Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	age_n	die_v	year_n	6,258	5	4.9578	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75811	The Christian moderator: the second part; or, Persecution for religion condemned by the light of nature. Law of God. Evidence of our own principles. With an explanation of the Roman Catholick belief, concerning these four points: their church, worship, justification and civill government. Whereunto there are new additions since the octavo was printed.; Christian moderator. Part 2	Birchley, William, 1613-1669.	1652 (1652)	Wing A4246; ESTC R225799	36,103	34

against their consciences and I am sure is against our Laws And truly as often as I reflect upon the strange severity of that Oath my soul goes forth in pitty towards them that are concern'd in it since even their thoughts are not free but an absolute force laid upon the most inward cogitations of their hearts and themselves compelled to condemn themselves by accusations wrested out of their own mouthes Upon the ceasing of the former Committees authority these 7. which now sit Judges of Delinquency and sequestrations were impowered about 25. Jan. 1649 since which time they their subcommissioners in the several Counties have made many discoveries both of delinquents and Papists estates either not before sequestred or not compounded for at the full value but I observed that they who were sequestred or had their rents or goods unduly taken from them in the time of the former Committees for Sequestrations how unjustly soever could not be relieved by these Commissioners nor any other power but by the Parliament it self It was the Case of Mr. Robert Knightley a Recusant only a great part of whose Mansion house in Essex was puld down to repair the Fort at Tilbury for which he petitioned at Haberdash●rs hall in Decemb. 1651 to have satisfaction out of the 2 sequestred parts of his own lands there But in regard it appeared to be done before Ian. 1649 the present Commissioners answer was they had no power to relieve him And in all other Cases upon Appeals where it appears that rents have been unduly received to the States use for 7 or 8 years last past in wrong to the true owner of the lands These Commissioners in such case make restitution onely from Jan. 1649 And for money goods or personall estate unduely seized or sequestred before that time they make no restitution at all This seemed strange to me for by the same rule if the present Commissioners should sequester half the lands and goods in England right or wrong and then be displaced and new Commissioners established who have no power to review and consider the acts of their predecessors in time we may all come to be sequestred and yet be without appeal except to the Parliament who have too many publique obligations to spend their thoughts in particular businesses On the 11th of Feb. 1651 there was heard the case of one Mr. Parker the Lord Morleys only son about 14 years of age he petitioned for maintenance out of his fathers sequestred estate but because it was suspected the childe might encline to his fathers Religion who is a Papist it was denyed him unlesse he might be taken both from Father and Mother and committed to the government of a meer stranger which was ordered accordingly and the poor pittance of 100 l. per ann. only allowed him out of his own and fathers estate In Feb. 1651. Mr. James Hanham of the West Petitions the Commissioners at Haberdashers Hall to this effect that he had never acted any thing against the Parliament yet two parts of his estate were sequestered with such rigor for his Recusancy that he could not possibly subsist with necessaries by the remaining thirds when Taxes and other charges were deducted That he was therefore constrained to borrow 50 l. upon Bond and having disbursed 15 l. of the money it seems the Sequestrators got notice that the Petitioner had somewhat in his house worth a new Sequestration or review as they call it thereupon they search his trunks finding the remaining 35 l. pull out the guilty bag and two parts of it they sequester into their own pockets to the use of the Common-wealth and for relief therein Mr. Hanham appealed but found no redress at present more then Order for the sub-Commissioners in the Countrey to examine the businesse and certifie c. At the return of whose Certificate I leave the Petitioner to expect his doom On the 31 of March 1652. the Petition of one Hamond or Ammot was read to this effect That the Petitioner did never bear Arms nor assist the Enemies of the Parliament yet his estate had lyen under sequestration ever since the year 1645. and not one penny allowed him for his maintenance That the Petitioner being a Recusant did in the time of the late war continue at his own house as long as he could without apparent danger of his life but considering how obnoxious even the most peaceable of his religion were to be affronted and ruined by the daily mischiefs they received from some disorderly Souldiers and especially seeing one of his neighbours a Recusant slain at his own door the Petitioner did then and not before fly for protection to a Garison of the late Kings without acting any thing in the least kind against the Parliament And therefore humbly prayed he might have a fifth of his estate and the arrears allowed him to buy bread But it not appearing to the Commissioners that he had wife or children their answer was they had not power to grant him any relief Nor do I believe this mans Case to be singular for I am well satisfied that a great part of those Papists who are sequestred as absolute Delinquents were never in actuall arms against the Parliament but onely fled to the Enemies Garisons for shelter yet no qualification or difference in punishment is hitherto allowed them which would be to my understanding very just and reasonable since who ever did observe the fury and rage of most of our Common Souldiers at the beginning of the late troubles against many of that party will easily conclude the Papists had reason to distrust their own personall security amongst them And for instance I remember an Officer of my acquaintance under the Earl of Manchester told me that at their taking of Lincola from the Cavaliers in the year 1644. he was an eye witnesse of this Tragedy The next day after the Town was taken some of our common Souldiers in cold blood meeting with Mr. Price of Washingley in Huntington shire a Papist asked him Art thou Price the Papist I am said he Price the Roman Catholick whereupon one of them immediately shot him dead In the same moneth of March there happened at this Hall a very hard case which was of a maid servant whose name I do not remember but her Petition was to this effect That her Father and mother both died when she was but sixteen years of age and being very poor they left the Petitioner only some old clothes and a little houshold-stuff in all not worth above five or six pounds after whose death the Petitioner being an Orphan betook her self to service and having served seventeen years for the annuall wages of seven nobles the Petitioner had by her frugality increased her small patrimony to twenty pounds which being placed in the hands of A. B and of late discovered to be the Petitioners money and the Petitioner a Recusant she pray'd that they would take the sad and disconsolate condition of a