Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	3,039	5	6.6283	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70493	A vindication of the primitive Christians in point of obedience to their Prince against the calumnies of a book intituled, The life of Julian, written by Ecebolius the Sophist as also the doctrine of passive obedience cleared in defence of Dr. Hicks : together with an appendix : being a more full and distinct answer to Mr. Tho. Hunt's preface and postscript : unto all which is added The life of Julian, enlarg'd.	Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.; Ecebolius, the Sophist. Life of Julian.	1683 (1683)	Wing L2985; ESTC R3711	180,508	416

care of those who are put on an inevitable necessity of defending themselves c. How far a man that is assaulted and put on an inevitable necessity of defending himself against the injuries of private men is one thing and what he may do against his Prince of whom you seem to discourse is another In this case we may apply that in Rev. 13.10 He that killeth with the sword shall be killed with the sword This is the patience and faith of the Saints P. 11. This Doctrine of Passive Obedience you say quite alters the Oath of Allegiance which requires you to be obedient to all the Kings Majesties Laws Precepts and Process proceeding from the same I do not find those words in that Oath as set forth by King James but I find what you overlook viz. I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majestie his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend to the utmost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever And thus I find more particularly in a Declaration which I believe our Author hath subscribed thus amplified I do declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King And that I do abhor that traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are commissionated by him P. 11. After a large Preface little to your purpose telling us That the Church of England reserves her Faith entire for the Canonical books of Scripture which I hope you also do and that she divides her Reverence between the Fathers and the first Reformers of this Church who partly were Martyrs that died for the Protestant Religion and partly Confessors that afterward setled it And now to the business How much the Fathers would have been for a Bill of Exclusion you say we have seen already No not one word of it from the beginning nor I believe any mention of it from one Argument tending to it to the end of the Book from any of the Fathers as will shortly appear But what say our Martyrs Confessors and Reformers First he tells us what some men would have perswaded King Edward to do if they could have had their wills confirmed by Act of Parliament They shewed what they would have done if they could saith our Author They never spake such bad English as our Author doth in his Taunton-Dean Proverb Chud eat more Cheese an chad it which being interpreted is We would rebel if we had power The Duke of Northumberland indeed did cause the Lady Jane Gray's Title to be proclaimed but here the Bishops must be the men that were chiefly engaged in that designe of Exclusion whereas I read not that any of them were ever consulted with nor ever declared any thing to that purpose but in their joynt and most solemn Writings enjoyn the clean contrary as shall now appear P. 12. The Bishops in Queen Elizabeth 's time to whom under God and that Queen we owe the settlement of our Church concurred to the making of that Statute which makes it High-Treason in her Reign and forfeiture of Goods and Chattels ever after in any wise to hold or affirm That an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the descent limitation inheritance and government thereof 13 Eliz. chap. 1. But our Author never considered the grounds and reasons of that Act Ex malis moribus bonae Leges it was the iniquity of those times and the traiterous practices of the Queen of Scots which gave occasion to that Statute for there were many Pamphlets written by Saunders and the Author of Doleman which deni'd the Title of Queen Elizabeth and proclaim'd her an Usurper and the Queen of Scots made actual claim to the Crown of England she assumed the Arms of England and other Regalia and by her Confederates endeavoured to raise a Rebellion and conspired against the life of the Queen for which causes she was condemned as may appear by her Sentence which was passed upon her viz. That divers things were compassed and imagined within this Kingdom of England with the privity of the said Queen who pretended a Title to the Crown of this Kingdom and which tended to the hurt death and destruction of the Royal Person of our Soveraign Queen Cambdens Eliz. p. 464. Leiden 1625. Such practices gave occasion to that Statute to prevent the Mischiefs that might befal Queen Elizabeth and the Nation And that Statute consists of many heads As first Whoever should compass imagine devise or intend the death or destruction or any bodily harm tending to death destruction or wounding of the Royal person of the Queen or deprive or depose her of or from the Stile Honour or Kingly name of the Imperial Crown of this Realm c. or leavy War against her Majesty within this Kingdom or without or move any Strangers to invade this Kingdom or Ireland c. or shall maliciously publish and declare by any printing writing word or sayings that our Soveraign Lady during her life is not or ought not to be Queen of this Realm c. or that any other person or persons ought of right to be King or Queen of the same or that our said Queen is a Heretick or Schismatick Tyrant Infidel or an Vsurper of the said Crown c. these shall he guilty of High-Treason Also if any after thirty days from the Session of this Parliament and in the life of our said Queen shall claim pretend declare or publish themselves or any other besides our said Queen to have Right or Title to have and enjoy the Crown of England or shall usurp the same or the Royal Stile Title or Dignity of the Crown or shall affirm that our said Queen hath not right to hold and enjoy the same such shall be utterly disabled during their natural lives onely to have or enjoy the Crown or Realm of England in Succession Inheritance or otherwise Then follows the Case of Succession That if any person shall hold or affirm that the Common Laws of this Realm not altered by Parliament ought not to direct the Right of this Crown or that our said Queen by the Authority of Parliament is not able to make Laws and Statutes of sufficient force c. as above Yet was not the Queen of Scots condemned upon the Statute of the 13 of Eliz. but on that made in the 27 of her Reign wherein it was provided That twenty four persons at least part being of the Privy Council and the rest Peers of the Realm should by the Queens Commission examine such as should make any open Rebellion or Invasion of this Realm or attempt to hurt the Queens person by or for any pretended Title to the Crown In which Commission I find no Bishop save the Archbishop who at first refused to act nor when the whole Parliament petitioned for the Execution do we find that the