Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	aaron_n	authority_n	draw_v	12	3	5.2747	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20986	The principall points of the faith of the Catholike Church Defended against a writing sent to the King by the 4. ministers of Charenton. By the most eminent. Armand Ihon de Plessis Cardinal Duke de Richelieu. Englished by M.C. confessor to the English nuns at Paris.; Principaux poincts de la foi de l'Eglise Catholique. English	Richelieu, Armand Jean de plessis, duc de, 1585-1642.; Carre, Thomas, 1599-1674, attributed name.	1635 (1635)	STC 7361; ESTC S121027	167,644	376

himselfe from it without schisme and without straying from the Pathes of saluation but now the tymes are changed the circunstances we are in are others corruption hath so crept into the Romane Church that she is no more to be tearmed Ã Church and hence it was that you both could and ought to depart out of it But this euasion will not serue your turne for the Fathers did not dispute of the truth of the Churches doctrine and thence inferred that the Donatists were scismatikes because they were seperated from the Church who had the true doctrine though indeede it was true but they disputed about the Chaire of S. Peter of Pastorall authoritie brought downe from him by an uninterrupted succession concluding the Donatists Schismatikes because they were diuided from this Chaire and from S. Peters successours sitting in the same No otherwise then one would conuince subiects to be rebelles who should seperate themselues from the Royall throne and from the successour of the first Instituters of this Throne and as in the old law the Samaritans may be concluded to haue bene heretikes because they withdrew themselues from the Chaire of Moyses or Aaron That the Principle whence the Fathers drew their arguments was pastorall authoritie and the Chaire of S. Peter and not the truth of the doctrine it doth manifestly appeare in that S. Cyprians a De Gnitat Eccles Ep. 55â— citat reason is because the Chaire of Peter is the fundation vpon which the Church is built and from whence preistly vnitie takes its origine And that of Optatus b lib. 2. Cisat because in this onely Chaire of S. Peter the vnitie of the Church is conserued And S. Ireneus c lib. 3.5.3 cis son that Peters Chaire enioyes the cheifest power S. Hierome d Epist 57. cit becaus the Chaire of S. Peter is that upon which the Church is built And to conclude because S. Augustin e Contrae Epist fundam c. 4. Tenet me ab ipsa sede Petri Gsque ad praesentem EpiscopataÌ„ successio Sacerdotum saith that the succession of Preists which descended from the Chaire of S. Peter held him in the Catholike Church and that this f In Psal contra partem Donati ipsa est Petra quam non Ginâ—uÌ„t superbia inferorum portae succession is the Rocke against which the Gates of Hell shall not preuayle Nor will your reply be any more to your purpose to witt that albeit the Fathers did indeed argue as we say yet had their argument force and efficacie from the truth of the doctrine which then was adioyned to this authoritie to this Chaire seeing that the Donatistes and Nouatians against whom they disputed did directly deney the truth of the doctrine to be in the Roman Church The a Ambr. lib cont Nouatian Nouatians improuing hir doctrine touching remission of sinns and the b August l. de hare haeres 69. Donatists condemning her opinion of baptising heretikes and admitting the wicked liuers into the Church Which makes Ã cleare demonstration that the Fathers did not make the truth of the doctrine the Principle of their arguments because that was as doubtfull both to the Donatists and Nouatians as the conclusion it selfe which they were to deduce from it for they deneyed both the one and the other Wherfore S. Donatus doth sufficiently make appeare that he argued from their owne confessions and that which they could not deney to witt that the chaire of Rome was S. Peters chaire c Opt. lib. 2. contra Parmen titat Thou canst not deney vnto me saith he but that thou knowest that S. Peter was the first vpon whom in Rome the Episcopall chaire was conferred in which onely Chaire vnitie was to be obserued by all Furthermore you cannot affirme that they formed their argument from the truth of the doctrine because you doe not allow it to haue bene pure at that tyme which is manifest in that d Beza in Rom. 8. Witat l. 7. contra Durae scit 26. you doe condemne the doctrine of Pope Siricius touching celibate or imgle life as the doctrine of the diuell aÌ„d that yet the Donatists were reputed Schismatikes euen for seperating theÌ„selues from communion with him e Opt. l. 2. For the rest though to proue Ã¢ man schismatique it were indeed necessarie to make good that he were seperated froÌ„ the Church as true Church yet should I not faile of my purpose being Ã most facile thing to conuince euen by the testimonies of your owne men that you accnowledge the Romane Church then to haue bene the true Church when you came out of it You accnowledge it both by the verie confession of a Caelu 4. instit c. 2. Â§. 11. 12. Epist 104. Du Plessis in the treatise of the Church c. 12. Osiander in Epito p. 2. your owne Authours and because b Du Plessis au trasctÃ© de l'Eglise chap. 81. Osiander loco citato you your selues deriue your authoritie from it whence it manifestly appeares thar you hold it to be true since otherwise you should deriue your power not from the Church of God but from Ã societie of the Diuell After all this there rests so litle for you to say that if your tongue would but faithfully interprete your conscience we should without doubt heare you condemne your selues the thing being so cleare and perspicuous that vnlesse you were more then blind or that seeing light you would not see it it were impossible but your soules casting the errour which they row professe should win their cause For if the Nouatians and Donatists vere by the Fathers sufficiently conuinced of schisme for that they were seperated from the Chaire of S. Peter and his successours therin you are also conuinced by the same argument since you are seperated from vs who haue alwayes keept the possession of the same Chaire without interruption of succession Your are certainly coÌ„uinced I speake to all your church and to you Ministers in particular who are not onely Schismatikes as are your flocke but withall Schismaticall Pastours for of your owne authoritie you haue established your selues Pastours not hauing receaued power froÌ„ those whose successours you should be Whence it followes that you are a Opt. l. 2. de â—ictore primo Episcopo DonatistaruÌ„ erat Filius sine Patre tyro sine Principe discipulus sine Magistro sequens sino antecedente Children without Fathers soldiers without Captaines successours without Predecessours Wherupon you shall giue meleaue to say vnto you with the Fathers b Tertul de praescript c. 32. Edant ergo Origines Ecclesiarum suaruÌ„ euoluant ordinem Episcoporum suorum c. Opt. l. 2. cont Parm. Vestrae Catbedrae Gos originem reddite c. Shew vs the origin of your chaire nor returne vs barely for answere that you are extraordinarily sent but bring Ã place of scripture to verifie your assertion You are obliged to produce such

the fift part of your subiects to witt the Church men who hold not themselues to belyable to the lawes of your Court yea for their temporallities they haue another whom they accnowledge soueraigne out of your kingdome To which adde that which the Pope pretends and that which he hath alreadie practised yea euen in our tyme to witt that he hath authoritie to depriue your Ma. of life and crowne what remaynes dread souueraigne but that your kingdome is held in homage to the Pope and that you liue and raigne at his discretion onely ANSWERE It is an old trike of craft when one is guiltie of Ã fault to put it vpon another Yet I stand astonishd to thinke how you dare make vse of if it against the whole Clergie of this kingdome whom you striue to make the king suspect accusing them of faction wherof they are wholy innocent and you generally knowen to be stickers in The nature of your Ministerie deptines you of credit in point of accusing priests for S. Augustine a Hareticorum accusationes coÌ„tra Catholicum prebyterum admittere nec possumâ—â— nec debemm doth teach vs that your accusations nether ought to be nether indeed can be admitted and that it is the trike of heretikes b Aug. Epist 137. Hoeretici non hahendo quod in causa sua defensionis defendant non nisi hominuÌ„ crimina colligere affectant ea ipsa plurafalsissime iactant vt quia ipsam diuine scripturae veritatem qua vbique diffusa Christi Ecclesia commendatur crimiuari obscurate non possunt homines per ques pradicatur adducant in odium de quibâ—â— fingere quitquid in mentem Generit possunt when they haue nothing to say to defende them selues in point of their diuision from the Catholike Church to make Ã list of meÌ„s faults and following their owne fancie falsly to inlarge them selues thervpon to bring them into hatred who teach the truth which they are notable to find faultie or to obscure Hauing alreadie sufficiently manifested in what manner you susteyned the dignitie of this crowne and how litle occasion you had to draw pride or vanitie from it I will onely obserue in this place that you doe too too far swarue from truth and modestie in saying that you are ill vsed in this kingdome and by assuring yourselues that if you were not hated and hardly treated for maintayning the dignitie therof you should for euer after be exeÌ„pt from all hatted and hard vsage To what purpose did you taxe the two first Orders of State accusing the one of factioÌ„ the other of weaknes preiudiciall to the kings Maiestie but to let the world see that when you beare Ã splene against any one wtih Ã wonderfull boldnes you faigne faults to diffame him though withont all fundation for none can beignorant but that if there were any faction it gott entrie by their meanes who out of tyme aÌ„d seasoÌ„ would needs moue Ã question wherof the Church Nobilitie and the greater part of the three states striue to stoppe the course moued therto by diuers reasons which in Ã few wonds I will deduce First because the questioÌ„ being meerly spirituall whether God had giueÌ„ power to the Church to depose kings in cases of heresie and in fidelitie when they doe not onely make profession of them but doe also shew theÌ„ selues persequutours of the name of Christ aÌ„d the true faith as also whether this power did aggree with the word of God or no finall whether it were lawfull to vrge all the people to take an oath wherby they should affirme that it was not according to Gods word which being handled in the assemblie a body composed of lay-persons could not intermeddle in it without sacriledge without intrenching vpon the liberties of others mounting into Moyses his chaire laying hand vpon the incensoir and consequently without exposing themselues to the desasters which are wont to follow such impious and sacrilegious enterprises Nay euen the Clergie it selfe of a particular Church as of the Church of France could not decide this point since it belongs to the vniuersall Church onely to define Articles of Faith Secondly because all the kings and states in Christendome hauing interest in this cause one onely kingdome could not iudge of it without the appouall and authoritie of all the rest Thirdly because the holy Sea being interressed in this matter your adherents who haue sworne its destruction and who esteeme the ruine therof their establishment could not be held impattiall iudges though some of them indeuoured to deale in it Fourthly because out of the definition which you aymed at there followed a most euident schisme by establishing an article of faith particular to the Churches of France not Catholike or common to the vniuersall Church whence there followed a diuision in faith Lastly because the decision of this question was not onely of no effect to the health and securitie of kings which was yet the sole end of the question but was euen preiudiciall vnto them as may be seene by that which that great Cardinall and honour of his age wrote vpon that subiect who doth most amply handle this matter with eloquence equall to the profunditie of learning which all the world admires in him These reasons being coÌ„sidered without passion will leaue no doubt in any man but that the Clergie-men were worthy of praise not of blame for refusing to decide a question which was proposed vnto them to a bad end nor did the decision therof belong vnto them And therfore it carries no colour but is quite contrarie to truth to accuse them of faction adding that they and a part of the nobilitie made the king loose his cause For how doe you not blush for shame to affirme this since it is notorious to the word that in all the articles of the Clergie and nobilitie there was no proposition made much lesse any determination of any thing that tends in any the least measure to the diminution of the soueraigne power of our kings and the dignitie of their crowne and that the article presented by the aduise of some of the third order was onely reiected without euer deliberating vpon the contents therof it is a grosse impertinence to say that we caused the king to loose a cause where no iudgment was past and to make his Maiestie a partie in a cause where he onely interposed himselfe by his authoritie to conserue things in the same state in which they stoode If any were cast in their cause it is you who vnder pretext of maintayning the authoritie of kings would haue brought inn a schisme amongst Catholikes As for the letters which the Pope wrote vpon this matter if it be a fault in a father to write to his children to receaue their fathers letters his holines is blame-worthy to haue done that honour to the two orders wherof we speake and they culpable in receauing them Marrie seeing common sense doth teach vs that there

Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Text snippets containing the quad