Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	follow_v	king_n	scotland_n	2,694	5	8.4812	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92025	A reply to the answer of Anonymus to Doctor Gauden's Analysis of the sense of the covenant: and under that, to a later tract of one Mr Zach. Crofton of the same fraternity with him. By John Rowland Oxoniensis, CCC. Rector of Footscray in Kent.	Rowland, John, 1606-1660.	1660 (1660)	Wing R2070; Thomason E1038_4; ESTC R207862	40,193	52

thread what do you then prattle so much of the strength of your Covenant which is far better broken than kept and if the Covenanters had brought His Majesty to his Crown they could have been no more importunate for their Covenant than they are when as it is manifest that it was not the Presbyterians that effected this great Work but it was the apparent hand of God by making use of such Instruments as he thought good the Noble Valiant Discreet General Monk and the prudent and well-advised Lord Major of London Sir Tho. Alleyn Sir Geor. Booth Sir Tho. Middleton Alderman Robinson and some other persons of note and eminency who were no ill friends to the Episcopal Government that the Presbytery have no reason to lay all the claim to what they did but they must needs allow us to have as great an interest in them as themselves for these are persons of a sublimer judgement and are equally enclined to do justice to all not byassed by any factions or surely God would never have prospered the work in their hands Rex Jupiter ommibus idem In your Covenant there was contained renouncing of Popery and Superstition Preservation of His Majesties Person c. and what Reasons then could the Scholars of Oxford give that they should not take this If as the words sound in common apprehension of them they are very good but if they must be read backward or be construed another way and signifie nothing else but a trapanning of Subjects to disobedience against their lawful Soveraign and breaking of his Laws why should any man that had unadvisedly taken it be so strongly obliged to keep it In casting dirt upon that Covenant which His present Gracious Majesty hath so highly honored c. You are resolved it seems to hold His Majesty to it but if it shall not stand with His Majesties Honor you are none of the best Subjects to press it upon him taking advantage of his then sad condition but we hope that you returning to your due Obedience to which you are strongly bound by the Laws of God and man and calling to minde your former Loyal Oathes that you will confess that you had no lawful Authority to impose such a Covenant upon his Gracious Majesty and therefore will of your own accord freely absolve him from it or you know and then it will be no thanks to you that the King and Parliament as you grant before can disanul and abrogate former Oathes and Contracts or else you will charge some with perjury which you dare not to name You tell us that the Kingdom of Scotland entred into a Solemn Covenant amongst themselves without their King before their joyning with England in this and the King and Parliament of England upon a through Debate theneof declared though at first they resolved to chastise them with a puissant Army That our Brethren of Scotland had done nothing but what became Loyal and Obedient Subjects c. It is very credible that some of your Brethren of Scotland first taught you this Covenanting way and there were too many in England confederate with them and if the King and Parliament at first so highly offended did afterwards to avoid civil Dissentions and shedding of blood compose the Differences in an amiable way yet God who sees the hearts of all men would not suffer such Rebellion to go long unpunished but chastised them severely soon after by the hand of Oliver Cromwel who made a full Conquest wasted and ruined what he pleased and brought them into irrecoverable bondage had it not pleased God at length to set them free by the most happy Return of His Excellent Majesty Charles the Second to His just Inheritance and therefore I hope the Scots will not prove so ungratefull to Him but as good Subjects being now set at liberty by Him leave off their Covenanting amongst themselves without His consent and submit to His Royal Government as their duty bindes them You tell us of Queen Elizabeth and King James both of blessed memories assisting the Netherlands combined not onely without but against the unjust violence of Philip the Second of Spain first and chiefly in matters of Religion and entring into League with them as Free States which was afterward continued by His late Majesty And why not of blessed Memory as you said of the two former Princes in his Expedition for the Relief of Rochel and Alliance with the Prince of Orange That Queen Elizabeth King James and King Charles all of blessed Memories did assist the Netherlands being then poor distressed States oppressed in their Consciences by the King of Spain all the world knows sufficiently for by this means they are grown from a poor contemptible condition to be the Potent Hoogen Mogens the High and Mighty Lords of Holland and West-Friezland c. which hath cost the best blood of Subjects that England had besides multitudes of Gentry and Commons that lost their lives in their defence The Netherlands were under Philip King of Spain indeed but they state the Case far otherwise than it was or is with us in England how rightly they best know But how far and upon what grounds of Religion and Policy Princes may afford Relief to Subjects of other Princes that are oppressed and enslaved by them especially for Conscience sake is too long to dispute now certain I am that the Netherlands were bound in the sight of God and man to a great measure of thankfulness to the Kings and Queen of England for their Assistance and by consequence to their Successors and subjects but whether they did shew it to His late Majesty during the Wars in England or to His Royal Issue in their exile amongst them and to such poor subjects as followed them I know is a question easily to be resolved Thus I have given you some Pattern of Covenanting Christians besides the holy League in France Why Sir what Patterns are they when you speak of the Netherlands you mention no Covenant they took but say they combined together but your Patterns are you say the two Houses of Parliament in England and your Brethren in Scotland Surely the man is besides himself The Doctor complains of your Scotch Covenant and that which was set forth by the two Houses of Parliament without the Kings consent and he saith further that there were never any such Covenanting Christians heard of untill the Papists covenanted together to destroy the French Protestants and if you have any other Patterns to produce he challengeth you to do it In answer whereto you say idem per idem your Patterns are the two Houses of Parliament and our Brethren of Scotland the Boys in the streets will hiss at you You adde that you forbear to mention Germany the Cantons the Albigenses and others because you had said enough already when as you had said just nothing and what you now say is as ridiculous as the former You will not mention Germany c. when

commen sacion Who acted most in reintroducing the secluded Members in procuring a free Parliament ara in bringing home His present Majesty whom God bless and preserve and let all the people say Ameny but Covenanters But was this the fruit of your Covenane we know what effect it had upon his so mer Majesty Charles the I. can the same fountain b●ing forth bitter water and sweet We know God drawes light out of darkness and makes use or contrary means sometimes to bring about his purposes By accident the Covenant hath made many deluded men more sensible of their duty but I cannot finde that it wrought any thing directly to the Kings preservation and establishment more then the Jewes murthering our blessed Savior obliged all men to be thankful to them for mans Redemption where then is the Blasphemy to be abhorred of all sober Christians in saying the Covenant is contradictory to former oaths Touching the Oaths of Canonical Obedience to Bishops they took upon them to impose such a tyrannical yoke upon many of their brethren sed quo jure and how far were such Oathes obl gatory The Bishops took no more upon them in this than they had authority from the Kings and Parliaments whatsoever you say to the contrary and that is right enough it will be too long to fearch Antiquities for Oathes Canonical used in the primitive times and to compare them with this and therefore such Oathes are as obligatory as other Oathes are and had your Covenant been so established what would you have said for it then that say so much for it now that all other Oathes must give place to it The Oath of obedience to the Diocesan which many of you in Orders have taken is wilfully broken by you why do you not renounce your Orders to which you received from the Bishops and be ordained again after your new model You think to lick your selves clean with such pitiful shifts as these pretending your Covenant to be sacred and obligatory as if it were another Palladium the image that fell from Juniter your great Diana of the Ephesians that you like Demetrius plead so strongly for seeing your Craft is in danger to be set at nought and your Diana to be destroyed whose magnificence you would have to be worshipped by the Christian world Yet I know not why you should quarrel with the Bishops Oath which you grant requires obedience onely in licitis honestis you say is needless because the Laws tye men to things lawful and honest By this reason all Oaths are needless for no Oaths ought to be made but for to binde mens obedience in things lawful and honest Had your Covenant been onely so we would not have made a question about it You say the Doctor hath furnished you with an Argument strong enough to retort upon himself by which he argues the needlesness of the Covenant and so do you the unwarranted Oath of Canonical Obedience you band it upon him and it flies back in your own face If this Oath should be extended to obey such Bishops as Wren and Pieroe as you unreverently style them without their due honor you owe unto them and others in all they late enjoyned what have you to say against those reverend Prelates and others not one word as I finde here but a flourish of your own as if you had some greater matters against them and then inferre that because of them you have more cause your Covenant be extended to extirpation of all Episcopacy and so farewel such an Oath nay rather farewel such a Covenant that there is more reason for it to be abolished for ever Touching the Kings Oath there is nothing obliging him further than to preserve that Government so far as it is agreeable to and warranted by the holy Scripture and primitive Institution so far he condescended at the Isle of Wight and who requires more We say so too who requireth more so far do all the Episcopal party condescend with him and you are forced to yield to it wherefore let me tell you and I hope His Majesty that now is will not be offended if I speak my conscience in it that it is neither honourable safe nor lawful for Him to break this Oath of His Coronation nor indeed can it be disanulled but there must follow a wonderful and dangerous metamorphosis in the whole frame of the Government of England I shall give you my reasons for all this when you can pretend any thing that hath but the shew of Reason Law or Religion against it Though you say this also may be changed by His Royal Assent to the counsel and desire of the two Houses of Parliament as this Doctor doth more then tacitely admit How more then tacitely doth the Doctor admit it I believe it is no more but your own fancy But we hope the two Houses will never counsel nor desire any such thing and if they should you know that King Charles the First would never yield His Royal Assent and I know not why you should look for more from King Charles the II. who will doubtless make use of his pious Fathers Advice to Him in His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it were not Christian like for you to attempt to divert him from it But where hath His Majesty and His two Houses been these many years to do it the way you propound to change it was not to be had and I believe never should have been if you could have helpt it you had a shorter cut by your Covenant to effect it without the Royal Assent and Upper-House for you would have none and I cannot tell how you like it now Cannot the Legislative Power change Government by Bishops as well as abrogate other Laws This is to charge some with perjury whom he dares not name to fright others with men of clouts and to condemn all the Churches of Christ which have laid Episcopacy aside Hath the Legislative Power such Authoritie and yet may not abrogate your Covenant but it must be like the Laws of the Medes and Persians that alter not No Royal Assent nor two Houses must meddle with that but you scare all with bug-bears and men of clouts pretending that God will revenge the breach of that and yet you break the rest and fear no revenge as if your Covenant were another Pope that can absolve you from them all We know it is proper for Parliaments to abrogate and alter such Lawes as are not good and useful Who I pray doth this charge with per-jury that the Doctor should fear to name But Episcopacie is not to be numbred amongst things unlawful or useless that it should be abrogated to bring in your Presbytery in the place which is ten times worse The errors and evils Episcopacy lieth open to are not more not greater than Presbytery hath and the benefits of it are infinitely beyond yours Lot the Presbyters draw up a List of all they can object against Episcopal