Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	bill_n	house_n	pass_v	12,480	5	7.4741	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71091	Scripture vindicated from the mis-apprehensions, mis-interpretations, and mis-applications of Mr Stephen Marshall, [in] his sermon preached before the Commons House of Parliament, Feb. 23. 1641. and published by order of that House. : Also a militarie sermon, wherein [b]y the VVord of God, the nature and disposition of a rebell is discovered, and the kings true souldier described and characterized. / [B]y Edward Symmons ...	Symmons, Edward.	1645 (1645)	Wing S6349; ESTC R222629	80,878	99

solely his it was a common thought that William the Conquerour was an usurper and so were all his successors and therefore it was fit that this King should be called to answer for William the Conquerours sin of usurpation And to whom must he answer trow ye why even to the House of Commons for they alone are the only Parliament the representative body of the Kingdome whom the people choose as for the Nobility in the upper House they sit but as private men for their Barony●s being called but only by the Kings Writ and not chosen by the votes of the People But did William the Conquerour usurpe the Crowne and Diademe of this Realme from the House of Commons that King Charles his lawfull successour must now answer the matter before them or resigne it unto them though 600. years possession might plead somewhat in a case of this nature yet if any New State-man or any of their Learned Ministry can but prove the House of Commons as now established to have so much as a bare being at that that time though but in Embrione for quietnesse sake the case may haply be argued with them and proved too that right by Conquest unlesse of Rebells is no usurpation But to the businesse in hand I know well that this impious and unreasonable conceit that the bloud shed in Queen Maries time is yet to be expiated and that all the sins of the Popish Clergy in former ages is Chargeable upon the heads of the Bishops in these times c. I know I say that this conceit is deeply grounded in the Hearts of many of our factious people Dr Layton in his Sions plea some sixteen years agoe laboured mightily to the working of it by enumerating up the faults of all the Popish Bishops that have been in England specially since the Conquest and speaks of them as if the present Bishops then alive were guilty of the same and dese●ved punishment for them and after him some foure years agoe the Smectymnists all men of M. Marshalls neare acquaintance did bestirre themselves to the same purpose their postscript at the end of their Book was written to no other end then to worke the same beliefe in people concerning our present Bishops they there doe Laytonize up many of the miscarriages of the Popish Bishops as if they were the faults of ours so endeavouring to imbitter peoples spirits against that Sacred Order and against all that Reverence either the men or the calling as against Antichristian men and maintainers of the same evills practiced by men of another Religion many Hundreds of years before they were borne But then comes William Pryn with his two volumnes and speaks over the same thing the third time with many more words though with as little Conscience and Honesty as the rest and he strikes the matter dead for by the mouth of three such witnesses the thing is so established that people should be worse then Infidells if they believe it not Now therefore it being so the Bishops must be pluckt up root and Branch and all that approve of them be they who they will must like welwillers to Babilon as they be be cast downe and rooted out with them what effusion of bloud soever it cost for 't is the Lords work against Babilon And therefore most zealously did a Neighbour of mine an Essex teacher too arguing with my self speake when he said at the begining of this Parliament that it was better that all the streets in England should run downe with bloud then that one Bishop or one Ceremony should still remaine But how impious and unreasonable these conceits be I hope I need not to men unblinded use means to discover How sencelesse is it that men should commit sin foure or five hundred years before they were borne or be guilty of the sins committed by others of another Religion so long agoe and deserve punishment for them though they have disclaimed them writ against them and every way opposed them How absurd is it that a calling should be sinfull or infectious save only in respect of sin●ull men executing the same If Hyerarchy be Antichrist or Monarchy or Superiority then Antichrist is in Heaven for there is both Hyerarchy Monarchy and Superiority surely therefore 't is sin and not Prelacy that makes men Antichristian But to come closer yet to the matter if the bloud shed in Queen Maries time must be expiated now with our bloud and because those that s●te in the Throne and the Nobles in those times did consent unto it therefore their successors now must partake in the suffering Yet let me start a Question How if the House of Commons in those daies were consenting to it as well as others what will become of those that succeed them in these times I confesse I have heard an Answer to this Objection out of certain notes taken from a Sermon Preached by Mr I.D. an Essex Minister too and it was this That the Body of the Kingdome which is the House of Commons did never consent to what was then done therefore they are free and are to require this blood at the hands of others perhaps he means they did not of themselves make an Ordinance for the doing or for the approving of it though peradventure they passed the Act or Bill as well as the King or House of Lords when first propounded else how could it have had the force of a Law But then let me aske farther how shall those on their side scape who are the Posterity of some notorious great persecutors of Gods Saints in Queen Maries time I hope they will not deny them to be their law●ully begotten Children and derived from the same line and bloud whose names and lands they doe inherit unlesse their taking part with the present faction hath expiated their Grand-fathers Guilt without their sufferings I cannot see but their bloud ought to help in the expiation as well as ours And then farther yet how if some of the forefathers of us who must be Butchered were Martyrs in Queen Maries time and some of them that must murder us be the Children of those that murdered them as may well be suspected from their similitude of Spirit is it Iustice because their Fathers joyned with the Popish Bishops in those daies to destroy our Fathers therefore they may joyne with the House of Commons now to destroy us to say the Parliament judgeth so will not give sufficient satisfaction But in a word I returne my reply to that impious and unreasonable conceit in the words of the Lord written by Ezechiell Chap. 18.20 The soule that sinneth it shall dye the Son shall not beare the iniquity of the Father neither shall the Father beare the iniquity of the Sonne the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickednesse of the wicked shall be upon him But perhaps M. Marshall and his faction will say that those whom they have destin'd to destruction are great sinners