furthermore beside

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad