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 queen_n son_n 6,739 5 5.3239 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

will deny Him to have suffered what He endured But as to that conceit of yours that this Declaration had so much power with the Printer that he durst not to alter the word Queen into King even in the year 1642. it seems to me so strange that I cannot imagine that you ever considered it when you wrote it you are so angry with the Declaration that it must be guilty of every thing The Articles were several times Printed after the death of Queen Elizabeth and before the Declaration of Charles I. and in them you will find the word Queen not turned into the word King and I pray you what power hid the Kings Declaration with the Printers then They were printed by Robert Norton 1612. by Bonham Norton and John Bill 1624. both Editions have the words as they were in the Queens time and yet there was no Declaration then to inforce them not to alter the words Do you imagin that the Printers had any power to alter the words of the Articles of the Church if there were no Declaration to preserve them entire Assure your self it was not the Power of the Kings Declaration but the duty of the Printer which caused him not to vary from his Copy from which none of the Printers from die death of the Queen did ever vary and that for the same cause I beseeeh you therefore Sir acknowledg the Declaration to be the Kings as Mr. Burton did and say not that it was father'd upon that blessed Martyr which Mr. Burton himself would not endure and when you have acknowledged that the Declaration was the Kings acknowledge also that it was not the cause of the continuation of the words of the Articles because those words were constantly continued without that Declaration and which is more the Declaration it selfe gives not any command expresly for the words but onely for the Literall and Grammaticall sense And now the Printer hath done his part to print the Queens Majesty according to his Copie The Incumbent without any other Act of Parliament for alteration of those words or without an annulling of the Kings Declaration may reade the Kings Majesty and not thereby be in danger of any Law and the reason is clear because the Kings Majesty and the Queens Majesty speaking of a Queen regnant as the Article speaketh is the same thing in the Law For you may be pleased to take notice what was declared by the second Parliament 1 Mariae cap. 1. Be it declared and enacted by the Authority of this preesnt Parliament That the Laws of this Realm is and ever hath bin and ought to be understand that the Kingly or Regal Office of this Realm and all Dignities Prerogative Royal Power Preheumencer Priviledges Authorities and Jurisdictions thereunto annexed united or belonging being invested either in Male or Female are and be and ought to be as fully wholly absolutely and entirely déemed judged accepted invested and taken in the one as in the other c. And therefore Sir Edward Coke in his Commentaries upon the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. de Proditionibus making it Treason to imagine the death of our Lord the King saith that a Queen Regnant is within these words Nostre Seignior le Roy for she hath the Office of a King and whereas the same Statute maketh it Treason to imagine the death of the Kings eldest Son and Heir he saith that the eldest Son and Heir of a Queen Regnant is within this Law Being then the Law maketh no distinction between a King and a Queen Regnant being it looketh not upon the Sex which may be different but upon the Office which is wholly the same in either Sex beeing the Doctrine of the Church is wholly agreeable with the Law of the Land in this particular therefore there needeth no reformation in this case because whatsoever assertion is set forth concerning the Sovereign power if it be spoken in the life of a Queen and in the Title of a Queen it may be also spoken in the life of a King in the title of a King if it be asserted in the life time of a King under the Title of a King it may be spoken in the life of a Queen under the Title of a Queen and that without fear of the breach of any Law of the Land or Doctrine of the Church Assure your self therefore that notwithstanding the Act of the 13. of Eliz. and notwithstanding the Declaration of Charles I. you may yet read in the Articles the Kings Majesty and there is no necessity of an Act of Parliament to make or justifie that alteration Your last Paragraph is this As concerning the Law part though you strain hard yet I hold it not worth one line of Reply till you have answered the four Queries propounded in page 61. and 62. of our Book Not that I would wave ought which deserveth Answer but to spare labour where it would be in the judgement of wise men ridiculous to bestow it This is spoken in love to the truth and to your self also by Your Servant and Brother if you please C. BVRGES To which I answer First that till you Answer that Law-part I shall take it to be unanswerable as to use your language many wise and learned men do 2. The condition required by you is very strange that you will not answer my Discourse till I have answered those four Queries when one of the four hath no kind of Relation to the Articles and the Ground of another concerns them not But that if it be possible I may obtain a serious Reply from you to what I nave delivered concerning the Legall Confirmation of our Publick Doctrine I will here punctually answer to the Queries so far as they concern the Articles which are now in question and do further promise that I will answer the rest of the same Queries so farre as they concern any other subject when I come to treat of that subject which they concern Your first Quere as to the Articles runs thus page 61. Whither if there be anything of substance altered in or added to the Articles and those Alterations not expressely mentioned and confirmed by Parliament this doth not make those Articles to be void in Law if pleaded in Law The Ground of this Quere is the Act of the 13. Eliz. This is the Quere and the ground but how that Act should be produced as the Ground of that Quere I cannot see The Act relateth to the Subscription of the Articles the Ground of the Quere is a supposed alteration of the Articles for if the Articles were not altered to what purpose is the Quere and certainly Alteration and Subscription are two severall things It is required by the Law that every person admitted to a Benefice with cure do declare his assent unto all the Articles comprised in a Book imprinted with a certain Title if those Articles so comprised be pleaded in Law they can be no way voided in Law if any other1 Articles