Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	father_n	servant_n	son_n	8,066	5	5.7600	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75313	The anatomy of Dr. Gauden's idolized non-sence and blasphemy, in his pretended Analysis, or setting forth the true sense of the covenant that is to say, of that sacred covenant taken by the Parliament, the commissioners of Scotland, and the assembly, September 11. 1643.		1660 (1660)	Wing A3055; Thomason E765_14; ESTC R207156	29,164	31

danger of violence or imprisonment in the Parliament-Quarters yet was he a man known to be firm to the King in the greatest divisions and differences between the King and Parliament so might all these have done carrying themselves as he did And as for the Kings displeasure there could be as little fear of that For he never was displeased with the Bishop of Londons abode here but highly respected and honoured him to the last It is true he never sate in the Assembly because not chosen a Member of it Yet the Prince Elector Palatine sate there without offence to his Majesty And albeit his Majesty at first disliked the calling and sitting of that Assembly yet afterwards he liked and approved of what they had done as appears by the Message he sent to both Houses of Parliament Octob. 11. 1648. wherein among other things he was pleased to express himself touching the Assembly thus As to that part of the Proposition for the calling and sitting of the Assembly of Divines His Majesty saith That he will by Act of Parliament confirm the calling and sitting of the said Assembly since the first of July 1643. And that they shall have such powers as are mentioned in the said Ordinance And that they shall continue their meeting and sitting and be dissolved in such manner as both Houses of Parliament shall direct But enough of this second point It is sufficient that the Doctor in the midst of all his revilings and slanders hath acknowledged so many to concur in the ture sense of the Covenant III. PROPOSITION That notwithstanding all that he hath spoken touching the true sense of the Covenant and so great a concurrence in it he endeavoureth to vilifie make odious and to destroy the Covenant it self as his main design IN the entrance to his Answers and Solutions for satisfying of all sober and honest mens Consciences to take off their shyness of all manner of Episcopacy he begins thus pag. 6. To prevent which sad metamorphosis that is in turning Covenanters into pillars of Apostacies in City and Country my Answer and Resolution in point of Conscience so far as it relates to Episcopacy is this But in the Margent he calls his Answers oblique And they are oblique indeed for he begins them thus First he boasteth that he can shrewdly batter the Covenant by urging the defectiveness and invalidity of it to bind either in conscience or in any other Judicatory because without the Kings consent Without this it binds no more then the Vow of a Servant Son Daughter or Wife could bind them without yea against the declared consent of their Master Father or Husband under whose protection they were pag. 6. Here see his good-will in this Battering Ram. To prove this he cites in his Margent Numb 30.2 which makes against him as I shall after demonstrate Mean while take notice that his instances of Servants and Sons is a Tale of a Tub there is no such thing That Chapter mentions onely Daughters in their Fathers house in their youth and Wives that are under Husbands when the Vow is made Nor are their Vows void for want of a declared consent as he talks but they are valid if Father or Husband bearing them made holdeth his peace vers 4. and vers 7. Who will trust such a false man that thus dares to falfifie an express Text of Scripture And whereas he cites in the Margent Num. 30.2 to prove the invalidity of Vows of Servants Sons Daughters Wives as aforesaid that second verse expresly makes against what he here alledged it for His intention is to prove the Covenant invalid because taken by men without the Royal consent To prove that he produceth this Text. But the Text speaks onely of a Vow made by a man and tells us that all such Vows are binding If a MAN vow a vow unto the Lord and swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond he shall not break his word he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth Here is not the least hint of any Exception no not so much as of a Son under his Father but all men that vow are by God held unto it whether the chief Governour consent or not It is onely the vow of a woman in minority or Matrimony which may be made void as is manifest in the subsequent verses but not in that As for his Eccho and retorting the Violence and Noise of the times and the Midwifery of tumults and Armies upon the Covenant His further urging the Novelty and partiality of it Page 7. The sad and Tragique Effects which he malitiously imputeth to the Covenant it self the bafflings and annulling of it by Counter and gross Engagements after it had served as one of the great Rocks for the late Kings Shipwrack these are all such nototious untruths that nothing but impudence it self raised to its Meridian would dare to avouch or own I therefore pass through this mire without answering this wise Doctor according to his scurrilous folly But as to his sixth Oblique Answer pag. 8. wherein he saith It is very considerable how the Covenant if interpreted against all Episcopacy must needs grate sore upon and pierce to the very quick those former lawful Oathes where he takes it for granted that the Covenant is not lawful not onely that of Allegiance and Supremacy and Canonical Obedience but that of the King at his Coronation And he after adds that there cannot be any Superfetation of such a contradictory Vow and Covenant without apparent perjury I must here make bold to tell him first supposing the Covenant to be against all Episcopacy what is that to the Oaths of Supremacy and Aliegiance to his Majesty Can no man be true to Kings but he that is for Bishops Verily this very Doctor herein contradicts and confutes this absurd Assertion at pag. 25. where he saith Doubtless the sence of the Covenant hath lately quickned many mens Consciences in the Allegiance to the King so to bring him as David home with infinite joy and triumph Who acted most in re-introducing the secluded Members in procuring a free Parliament and in bringing home his present Majesty whom God bless and preserve but Covenanteers Nor is there any syllable in the Covenant contrary to but altogether consistent with and inciting to the most vigorous performance of those two Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance To charge therefore the Covenant as contradictory to the former Oaths and as tending to apparent perjury is such manifest blasphemy against so sacred an Oath of God as cannot but be abhorred of all sober Christians Touching the Oath of Canonical Obedience to Bishops it is true they took upon them to impose such a tyrannical Yoke upon too many of their brethren But quo jure and how far were such Oaths Obligatory This was never found practised by Apostolick and Primitive Bishops nor warranted by any Law of this Land but onely derived from the Canon Law which here