Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	act_n	parliament_n	session_n	2,713	5	11.3473	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59298	The character of a popish successour, and what England may expect from such a one humbly offered to the consideration of both Houses of Parliament, appointed to meet at Oxford, on the one and twentieth of March, 1680/1.	Settle, Elkanah, 1648-1724.	1681 (1681)	Wing S2670; ESTC R10639	28,586	24

effemenacy and that servility on a Crown as shall render the Imperial Majesty of England but a Pageant a meer Puppet upon a Wire If then no King will assent to make Laws to do it this way and no Laws can do it t'other all Laws against Popery in case of a Popish Successor are as I told you before but building the Hedge c. For indeed how can the force of Laws made by a Protestant Predecessor and a Protestant Parliament in any sort binde a Popish Successor when the very first advance of the Popes Supremacy introduces that higher power those Canonick Ecclesiastick Laws which no Secular or any Temporal Court can or may controul Laws that shall declare not onely all the Statutes and Acts of Parliament made against the dignity of Mother Church void and null but the very Law-makers themselves as Hereticks wholly uncapable of ever having any right of making such Laws No doubt then but that fire that burns those Heretick Law-makers shall give their Laws the same Martyrdom With this certain prospect both of the Ruine of their Estates Lives and Liberties where lyes the sin in the Commons of England to stand upon their guard against a Popish Successor Aye a God's name let 'em stand upon their guards and use all expedients to keep out Popery and Tyranny provided still that we preserve the sacred Succession in its right Line for that we are told both King and people are obliged in Conscience to defend and uphold I think I need not insist further in multiplying Arguments to prove how far 't is impossible to do one without the other but on the other side let us examine how the defending and establishing a Popish Successor is an obligation on our Duties or Consciences First then let us fancy we see this Popish Heir on his Throne and by all the most illegal and arbitrary means contrary to the whole frame and hinges of the English Government introducing Popery with that zeal and vigour till his infatuated Conscience has perverted the King into a Tyrant And not to stop here If the Constitution of the English Majesty makes a King supream Moderator and Governour both Ecclesiastick and Civil What does this Popish King by admitting the Pope's Church-supremacy but divest himself of half his Royalty whilst like the junior King of Brainford in the Play he resignes and alienates the right and power of Majesty to an Invader and an Usurper And whilst we are thus enslaved by a Medley-Government betwixt Tyranny and Usurpation by establishing a Papist on a Throne we are so far from preserving the Crown that is the Imperial Dignity in a right Line of Succession that we do not preserve it at all but on the contrary extirpate and destroy it whilst by enthroning a Papist we totally subvert and depose the very Monarchy it self And can it be the duty of either Englishmen or Christians to have that zeal for a corrupted leprous Branch of Royalty that we must ruine both Religion Government and Majesty it self to support him How much more consistent would it be with the honest prudent and lawful means of a Nations preservation to take out one link out of the whole Chain of Succession than by preserving that to break the whole to pieces Next let us see who 't is the Commons of England would render uncapable of inheriting the Imperial Crown a Prince of the Royal Blood nurst and bred up in the Protestant Allegiance and Faith and afterwards seduced and perverted to the Romish principles and Superstition And what 's that but a Prince whom the unanimous Voice both of King and People for such are the Laws of England have declared guilty of High-Treason as we finde it in the first Statute in the 23 d of Elizabeth STATUTE Be it declared and enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That all persons whatever which have or shall have or pretend to have power or shall by any way or means put in practice to Absolve Perswade or Withdraw any the Queens Majesties Subjects or any within her Highness Realms and Dominions from their natural Obedience to her Majesty or withdraw 'em for that intent from the Religion now by her Highness Authority establisht within her Highness Dominions to the Romish Religion or to make them or any of them to promise any Obedience to any pretended Authority of the See of Rome or any other Prince State or Potentate to be had or used within her Dominions or shall do any overt-Overt-Act to that intent or purpose and every of them shall be to all intents Adjudged to be Traytors and being thereof Lawfully Convicted shall have Judgment to suffer and forfeit as in case of High-Treason And if any person shall after the end of this Sessions of Parliament by any means be willingly Absolved or withdrawn as aforesaid or willingly Reconciled or shall promise any such Obedience to any such pretended Authority Prince State or Potentate as is aforesaid then every such person their Procurers and Councellors thereunto being thereof lawfully Convicted shall be Tryed and Judged and shall Suffer and Forfeit as in cases of High-Treason Nor was this Act any more than a Confirmation and Explanation of an Act made before in the 13 th year of her Reign Where 't is likewise declared That if any person or persons shall willingly receive or take any Absolutions or Reconciliations from the See of Rome that they and their Seducers shall be equally guilty of High-Treason Nay we have an Act even in Henry the 8th's Reign in which is declared That any man that shall refuse the Oath of Henry 's Supremacy in renunciation of the Pope shall be guilty of High-Treason If then we have a Popish Heir presumptive of the same brand that these Laws have markt him out I would ask what Crime 't is in the People of England to endeavour to disable a Tyrant from wearing a Crown Besides they consider they are under a regulated and bounded Government a Government where no man stands or falls but by his own act and decree whilst the whole dispensation of Meum and Tuum are made by every mans self or his Representatives Since then the People of England as the Lawmakers are an essential part of the Government and are fully assur'd in the Reign of a Papist that Right will be destroy'd Why should not they be as active and vigorous for their own Royal Inheritance and Sacred Succession of Power as a King for his Nay they ought to be the more vigorous of the two For the King in defending a Popish Heir protects but that Successor whose Tyranny he shall never live to see since it commences but from his Grave but the People of England in Asserting their Rights and Liberties and defending themselves and their Heirs do oppose that Tyranny which they may both live to see and feel And that they may assure themselves they shall feel it if ever a Papist mounts this Throne then all their