Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	find_v	read_v	word_n	3,143	5	3.9137	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91567	An ansvver to Dr. Burges his vvord by way of postscript. In vindication of No necessity of reformation of the publick doctrine of the Church of England. By John Pearson D.D.	Pearson, John, 1613-1686.	1660 (1660)	Wing P993; Thomason E1045_4; ESTC R202285	15,143	22

should be pleaded in the place of them such Articles so pleaded I conceive might be voided but that would be little to your purpose because the true Articles meant by the Law might still be pleaded If a man should read the old true Articles and should be accused for not reading Articles set forth since with additions or substantiall alterations I make no question but the plea would be void But if he should be required without Law to read a Book with-alterations and should omit to read a Book which hath no substantiall alteration and is required by Law I suppose the Statute would be of force against him But howsoever I do absolutety deny that there is any substantiall alteration of or addirion to those Articles mentioned in the Act of 13. Eliz. and do assert that the Articles to which the late Kings Declaration was affixed are the same with them in number nature substance words as I am assured having my self diligently collated them with an Edition of the Articles printed by Richard Jugge and John Cawood Printers to the Queens Majesty in Anno Domini 1571. Being therefore the Articles enjoyned to be read by a Law have received no alteration I answer your Quere that they cannot be voided in Law if pleaded in Law The second Quere having onely reference in it self to the Alterations which I have denyed and having no reference in the Ground to the Articles at all can require no further answer here where the Articles onely are concern'd The third Quere is this If any man be indicted or sued at Law upon the Statute of 13. Eliz. for not reading the Articles of 1562. and the Defendant plead Not guilty and deny these Articles to be those confirmed by that Law till the Plaintiff prove them to be of Record whether is not the Plaintiff bound to prove that and in the meane time the Defendant not punishable by that Statute The Grounds of this Quere are first that there are no Records of these to be found secondly the Book hath been severall times altered since that Act and thirdly many punished upon the said Acts because that Book hath been generally received and used as established by Law There are so many mistakes in this Quere and these severall Grounds that it will be very difficult to shew them all first the supposition of the Quere is incongruous as implying that which is contrary to the proceedings in this case for if any Person inducted into a Benefice do neglect or refuse to read his Articles according to the Statute of 13. Eliz. I conceive he is not to be indicted or sued at Law and so as a Defendant to pleade Not guilty but upon proof made in the Ecclesiasticall Court that he hath not read those Articles he must be forthwith deprived according to that Statute which saith that he shall be upon that default ipso facto immediately deprived That this is to be done by sentence Declaratory before the Bishop of the Diocese and that this is the ordinary proceeding in case of an Offendor against that Statute appeared from the proceedings against John Durston mentioned in 6. part of Sir Edward Coke's Reports page 29. in Greenes case whole words are these Le Seignior Pawlet 6. Aprilis 1574. Present al dit esglise un John Durston que a ceo fuit admit institute induct ne lia les Articles solonque lestatute de 13. Eliz. cap. 12. Per quel cause 10. Martii 1583. al suit del dit Thomas Seignior Pawlet il fuit deprive per sentence Declaratory devant Levesque Being therefore the Nature of the Statute is such that the proof is not put on the Plaintiff but on the Defendant who is bound to read the Articles enjoyned by the Statute and if he be accused for not reading is bound to prove that he hath read them and consequently to produce the Articles which he hath read as those intended in the Statute it is easily answered to your Quere that it supposeth something wholly inconsistent with the Proceedings in the Case and putteth that upon the Plaintiff which belongeth to the Defendant and therefore the Quere may be wholly denyed in every part of it Again as the Quere is inconsistent to it self so the Grounds arc either false in themselves or at least no way concerning the intent of the Quere The first Ground I have already refuted shewing that the Record that is the Originall of the Articles is to be found and if it were not the Articles comprized in a Book imprinted commanded by the Law to be read are to be found which is enough to evacuate the Quere because it cannot be necessary to finde any more then the Act expresseth And if any man reade those Articles which are to be found it must lie upon the Plaintiff to prove that such Articles so read were not the Articles intended in the Statute As for the second Ground that the Book of Articles hath been severall times altered since the Act of 13. of Eliz. It is so far from truth that I can averre as I have done before that the Articles now in force are the same with the Articles comprized in a Book imprinted when the Act was made without any the least alteration and whosoever readeth either those of 1571. or any Edition printed since the Kings Declaration and giveth his full assent to the same shall never be in danger of a Declaratory sentence of Deprivation upon that Statute The third Ground of your Quere the more of truth it hath in it hath the less of reason to Ground the Quere for the more have been punish'd upon the said Act because the Book hath been generally received as established by Law the less is it probable that it should not be so established The Articles are as much enrolled now as they were when any persons were punished for not reading them and it is to be presumed that they were as desirous and carefull to preserve themselves in those Benefice into which they instituted and inducted as others are now and that the Learned of the Law did as well understand how to avoid the sentence of the Statute as now they do and therefore the constant practice to the contrary is enough to perswade any man that your new plea if there were any such to be admitted would prove invalid Your fourth Quere concerneth the Canons onely made by the Convocation and ratified by the King and therefore requireth no present reply in this discourse confined to the Justification of the 39. Articles Thus far have I stept out of my way in answer to your Queres hoping thereby to invite you to a ferious reply to the Law-part at the least of my Discourse And though I have omitted that part of your Queres which concern the Common-Prayer and the Canons it is not at all as if I thought them unanswerable but onely because I think it not proper to confound the Subjects of which I intend to treate I do therefore but reserve that part of the Queres which concerneth the Common-Prayer unto my answer to the matter of Worship and that of the Canons unto the part which followeth assuring you that by the assistance of God I shall very suddenly shew that there is no such Necessity of a Reformation of the Publick Worship of the Church of England as you pretend neither will it be long before I demonstrate the same concerning the Ceremonies and the Discipline Being near the Conclusion of my Answer to your Postscript there fell accidentally into my hands a more civil Address written by William Hamilton Gent. who undertakes to be an Interpreter to you and the Ministers of sundry Counties and to defend your Book by altering the State of the Question and the Conclusion to be proved I conceive it reason at the present not to answer that Treatise because I am sure he hath much mistaken the meaning of my words and therefore it is very probable that he may have as much mistaken yours and I shall not oblige my self to answer any other meaning then your own Howsoever in this your Postscript I have waved nothing except your bad language which 1 shall ever wave assuring you that no provocations shall ever tempt me to break my resolution of writing with a Brotherly temper and Christian Moderation in love to which as well as to the truth I subscribe my self Your Servant and Brother J. PEARSON FINIS