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	temporal_a	3,017	5	8.3913	4	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

together with the vse of Scriptures their authority to iudge definitions of the Church by Scriptures The deuisers of this way seemed to haue great zeale of the truth but were not carefull to prouide for peace And so in practise this deuise begot a multitude of Sects and Religions one against another that many weary of all began to thinke it were better men should be vnited in error then thus mortally diuided in Truth A meane was deuised to decide Controuersies by nationall Synods that are confessed may erre but the Ciuil magistrate as our chief Deuines teach as being President in them is to compell his subiects by the sword to imbrace those doctrines that be determined be they true or fals For this course say they was appointed by God who thought it better in the eye of his vnderstanding that sometimes an erroneous definitiue sentence should preuaile then that strifes should haue respite to grow and not come speedily to some end Heere desire of peace concord may seeme to haue made these men lesse zealous of the Truth then behooued them So it opened a gappe specially in England to prophanes irreligiosity which is to be iust of the Kings Religion whatsoeuer it be or rather of none A salue for this sore hath been inueÌ„ted that subiects ought to obey their Princes Lawes and definitions when they haue only probabilities against them not when they haue necessary and demonstratiue reasons which discharge the conscience and giue liberty to resist This caueat and salue for Truth sets the wound of dissention againe a bleeding Sects in the world are now allmost infinite for number amongest which not one is found that pretendeth not cleere and euident demonstration and proofe from holy Scripture for their contrary and repugnant opinions And who shall iudg in this contradiction and confusion whose reasons are necessary and demonstratiue The arguments which we think demonstratiâ—e moue Papists nothing at all and arguments which we iudg of no force Puritans as Archbishop Bancroft writeth of them take to be so vrgent that if euery hayre of their head were a seuerall life they wold giue them all in the cause This controuersy therfore whose reasons are demonstratiue and whose are not is the greatest of all others nor is there any way to decide it in our churches besides the sword of the temporall Prince Princes therfore for conseruation of peace must keep the spirit in awe practising power infallible in deedes which they dare not challenge in wordes This is the cause of the secret emnity betweene power of Kings and feruour of our Ghospell The Prince can neuer be assured of our Gospellers by the Principles of their Religion that their zeale to the Truth will not trouble the peace of his Kingdome nor Ghospellers of the Prince that his loue of temporall peace will not compell them to trust to his deceaueable definitions Whence it is manifest that so longe as the one shal be zealons and feruent to follow and preach what by light of the spirit they conceaue to be in Scâ—ipture occasions cannot be wanting to the other that will force him to vse his power to curbe their liberty Which power so long as he shal vsurpe so long as he will be Prince and Protestant he must needes vsurpe let him neuer expect that Ghospellers can loue his gouernment though they may flatter in outward shew Those men had no doubt the pure spirit of our Ghospell who professed that except they might haue the reâ—ormation they desired they would neuer be subiect to mortall man Looke vpon the first erecting of our Religion in Germany France Flanders Sweâ—eland Denmarke and Scotland you shall find that the Ghospell went not so fast vp but Kings and their authority went as fast downe What Bullenger writeth of Anabaptistâ— was the true course of our Reformers They began with Bishops pulling them from their seates they ended with Kings casting them froÌ„ their Thrones Books haue been written of this argument by no Papists that shew their practises and doctrines to be in the highest degree iniurious to Kings Luthers inuectiues I omitt not to pollute your eares Caluin is more modest yet so bould with Kinges as to write that when they resist the Ghospell they are not to be obeyed but rather we ought to sâ—it it in their faces This is nothing to that which HottomaÌ„ Beza Goodman Knox Vrsinus Buchanan to forbeare the naming of others innumerable haue writteÌ„ wherby they make Maiesty subiect to the peoples pleasure no more sure of his state then wethercocks that must turnâ— with the wind Vt sumat vt ponat secures Arbitrio popularis aurae What thinke you of these their propositions following Yf Princes be tyrants against God and his Truth their subiects are freed from their oath oâ— Allegiance The people are greateâ— then the King of greater authority The people haue the same power oâ—uer the King that the King hath oueâ— any one person The people haue right to bestow the Crown at their pleasure As the patient may choose the phisitiaÌ„ he likeâ—â— best reiect him at his pleasure so the people in whose free choice at the beginning it was to be vnder kings or no may when they be weary of their bad gouernment cast him from his Office into prison into irons put him to death and set whome they please to gouerne in his place Kings haue their authority from the people and the people may take it away againe as men may reuoke their letters of Attorney Yf kings without feare transgresse Gods Lawes they ought no more to be taken as magistrats but be examined accused condemned and punished as priuate transgressors When magistrats do not their duties God giueth the sword into the peopleâ— hand from â—e which no person King Queene ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Emperor is exempt being Idolater ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ must dye the death These and the â—â—ke positions haue been inuented by â—â—e zealous professors of our Religion â—he same or worse were renewed and â—ttered by the feruerous reformers that â—roue for discipline in Queene Eliz. â—ayes that as a worthy prelat writes All the Popiâ—â— traitors that hitherâ—o haue written and all the Geneâ—ian Scottish Reformers come not neere â—hem for malicious and spiteful taunts â—or rayling and bitter tearmes for disâ—aineful and contemptuous speaches â—gainst Prince Bishops Counsailors â—ll other that stand in their way Their â—ecret practises to set vp by som meane â—r other sweete or violent the said â—isciplin haue neuer been interrupted â—r remitted as he doth particularâ—y relate beginning at the yeere 1560. â—o the yeere 1591. when was practised â—hat most blasphemous and barbarous â—reason of their counterfait Iesus-Christ Hacket and his two Prophets â—f mercy and vengeance who would â—aue planted the discipline by depriuing the Queene and murthering thâ— nobles that stood against it of

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—

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

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