Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	believe_v	faith_n	true_a	5,505	5	5.0466	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66454	An answer to sundry matters contain'd in Mr. Hunt's postscript to his argument for the bishops right in judging capital causes in Parliament ... whereunto is added a query to be put to the scrupulous and dissenting brotherhood : with an advertisement how usurpers of the crown ought to be dealt with / by Wa. Williams of the Middle Temple, a barrister at law.	Williams, Walter, of the Middle Temple.	1683 (1683)	Wing W2773A; ESTC R7863	19,108	36

AN ANSWER To sundry Matters contain'd in Mr. HVNT'S Postscript To His Argument For the Bishops Right in judging Capital Causes in PARLIAMENT VIZ. 1. As to his publishing a scandalous LETTER of the Clergy 2. As to his wrongfully charging His Majesty with neglect of the LAW if he call'd not a Parliament once a year 3. As to his false Affirmations that the Succession of the CROWN is the Peoples Right and that not only the Line of Succession but Monarchy it self may be alter'd Whereunto is added A Query to be put to the Scrupulous and Dissenting Brotherhood WITH An Advertisement how Usurpers of the Crown ought to be dealt with By Wa. Williams of the Middle Temple a Barrister at LAW Si Deus nobiscum quis contra nos LONDON Printed for Charles Harper and are to be sold by Walter Davis at Amen-Corner 1683. A POSTSCRIPT Anteposited SIR I Had a long time since framed this ensuing Answer to y●●● most celebrated Postscript but having done it the c●●sideration of the wise Kings Advice Answer not a Fo●●● and Answer a Fool wrought such a Conflict within 〈◊〉 as hindred my sending it until of late I found by your w●●● Defence of the Charter that you were become wise in y●●● own Conceit Therefore to indeavour to move that ●●stemper in your self and to undeceive such as may be in●●cted with the State-Heresie I at length Resolved to 〈◊〉 it in hopes it may effect your and their Reformation w●●●● is desired by W.W. TO THOMAS HVNT Esq SIR HAving occasion lately to pass through several parts of the Kingdom and in my Journies discoursing with several Gentlemen that had been Members of the Honourable House of Commons in some of our late Parliaments concerning the late Bill of Exclusion of His Royal Highness from the Succession of the Crown I found some of them who once had no great opinion neither of the necessity nor honesty of that Bill begin to entertain some favourable thoughts of it and that which induc'd them to it as I was inform'd was the powerful Arguments they met with in a very ingenious Piece as they term'd it call'd Mr. Hunt's Postscript which was in great plenty very industriously dispersed about by some Newtrue-Protestants and magnified by them equally with if not above the Scriptures This great Character and the mighty Effects it had wrought set my Curiosity upon enquiry after this sublime Fabrick of Politicks but having found it I must tell you without Complement it proved a mere heap of confused scandalous Rubbish situate like the Firebrands in the Tails of Sampson's Foxes tacked to the hinder end of a plausible thing viz. Your Argument for the Bishops Right c. Your self suspecting as I guess by the matter of it that it had never found the way into our standing Corn without the help of some such Fox-like trick it being stuffed with nothing but Railings false Recitals of Scripture History Fallacies and Chicaneries which in plain English are nothing but subtle impertinent quirks and quillets First you act the slanderer by Proxie and as I apprehend it you feign a Letter from a Friend containing very scandalous things of the Clergie amongst the rest page the 2d belying them that they are all for a Popish Successor and no Parliament and that they do as much as in them lies give up our ancient Government the Protestant Religion the true Christian Faith to the absolute will of a Popish Successor wherein you have done extreamly ill notwithstanding you have declared your own opinion that you believe that there are but few of them guilty of that charge for your supposed Letter hath deeply wounded their Reputation with the credulous People and given them too great an occasion to hunt after Conventicles in search for supposed more Godly Teachers and I dare affirm it that your declaring your own opinion of them is but a very ineffectual Plaister for their broken Heads Whether you could have Argued better for them or not I cannot say but if you could not your inability will no more excuse you than it did the young Conjurer that raised the Devil but could not lay him and though you would father the Lye upon another I conceive however that you have committed an Offence against the Statutes of Westminster the first and the 2d of R. 2. Touching Reporters of false News whereby slander may arise to the Bishops of this Realm for by Clergy is understood the Bishops as well as the inferiour Ministers your Friends tale being the most scandalous thing that could have been invented and most likely to make the People hate all the Orthodox and Conformable Clergie in the Nation for which I wish you your condign Punishment Another matter you have taken great pains in page 29. of the Postscript and thereabouts is to represent to the World a Statute as in force which is Repealed and by Colour thereof you take the freedom to asperse even His Majesty himself for you say that by the Statutes of Edward the 3d. Parliaments are to be holden every Year and thar the Statute of this King requires a Parliament every three Years which as you say being an affirmatory Law doth not derogate from those of Edward the 3d. And you say farther that if the King doth not call a Parliament once a Year He neglects those Laws and if he delays calling a Parliament in three Years He neglects the other Law of His own time This renders you an audacious man that dares thus openly and bare-faced Libel your Prince but it will never give you the Reputation of a great Lawyer a good Logician nor a dutiful Subject for this Argument of yours is as gross a Solecism and non-consequence as any Sophister to render it more intelligible any Deceiver ever yet attempted to cheat the World with And to Demonstrate it so consider with your self If I should make you a Lease of a House at the Rent of Twenty pound payable Yearly and afterwards should make you another Lease of the same House at Twenty pounds payable once in Three Years would not you say that this last Lease did disanul and make void the first Lease the making and accepting of a new Lease being a surrender in Law of the old one and whereas by the first Lease you were to pay Twenty pound every Year would you not then think your self obliged to pay your Twenty pound but once in three Years I dare say you would however you may pay Twenty pound every Year if you will notwithstanding the new Lease and so may the King call a Parliament once every Year or oftner if He please but is not nowbound to do so by the old Statute any more than you are bound by the old Lease after a new one made of the same thing To make this matter more plain I will give you another instance to this purpose according to what a Reverend Father in the Law sayes Examples do not perplex but clear the point Suppose