Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	3,246	5	10.1257	5	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

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

this his will gaue comâ—maundment to his people and effectuâ—ally stirred vp tâ—â—ir hartes to makâ— them Kings These are remote titleâ— and a farre of but it can neuer be proued that in making Saul and Dauiâ— Kings the peoples graunt did noâ— concur with Gods yea the Scripturâ— signifies that it did saying all the peoplâ— went to Galgala and made Saul King before thâ— Lord. The elders of Iudath and Israel annointeâ— Dauid King ouer them Philanax Some say the people made Saul anâ— Dauid Kings not by giuing them Kingly power this was from God only but by manifestinâ— that they were Kings by approuing them ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Kings made by God by putting them into thâ— possession of their Kingdomes to exercise regaâ— authority Aristobulus I know that Theodidact answereth ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ this sorte but proof of his sayings ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ bringeth none Doth he thinke the â—â—llar of Soueraignity stands firme inâ—â—gh vpon his bare word What if one â—â—y that the people did likewise conâ—â—r with God to make them Kings â—â—n Theodidact thinke you cleerly conâ—â—te him Verily this concourse of God â—â—d people to make a King is insinuaâ—â—d in Deuteronomy Thou shalt make him â—ing whom thy Lord God hath chosen for thee â—â—gnifying that God designed the perâ—â—n but the people made him King ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ bestowing authority on him And â—â—ing God vseth not to do things onâ—â— by himselfe when secondary agents ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ present sufficient to worke them â—â—y may we not thinke that God haâ—â—ng designed the persons of Saul and â—â—uid left the making them Kings to â—â—e people of the Iewes who had no â—â—â—se power then other free Commonâ—â—althes to constitute for themselues â—â—uernours and Kings Heere you may see in what danger to fall regall supremacy is which Thâ—â—odidact buildeth vpon this discourâ—â— Saul and Dauid had power only anâ— immediatly from God therfore thâ— same is to be beleeued of other Kingsâ— The antecedent is vncertaine and caâ— neuer be proued as hath beene saydâ— but much more seely is the coÌ„sequenâ—â— which extendeth Gods speciall fâ—â—uours shewed to his people in thâ— choice of their Kings to the generaliâ—â— of Kings and Nations God fed hâ—â— people in the desâ—rt with bread maâ—â— by the hands of Angells may we theÌ„â—â— inferre that men haue no bread bâ—â— coÌ„meth immediatly from heauen But to omit these Kings that werâ— by Gods expresse comission personallâ— designed that other Kings haue powâ—â— oÌ„ly froÌ„ God is a paradox which scarâ— any Christian Deuine houldes Câ—â—tholicks Puritans forraine Protâ—â—stants euen our English Conformâ—â—tants deriue regall authority from thâ— Commonwealth Let the truth bâ— tryed by the testimony of two Can â—ame any grauer Authors in oâ—â— Church then Doctor Bilson late Bishoâ— â—f VVinchester M. Hooker The first in â—is Treaâ—ise of Christian Subiection â—ebateth this question and defineth â—hat Kings are not only creatures of â—he Commonwealth but also in some â—ases may be deposed by the supreame â—urisdiction thereof And that Chilperick was iustly deposed by his Nobles and â—ipin chosen King in his place M. Hooker â—ath these wordes all publick regiment ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ what kinde soeuer seemeth euidently to haue â—â—sen from deliberate aduise and consultation â—nd composition betwene men ordeyning the â—â—me and yeilding themselues subiect therevnto â—ithout which consent there were no reason â—aâ— one man should take vpon him to be Lord or â—udge ouer others And againe To Fathers â—â—aith he within their priuate â—amilies naâ—â—re hath giuen supreme power howbeit ouer â— whole grande multitude hauing no such deâ—â—ndency vpon any one and consisting of many â—â—milies impossible it is that any one shold haue â—â—mplete and full power without consent of â—â—n He graunteth indeed that some â—ings and law-makeâ—s as Moyses Saul â—â—uid were autâ—orized by God and by â—â—â—resse commission immediatly and personally â—â—aued â—roÌ„ him ouâ— of this case saith he the power of gouernment and making lawes ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ commaund whole politik societies of men beâ—longeth so properly vnto the same entire socieâ—ties that for any Prince or Potentate vpon earâ—â— of what kindâ— soeuer to exercise the same ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ himselfe not by authority deriued at the firâ—â— from their consent vpon whose persons they imâ—pose lawes it is no better then meere tyrannyâ— Thus he writeth and thus our own Authors ouerthrâ—w Theodidacts new piller of Soueraigntie proclayminâ— those Princes playne tyraÌ„ts that claymâ— power deriued from God and naturâ— and not originally from the grauâ—â— and coÌ„sent of their subiects For whicâ— their opinions reasons may be broughâ— very vrgent The practise of all Couâ—â—tryes that haue traÌ„sferred the Crownâ— from family to family haue restrayneâ— and enlarged the boundes thereof bâ— politick lawes What reason if we râ—â—spect only the law of God and naturâ— why Spaine shold be gouerned by a Mâ—â—narch rather then Venice That iâ— England women may succeede to thâ— Crowne froÌ„ which they are excludeâ— in France That in Scotland the Crownâ— descendeth to the neerest in blâ—ud aâ—â— ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Poland the Kinge is made by the free â—â—oice of States What is the reason â—â—at by the law of nations the whole Commonwealth may be punished â—rought into bondage for the sinnes â—f their Prince Why shold the Princes â—â—ymes be imputed to them if it were ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ their choice neither at the first to â—aue him nor afterward to want him â—ithout question â—he generall voice â—f hâ—mane kind is that Commonâ—ealthes haue power to make Princes â—nd vpon iust reason vnmake them â—nd therfore they are accountable to â—â—her neighbouring States if they adâ—it one to the Crowne with their inâ—â—ry or finding him incorrigible do â—ot remoue him Whence ariseth that â—â—onge inclination in subiects to fight â—â—r their Prince to wit from loue to â—â—stify their owne doings the States â—â—blick iudgment of their Princes â—orthines Philanax It cannot be well denyed but the â—â—nsent of the Commonwealth either â—â—e or enforced by Conquest concurâ—eth to the making of the Prince but Theodidact sayth that is not the originall and mediate fountaine oâ— this authorityâ— Heate moisture colde and our temper arising from them are preparations whereby our bodies are made fit receptacles for the soule but the Creator oâ— our soule is God so Princes haue their claymes and tiâ—les by election or conquest but the prime Author of their power is God as they receaue their power only from God sâ— for the good or euill administration thereof they are accountable only to God Aristobulus This discourse of Theodidact groundeth Royall authority vpon another vncertainty which Deuines debate iâ— their schooles whether royall poweâ— be produced by the Commonwealtâ— wheÌ„ Kinges are made or being createâ— by God together with mankind froâ— the bâ—ginning is communicated bâ— the Commonwealth to their Kingâ— Some say that the Commonwealâ—h making Kinges produceth a new kinâ— of power which before was not whence they inferre that the CommoÌ„â—wealth hath a more eminent authoritâ— â—hen the Kinge as being able to giue â—eing to his power others whom

Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Text snippets containing the quad