Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	enter_v	king_n	scotland_n	2,905	5	8.4813	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75313	The anatomy of Dr. Gauden's idolized non-sence and blasphemy, in his pretended Analysis, or setting forth the true sense of the covenant that is to say, of that sacred covenant taken by the Parliament, the commissioners of Scotland, and the assembly, September 11. 1643.		1660 (1660)	Wing A3055; Thomason E765_14; ESTC R207156	29,164	31

heart and with all their soul That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman and they swore unto the Lord with a loud voice And all Judah rejoyced at the oath and be was found of them and the Lord gave them rest round about 2 Chron. 15.12 13 c. Here was a National Covenant and a Divine acceptance of it Yet no word or syllable of Asa as imposing or confirming of it Which is evidence enough that the imposing or consenting of a King is not of the essence of a Legitimate Covenant It is enough that God owns it and commands performance Nor can any one instance be given throughout the whole Book of God that any Oath Vow or Covenant to which the King or Supreme Magistrate would not or did nor consent was upon that reason or groud made null and void or that any King ever went about to vacate and adnul any Covenant made with God without the consent of the King It is then no other but blaspheming the Gods to term the late Parliament bungling Reformers for doing Church-work without the Master-builders Kings and Bishops if he refer it to the Covenant If he doth not so then this is but a piece of railing Non-sense pull'd in by head and ears to vent his gaul upon his betters Do not all Parliaments advise and consult with whom they think meet even in matters of Religion and Ecclesiastical affairs as well as Civil and Vote and pass them before they offer them to the King did they not so in this And did not his then Majesty take them into consideration and condescend to so much as they gave him time to consider of without declaring against the rest but only suspending consent till his Conscience might be better satisfied Nay even that which was never offered to his Majesty at all being no way contrary or contradictory to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance was never opposed or contradicted by him Witness the Protestation of May 5. 1641. taken by both Houses of Parliament and afterwards by the House of Commons alone imposed on all the Kingdom without so much as asking his Majesties consent which was never controuled or disallowed by the King albeit he was then in Person residing at White-hall and could not be ignorant of what was done therein And what ails the man to make such a noise about the imposing of the Solemn League and Covenant without the then King who was then absent Did not both Ezra and Nehemiah also draw all the people into a solemn Covenant with God t Ezra 10.3 Neh. 9.38 without special Commissions unless for reparing the Temple from the Persian Monarch then their Soveraign albeit they were not free Subjects but Vassals and one of them the menial servant of Artaxerxes then by Conquest Supreme Governour of Judah Nor did his late Majesty ever command the renouncing of the said Solemn League and Covenant taken by both Kingdoms Sept. 11. 1643. albeit he published a Proclamation Jun. 21. in the 19th year of his Reign viz. An. 1643. against that other Vow and Covenant which was about that time taken by the Lords and Commons and by them appointed to be taken by every man in the Cities of London Westminster and the Suburbs thereof and throughout the whole Kingdom the administring and taking of which by such as had not taken it were by that Proclamation for the reasons therein contained forbidden But albeit this were lately by an enemy to the other Solemn League and Covenant without warrant reprinted and scattered up and down as if it had been an interdicting and prohibiting those that had taken it to perform it and to give some countenance to that railing Pamphlet of the Doctor here laid open in his colours in hope that Ignorant ones would surely thereupon cast off that Covenant of God yet that was but a meer cheat and gullery of which it behoves all honest men and sober Christians to take notice and beware Nor are Oaths and Covenants once solemnly taken to be cast off and disclaimed upon any pretence whatsoever be there never so many defects and failings in the imposing or taking of them unless the matter of them be sinful as that of those Jews that bound themselves under an Oath of Execration or curse not to eat or drink till they had killed Paul u Act. 23.14 This I have said enough unto already yet do repeat it because since the writing of the premises I have met with a Book intituled The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which have been laid aside for many years c. which tells us w Pag. 5. That though there be many infirmities and miscarriages committed in the making and taking of publique Oaths and although the things they oblige unto be against the interest of the people and though the breach and violation thereof hath the countenance of fair and specious intents and ends seemingly conducing unto the publique good of the people yet neither all nor any of these pretentions doth either make void the obligations of those Oaths nor deliver the people from the great guilt of the sin which is committed in the violation thereof nor secure them from the dreadful judgement of God Who is the Author hereof I know not but I am confident that the Doctor and he aim both at one mark which makes me to alledge him It is true there is another Book lately reprinted bearing this Title Reasons of the present Judgement of the Vniversity of Oxford concerning the Solemn League and Covenant c. approved by general consent in a full Convocation June 1. 1647. in which Book many Reasons are alledged why those who were then Masters Scholars Officers and other Members of that Vniversity could not take that Covenant and another Negative Oath But that no way concerneth the present Case for their Reasons tend only to their own justification for their not taking of the Covenant and Oath then tendred to them not to fall upon others who had already taken it Therefore there is no need to add any Answers thereunto although he that caused it to be reprinted pretendeth to do it for the satisfaction of others which cannot in any sense reach those who have taken the Covenant already And now good Mr. Doctor think more seriously in cold blood of your high presumption in casting so much dirt upon that Covenant which his present gracious Majesty hath so highly honoured of which perhaps you may one day be required to render an account if men have any zeal for his Majesties honour I forbear Particulars in this but you may do well to lay to heart particularly what becomes you herein Nor hath this Kingdom onely entered into a Solemn League and Covenant themselves but they have approved even in Parliament what others have done in like cases abroad When the Kingdom of Scotland even without their King entred into a Solemn League and Covenant among themselves before their joyning with England in this and were threatned to be chastised for that and other things by a puissant Army yet afterwards upon a through debate thereof in the Parliament of England it was declared by King and Parliament That our Brethren of Scotland had

done nothing but what became Loyal and obedient Subjects and were thereupon by Act of Parliament publickly righted in all the Churches of this Kingdom where they had been defamed Yea See the Exhortation for 〈◊〉 the Covenant ordered by the House of Commons to be printed Feb. 9. 1643. the same Exhortation out of which the precedent Paragraph is extracted telleth us That neither this Doctrine nor Practise hath been formerly deemed seditious or unwarrantable by the former Princes that have sate upon the English Throne but justified and defended by Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory with the expence of much Treasure and Noble Blood in the united Provinces of the Netherlands combined not onely without but against the unjust violence of Philip the second of Spain first and chiefly in matters of Religion King James of like blessed memory followed her steps so far as to approve their union and to enter into League with them as free States which was after continued by his last Majesty who both by his Expedition for relief of Rochel in France and by his strict confederacy and Allyance with the the late Prince of Orange notwithstanding all the importunity of Spain to the contrary did set to his seal That all that had been done by his Royal Ancestors in maintenance of those who had so engaged and combined themselves was just and warrantable Thus Mr. Doctor I have given you some patterns of Covenanting Christians beside the Holy League in France the two Houses of Parliament whom you take pleasure every where to bespatter as if they were Fools and Rebels in England and our Brethren in Scotland I forbear to mention Germany the Cantons the Albigenses and others because I have said enough already to shew the fowlness of your Pen and the falshood of him that held it in saying there is no pattern of such a Covenant in any ages of the Church and that we never read nor heard of any Covenanting Christians until the Ligue Sainte in France except those who in Baptism were sprinkled with the blood of Christ and so entred into that Covenant c. pag. 11. I have now taken my walk through your gaudy Field but have gathered little fruit I therefore forbear further progress unless to take a view of Her whom you call Your dear Mother the Church of England pag. 5. I pray who and what is She Which Question I ask not as if I were of opinion that there is none such but to know of you whom you take Her to be I have read of one Mother of us all x Gal. 4.26 I know no more Mothers although I know more Churches I have read in the Articles of Religion established in 13 Eliz. cap. 12. y Art 19. That the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same But you are not so rude an Vnderstander nor so uncritical a Speaker By the Church of England you plainly and charitably mean that part of mankind in this Polity or Nation which having been called baptised and instructed by lawful Ministers in the Mysteries and Duties of the Gospel maketh a joynt and publick Profession of the Christian Faith and Reformed Religion in the name and as the sense of the whole Nation c. Thus you in your Tears Sighs c. of the Church of England pag. 24. Then all man-kind in this Polity and Nation making such a Profession is your Dear Mother Are not you then Terrae Filius Sir St. Paul tells us Hierusalem which is above is the Mother of us all But you tell us Your Mother is not Hierusalem ●u● England which is below and not free Much joy may you have of her I can own her as a Church but not as a Mother I have read of no Mothers in the New Testament in relation to Churches but onely Hierusalem not Earthly but Coelestial and Babylon the great Whore the Mother of Harlots z Rev. 17.1 5. If the Doctor have found out a third much good may she do him Now I see what makes him so excentrick and extravagant namely his sucking too much of his Mothers Milk when she had eaten too much poysonous meat of Arminianism Socinianism and Popery And now Sir I shall for this time take my leave of you with this close that whereas you pag. 25. vant that in two days you finished those Answers and Solutions truly Sir I think so too and do believe that whoever shall carefully compare those Answers and Solutions with this Reply which cost more time will be of the same opinion and that the spirit of perversness pride and time-serving ambition did dictate them unto you POST-SCRIPT I Had almost forgotten your high Commendation of Dr. Ushers Model of reformed Episcopacy in his Reduction which for my part I dislike not Only I must take occasion hence to tell you or rather others that since the reprinting of that Reduction of Episcopacy into the form of a Synodical Government which little Piece was truly Dr. Ushers child there hath a Bastard appear'd which is called The Bishop of Armagh's Direction concerning the Liturgy and Episcopal Government said to be written at the request of the House of Commons in the year 1642. Which is a meer fiction and a lye For so Dr. Bernard in his Book intituled The judgement of the Archbishop of Armagh c. assureth us pag. 160 That in An. 1640. There was a Book printed intituled The Bishop of Armaghs judgment to the House of Parliament concerning the Liturgy and Episcopal Government And in An. 164● another Book intituled Vox Hibernia being some pretended Notes of his at a Publique Fast Both these at his Petition were suppressed by Order from the House of Lords and Commons Feb. 11. 1641. And now revived to thrust out the other which is his Legitimate issue FINIS