Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	king_n	supreme_a	1,568	5	8.4275	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01004	God and the king. Or a dialogue wherein is treated of allegiance due to our most gracious Lord, King Iames, within his dominions Which (by remouing all controuersies, and causes of dissentions and suspitions) bindeth subiects, by an inuiolable band of loue and duty, to their soueraigne. Translated out of Latin into English.; Deus et rex. English	Floyd, John, 1572-1649.; More, Thomas, 1565-1625, attributed name.	1620 (1620)	STC 11110.7; ESTC S107002	53,200	142

in the hands of the Consulâ— swore allegiance fealty to the comâ—monwealth and when he made thâ— Pretor to gouerne in his name according to the ceremony deliuering the naked sword sayd to him Vse this sword for me if I gouerne iustly iâ— otherwise vse it against me By whâ—ch resignation both of state and life into the Common-wealthes hands he more secured them both then any enforced Oath that he held the Crowne from God only could haue done Philanax You haue shewed the first proposition of Theodidact to be neyther a solid ground of soueraignty nor a doctrin apt to nourish in subiects minds affection to their Kings I desire you wold passe to the examination of the second that Kings haue no Superior that may call him to account or punâ—sh him but God alone Aristobulus Heere Theodidact goeth forward in building the soueraignty of Kings â—ither vpon manifest falshood or totâ—ering vncertaineties That the King â—ath no superior but God alone that â—ay punish him all learned men geâ—erally Papists Puritans Proâ—estants â—eny Philanax I do much wonder that you say Protestants â—each thâ—t the Kinge may â—e sentenced and punished by any man â—pon earth I thinke you meane Puriâ—ans not our Protestants that proâ—esse to follow the Religion established â—y Parlament Aristobulus I meane Protestants that are eneâ—ies of Puritans and conformable to â—he state and to increase your wondring I add that howsoeuer the word Supreme Gouernour and Head of the Church go currant in England yet in â—ense our Deuines giue our Kinge no greater authority in causes Ecclesiasticall then Papists do I desire not to be â—eleeued vnlesse I make what I haue â—ayd euident by the testimonies of them that haue lately written aboâ—â— this argument First concerning the verâ— title they say the King hath no any spirituall Ecclesiasticall power aâ— aâ—l his power sayth doctor Morton noâ— Bishop of Chester is but corporall and caâ— go no â—urther then the body He hath saytâ— M. Burhill no iurisdiction in the Church eyâ—ther â—or the inward oâ— outward Court his poweâ— is meere temporall and laicall nor in it selâ— spirituall though the matter and obiect thereâ—â— be spirituall such power and no greater saytâ— M. Richard Tomson then Iewes Infidelâ— and Turkes haue ouer the Christian Churcâ— within their dominions Secondly concerning Controuersies of fayth the Deane of Lichfielâ— doctor Tooker disclaymeth as an imâ—pudent slaunder that the Church oâ— England holdes the King to be their primaâ— or head or iudge of Controuersies about faitâ— and Religion To the Apostles Christ gaue poweâ— to gather Councells and to define solemnly thâ— Churches doubts The sentence of Councell sayth M. Richard Harris hath without thâ— King the force of an ecclesiasticall law the King addes thereunto corporall penalty M. Morton â—â—yth that Imperiall and Kingly authority in â—â—irituall causes reacheth no further then as it â—â—longeth to outward preseruation not to the â—ersonall administration of them neyther doth â—â—e King challenge nor subiects condescend vnto â—ore But most cleerly M. Barlow late â—ishop of Lincolnâ— The King sayth he in â—ontrouersies about fayth hath not iuâ—icium definitium sentence dâ—finitiue to â—â—scerne what is sound in â—â—â—inity but when the â—hurch hath determined matters of fayth he â—ath iudicium executiuum sentence exeâ—utiue to commaund the professing therof â—ithin his Kingdomes And is not this the very doctrine â—f Papists and that doctrine which â—â—rmerly our Arch-bishop Bancroâ—t reâ—ected with great scorne as disgraceâ—ull to Kings making them but Carâ—â—fices Ecclesiae the executioners of the Churches will and pleasure Thirdly concerning the offices of â—his power they teach the King hath no â—ower to vse any censure or to cast any out of â—he Church by sentence but his office is to punish â—hem with corporall chastisement on whom Bishops haue laid their censures The King doth â—ot make or vnmake Bishops they are made by the Bishops of the Kingdone as by them they aâ—â— desposed and vnmade The King hath right tâ— name and present persons to benefices as other lay men of lower conditioÌ„ haue but benefices eiâ—ther with cure or without cure great or little he neither doth nor euer did bestow much lesse the ecclesiasticall dignities as the Bishopricks Arch-Bishopricks of his Kingdome Fourthly concerning the Kings sudordination to Bishops Doctor Barlow highly commendeth the saying of Ambrose Bishops in matters concerning faith are to iudge of Emperors not Emperors of Bishops The Deane of Lichâ—eild saith that the King is and with Valentinian Emperor doth acknowledge himselfe the sonne and pâ—pill of the Church and the scholler of the Bishops What more do papists require Can he then iudg teach his Fathers Iudges and Maisters in those thinges wherein he is their sonne pupill and scholler Finally M. Burhill saith that the King supâ—eme gouernour of the Church may by his Bishops be cast out of the Church VVhat Ambrose did lawfully to Theodosius our Bishops may do lawfully to the King â—or the like offence And what did Ambrose to Theodosius He cast him by sentence out of the Church he stood ready to keepe him out by force and called him Tyâ—ant â—o his face he forced him to eâ—act a temporall law concerning the â—xecution of the sentence in matter of â—ife and death he commanded him out of the quire or the place of Priests sent him into the body of the Church to pray with laymen And may the Bishop of Canterbâ—â—y lay the same punishments on his Mâ—iesty yea saith the Bishop of Ely perchaunce the Pope may excoÌ„municate the Kinge depriue him of the common goods of the Church Doe you see to how many censures Protestants make the King subiect Truly I see not how any ReligioÌ„ doth or can make Kings more absolute and subiect to fewer Superiors then Papists doe The Puritan will haue them subiect to the Pastor of euery parishe that hath a Consistory as our Bishop Bancroâ—t sayth They banish one Pope and admit a thousand The Protestant makes them obnoxius to the censure of Bishops without any restraynt wheras the Romanists out of respect to the Maiesty of Kings reserue the power of censuring them â—o the supreame Pastor But to returne to Theodidact you seâ— he keepeth his custome to ground alâ—legiance due to Kings vpon doâ—ctrines eyther questionable or ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ denyed of all sides his second propoâ—sition that the Kinge is free from alâ— punishment that maÌ„ may inflict beinâ— rather more vncertaine then hiâ— first that Kings hâ—â—e their power only froâ— God Philanax It seemeth by your discourse thaâ— Theodidact makes Kinges more absoluâ—â—â— then other Protestants doe teacheth against them that the King may noâ— be excommunicated or cast out of thâ— Church For he sayth that the Kinge iâ— free from all punishment that man can inflict excommunication without doubt is a great punishment Ministers withâ—out question are men Aristobulus It is hard to say what Theodidaâ—â—

himselfe Many who now haue Kings and their maiestiâ—s most frequent in their mouth still â—arbor we may feare the same affectiâ—n in their hartes to be freed from theÌ„ Yea some Puritanes of the last Parlament in their discontented meetings were bold to propose the changing of the gouernment of the Realme â—rom Monarchy into Democracy Nor may such menâ— that haue been once taynâ—ed with this Conâ—storiall affection be therfore trusted because they are content to take vpon them the dignity of Bishops wherein they may dissemble by their owne doctrine retayning it not as a sacred but as a temporall office from the Prince and vsâ— it to set vp the discipline These couert enemies of Kings want not their Confederates in France whose mindes and desires Turquet a famous French Protestant expresseth in his booke written in commendatioÌ„ of Democracy aboue Monarchy nor in Holland to which â—his French Democratist Turquet dediâ—ated his aforesayd booke as to men â—llready made blessed by this kind of gouernment and fittest instruments â—o bring the same into the rest of reformed Countries Of these enemies oâ— Monarchy so combined togeather so neighbouring vpoÌ„ vs so subtile as they lye hiddeÌ„ vnder rocheâ—s corner caps in the shape of Bishops and their adherents we haue more need to take heed then of the Pope who is further off his cause not popular his party not like to preuaile by force his followers rather ready to dye then they wil disseÌ„ble their Religion as these others do Philanax I perceaue by your discourse that more treachery against Kings may be couched in these plausible discourses then I could euer haue imagined The Troians were not wise that trusted the guifts of the Grecians nor can I thinke it policy to rest secure of the bookes or writings which those that once were Puritans publish to flatter the state or the Prince pretending affection to soueraignty which their Religion doth so mightily and so intrinsecally oppugne I feare that as within the Troian horse armed enemies lurked so vnder this new deuised allegiance â—â—aytors lye hidden who when they â—â—e their time wil shew themselues like â—o many firebrands to incense the â—eople against Kings that challenge â—uch infinite and hatefull authority Aristobulus You feare not without cause yf you â—onsider that by this deuise the authors â—herof who would â—ule themselues aâ—one do nothing but practise the Maâ—hiauilian meanes to attayn therunto They seek to seperate the King from â—hose whose loue may stand him in most steed The foure propositions beâ—ore set downe make him enter into oâ—ious competency with foure Aduerâ—aries The first breeds him a quarrell with the Common wealth from whom he will not haue his power deâ—iued The second puts him into conâ—ention with the Church to whose â—irection and censures he wil not haue â—is Crowne subordinate The third â—rings him into hatred of mankind by â—hallenging an irresistable power to â—yranize vpon man at his pleasure The â—ourth conteynes an open â—trife with God for precedence requiring of thâ— Common wealâ—h in case they cannoâ— enioy both that they be content tâ— want rather God then their King Anâ— these quarrells are moued vpon weakâ— titles and claymes grounded on doctrines either vncertayne or apparantly false and so odious as were theâ— true yet were it not fit to discussâ— them in vulgar Treatises Philanax I see these doctrines are odious anâ— I nothing doubt but they are likewisâ— vngrounded yet I desire that you wiâ— seuerally shew both these things in euery one of the foure propositions thaâ— I may be better instructed to discoueâ— the treacherous entendments of thesâ— counterfeit friendes of Maiesty Aristobulus I will do my endeauour to satisfy your request First I will examine the foure aforesaid Propositions which done I meane to speake a word concerning the Oath which Theodidact buildeth vpon them as vpon foure â—â—llers And to beginne with the first â—â—at the king hath power from God only indeâ—endently of the Common wealth â—ecause this is the ground of all his diâ—course and of the other three I will â—ore fully shew the vnsoundnes thereâ—f that the world may see that Theodiâ—â—ct as either a most vnkillfull Archiâ—ect that layes so weake a principle of â—he building he pâ—eâ—eds to raise to the â—kye or a subtill Arch-traytor purâ—osely placing the Soueraignty of Kings which he desires may fall vpon â— most ruinous foundation Three be the wayes by the which â—en come to be Kings popular electiâ—n lawfull conquest Gods personall â—ppointment spâ—cially reuealed I say â—pecially reuealed for I nothing doubt â—ut Kings by the two other titles be made by Gods speciall prouidence The title of election depends on mens â—artes The title of Conquest vpon â—attailes which are two things most â—ncertaine and their successe only in Gods hand who bestoweth popular â—auour and victory in warre on whom â—e will For this reâ—son it is sayd that Kings raign by him that he placeth theÌ„ in their throne ruleth in the Kingdome of men giueth it to whome soeuer he please not that hâ— maketh Monarches without secoÌ„dary causes but because these secondary causes worke not but by the speciall direction of his handâ— Wherefore the titles of Election and Conquest be speâ—cially from God though not only immediatly from him as is the third clayme when God by speciall reuelation declares his will to haue some certayne person King as he did Saul and Dauid Philanax You omit Succession which is a clayme to the Crowne Aristobulus Succession in bloud is not a primâ— and originall title but a meanes to deriue to posterity these three fornamed claymes from Auncestors that first enioyed them none of which titles do sufficiently institute a person Kingâ— without the consent of common-wealth When a King is made by eleâ—â—ion the case is cleere but the Conâ—ueror seemes to come to the crowne â—gainst the Commonwealths will In â—eed the right of Conqueror he may â—aue will they nil they yet Royall â—uthority ouer them he cannot haue â—ithout their graunt The right of â—awfull Conquest binds the state conâ—uered to make the conquerour their King vpon iust conditions which he â—ay prescribe heauy or hard according â—o the quantity of their offence Yf â—hey refuse to yield he hath the right â—f the sword to force them not the â—ight of Prince to gouerne them till â—hey consent This consent being â—ielded then there begins a new Soâ—iety and Commonwealth compacted â—f â—onquerors and the people conâ—uered and the Prince of the conqueâ—ing side becomes Kinge to gouerne â—hem both according to the lawes and â—onditions agreed vpon which condiâ—â—ons if he neglect he is no lesse subâ—â—ct and corrigible by the Common-â—ealth then Kings made by eleâ—tion When God personally appoints any one to be Kinge as he did Saul Dauid neither then haue Kings powâ—er immediatly and only from God God is sayd to haue made Saul anâ— Dauid Kings because he eternallâ— decreed they should be Kings in duâ— tyme reuealed

holdes this his ground of Soueraigntyâ— The Kinge hath no superiour but God alone iâ— â—lippery and vncertayne that he dares not stand vpon it himself For elswhere contradicting this principle he â—aith in playne termes that Kings that â—aue giueÌ„ their names vnto Christ are sheepe of â—is fold so are to obey their spirituall pastors â—auing ouersight ouer them that they are to be â—bedient vnto their spirituall Pastors as Emâ—assadors from Christ thâ—tâ— Kings and Bishops â—e mutually Pastors and Superiors one to the â—ther Yf Bishops be ouerseers Pastors Superiors to the King how is it true â—hat the King hath no superiour but God alone Yf nothing be more excellent noâ—hing more sublime then a Bishop as our Theodidact approuing S. Ambrose his â—aying teacheth â—o wit in spirituall â—nd Ecclesiasticall causes which to adâ—minister they are sent how can a King â—e more excellent then a Bishop in â—hose causes Is it possible that the same man should be superior and subiect to â—he same persons in respect of the same Court I confesse I cannot vnderstand this diuinity that subiects may iudg â—heir Superiors euen in those causes wherin they are subordinate to them That the Kinge supreme Gouernour of the Church may be sententially summoned arraiâ—gned and cast out of the Church by a Bishop â— Yf soueraigne Princes may be iudgeâ— by their subiects in those causes wherin they are supreme and independant what doth their supremacy auaile theÌ„â— Yf supreme gouernors of the Churcâ— may be cast out of the Church by theiâ— Bishops that arâ— their spirituall subiects what solid reason can Theodidacâ— assigne why Soueraignes may not likeâ—wise be cast out of their Kingdome by their Barons and Peeres thougâ— they be their vassalls Philanax I could wish our Authors concerning the Kings supremacy spake morâ— coherently yet seeing this proposition the King hath no superior but Goâ— alone doth so much extoll the Soueâ—raignty of Kings I can not be broughâ— to forsake Theodidact herein except bâ— the confutation of his reasons I perceaue this pillar of Maiestye to be vncertayne and vnsound Aristobulus Small reading and skill in Scriâ—ture is sufficiâ—nt to shew that Theodidacts arguments against Papists be not so conuincing as we may securely ground the authority of Kinges therâ—pon For either thâ—â— make nothing to the purpose or els proue what Papists do not deny that the King is supreme in temporalls His maynâ—â—round and principle is that in the old Testament Priests were not superior to Kings but rather that Kings were their Iudges Could he haue assumed a doctrine more vncertaine or rather more false then is this A doctrine against the learnedst of the Iewes Iosephus saith that to their Priests not to Kings was committed the custody of the Law and the charge of greatest affaires so that they were ouerseers of all Iudges of controuersies and punisher of offenders Philo writeth that Priestly dignity is preferred before royall by the Iewes who iudge Priesthood by so much the more excellent then Royalty by how much God surpasseth man With whomâ— agree the Chriâ—tian Fathers namely S. Chrysostome auerring that God woulâ— haue Kings submit their heads to the hands of Priests that men might vnderstand that Priestâ— are more worthy Princes and more venerable then are Kings Yea the word of God seâ—meth â—o distinguish the office of high Priest from the office of King assigning to the high Priest the care of things that pertayne to God to the Kinge the châ—rge of temporall affayres And who conuersant in the old Testament knoweth not that to the high Priâ—â—â— was giuen the supreme and last power to decide all controuersies about the law VVhosoeuer shal be proude and refuse to obey the sentence of the Priest let that man dye the death Philanax These testimony of the Fathers and Scriptures seeme very vrgent But hath not Theodidact made some answere to them Aristobulus No nor brought any proof of his opinion besides the bare example of â—alomon that deposed Abiathar the high Priest â—nd placed Sadocke in his roome â— But first be â—roues not that Salomon deposed Abiaâ—har lawfully that therein he exceeded â—ot the boundes of his authority The deeds of Kings be not euer iustifiable â—or was Salomon such a Saint that we may thinke all his actioÌ„s praise worthy without further proof Secondly he proueth not that Salomon deposed Abiaâ—har by the ordinary power of King Papists say Salomon did in that action proceed not as King but as Prophet Which answere Theodidact doth not confute but misvnderstand as though they meâ—nt that Salomon was therfore a Prophet because he fulfilled what God had foretould against the house of Heli which he reiecteth with a iest that so Herod might be tearmed a Prophet in murthering the Innocents because therin he â—ulfilled what God by Ieremie had foretolde But the Papists be not so absurde as to say that whosoeuer fulfilleth a prophecy is a Prophet nor that Iudas in betraying his Maister and hanging himself was a Prophet though therin he fulfilled prophecies They say that God to the end that what he had threatned aâ—gainst the house of Heli might come tâ— passe he gaue to Salomon propheticall extraordinary Commission to deposâ— Abiâ—thar high Priest of the stock of Helâ— Salomons royall authority not beinâ— sufficieâ—â— for the lawfull performancâ— thereof Which doctrine is so solidâ— that Theodidact not being able to ouerâ—throw it by argument thought gooâ— to make it ridiculous by mistaking itâ— Finally though we graunt that Saloâ—mon deposed Abiathar and by Kingly authority the most that may be thencâ— inâ—erred is that Salomon was supremâ— in temporall affaires and might puâ—nish Priests in case of Treason Whicâ— notwithstanding in things pertayning tâ— God Princes might be subiect to thâ— high-Priest for spiritual crimes tenâ—ding to the ouerthrow of Religionâ— might be deposed And in my opinion it is want oâ— iudgment in them that would bâ— thought friends to Kings to stir thâ— stories of the old TestameÌ„t which for one high Priest desposed by a King withoâ—t cleere approbation of the â—act yeeldeth two soueraigne Princes deposed by the high Priest and their deposition warranted by the holy Ghost Did not Iehoida high-Priest depose Athalia Queene pronounce sentence of death vpon her and in â—er roome make Ioas King Did not Azarias high-Priest cast King Ozias out of the Temple depriue him of gouernment for his presuâ—ptuous vsurping the Priestly office to offer incâ—nâ—e to the Lord What needed Theodidact to prouoke Papists to bring forth these examples for the Popes authority two for one and such as he to aunswere theÌ„ is driuen to very hard shiftâ— What he saith concerning Athalia that she was not lawfull Queene but an vsurper he neither proueth nor is it very probaâ—ble She came blodily vniustly to the Crown but this doth not coÌ„uince that she was not afterward righful Queen They who

vsing at his death these words Because I haue loued Iustice and hated wickednesse I now dy in banishment Vrbane that succeded Gregory both in office and in zeale against the Emperour being driueÌ„ out of Italy into France hauing so great need of the Kings assistance yet was he so voide of humane respects that at that very time he excommunicated Philip King of France for putting away his true wife and liuing in open incest The Kinge saith an vnpartiall Historian threatned that except Vrbane would restore him to the Church Crowne he wold depart with his whole Kingdome from his obedience the obedience of the Roman Sea yet this moued not that most holy Bishop to relent In fine Philip was faine to yeeld not being able to extort otherwise releasment from excommunication and so religion conscience preuailed ouer thâ— Scepter and the Diademe the inuincible Maiesty and Name of King So admirable for constancy were those Popes that vsed their authority to depose wicked Emperors so free from loue of the world that we may iusâ—ly thinke God fauoured their cause Hâ—â—soeuer their perpetuall good successe for so many ages against all aduersaries though the reason therof be hidden may giue iust cause in my opinion for Kings to be wary how they aduenture their Crownes vpon preuailing against them and how they deuise new oathes of Allegiance that wage warre against the authority of their Sea And this is the last thing which I desire to leaue to be seriously pondered by you that loue the King so I coÌ„clude praying the Lord hartily that as hitherto he hath defended Kingly authority in our great Britany froÌ„ open enemies so now he will defend the same from secret plots and trayterous Treatises which by shew of friendship seek the ouerthrow thereof Philanax I am glad Aristobulus that wee fell into this discourse in which you haue cleerly discryed Theodidacts fraudulent vndermining of Royall Authority The publishers of that booke besides their secret plotting agaynst ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ â—oueraignty of Princes seeme likeâ—â—â—â— to haue had an eye to their owne â—uere in the diâ—ulging therof For there being a commaund that this Booke both in publicke and priuate schooles be read to Children of both sexes ech booke sold for six pence which is hardly worth two pence you must needs see a great summe of money that heÌ„ce is yearely made a summe I say so great as doth farre surpasse the custome of the Peter-pence which in old time euery house payed to the Pope Notwithstanding at this their enriching themselues by this deuise I do not so much grieue but I am hartily sory that so many odious vngrounded positions coÌ„cerninâ— Royall Authority that may raise vp horror rather theÌ„ loue of Kinges be instilled into the tender mindes of ChildreÌ„ which afterward when any occasion is giuen may soone turne into hatred But thereof yoâ— haue spoken inough Wherfore I likewise will end with your harty good wishes towardes his Maiesty and our most gracious Prince Charles beseching the Almighty to defend them both and to giue them the spirit of wised ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ wherby they may discouer these â—â—â—â—sons hidden with a shew of friendshipp The Printer to the Reader THIS Treatise gentle Reader may seeme written by some English Protestant agaynst some Puritans enemies of Kingly Soueraignity which by them in former times openly impugned they now seeke to ouerthrow by grouÌ„ding the same vpon odious and â—aungerous PositioÌ„s touching the immunity of Tyrants The Authour disputeth the questioÌ„ of this weighty subiect in such moderate stile and manner bringing ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ ns both solide and not reg ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ ing with Catholike doctrine that he may be thought to be in opinion Catholike though for modesties sake to the end that this truth might be more pleasingly accepted of Protestants in this worke he discourseth as if he were Protestant And for this reason some Catholike arguments he doth pretermit others he doth not vrge to the vttermost partly for breuityes sake but cheefly because his inteÌ„t is no more then to shew that the new Protestants principles from which they deduce Râ—yall Authority be at the least doubtfull and vncertayne And this he doth cleerly demonstrate and thence concludes that it is against the rules euen of humane policy to forsake the most sure grounds of Soueraigne Power in Kinges whereon Christian Kingdomes relying haue hitherto stood firme and florished vnd ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ Catholike discipline iust l ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ and to build the sacred authority of Princes whereon their peoples safety dependes vpon the new vngrounded Doctrines Paralogismes of Scriptures which seemes to haue byn the drift of the former Dialogue For this cause I thought it would not be amisse nor lost labour to put the same in print renewed before hand corrected The title God and the King I would not alter because iâ— two wordes it doth fully put downâ— the Catholike opinion concerning Princes Authority their subiects Allegiance For as this treaâ—ise doth iâ—sinuate three opinions in this poynt now are in EnglaÌ„d The first of PuritaÌ„s who wil haue God without King or else such a King that must depend on the peoples beck ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ their ConsistoriaÌ„ Preachers ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ ose perfidious audacity his â—â—â—esty hath had sufficient experience The second is of Politicians who haue no more Christianity then Parlamentary decrees breath into them These will haue King without God or at least King and God that is God so longe and no longer then the King shall please whome they will haue still obeyed though he go openly about to extinguish the light of Christian Religion The third opinion is of Catholikâ—s whose â—ote is God and the Kingâ— in the first place they worship God in the second the King to whome they giue all Allegiance and subiection as farre as Religion and conscience will permit And this is to giue what is Caesars to Caesar and what is Gods to God Farewell FINIS Dial. God and the Kinge pag. 2. Dial. p. 33. 34. â—peach in the Star-chamber 16.6 Bancroft in the Dangerous poâ—itioÌ„s p. 33. Psal. 84. v. 16. 2. Thessal â— 2 v. 10. Hooker Ecclesiast pol. prefac p. 28. Hooker ibid. p. 29. Suruey of the holy â—iscipline p. 93. (a) Baâ—il Dor. p 40. 41. (b) Knox. histor of the Church of Scot. p. 265. Dang poâ—it p. 11. (c) Sleydan l. 28. l. 22. Oâ—ian Epist. cent 16. p. 566. (d) Cuspin of the Church of France p. 625 Ferres histor p. 588. (e) Osiand ibid. p. 94. (f) Chitrâ—eus in chron p. 71 (g) Fulk answere to the declam of P. â—rarines (h) Dang posit l â— c. â— 4â— seq (i) Suruey of the disc p. 101. (k) Dang poâ—it Suruey and others by D. Bancroft (l) Principes sunt omnium quos terra â—ustinet sâ—ultisâ—imi deterrimi nebulones ToÌ„ 2. Ger. â—en de mag saecul fol. 200. (m) Cal. in Dan. cap. 6. v. 22. (n) Knox to Engl. Scotl. fol. 78. (o) BuchaÌ„ de iâ—â—e Reg.

whome they were bound vnder payne of gâ—uions sinne to expel as you heard this forsaid Father affirme Philanax I see the old Testament specially according to S. Chrysostomes exposition doth not very plausibly proue regall independency of Priest-hood hath not Theodidact better arguments out of the new Aristobulus He alleageth diuers testimonies that euery soule is to be subiect to the higher powers and of Fathers auerring that there is no state nor man in the world equall to the Emperour Which particulerly to relate were to wast paper seeing these testimonies proue no more then what Pâ—pists commonly graunt That Kâ—ngs are Soueraigne and supreme in temporall affaires within their Dominions That all men whatsoeuer Prophetsâ— Euangelists Apostles Priests Monks that liue within their states are subiect to their Gouernment and to the lawes which they make for the good oâ— the Common wealth They proue that primitiue Châ—â—stiaÌ„s both laymen Priests were bound to pay tribute to the Emperour were in criminall causes answerable before the teÌ„porall Magistrate For the dignity of Priestly state and the speciall ordinance of Christ exempting them was not then sufficiently promulgated nor accepted of by Princes as afterward it was in gratitude for the benefit of their conuersion to Christianity by the preaching and labours of Priesthood The places then of Scriptures and Fathers shew that Priests euen Apostles were subiect to the Emperour in causes temporall but can any man with reason thinke that their testimonies import that vnbeleeâ—ing Empâ—rours were in all spirituall occurreÌ„ces the soueraignâ— Gouernours of the Christian Church That the supreme Pastorship to decide doubtes of faith gather Councels or excommunicate disobedient ChristiaÌ„s was committed to them I thinke Protestants will hardely graunt this Whence Papists inferre that had Kings byn ordeyned by Christ supreme Gouernours next himself in the Ecâ—â—esiastical hierarchy he would haue prouided Christian Kings to furnish that place in the first erecting of his Church Which seeing he did not they fuâ—ther deduce that Kings cannot challenge by Christs institution any place of gouernment in Church-affayres that the keyes of his Church signifying supreme authority were by him deliuered not to Kings but to Peter by which gift he made him high steward of his house Whosoeuer will be of Christs family must yield themselues their swordes their Crownesâ— subiect to Peters keyes Their soules you will say but not their bodies not their swords not their Crownes But agaynst this they vrge that accessorium sequitur principale What is accessory and consequent still followes and waits vpon the principall The King submitting his person to the Church must needs likewise submit togeather with his person his Crowne and sword that not only as men sed in quantum Reges seruiant Christo eueÌ„ as Kings they be seruants to Christ. In acknowledgmâ—â—t of which superiority Constantine as S. Augustin writeth eminentissimum culmen Romani Imperij diadema suum piscatori Petro subiecit being the most emineÌ„t Soueraigne of the Romain Empire submitted not only his soule but his scepter and diademe to the fisherman Peter to the end that Peters keyes might direct temporall power towardes the consecution of eternall life and to restraâ—ne the same if at any time the owner therof should vse it to the ouerthrow of Christianity They bring an history to this purpose out of Suidas â— concerning Constantius the Arian who seemeth the first that challenged this Supremacy in Church affayres As he was saâ—th Suidas â—nce sitting in Councell in the midst oâ— many Prelates Iudge of their Controuersies Leontius the most holy Bishop of Tripolis reproued him openly that being a secular lay man he wold meddle with Church-affaires which saying made that prophane Emperour to conceaue the vndecency of the practise that out of band for very shame be desisted If to the fauorits of Kinges ancient Fathers seeme ouer playne and bitter who call them that will gouerne in the Church Antichrists so in my opinion wee ought to take heed that our Church disgrace not herselfe by being base and seruile in this poynt laying her Keyes vnder the feete of Kings which iâ— another extreme What may we think of Theodidact who writes that the Kinge saileth to heauen in his owne ship guided by his owne subiects ouer whome he is Iudge and may punishe them with death if he find them in his opinion to deliuer their owne errors in steed of diuine truth S. Paul were he aliue would preach that the Church the ship to conuay passengers to heauen is not the Kings but Christs which he bought with his pretious bloud and the gouernment therof he committed not to Kingsâ— but to Bishops The two Orthodoxe Saints and Bishops Hosius and Ambrose did they now liue would say Pallaces belonge to Emperors Churches to Priests The great Gregorie of Nazianzum were he now liuing his doctrine would be that Kings are subiect to the tribunall of Bishops that Priests are the more eminent Gouernours nâ—t Kings subiects in Church affayres but as another Gregorye sayth their Fathers Maisters and Iudges yea that it is miserable madnes â—or Kings to goe about with their wicked lawes to make them be at their command to whom they know that Christ together with the Keyes gaue power to bind in heauen and in earth These and the like authorities of Fathers Papists heap together which I haue brought not that I desire that any thing be detracted from royall authority but to the end that you may see that it is not wisdome to ground Royall Soueraignty vpon this Kingly Church-primacy which Proâ—estants allow Puritans detest Papists with the saying of Fathers shake and batter Philanax Herein I agree with you yet that the Roman Bishop hath not this supremacy to depose Kings I am moued to beleeue by that which Theodidact writeth that none of them exercised it before the time of Gregory the VII otherwise tearmed Hildebrand who excommunicated and deposed Henry the Foâ—â—th Emperour about the yeare 1073â— more then a thousand yeares from Christs ascension as Otho Frisingensis liuiâ—g neere those times saith I read and read againe the gestes of the Romane Kings and Emperors and no where I find any of them till this man Henry the Fourth excommunicated or deposed by the Bishop of Rome Aristobulus I do not desire to proue that authority of the Pope my drift is to shew that Kings Church-primacy is not aduisely brought and placed as the pillar of their ragall Soueraignty For to that which moueth you so much behold the Papists how easily and how many things they answere First deposition being an extraordinary remedy against the persecution of hereticall Princes not to be vsed but in cases of extâ—emity what wonder that practises therof vpon Romane Emperours haue not been many Moreouer for the first 300. yeares after Christ there was no Christian Emperour on whom that power might be vsed In the other two hundred the

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad