Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	authority_n	child_n	parent_n	1,909	5	8.7664	4	true

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

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

Rebellion of al discontented Persons and Papists Further they teach that oathes are not to be performed to Hereticks easily doth the Pope dispence with them Who then is so patient as to endure this simple fellowes foolish prating these cut-throate Priestes will murder honest men their soules shal sue them for periury is not this trow you a goodly deuice Whether he speake for his owne cause or against vs his idle talke is not much to be regarded that either affirmeth matters nakedly vpon his owne bare word or bringeth no better witnesse then Nicol Borne Genebrard Baronius Thomas Aquinas such like or alleadgeth Scriptures impertinently and falselye or else belyeth his aduersaries shamefully Against Caluin hee bringeth a place out of his Institutions as if he taught that by religion men might disobey Princes lawes a matter neither taught nor euer thought vpon by him To what end then bringeth he allegations out of Scriptures and Fathers to disprooue this rebellious position would hee haue all the world to see that Papists disobeying Princes vpon the Popes warrant repugne both to Scriptures and Fathers His skill in Diuinitie we may easily conjecture not to be singular For first he preferreth the will of man in his conuersion before Gods grace Religion sayth he is not transfused with flesh and blood but infused by God with consent of our will and operation of grace Secondly he maketh mans blood an oblation for sinne and a mediation of others conuersion Thirdly he assigneth Aureolam martyrum that is a degree aboue the coÌ„mon glory of Gods Saints as a rewarde due to Martyrs for their passion Fourthly he sayth Many Virgins haue liued in the flesh like Angels But to say that man can liue without sinne is Pâ—â—gianisme Lastly his groundes are out of Tho. Aquinas and the School-men Is it then like that his Babylonian building wil long stand His notable simplicitie is euery where apparant For seeking king the Kings fauour he rayleth on Religion professed by the King Pleading for the Pope he ouerthroweth the authoritie of the Pope For if the authoritie of Kings be from God then cannot Popes discharge subjectes from their dutie and obedience to Princes Shewing him-selfe vnable to write or to dispute yet most simply he chalengeth vs all into the field offring to dispute with vs. Lastly wanting other meanes he maketh the King a petitioner vnto him-selfe His honesty cannot be great that rayleth against the dead flattereth such as are able to fauour him belyeth both the liuing and dead By Popes sayth he alwayes Countryes haue beene conuerted Yet for many yeares haue they giueÌ„ ouer preaching and lately haue suffered the Turkish religioÌ„ to eniambe get ground vpon Christians He saith further That our Church began but yesterday that our teachers want authoritie that our doctrine hath the markes of heresie that we pull at Christs diuinitie make him no redeemer spirituall Phisitian law-giuer Priest nor Iudge but make him ignorant desperate and damned He chargeth vs further that we haue neither Priest Sacrifice Sacrament nor Prayer matters impudently and without all colour of truth auowched as shall plainly appeare by our answer If when he commeth to dispute he bring no more truth Children will â—isse him out of Schooles for an impudent and lying compagnion These being the principall poyntes and whole somme of this rude Orators pleading before his Majestie wherein no dout he hath made the fairest shew he could of such base wares We may easily imagine that his speech to the common reader is more rude harsh and disioynted In the beginning of his epistle he ruÌ„neth out like a wilde discourser into a long sencelesse and vnreasonable speach concerning inanimate vnreasonable creatures But it must needes be a dull dead and vnreasonable cause that hath such dead vnreasonable aduocates to plead for it He turneth the Sunne into a Cocke a Candle and birds into Carpenters brute beastes into hearbists But whereto tendeth this brutish discourse voyde both of the light of the Sunne and of the light of reason doth he place his consortes among feathered fooles or else among brute beasts from sencelesse creatures in which ranke we may place a good parte of this Surueyer and his consortes he leapeth to brute beastes and froÌ„ brute beastes to man And yet nothing he writeth that may beseeme a sensible creature much lesse a reasonable and discreete man The end and marke of all his wilde vagary is this to shewe that because God hath giuen vs a will wholy bent to good and an vnderstanding naturally enclined to truth auerted from all vntruthes he hath therfore made an exact Suruey of the new ReligioÌ„ as he saith But first these things hang no better together then if he should say he would to Rome because Totnam is foure miles from London and Doway is turned Spanish For man may haue an vnderstanding and will and yet frame no such false surueyes Nay if this surueyor had either had any vnderstanding or good purpose he would neuer haue imployed his labour in such a lewde peece of seruice Further neither dooth mans wil desire any good thing tending to eternall life or vnderstand any such thing so long as he is vnregenerate by Gods grace The wordes of the Apostle are cleare There dwelleth no goâ—d thing in my flesh And againe the naturall man vnderstandeth not the things that are of God Thirdly if mans will vnderstanding had beene so inclined as he pretendeth then would Kellison neuer haue liued vnder the yoke of Poperie nor beleeued the absurdities of popish Religion of which we shall speake God willing particularly heereafter Fourthly so farre is his suruey from exactnesse as a surfet of foolery from sound vnderstanding and reason Finally nothing shall this K. bee able to alleadge in our Religion that abhorreth eyther from reason or rule of good vnderstanding The mission and calling of our Bishops and Ministers shal be iustified against all the barking of Masse-Priestes and Iesuites The markes of Hereticks shall be wiped from our selues deeply imprinted vpon our aduersaries Our Doctrine shal be cleared from the vniust imputations of our aduersaries and euerie indifferent man satisfied that we neither empayre Christes honor nor deny his Preesthood But contrariwise the Papists communicate Christs honor to creatures his preest-hood to Masse-Priestes We shall also proue by plaine euidence that we vpholde the authoritie of Princes and their lawes which the Papists ouerthowe and despise Wee doubt not further to demonstrate that none of vs euer taught that God is author of sinne or cruell or tyrannicall in his proceedings Finally we should bee much ashamed if vices and all impieties were not better censured and punished in England then in Italy Spaine and other popish Countries These matters which Kellison vanteth that hee will make good against vs haue been not onely formerly obiected vnto vs by William Raynoldes and D. Gifford in their rayling volume intituled Caluino-turcismus but also

Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Text snippets containing the quad