Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	child_n	father_n	life_n	5,155	5	4.4801	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19328	The ungirding of the Scottish armour: or, An ansvver to the informations for defensive armes against the Kings Majestie which were drawn up at Edenburgh, by the common help and industrie of the three tables of the rigid covenanters of the nobility, barons, ministry, and burgesses, and ordained to be read out of pulpit by each minister, and pressed upon the people, to draw them to take up armes, to resist the Lords anointed, throughout the vvhole kingdome of Scotland. By Iohn Corbet, minister of Bonyl, one of the collegiate churches of the provostrie of Dunbartan.	Nicanor, Lysimachus, 1603-1641.	1639 (1639)	STC 5753; ESTC S119005	43,296	68

pretence of Religion and you spoyle the Clergie of Tithes Stipend burden the Kings Subjects with impositions ransack the Kings houses Pardon me I pray you to tell you that this fortresse which you build will be your overthrow this fire you kindle will burne you these weapons ye forge will be tempered in your own intrails and that thereby you will neither leave of your selves nor your Covenant ought but a shamefull memory Covenanter If a private man be bound by the Law of nature to defend himself cum moderamine inculpatae turelae 6. Argument against the Prince or Iudge as a private man invading him by violence and not pursuing him judicially and by order of law and may repell violence with violence If a chaste Matron may defend her owne body that it be not defiled by the Adulterer were his place never so great If children may resist the violent invasion of their parents against themselves their mother or others of the family notwithstanding the strict obligation betweene parents and children If servants may hold the hands of their masters seeking to kill them in their rage If the Marriners and passengers may save themselves by resisting him who sits at the helm and would drive the Ship against a rocke or by hindering the Prince himselfe not only by supplication of mouth but by strength of hand to mis governe the ship to their certaine Shipwracke much more may the body defend it self against all invavasion whatsoever Anticovenanter You are put to poore shifts when for arguments you bring crooked comparisons yet good enough for ignorants As for your first supposition the question is not whether a private man may defend himself against his Superiour with inculpata tutela But whether or not defence by armes be culpata or inculpata tutela His Majesty denieth you not lawful defence by Law but your taking up of armes to resist his Authority is damnable 2. Tell me when doth a Prince become a private man as the Popes infallibility is left in his Chaire so you make the Kings authority to reside in his Throne When Saul was in the wildernesse persecuting David with great violence was he then a private man you will have it so But I trust David better then you all who would not defend himselfe by armes but fled from him as from the Lords Anointed who can touch the Lords Anointed and be innocent It is altogether against the Law of Nature that private men should take armes against their Superiors seeing it 's against the Law of nature that a privat man should be judge in his own cause as Luther learnedly disputes in the 5. book of Sleidens Commentaries Your second supposition is as idle It becommeth a chast woman to defend her Chastity even against the King but how I pray you by taking up of armes not at all but by not yeelding her selfe into his armes and though he being stronger than she force her yet she hath defended her chastity and only the King is the adulterer Thus in Augustints judgement Lucretia that chaste Matron lost not her Chastity albeit Tarquinius the Emperour by force lay with her only she drew no sword to resist his violence but here was her lamentable fault that the fact sore against her will being done she took armes against her self and killed her selfe Your third supposition is no better for there is no Law that authorizeth Children to resist their Parents by armes 2. Rules of prudency cannot be set down for every circumstance therfore in such cases prudency will find out lawfull means either to pacifie or at least to escape by flight the parents fury 3. If the case were so that either the Parent must kill the child or the child kill the Father I think it becommeth the child who hath his being of the Father rather to suffer than to destroy the fountain whence he sprang 4. Parents have not so great power over their children as Kings over their Subjects Kings have power of life and death which Parents have not And your fourth comparison is yet more weak for the masters power over the servants is lesse than Parents over their children Your last supposition is true in part the Mariners and Passengers may resist the Pilot for Pilots are not Kings over the rest in the ship you do too basely esteem of Authority But what if the King will drive the ship on the rock himself Answer 1. By doing of this the King is no more seeking the ruine of the Marriners and Passengers then his own aestruction and in this case they are bound to save their King from death in such submissive and humble manner as it becommeth and not by armes with swords musquets pikes and Cannons which are most offensive weapons 2. If the King would be thus desperate it cannot be but he is gone mad and quite out of his wits and so interpretativè they have a warrant to hinder him to undo all which he wil allow when he commeth to himself again Well al this may be done without taking of armes But then say ye may not the Church defend it self from suffering shipwrack against a Tyrant who is seeking that Answer It cannot be so done the comparison is much unlike You speak as if the one case were as obuious to the sense as the other They must be apparant rocks not supposed only Both sense and reason tell that if the Prince be not hindered by the Mariners he and all must perish But the Church of Christ which is builded on a Rock against the which all Tyrants violence no nor the gates of hell cannot prevaile is a gainer by suffering and every drop of their blood begets new believers and so resisting being an unlawfull meanes may bring ruine to the Church but suffering not so If the Jewes in the daies of Ahasverus had been of this new Scottish humor when an utter extirpation was intended by Haman both of themselves and their Religion they would have taken armes but their prayers and teares were their defence in their greatest extremity This was the constant practice of the Primitive Church also even when they were most able to defend themselves against their persecutors to this purpose Chrysost exposition on Psal 147. saith well that God compasseth his Church with the crosse to suffer not with wals for defence Ecclesiam inquit munist validius quàm Ierusalem non vectibus portis se ●eruce circumseptam renunciatione propria voluntatis cùm dixis Porta inferorum non pravalebant adversm 〈◊〉 In principio itaque●eges Imperatores populi civitates damonum phalanges ipsa diaboli Tyrannis alia innumerabilia invaserunt Ecclesiaem illa tamen omnia fracta dissoluia sunt interierunt ipsa tamen crevit in'tantam provect a est altitudinem ut ipsos etiam coelos superaverit For God hath guarded his Church more strongly then Jerusalem not being environed with gates and barrs but with the crosse and the