Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	bring_v	know_v	life_n	4,258	5	4.2561	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85402	The Vnrighteous iudge, or an answer to a printed paper, pretending a letter to Mr Io. Goodvvin, by Sir Francis Nethersole knight. Wherein the rough things of the said pretended letter, are made smooth, and the crooked things straight: and the predominant designe of it fully evinced to be, either an unscholarlike oscitancie and mistake, or else somewhat much worse. / By the said Jo. Goodwin.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.	1649 (1649)	Wing G1179; Thomason E540_1; ESTC R205729	15,015	25

and weightiest matters Fifthly It is yet much more unreasonable to stigmatize a man with Heresie unlesse upon the change of his judgement he shall account to men of opposite judgement for his change in such arguments and grounds which shall be satisfactory unto them that such an alteration in him is justifiable Doe not your self say in the postscript of your printed letter that for a man to confesse himself convinced of an errour he hath made publique especially if his judgment hath not bin swaied by weight of reason but overballa●●ed by private Interest is one of the hardest points of selfdeniall So that according to your principles he is an Heretique nay a self condemned Heretique who cannot justifie or maintain those opinions which he holds by such arguments which will make men of contrary judgement deniers of themselves yea and this in one of the hardest points of self deniall If this bee your touchstone to try Heretiques and self condemned Heretiques by I feare that neither you nor any of your partie will stand before the touch But Sixtly and lastly for this that which in this quarter of your discourse is at deepest and most desperate defiance with all principles of reason and common sence it self is that you pronounce him a selfe condemned Heretique who shall not give such an account as hath been described and evicted for most unreasonable unto you and others of the alteration of his judgement For I beseech you is it not possible for a man to have grounds and reasons satisfactorie to himself and to his own judgement and conscience for what he holds unlesse he publisheth them in print Or is a man self condemned who verily and in the simplicitie of his heart beleeveth that he hath sufficient ground for what he holdeth or professeth unlesse he maketh publique profession of his grounds also Were you a self condemned Heretique untill the other day when as you say you took off your mask and declared for the King against both Parliament and Armie and their proceedings For doubtlesse till of late you gave neither me nor the world any reason at all much lesse any that did satisfie either me or others as neither yet have you done that you were not I will not say in an Heresie but in an errour or failer in judgement whilest you stood by the Cause of Prerogative and Will turning your back upon the Cause of Equitie and of the just interest of the Kingdome which being interpreted is none other but the cause of God Were you therefore a man condemned in your self because you did not justifie your selfe before others Or if you were a man justified in your self though condemned by others whilest you kept your reasons and grounds to your self of that opinion for which others condemned you why may not I be admitted to take part with you in the priviledge upon the same terms Sect. 8 And whereas you essay to bruise the heele of my Right and Might well met that so the credit of it may halt in the apprehension of men by going about the bush to represent the Author of it as a man of a desultorie and variable judgement and hereby condemning himself of iniquitie I perceive hereby that you deale more in colours then in substances For whatsoever my judgement was in the point you wot of whether Negative or Affirmative when I wrote my Anti-Cavalerisme certain I am and certain also might you have been if you had looked a little better before you had leaped that there is nothing either in the passage which you transcribe or in any other part of the discourse of any import for your turn I mean which asserteth or presenteth it as a thing unlawfull to touch the lives of Tyrants or in your dialect of Kings for day and night it seems to you are but ths same in a due processe or course of Justice Again whatsoever my judgment is now about the same question or point whether I judge it lawfull or unlawfull to smite the lives of Tyrants or King Tyrants with the sword of Justice upon sufficient evidence of crimes deserving death certain I am that in my late discourse intituled Right and Might c. I affirm nothing positively on the one hand or the other Suppose that in the one discourse some things were expressed not with so much steadinesse or circumspectnesse of terms though I am conscious of no such defect here as I shall account presently but that a weak understanding might inferre and possibly think that my judgement stood against the lawfulnesse of all judiciarie proceeding against Kings in matters of life and death and upon a like failing in my other discourse though to my best understanding I am as blameles here as in the other that I seem to hold a lawfulnesse of such proceedings Must I upon the account of other mens weaknesse or incogitancie in reading be condemned for variablenesse in judgement or as one who have condemned my self of iniquity These questionlesse are Prerogative dealings and have no communion with principles of Equitie Reason or Religion Sect. 9 But because you seem rather to insult then say that the passage by you transcribed from p. 7. of my Anti-Cavalerism stareth the Composer of my late Pamphet in the face with a wide oden mouth whereby if your Rhetorique transcendeth not my Grammar you mean that it manifestly contradictetth what I affirm herein suffer me in a few words to shew you how vain your rejoycing is in this behalf For First that I speak nothing in the passage concerning much lesse against any judiciarie triall of or legall proceedings against Kings is cleare first because in the very first words of the passage which lead the sense of the whole I use the expression of offering violence to the Person of a King or attempting to take a way his Life viz. by violence Now the taking away of the life a malefactour by the hand of Justice in a due and regular processe of law was never I beleeve by any man termed the offering of violence to his Person Secondly that unlawfulnesse of offering violence to the Person of a King which I here insinuate I oppose to the known Doctrine and Practice of the Jesuites Now the manner and methord of offering violence to the Persons or of taking away the lives of Kings which the Iesuites both teach and practise is known to be not by bringing them to a judiciall tryall or upon evidence of matter of fact against them deserving death but by wayes of assasination poysoning and such extrajudiciall and murtherous practises Thirdly for the proofe of the unlawnes which I here plead of taking away the lifes of Kings I mention Davids conscience smiting him when he came but so neer the life of a King as the cutting off the lap of his garment This also plainly shews that the unlawfulnes of taking away the lives of Kings which I here maintain onely respects the fact as perpetrated or to be perpetrated by