Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ecclesiastical_a	king_n	supremacy_n	2,485	5	10.5338	5	true

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

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

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—

the new oath For their standing with such daunger against an oath which they thinke vniust shewes they will not for humane respects sweare but what really they beleeue to be trueâ— nor promise but what they truly meane to performe It may be iustly supposed that these men as they will rather dye then sweare Allegiance which they think not due so they wil loose their liues sooner then neglect the allegiance they haue once sworn And though they cannot frame their consciences to sweare the speculatiue denyall of thâ— Popâ—s authority to depose Princes in some circumstances imaginâ—â—le yet they are ready to sweare that in practise they will stand with the King against â—ll treasons and in al quarrells not openly and vnexcusably vniust Such as persuade his Maiesty to neglect such loyall offer of loue I pray God their trecherous flattery bring him not into occasions that he may need the helpe of such trusty subiects This we see that already the flaterers haue brought him to engage his Honor for the ouerthrow of the Popes authority in this poynt which is the fourth coÌ„sideration that I made promise to present vnto you For I cannot thinke the successe wil be such as might become the enterprise of so great a Monarch Philanax The power to depose Kings at his pleasure which the Pope challengeâ—h so sauoureth of presumption is so odious that his Maiesty needs not feare the successe of so plausible a quarrell Aristobulus This authority hath â—yn now many yeares together impugned and the abiuration thereof vrged vnder griâ—uous penalties What haue we gayned or rather could this doctrine haue more preuailed then by this opposition it hath done Before this stirre I know some learned Papists denyed that authority in the Pope many that held it thought it not a poynt of Faith but the more probable opinion and in France that opinion might scarce be spoken of Now find me a popish Priest that houlds it or thinks that doctrine tollerable in their Church When the matter was vrged in France to haue a like oath enacted did not both Clergy Nobility stand against it When Cardinall Perâ—ns speach for the Popes authority to depose Kâ—nges was printed what Papist durst pâ—t his name to an answere We know that that doctrin forsaken of the Papists of France was forced to fly for succour to his Maiestieâ— pen. Some Papists complayne that we change the state of the question of purpose to make their doctrine odious Which is not that the Pope may depose Princes at his pleasure but in case of necessity But this change of the question to me seemes not so disgraceful to the Pope as to our â—hospell that after so great promises to burne Rome and ouerthrow Popery the heat of al our controuersies worketh vpon this poynt Whether Kings for their Crownes be the Popes tenants at will Would the Pope renounce his right in this point for the rest we would not greatly care to giue ouer When I coâ—sider the late quarrell begun by our King Henry the 8. against the Pope me thinks the successe thereof hath been much like that of the Carthaginians vnder Haniball against the auncient Common wealth of Rome At the first the Carthaginians so farre preuailed as they got most part of Italy from the Romans and fought with them about the walls of Rome Within a while fortune so changed that the Carthaginians were driuen backe into Africke warre wâ—s there maintained that much adoe they had to saue their ownâ— Carthage Our Kings in the beginning stroue with the Pope for supremacy in spiriâ—uaâ—l things many Papists euen Bishops stood with the King that the Pope was in danger to loose his Miter The more that matters were searched into the more did the Popes cause daily preuaile so that not only Papists be now cleerly resolued in that point as in a most notorious truth but also Puritans mislike Princes supremacy and euen Protestants as far as they daâ—e go paring away peeces from it And now the Pope secure of supremacy in spirituall things pretends right to dispose of Crownes when the necessity of Religion shall require it And who seeth not that euen in this controuersy they dayly winne ground Had not we sâ—t our sâ—lues to impugne this authority had not so many books frâ—ught with weak arguments which Papists confâ—te with great shew of truth on their side beene written against it had not Priests lost their liues lay Papists their liuings for it I am perswaded it might haue beene buried in obliuioâ— or at least within their schooles haue beene kept from common peoples â—ares Now persecutioÌ„ hath made the question so famous as it will hardly be forgotten the bloud shed for the affirmatiue part thereof hath printed the same deepe in many mâ—ns conceipts yea the death of men so graue learned and pious hath made some Protestants that hated it before cast vpon it a more fauourable looke Per arma per caedes abipso Sumit opes animumque serro And this is a very remarkable proceeding of Popery different from the course of our Ghospell The light of our Ghospell shined exceeding bright at the first there was no diuision amongest our Ghospellers it stirred vp in mens harts wonderfull zealeâ— that as one noteth out of pure light they did not consider what they did and iâ— their zeale their goods lands children wiues and liues were not greatly deere vnto them With time this light waxed dymmer and dymmer the doctrine lesse certaine they grew into factions and sects and therupon their zeale bâ—came could that now the greatest feare is as oftentimes from one extreme men are prone to fall into the cleane opposite least the supposed cleere shining of truth make men vncerten and not greatly zealous of any Religion at all The Papists contrarywise when controuersies are first raised are very wary and circumspect their censures be not absolute there are commonly diuers opinions amongest them the more that Scriptures Fathers Councells testimonies of antiquity and reasons are examined the more they grow into consent the more resolute and immoueable they become in their doctrine mâ—re zâ—alous one day then another to giue their liues for it This course they hold in the doctrine of the Popes power which in the beginning was taught neither so certainly nor vniuersally nor zealously as now it is and wil be euery day more and more except these controuersies be remoued from vulgar examination which cannot be so long as the oath is vrged seeing such as are to sweare must least they be forsworne search into the certainty of this Truth and read bookes that treat of that argument And when no other inconuenience should ensue of this course this alone might moue the prudent frends of Kings to labour the silencing of this controuersy that the wordes of deposing and murthering Gods annointed which should be buried in the depth of amazement horror come by vulgar disputation to sound familiarly in euery eare

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad