Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	child_n	father_n	son_n	7,317	5	5.5737	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69095	The third part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholike against Doct. Bishops Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious preface to the reader, and an answer to M. Perkins his aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c. Whereunto is added an aduertisement for the time concerning the said Doct. Bishops reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the answer to his epistle to the King, with an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons latley become a proselyte of the Church of Rome. By R. Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.; Defence of the Reformed Catholicke of M. W. Perkins. Part 3	Abbot, Robert, 1560-1618.	1609 (1609)	STC 50.5; ESTC S100538	452,861	494

and that euen to death and yet the Church of Rome against the intent of this Commandement alloweth that clandestine Marriages and the vowe of religion shall be in force though they bee without and against the consent of wise and carefull parents Answ It is very false to say that children must obey their parents in all things for if parents command them any thing either against Gods law or the Princes they must not obey them therein And touching clandestine and priuie Marriages they are of force aswell in the Church of England as in the Church of Rome yea more too For by the Church of Rome alwaies they haue beene forbidden verie seuerely and since the Councell of Trent are made voide and of no force where the Councell can be published Concerning entring into religion childrens vowes during their minoritie may be annullated and made of no force by their parents marry when they come to riper daies if their father stand not in necessitie of their helpe they may forsake him to follow Christ in a more perfect kinde of life as S. Iames and S. Matth. 4.22 Iohn forsooke their father Zebedee and followed Christ R. ABBOT There is little discretion in M. Bishops first exception because M. Perkins did vse no other but the Apostles words a Col. 3.20 Children obey your parents in all things for that is well pleasing vnto the Lord. When the Apostle saith in all things M. Bishop should not be so rude as to say It is verie false to say in all things howsoeuer wee denie not but that the words haue their limitation and restraint to those things wherein they command in right of parents The validitie of contracts marriages without consent of parents As touching marriages without consent of parents M. Bishop misreporteth the Councell of Trent which though it doe detest and prohibit the contracts of such marriages yet doth also b Conc. Trident. sess 24. Sancta Synodus anathemate damnat eos qui falsÃ² affirmant matrimonia Ã filijs familias sine consensis parentum contracta irrita esse parentes rata vel irrata facere posse condemne them who say that such marriages when they are contracted are void and that it is in the power of the parents either to ratifie or disanull them The Church of England not meditating contradiction but truth approoueth so farre the sentence of the Councell and albeit it endeuoureth with all good care and circumspection to preuent and to exclude such wilfull and vngodly courses of marriage yet it acknowledgeth that marriages being so acted and done cannot be reuoked lamented they may be and greened at but voided they cannot be M. Perkins seemeth to be of other minde and hee followeth therein the iudgement of sundry late Diuines whom though otherwise we greatly esteeme and honour yet wee cannot subscribe that which they determine in this point Consent of parents belongeth to the honest and orderly proceeding of marriage and it is true that children sinne against the fift Commandement in neglecting their consent but this consent is no part of the essence and being of marriage which therefore being complet and perfect without it must necessarily stand good albeit the parents giue no consent vnto it The very essence of contract and marriage consisteth in the parties actuall giuing of themselues mutually ech to other according to the forme and maner of the countrey and place wherein they liue which being done the want of parents consent cannot vndoe it neither may they be sundred in two who by Gods ordinance though vnlawfully abused are become one By Gods ordinance I say because albeit they haue not vsed that maner of proceeding which God hath ordeined to the fastening of this bond yet the bond it selfe wherewith they are fastened is the ordinance of God to remaine inuiolable betwixt them that are once bound thereby Neither doth it make against this which is obiected that God ioineth not such together that they marry not in the Lord for so may it be said of them that marry only for carnal worldly respects of the beleeuer that matcheth him or her-selfe with an vnbeleeuer that they are not ioined by God nor married in the Lord because God hath forbidden such kinde of marriages to be made But yet as the bond of marriage though vnlawfully entred into holdeth these together and may not bee broken euen so though children may not lawfully marry without consent of parents yet being married they are tied by the couenant of God ech to other as husband and wife and may not shake off the yoke which they haue taken vpon themselues As for those phrases of Scripture which are vrged in this behalfe of parents c Gen. 21.21 Exod. 34.16 Deut. 7.3 taking wiues for their sonnes or husbands for their daughters and giuing their sonnes and daughters in marriage they imply indeed the parents right and power for the bestowing of their children but yet we cannot from thence argue that if the children preuent their parents and doe giue and bestow themselues their gift should bee void and their marriage a meere nullitie as if it had not beene For as wee reade of parents taking wiues for their sonnes so we reade of sonnes also without consent of parents taking wiues for themselues when yet the want of such consent hath been no disanulling of their marriage Esau d Gen. 26.34 tooke him two wiues of the daughters of Heth or Canaan e Ibid. 28.8 contrarie to the liking of his father and mother and yet when he had taken them hey held it not in their power to frustrate his taking of them but with griefe were forced to endure them And if the sonnes taking of a wife be of no force without the parents consent then Rebecca had no such cause of feare f Ibid. 27.46 lest Iacob also should take a wife of the daughters of Heth because his taking had been nothing so long as his father and mother should giue no consent vnto it So is it said of g Gen. 38.2 Iudah that he tooke him to wife a daughter of a Canaanite which wee cannot doubt but that it was as offensiue to his father Iacob as it had beene before to Isaac and yet his marriage was not taken to be of no effect To be short as the one phrase of Scripture may be deemed to import a right in the father to bestow the children so the other may bee thought to import a validitie of that which the childreÌ„ do though vnlawfully without the father It is here I know commonly obiected that God by his law prouided that h Num. 30.4 the vow of the daughter should not stand that was disauowed by the father and thereof is inferred that the daughters bestowing of her selfe in marriage cannot stand good without the father But that law if it be duly weighed maketh as little to that purpose as any thing else that is alleaged For the vowes and bonds

purpose he misinforceth the testimony of Epiphanius whereby he would exempt Aerius from the crime of heresie iustly laied vnto his charge by S. Austin and many others But I answer him that though as a man I may be deceiued yet God hath giuen me more grace than that in these matters I will willingly deceiue my selfe In this matter of Epiphanius I do not take my selfe in any sort to be deceiued His conclusion against Aerius as touching praier for the dead is this r Epiphan haer 75. Ecclesia necessâ—râ—Ã² hoc perficit traditione Ã patribus accepta quis autem poterit staturum matris dissoluere aut legem patris velut Solomon dicit Audi fili fermones patris tui ne repudies statuta matris tuae ostendens per hoc quÃ²d in scriptu sine scripto decuit pater mater autem nostra ecclesia habet statuta in se posita indissolubilia quae dissolui non pâ—ssuntâ—â— CÃ¹m itaque ordi nata sint in ecclesia statuta benÃ¨ se habeant omnia mirabâ—ittÃ¨r fiant confutaâ—us est tursus etiam hic seductor The Church necessarily doth this by tradition receiued from the Fathers and who may dissolue the statute of his mother or the law of his Father as Solomon saith My sonne heare thy Fathers words and refuse not thy Mothers statutes heereby shewing that both in writing and without writing the Father hath taught and our Mother the Church hath statutes set downe in her which are inuiolable and may not be broken Seeing then saith hee that there are statutes ordeined in the Church and they are well and all things are admirably done this seducer is confuted Now then doe I say that praier for the dead is a tradition Epiphanius saith the same that the Church doth it by tradition from the Fathers Doe I say that he maketh it a statute or ordinance of the Church He himselfe expresly calleth it so and finally presseth the authority of the Church onely for the confuting of Aerius He alleageth no Scripture his words import that he hath none to alledge Onely to grace the ordinances of the Church he wresteth a saying of Salomon nothing pertinent thereto as if we were taught that God without scripture teacheth vs by the Church And if he meane any otherwise but that it is the ordinance of the Church very vainly and idlely doth he heere name the ordinance of the Church But M. Higgons will say that though Epiphanius name it thus a tradition and an ordinance of the Church yet he meaneth it to be such a tradition and ordinance as is from the Apostles But let him meane what he will yet so long as he maketh it a tradition without Scripture my words stand good which I vsed to M. Bishop Å¿ Answer to Doct. Bishops epistle sect 10. pag. 79. 80. Epiphanius resolueth vs that praier for the dead is a matter of tradition and an ordinance of the Church and therefore freeth vs from any trespasse against any thing that Moses or the Prophets or Christ and his Apostles in the Scriptures haue deliuered vnto vs. If it be no matter of Scripture with Epiphanius then I say rightly that he cleereth vs from impugning therein any thing that is deliuered in the Scriptures Albeit because it is by Epiphanius his confession a tradition without Scripture therefore we resolue vndoubtedly that it came not from the Apostles because whatsoeuer they taught concerning faith and saluation is conteined in the Scriptures as before hath beene shewed at large Yea and how vnsoundly Epiphanius vrgeth Apostolike tradition is to be seene in the point which he speaketh of immediately before where he saith that t Epiphan haer 75. Decreuerunt Apostoli quarta prosabbato ieiunium per omnia excepta Pentecoste de sex diebus Paschatis praecipiunt nihil omninÃ² accipere quÃ m panem salem aquam the Apostles decreed a fast vpon Wednesdaies and Fridaies continually saue betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide and that six daies before Easter men should receiue nothing but bread and salt and water whereas S. Austin professeth that u Aug. epist 86. Quibus diebus non oporteat ieiunare quibus oporteat praecepto Domini vel Apostolorum non inuenio de finitum what daies to fast or what daies not to fast he findeth it not defined or set downe by any commandement of Christ or his Apostles and by Tertullian it appeareth that the Primitiue Church alledged against the Montanists x Tertul. de ieiunio sic Apostolos obsernasse nullum aliud imponentes iugum certoruÌ„ in coÌ„mune â—mnibus obeundorum â—etunorum that the Apostles imposed no yoke of standing and common fasts and of the Lent-fast Socrates resolueth that y Socrat. hist. li. 5. c. 21. Quoniam nemo de ea praeceptum literarum monumentis proditum potest osteÌ„dere perspicuum est Apostolos liberam potestatem in eadem cuiusque menti arbitrio permisisse vt quisque nec metu nec necessitate inductus quod bonum est faceret because no man can shew any written commandement thereof it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to euery mans will and discretion that without feare or necessity euery man should doe what good is Now we cannot wonder that he that would thus vnaduisedly name Apostolike tradition for the one should do the same for the other also Albeit if M. Higgons can iustifie praier for the dead according to Docter Fields rule we will not sticke with him to grant it to be an Apostolicall tradition But he might haue seene that I had put it without the compasse of that rule if he had been desirous to know the truth and had not resolued first vpon other occasions to fall away and afterwards to seeke shifts to excuse his fall I shewed by Origen that the Church at first vsed no praier for the dead by the authour of the ecclesiasticall Hierarchy that when it was first vsed it was vsed onely for iust and holy men of whose soules they were resolued that they were in heauen for what causes I haue expressed there by Epiphanius that they added afterwards to pray for euill men also and publicke offenders by Austin that there was not knowen any definite and certaine vse and effect of praiers and offerings for the dead and that many in his time did plead that if any good were to be done for the soule after death it should rather be by it owne confession of sinnes than by offerings procured by other men And lastly whereas praier for the dead by M. Higgons confession dependeth vpon Purgatory I shewed by Austins expresse words that he had no certaine beleefe or knowledge of any such place which are more cleere to that purpose than that by any Popish sophistications they can be shifted or deluded 36. Albeit I did not only alledge him doubting of Purgatory but also plainly excluding it vpon occasion by denying any third place

all things M. Bishop is very like to that ill-fauoured witch Comparison of the English and Romish Clergie hauing his eies open abroad with vs to see euerie default but being blinde at home and not discerning the abominable filthinesse and beastly sluttery of the house wherein hee himselfe dwelleth I doubt not but hee is a man of a naughtie mind to speak contrary to that that he thinketh but I doe not hold him so very a foole as that he thinketh any part of the Clergie of the church of Rome woorthy to bee compared to the Clergy of the Church of England Somewhat happily he meaneth to that purpose when he saith The whole corps I will not touch thereby importing that he taketh his aduantage of some vnsufficient and euill disposed men and by them seeketh to cast some aspersion of infamy vpon all the rest But we know that b 2. Tim. 2.20 in a great house are not onely vessels of gold and of siluer but also of wood and of stone some to honor and some to dishonor and that not onely in other callings but in the ministerie it selfe as c Matth 10.4 Iudas amongst the twelue apostles as d Act. 6.5 Reu. 2.15 Nicolas amongst the seuen Deacons as the e Act. 20.30 sect-makers which the Apostle foretold should arise from amongst the Elders of the Church of Ephesus as in all times there haue beene not onely true Pastors which feed the sheepe but also f Ioh. 10.12 hirelings which g Rom. 16.18 serue their owne bellies and h Ezec. 34.2 feed themselues and i Ioh. 10.1.10 theeues who enter into the sheepefold not by the doore but by the window and k Esay 56.10 blinde watchmen l Matt. 15.14 blinde guides who lead the blinde into the ditch It is no maruell therefore if amongst vs there be some euen de extremis populi of the very basest of the people who by stealth and sinister practise through either the negligence or corruption of some to whom the care thereof is committed contrary to lawes orders in that behalfe prouided doe creepe into the Ministery of the church make that their refuge for a liuing because being idle beasts and slow bellies they haue no other meanes thereof and therefore hauing the curse of the sonnes of Eli lying vpon them are ready m 1. Sa. 2.36 to bow downe for a peece of siluer and for a morsell of bread and for forty shillings a yeere to take vpon them the seruice of a Church These are likely men for simoniacall patrons cheaters of churches to deal withal being most likely to fil their hands as M. Bishop saith with feeling commodity for the obteining of benefices which by merit and desert they cannot atteine vnto Yea of Preachers also with whom he saith he wil not meddle for feare of offence yet we know coÌ„fesse that there are not wanting some who haue more learning than conscience do dishonour the calling by which they receiue honour n 1. Sam. 2.30 whom God will despise because they haue despised him Menno therfore whom he citeth might see some cause to complaine of certaine or some preachers accordingly as of old the Prophets taxed the enormities and abuses o â—sa 56.10.11 Ier. 2.8 of the Priests and Prophets albeit who or whence he was I know not or what occasion there was of speaking that which he doth he was of another countrey and that that hee saith appertaineth not to vs. But what are all these things to the botches and sores of the Church of Rome how spotlesse is our Clergie in comparison of theirs Hee that would pull their Popes out of their kennels and lead them along in shew should set foorth such a generation of moÌ„sters as the world saue them hath neuer seene the like Their Cardinals were such as that Clemangis saith of them that p Clemang de corrupto eccl statu Si artifex quisque vellet superbiae simulachruÌ„ effingÃ¨re nulla congruentius ratione id facere posset quÃ m Cardinalis effigiem oculis intuentium obiectando c. Quis immensam inextricabilem voraginem ipsorum concupiscentiae verbis aequare valeat c. Beneficia possident non quidem duo vel tria decem vel viginti sed centena ducentena interdum vsque ad quadringenta vel quingenta aut amplius nec perua vel tenuia sed omnium pinguissima optima c. Quantumcunque ad numerum â—ue summam venerint ad ampliorem festinant if a man would set foorth a picture of pride he could not more fitly doe it than by the picture of a Cardinal that no man could by words expresse the vnmeasurable and bottomlesse gulfe of their couetous desire not being contented with two or three benefices or ten or twenty but hauing a hundred two hundred yea foure or fiue hundred and aboue and those not small ones but the fattest and best and how many soeuer they had yet gaping still for more Which insatiable couetousnesse of theirs was so grosse and infamous as that the Pope himselfe Benedict the twelfth being mooued to make more Cardinals answered q Illyric Catalog test verit p. 447. LibentÃ¨r seâ—d facturum si modÃ² nouum mundum creare posset nam hunc qui iam existat vix praesentibus Cardinalibus sufficere that he would so doe if he could make another world but that this world was scant enough for the Cardinals that were made already Clemangis further noteth how r Clemang vt supra Quis nesciat sectionis schismaticae horrendam pestem per nequitiam Cardinalium in ecclesiae gremium iniectam c. Transeo Sâ—moniacas apud papam interâ—essiones patrocinia venalia corruptiones aut promotiones turpissimas damnatissimas quae omnes ferÃ¨ istis authoribus suasoribus fiebant c. Nec enumerare volo corum adulteria stupra fornicationes quibus RomanaÌ„ curiam etiam nunc incestant c. Necrefero vsuras c. qua ex causa nummularios supremae tabulae non incongruentÃ¨r eos quidam vocant by their wickednesse horrible chisme was brought into the Church he mentioneth their Simoniacall intercessions to the Pope their selling of their fauours for mony their most shamefull and damnable corruptions the adulteries whoredomes and fornications wherewith they defiled the court of Rome their vsury in the highest degree As touching their Bishops hee reporteth that Å¿ Ibid. in sâ—q Nalli eruditi virs nulli probi iusti virtuâ—si ad suprema dign tatum fafiigia veniebaÌ„t seâ— ambitiosi quique adulatores histrionici ommbus vitijs imbuts Quotusquisque bodiÃ¨ est ad Pontificale culmen â—uectus qui sacras velperfunctoriÃ¨ literas legerit audierit didicerit imÃ² qui sacruÌ„ codicem nisi tegumento tenui vnquam attigerit cÃ¹m tamen iureiurando illas in sua institutione se nosse coÌ„firment no learned men none good iust vertuous atteined to

seede of Abraham t cap. 9.28 We be Moses disciples u vers 41. We see x Ier. 8 8. We are wise and the law of the Lord is with vs y ca. 18.18 The law shall not perish from the Priest nor counsell from the wise nor the word from the Prophet and yet they persecuted Christ the sonne of God who only is the Truth How then may we now be assured that the Church of Rome is not the same to the church of Christ as they then were to Christ himselfe How may we poore creatures certainely vnderstand that those rich creatures are not subiect to error and mistaking as well as we Well if we will not beleeue it we may chuse but assurance M. Bishop can yeeld none He can tell vs a discourse what Christ said to Peter but that Christ euer spake either of Pope or Cardinall he can shew vs nothing And yet as if this matter were cleere he telleth vs of this church of theirs that whereas we are subiect to mistaking and errour God hath ordained and appointed the same to be a skilfull and faithfull mistresse and interpreter to assure vs both what is his word and what is the true meaning of it But againe we aske him where hath God so ordained and appointed in what Scripture hath he written it or by what words hath he expressed it that the church which he meaneth should bee our mistresse to tell vs what is Gods word what is the true meaning of it If he haue euidence authority for it let him shew it if he haue not what shall we thinke of him that dareth thus to bely the maiesty of God But if he considered the matter aright he would conceiue that those rich creatures of his haue no other or better meanes to assure what is Gods word and what is the meaning of it than other poore creatures haue By what touchstone they can make triall thereof by the same can we also as well as they Which comparison of the gold-smith and the touchstone which he himselfe vseth if it be rightly explicated serueth notably to set foorth the fraud and falshood of that church for which he pleadeth True it is that the church in this behalfe may rightly bee compared to the Goldsmith Now the Gold-smith for the discerning of true and perfect gold doth not take his owne fingers ends but goeth to the touch-stone and no otherwise can hee either make triall himselfe or giue assurance thereof to other men In like sort therefore the church which is the Gold-smith must vse a touch-stone for the assuring of that which it propoundeth to bee receiued and beleeued Now then whereas M. Bishop saith that we must rely vpon the churches declaration to be assured which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall I answer him that we cannot be assured thereof by the churches declaration vnlesse the church declare it and manifest it by the touch-stone The touch-stone whereby we are to take assurance heereof is the constant and perpetuall tradition and testimony of the former church And this testimony we first deriue from the church of the Iewes z Rom. 3.2 to whom the words of God were committed and to whose Scriptures a Luk. 24.44 the law and the Prophets and the Psalmes and to no other b Aug. cont Gaudent lib. 2. cap. 23. quibus dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis Christ himselfe hath giuen testimony as witnesses of himselfe reckoning them for c Luk. 24.27 all the Scriptures and wherof the Iewes in their dispersion giue acknowledgment vntill this day God so prouiding that d Aust in Psa 58. Per omnes gentes dispersi sunt ludaei testes iniquitatis suae veritatis nostrae ipsi habent codices de quibus prophetatus est Chrislus in Ps 56. Codicem portat Iudaeus vnde credat Christianus Christian faith should be prooued out of those bookes which are acknowledged for true by them that are enemies thereto This testimony the Christian church receiued of the Apostles and hath continued the same together with the acknowledgment of those other bookes of the new testament which by the Apostles and Euangelists were added to the former What bookes then haue had this generall and vndoubted auerment and witnesse of the church continued from time to time those and no other are to be holden for Canonicall bookes and this is the true touch-stone for trial of certaine and vndoubted scriptures By which touchstone the church of Rome is found to bee not a faithfull Mistresse but a false harlot bringing her bastards into the Church and forcing men to take them for lawfully begotten And whereas it is the tradition and declaration of the former church which hath beene from the beginning by which both they and we are to be instructed as touching the true bookes of Canonicall Scripture they force vpon vs the tradition of their owne church now deliuered vpon their owne word howsoeuer contrary to that which the church formerly hath declared If we follow the declaration of the ancient church then are no other bookes to be taken for Canonicall but what are now accknowledged and approoued in our Church the same onely being testified concerning the old testament by the Church of the Iewes concerning both new and old by the whole Christian church both the Greeke and Latine the Easterne and Westerne churches as e Of Traditions sect 17. before hath been declared But the church of Rome perceiuing the authorising of some other writings to be likely to gaine credit to some broken wares whence her thrift and gaine ariseth hath taken vpon her very presumptuously as a Mistresse or rather a goddesse to giue diuine authority to those bookes reiecting the testimony of that church which in this behalfe should bee mistresse both to her and vs. In a word whatsoeuer is to be attributed to the church in this respect it is idlely by M. Bishop referred to the church of Rome as if all other churches must rely vpon her declaration we our selues being able by the touchstone to make triall of true Scriptures as well as the church of Rome and therefore there being no cause why we should rely vpon them more than they vpon vs. And as vainely doth he apply to his purpose the saying of Saint Austin that he should not beleeue the Gospell except the authority of the church mooued him thereunto there being nothing therein meant but what may bee applied to the church England as well as to the church of Rome Saint Austin speaking generally of the vniuersall church thorowout the world without any maner speciall intendment of the church of Rome But how leudly they abuse those words of Austin wholly against his meaning and purpose I haue f Of Traditions sect 22. before sufficiently declared and neede not heere to repeat againe As for the churches declaration for vnderstanding the Scripture that is also to be tried and made

there spoken of are of things futurely to be done but heere the question is of a thing already done If the daughter made a vow of an offering to the Lord it was in the fathers power to disanull her vow but if she had alreadie offered any thing to the Lord it was not then in the fathers power to reuoke her offering Euen so if the daughter make a vow or giue a promise that she will marry thus or thus it is in the hand of the parents to resist and frustrate her vow but if by contract and marriage she haue effected her vow and promise it is then past the parents hands to vndoe what shee hath done and it is not lawfull marriage but adulterie to bestow her otherwise To conclude this point it is a true rule in law Multa fieri non possunt quae tamen facta valent Many things may not be done which yet stand good when they are done i Exod. 4.25 Zipporah might not haue circumcised her sonne but yet when she had done it there was no reuersing of it Corah Dathan and Abiram might not haue presumed to offer incense to the Lord and yet when they had so done k Num. 16.38 their censers were holy vnto him It is not lawfull for children rashly and head-strongly to bestow themselues at their own will God hath forbidden it there is no blessing to bee expected in it but yet when it is done it cannot be auoided It is not without cause that I say rashly and head-strongly because the necessitie of parents consents is not alwaies absolutely to be vnderstood there being sometimes cases of conscience by the iniquitie of parents that doe necessarily enforce a mitigation of this law and rules of this nature are commonly taken to hold onely ordinarily and for the most part Childrens vowes of Moonkerie vnlawfull Concerning childrens vowes for entring into religion as they fondly terme it M. Bishop speaketh more honestly and handsomely than they practise in that behalfe It is neither minoritie of yeeres nor necessitie of parents that can redeeme the children out of the hands of these Wolues and Beares if once they haue found meanes to make a pray of them Yet well it is that he will confesse what ought to be respected howsoeuer amongst them it bee not so His words of following Christ in a more perfect kinde of life are ill applied to their Moonkerie and so is the example of the Apostle Iames and Iohn forsaking their father Zebedee to follow him Iames and Iohn were called by Christ to doe that which they did and where God calleth no respect of man must preuaile to hold vs backe but they of whom M. Bishop speaketh haue no calling of God neither hath Christ prescribed any such kinde of life for them to bee called vnto But against all their hypocrisie in this behalfe wee oppose the ancient Canon of the Councell of Gangra If any children by pretence of seruing God doe forsake their faithfull parents thinking it iust so to doe and shall not rather yeeld due honour vnto them to reuerence it in them that they are faithfull accursed be he 21. W. BISHOP Fiftly The last Commandement saith M. PER. forbiddeth the first motions to sinne that are before consent l Conc. GaÌ„grens cap. 16. Si qui filij parentes maximÃ¨ fideles deseruerint occasione Dei cultus hoc iustum esse iudicantes non potius debitum honorem parentibus reddiderint vt hoc ipsum in eis venerentur quÃ²d fideles sunt anathema sint He prooueth it thus Lusting with consent is forbidden in the former Commandements Thou shalt not commit adulterie and thou shalt not steale therefore if the last forbid no more it is confounded with the former Againe the Philosophers knew that lust with consent was euill euen by the light of nature but Paul a learned Pharisee knew not lust to be sinne that is forbid in the Commandement Rom. 7. Lust therefore that is forbidden heere is without consent Wicked then is the doctrine of Rome that requireth our consent to euery mortall sinne Answ Their doctrine is most reasonable and godly For the first motions to sinne are rather the actions of the euill spirit tempting vs to euill than of a man in whose minde they are before he is aware of them and who assoone as he beginneth to marke them disliketh them and chaseth them thence and how can he carrie a right opinion of the milde goodnesse of God that thinketh him so hastie with his fraile creature man as to punish him eternally for such a thought as is thrust into his minde at vnawares and may come vpon him in his sleepe went he neuer so well disposed to bed See more of this in the question of originall sinne To his reasons to the contrarie I answer to the first that lust with consent is not expresly forbid in the former Commandements but the act of adulterie and stealing yet it might well haue beene reduced vnto them as it is in the other Commandements Neucrthelesse because our frailty is more prone to the wicked lust of concupiscence and desire of our neighbours goods it pleased God for the better bridling of of them to giue vs particular precepts against them specially considering that it was also very hard by the dimme light of our darkned reason to discerne them to be such capitall sinnes And whereas he saith that the Philosophers knew the inward consent of our minde without any exteriour acts to be mortall sinne I take him to speake at randome and more than he can prooue Sure it is that many learned Iewes who should know more than Philosophers Cap. 5.28 29. knew not so much as may be gathered out of S. Matthew and out of Iosephus lib. 12. Antiq. c. 13. and Dauid Kimhy vpon the 66. Psalme verse 17. And S. Rom. 7.7 Pauls owne confession rightly vnderstood witnesseth the same For saith hee I had not knowne concupiscence to haue beene sinne vnlesse the law had taught it to be sin Wherefore it was verie expedient after the inhibition of the acts of adulterie and theft to forbid in plaine and expresse termes the lusts and desires of them R. ABBOT I referre thee heere gentle Reader as M. Bishop doth to the question of Originall sin That concupiscence is sinne in the first motions thereof where it hath been already fully declared that the Romish doctrine is neither reasonable nor godly which denieth the first motions of concupiscence to be sinne In the sixt and eleuenth section of that question those particulars are answered which heere hee fetteth downe in the first part of this section I only note therein further that he maketh the first motions to sinne the actions of the euill spirit contrary to the expresse testimonie of S. Iames that a Iam. 1.14 euery man is tempted of his owne lust If it be his owne lust wherewith he is tempted then is it not the action of

Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Text snippets containing the quad