Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	affection_n	find_v	love_v	2,574	5	5.6724	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

we with good conscience force men to sweare that doctrine to be certaine which we know depends vpon points disputable in our Church The secoÌ„d thing I present vnto you to be considered concerneth the politick drift intent of the Oath which is to discouer faithfull subiects from those that are disloyally minded may we not in true policy feare the Oath works the conâ—rary effect For may not loyall subiects refuse it vpon persuasion that some poynt of Religion is therein indirectly denyed May not they that beare trayterous hartes take it notwithstanding their intended treasons not fearing to commit periury in Gods sight Philanax You put me in mind of another doctrine of Theodidact which seemeth to me strange that men though most â—rayterous in taking an Oath will not dissemble God saith he by his imediate â—inger doth so straitly oblige with secret terrour â—he most inmost conscience that men obdurate â—o other greeuous synns will be tender and senâ—â—ble of the violation of an Oath Hence he â—eemeth to inferre that eueÌ„ the gunne-â—owder traytors would not haue takeÌ„â—â—e Oath but rather haue missed of â—â—eir designe and that all who refuse ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ are of the same mind and stampe â—â—at they were Aristobulus This diuinity of â—heodidact which seemes the ground of vrging the Oath is against the rules of true policy and wisdome First it layeth the burthen of infamons disloyalty on tender consciences giuing away the praise of fidelity to mâ—n that may be void of Religion and dissembling swearers Secondly it goeth about to blinde his Maiesties eyes and lull his Counsell a sleepe towards subtill and dangerous traytors that goe on the ground of that reacherons Thebean Children are to be deceaued with apples but men with â—athes Thirdly he goeth against the consent of all well-ordâ—ed Common-wealthes which in triall of life and death vse not to put men to purge theÌ„selues by Oathe fearing they wilâ— sweare vntruly to saue their liues which feare were needles did they beleeue that God in taking of an Oath did so perpetually constrayne the inmost conscience of obdurate sinners tâ— be tender in that poynt S. Augustine iâ— deed saith that some vnchast women whiâ—â— haue not feared to deceaue their husbands by wantonnes haue been afraide to vse God vnto them as a witnesse of their chastity but these were women perchaunce very few and if in those times so tender a conscience was incident to all or most vnchast wiues I dare say â—hey were more Godly and timorcus â—hen the adulteresses of these dayes amongst whom perchaunce very few may be found that will loose their liues rather then delude their husbands with an Oath Howsoeuer carnall synne the motiue whereof is fleeting pleasure doth not so root out conscience and obdurate the hart as treasons and conspiracies against Kinge Country which whosoeuer harbourâ—th in his hart it is a miracle if he be tender in violating of an Oath And what Theodidact â—eigneth to make the refusers of the Oath odious that those phanaticall plotters would rather haue lost their liues then haue dissembled in an Oath their best frends will hardly beleeue they were worthy of so great prayse Wherfore men that are more timorous of a false Oath then of the losse of their life should least of all be suspected to haue consciences capable of so vast treason as is the blowing vp Parlaments with powder Anacharsis compared the Athenian lawes to the spiders web wherein flyes are caught but greater beasts without difficulty break through them so the Oath of Allegiance catcheth some scrupulous women and tâ—â—orous Papists but great Traitors that caÌ„ without scruple plot and contriue bloody massacres murthers of Princes these will easily blow away so trifling a synne I speak comparatiuely as is equiuocation in an Oath Yf amongest Papists there be any as charity would haue vs iudg there be none that nourish such bloudy entendments I make no doubt they be of that company that take the Oath Yf amongst Puritans there be any so traiterously disposed I dare acquit them that for conscience feare of offeÌ„ding God refuse the Oath vndergoe the penalties thereof as I vnderstand some doe Those PuritaÌ„s may be rather suspected that be deluderâ— of piously inclined people that thinkâ— they may lawfully lye for the glory of the Ghospell that haue drawne auersion to his Maiesty from the very springe of his being from the wombe wherein most barbarously they went about to bury him before he was borne As for Papists they beare him affectioÌ„ grounded in the stock deriued froÌ„ mother to the sonne these I say refusing to sweare out of meere coÌ„scieâ—â—e may according to the rules of prudency and policy most of all be trusted and deserue that the beames of his royall Clemency shine vpon them Philanax They that refuse the Oath I see not why therfore they shold be numbred amongst loyall subiects yea rather fearing periury they seeme to dissouer dislâ—yall affection lurking in their harts Aristobulus Such as refuse to take the Oath in the prescribed forme of wordes at the same time offer to swear that they wil be loyall to his Maiesty in all occasions against domesticall treasons or forraine inuasions either they meaÌ„t sincerly or not if not first where is Theodidacts diuinity that God so bindeth the inmost coÌ„sâ—ience that obdurate synners will not dissemble in oathes Secondly why would you trust them if they should sweare the oath you prescribe if they will dissemble in the Oath they offer to take themselues much more they wil and may disseÌ„ble in the Oath you force vpon them vnder grieuous penalties if they meane sincerely then his Maiesty may be secure What greater Loyalty can you desire they will neuer yeeld to any treason nor second or conceale any forrayne inuasion whatsoeuer How can that stand with the principles of their doctrine that the Pope may depose the King Why should â—e be solicitous how they may do it with safe conscience It is inough that we haue their sworne loue and affection to do it Leaue that care to them when occasions fal out particular circumstances will aâ—foard probable reasons to do the duty of subiects without blemish to their Religion Loue is ingenious to find out reasons for excuse of the person we loue so we be assured of their loue to Prince and Country we need no more But we be not sure thereof How be we not sure wheÌ„ we see those men that offer to sweare it ready to dy rather then sweare an vntruth hauing the greatest assurance they meane sincerely that morality can aâ—foard is it not pitty that harâ—s so duâ—ifull to their Prince should be pluckt out of their brests as trayterous because they be so awfull to God that they wil be rather torne in peeces then sweare an vncertanity Wherfore in my opinion sworne duty of Papists were to be highly prized yea most of all the allegiance of them that be readier to dy then to take

â— rather approue teach that regall auâ—hority was created imediatly of God â—ogether with mans nature and is forâ—ally in euery absolute and free state â—hich state when they choose for theÌ„â—â—lues a Kinge doth not produce a new â—ind of power which was not before â—ut the royall Soueraignty which God â—reated and bestowed vpon them they â—â—ansferre from himselues to the perâ—â—n elected by which coniunction of â—â—e Commonwealths power with â—â—s person he is created King In the â—â—ke manner parents produce children â—â—t by producing the soule which is ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ God only but by conioyuing the â—ule created of God to the bodie preâ—â—red and deâ—igned by generation â—â—erunto True then is the saying of ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Paul Omnis potestas Ã Deo est All power is ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ God and only imediatly fâ—oÌ„ God ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ioyned with particuler persons ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ without the mediation of man â—ence saith Tertullian cited by this â—â—eatiser Kings haue their power whence â—â—r spirit both created by God only but as the spirit is not infused into thâ— bodie without the concourse of Paâ—rents so neither is Royall poweâ— vnited with this or that person buâ— by the consent of their Country Yoâ— see that euen in this opinion Kings arâ— no lesse beholding to the Commonâ—wealth for their authority then Chilâ—dren to their Parents for their soules ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ whose being parents concurre onlâ— designing the matter and making thâ— same a fit receptacle for their souleâ— Vayne then is Theodidacts subtilâ—y ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ make Kings beholding to God onlâ— and no lesse vayne is his speculatioÌ„ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ proue their exemption from men Kinâ— saith he as they receaue their power â—roâ— God oÌ„ly so â—or the good or euil administratioÌ„ thâ—â—reof they are accountable only to God Who seâ— not the weaknes of this infereÌ„ce thouâ—â— the antecedent were true The soule ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ men is of God only yet for wordes ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ deedes proceeding from the same mâ—â— are accountable to morâ—al Superiouâ—â— The power of Father ouer his childâ—â—â— the power of husband ouer his wâ—â—â— is of God only yet for the administrâ—â—tion therof they may be called to aâ—â—â—unt by the Commonwealth yea â—â—s authority which God hath giuen â—â—em when they tyranize ouer wife â—â—d children the Commonwealth â—ay restrayne or vtterly take from â—â—em To conclude and summe vp â—is whole discourse in few wordes â—hat Saul or Dauid or any King had â—wer only from God is at the least ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ vncertainty thence to infer the â—â—â—e of al Kings is a meer vanity That ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Kings haue power from God only â—â—th no probability Graunt all yet â—â—ueraignty cannot out of these prinâ—â—â—les be concluded seeing some â—wer only from God may be suborâ—â—â—ate to superiors on earth Theodidaâ—â—â— â— did he not desire that royal Soueâ—â—â—gnty should fall would he thinke ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ striue so earnestly to haue the ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ builded on this heape of sand Philanax Doth not this doctrine that â—â—nces are made by the consent of the â—â—â—monwealth impare the Maieâ—â—â—f Kings and the reuerence and â—â—â—ration due thereunto Aâ—istobulus No but rather increase the samâ— more then the contrary conceipt Foâ— if men be made to the image and likenes of God sonnes of God and God on earth principally in respect of thâ— soueraignty they haue to rule themselâ—ues and other Creatures when this diâ—uine Maiesty of nature is wholy transâ—ferred from the Communalty to onâ— person how sacred venerable maâ— he be thought as in the beginning oâ— the world the waters that were vnâ—der the Heauens gathering into onâ— place made this vast ocean we see sâ— the heauenly guift of Soueraignty dâ—â—ffused in euery free and absolute state when they by common consent emâ—â—tying exhausting themselues dâ—â—riue the same to one person bâ—â—comes a fountaine or rather a mayâ— sea of Maiesty and power which ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ humane in regard of the person ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ which it is the manner it comâ— vnto him but diuine if we looke ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ the spring whence it originally aâ—â— immediatly floweth To which puâ—â—â—ose the Poet singeth not amisse Terrae Dominos pelagique futuros â—â—menso decuit rerâ—m de Principe nasci Philanax I am satisfied see plainely that his immediate receauing power froÌ„ God only is but an empty title withâ—ut substance which his Maiesty will â—ot regard being â—â—ll of true glory â—lexander was not wise in his vaine amâ—ition to be thought Iupiters sonne â—hereby he lost their hartes that had â—ost helped him to the Monarchy of â—he earth Aristobulus The conceipt is not only idle â—mpty but also may preiudice Kings As Hercules choaked the giant by holâ—ing him aloft in the ayre whom by â—hrowing against the ground he could â—ot ouercome so the enemies of Kings whome by their doctrine that depreâ—sed them vnder the feete of common â—eople they could not make way â—ith flattering subiectes they lift to â—he skyes that they may more dangerously fall For such conceipts by raising Kings beyond measure aboue tâ—â— heades of their subiects remoue theâ— much further froÌ„ their hearts whicâ— are whatsoeuer flatterers say the imâ—â—diate fouÌ„taine of their greatnes thâ— only seat of security they may truâ— vnto Such Monarches as thoughâ— themselues sure being feared thougâ— they were also haâ—â—d haue left behinâ— them lamentable documents thaâ— they were deceaued and that the sayâ—ing of a prudent historian is most truâ— Nullum stabile regnum nisâ— beneuolentia muniâ—tum No King can long raigne who iâ— not walled in and guarded about witâ— the Loue of his subiects Mans louâ— with ease descendes to persons vndeâ— him either by naturall descent whicâ— is the cause they loue so deerly theiâ— Children or by voluntary subiection which is the reason we loue them thaâ— do freely deuote themâ—elues to ouâ— seruice Neither did God in the treaâ—sure of his infinite wisdome find any better meanes to wynne mans aâ—ffection then to descend both to reâ—ceaâ—e life and being from man gloryâ—â—â—g to be stiled the sonne of man and afâ—â—â—ward to liue as an humble seruant ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ man performing the greatest serâ—â—ce of Charity to dye for him It â—â—nnot be thought how louely to man â—aiesty is that professeth to come of â—â—s stocke and to be wholy consecraâ—â—d to his loue you may by this ghesse â—ow pernicious this new doctrine is â—â—at dryeth vp thesâ— two fountaines ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ peoples affection towards their â—rince by making him skorne to be â—â—ought though S. Peter so tearmes â—â—m the creature of man much lesse â—â—eir seruant rather then absolute â—â—ord that may dispose of their liues â—â—uings at this will Contrary to this was the iudgmeÌ„t â—f all the worthiest and best Roman â—mperors that raigned happily and â—â—ed quietly in their bedds They did â—ost willingly acknowledge the Emâ—ire to be the guift of the people and â—enate they were much more carefull â—f their Subiects good then of their â—wne yea they seemed not to regarde â—easons against their persons that â—ere not ioyned with other publicke dâ—triment Amongst theâ—e Traian iâ— emineÌ„t who being chosen Emperouâ— straight

Empire was so mixâ—d of heathens and Christians that this power could not be conueniently exercised And for other three hundred yeares there was no Emperour of the west but only of the â—ast residing in Greecâ— far from the sight of the Romane Bishops so that to the Greâ—â—an Patriarches did the charge immediatly belong to proceed with censures when they were needfull against Emperors And against some they proceeded though not against all for some were good Princes deseruing well of the Church and others that were bad raigned not long or were not so violent and incorrigible as they vrged the Chuâ—ch to vse the last remedy of deposition Finally that some heretickes and â—ersecutors were not deposed argues not want of power in Popes but shewes that circumstances of time and persons might be such as either in wisdome and clemency they would not vse that power or els could not with probability of successe or without daunger of greater inconuenience Howbeit the saying of Otho makes as much against the power of excommunication as deposition and is so stronge that I wonder how Theodidact into his fundamentall discourse for soueraignty if he meant in deede to make it â—undamentall would transcribe so notorious an errour in history as this is that no Romane Emperour was excommunicated before Henry the Fourth For to omit what graue Authors write that Philip a bloudy Emperour was excommunicated by Pope Fabian the first Constantius the Arian by Felix the second who can deny that Arcadius Eudoxia Emperours were excommunicated by Innocent the first for being accessory to S. Chrysostoms banishment and death That Anastasius the EutychiaÌ„ Emperour was excoÌ„municated by Pope Symmacus in a Roman Councell as the said Pope writing to the Emperour testifieth in these words You say that the Senate conspiring with me I haue excommunicated youâ— I haue done so in deed but therin I follow what hath beâ—n donâ— laudably by my â—redecessors before me Philippicus the Monothelite was excommunicated by Pope Constantine who commaunded that the nâ—me of the Emperour should not be put in my writings publicke or priuate or set vpon any coyne either of brasse siluer or lead Leo Isauricuâ— was excomunicated by the Gregories â—econd third and as some say deposed whereby he lost the Empire of the west Lotharius King and Brother to Lewiâ— the second Emperour was excommunicated by Nicholas the first as Otho Frisingensis relates and praiseth the Pope for that fact calling him a religious Priest and full of the zeale of God Your see how false the saying of Frisingensis is which you stood so much vpon What may be the drift of Theodidact who so carefully sets out the sayings of Authors which he knoweth to be most false and then by force draweth Royall authority to rely vpon them This I leaue to your consideration Nor do I see why his Maiesty should make great accompt of this title of Supreme head the true â—ignification whereof our authours when Papists presse them with their arguments renounce and which was first vsurped vpon a knowne scandalous occasion and by â—King whome not only Papists but also we Protestants point forth as a Monster that saith a late Historian if the memory of former Tyrants and of their cruelties were dead hiâ— raigne alone might suffice to bring them all againe to life Why should his gratious Maiesty runne the course of opposition began by this King whose name lyes buried in disgrace and infamy and his posterity turned into rottenesse and dust especially seeing this King Henry the Eight as he parted from his noble Father Henry the seauenth his affection towardes the Roman Bishop so likewise â—e degenerated from the loue that his said noble Father bore to his Maiesties family For it is wel known that this first Head of the English Church sought to cast the houâ—e of â—cotland from succession in the Crowne of England and to preuent the Blessed â—nion of both Kingdomes we now â—nioy Which blessing rooted in his Maâ—estyes person that it may be continued in the flourishing perpetuity of his Royall yssue my prayers are that they may not be driuen by flatterers into needlesse contention with the Church against which none euer opposed themselues that did not either finally yeeld or vtterly pâ—rish Philanax Herein you haue fully satisfied me Now I desire you to come to the third proposition and the second piller of soueraignty deuised by Theodidact That Tyranny Infidelity Heresy or apostacy be not sufficient causes to release subiects oâ— their obedience to their soueraignes Aristobulus Had you not put me in mind I should willingly haue forgotten this question I cannot commend their wisdome that cause or permit Treatises that plead for the impunity of tyrants to be set forth by his Maiesties special authority Wil any man thinke this impunity would be so eagerly defended were it not also loued and desired or loued for meere speculations sake not for the vse and exâ—rcise thereof It is inough for priuate men as sayd a prudent Empâ—â—sse to her husband that they be innocent but Princes seing they gouerne not brute beastes but men must also procure not to be suspected specially in matter of Tyrany wherin subiects are naturally iealous and apt to thinke the worst vpon any light occasion Sometymes weake denyalls be taken as graunts Kings that couldly detest tyranny may soone be suspected to loue it Some kind of sinnes may neuer be named without great shew of execration some may not be named at all there being no words that can sufficiently expresse the horrour that when they are named must waite vpon them Hence it is that the rules of Tragedy commaund that bloudy barbarous murthers be not represented on the strage nor related without tragicall declamations against them Indignatur enim priuatis ac prope socco Digniâ— carminibus narrare scaena Thyesta This being the suspicious disposition of men what may we thinke of Treatises set forth by authorityâ— wherein the bloudiest cruelties be related without horror yea their Authors be named as worthy of honour not as monsters deseâ—â—ing banishment from the face of the earth and memory of mankind What is this but to cast suspicions that his Maiesty secretly affects such courses and could finde in his hart that most mercilesâ—e tyranny might raigne iâ—punely Wherein the wronge done him is exceeding great his grations disposition being as far from louing Tyranny as his happy Raigne from the exâ—rcise of it Philanax His Maiesties knowne clemency innaâ—ed auersion from bloud aboundantly confirmes what you say Nor doth he stand vpon this totall impunity of Princes that he would haue true tyrants liue vncontrolled but because Common-people are so light-headed and vnstayed that if they bâ— permitted to resist their Prince in any imaginable case of tyranny they wilâ— when they are displeased with himâ— though without cause straight imagine that then is the cause of lawfull resistance Aristobulus We cannot deny

Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Text snippets containing the quad