Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	aaron_n	account_v	moses_n	47	3	6.8826	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A06517	The confutation of Tortura Torti: or, Against the King of Englands chaplaine: for that he hath negligently defended his Kinges cause. By the R.F. Martinus Becanus, of the Society of Iesus: and professour in deuinity. Translated out of Latin into English by W.I. P.; Refutatio Torturae Torti. English	Becanus, Martinus, 1563-1624.; Wilson, John, ca. 1575-ca. 1645?	1610 (1610)	STC 1699; ESTC S122416	35,918	75

dare so often to reprint the foresaid Premonition of your king wherin they are so manifestlie and sharpely touched For what could more belong to their ignominie or disgrace then to be accompted worse then theeues that by the publike testimonie of a King For as much as they had conspired his death being yet in his mothers womb And is it not impudencie to diuulge in print againe and againe this their shamefull ignominy nor yet heereby to feare their publicke infamie And yet neuerthelesse with you what they doe they doe sinâ—urely The second Paradoxe 8. THE Primacy Ecclesiasticall say you is due to Kinges by all Right For these are your wordes pag. 90. Primatus spiritualis debetur Regibus â—mni Iure The primacy spirituall is due to Kings by all right Let vs then see if it be so Right or power as you know is deuided into naturall and positiue this Right againe is either diuine or humane Diuine power is partly of the old Testament and partly of the new Humane likewise is partly Canonicall partly Ciuill Will you then that the Primacy Ecclesiastical be due to kings by all these kindes of Right It seemeth you would But in another place you confesse that it is due by the only Right of the old Testament Ergo not by all the former For thus you write pag. 363. Amore institutoque IsraÃ«lis orditur Apologia inde enim vim habet atque neruos suos quaestio haec omnis de Primatu In Israele enim populo suo regum instituit Deus Ecclesiam in regno ex mente sua Exemplum inde nolis sumendum est cÃ¹m in Testamento nouo nullam habeamus Nusquam enim in vnum coaluerunt Ecclesia Imperium procul se habuit Imperium ab Ecclesia c. From the custome and inâ—stitute of Israell to wit the old Testament beginneth our defence because from thence hath all this question her force and strength to wit of the Supremacy For in Israel did God erect a Kingdome for his people and in that Kingdome did he found a Church to hiâ— owne liking From thence are we to take an example for so much as in the new Testament we haue none For no where haue the Church and Empire byn ioyned togeather in one The Empire hath kepâ— aloofe of from the Church c. 9. I doubt not you will acknowledg these your words which do condemne you For if the Question of Supremacy as here you affirme hath no other force then from the custome and institute of the People of Israell then is not this Supremacy due to Kings by naturall Right nor by diuine of the new Testament nor by Canonicall or Ciuill How then is it due by all Right Againe if in the new Testament the Church and Empire did no where consist or ioyne togeather in one Then by right of the new Testament it is not necessary that they should consist in one Ergo it is not due by all right And truely if no where in the new Testament they consisted togeather in one how commeth it to passe that now of late in England they be thus vnited togeather in one Here you haue plainely brought your selfe into straites The third Paradoxe 10. NO man say you hath yet denyed but that the kings of the old Testament had Supremacy in the Church For thus you write pag. 364. In IsraÃ«le autem nondum os reperitam durum quod negare etiam auderet praecipuas in re Religionis partes penes Regem extitisse In Israell to wit the old Testament could I neuer yet find any man so impudent that durst deny but that the principall offices in matters of Religion were in the Kings power c. But I haue found not one but many that dare deny the same Of your owne Countreymen are found that dare deny it Nicolas Sanders in his second booke Of the visible Monarchy of the Church and 3. Chapter in solution of the 5. obiection of Protestants and Thomas Stapleton in his fifth boke of Doctrinall Principles of faith the 23. Chapter Of our men are found that dare deny it Cardinall Bellarmine in his first booke Of Councells and 20. Chapter Iacobus Gretzerus in his second booke Of Considerations to the Deuines of Venice 1. 2. 3. Consider Adam Tannerus in his first booke Of the Defense of Ecclesiasticall liberty the 15. Chapter and others 11. All these sayd Authors in the places here cited propose the argument which you are wont to vse to proue the Kings Supremacy in Spirituall matters And it is this Moyses Iosue Dauid Salomon Iosias and other Kings of the old Testament haue had the Primacy of the Church Ergo the Kings of the new Testament haue it also In the solution of which argument all deny the antecedent They deny I say that the kings of the old Testament if precisely we respect kingly power had the Supremacy of the Church although they graunt that some of theÌ„ had that power not by any ordinary Right as being Kinges but for so much as that they were both Prophets and Priestes by an extraordinary concession or graunt The wordes of Bellarmine are these Respondeo primo Moysen c. I answere first that Moyses was not only a Prince but a chiefe Priest also as is manifest out of the 98. Psalme Moyses Aaron in sacerdotibus eius Moyses and Aaron were accompted amongst his Priestes c. Iosue Dauid Salomon and some others were not only Kings but also Prophets to whome God committed many things extraordinarily which otherwise by office and Right belonged to the Priests And in this sort King Salomon remoued Abiathar from his function of Priesthood and appointed Sadoc in his place And this he did not as King but as a Prophet by diuine inspiration Secondly I say quoth Bellarmine that diuers other good Kings of the Synagogue did neuer intermeddle in the affaires or offices of the Priests and if at any time they did they were sorely punished by God for it c. Thus farre Bellarmine The like haue the rest of the forenamed Authors 12. This notwithstanding I adde moreouer wherein you deceiue or are deceaued that some of the foresaid Authors do not only deny the antecedent but the consequence of the former argument also and therfore they admit two solutions The first is this We deny say they that the Kings of the old Testament had Supremacy in the Church The later this Although we should grant that Kings of the old Testament had the Primacy of the Church yet would it not follow by consequence that the Kings of the new Testament haue the same also c. For which they assigne diuers reasons Read what I haue said in solution of the same argument in my Confutation of the King of Englands Apology the 2. Chapter The fourth Paradoxe 13. YOV say the Kings of the new Testament are Pastors of the flocke of Christ. And although those wordes Pasce oues meas Feede my sheep were spoken to

of another But if this Primacy belong to the Ciuill goods of the Church then it followeth that the King cannot be depriued of the Primacy of the Church by any Ecclesiasticall Censure and therfore after that he is excommunicated and cast out of the Church as an Ethnicke vet in him remaineth the Primacy of the Church which is most absurd 20. The like Argument is taken out of your words following which are these pag. 40. of your booke Rex quiuis cÃ¹m de Ethnico Christianus fit non perdit terrenum ius sed acquirit ius nouum put Ã¢ in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus I tidem cÃ¹m de Christiano fit sicut Ethnicus vigore sententiae amittit nouum ius quod acquisierat in bonis Ecclesiae spiritualibus sed retinet tamen terrenum ius antiquum ius in temporalibus quod fuerat illi proprium priusquam Christianus fieret Euery King when of an Ethnicke he is made a Christian doth not therby loose his temporall right but getteth a new right to wit in the spirituall goods of the Church In like manner when of a Christian he is made an Ethnicke to wit by Excommunication he by force of the Censure leeseth his new right which he had gotten in the spirituall goods of the Church but yet notwithstanding he keepeth his temporall right his ancient right in temporalities which was proper vnto him before he was a Christian. 21. Heere also do you distinguish the double right of a King the one ancient and temporall which a King hath before he be a Christian the other new and spirituall which he getteth when he is made a Christian Now in like manner I demaund whether doth the Supremacy of the Church which your King vsurpeth belong to that ancient temporall right or rather to this new and spirituall If it belong to the ancient and temporall right it followeth that Ethnicke Kings before they be made Christians haue the Supremacy of the Church which is absurd If it belong to the new and spirituall right it followeth that Kings when in baptisme they be made Christians or members of the Church do receaue more in their baptisme then other men which in another place of your Booke you deny For you contend that all men of what sort or degree soeuer they be are equall vnto them in those things which are obteined through baptisme The sixt Argument 22. THE sixt Argument you insinuate pag. 53. of your booke when you say Nec enim Regum subditi quÃ¢ subditi Ecclesiae pars vlla sunt sed Regni Antequam de Ecclesiae essent subditi erant cÃ¹m extra Ecclesiam sunt nihilominus manent subditi QuÃ¢ fideles sunt pars Ecclesiae sunt quÃ¢ subditi sunt Regni ac Reipublicae pâ—rs sunt Neyther are the subiects of a King in that they be subiects any part of the Church but of the Kingdome Before they were of the Church they were subiects when they are out of the Church notwithstanding they remaine subiects In that they be faithfull or Christians they are a part of the Church In that they be subiects they are a part of the Kingdome and Commonwealth 23. Heerhence do I argue thus The Iurisdiction of a King doth not extend it selfe but to the subiects of the King in that they are subiects for if we regard them in that they be not subiects they cannot be vnder the Iurisdiction of the King But the subiects of a King in that they be subiects are not a part of the Church but only of the commonwealth as you affirme So as the Iurisdiction of a King which he hath ouer his subiects in that they be subiects cannot be Ecclesiasticall but Ciuill only Ergo they are not subiect to the King in Ecclesiasticall affaires but only in Ciuill Nothing is more certaine out of this your owne Principle THE CHAPLAINES Argument for the Kinges Supremacy 24. HItherto haue I shewed that out of your owne doctrine strong Argumentes may be drawne to ouerthrow the Kings Supremacy Now let vs see if your others be as forcible to the contrary wherwith you goe about to establish the same Supremacy in the King I will pretermitt those which are common to you and your King and are by me refuted otherwhere One which is most peculiar and principall to your selfe I will heere discusse Thus then you propose it in the 157. page of your Booke Dixit autem olim Iosue populus in omnibus pariturum se ei sicut Moysi paruerunt paruerunt autem Moysi in Ecclesiasticis Non intercessit tum Pontifex Eleazarus ne in omnibus sed temporalibus QuÃ²d si quicquam interesse putet quÃ²d Iosue verus Dei cultor fuit ne in Orthodoxis solis locum habere videatur Rex Babel certÃ¨ haeretico par nempe Idololatra cui tamen Propheta non modÃ² non dissuasit populo sed author etiam fuit submittendi colla sub iugo eius eique seruiendi Idem Pharaoni factum cuius absque veniÃ¢ nec pedem mouere voluerunt de Aegypto vt Deo sacrificarent Idem Cyro cuius itidem absque veniÃ¢ nec excedere Chaldaea vt templum aedificarent c. The people sometyme sayd vnto Iosue that they would obay him in all thinges as they had obeyed Moyses but they obeyed Moyses in Ecclesiasticall matters Nor did the high Priest Eleazarus then meddle no not in any thing but in temporall But if any man shal thinke this more to auayle because Iosue was a true worshipper of God and least this right should seeme to haue place in only Orthodoxall or right-beleeuing Kinges Behould then the King of Babel equall to an Hereticke to wit an Idolater whome notwithstanding the Prophet not only not dissuaded the people to obay but also was Author that they submitted their neckes vnder his yoke serued him The like was done to Pharao without whose leaue they to wit the Iewes would not mooue a foot out of Aegypt that they might sacrifice to God And the same to Cyrus without whose leaue in like maÌ„ner they would not depart out of Chaldaea that they might build their Temple c. 25. The force of your Argument is this that not only Orthodoxall Kings in the old Testament but Gentiles also Idolaters had the Primacy of the Church Ergo the same is to be said of Kinges of the new Testament The former part of the antecedent you proue by the example of Iosue to whome the people of the Iewes said Ios. 1. 17. As we haue obeyed Moyses in all thinges so will we obey you But they obeyed Moyses not only in temporall matters but also in Ecclesiasticall Ergo did they so obey Iosue The later you proue by the example of the three Gentile Kinges Nabuchodonosor in Babylon Pharao in Egipt and Cyrus in Chaldaea to whome the Iewes were subiect euen in Ecclesiasticall matters because without their leaue they durst neyther offer Sacrifice nor build their Temple 26. That you may

then see of what small moment this your Argument is I will briefely examine euery part therof And first I will speake something of Moyses secondly of Iosue who succeeded him and thirdly of the Gentile Kings which you haue cited Concerning Moyses then it is certaine that he was not only a Temporall Prince but an Ecclesiasticall also or if we speake all he susteyned a quadruple person or the person of foure men The first of a Temporall Prince the second of a Law-maker the third of a high Priest or Bishop and the fourth of a Prophet And this is testified by Philo lib. â— of the life of Moyses in the end where he saith Haec est vita hic exitus Moysis Regis Legislatoris Pontificis Prophetae This is the life and death of Moyses a King a Law-maker a high Priest and a Prophet And the same is plainly euinced out of the Scripture That he was a temporall Prince or Iudge it is manifest by that of Exodus 18. 13. Altera die c. And the next day Moyses sate to iudg the people who stood by Moyses from morning vntill night which thing S. Augustine mentioneth in his 68. quaest vpon Exodus thus Sedebat inquit iudiciaria potestate solus populo vniuerso stante He sate saith S. Augustine alone with power to iudge all the people standing That he was a Law-maker it is manifest as well by other places as that of S. Iohn 1. 17. Lex per Moysen data est The law was giuen by Moyses That he was a Bishop or high Priest is partly gathered out of that of the Psalme 98. 6. Moyses Aaron in Sacerdotibus eius Moyses and Aaron are numbred amongst his Priests and partly also by the Priestly fuÌ„ction that he exercised For that as it is written Leuit 8. he consecrated Aaron a Priest he sanctified the Tabernacle and the Aultar he offered Sacrifice Holocaustes and Incense to our Lord. And this was not lawfull for any to do but Priests according to that of 2. Paralip 26. 18. Non est officij tui Ozia vt adoleas incensum Domino sed sacerdotum It is not your office Ozias to offer incense to our Lord but the office of Priestes Lastly that he was a Prophet is manifest by that Num. 12. 6. Si quis fuerit inter vos Propheta Domini c. Yf there shal be among you a Prophet of our Lord in vision will I appeare to him or in sleep will I speake vnto him But my seruant Moyses is not such a one who in all my house is most faithfull for mouth to mouth I speake to him and openly and not by riddles and figures doth he see the Lord c. 27. Now as for Iosue he succeded not Moyses in all these offices For he succeded him not in Bishoply degree or high Priesthood Nor yet in law-making In Prophesy whether he did or no I dispute not But that he succeeded him in temporall Principality it is manifest out of Num. 27. 18. Dixitî€‚ue Dominus ad Moysen tolle Iosue filium Nun c. And our Lord said to Moyses take Iosue the sonne of Nun c. And put thy haÌ„d vpoÌ„ him who shall stand before Eleazar the Priest al the multitude thou shalt giue him precepts in the sight of al part of thy glory that all the Synagogue of the Children of Israell may heare him For him if any thing be to be done Eleazar the Priest shal consult the Lord. At his word shal he go out shal go in and al the Children of Israel with him and the rest of the multitude c. In which words three things are to be noted which make to our purpose the first that Iosue was designed the successour of Moyses the second that Moyses gaue him part of his glory that is to say he gaue him not all the power he had aswell Ecclesiastical as temporall but temporall onely the third that he should be subiect to Eleazar the High Priest and do euery thing at this commandement For this do those wordes signify Pro hoc c. For him to wit Iosue if any thing be to be done Eleazar the Priest shall consult the Lord. At his word to wit of Eleazar shall Iosue go out and in c. 28. Heere may you playnely see in how different a sense you alleaged that place Sicut in istis obediuimus Moysi ita obediemus tibi As in these thinges we obeyed Moyses so will we obey you For you vnderstand it thus as who should say the people of the Iewes ought to obey Iosue in all thinges both Ecclesiasticall and ciuill as they had obeyed Moyses But you are deceyued First for that in Ecclesiastical affayres they were to obey Eleazar the Priest Secondly because those words as we haue obeyed Moyses were not vttered of all the people but only of the Rubenites Gaddites and of halfe the Tribe of Manasses Neyther did they say that they would obey Iosue in all thinges simply wherin they had before obeyed Moyses although somtymes they murmured against him did not obay him but in those thinges only which were appointed them by Moyses to wit that they should leaue their wiues childreÌ„ cattle in the place where they then were and arming themselues togeather with the rest of the Tribes should passe ouer Iordan and fight against their enemies vntil they being vanquished the rest of the Tribes should there make their quiet possession And this is euident out of the context of Scripture it selfe Iosue 1. 12. in these wordes Rubenitis quoque Gadditis dimidiae tribui Manasse ait c. To the Rubenites also and Gaddites and to halfe the tribe of Manasses Iosue said Remember the word which Moyses the seruant of our Lord commanded you saying Our Lord your God hath giuen you rest and all this land your wiues and children and cattle shall tarry in the land which Moyses deliuered vnto you beyond Iordan but passe you ouer armed before your brethren all that are strong of hand fight for them vntill our Lord giue rest to your brethren as to you also he hath giuen and they also possesse the land which our Lord your God will giue them and so returne into the land of your possession and you shall dwell in it which Moyses the seruant of our Lord gaue you beyond Iordan against the rising of the sunne c. Thus Iosue to the people So as that which immediately followeth to wit Omnia quae praecepisti nobis c. All thinges that thou hast commanded vs we will do and whithersoeuer thou shalt send vs we will go And as we obeyed Moyses in all things so will we obey thee also is referred to that which went before But there is no mention made of Ecclesiasticall matters but only of taking armes against their enemyes who possessed their land 29. On this syde then as you see your Argument falleth to the ground proceedeth from a false principle On

Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Text snippets containing the quad