Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n king_n land_n scotland_n 4,504 5 8.4214 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A44304 The seasonable case of submission to the church-government as now re-established by law, briefly stated and determined by a lover of the peace of this church and kingdom. Honyman, Andrew, 1619-1676. 1662 (1662) Wing H2602; ESTC R4312 34,512 47

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

to bind others to their determination of the sense of the Covenant Certain it is no Assembly nor Company of men can put an obligation upon persons who have taken an Oath personally to accept of their sense of the Oath which they put upon it It is true the Assembly of Glasgow could declare their own sense of the Oath taken by themselves but could not impose their sense upon the takers of the Oath before that sense not having been given to the takers of the Oath by the imposers of the same and the takers of the Oath not having impowered the Commissioners at Glasgow to declare their sense of that Oath they had taken So then whatever was done at Glasgow after the Covenant was taken by the body of the Land could not oblige all the takers of it to own their declaration of the sense of the Covenant which was not at first imposing the Oath declared to them And the body of the people of this land have not indeed abjured Episcopacy by that National Covenant they entered in neither the Covenant nor added interpretation importeth any such thing Nor hath the body of the people of the land by any after deeds owned that Assemblies sensing of the Covenant Nor was there any Act in that Assembly that all should own their determination of the sense thereof It is true there is an Act Sess 26. that these who had not already subscribed should subscribe with an allowance of the Assemblies determination concerning the sense of the Covenant But few did so If any did so they are to consider whether they have not been too rashly carryed on in the current of that time without a just examination of matters But finally Now that we are got out of the noise of Armes and Confusions of the by-past times it concerneth the Ministers of Christ to ponder if there was any thing unlawfull in that Covenant we speak now of the solemn League and Covenant which seemeth most expresse against Prelacy and which almost swallowed up the memory of the other That there are great duties engaged to in the same relating to true Religion and an holy life from which no power on earth can loose and to which we are indispensably tyed is not to be doubted Neither is it to be doubted that many godly Ministers and people were ingaged in that Covenant who designed no evil nor minded any injury to the Soveraign Yet several things as to that Covenant are worthy to be seriously examined that we may see how they can be justified before God Or if they are to be confessed as faults especially if any evil or unlawfull thing be found in the substance or mater of the Covenant it would be remembred Malum est ex singulis defectibus 1. The warrantableness of entring into that publick Oath or Bond without the supreme Authority of the land and against the mind of the Soveraign Can there be any example shewed amongst the people of God of old either Jews or Christians of carrying on a publick Oath or League and Bond without their Soveraign Powers that were over them going before them or they not consenting or contradicting Is it not so special a Royalty of the King to have power of imposing a publick Oath on all his subjects especially when the Oath hath a direct aim for raising and taking Armes for invasion of any in forreign Nations such was the aim of the solemn League as to us in Scotland that if this can be done without the King What is there that may not be done without him Who can have a lawfull power to swear all the Kings subjects to such a purpose without his consent Much lesse can any have power to swear them to a War against the Soveraign while he is no way injuring them but heaping favours upon them the War in that respect not being defensive on their part no● admitting of apologie upon that ground supposing that to be a good ground Is it not certain that several just laws of this land clearly inhibit all Leagues of subjects under whatsoever colour or pretence without the Kings consent had and obtain'd thereto Jam. 6. Parl. 10. Act. 1● Mary Parl. 9. Act 75. It is well known that when the Nationall Covenant was carryed on that the people might be moved to concur in it and to take it it was pretended that it was not without Authority and that the warrand it had from King James his Authority still continued albeit neither He nor His Successor gave any authoriy to the additional explication and application and at that time it was ingenuosly professed by the Promoters of that Covenant as may also be cleared by Writings they have left to the world that had it been a new Covenant or League they would not they could not have entered in it without the King's Authority warranding them But when the solemn League and Covenant which had no shaddow of the King's Authority cometh upon the stage this Doctrine was forgotten utterly for it was carried on in England by a Meeting of Parliament excluding one of the Estates and the King proclaiming against it in Scotland by a Committee of Estates which if they had power to engage the Land in a Forreign war intended in that Covenant may be doubted Now although this could not nullifie the obligation of the Covenant were the matter of it undoubtedly lawfull and otherwise still obliging yet it were well if unlawfulness in regard of this defect and want of a lawfull Authority warranding it were acknowledged this were some piece of self-denyal Casuists say that res jurata may be licita when Juramentum est illicitum Let the matter of the Oath be lawfull and suppose it also to oblige yet they who appear so afraid of sin in breaking that Oath would for proof of their sincerity give as publick testimony against the sinfull way of entring into that Bond as they do against that sin as they suppose in breaking it if they say factum valet let them consider if they have no better reason to say fieri non debuit 2. It is most seriously to be considered if there be not in the intrinsical frame of the Covenant that with which God was not well-pleased Such a solemn Oath and Covenant being a most solemn profession before God of what men did own in Religion and professedly intended for the greatest mutual assurance of men entring in it one to another should have been fram'd in most strict plain and specifical termes But this solemn League c. was purposely fram'd in general and homonymous termes such as by the expressions leaveth room for all the Sectaries in the Isle if they will but profess to own the Word of God to lurk under the lap of the Covenant to own each one their own way and yet plead their keeping of the Covenant such is the generality of the termes of it that several sorts of Sectaries may fight in their several factions one against
performance of what is sworn is like to hinder a greater good that might be attained by not keeping the Oath that in that case an Oath bindeth not at all Protestant Casuists as Bishop Sanderson do deny this principle without limitation thus expressed yet do grant that it is true when there concurreth some other thing as usually there doth which may render the Oath void or the keeping of it unlawfull or looseth from it the impeditiveness of greater good there hath weight But we may say albeit other things did not concur to the nulling or voiding of an Oath yet if the standing to it be found impeditive of a greater good to which we are bound by a prior obligation then the Oath being an obstacle of such a greater good ceaseth to bind the swearer If a man should swear never to go near such a river or water having once been in hazard there yet where he seeth at some distance from it his brother like to perish in the water and it is probable to him that he could be able to save his life the prior and greater bond of char●ty and of God's Law commanding that bindeth him to go help his brother and looseth him from his Oath And as to our case besides what hath been said for the clearing upon other grounds of the non-obligation of the Covenant in that second Article the matter thereof still supposed as indifferent and Episcopacy not forbidden by any divine Law may we not clearly see that there is by adhering to that Oath as still binding an obstacle put to the attainment of a greater good and of greater necessity and to the seeking after that greater good which we are pre-obliged by former Bonds to labour after Is not that great duty of preaching the Gospel of peace lying upon Ministers wo to us if we preach not and lying upon many Ministers antecedently to the ●aking of this Covenant and upon adhering to that Covenant in the second Article proveth a hindrance to that greater duty whereto we are pre-obliged shall it still be thlought to bind so that rather then we will acknowledge God's loosing us by a former obligation to a greater duty we will by adhering to it put our selves in incapacity according to Law to serve any longer in the Ministry Do there not also ly upon us all pre-obligations to obey the Magistrate in things not against God's Law such as now Episcopacy is supposed to be to procure the publick peace and good of Church and State and prevent horrid confusions which as matters go cannot be avoided by sticking at that Article in the Covenant Shall not the peace of conscience that shall arise from tendring these great interests be as much and more then any peace of conscience pretended to be in keeping the Oath which though we should not be ready to judge any may perhaps upon examination be found rather a piece of satisfaction to the will then peace of the conscience God having loosed and set free conscience from that Bond in hoc rerum statu But to the second thing which we observed anent Oaths or Covenants it would be remembred that a Covenant or Oath though lawfull and binding even in the strict interpretation of it yet doth not bind in the rigid interpretation which some either through weakness or scruples or design may put upon it Sometimes souls may make snares of Oaths to themselves by overstretching them and so do run themselves into the perplexities they needed not Concerning the Covenant different interpretations and senses have been given of it according to the several interests of persons of contrary judgments combined in it But as to the second Article now in question it may be doubted if it be broken by submission to or owning the present Episcopacy established by Law in Scotland or whether it be not an over-rigid straining of that Covenant to bend it against the present Episcopacy established in Scotland For clearing of which it would be considered first that at the time of the taking of that solemn League and Covenant there were no such Church-offices in Scotland as are mentioned in that Article there needed not as to Scotland a swearing to extirpat Offices that were not in it at that time and some Offices there mentioned never were in it 2. It would be remembred that an Oath is to be interpreted according to the sense of the givers of it Timorcus pag. 16. giveth us assurance that the Parliament of England intended nothing less in imposing the Covenant then the extirpation of all kinds of Prelacy and Bishops in the Church and that it was resolved in Parliament with consent of the Brethren of Scotland that it was only intended against Episcopacy as then established in England and Pr●f p. 23. we do not saith he think the Covenant to be against the primitive Episcopacy which there he descrives to be a presidency of one Minister over others so that without him nothing is to be done in matters of Ordination and Jurisdiction and when he explaineth the second Article of the Covenant he saith it is only tyrannical Bishops that are covenanted against which Baxter also calls the sinfull species of Prelacy in his Preface to the Disputations of Church-government which he sayes was abjured only and not Episcopacy And in that same dispute pag. 4. he declareth that most of the godly Ministers since the Reformation did judge Episcopacy some of them lawfull and some of them most fit and addeth that almost all of these that are of the late Ass● at Westminster and most throughout the Land did conform to Episcopal Government as not contrary to the Word of God and that he believs that many of them are yet so far reconciliable to it moderated that if it were only established they would submit to it as they did for he heareth as he saith but of few of them who have made recantation of their former conformity and contrarily hath known divers of them professing a reconciliableness as aforesaid as Mr. Gataker doth in one of his Books profess his judgment Thus Mr Baxter by whom we may see their error or folly who think there can be no godly Ministers owning Episcopacy and also how reconciliable godly Divines in the Ass were to a regulated Episcopacy So that it seemeth the great grievance aim'd at in the Covenant to be redressed was the Bishops claim of a sole Ordination and Jurisdiction and the multitudes of Courts of lay Chancellors c. set over Ministers in matters of Government and not the Office of Bishops concurring with Synods of Ministers and their presiding and being Superiors in Church-meetings If it be said that every one of the particular Offices mentioned under the name of Prelacy in the Covenant are abjured and therefore Bishops are abjured Mr. Vines in his Considerations upon the Kings Concessions at the Isle of Wight will for loosing this tell us of a sense of the Covenant which he inclines to viz. that as to