Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	according_a	church_n	doctrine_n	4,717	5	6.8021	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36913	Luthers Alcoran being a treatise first written in French by the learned Cardinall Peron, of famous memory, against the Hugenots of France, and translated into English by N.N.P. : the page following sheweth the particular contents of the booke, which consisteth of symbolismes, parallells, identities.	Du Perron, Jacques Davy, 1556-1618.; N. N. P.	1642 (1642)	Wing D2638; ESTC R480	118,976	240

The deniall of the Epistle to the Hebrews was anciently condemned by Philastrius (4) Haeres â—â— Which Epistle is in like sort reiected at this present by many Lutherans as is shewed aboue in the former Treatise Identity 57. The deniall of the Apocalypâ— by the Heretiks Alogiani was condemned by S. Austin (5) Aust de Haer. Haeresâ— 30. and Epiphanius (6) Epiphan Haeres 3â— The same booke is not accounted Canonicall by Luther and some other Lutherans as may appeare in the former discourse Identity 58. The obiecting in respect of the Sacrament the grosse and Carnall â—ating of humane flesh the which Obiection the Sacramentaries make at this present was condemned by Iustinus (7) Iustinus in colloq cuâ— Triphone Martyr Tertullian (8) Tertull. in Apologâ—â— c. 7. Origen (9) Origen l. â—â— contra Câ—lsum Eusebius (10) Eusebius Histor l. 5. cap. 1. Prudentius (11) Prudentius in Hyâ—â—no oe S. Lâ—â—rentio and others Identity 59. Appearing Innouation without comming out from of an Elder Society was condemned in the ancient Heretikes by Vincentius (12) Vincent aduers Haer. c. â— c. â—â— 34. Lyrinensis S. (13) Aug. l. 3. de Baptism contra Donat. Austin and S. (14) Ierom. contra Luâ—â—â— in fine Ierome And yet the Lutherans though late appearing cannot proue that they came out touching doctrine from any elder Society Identity 60. Lastly which heere I will alledg The obiecting of many Parts of our Christian Religion to be taken from the Gâ—â—ills the which Kempâ—â—tius (15) Kempâ—â—tius in Exaâ—â— Conâ— Tridpâ—rt 3. pag. â—â— 8â— and Repâ—â—idâ—s an English (16) In his booke de Romen Eccles Idolas pa. 10â— 24â— â—â—â— c. Writer do obiect against vs Catholiks is condemned by S. Austin (17) S. Austin condemneth this in the Manichees contra Faust Maniech l. â—0 ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ â—â— and de Ciuitate Dei l. 10. c. 19. and Epist 49. Tertullian (18) Tertull. l. de Praescripâ— cap. 40. S. Ierome (19) Ierom. l. â— contra Iouin post medium and Origen (20) Origen l. â— contra Celsum ante medium Loe here My Countrimen I haue presented to your eye a large Glasse to behould your fayth in made of threescore Protestanticall Points formees sur le moul des anciens Heretiques wrought vpon the Anuise of the old Heretiks and condemned for Heresies by the Church of Christ in those dayes What can you say hereto Will you vrge that howsoeuer this be yet this proueth your Religion to be ancient Yf any of you be of such transparency of iudgment as thus to reply let him remember that as these his doctrines were ancient so also that they were anciently condemned And we ought to haue as great a loathing of ancient Heresies as of but yesterdayes Nouellismes Secondly we are to obserue that Protestancy was not nâ—re in being in its full Orbe in those dayes Because only this or that point thereof was houlden by this or that Anonymus or obscure Fellow Whereas now all the former Points aboue rehearsed are become as it were so many seuâ—rall Ingredients of all which the Compâ—and of your Reformed Religion is made And the men belieuing in those firster dayes the said Points were in compare of the worth and celsitude of the Fathers condemning them but as Bow thrubs ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ to be moden vpon by euery onâ— in respect of ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ high Cediâ—â—â— of ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Well heere I am to acquainâ— yet that some of our more learned Aduersaries who are not a litle moued through the great scandall risen against them for their owne knowne Opinions so condemned by the Primitiue Church haue therefore not as in clearing of themselues which they cannot but by way of recrimination endeauored to returne the like vpon vs thinking insufficient honour if they can be able but to leaue things perplexed and doubtfull They hearing themselus herein like to that man who in a Duellismâ— or single Combat doth not so much expect to get an absolute Victory ouer his Enemy but holds it glory inough if he can come off with giuing as many and as dangerous wounds as himselfe receaued O Weaknes of iudgment since Truth consisteth in a fâ—â—â—e establishment of it selfe and not in a seeming redargution of the Contrary Doctrine According to this Method some of our Aduersaries haue pretended that many of our now Catholike Opinions were in like manner condemned by the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church I will particularly insist in the writings of one Willettâ—s a Protestant of England making choice of some few of his Instances of this nature thereby to shew the impostâ—â—â— peâ—sidy and want of all Ingenuity and vprightâ—es in such his proceedings This Authour then in hiâ— booke catiâ—â—led Intrastylâ—n Papismâ— giueth an example of a Woman saying Harcellina the companion of Carpocrates was noted of Heresy in that the vsed worship to the Images of Iesus and of Paul as S. (20) August Haeref 7. Augustine witnesseth I answere that this Authour vseth fraud herein For S Austins words are Colebat Imagines Iesu Pauliâ— Homeri Pythagorae adorando incensumque ponendo She did worship the Images of Iesus of Paul of Homer and Pythagoras and she offered incense vnto them Which point Epiphanius further exployneth saying of this Carpâ—crates and his followers Insuper (21) Epiphan Haeref 27. Philosopheâ—â—â— quorundam c. They placed the Image of Iesus with the Images of the Philosophers Pithagoras Aristotle c. and did afterwards keepe the â—â—tes of the Pagans Now what is this to vs Catholiks Do we worship the Images of the Philosophers Or do we obserue the rytes of the Pagans Or do we offer incense to any Image He secondly produceth the Heretiks called Heraclionitae who he sayth after a new custome purged and redeemed those that were dead by annointing their bodies with Oyle and Balme S. Austin (22) Haeref 1â— witnesseth also this Now how impertinently is this obiected against vs S. Austins words are these Feruntur suos morieutes nouo tuedo redimere id est pet Oleum belsamum aquam inuocationes quas Haeâ—â—aicis verbis dicunt super capita eoâ—um c. But we Catholiks do neither annoint nor baptise the dead neither do we pray by vsing such Innocations ouer the heads of the dead such strange detortion of S. Austins words is here vsed Thirdly he insimulates the Catholiks ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ the Heresies of the Taâ—â—ani who sayth he did condemne Mariage and accounted it no better then Fornication and did not receaue any married Persons in suorum numerum into their number S. Austin (24) Austin so witnesseth Haeres 24. How can this touch vs For we do not equall Mariage with Fornication We know all our Ancestours were maried and we teach that Mariage is a Sacrament Fourthly he sayth The Pepusiani allow Women to be Priests In like manner the Papists do suffer their Women to conferre Baptisme Austin witnesseth this of the

liberis familia vacant The Turkith Priestâ— haue wyues and all their care and imployment as about their wyfe their Children and family Yea the Turks are so great enemyes to Virginity as that the former (2) Septemcastr c. â—3 Historian and others (3) Richerius lib. dâ— moribus Tercerum dediâ—ated 10 Francis king of France thus record of Mahumet Mahumetes multum vrget ne quis maturÃ¢ atate eutra matrimonium degat Mahumet much presseth that not any of full and ripe ago should liue out of the stace of Matrimony Mahumet further teacheth as another Historian recordeth That Veluptateâ— (4) Cuspin do Religione Turearum corperis futarae faelicitati minime obsunt The pleasures of the Bedy are ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ hinderances to future felicity whiâ—â— is included in the eight Azoara of the Alâ—â—ran touching multiplicity of wiues Well now my deare Countrimen of France Is not all this good Hugenâ—tisâ—â—â— or Proteâ—tancy Let vs examine the Particulars And first touching Marying of Priests or of Ministers among those or that Reformed Religion What Minister among them almost this soubâ—â—le protexte vaile de la gloirâ— dâ— Dieâ— vnder the recture forsooth of Gods glory who is not matried And how ready are they wrongfully to detorâ— in defence of their Mariage those Words of the Apostle Honorabile (5) Hebr. 1â— Connubium in omnibuâ— A wife indeed is so inseparable a Character of our new Ministers as that a Minister without a Woman is but Halfe himselfe and wanteth that which conduceth to the ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ or perfect accomplishment of his function So much doth the Flash dominere in these good men who vaunt themselues to be All-spirit who indeed liuing in flesh do also liuâ— after the flesh Now touching the aduancement of mariage in all persons without exception and depressing of Virginity with Mahumet and Sergius Iâ— is most strange to obserue what the pens of your chiefe Professours haue left written The first broaches of the vnsavery Vessell of your Religion thus balanceth Matrimony with Virginity saying If we (6) Luther tom â— Wiâ—temberg ad cap 7.1 Corfol 107. weigh the Nature of Matrimony and single ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ vnmaried lyfe in themselues Matrimony is ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Gould and the spirituall state of single lyfe as Dunge To whome subscribeth Whitakerus saying Virginity (7) Whitaâ—â— contra Comp. rat 8. is not absolutly good but only in some respect and manner And hence it is that the forsaid Luther more fully thus expresseth himselfeâ— He that (8) Luther tom 7. Epist ad Wolfgengum folâ— â—0â— determineth to be without a Woman let him leaâ—â— of the name of a man and become a plaine Angell or spirit A goatish assertion Concerning the other point aboue mentioned where Mahumet decreed that if we will belieue the Alcoran the Pleasures of the Body are no lets to future felicity It is the very doctrine of Luther inuested in other words who ascribeth so much to Fayth as that no corporall Pleasure how vnlawfull soeuer or any other sinne can preiudice a Mans Saluation His words are these Tam (9) Luther com 1. Wittemb de Captiuie Babyl fol. 74. diust est Christianus c A Christian is so â—ith as that though otherwise he would notwithstanding he cannot loose his Saluation by any sâ—nne how great seeuer except he will not belieue And hereupon Luther further thus catechizeth his Schollers No (10) Luther in his Sermons worke is dirallowed of God except the authour and worker thereof be disallowed With whom the fornamed Whitakerâ—s accordeth in these words full of incirement to sinnet Si (11) Whitak de Eccles contra Bellarm. controuer 2. quaest 5. quis actum fidei babet â—i peccatae non nocent Thus fortably to these mens Ghospell no pleasure or sinne as Mahumet toucheth can hinder mans future Happines Thus much of these formes Points And of this last point more fully hereafter The 22. Symbolisme Concerning the coniunction of Ecclesiasticall supreme Authority with temporall Authority CHAP. XXII TO come to other Symbolysms and Agreements betweene Mahumet your Grand-Maisters Mahumet to his temporall Authority adioyned spirituall Authority making himselfe supreme (1) Cuspin in Mahumeto Head of his Church if so I may call it and by force and violence of such his authority proposed to his subiectâ— and vassaâ—s only such pointâ— of fayth â—nd not any others to be belieued which he had caused to be set downe in the Alcâ—raâ— Thus making his sword his Mâ—yses or some new Euangeâ—ist to ordaine what was to be belieued and what not And do not most of our Protestant writers maintaine the same spirituall Authority in secular Princes And do not the said secular Princes put the same in execution True it is that diuers of your Religion teach That the first Popes were but as Tuâ— tours only so to speake of the stâ—te of thâ— Church during the time other Infancy But to the Temporall Prince they affoard at most absolute Primacy and Soueraigâ—â—ys ouer the Church Heare what Musculâ—r who seemeth that il abiâ—â— priâ—â—n tincture de Mahumet he hath receaued some dye from Mahumet herein writeth of this point saying Confidenter (2) Mâ—scul in loc com de Magistrat pag. 570. 520. asserimus omnens eam potestatem c We confidently auer that all that Power by the which Authenticall Lawes bynding the Consciences of subiects are constituted whether they be called Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall Lawes do neither belong to the Church that is to the Multitude of the faythfull neither to the Ministers of the Word of God but only to the Magistrate to whom is giuen Soueraingty and Command ouer the subiects And according to this doctrine almost all Protestant Princes in most CouÌ„tter where they reigne do challenge to themselues an vnappealable soueraingty supremacy in all Ecclesiasticall Causes The first example whereof they tooke of King Henry the eight of that Name King of England Who was the first as elswhere is shewed in this Treatise that dared to vendicate to himselfe Supreme spirituall authority prescribing what Articles of fayth should be belieued and what not as is auerâ—ed by some Catholike Writers (3) Sanderus de Schismate Auglicano of that Nation And here we are to obserue that as Mahumet and temporall Protestant Princes did indifferently erect themselues Heades of the Church within their owne Ditions dominioÌ„s So also what places of Scripture Protestant Princes by misconstruing of them may alledge in warrant of this their assumed Exoticall authority the very same Text of holy Writ may Mahumet with as much reason produce with them in defence of his pretended Ecclesiasticall Primacy Thuâ— for example Mahumet may alledg in behalfe of himselfe through the same construction of them which the Protestants giue these Texts besides others following Omnis (4) Râ—m â—â— Anima Potestati sublimiâ—ri subdita esse debet idque non propter iram sed propter conscientiam Euery soule ought to be subiect

ad Mahumetâ— some nyne hundred yeares since or more to wit within some fifty or more yeares after S. Grogery the Great Mahumet first appeared to the World and planted his Religion Which his Religion hath euer from that time continued euen to this day without any Interruption Now Lutheranisme in compare hereof is of so late a date as that being first broached by Luther it is not past one hundred yeares since it was first heard off According to which my speaches we find that Bucer the Protestant doth stile Luther Primum (1) Bucer in Epistâ—an to 1536. ad Episcop Hereford Apostolum purioris Euâ—ligeliâ—â— the first Apostle of the Reformed Religion Another Lutheran thus writeth ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ (2) Georgius Milutus in Augustan Confess explicat art 7. â—ntecessâ—â—â— Lutherus in â—fficiaâ—â—bersset c. If Luther had any Predecesso ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ and function then there had been ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ of â—uthers Reformation In like manner a thirâ— confesseth in this sort It is impudency (3) Schâ—ussenberg in Theolog Caluinist l. 2. fol. â—10 toâ—maintaine that any learned men did bâ—â—ld the doctrine of the Ghospell in Germany before Luthers dayes A fourth thus writeth Iâ— is â—ridiculous (4) Bernard Morgenstern Erect de Eccles pag. 145. to thinke that before Luthers dayes any had the purity of the Ghospell considering it is euidenâ—â—â—â—â—he whole World that before Luthers time all Churches were drowned in more then a â—yâ—mtriâ—â— darknes To contract this pointâ—â— Luther himselfe thus boasteth hâ—â—â— of iâ— ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Ã ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ primÃ² â—â—â—gainâ—â— audemusâ— gloriari We dare vaunt that Christ was first ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ The 6. Parallell Touching Vniuersality of Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme CHAP. VI. ANother Prerogatiue is to be dispersed through many Nationâ— Countries For this respect also is Mahumetisme superiour to Lutheranisme For Mahumetisme possessed in former Ages as also at this present as aboue I haue declared a part of Persiâ— Tartaria India Asia Minor Arabia Mauritania Bathory c. Wheras Lutheranisme is confined and circumscribed as it were within most narrow Precincts of England Scotland some small parts of France some parts of Flanders some parts of Germany of Denmarke of Sweueland of Traâ—siluania Which Religion as yet neuer did set foote our of Europe The 7. Parallell Concerning Vnity of doctrine in Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme CHAP. VIII THe third Prerogatâ—â—e shal be Vnity in Doctrine Certaine it is that in the Turks dominions Wherein Mahumetisme hath been first planted and in which the same Religion at this day reigneth there hath been and still is Great Vnity in that Religion And hence it proceedeth that in those Nations subiect to the Turke there are very few or no Bookes written among themselues wherein any diuersity of Fayth or Points in religion is maintayned and defended for if any such were written the Historiographers of their Countryes Nature and Religion would make some relation of them would not passe so great a matter ouer in silence Therfore it followeth that the Mahumetans and Turks with a ioynt consent for the most part preach and practize the same points of Religion without difference or contradiction among themselues Now how far distant our New Ghospell is from Vnity it is a world to obserue into how many Sects Lutteranisme is deuided and distracted The first disagrement among them is their Account of (1) Touching the retecting of these bookes See Luther in Prafat in Epist. Iacobi c. Kempnitius in Euchiridio p. â—â— Adanius Praucisâ—â— in Margarita Theol. p. 448. The Centuvists cent 1. l. 2. c. 4. Bullinger vpon the Apocalypâ— c. 1. Canonicall Scripture Luther and such as are most linked to him in obseruaÌ„cy do reiect as Apocryphall the booke of Wisdome the second Epistle of Peter as els where I haue noted the second and third of Iohn the Episle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps All which Bookes are commonly acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture by the Swingliani Caluinists Their disagrements (2) Touching their mutual reprehensions herein see Osiander his reprehensions mentioned by Luther in Colloq Mensal â—idis Germ. sol 145. So also Beza in respons ad defâ—â—l responâ— Cast allouis Also Beza in Testam 1556. in prafas Hospintaâ—â— in â—istoria 8â— cram part ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ tera fol. 183. Moliâ—aus in â—ua Translatione noui Testam part 12. fol. 110. Castatio in defens Translâ—t pag 170. Secondly are touching the Translation of such Bookes of Scripture which they all acknowledge for Canonicall The Translators of it to wit Luther Swinglius Oâ—colampadius Caluin Biza Castalâ—o in great acerâ—ity of Words do reciprocally charge one anothers Translation with sacriledge corrupting the sense of the Holy Ghost with making the Tent to leapâ—vy downe with actually changing the Tent sinally with sacrilegious for all these are their owne Words Ethuicall and wicked proceeding therein Their next disagreement consists among those who in a more restrained sense are called (3) Of this poins see Nicolaus Galiuâ— in Thesibus Hypothesibus Lutherans for their main tayning of the Reall Presence Of these men some are called Osiandrians others Maiâ—rists others Placcians others Adiaphorists others agains Phiquitaries ech of these holding all the rest for Heretikes Another disagreement is betwene the Lutherans so called in a limited sense and the Caluinists Concerning which point we may aduertize you that the Bookes written by the Protestants against the Protestants in matter of fayth only and Religion do amount to seuerall Hundreds as may be gathered out of Iâ—docus Coccius his Thesaurus out of Hospinian in his historia Sacramentaria part altera and finally from the Catalogues of Bookes returned for many yeares past from Franckford Thus farre I hould it conuenient to discourse in generall of the disagreements Vant of Vnity in Fayth â—mong our New Brethren And now I referre to your owne iudgment My Countrimen whether a greaterâ—ble mish resteth vpon the face of Lutheranisms or of Mehumetisme to recapitulate a liâ—â—e if we respect touching fayth and Religion either Antiquity Multitude of Belieuers or Veâ—ity in Doctrine The 8. Parallell Whether Mahumet or the Lutherans stand more chargeable in teaching God to be the Authour of Sinne CHAP. IX I Will now descend to parallell and waigh the particular Opinions or Articles maintained seuerall wayes by Mahumet and Luther and his Schollers and so by conferring them together we may obserue whether Sentence is lesse iustifiable I wil begin with the Questions Whether God be the Authour of sinne or not 's Mahumet teacheth That God is not the Authour of sinne Your first Maysters teach That he is the Authour of sinne That Mahumet or Sergiuâ— did not teach God to be the Authour of sinne I thus prous First we find no such Tenet or Article thereof in the Alcoran But if they had taught this Doctrine that God were the Authour of sinne they would infallibly haue placed is in their Alcorans Which Books they made ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ it were to become the Catechisme of

Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Text snippets containing the quad