Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	eternal_a	life_n	soul_n	14,602	5	5.1897	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20471	A disswasiue from poperie, containing twelve effectual reasons by vvhich every Papist, not wilfully blinded, may be brought to the truth, and euery Protestant confirmed in the same: written by Francis Dillingham Master of Arts, and fellow of Christs Colledge in Cambridge, necessarie for all men in these times.	Dillingham, Francis, d. 1625.	1599 (1599)	STC 6883; ESTC S111897	57,357	173

greater things can they desire at Gods hands Nay what christian heart can abide these blasphemies if this be not to honour Marie what is to honour her I ende this heresie with Epiphanius his question Quae Scriptura aliquid de hac re narrauit what Scripture speaketh thus The 6. heresie of Angelisme Iraeneus lib. 1 In regard of breuitie I will knitt vp many heresies together the Carpocratians worshipped the Images of Iesus the Valentinians the crosse the Heracleonites prayed for the dead Epiphan 14. Haeres Elxay the horrible heretike taught praier in an vnknowen tongue Nemo quaerat interpretationem sed solum in oratione haec dicat Let no man seeke for interpretation but onely let him pray thus I will therefore in this sixth particular heresie brieflie speak of Angelisme Haeres 39. Angelici saieth Augustine in angelorum cultu sunt inclinati the Angelists were inclined to the worshipping of Angels Iraeneus likewise sheweth the practise of the church against this worship Lib. 2. cap. 59. Eeclesia non facit aliquid inuocationibus angelicis sed mundÃ¨ purÃ¨ dirigit orationes ad Dominum qui omnia fecit The Church doth not any thing by prayer to Angels but purely directeth her praier to the Lord that made all things Lib. de vero dei simul cap. 17. Againe Lactantius writeth thus Non est in Angelis quicquam nisi parendi necessitas itaque nullum sibi honorem tribui volunt quorum honor in deo est There is nothing in the Angels but necessitie to obey therefore they will haue no honour to be giuen to them vvhose honour is in God And in his first booke and seuenth chapter Ministri Dei coli non volunt quippe qui nihil praeter iussum Dei voluntatem faciunt Gods attendants will not be adored for they doe nothing but his commaundement and will If these men were aliue what would they haue written against the Papistes who maintaine the adoration and worshipping of Angels The fifth reason of the popish dissolute and discomfortable doctrine IT is not vnknowne how the Papists without all shame accuse our doctrine of loosenes wheras all our writings sermons and exercises tende to holines of life for we preach mortification of the flesh continuance in prayer and in a word all holy duties we permit no filthie stewes neither by rash vowes cause incontinencie and fornication which are notorious and knowne things amongst the Papists Vrbs est saith Mantuan iam tota lupanar the whole citie is a stewes speaking of Rome And as the liues of the Papists haue beene odious to God and to man so I doubt not but in this motiue to prooue that their doctrine tendeth to horrible dissolutenes and hellish horrour In Aquinas his supplement art 2. quaest 2. it is taught that no man ought to be contrite in heart for originall sinne which is a licentious and carnall doctrine did not the prophet Dauid in the 51. psalme confesse that in sinne his mother conceiued him and S. Paul crieth out Rom. 7. O miserable man that I am who shall redeeme me froÌ„ this bodie of sinne out of which places we may gather the griefe that those holy men of God conceiued for their naturall corruption The Papists reason why we must not be contrite for originall sinne is worthie of consideration Non est voluntarium it is not voluntarie say they The syllogisme is thus to be made We are not to be contrite but for voluntarie sinnes but originall sinne is not voluntarie ergo we are not to be contrite for it I answer to the proposition they might as well conclude that it is no sinne let Augustine dissolue this knotte who in his 1. booke of Retract and 13. chap. writeth thus Nullo modo peccatum est nisi sit voluntarium peccatum quippe illudintelligendum est quod tantummodo peccatum est non poena peccati quamvis illa quae immeritÃ² non voluntaria peccata dicuntur quia vel Ã nescientibus vel Ã coactis perpetrantur non omninÃ² possunt sine voluntate committi quoniam ille qui peccat ignorans voluntarie quoque peccat c. It is no sinne except it be voluntarie this speach is to be vnderstood of sinne which is simply sinne and not a punishment of sinne although those sinnes which are vnfitly called sinnes against our wills because they are ether committed by constraint or by ignorance cannot be altogether without the consent of will for he which sinneth of ignorance sinneth willingly Thus hath Augustine answeared the popish reason to the full Secondly the Papists teach that some sinnes are veniall of their owne nature that is deserue not eternall death which must needes cause men to cast off the bridle and reynes of holy life why doeth Basil in his shorter Definitions and 10. rule prooue that euery sinne is deadly by this place The vvages of sinne is death But to withdraw men from the opinion of the lightnes of sinne well saith Hierome ad Caelantiam Tanto facilius abstinemus Ã quocunque delicto quantÃ² illud magis metuimus nec etiam titÃ² ad maior a progreditur qui etiam parva formidat We abstaine so much the more easily froÌ„ sinne by how much we feare the same neither doth he make hast to greater sinnes which feareth the lesser Thirdly the Papists teach that the sacrament giues grace ex opere operato of worke wrought without faith for howsoeuer Bellarmine requireth it as a disposiâ—ion yet the Censure of ColoÌ„ which knew the Romish doctrine as well as Bellarmine reasoneth thus pueris extra omnem dubitationis aleam sacramenta prodesse nemo sanae mentis dubitare potest in quibus tamen nulla est fides nulla cordis motio nullus peccatorum dolor aut gemitus sanÃ¨ si in pueris easit Sacramentorum natura cur non erit similis omnino in alijs maximÃ¨ eÃ¹m neque Christus nec Ecclesia vnquam vel vllam diversitatis fecit mentionem Without all controversie children receiue benefit by the Sacraments in whome there is no faith no motion of the heart no sorrow for sinne and why doe not others likewise so seeing neither Christ nor the Church mentioneth any reason to the contrarie What is this but to cause men to come without repentance to the sacraments for if thou be not a murderer a theefe or an adulterer c. the sacraments will replenish thee with grace but Christian Reader take heede of this dissolute and loose doctrine for he destroieth himselfe and damneth his soule that commeth to the Sacraments without faith and repentance and he is so farre from receiuing grace that he purchaseth Gods eternall wrath and irefull displeasure to himselfe Fourthly the Papists bind their votaries prelats and priests to keepe their vowes which yet burne in filthie lusts yea are not those vowes vngodly which caÌ„not be kept without incoÌ„tinency 1. Tim. 5.11 If widows as S. Paule saith waxe

chap. and 15. verse be penitent I will not stand vpon any moe places in the newe Testament but come to a fewe of the olde In the ninth of the Preacher and second verse they haue these wordes Omnia in futurum servantur incerta All things are reserued as vncertain for the future time there is no such thing in the Hebrew yet out of this place is prooued the vncertentie of saluation and finall perseuerance O most wretched and vile doctrine that must coyne scripture to defende it selfe In the 98. psalme and 5. verse they translate vvorshippe his footestoole for it is holy and from hence conclude the adoration and worshipping of creatures wheras it should haue beene turned at his footestoole he is holy lahadom the same thing being repeated in the last verse In the 8. of Genesis toward the ende of the chap. where it should be the thoughts of mans heart are euill in their translation it is prone to euill as if there were no difference betwixt prone to euill and euill If I should affirme a papist to be prone to euill and treason doe I say that he is euill and treason it selfe nothing lesse euen so there is a difference betwixt pronesse to vice and vice it selfe In the 14. of Genesis and 18. verse they haue it thus erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi for he was a priest of the most high God in fauour of their sacrifice where it is and he vvas a priest of the high God neither let them aunswere me that the coniunction vau doeth sometimes signifie for that is not the question but whether it so signifieth in this place And because they vaunte of antiquitie in this point Freculph in the first booke of his historie and 42 chap. saith that Melchizedech in refectionem ipsius Abrahae panem vinumque protulit Melchizedech brought forth bread and wine for the refreshing of Abraham I will follow this matter of translations no further at this time By this euery one may gather why they forsake the pure Hebrewe and Greeke fountaines and drinke of the corrupt Latin streames I come in the second place to the denial of plaine Scriptures In the 3. of the Galat. and 10. ver it is thus written for as many as are of the deedes of the law are vnder the curse for it is written cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to doe them in which words the Apostle doth thus reason They which cannot fulfill the law are vnder the curse But no man can fulfill the law ergo If this be not the Apostles assumption the Galatians might haue answered Paul that they could fulfil the law and therefore were not vnder the curse Yet the Papists teach that man may fulfil Gods law and so cut the sinewes of S. Pauls reason Secondly in the 4. to the Rom. and 11. verse circumcision is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith out of which place we gather that we are not iustified by the sacraments The Papists to elude the place answer it followeth not that it is so in all because it was so in the patriarchs this answer disioynteth the Apostles argument which is this As Abraham was iustified so are all men iustified But Abraham was iustified without the sacraments Therefore all men are so iustified In the 6. of the Rom. and 27. ver it is saide that the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. S. Pauls speach is corrected by the Rhemists saying the sequele of the speach required that as he saide death or damnation is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipende of iustice To see papists sit as it were in iudgement of the Scriptures to alow or disalow sentences at their pleasure is the most notorious example of Hereticall pride and miserie that can be Againe in the 6. to the Rom. and 12. v. concupiscence is called sinne yet denied by them to be sinne If the scripture had so said they might well haue expounded it as they doe namely the occasions and matter of sinne But caÌ„not one thing be properly sinne and the occasion of sinne let Augustine then be controlled who in his 5. book contra Iul. Pelag. and 3. chap. writeth thus Sicut caecitas cordis peccatum est poena peccati causa peccati it a concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati causa peccati As blindnes of heart is sinn and a punishment of sinne and a cause of sinn so likewise is concupiscence sinne because it disobeieth the rule of the minde and a punishment of sinne and a cause of sinne Augustines syllogisme is this That which is disobedience to the gouernment of the minde is sinne But concupiscence is disobedience to the gouernement of the minde Therefore concupiscence is sinne Also in the 5. of the Roman and 14. vers Paul prooueth all men to be sinners because of death yet is the virgin Marie exempted from sinne which strengtheneth Pelagius his opinion For he might denie the argument Infants die therefore they are no sinners because Marie died and yet was no sinner In the 1. to the Corinthians and 10. chap. S. Paul beateth downe the conceit of the Corinthians coÌ„cerning the sacraments For the Iewes did eate Christ in their sacraments Yet the Papists will haue our sacraments to giue grace ex opere operato of the worke wrought and so make the Apostles argument to be of no force For the Corinthians might haue replied our sacraments giue grace to them that receiue them therfore we cannot be dismaied with the examples of the Israelites Furthermore in the 9. of the Hebrewes the 25. vers Christ is said to haue offered himselfe but once because he suffered but once The Apostles reason is this Christ died but once Therefore he suffered but once Lastly Hebr. 10. and 8. ver the Apostles conclusion is seeing there is remission of sinnes there is no more offering for sinne Therefore it followeth inuincibly that the masse is not a sacrifice for sinne Yet the papists assertion must needes frustrate both these arguments of the Apostle From the deniall of scripture I come to the addition of the same which argueth extreame despeâ—atenes The Councell of Laodicea 59. canon reiecteth the books which we doe and commandeth ne aliqui praeterea legantur in authoritatem recipiantur that non besides be read and receiued into authority Ruffinus likewise in his exposition vpon the Creede reiecteth the same and will not haue them alleadged ad authoritatem fidei confirmandam for the confirmation of faith Cirill of Hierusalem in the 4. booke of his Catech. writeteth thus Lege scripturas sacras nempÃ¨ viginti duos veteris testamenti libros read the holy scriptures namely the two and twentie bookes of the old testament I passe ouer Hieroms authority and Nazianzens with Eusebius Epiphanius and Lyraes

olim habebant in lege legales in curandis leprosis The Evangelical priests haue that power and office in forgiuing and retaining of siinnes which in times past the legall priestes had in curing of the lepers nowe euery man knoweth that they did but declare them to be healed The 7. Contradiction Picus Mirandula in his first question about Christ his descent into hell affirmeth that Scotus in sacris literis non parÃ¹m exercitatus dicit quod ex sacra scriptura non habetur quod Christus descenderit ad inferos Scotus being vvell studied in the Bible teacheth that it is not prooued out of the holie writte that Christ descended into hell yet it is notorious to see how the Papists do lustely pull hayle the Scriptures to prooue this matter The same Picus in the before named question bringeth forth Durandus testimonie first concerning his learning and then setting downe his wordes Videtur quod Christus secundum animam non de scenderit ad infernum quia idem finitum non potest simul esse in diuersis locis sed anima Christi cum esset creatura finita statim post mortem fuit in paradi so cuÌ„ anima latronis cui dictum est Lucae 23. hodie mecum eris in Paradiso ergo tunc saltem non potuit esse in miseria It should seeme that Christ in soule went not dovvne into hell because the same finit thing caÌ„not be at one time in many places but the soule of Christ beeing a finit creature was by and by after death in paradise with the theeves soule to vvhome it vvas saide Luke 23. this day thou shalt be with me in paradise therefore then it could not be in hell Againe Quae Christus fecit passus est in natura assumpta ordinata fuerunt ad salutem humanam sed ad hanc non profuisset quÃ²d Christus ad inferos descendisset quiaper passionem quam Christus in hoc mundo sustinuit liberauit nos ab omni culpa poena Those things that Christ did and suffered in his assumpted humane nature were ordained for mans saluation but it furthered not this that Christ went into hell because by his passion which he suffred in this world he deliuered vs from all guilt and punishment The conclusion is that Christ descended not locally into hell but by operation and effect The 8 Contradiction Melchior Canus in his 12. booke of common places and thirteene chapter page 450 teacheth that in Christi voluntate intellectuali quae propriÃ¨ voluntas est non tristitia modo sed summa maxima fuit In Christs intellectuall will which is properly vvill there vvas not onely sorrow but exceeding great heauinesse and this he prooueth thus In hostia pro peccato potissimum desideratur voluntatis tristitia sacrificium quippe deo spiritus contribulatus In the sacrifice for sinne is desired especially the sorrow of the will for a troubled spirit is a sacrifice vnto god his syllogisme is this Christ offered the most acceptable sacrifice vnto God But the most acceptable sacrifice to God is sorow in the will Ergo Secondly he prooueth it because that Iesus Christ did those things for vs which doe especially manifest his loue but herein namely in suffering in soule is his loue especially manifested Ergo Other reasons for this purpose are alleadged by him but in the ende hee concludeth that Christus was derelictus Ã deo omnique penitus destitutus solatio that Christ was forsaken of god and altogether destitute of all comfort If Galuin had written so how should he haue beene reuiled and taunted by the papists who accuse vs of blasphemie because that we say he suffered in soule Notwithstanding Ferus vpon the 27. of Math. goeth further and teacheth that Christus desperationem piorum in se recepit Christ tooke vpon him the despaire of the godly Yet nowe who knoweth not the contrarie is helde by the papists namely that Christus non grauitate suppliciorum sed actionum pondere iustitiae diuine satisfecit that Christ satisfied Gods iustice not by sustaining any grieuous punishment but by the weight or excellencie of his actions The 9. Contradiction Aquinas in his 2. 2 quaest 91. artic secundo responsione adquartum writeth that instrumenta musica magis movent animum ad delectationem quam vt per ed formetur interius bona dispositio Instruments of musicke do rather stirre vp the minde to delight theÌ„ frame any good disposition in it and answereth the Papists arguments brought for them In veteri Testamento vsus erat talium instrumentorum tum quia populus erat magis durus carnalis vnde erat per huiusmodi instrumenta provocandus sicut per promissiones terrenas tum etiam quia huiusmodi instrumenta corporalia aliquid significabant In the olde Testament there was vse of such instruments because the people were hard and carnall whereby it commeth to passe that they were to be excited by such instruments as by earthly promises and also because such corporall instruments did praesigne some thing Howe this agreeth to Bellarmines defence of them let the Papists themselues iudge The same Aquinas also in the same place saith Nobilior modus est provocandi homines ad devotioneÌ„ per doctrinam praedicationem quÃ m per cantum It is a more excellent kinde of vvay to excite and provoke the people to deuotion by doctrine and preaching then by singing And therefore praelati non debent cantibus insistere ne per hoc Ã maioribus retrahantur Prelates ought not to insist in singing least men by this thing should be drawen from greater matters The 10. Contradiction The Counsel of Basill 36. sessio holdeth that the Virgin Mary was Immunis ab omni peccato originali free from all original sinne and forbiddeth all men to preach the contrary So do many more Papists hold yet Aquinas prooueth the contrarie 3. part quaest 27. artic 2. first because that sanctificatio non est nisi emundatio Ã peccato originali culpa autem non potest emundari nisi per gratiam cuius subiestum est sola creatura rationalis Sanstification is nothing els but a clensing from originall sinne now sinne cannot be purged but onely by grace the subiect whereof is onely a reasonable creature Secondly because sola creatura rationalis est susceptiua culpae only a reasonable creature is capable of sinne if Mary had no sinne then shee should haue needed no Sauiour but Christ saued the people and therefore Mary Thus whiles the Papists pretende to honour Mary and so Christ they rob Christ of his glorie and honour which is to bee Maries sauiour The 11. Contradiction It is held by Papists that in Purgatorie satisfaction is made to God for mans sinnes but Aquinas telleth vs the contrary in his supplement quaest 5. artic 3. for being vrged by this reason that paena purgatorii ad satisfactoria pro peccato sed satisfactio habet efficaciam ex vi

Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Text snippets containing the quad