Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	apostle_n	bishop_n	let_v	3,421	5	4.8916	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75445	An answer to the Solemne League & Covenant; presented to the publick view of all loyall subiects in England, Scotland, and Ireland; in the twelfth year of the reign of our most gracious sovereign Lord Charles by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Published according to order.		1660 (1660)	Wing A3448; Thomason E1045_3; ESTC R207947	9,622	16

all to their tottering cause For 1. They entred not into any solemn League with the men of Judah though for the present they joyned with them in a Religious duty commanded by the Law 2. What they did they were invited to do by King Hezekiah whereas the Scotch are not invited to this League with the English by the King 3. The King of Ashur forbad not the Israelites to joyn with their Brethren of Judah in keeping the Passover but the King forbids any of his Subjects to enter into this Covenant 4. The King who Reigned over the Israelites was an Idolater but our King is a worshipper of the true God And albeit in some case and quarrel the worshippers of the true God may joyn with their Brethren of the same Religion in another Kingdome in a Defensive League though the King being an Idolater should forbid it yet it follows not that they may do so without the consent and against the command of a Christian Prince who is a professor of the true Religion Lastly The Israelites besides the invitation of King Hezekiah to keep a solemn Passover with the Jews had the express command of God himself whereas neither English nor Scotch have any command from God expresly or implicitly to enter into this League for the Defence of the Protestant Religion against Papists without the King the King himself undertaking and that by most solemn Oathes and Protestations to defend the same 5. For the Covenant mentioned Ezra 10.3 that was meerly to remove a Scandal from the Jews and to fulfill the express command of God for putting away strange wives set down in the Law of Moses in which case no man doubteth but a Covenant may be made not only without but against the commandement of a Prince Yet here the Jews besides the command of Nehemiah the Viceroy had the approbation of the Prince for making this Covenant for the King of Persia at this time favoured the Jews and cont●ibuted largely to the reedifying of the Temple and gave order to Ezra the Priest to adorn the house of God and perform all things in his service according to the Law Ezra 7.10 The last example Rev. 10.5 is least to our present purpose for the Angel there made no Covenant but only swear by the living God that time should be no more It is true he lifted up his hand yet that no way helpeth the Covenanters cause for that might be a fit gesture in an Angel menacing a fatal doom to the world and the out-dating of all time which yet may not be thought so fit a gesture for men entring into a holy League for the preservation of two Kingdoms If they can as the Angel did stand upon the Earth and the Sea at the same time let them also further imitate the Angel in lifting up their hands to Heaven when they make their Covenant Howsoever for the gesture we will not contend with them I think it fitter in taking this Oath then after the usuall manner to lay the hand upon the Bible for this Oath and Covenant hath no ground or foundation at all in that book and the lifting up of the hand very well expresseth the purport of this Covenant which is a lifting up of their hands against the Lords anointed and his Church yet under pretence of defence of the Kings person never so much endangered as by their Armies and of Religion never so profaned as by their Reformadoes and of the liberties of Subjects never so much infringed as by Arbitrary Votes Before we take this Oath of Reformation we must desire a Reformation of the Oath for it is full of Ambiguities and Contradictions whence I thus frame a fifth argument 5. No Ambiguous Oath ought to be taken or Covenant signed for here one of Pythagoras golden Preceps taketh place Loquere cum lumine all Ambiguities Equivocations or mental reservations especially in Leagues and Oaths are abominated by all Protestants He that swearath ambiguously sweareth not in simplicity of heart nor can keep his Oath sincerely and intirely But in this Covenant and Oath there are many Ambiguities For what is meant in the first clause by common Enemies Either the world the flesh and the Divel which indeed are as it were sworn Enemies to all true Religion or Papists or Independants who are both enemies to the Discipline and Government of the Scotch Church In the second clause what is meant by Church Government by Archbishops Bishops c either all government by Bishops or the present Government only with the late Innovations and abuses thereof If all Government by Bishops then in taking this Oath we condemn not only the perpetual Government of the Church from the Apostles time till the Reformation of Religion in the dayes of Hen. 8. but also the Reformed Churches in England Ireland Denmark Swethland Poland Saxonie and other parts of Germany where either they have Archbishops and Bishops or tantmount Intendents and Superintendents If the present Government only with innovations and abuses let them explain what are the innovations and abuses we swear against else we cannot swear in judgment What is meant by Hierarchy the word signifieth holy Government being derived from Iera holy and Arkirule or government And is it fit crudely without any gloss to forswear all holy Government In the third clause what is meant by defending the Kings person in the defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms Is it a limitation or not If it be no limitation what doth it there There ought to be no idle and if I may so speak hang-by words in an Oath for the Wiseman teacheth us when he speak to God our words must be few If it be a limitation how doth this Covenant agree with the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance by which we are absolutely bound to defend the Kings person Royal D●●nities and Prerogatives of the Crown with any if or of restriction or qualification In the fourth clause What is meant by Malignants or evil Instruments A word never used till of late in any Statute Law or Ordinance and never so much abused as at this day In the sixth clause how far extend these words I will assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and persuance thereof Doth it reach to giving battle to the KING Sequestring Estates plundering houses and trampling all Lawes under foot and to the justifying all the outrages committed in the maintaining and pursuing this League If not why is it not ci cumscribed with that limitation in the first Protestation By all good and lawfull means or so far as lawfully I may There being so many Amphibologies Ambiguities and Kiddles in this Oath we must have some Oedipus of the Synod to read and clearly expound them before we can safely engage our conscience by Oath to perform them No Covenant may be made or Oath taken which implyeth in it contradictions for in such an Oath or