Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	good_a	life_n	time_n	10,018	5	3.6095	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54796	A vindication of The character of a popish successor, in a reply to two pretended ansvvers to it by the author of the character.	Settle, Elkanah, 1648-1724.; Phillips, John, 1631-1706.	1681 (1681)	Wing P2114; ESTC R6364	14,481	18

then granting the truth of this his opposers has more reason to dread his Power for 't is a known Maxim The greatest and truest friend the most implacable and revengeful Enemy But for those Acts of Parliament which we find ordering and disposing of the Succession they make says he very little for the purpose for which they were produced Yes they prove that the Succession has been given by Act of Parliament where the King and the Parliament thought fit and upon those reasons they afterwards thought more weighty the Gift has been recalled and they have placed a Right elsewhere and who shall dare to say these Acts or any made by King and Parliament are unjust Indeed the King without his People or the People without their King cannot alter the Succession but with a joynt consent Those Acts of Parliament declare it has and may be done again and certainly there never was a Cause that did require the changing of the Succession half so much as we have now But he is drawn to an end and I thought nothing could have been more audacious than his Answer is throughout in notorious Accusations of all our Great and Honourable Parliaments but the dedicating his Libel to those very men with the same hand he writ it of them is a boldness that certainly has no president but is an Original of Impudence A REPLY TO Roger L' Estranges PAMPHLET WELL but now for our Second Masquerade who Begins just like his Brother and carries on the Argument of Forty one throughout every Paragraph of his whole Pamphlet to answer all that can be said against Popery with that He tells us The Character of a Popish Successor were an excellent piece in the kind if it had not too much Sublimate in it The truth of it is says he the Author has made the figure of his Successor too frightful and too enormous and then he finishes his Master-piece with a paradox by the supposal of a most excellent Prince and yet making him the greater Devil for his Virtues I cannot suppose it any Paradox to say the intoxication of Romish Principles and that Religious frenzy in the brains of Majesty will pervert all his Natural Virtues and make him imagine he does his God and his people good service and think he improves his Talent sevenfold when he puts the severest Roman Laws in force against us which is no less than the forfeiture of our Estates next the loss of our Liberties and our Lives in a very short time after Nor are we to suffer any death more merciful than burning alive which is the Popes own Law in these words Decerminus ut viva in conspectu hominum Comberatum De Hereticis 7 Decretat sect in consutilem Nay his obeying his Superior Ecclesiastick Power in executing these Laws shall be so far from making him or any other Papist else think him the greater Devil as he says that on the other side the Pope and all of that Church will tell him he has improved all his Virtues to that height that he deserves to be a Saint has merited that Heaven which they will give him But before I go any further says he let me recommend to the Reader one Remark as a thing worthy his attention That he cuts all the way upon the Successor as presupposing him to be a Papist and consequently dangerous and insufferable by reason of that perswasion and very magisterially gives his own bare word for the dangers of that perswasion why does he not rather tell us in particular terms These and these are the principles and then make his inference from those principles to the dangers that attend them I thought both the Principles of the Roman Church and the dangers that attend them had been too well experienced in England as well as other places not to be known to the most Vulgar person in it for what was Q. Maries Tyranny but an impulse of Conscience derived from those Popish Principles that told her that all Hereticks are all notorious Traytors Traytors against God himself and therefore guilty of the highest High Treason which they call Crimen Laesae Majestatis Divina and therefore they deserve that worse penalties should be inflicted for that than other High Treason And it is besides enacted by a General Decree That whatsoever King Bishop or Nobleman shall believe that the Decrees of the Roman Bishops may be or shall suffer them to be violated in any thing be accursed and shall remain for ever guilty before God as a betrayer of the Catholick Faith Caus. 25. 91. cap. 11. and therefore considering all this we cannot with reason think that such barbarous Cruelty could be the delight of naturally soft and tender hearted woman or that Majesty could be so perjured so ungrateful and so dishonourable for little or no advantage but she was a servant of the Church and Pope and durst not incur his curse that was to open her the Gates of Paradice and 't is impossible for any Papist to have such a Soveraign Power as hers and not to be the same Tyrant that she was Now in Answer to a paragraph which his Brother the wiser of the two skipt over concerning the barbarity of the known Doctrine of the Roman Church that pronounces damnation to all that differ from it in any one matter of faith and to justifie his Masters and his Religion from such a terrible Accusation as tearing up his Fathers Sacred Monument branding his blessed memory with the name of Heretick and the compleating the horrid Anathema of most impiously execrating the very Majesty that gave him being He says the Characterizer lays down a false supposition and then raises out of it a most uncharitahle consequence for the very position That there is no salvation out of that Church is yet qualified with an exception In case of an invinsible perswasion I think that case was plain in that Royal Martyr who sealed the invinsible perswasion of the Protestant Faith with his blood And next he says If this be so lewd a principle in one Religion why is it not so in another Which being admitted involves every individual member of the Church of Rome in the same condemnation So that he says in asserting this Doctrine the Characterizer himself damns all the Papists as well as he makes them damn all the Protestants Now as I never thought the Protestants in a more likely state of damnation for the Papists saying or believing so so I always thought it was the proof of Crimes and not the accusation that must condemn all men before so just a Judg as God Almighty and there are such proofs of that Hellish Doctrine that it bears witness against it self for 't is not the Protestants knowing and judging their principles but their believing and following them damns the Papists but he is a Protestant that holds the Romish Tenents as good as those of the Church of England and is of whether for a peny so that 't is