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	king_n	son_n	4,367	5	5.1460	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88587	A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.	Love, Christopher, 1618-1651.	1649 (1649)	Wing L3168; Thomason E549_10; ESTC R204339	63,269	85

by the mouth of the Prophet Hosea saith that He will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the House of Jehu That is the blood of Ahabs 70 sons which was shed by the Rulers of Iezreel at Iehu's command I wish those who had a chief hand in putting the King to death would consider whether a Politicall design rather then a conscientious respect to justice was not a chiefe motive ingaging them to that horrid attempt 4. Most of those men in scripture who spilt the blood of their Kings although wicked did not dye a naturall death but came to an untimely end T is said in 2 King 21. 23. that the servants of Ammon conspired against Him and slew the King in His own House then 't is said in the very next verse the people of the Land slew all them that had conspired against King Ammon Againe Elah King of Israel was slaine by Zimri a Captaine of his chariots as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk 't is said Zimri went in and smote him and killed him But what became of Zimri Jezabel could ask had Zimri peace that slew his master 2 King 9. 31. No he had not for when 't was told in the camp of Israel that Zimri had conspired and also slain the King upon this the Army of Israel fell into a mutiny made Omri King and came against Zimri who for fear was driven to run into the palace of the Kings house put the house on fire about his ears and was there burnt to ashes that was the end that Zimri came to Another King that was killed by his own Subjects was Iehoash King of Iudah 't is said his servants arose and made a conspiracy and slew Jehoash in the House of Millo But what became of these men that slew Iehoash 't is said expresly 2 King 14. 5. that as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in the hand of Amaziah the son of Jehoash that he slew his servants which had slain the King his father So likewise Shallum killed Zecharaiah King of Israel but he himself was soon afterward killed by Menahim the sonne of Gadi as 't is storied 2 King 15. 10 14. Again Pekah the son of Remaliab killed Pekaiah King of Israel and soon after he himselfe was killed by Hoshea as 't is recorded 2 King 15. 25. 30. Many other instances might bee alledged if I should exactly looke over the Histories of the Kings of Israel but these may suffice 5. T is to be observed that Omri who did succeed Zimri who came to so untimely an end was made King by the Souldiers or Army of Israel and was he better then the rest no he was rather worse 't is said expresly that Omri wrought evill in the sight of the Lord and did worse then all that were before him It is my wi●h that those Rulers or Representatives or cal them what you wil who have the rule of the Kingdome now in their hands and have gotten it by the power of an Army doe not worse then all the Kings that ever went before that we feel not their little fingers heavyer upon us then the Kings loins 6. The children of Israel from Saul their first King to Zedekiah the last which was about 480 yeares were never under such intolerable oppression and misery as in the times of those Kings before mentioned who were so put to death such violent removalls of their Kings made such strange alterations and popular commotions in the Kingdom of Israel that the people had not peace or settlement but lay under the miseries either of oppression or Civil wars thus it was after Zimri King of Israel was burnt in the place of the Kings house then Tibni and Omri had a contest about a succession or claime to the Kingdome upon this 't is said the people of Israel were divided into two parts half to make Tibni King another halfe followed Omri to have him King upon which a bloody war followed for three years and upward T is my prayer that a war might not follow in England as did in Israel This instance may suffice in stead of many I shall mention no more It seems these Ministers of Jesus Christ in London I mean these subscribers could aquiesce in such concessions from the King c. then a little after the Ministers of Jesus Christ in London plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the concessions of the King at Newport which by the testimony of the whole Ministry of Scotland acquiesced in would destroy both Religion and Covenant Answ. 1. T is no wonder that you who make so little conscience to maintain errors should make no more of speaking falshood and that not only against the Ministers but against the Parliament also you say the Parliament did acquiesce in the Kings concessions which they did not yea they did wholly wave that question Whether the Kings Answers to the Propositions of both Houses were satisfactory and like men of wisdome honor and conscience they voted only this That the Answers of the King to the Propositions of both Houses are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the Kingdome 2. The Ministers did not plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the Kings concessions I am sure their Representation and Vindication hath no such intimation in them the Ministers did hope and beleeve the Parliament would have demanded more and the King yeelded to more for the good of the Kingdom 3. The Ministers of the Church of Scotland did not say that the Parliament did or would acquiesce in the Kings concessions as satisfactory but only they gave a timely caution that if they should be acquiesced in it would bee dangerous and destructive to Religion and Covenant Look back into your former course of life and call to mind how many oaths and subscriptions you have made from time to time over and over c. And how have you directly for sworn your selves against the light and sense of your own judgment and conscience have wee not cause to judg better of many of the Prelaticall party who being men of learning and conscience and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as your selves c. Answ. 1. Is it not more then enough for you to accuse the Reverend and godly Ministers of falsity vain-glory malignity but must you now lay Perjury to their charge also 2. Suppose any of them I am sure all did not did swear or subscribe to the Church-government by Bishops and to the book of Common-prayer for 't is of that you speak and should now renounce them yet 1. I thought that you would account it a badg of their glory and not asperse them with the stain of Perjury for thus doing 2. Was it agreeable to the Law of love or rules of Christianity to say that so many godly and conscientious Ministers did forsweare themselves against

they have prospered and the Church of God have been persecuted and kept under by them 3. You think that you have a shift that will help you out by saying that successes with their circumstances as praying and solemn appealing unto God vindicates the mind of God To this evasion of yours I shal say but this Successe may not alwaies fal to that side though just which doth pray and appeal to God but on that side which is unjust and doth neither As is clear in the case of the men of Judah they sought unto God and askt Counsell of God before they would fight with the children of Benjamin yet for all that they lost in two battails 40000 men yet their cause was good their prayers and appeals to heaven were solemn and serious 4. Consider God may give the Army successes not out of any love or approbation of their wayes but out of love to his own name and people whose work for some time they were imployed about Cyrus was successefull against the Chaldaeans these successes were given him not for his own sake but for the sakes of the children of Israel God may use the Army as a battail axe to break the enemies of his Church in pieces and yet neither love their persons nor own many of their actions but break them in the end Dionysius did ill to say because he had a prosperous voyage at sea that therefore the Gods did favour Sacriledge God neither favours nor loves Rebellion though they may prosper that are guilty of it If you do build so much on successes yet make not present but finall successe the ground of your confidence if the Army persist to justifie their sinfull actings mark what will become of them in the latter end He conclude this with the wish of the Poets Careat successihus opto Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat That impulse of spirit and those impressions of heart that stirred up Jehoiadah the Priest to raise up severall parties to put Queen Athaliah to death for her cruelty and murthers did stirr up the Army Parliament and Court of Justice to put the late bloody Tyrant to death and wee may expect rest and peace as the issue thereof Answ. 1. Had the Army as good grounds to put to death King Charles as Jehoiadah had to kill Queen Athaliah I should not open my mouth Consider 1. Athalia● was an usurper of the Crown of Israel but so was not King Charles of the Crown of England 2. What Jehoiada did do was by Authority derived from the young King Joash who was proclamed and crowned King by the consent of the whole realm 3. Iehoiada was not only a Prince of his Tribe and the young Kings uncle but also hee was as it were Lord Protector of the young King during his minority and therefore might without question legally put that usurper to death Prove the King to be such an usurper as Athaliah was or the High-Court and Army to have such an authority as Iehoiada had and I le be silent 1. If she had had a true and legall Title to the Crown as the King had 2. If he had solemnly swore to God to preserve her person as you did to preserve the Kings 3. If shee had been no Idolater as the King was not 4. If he had not authority from the young King for doing what he did would he have done it no doubtlesse 2. I shall pass that by that you put the Army before the Parliament and only speak to that impulse of spirit that stirred up the Army and Court of Justice to put the King to death I shall yeeld that they did by an impulse of spirit but yet I have reason to beleeve 't was by the impulse of that spirit that now works mightily in the children of disobedience because 't was done without and against the rule of the Word as I shewed before by which as the spirit so all the impulses of the spirit are to be tryed and if they agree not thereto they are Satanicall suggestions not the Spirits inspirations 3. And whereas you expect that the issue of putting the King to death will be rest and peace I must tell you the blood of Kings hath been oftentimes the seeds of dissentions commotions and desolations not of rest peace and establishment unto Kingdoms as I told you before so I say again that the children of Israel from Saul their first King to Zedekiah their last were never under such intolerable oppressions and miseries as in those times wherein their Kings though wicked and bloody were put to death by their Subjects That the murderer shall surely be put to death is a known Precept of God if this must be dispensed withall shew us the absolute present and clear necessity of it if you cannot will you speak wickedly for God c. As for the Armies proceedings if there was a necessity that the Land should be cleansed from blood-guiltynesse that the great ends of the Covenant and all our wars should be secured c. then was there a necessity on the Army to take that course they did Answ. 1. I may answer you by way of Retortion that the murderer should be put to death is a known Precept that Goring and Owen had murdered many was a known practice for their pardon there is a known Vote now if they were innocent why were they condemned if guilty of blood why were they spared can you despence with blood and none else 2. Though murdering of one personally and maliciously cannot be dispensed withall yet God never required that all who in a military way shed blood should be put to death as is clear in the case of Absolons Rebellion and the Benjamites unjust war with many others neither David nor the men of Iudah when the sword had determined the controversy in the field on their sides and had cut off many of the evil doers held themselves bound to cut off the remainders that was left of the Armies either in the one or the other If you think that this Precept viz. that the murderer be put to death reaches to all blood spilt in a military way then are you bound that every man that was in the Kings Armies should bee put to death else according to you the land would be defiled with blood 3. To what you say in the last place that there was a necessity on the Army to take that course they did if there was a necessity that the Land should he cleansed from blood c. I shall return this briefe answer 1. The Army pleaded a necessity in the year 1647. for things of a quite contrary nature to what they pleaded a necessity for in Nov. 1648. 2. Who are the most competent judges the Parliament or the Army to judge of this necessity if you say the Parliament they saw no such necessity why did not the army then acquiesce in their judgments as they once promised to do If

ever yet understand You pretend you can shew their books and Sermons for it but I am very confident you can shew none 2. I observe you promise in your book more then you make good you promise as if you would shew severall bookes and Sermons of the subscribers yet you quote but one viz. Mr. Loves Sermon at Vnbridge now because you single him out from among his Brethren I shall therefore speak the more in his vindication 1. I perceive you quote Mr. Love no lesse then ten times in your Clerico-Classicum yet never mention him at all in your Pulpit Incendiary so that it seems you could not them rake together so much matter against him as to make him a Pulpit Incendiary 2. I took notice further that you quote him in the front spice of your book as if what you had alledged from him would have made much for your cause for bringing the King to Capitall punishment his words you quote are these Men of blood are not meet persons to be at peace with til all the guilt of blood be expiated avenged either by the sword of the Law or the law of the Sword else a peace can neither be safe nor just Chr. Love in his Englands distemper pag. 37. Answ. To which I have four things to say 1. There is no mention at all of the King either in that passage or any other part of his Sermon that Hee should be cut off 2. Mr. Love doth clearly expresse himselfe whom he means by those men of blood viz. not the King but as he saith pag. 32. of Englands distemper Many malignant humors are to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdome before we can be healed 3. T is true Mr. Love then was and still is of that mind that those who were the chief instruments to engage the King in the late bloody War should be cut off either by the sword of the Law in a time of peace or if not reach them that way by the law of the sword in the time of war and this he and all others who approved of the Parliaments taking up of defensive arms and have taken the Covenant are bound in their places and Callings to indeavour after according to the fourth Article of the Covenant wherein we are bound that malignants may be brought to condigne punishment as the degree of their offence shall require or deserve or the supream Iudicatories respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judg convenient Yet 4. Mr. Love doth well consider that in that very part of the Covenant where we promise to endeavour to bring Delinquents to condign punishment we promise to preserve the person of the King as Artic. 3. and 4. Yea those Mr. Love deems should be brought to condigne punishment whom the Covenant describes to be malignants and evill instruments viz. such as hinder the Reformation of Religion divide the King from his people and have not you done that or one of the Kingdomes from another or that make any factions or parties among the people of all which your selfe and the men you plead for have been most notoriously guilty as wel as the malignant therefore deserve to be brought to condign punishment as well as they As for that other passage of Mr. Loves in pag. 32. of his Sermon which you quote It will search to the quick to find out whether King James or Prince Henry his son came to a timely death yea or no It would ear●h to the quick whether Rochell was not betrayed and by whom It would goe to the quick to find out whether the Irish Rebellion was not plotted promoted and contrived in England and by whom Mr. Love in his Englands Distemper pag. 23. To this I have 3 things briefly to answer for his vindication viz. Mr. Loves desire is that the earth should not cover the blood of the slain but that the shedders of blood should be all made manifest he often wisht that the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland the Betrayers of the Protestants in Rotchell the Conspirators of King James or Prince Henrys death if they did come to an untimely end might be found out 2. I demand of you is there any clause in that Sermon or any tendency that way to charge the King with the death of King Iames or Prince Henry or with the blood of Rochell or Ireland 3. If he had charged all that blood upon the King which he did not yet there is not the least intimation in all his Sermon that you should bring the King to Capitall punishment Now that Mr. Loves judgment was utterly against cutting off the King I shall produce anon a book of his long since in print against that horrid attempt Was it not yet more of your ingenuity and candor to assert several notorious falsities and untruths as to instance pag. 6. of your Vindication in the margin where you say the Agreement of the people was the same for substance with that of the Armies and declared against by the Parliament in Decemb. 1647. there is one untruth again you say that one of the Souldiers was shot to death for promoting it this is first a most notorious untruth and secondly a most injurious charging the Army with the blood of that man the man that was shot to death was not at all so much as questioned for promoting that Agreement but being sent with his Company by the Generall to New-castle did with others make a mutiny resisted and beat their Officers tooke away the Colours from their Ensigne beat him with his own Colours for which this fellow that was sh●t to death was condemned c. Answ. 1. You who are so pragmaticall as to fasten falsities and untruths upon the Ministers will shew your self to be I say not the father of lies yet a son of falsehood 2. It seems you are put to your shifts in searching out any accusation against the subscribers for from their Representation you run to their Vindication and leap as far as the sixth page at once and therein it seems can meet with nothing for your purpose in the body of their book that you are forc't to pitch upon a small marginal note which I need not answer yet I shall and I hope clearly evidence that they speak truly but you falsly for you say it is said in the marginall note that the Agreement of the People is the same for substance with the Agreement of the Army I affirm 't is true though you say 't is false I have compared the one and the other together and find them for substance the same only I must confesse the late Agreement hath more pernicious passages in it then the former Agreement of the People had which was voted by the Commons assembled in Parliament 9. November 1647. to be destructive to the being of Parliaments and to the fundamentall Government of the Kingdome And afterwards in December 17. 1647.

of Judah they did not bring the residue of the children of Benjamin to a judiciall Tryall nor executed them though they slew of the men of Iudah 40000 but the sword having determined the controversy in the field on their side by a very full and finall conquest the remaining part of the children of Benjamin were invited by their conquerors to an amicable reconcilement and Treaty as appears Iudg. 21. 13. The whole Congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon and to call peaceably unto them or as it is in the margin to proclaim peace to them yea 't is said that the people even those that slew them repented them for Benjamin because the Lord had made a breach in the Tribes of Israel c. 21. v. 15. now had that Law taken place in all Military expeditions they had been bound not to have suffered one of the children of Benjamin to live who was ingaged in the war against them especially considering that they had spilt so much blood no lesse then 40000 men slain by the Benjamites I could produce many instances in scripture of the like nature but this may suffice I shall only mention that the Army was not in time past so high flown as to put no difference between shedding blood maliciously and in a Military way else how could they say that tender equitable and moderate dealing both toward His Majesty and Royall family and late party so far as may stand with the safety of the Kingdome and security to our Common rights and liberties is the most hopefull course to take away the seeds of War or future seeds among us for Posterity and to procure a lasting peace and a government in this distracted nation The Army you see became Petitioners for the King and His party yet beleeved them to be guilty of blood if they had beleeved that the Law of God had reacht them they should have petitioned that all might dye not that any might live I am sure you will say the King and His party were murderers if so why would you cut off the King yet spare His Party when they in your esteem are guilty of blood as wel as He doth your Religion teach you to punish the King and spare the Subjects Now in regard I shal meet with but little or no further occasion in the following part of your book to con●ute that bloody practice you pleaded for viz. the putting the King to death I shal therefore before I leave this subject give you these 6 scripturall advertisements if it may be to reclaim you from your King-killing doctrine 1. That there is no President in all the scripture that the Sanhedrin of the Jews or Rulers of Israel did ever judicially arraign and put to death any of the Kings of Iudah or Israel though many of them were most gross Idolaters and tyrannous Princes who shed much innocent blood and oppressed the people sundry wayes T is true indeed some of the idolatrous Kings of Israel were slain by private conspiracies and popular tumults in an illegall way but none were ever arraigned condemned or executed by their Sanhedrins or generall Assemblies So that in putting the K to death you have done that for which you have no Scripture president 2. The servants of God in scripture did hold it lawful to take up defensive arms to withstand the rage and tyranny of their Kings yet did not count it lawfull to destroy the persons of their Kings thus David did by force of Arms defend himself against the raging and tyrannicall invasion of Saul by possessing many strong holds and fortified places yet thought it not lawfull to kill him God forbid said David that I should do this thing to my master the Lords anointed to stretch forth my hand against him c. and said he to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against him and be guiltlesse If many circumstances had been considered David had much to plead why he should take away the life of Saul more I am sure then you had to take away the life of our late King for 1. Saul was in actuall pursuance of David for his life 1 Sam. 23. 26. 2. God had before this declared that he repented that he had made Saul King 1 Sam. 15. 11. 3. God had rejected Saul from being King over Israel 1 Sam. 15. 26. 4. Saul had lost his governing abilities the spirit of government was departed from Him 1 Sam. 16. 14. 5. He was guilty of much innocent blood He slew 85 Priests of the Lord and put to the sword both men women children and sucklings in the City of Nob 1 Sam. 22. 18 19. 6. Hee was earnestly urged to kil Saul by the men that were about him 1 Sam. 24. 4. 1 Sam. 26. 9 10. 7. Saul was the only man that stood between him and his actuall possession of a Kingdome yet all these considerations did not take with David he was still of this mind that none could stretch forth their hands against him and be guiltlesse His day said David shall come to dye or he shall descend into hattail and perish the Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against him c. Another scripturall instance that I may give you to name no more you may find in 1 Sam. 14. 45. When Saul would have put Ionathan to death the people rose up and rescued Ionathan out of the hands of Saul that he dyed not yet none of them attempted to lay violent hands on Saul himselfe I shall conclude this advertisement with a good observation Mr. Prynne hath That we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe Conscience th●se whom we may not wilfully slay c. The King may not with safe Conscience be wittingly slain by His Subjects but that therefore Hee and His Cavaliers may not bee forcibly resisted for their own defence is a grosse inconsequent c. 3. To spill the blood of any especially Royal blood meerly out of a Political designe is in the account of God murder not justice although the men may deserve to be put to death The scripture affords a pregnant proof of this the Lord commanded Iehu to smite the house of Ahab to avenge the blood of his servants the Prophets according to the command of the Lord Iehu caused 70 of the sons of Ahab to be slain by the Rulers of Iezreel God commends him for doing this the Lord said unto Jehu because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes and hast done unto the House of Ahab according to all that was in my heart thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel Yet for all this because Iehu had a Politicall design in smiting the House of Ahab viz. the emolument and establishment of his Kingdome not a conscientious respect to the command of God therefore the Lord