Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	part_n	place_n	time_n	2,101	5	3.0941	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15308	A cleare, sincere, and modest confutation of the vnsound, fraudulent, and intemperate reply of T.F. who is knowne to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert now an English Iesuite Wherein also are confuted the chiefest obiections which D. Schulckenius, who is commonly said to be Card. Bellarmine, hath made against Widdrintons [sic] Apologie for the right, or soueraigntie of temporall princes. By Roger Widdrington an English Catholike.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1616 (1616)	STC 25598; ESTC S120047	267,609	417

the disiunction must be hereticall to make the whole disiunction to be heretical is to be vnderstood but it is a conditional disiunctiue which importeth a free choice or election of the will or which is all one a free power to chose whether part of the disiunction we please to the verity of which conditionall disiunctiue is required that you may choose whether part of the disiunction you please and if it be hereticall to affirme that it is in the free power of the will to choose whether part of the disiunction we please the whole disiunction or disiunctiue proposition implying such a condition or free election without doubt is hereticall 19. Now that this disiunction or being placed in the aforesaid proposition is in common sense according to our English phrase equivalent to h The Latine word aequi-pollet in this place of my Theolog. Disputation is not well translated into English it doth import it should be it is equiualent a copulation or such a disiunction which leaueth a free power in the Subjects to choose whether part they will that is to depose the King or if they please to murther him will most euidently appeare if both in common speech and also in the lawes of the Realme we diligently consider the proper and vsuall signification of this word may when there followeth the coniunction disiunctiue or And this may be shewed by almost innumerable examples whereof some of them wee will here set downe As for example you may stay here or depart You may eate or drinke You may buy wine or oyle You may goe to such a place by land or by water You may buy that land in fee-farme or by lease The King by vertue of an Act of Parliament may take of conuicted Popish Recusants twenty pounds for euery moneth or the third part of all their lands The Sheriefe may presently hang a theife condemned to die or delay his death for some small time If any person hold any lands of an other Lord then of the King by Knights seruice hee may giue dispose or assure by his last will and testament two parts of the said lands holden by Knights seruice or of as much thereof as shall amount to the full yearely valew of two parts If a man by his last will and testament ordaine that his Executors may bestow twenty pounds vpon the poore or repaire such a bridge it is in the free power of the Executors to choose whether of those two they please Finally in clauses of reuocation where the words are that one may by any deed in his life time or by his last will and testament reuoke the said vses and limit new it is in his power and choice to doe it by the one or by the other as he shall please And in infinite such like examples the verb may implieth a free power to choose either part of the disiunction one pleaseth neither can there scarcely be alledged any one example wherein the coniunction disiunctiue or immediately following the verbe may is not so taken 20. Wherefore the plaine and vsuall meaning of the aforesaid proposition Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Prpe may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or which is all one Subiects may depose or murther their Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope for that in this last onely the verbe passiue is changed into the actiue is that it is in the free choice of the Subjects to depose or if they will to murther such Princes So that if it be hereticall to affirme as without doubt it is that it is in the free power of Subjects to depose or murther such Princes because it is hereticall and against the expresse word of God to affirme that they may murther them the aforesaid position consisting of that disiunction is herepicall and therefore it may without any danger at all of periurie be abiured as hereticall 21. From hence it may be gathered first that according to the common and vsuall vnderstanding of our English phrase there is a great distinction betwixt these two verbs may and can For can doth vsually signifie a power in generall whether it be naturall or morall but may for the most part importeth a morall power to wit if it be vsed alone without any coniunction following it most commonly it signifieth a lawfullnes to do the thing proposed As I may doe this signifieth that it is lawfull for mee to doe this but if there follow it a a coniunction copulatiue or disiunctiue it implyeth a choice or free power to choose whether part of the disiunction or copulation one will Seeing therefore that the Latine verbe possum implyeth a power in generall whether it bee naturall or morall and according to the thing affirmed or denyed it is limited to a naturall or morall power as in this proposition Ignis potest comburere The fire hath power to burne it signifieth a naturall and necessary power in the fire to burne and in this potest homo eligo●e bonum aut m●lum A man hath power to choose good or euill it signifieth a morall and free power from hence it followeth that this proposition Subiects may depose or murther their Prince being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope is not so properly and significantly translated into Latine by the verbe possum Sabditi possunt deponere aut occidere suum Principem excommunicatum c. as by the substantiue of possum or by the verbe permittitur to wit in potestate est subditorum or permittitur subditis Principem suum excommunicatum vel depriuatum per Pontificem deponere aut occidere It is in the power of Subiects or it is permitted to Subiects to depose or murther their Prince being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope And therefore the Latine translation of this Oath doth not by the verbe possum significantly expresse the proper and vsuall signification of the verbe may contained in the aforesaid Position vnlesse either the coniunction copulatiue and be put in place of or to wit Principes per Papam excommunicati vel depriuati possum per suos Subditos deponi occidi deposed and murthered as Cardinall Bellarmine and Antonius Capellus haue it in their bookes translated or else there bee vnderstood a condition of the free-will to choose whether part of the disiunction they please to wit possunt deponi per suos Subditos aut si velint occidi bee deposed or if the Subiects will be murthered 23 Secondly from hence it is also gathered that in a disiunctiue proposition wherein is implyed a condition of the will to choose freely either part of the disiunction it maketh all one sense whether the coniunction copulatiue and or the disiunctiue or bee vsed For both of them doe signifie a free power to choose which part one pleaseth and so the coniunction disiunctiue hath in sense the vertue and force of a copulatiue the copulatiue of a disiunctiue Wherfore when the ancient Fathers

of the fragment of the historie of France published by Petrus Pithaeus with Glaber Genebrard and Vignerius doe relate that Philip was excommunicated by Vrbanus and as some of them say in the Councell of Claramont but none of them make mention that hee was deposed or depriued of his Royall honour and Crowne 8. Neither can it any way be prooued out of Iuo that Philip was depriued by Pope Vrbanus of his Royall Honour and Crowne for that Iuo at that very time when Philip was excommunicated did in expresse words account him his Lord and King and offered him his faithfull seruice as to his Lord and King This onely can be gathered out of Iuo that King Philip was desirous to honour his new Queene or rather Concubine Bertrada by putting the Royall Crowne or Diademe on both their heads in a publike solemnity which for that it was a religious ceremony and vsually done in the Church at the time of Masse by the Primate of the Land and Philip was at that time excommunicated and depriued of all holy rites and ceremonies of the Church Pope Vrbanus fo● bad all the Bishops of France to crowne in that sort the King and his new supposed Queene for Philip himselfe was long before crowned King of France and this solemnitie which Pope Vrbanus forbade or the want thereof did not giue or take away from King Philip any iot of his Royall power and authoritie 9. Secondly it is repugnant saith D. Schulckenius to the examples of Gregorie the great of Zachary and of other Popes But to those examples both I haue answered at large in my Apology h Num. 382. seq num 404. seq and also since that Mr. Iohn Barclay i Ca. 40. 42. to whom as yet no Reply hath beene made and first that those words of S. Gregorie k Lib. 2. epist post epist 38. honore suo priuetur let him be depriued or I would to God he may be depriued of his honour for both wayes it may be Englished as that the verbe priuetur may be of the Imperatiue or of the Optatiue moode doe not contain a iuridicall sentence command or decree as likewise neither those words which are spoken in the like manner by S. Gregory cum Iuda traditore in inferno damnetur and let him be damned in hell or I wish he may be damned in hell with Iudas the traitour but onely either a zealous imprecation l See Baronius ad annum 1097. num 51. against them who should infringe his priuiledge if they did not repent or else a declaration that they were worthie for their contempt to bee depriued of their honour and to bee condemned to hell fire with Iudas the traitour from whence it cannot be inferred that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue by a iuridical sentence those Kings who infringe his priuiledge of their Regall Honour or to condemne them by a iuridicall sentence to hell fire 10. So likewise to that example of Pope Zacharie I answered m Num. 404. seq that he did not by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation depriue Childerike of his Kingdome and create Pipin King but onely gaue his aduise counsell and consent or at the most command to the Peeres of France that they ought or might lawfully the circumstances which they propounded to Zacharie being considered depriue Childerike of his kingdome and create Pipin king but this argueth no authoritie in the Pope to depose Princes by any iuridicall sentence of depriuation but at the most an authority in the common wealth to depose their King in some cases of great moment which is not the question which we haue now in hand And therefore the Glosse n In cap. Alius 15. q. 6. with other graue and learned Authours cited by me in my Apologie o Num. 404. seq doe expound those wordes of Pope Gregorie the seueth Zacharie deposed Childerike thus Zacharie gaue his aduise and consent to those who deposed him and those words which some Chronicles haue Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie Lupolbus Bambergensis Ioannes Parisiensis and Michael Coccineus doe expound in the like maner that Childerike was deposed by the authoritie of Pope Zacharie not deposing Childerike and creating Pipin King but only declaring that he might be lawfully deposed by the Peeres of France whereof they were in some doubt for that they had sworne to him allegiance and therefore they craued the opinion and aduise of Pope Zacharie to be resolued by him of that doubt for that the Vniuersitie of Paris did not flourish at that time saith Ioannes Maior p Jn 4. dist 24. q. 3. circa sinē de potest Regia Papal c. 15. and so Pipin was annointed King by the election of the Barons saith Ioannes Parisiensis and by the authoritie of the Pope declaring the doubt of the Barons which also they might haue done without the Popes consent vpon a reasonable cause 11. But because Card. Bellarmine will neuer cease to inculcate still the same authorities which by mee and others haue beene so often answered I thinke it not amisse to add something here concerning that which I did in generall words insinuate in my Apologie q Num. 382. and is more expresly touched by Nicholas Vingerius in his Historie of the Church of France and more particularly vrged by the Bishop of Rochester in his answere to Card. Bellarmines Treatise against Barclay to wit that the priueledge which is said to be granted by S. Gregorie to the Monasterie of S. Medard and which is so greatly vrged by Card. Bellarmine and others is not so authenticall as Card. Bellarmine and others suppose it to be which may be proued by many probable coniectures as by the stile and phrase which is not agreeable to S. Gregories and also by the date of the yeare of our Lord which is not agreeable to the manner of dating of those daies but principally by the persons who are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge For S. Austin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus Bishop of London and Theodorike King of France are subscribed for witnesses to that priueledge and yet neither S. Austin nor Mellitus were Bishops nor Theodorike King at that time which Card. Baronius also doth in expresse words affirme r Ad annum 893. num 85. But I confesse saith he that the subscriptions of the Bishops and of Theodorike King of France do not agree to these times for many Bishops who are found subscribed are knowne to be created some certaine yeares after as to speake nothing of the rest Augustin Bishop of Canterbury and Mellitus of London who as it is manifest were neither at this time Bishops nor gone for England neither at this time did Theodorike reigne in France but Childebert and Gunthramn Wherefore my opinion is that the subscription was afterwards adioyned Thus Baronius But considering that Theodorike not only in the subscription but also in