Selected quad for the lemma: fire_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
fire_n	burn_v	consume_v	house_n	2,399	4	5.4430	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90100	The Observator defended in a modest reply to the late Animadversions upon those notes the Observator published upon the seven doctrines and positions which the King by way of recapitulation layes open so offensive.; Animadversions animadverted.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1642 (1642)	Wing O123E; Thomason E114_19; ESTC R212780	10,555	12

the notion of another sort of Iustice whereas particular proprieties and possessions fall under those two inferiour sorts of Iustice as hath beene proved in the conclusion of the first Position which together with this shew the sandinesse and incoherence of the Animadversors consequence Here therefore we will onely note that even in a common distresse which is lesse then a publique without a Vote of Parliament or expecting any other dispensation of Right a particular propriety may be destroyed by a Community to preserve it self as when the Sea breaks in upon a County a bank may be made of and on this or that mans ground whether he please or no And when our Neighbour Vcalygons house blazes frequently we see some houses pluckt down where the fire actually broke not out lest it should consume the whole street And 't was equitie before Poesie that in reof the propinquitie of the danger we are supposed to be even in the danger it spect self and that the house so pluckt down is not supposed so much to be dilapidated as burnt Tum tuares agitur paries cum proximus ardet But I wonder by what Act or Declaration the Parliament hath denyed a compensation to the sufferer in that kind as the Question now stands If all men did not know that the Parliament hath so provided for the indemnity of those at Hull perhaps the Animadversor might have gained the credit of some modesty in averring That the Parliament upholds publike good with private misery With the like grace also and with sufficient confidence doth he tell us That if there be a great distresse in the Kingdome it is caused by the Parliament claiming that power which cannot consist with the Royall estate of his Maiesty 'T is prodigious to all honest understandings that the near engagements of warre the Scots twice meerly upon misunderstanding That the design of strangling the Parliament as soon as born for proof of which the Parliament presumes to have had too much sufficiency having the bloudiest and true Papisticall war in Ireland raysed against our Nation and that against the Parliament especially in the walls of whose house they haac already endangered a breach J am perlucente ruina That even now among our selves we see some who with more alacrity are ready to imploy themselves against that sacred Assembly than against those unchristian Rebels and yet that all this should be too little to evince the Realitie as the Animadvertor saith of a distressed kingdome and who is yet more transcendent That all this should be caused by the Parliament which aimes at nothing but the extirpation of the Parliament root and branch and of which some part of it viz. the Scots troubles had being long before the Parliament had any and then I pray how could it be the cause of it How the King is head and we the body and how the King cannot be insulted over by having his Kingdome and Selfe preserved from ruine is proved at large by the Observer beyond the capacity of any his animadversions Whether the people may revoke all they actually have transacted to their King is a Question very impertinently inserted by the Animadsor in respect of any thing that the Observator hath in the Parliaments case which is such That when the King shall have endeavoured his utmost he will find that he shall not be able to preserve the Kingdome in extremitie of distresse without the assistance of the Kingdome it self However this the Observator denies that the people could make such a conveyance of power to their Kings as might prove destructive of humanitie So that much of the Animadvertors Divinity might have been husbanded for an apter occasion Neverthelesse St Paul in the 13. of the Romanes tells us not what power is the highest but that that power which is the highest ought to be obeyed Againe as St Paul speaks first of a few particular disperst men and those again in a primitive condition who had no means to provide for their preservation Moreover it is very observable that Sn Paul in the 3. verse speaks of a Ruler as our Law speaks of our King viz. That he is not a terrour to good but to evill works The Law likewise saith The King can doe no injustice The interpretation of the one must square with the other and that must be according to the distinction of Fact and Right For according to Fact St Pauls Ruler may be a terror to good and a cherishing to evill works but by Right he ought not to be so Our Law saith Our King rather ought noi in Right than that de facto he cannot doe injustice For we know there have been both unjust Kings and ill Rulers But least there should be such Scripture it self as well as our Parliament doth endeavour to binde them from exercising ill As Deut. 17. ver. 18 19. 20. The King shall have a book to learn to keep the Law and doe according to it lest his heart be lifted up above his Brethren And Ezek. 46. 18. The Prince may not take of the peoples inheritance by oppression and thrust them out of it but shall be content with his own possession lest other men be scattered from their possessions Wherein then hath the Parliament denyed the King that due which St Paul allows his Ruler Who he saith as is very observable through the whole Chapter that he may be a Minister to us onely for good And to keep the Parliament even with St Paul What else doth it hazard it self for but for refusing to favour the King in an uncircumscribed power of doing ill Which facultie he vindicates to himself irrestrainably And that by virtue of some Right and enlargement of Law and Religion even to doe all manner of ill if so be he shall ever be pleased so to doe Moreover S. Paul hath not nor could anywhere repeale the lawes of nature so that if the Parliament in its case hath neither declined them nor our own Originall Contracts nor the present interest of State nor S. Paul Then I hope it hath kept it self consonantly to Law and Religion Out of all this with what followes in the sixth Position wee may easily answer to the Anymadversors Objection of Resistance For out of those premises it appeares That in the King there are two things onely first His Person Secondly His Office Authoritie or as St. Paul cals it his Power for his Person we hold it alwayes inviolable For his Power or Office because St. Paul saith it respects us onely for good it s very reasonable that we apply our selves in obedience to that for our owne sakes as well as for his But the Court Parasites they are not content with this distribution but adde to the person and power or office of a Prince that which they call The will or pleasure of a Prince or rather they marry the power or office of a Prince to his Will and so by that subtill conjunction they proving them