Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	die_v	land_n	remainder_n	4,232	5	10.7951	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54580	The happy future state of England, or, A discourse by way of a letter to the late Earl of Anglesey vindicating him from the reflections of an affidavit published by the House of Commons, ao. 1680, by occasion whereof observations are made concerning infamous witnesses : the said discourse likewise contains various political remarks and calculations referring to many parts of Christendom, with observations of the number of the people of England, and of its growth in populousness and trade, the vanity of the late fears and jealousies being shewn, the author doth on the grounds of nature predict the happy future state of the realm : at the end of the discourse there is a casuistical discussion of the obligation to the king, his heirs and successors, wherein many of the moral offices of absolution and unconditional loyalty are asserted : before the discourse is a large preface, giving an account of the whole work, with an index of the principal matters : also, The obligation resulting from the Oath of supremacy to assist and defend the preheminence or prerogative of the dispensative power belonging to the king ...	Pett, Peter, Sir, 1630-1699.	1688 (1688)	Wing P1883; ESTC R35105	603,568	476

Philosophical Axioms and such as Non entis nulla sunt accidentia but it were a Solecism to deny that the Takers of these Oaths have become bound at that time to the Haeredes viventis who were then nondum vivi or that a Lessee is bound at the perfecting of his Lease to pay his Rent to the Heirs of the Lessor tho then not in nature If the Style of the King of the Romans can in an Elective Government and during the Emperors life be Ego N. Rex Romanorum futurus Imperator is not the next Heir of the Crown in an Hereditary Monarchy to be styled the certain and undoubted Heir of the Crown as long as he lives I find not the term of apparent joyned to Heir in any Books of Law or History but of our Country but God making Heirs and especially the Heirs of Crowns the inherent Birth-right by Proximity of Blood is the id ipsum to be regarded and if Haeres viventis QVATENVS such must be a Solecis●● according to Sir W. I's insinuation then the Quotation usually brought out of Sir E. Coke by Writers of this Subject That the Heir apparent is Heir before the death of his Ancestor must be a Solecism too according to the known Rule in Logick of A quatenus ad omne c. I shall studiously avoid the embarassing the Question with needless Points of Law and do consider that i● in Courts of Law we are above the Apices verborum we are much more above them in the Court of Conscience And here I must say it that if in the interpretation of Princes savours and Concessions we are allowed to go by the Rule that in them Exuberantior fides requiritur and that therefore promissio in dignitate Regali factà aequipollet juramento and that a Sovereign Prince appealed to about the Rights of Subjects is Morally bound to proceed therein Vt DEVS qui soli veritati innititur and according to the Style of the Judges delegated by Sovereign Princes Solâ rei veritate inspectâ and throwing off the Formal Rules and Solemnities even of positive Laws themselves it may be well inferred that the Divine Law of Nature obliging us to Gratitude we are Morally bound in the preservations of the Lives and Rights of Princes tho we had not been sworn to them yet to regard them as God and not to obscure their Rights with Formalities and subtilties of Law and much less with tricks of words but especially in the interpretation of our Oaths to them to use the greatest simplicity therein that is sutable to the Law of Nations Nature and Christianity and to abhor what the Lawyers call a Subdola juris interpretatio and what may be called as the expression is in Iob a darkening of Council by words without knowledge and a gloss that corrupts the Text and is directly contrary to the Right of Kings and Princes for the securing of which and removing all doubts or strife about the same these Oaths were made And should any one tell me of the effect of that saying Nemo est haeres viventis in our Common-Law and that Land being given to A. for life and the remainder to the Heirs of B. and that A. dying while B. lives who hath at that time a Son that Son shall never have the Land because of Non est haeres viventis but it shall go back to the Donor if alive or if dead to his Heirs I will ask him if the Donor should be bound in Justice and Equity by a certain future time to Lett the Heirs of B. have the Land and had voluntarily sworn that B's Heirs should then have the same whether the Donor then could with a Salvo to Conscience keep the Son or other Heir from the same by Virtue of the Non est haeres viventis But we are to be tender how we compare the Inheritances of private Persons with that of the Crown which is of a higher Nature and without a Metaphor differs from them Toto Coelo and is so much above them And how regardless were they then of the Birth-right of the oldest Monarchy in the World and particularly of the present Glorious Royal Line that would not allow it the Privilege of being plainly understood as they do to private Inheritances and as to which William the Conqueror in that part of his Charter to London is allowed to speak intelligibly enough viz. And I wyll that ich Child be his Faders Eyer But I am weary of this Wild-goose chace of the Haeres viventis among old Books and my pointing back any one to my 3d and 5th Conclusions may save my labour of speaking here much more of it It is sufficiently set forth in the third in what sense the words of Oaths are to be taken and where I mentioned Ames saying That they are regularly to be taken in that sense that the words have in the COMMON use of men And to this purpose we are well told by Vaughan in Shepbard and Gosnald's Case That were the penning of a Statute is dubious long usage is a just Medium to expound it by for jus norma loquendi is governed by usage and the meaning of things spoke or writ must be as it hath constantly been received to be by common acceptation But I have shewed the word Heir to be no doubtful word and as I have mentioned it to be a word that the Glory and Power of our Saviour is expressed by I may add that our Noble Privilege as we are Christians being so often represented in Scripture by the word Heirs c. we are Morally bound to guard the word from the Assault of any new interpretation that would outrage it with doubt and ambiguity I have shewed that as our Oath is part of a Statute-Law if there could be any doubt of it the Iudges are to interpret it and our Ancestors were so far from trusting private men to interpret Statutes that they have not allowed the Court Christian judicially interpret the very Statutes that concern the things there conusable And as some Papists do vainly sometime tell us That we by our Religion damn all our Popish Ancestors it may here with truth be said that any by finding out a new sense of the word Heirs do condemn the understandings of those and their Morals in not observing the Oath by the measures of that interpretation and I may as truly say that we venture on damning our selves by Perjury if while we venture on a new sense of the Oaths both contrary to the common sense of the words and of the Imposer we do not particularly take the Oaths with our Protestation of that new sense and much more if reserving that new sense in our minds we shall further in one of these Oaths viz. That of Allegiance declare That we have sworn every thing therein according to the PLAIN and COMMON sense and VNDERSTANDING of the same words without ANY Equivocation or Mental Evasion or secret Reservation

Antiochus or the Primitive Christians did under a Nero Domitian Dioclesian Maximinian or Julian and yet you see no end of this fury c. I would ask any Loyal Roman Catholick if a Clergy that could console such Lachrymists and preach Loyalty to them was not then necessary And I am sure he will say it was for that the Doctrine preached by the Author of that Book appeareth thus in the Contents of the Chapters after the end of that Epistle viz. Regal Power proceeds immediately from the Peoples Election and Donation c. By the Spiritual Power which Christ gave the Pope in his Predecessor St. Peter he may dispose of Temporal Things and even of Kingdoms for the good of the Church and the many Republican and Seditious Assertions in that Book are such that any Asserters thereof would in the judgment of our Loyal Populace be thought to merit what the Iews or Primitive Christians suffered as aforesaid And that no man dares now partly so fear of the Popular displeasure and being thought absurd say that the English Monarchy is otherwise than from God and not from Mens Election just as for fear of the People the chief Priests and Scribes and Elders durst not say that the baptism of Iohn was not from Heaven but of men is most eminently to be attributed to the late Loyal Sermons made expressly of Loyalty by the Divines of the Church of England But that I may draw toward an end of this long INTRODVCTION or PREFACE wherein yet if I have happened to acquaint any Reader with any valuable point of Truth it will be the same thing to him as the payment of a Bill of Exchange in the Portico or in the House I am necessarily to say that by the inadvertence of an Amanuensis employed in writing somewhat of this Discourse for the Press there happened to be several mistakes of words and names and one of them I shall mention here and not trust to its being regarded among the Errata viz. that whereas 't is said in p. 39 that Creswel a Iesuite writ for King Iames his Succession when Parsons writ against it it should have been said that Chricton a Iesuite then did so and so the latter part of the Volume of the Mystery of Iesuitism relates it and any indifferent man would think that Chricton writ not in earnest and that his Book appeared not on the Stage of the World but only to go off it since so necessary a Counterpoyson to Parsons his Book could never yet be heard of in any Library Some little Omissions and Errors about Letters and Pointing easily appearing by their grossness are not put into the Errata and some the Reader will find amended with the Pen. Moreover I am to Apologize for the carelesness of the Style and to acquaint the Reader that the Rule of any ones writing in any thing that is called a Letter being the way of the same Persons speaking I do thereby justify the freedom I have taken in not polishing any Notions or delivering them out with the care employed on curious Pictures and that require twice or thrice sitting and in using that colouring of words and such bold careless Touches as are to be used in the finishing up any piece at once and which the Nature of Discourse necessarily implies and in sometimes using significant expressions in this or the other Language for any thing as I do in my common Conversation with those who understand those Languages and by the same Rule I have exempted my self from the trouble of that nice weighing of things as well as of words that a Professed History or Discourse otherwise then in the way of a Letter would have required and the same excuse may serve for the Style of this Preface If the Date of this Discourse had not at the writing of the first Sheet been there inserted a later one had been assigned it but I thought it not ●●nti on the occasion thereof to have that Sheet reprinted I hope to be able in my Review to gratifie the Readers Curiosity with somewhat more of satisfaction as to the Monastic Revenue and which in p. 92 I mentioned as not adequate to the maintenance of 50000 Regulars by my not considering how plentifully it was supported by Oblations of various kinds and other ways not necessary to be here enumerated In p. 1. I say I think it was St. Austin who said Credo quia impossibile est and have since thought it was Tertullian I care not who said it as long as I did not I have in p. 13 mentioned the Order of Iesuites as invented by the Pope in the year 1540 wherein I had respect to the time of its Confirmation from the Papacy and not of its founding by Ignatius There are other omissions and faults in the Press that the Reader is referred to the Errata for without his consulting which I am not accountable for them I am farther to say that there is one thing in this Preface that I need not apologize for and wherein I have done an Act of common Justice namely in Celebrating the Heroical Vertue and Morality of this present Pope that were signalized as I have mentioned Almighty God can make the Chair of Pestilence convey health to the World and can preserve any Person in it from its mortal Contagion But the truth is I was the more concerned to do the Pope the right I have done because I observed that after that Credit of the Popish Plot began to die that depended on the Credit of the Witnesses several Persons attempted to put new Life into it by their renewed impotent Calumnies cast on the Character of the Pope and as appeared by a bound 8 o printed in the year 1683 called The Devils Patriarch or a full and impartial Account of the Notorious Life of this present Pope of Rome Innocent the 11th c. Written by an EMINENT Pen to revive the remembrance of the a●most forgotten PLOT against the life of his Sacred Majesty and the Protestant Religion What AVTHOR was meant by that EMINENT PEN I know not in the least The Preface to the Reader concludes with the Letters of T. O. The vain Author having throughout his Book ridiculously accused the Pope of immorality and scandal and of being a friend to Indulgences and of favouring the loose Principles of the Iesuites and of contriving the Popish Plot and carrying it on in concert with the Iesuites concludes by saying in p. 133. This Pope had great hopes of re-entry into England by his hopeful Plot hereupon Cottington 's bones were brought to be buried here c. It was high time then for People to be weary of the Martyrocracy when the Plot came to be staruminated by Cottington's bones and the pretended immorality of so great an Example of severe Vertue as this Pope and when the belief of the Testimony against some men as Popish Ruffians was endeavoured to be supported by the Childish Artifice of