Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	commandment_n	day_n	sabbath_n	21,308	5	10.2371	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62698	Tam quam, or, A attaint brought in the supream court of the King of kings, upon the statutes, Exod. 20. 7, 16 and Levit. 19. 12 against those modern jurors, who have found any indictments upon the statutes of 23 Eliz., 29 Eliz., or 3 Jacobi, against Protestants, for monthly absence from church, without any confession of the parties, or oath of witness against them, or made any presentments of them : contrary to the express letter of their oaths taken in a Court of Judgment, the course of the law of England, or any right reason : wherein is discoursed, whether any Protetant be concerned in that part of those laws? : the contrary is proved : as also whether a grand-jury's finding and indictment, be any evidence to a petit-jury? : the absurdness, and most pernicious consequents of which are detected, and the vengeance of God agaisnt false-swearing is declared / by one who prosecutes, as well for his sovereign lord the King of kings, as for the lives, liberties, and properties of all the subjects of England.	One who persecutes as well for his sovereign lord the King of kings as for the lives, liberties, and properties of all the subjects of England.	1683 (1683)	Wing T133; ESTC R17	24,452	40

the Stat. 3 Jacobi and may be given to any Protestants None of which can be determined concludent in the Case after the fore-going part of a Statute hath declared the Reasons and Grounds for the making of that Law viz. The bringing in of Popish Bulls seducing People to the Romish Religion and determined such Persons guilty of Treason Crimes which no Protestant can be guilty of tho' it follows as a means to prevent these things that every Person that for a Month shall absent himself from his Parish-Church shall forfeit 20 l. Yet certainly it is a fair Interpretation of it to restrain that general Term to that sort of Persons which alone are mentioned in all the preceding part of the Act. Nor certainly in any just construction can general words whether Affirmative or Negative have more extent in one Statute than in another In the late Act for the Sabbath made for the keeping that Holy Day from prophanation and an higher end cannot be God having made it the 4th Commandment in the Decalogue and denominated all Religion from it Isa 56. 4. there is this clause Provided also That no Person or Persons upon the Lord's Day shall serve or execute or cause to be served or executed any Writ Process Warrant Order Judgment or Decree except in Cases of Treason Felony or breach of the Peace but that the service of every such Writ Process Warrant Order Judgment or Decree shall be void to all intents and purposes whatsoever And the Person or Persons so serving or executing the same shall be as liable to the Suit of the Party grieved and to answer Dammages to him for doing thereof as if he or they had done the same without any Writ Process Warrant Order Judgment or Decree Here are no less than three general terms nor is there one Line in the Act excluding Dissenters from the benefit of this Act nor more authorising the Service of Warrants upon them for Meetings than upon any others It is true the Act against Conventicles gives a further liberty but it hath always held a Rule in Law That latter Laws abrogate such as were before if contrary to them Neither doth this Act abrogate it further than concerneth the Lord's Day the better Sanctification of which was the design of the Act Besides were not the former Laws which gave Liberty to Arrest Men on any Days abrogated by this Act so far forth as concerned that Point Yet multitudes of Justices have so interpreted these general terms that Dissenters have no benefit by it in this point Warrants are yet executed on them and their Doors broken open by Warrants on these days So as it seems general words in Statutes shall comprehend dissenting Protestants where they will serve to do them mischief but not where they may do them kindness But this is a Question not yet decided that I have heard of by my Lords the Judges as having not come judicially before them and the Justices And others who have adventured thus far to make Blots may some of them live to see them hit General words are certainly every where of equal extent 2. Nor is the reference to the Statute of 1 Eliz. 2. a proof that all concerned in that Statute are also concerned in the Statute of 23 Eliz. for it is mentioned only as directive of the manner how Persons should go to Church and there behave themselves How doth it from thence follow that all who do not go should be punished by a like Punishment because all are obliged to go to Church in the same Order and to behave themselves there in the same decent manner Nor is the third Argument of more value for there is nothing more ordinary than to find heterogeneous things in the same Statute Law Nor will it follow That the Penalties for not coming to Church in the Statute 3 Jacobi concern Protestants because the Oath of Allegiance in it doth especially when most Clauses in that Act express Popish Recusants But the Clauses concerning that Oath expresly mention any Persons 18 Years of Age whether indicted or convicted of Recusancy or no. But those who make this Objection should also consider that it is by the Act 7 Jacobi 6. that the Oath of Allegiance in 3 Jac. is given to Protestants not by the Act. 3 Jac. 4. 3. The Arguments being no stronger for Protestants Concernment in those Acts let us see what can be said to prove they are not concerned in them I do not pretend to so good an acquaintance with Records But if it doth appear 1. that for threescore Years after the making the Act 23 Eliz. it was never put in Execution upon any but known and professed Popish Recusants it is certain a greater Argument to prove that Protestants are not within it in any due Constructions than any can bring to prove they are 2. I am sure if Protestants though Dissenters be within those Acts they are by the Statute Law of England in a far worse case and exposed to much higher Penalties for not going to Church and going to Meetings than professed Papists are for besides they are in all points made equal with them as to the Stat. 23 Eliz. 29 Eliz. and 3 Jacobi They are further in danger of the Stat. 35 Eliz. out of which Papists are in terms excepted According to which Statute Protestants and none but they for these Crimes may be forced to abjure the Realm or to die like Felons I would gladly understand from any Man of sense to what purpose the Parliament 35 Eliz. should make so severe a Law against Protestant Dissenters upon that little freak the effect of a melancholick Deliration only of Hacket Coppinger and Arthington if they had thought they had been included in the Acts of 23 Eliz. made but twelve Years before or of 29 Eliz. made but six Years before Was not the losing 260 l. a Year a sufficient Punishment for any thing they had shewed themselves guilty of Or was it judged punishment enough for Papists for the Papists who had attempted to poison to stab the Queen to invade her by an invincible Armado to raise up Rebellion in the Nation and not enough for Protestants Can we judg that any English Parliament in those days could so judge The Act of 23 Eliz. was made upon the Papists filling the Land with Priests and Jesuits from the English Seminaries at Doway Rhemes and Rome their publishing of Books to stir up Rebellion in England declaring that the Pope and the King of Spain had conspired that England should be made a Prey And the woful stir then made by those active Jesuits Campian and Parsons Campian Sherwin Kerby and Briant were taken the Year before Anno 1581. This Act passed 1582. The 29 Eliz. was 1588 when we were invaded by the King of Spain 's invincible Armado and six Years before Campian the Head of that Faction had openly declared that in case of such an Invasion he would take part with