Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	king_n	lord_n	year_n	9,908	5	5.2358	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15298	Tvvo short treatises, against the orders of the begging friars, compiled by that famous doctour of the Church, and preacher of Gods word John Wickliffe, sometime fellow of Merton, and master of Ballioll Coll. in Oxford, and afterwards parson of Lutterworth in Lecestershire. Faithfully printed according to two ancient manuscript copies, extant, the one in Benet Colledge in Cambridge, the other remaining in the publike librarie at Oxford	Wycliffe, John, d. 1384.; James, Thomas, 1573?-1629.	1608 (1608)	STC 25589; ESTC S121923	41,431	74

predecessours han done so many times by lawful cause as pertaining to there regalie and of common Law by counsaile of Peeres of the Realme it sueth that not only our king now present hath erred but also his predecessours generally al his Counsellers as Lords and Prelats and al men of the Parliament counsailing therto Also if this bee errour touching the health of mans soule than it is against holy writ and than if a man sustaine or maintaine this errour he is an heretick but ful manie Kings Lords and Prelats and other wise mē han sustained this and maintained and yet done as per taining to the Kings Regalie and of common law thā bene these Friers al Kings Lords and Prelats al wise men of our Realme bene hereticks Also sith this is an old custome the which our King Lords and Prelats bene sworn to sustaine and maintaine if this be errour as Friers sayen openly it sueth by Friers that al these bene forsworne hereticks Also if this bee errour as Friers faynē that thowgh an Abbot and al his Couent ben open traytours conspiring into death of the King and Queene and of other Lords and enforce them to destroy al the Realme the King may not take fro them an half-peny ne farthing worth sith al these bene temporal goods Also thowgh other Clarks senden vnto our enimies al the rents that they han in our Land what euer they may robbe or steal of the Kings Liege men yet may not our King punish by o farthinge ne farthing worth Also by this ground of Friers thowgh Monks or Friers or other Clarks what euer they bene slayne Lords tenants the Kings Liege men defoulē Lords wyues yea the Queene that God forbede or the Empiresse yet the King maie not punish them by o farthing Also it sueth plainly that men cleped mē of holy Church may dwel in this land at ther liking doe what kinne sinne what kinne treason liketh them and natheles the King may not punish ne in temporal goods ne in their body sith if he may not punish them in the lesse he maie not●…in the more and also they maken one of them selfe King and so no secular Lord maie let him to conquer al Secular Lordship in this earth and so they maie slea al Lord Ladies there blowd and affinitie with anie paine in this life or in bodie or in cattel Yee Lords seeth and vnderstondeth with what punishing they deserue to be chastised that thus vnwarly wrongfully han damned you for hereticks for as much as you don execution rightwilnesses by Gods law and mans and namelie of the Kings regalie For the chief Lordshippe in this lond of al Temporalties both of secular men Religious pertaine to the King of his general gouerning for els hee were not King of al England but of a littel part therof Therfore the men that bysien them to take awaie this Lordship fro the King as don Friers there fautours in this point bene sharper enemies and traitours than French men and al other nations Also it pertaineth to the King the while a Bishop or ani Abbots see is void to haue in his hand al Temporalties and at his owne wil to yeue them to Prelats therfore the King maie take a waie these Temporalties from Prelats whan law ful cause excitith Also the king owght graunt no man freedome to doo sinne or trespasse but to take awaie the fredome but men of the Church had free licence to trespasse if the king might not bereue ther Temporalties when they sinneden greevously And so Saint Paul teacheth that eche man be subiect to their Potestates for there is noe power but of God and tho things that bene of God bene ordained so they that withstondeth power withstondeth Gods ordinance For whie Princes bene not a dredd of good works but of euil But wilt thow not dread a power d●…e good thow shalt haue preysing therof that is of him that is ordained in the high estate for he is Gods minister or seruant to the in good but if thou haue done euil than dread for he beareth the sword not without cause for he is Gods seruant vengere in wrath to him that doth euil and therefore by need or of need be yee subiect or vnderlout not onlie for wrath but also of cōscience Al this saith St. Paul of which auctoritie it is to knowē to al men that Clarks owen to be subiect of nede to the kings power For St. Paul that putteth al men in subiection to kings out taketh neuer ene and so Secular power oweth and is bound to punish by iust paine of his sword that is wordly power tyrants rebelling against God and trespassing against man by what kind trespasse and that is more to chastise his subiectes by paine and torment of there body and no drede much more he maie punish thē by taking awaie of ther temporalties that is lasse than bodily paine therfor Secular Lords done this rightfully sith this is done by commandement of the Apostle and by ordinance of God and therfore it is plaine of these reasons auctorities and Secular Lords maie leuefullie and medefully in manie cases taken awaie Temporall goods youen to men of the Church The third Article The third Article is this that both Tythes and Offring bene youen and paied and receiued by that entent to which entent both Gods law the Popes law ordained them to be paied and receiued and that the betake away by the same entent and reson that both Gods law the Popes law ordainen that they shoulden be with drawen This axing is reasonable for many skils for the entēt of the maker in euerie law should be kept and most the entent of God that may not erre Sothely thus saith Gods law in the 1. booke of Kings that the sin of Helies childrē was ful great before God for they withdrawen men fro sacrifice of God taking by strength or violence that part of the sacrifice that pertained to the Priest God saith afterwarde I speaking haue spoken that thine house thy Faders house should minister and serue in my sight euermore but now God saith be that thing far fro me but who euer shal worship me I shal glorifie them but they that despisen me saith God shal ben vnnable or without honor of which authoritie it is plaine and open that the things that be due to Priests should not bee axed by strength by violence or cursing but be youen freelie withouten exaction or constraining and if the Priest be reproued of God for his sinnes hee should be put out of his office and the sacrifices shoulden not be yoven to him but taken fro him as God commandeth frō the high Priest Hely and an other trew man walking in Gods waies as did Samuel shoulden be ordained to receiue such sacrifices Also in beginning of Tobie men finden thus whan Priests of the Temple wenten to calveren of gold

rule of Apostles is vtterlie algates most perfect therfore men maie forsake priuate rules in religion made of sin ful men and taken the clean religion of Apostles that is preached with freedome of the Gospel without dispensation of wordly Clarks that in caasqueke deueles as Christ Iudas Scariot Also the Pope may dispence with the rule of ech priuat sect or religion and hath dispenced yet doth but he maie not dispence with Christs rule youen to Apostles therfore the rule of Christ ordained to Apostles is more perfit than any rule of of priuat religion and most perfect of al and hereof it sueth openly that men maie lawfullie forsake priuate religion and keep Christs religion in his cleannes sith it is most perfect most easie and light for to kepe most siker to bring men to heauen and to highest degree of blisse And if our adversaries of this priuate religion striuē algats that the rules ben more perfect than the rule of Apostles whie than so manie persons as who so saith without nomber of eche suche priuate sect by licence of the Pope bene made some Chaplaines of Households some Chaplaines of honour some Byshopps dowid with secular Lordships some Byshops amonge heathen men and dare not come to their children but what professiō a Frere be of anō if he be chosē therto he accepteth ye office of the Pope or Cardinal of Patriarks of Archebyshop of Eyshop and forsaketh his owne state sith Christ saieth in the Gospel that noe man puting his hād to the plowgh and looking backward is worthie to haue the Kingdome of God that is no man taking perfect state of pouertie meeknes and penāce is able to be saued if he turned again to wordly life pompe and pride and couetousnes and ease of bodie and sloth and riot and gay clothing and costly Therfore they changen not the more perfect for the lesse perfit for than they were Apostates but they purchasen the more perfit for the lesse perfit therfore the cleane religion and rule of Priesthood by forme of the Go●…pell is more perfit than anie rule or religion made of sinful mē Also nothing that is abhominable and reproued of Saints showld be browght in of other by anie colour or cauteel but those newe sectes ben such that bene of flesh as St. Paul saith in his Pistells therfore such sects should not be browght in to Charging of the Church but al Christen men showld cast away and hold fast the vnitie freedome and cleānes of the rule of Iesu Christ. Parauenture these Ypocrits sayen to exclud al these reasons many mo that the rule to which they make profession is not strāge ne diuerse fro the rule of Apostles that Christ ordained but it is vtterly the same and none other but the contrarie of this excusing is openly shewed by foure the last reasons before said For if these new rules werē al one with Christes rule youen to Apostles Christ showld haue taught them both and ensampled both in his life and speaking and writing with Cermonies and rits and customes therof but did not this neuer in his death ne after his resurrection ne to his ascentiō And if this excusing were soth the sects of Friers showlde not haue begonnen about a thousand and tweyn hundred yeere of Christ. But the contrarie is opē in Chronicles hit sueth also of the same that Christs Apostles hadden both Monks Chanons and Freers if men taken Monks Chanons and Freers for men that professen such priuate sects but thi●… is openly false Also Christes rule yo●…ē to Apostles is like of o forme to al mē that maken profession therto to speake of substance of the rule but rule●… of these priuate sectes beeth ful diuerse and contrarie as to substance of these rules sith some of them receauen dymes and dotations as don these Possessioners but some for saken al such tythes and possessions as Fr●…ers mendicaunts But to descend downe in specialtie ful many articles of rules of such sects be openly contrarie to the Apostles rule sith it is lawful to eche trewe man of Christen religion to conuert a man of wrong faith to Christen but this is forboden in the rule of Friers Minours sith only to Ministers none other is licence graunted to restraine Friers to heare private sects notwithstanding that evermore Friers don the contrary and Christ receiued penies but they shoulden not by there owne rule receiue penies nether by themselues ne by mene person Also Christ preaching the Gospel entred into places both of women and men as the Gospel of Luke telleth but is forboden to Friers to entren into Abbeyes of womē but Friers glosen these rules to the contrary but Fraūcis there founder commaunded them in article of his death that they should not receiue glosses vpon his rule Also if Christs rule youen to Apostles the rule of private sects weren al one withouten reason men leaven the first professeden the tother ' but if it were to show there hypocrisie Also if this faining be soth it seemeth that it is as perfit meedful to keepē Christs rule of Frauncis or Dominike or anie such other man Also if these rules bene al one and in nothing diverse than such a rule should not be cleaped rule of Fraūcis ni Dominiks ne any such other but rule of Christ for so it should be of more auctoritie and more commended And so the Gospel ought to be kept withouten ony fouling of al Christen men withouten such novelries and put nothing thereto and draw nothing therefro if this thing were done such privat sects should be super flue and wast as flies living in the aire and it was none need of Frauncis Dominik or any such other new man beside him about making of this rule of Apostles that Friers faynen to be thern For that rule was made of Christ God and man and kept of Apostles and confermed by the holie Ghost and at the ful declared by a thowsand yeere two hondred before Frauncis Dominik or anie Frier of such priuate sect were into this wordle The second Article The second point or Article is this that tho mē that vnreasonablie and wrongfully han damned and al this counsail be amended of so great errour and that their error may be published to mē dwelling in the Realme the reasō of this axing is shewed thus Nothing owght to be damned as errour and false but if it sauor errour or vnrightewisenes against Gods law but neither the King ne his Counsaile dud vnrightfully for as much as he tooke away the possessions of some Prelates that trespaceden whose contrary Friers han determined openly therefore reasonably men shoulde assent to this axing For some Friers writen thus in Coventre amōg articles that they damneden as heresie and errour that Secular Lords may lawfully and medefully takē away temporal goods youen to men of the Church but sith our king hath done so other kings his