Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	church_n	heaven_n	peter_n	4,199	5	7.9041	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01005	The Church conquerant ouer humane wit. Or The Churches authority demonstrated by M. VVilliam Chillingvvorth (the proctour for vvit against her) his perpetual contradictions, in his booke entituled, The religion of Protestants a safe vvay to saluation	Floyd, John, 1572-1649.; Lacey, William, 1584-1673, attributed name.	1638 (1638)	STC 11110; ESTC S102366	121,226	198

holdes his discourse to be infallible and (a) Preface n. 12. By discourse no man can possibly be lead into errour that thereby he cannot possibly be lead into errour Protestants all of them great and little men women belieue with explicite fayth all things whatsoeuer are plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Is not this ridiculous Credat Iudaeus Apella Non ego You say it is ridiculous that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree and then say we agree in all matters of fayth And yet presently you say that ProtestaÌ„ts if they were wise wold do so too to wit agre that those things onely wherein they agree be matters of fayth then stop our mouthes when we reproach them with disagreements by saying they agree in all matters of fayth because matters of fayth be those onely wherein they agree Is this discourse coherent If it be ridiculous in us to do so how were it wisedome for Protestants to do the same And how haue they reason reason inough why they might do so Though also it be false that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree We define matters of fayth to be all doctrines proposed by the Church as her traditions or definitions wherein all Catholiques must agree The fourth Conuiction 18. I proue directly by the word of God the Roman Church that is the Church subiect to S. Peter and his successour to be the Church of one denomination which is the pillar and ground of truth There was alwayes as you haue confessed by force a Catholique visible Church by duty in deed the teacher of necessary truth that no Church is fit or able to performe this office which is not of one denomination Ergo this church was built dependently vpoÌ„ one Rocke subordinately to one visible head by Christ Iesus our Lord because such a Church could not be instituted but by him as is manifest But Christ did not institute or build any Church of one denomination but onely on S. Peter Thou art Peter a Rocke and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church Math. 16. Ioan 21. To the I will giue thee keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen Doest thou loue me feed my lambes feed my sheepe What can be more cleere Now this power of Rocke to vphold this authority of Pastour to guide this Superiority of Head to gouerne the vniuersall Church of one denomination was to descend and did descend to S. Peters successours This cannot be denied because this Church was to be alwayes successiuely in the world Ergo the Rocke sustayning it the Pastour guiding it the Head ruling it was to be alwayes successiuely in the world which is to say that S. Peter must alwayes haue a successour in the Headship of the one Church which I further more prooue in this manner 19. If the institution of the Apostles to be Priests by these wordes do this in remembrance of me do import that the Apostles should haue successours in their Priesthood then this institution of S. Peter to be the one Pastour and Guide of the Church doth import that he should haue a successour in that office of Pastour For as Priesthood was not instituted for the Apostles sake but for the diuine worship which was to continue in the Christian Church till the world ended So the Pastourship of S. Peter ouer the one Christian Church flocke was not instituted for S. Peters sake but for the good of Christians that by adhering to one guide they might all vnitedly be lead into all truth But the Institution Do this in remembrance of me doth import successours in Priesthood Ergo this Institution feede my sheepe Cap. 2. n. 23. doth import the office of Guide and Pastour was to go to S. Peters successours vntill the consumamtion of the world But you say pag. 62. n. 23. If our Sauiour had intended that all Controuersies in Religion should be by some visible Iudge finally determined who can doubt but in playne tearmes he would haue expressed himselfe about this matter He would haue sayd playnly The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all controuersies Thus you 20. And this is your perpetuall impertinency of arguing by interrogations supposing that to be vndeniable truth which is manifest falshood for which you can say nothing This manner of arguing you vse often through whole pages and leaues togeather that should I transcribe the places I might set downe more then halfe of your booke But now to your question Who can doubt but Christ would haue said plainely the Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all Controuersies I answer euery man that hath any braines or wit in his head For such an one cannot but see that Christ our Lord could not haue said as you would haue him to haue spoken without vntruth For though he did appoint that S. Peter and his successour should be the Guide and Pastour of his flocke yet that S. Peter or his successour should be the Bishop of Rome more then of Hierusalem or Antioch this he did not appoint at the least whiles he liued on earth Why may it not suffice you that by cleere Scripture and by what you your selfe grant S. Peters successour is to be for euer the guide and Pastour of the Church of one denomination the pillar and ground of Truth Do you doubt whether the Roman Bishop be S. Peters successour or no Of this you cannot doubt if you will not stagger at your owne principle which you deliuer as vndeniable Cap. 4. nu 53. li. 20. All wise men for the assurance of truth in all matters of beliefe relye vpon the consent of ancient Records and vniuersal Tradition Now vniuersal Tradition doth deliuer by full consent that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome is his successour Or if you doubt of this you may as well doubt whether euer Iulius Caesar was at Rome The fifth Conuiction 21. THat the Bishop of Rome is appointed of God to decide all emergent Controuersies I proue by Principles acknowledged and set downe by your selfe For whereas the Mainteyner of Charity sayth that Protestants depriue S. Peter and his successours of the Authority which Christ our Lord conferred vpon them ouer his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which they reproue diuers of the most holy Ancient Fathers as Brerely sheweth at large you c. 5. n. 98. first question the worth and authority of the holy Fathers as no certaine rule of fayth then write in this sort lin 14. Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point for the point here issuable is not Whether S. Peter were head of the Church nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church nor whether he had any authority ouer it giuen him by the

4. What you say that they erred and continued in errour through inaduertence and preiudice you contradict els where saying cap. 2. n. 155. that the Apostles in their persons while they were liuing were the only iudges of Controuersies And c. 2. n. 17 you say In matters of Religion none are fit to be iudges but such as are infallible And cap. 4. n. 88. lin 20. It is necessary for the constitution of infallible iudges that though they neglect the meanes of auoiding errour yet certainly they shall not erre Now can you put these propositions togeather in discourse The Apostles were whiles they were liuing the infallible guides iudges of fayth so made and ordained by the comming downe of the holy Ghost vpon them Iudges and guides infallible certainly shall not erre though they through inaduertence or preiudice neglect the meanes of auoyding errour Ergo the Apostles certainly did not erre nor deliuer errour through negligence inaduertence or preiudice And yet more to the same effect you write C. 2. n. 34. The Apostles infallibility was in a more absolute manner the Churches in a more limited sense The Apostles were lead by the Spirit into all truth efficaciter The Church is lead also into all truth sufficienter So that the Apostles and the Church may be fiftly compared to the Starre and the Wisemen The Starre was directed by the fingar of God and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was But the Wisemen were lead by the starre to Christ lead I say not efficaciter or irresistibiliter but sufficienter so that if they would they might follow it if they would not they might choose 5. But you stay not long in this conceyte of their absolute infallibility and being irresistably lead into all truth for within two or three pages you say that the promise of not erring was made them but vpon condition if they were not negligent and if they kept their station And. cap. 3. n. 77. Our Sauiour sayd to his disciples Yea are the salt of the earth not that this quality was inseparable froÌ„ their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue beene so of necessity could not haue beene otherwise in vaine had he put them in feare of that which followes If the salt lose the sauour wherwith shall it be salted Behold how you faulter before they were lead into all truth of necessity efficaciter irresistibiliter now not infallibly not of necessity they were in possibility to erre Neyther yet do you take vp your standing heere (a) Cap. 6. n. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ you runne into the contrary extreme that the Apostles could not lose the sauour of sanctity or charity and truth because it is certayne they could not haue any worldly or sinister intentioÌ„ in their preaching And then agayne to the contrary cap. 2. n. 93. This were to crosse the end of our creation which was to be glorifyed by free obedience To conclude for I am weary with the following of your light-headed guide fetching frisks euery way you iumpe at last vpon a truth the direct contradiction of that you sayd of the Apostles erring for a tyme about the Churches Vniuersality For you say cap. 6. n. 14. The Apostles who preached the Ghospell in the beginning did belieue the Church vniuersal though their preaching in the begining was not so They did belieue the Church vniuersall euen in your sense that is vniuersall de iure though not de facto Thus you Now this proposition The Apostles euen in the beginning before their preaching was vniuersall when they preached to Iewes only did beleeue the Church vniuersall de iure by diuine law is it not a direct contradiction of this The Apostles in the beginning before their preaching was vniuersall did not belieue the Church vniuersall de iure by diuine law yea they erred thinking it was against the diuine law to preach vniuersaly or to any but Iewes It is well that your wit the guide of your fayth doth professe that it can belieue contradictions at once this Heresy and this Truth otherwise it could not be the guide of that Religion you maintayne in your booke The third Conuiction 6. FRom the Apostles you passe to the second age after Christ accusing the vniuersal Tradition of that Primitiue Church as stayned vniuersally with impure and corrupt doctrine Cap. 5. n. 91. lin 41. seeking to answere what Charity Maintayn'd obiects that sundry Protestants acknowledge many of our doctrines to be taught by the ancient Fathers you say No antiquity except it be absolute and primitiue is a certaine signe of true doctrine For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption as we pretend it was who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption might not get in and preuaile in the 5. or 4 or 3. or 2. age Especially seing the Apostles assure vs that the mistery of iniquity was working though secretly euen in their times If any man aske how could it become vniuersal in so short a time let him tell me how the errour of the Millenaries and the Communicating of Infants became so soone vniuersal and then he shall acknowledge what was done in some was possible in others Thus you Which you repeate and inculcate more then fourty times at the least wherein you are like to the false witnesses to one of the which Daniel said very well Thou hast spoken falsely against thy owne head for the Angell of God shall deuide thee with a sword in the middes and doe thee away You are false against the spouse of Christ the holy primitiue Church as that witnesse was against Susanna and the same punishment of diuision and contradiction against your selfe is by God's iust sentence fallen on your head 7. You are false in saying so many times that the doctrine of the Millenaries to wit of Christs earthly Kingdome in the earthly Ierusalem full of all earthly felicity for a thousand yeares was deliuered as you say pag. 347. lin 24. as an Apostolicall Tradition that it was vniuersally receaued taught by all the Doctours and Saints and Martyrs of or about that time whose iudgement in this point is any way recorded This to be false is proued by your falsification of S. Iustine Martyr whome you make say that all good and orthodoxe Christians in his time belieued it and only hereticks denied it for his words are I and the Christians who are rightly persuaded in all things belieue the Resurrection of the bodies a thousands yeares in the new Ierusalem It is true all good Christians belieue the Resurrection of the body which you skippe ouer because Socinians do not belieue it in the Christian sense and a thousand yeares of felicity in the new Ierusalem in heauen not vpon earth Yea S. Iustine in that place doth plainly confesse that Many (q) Multos qui purae piaeque sunt Chriistianorum senteÌ„tiae hoc non agnoscere tibi significanâ— who are of the

not be a Protestant if you will be saued that is then Protestants be not a true Church but a Company that hath forsaken the true Church and cannot be saued if they continue where they are But that there alwayes was alwayes must be such a Church of Christ such a Society of Christians which is the ground and rocke of all truth setled and certaine and of one denomination was in the precedent Chapter not by you granted of meere fauour but extorted from you by the euidence of truth vndeniable texts of Scripture Ergo Protestants are Schismatiques separated from the Church the rocke and ground of fayth and cannot be saued except they remoue to the one Church be built thereupon by dependance on the Rocke by subordination to the Head thereof Now if there must be such a Catholique Church of one denomination whether the Roman be that Church and not rather the Graecian or Abissine is in the iudgment euen of Protestants I dare say a ridiculous doubt and a fond fancy but more hereof in the next Chapter The third Conuiction 9. YOu are conuinced of proper and formall Schisme by the Confutation of your excuses whereby you would cleere your reuolt from so heynous a crime which you set downe Cap. 5. nu 36. I would faine know wherein I may not without Schisme forsake the externall Communion of them with whome I agree in fayth whether I be bound for feare of Schisme to communicate with those that belieue as I do only in lawfull thinges or absolutely in euery thing whether I am to ioyne with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common confession of fayth wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abiuration of it These your questions or excuses be friuolous and idle for many reasons First because you suppose without proofe that the vniuersal visible Church may be stayned with superstition Idolatrie which is the mayne point in question And your supposition to be false we prooue euen by this argument That Church cannot be stayned with superstition and Idolatry whose external Communion or vnion of the members thereof vnder one head cannot be forsaken without the most proper and formall crime of Schisme But to forsake the externall Communion of the visible Church you confesse to be the most formall crime of Schisme Ergo the external Communion of the visible Church cannot be stayned vniuersally with superstition and Idolatrie 10. Secondly your questions are vaine because they imply contradiction destroy ech other For how can it consist together that you do agree in fayth with the Church in fundamentals and that yet she teach Idolatry and vrge you to abiure with her the fayth wherein you she both agree Thirdly if the Church be supposed to be stayned with vniuersall errour and Idolatry it doth indeed follow that you must not communicate with her in Idolatry but not that you may forsake the external common Vnion of all the members thereof to the Head and vniuersall Authority which ioyneth them together in one Society of a Christian Church But Protestants forsooke the vnity of their follow-members refusing to communicate with them not onely in superstition but also in the vnity of subiection to the Head-authority of the whole body They did deuide themselues from that Body erecting to themselues new Conuenticlss new Churches vnder new chosen heades guides pastours Ergo they cannot be excused from the formall and proper crime of Schisme and Rebellion against the Church 11. You will say had they not forsaken that vnity of subiection to the common head they must haue professed Idolatry or else haue beene burnt I answere if the supposition be true of Idolatry in the Church they had byn blessed Martyrs in choosing rather to dye then eyther to commit Idolatry or deuide the Church But because they did not so but sought to deuide the Church to saue their lyues they be now damned Schismatiques For will you dare to say that men may commit the most formall crime of Schisme and rebellion against the Church rather then be put to death Then if a Prince perfecute men for Religion they may rebell and deuide his Kingdome if they be able rather then dye for their Religion 12. You say Cap. 5. n. 55. in fine No man can haue cause to be a Schismaque I assume But to forsake the externall vnity of Gods Church or the fellowship of subordination to the head-authority of the whole Body is to be a most formall and proper Schismatique Ergo No feare of being eyther stayned with superstitioÌ„ or put to death could iustifie your relinquishing the externall Communion or vnion with Gods Church nor your erecting of new Conuenticles vnder new Superiours from being formall and proper Schisme 13. Moreouer you say that in the dayes of S. Austine there (a) Pag. 156. lin 50. was vniuersall superstition in the Church that (b) pag. 155. lin 21. Second Edit c. 3. n. 47. pag. 149. 150. all places were full of superstitions humane presumptions vayne worships which were (c) Pag. 156. lin 36. vrged vpon others with great violence the streame of them was growne (d) Pag. 156. lin 24. so stronge that S. Austin durst not oppose it And yet S. Austin did not therefore forsake the Church and his subordination to the Pastours thereof nay he doth euery where most earnestly and seuerely as you confesse iustly rebuke and conuince the Donatists of damnable sinne for deuiding the Church and erecting new Conuenticles Altars Churches vnder new Pastours It is manifest therefore euen by your owne Principles and Professions that Protesters cannot be excused from damnable Schisme though the visible Church had beene as in S. Austins tyme you make it so when Luther reuolted full of superstitions human presumptions and vaine worships which yet to haue byn or to be in the church you neither do nor can prooue otherwyse then by your bare word which I hope is no rule of Fayth more then S. Cyprians which being obiected to you you reiect (e) Cap. â— 43.4â— saying angerly to your Aduersary Why in a contronersy of fayth do you cite any thing which is confessed on all bands not to be a rule of fayth The fourth Conuiction 14. VVE proceed to conuince Protesters of Schisme euen though your most false suppositions were true Let vs suppose ineuitable necessity to haue beene vrgent vpon them as you say it was eyther to abandon the vnity of subordination to Gods Church Cap. 5. n. 72. or else against their conscience to professe her errours I say they should in that case rather haue vndergone this hypocriticall dissimulation then that Schismaticall separation This I proue because though that be true which S. Paul teaches That euill is not to done that good may follow yet that is false which you affirme pag. 283. n. 72. We must not do euill to auoydeuil This is against the knowne Principle of reason

Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Text snippets containing the quad