Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	abbot_n	parliament_n	prior_n	773	4	10.6117	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A68707	A large declaration concerning the late tumults in Scotland, from their first originalls together with a particular deduction of the seditious practices of the prime leaders of the Covenanters: collected out of their owne foule acts and writings: by which it doth plainly appeare, that religion was onely pretended by those leaders, but nothing lesse intended by them. By the King.	Balcanquhall, Walter, 1586?-1645.; Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.	1639 (1639)	STC 21906; ESTC S116832	348,621	446

1584. wherein he is named as one amongst other the Kings Commissioners whereof some were meere secular persons 5. It is cleare by the first act of the ninth Parliament 1584. and the eleventh act of the 10. Parliament 1585. that Bishopricks Prelacies Abbacies Priories Nunries were then thought to be alike in the Kings hands were granted to whatsoever persons being his subjects albeit they brooked no office in the Kirk so that some of these lordships and Baronies were erected before 1587. and excluded from the annexation 6. As the Kirk had ever been craving the dissolution of Prelacies and condemning the temporall as well as the spirituall estate of Bishops by their act of the Assembly 1581. and by their censure of the Presbyterie of Striviling for admitting Montgomrie to the temporality of the Bishoprick of Glasgow and censure of Mountgomrie for aspyring thereto contrare to the word of God and acts of the Kirk in the Assembly 1587. Iuni. So in the 11. Parl. of King Iames the sixt 29. of Iuly 1587. 29. act The three Estates of Parliament annexeth to the crown all Lordships and Barronies pertaining to whatsoever Archbishops or Bishops Abbots Pryors Nunnes and Munkes reserving alwayes to Archbishops Bishops Abbots Pryors Pryoresses commendators and others possessours of great Benefices of the estate of Prelates and which before had or hath vote in Parliament the principall Castles and Fortalices whereby it is cleare that the stylus curiae naming three Estates did no wayes include Ministers being Bishops seeing no ecclesiasticall Bishops sate in that Parliament nor could sit because the only two Bishops of the time Adamson and Montgomery were before deprived and excommunicat and certainly they neither would nor could have sitten as an Estate in Parliament to abrogate their owne estate and lordships and temporall land whereupon that act acknowledgeth any right they had did depend 2. It is cleare that Archbishops or Bishops Abbots Pryors c. all alike voted in Parliament of old not by reason of their ecclesiasticall office but by reason of their great benefices and lordships which here is said to have had vote in Parliament for that cannot be relative to the persons as unto Pryoresses but unto the benefices So that Ministers voted not as Ministers in name of the Kirk but as possessours of these great benefices or Baronies and others who were not Ecclesiasticall persons being titulars and possessours of these great benefices both communi styl● were called Bishops Abbots c. by vertue of the benefice without any office in the rolls of Parliament and in the act of Assembly 1587. The Bishoprick of Cathnes is said to vaike by decease of Robert Earle of March the Kings Uncle And the Assembly in their letter to the King declareth to be against the word of God and acts of the Kirk to present and admit any Minister to that Bishoprick as also some of these titulars and possessours of the benefices albeit they had no ecclesiasticall office did some times ryde and vote in parliament 3. It is cleare that the three Estates by taking away from Archbishops and Bishops their Lordships Barronies and temporall lands they took away their vote in parliament which doth not subsist but in and by the benefice and therefore ecclesiasticall persons separat to the Gospel for want of their great benefices had no vote in parliament till the 1597. albeit all the interveened acts are made by the three Estates wherein the Kings Majesty restoreth Ministers to the titles and dignities of Prelacies which showeth that before they were disponed to others then Ministers and provideth that Ministers presented to these titles and dignities and to the benefice of Bishopricks shall have vote in parliament which sheweth that the benefice and not the office giveth right to vote in parliament like as the very act of parliament 1606. acknowledgeth that by the act of annexation of the temporality of benefice to the Crown 1587. the estate of Bishops were indirectly abolished and therefore they behoved to rescind the act of annexation anent the benefice and restore them to these titles and dignities before Ministers could vote in parliament but these acts also are hereafter answered 7. But as for 130. act 1584. no Bishop is therein mentioned and yet it is adduced for Bishops because the three estates are therein named under one of which the Prelate claimeth to be comprehended but why more he then Abbots and Pry●rs formerly abolished as well as Episcopacy why more by that act then many former made when Bishops neither rode sate nor voted in parliament but were expugned out of this Kirk and yet the acts were all made by the three estates which albeit it needeth none other demonstration then that it is stylus curiae carefully observed in this Kingdome Yet the truth is that the Nobility Barrons and Burrows were the three estates of this Kingdome many hundred yeares after Christianity before any Bishops was in this Kingdome as is observed by Buchanan and Boetius and acknowledged by Lesly in his Chronicles and after the Bishops were abrogate expresly the three estates of parliament did continue and make all acts of parliament Yea after the 1592. where Bishops were discharged for if Bishops were an estate there behoved to be foure estates of parliament as there are so many named in the Commission granted by King JAMES and King CHARLES viz. The Clargie Nobility Barons and Borrows and that as ecclesiasticall persons separate to the Gospel since the reformation were never warranted to voice in Parliament while 1597. So on the other part the Barons are and have beene as an estate of parliament in uncontravered possession of voting in parliament conforme to the 101. act Parl. 7. King IAMES the first renewed again in the parliament 1585. and 1587. act 113. wherein precepts of the Chancelary are ordained to be directed to the Barons as unto an Estate of parliament even as they shall be direct unto other Estates to wit The Nobilitie and Borrows which in that act is mentioned So in this same act of parliament which in the narrative relateth the bygone great decay of the ecclesiasticall Estate There are exprest three compleat Estates in Parliament The Nobility Barrons and Borrows And as in law the three Estates are intire without Bishops or Ministers voters in Parliament So also it is most expedient and necessar for the liberty of the Kirk honour of the King and peace of this kingdome That no Ministers vote in Parliament as is more clearly and largely proved in the reasons of the protestation given into Parliament against the same 1606. And in the act of this Assembly against civill places of Kirk-men As for the 131. act 1584. no Bishop is therein mentioned to get any benefite thereby and far lesse can the same reach to the prejudice of the late Assembly which was indicted by his Majesty and is an ordinare judicatory allowed by the lawes of God and man like as it is answered in our

protestation more largely And for the 132. and 133. act of the said Parliament 1584. there is no Ecclesiasticall priviledge or authority thereby granted to Bishops as Bishops but only a power of cognition wherein the Parliament hath joyned others the Kings Commissioners with them only as the Kings Commissioners and granted the same unto seculare persons with them but the King could never provide them to the office and jurisdiction of Bishops which was abolished by many acts of Parliament and Assemblies before written The 23. act 1587. worketh directly against Bishops being a generall ratification of all acts formerly made anent the religion presently profest in this kingdome which must include the acts abolishing Episcopacy but especially seeing in the same Parliament 1587. temporall livings are taken from the Bishops as well as the office was 1567. And the same act undoubtedly was granted in the same meaning wherein the Kirk did crave it who that same yeare had often condemned Episcopall government as contraire to Gods word and the liberty of the Kirk and approved Presbyteriall government as flowing from the pure fountaine of Gods word It falleth in here to be remarked that the act 114. anno 1592. is never alleadged and that because it not only revocks in particular the foresaid acts 1584. but in generall all other acts contrary to that discipline then established and in particulare the Assemblies Presbyteries and Synods with the discipline and jurisdiction of this Kirk are ratified and established as most just and Godly notwithstanding whatsoever statutes acts cannons civill or municipall lawes made in the contrare whereunto his Majesties prerogative is declared to be no wayes prejudiciall Further the said act abrogates all acts granting commission to Bishops and other Judges constitute in Ecclesiasticall causes and ordaineth presentation to benefices to be direct to Presbyteries with power to give collation thereupon And so containeth a ratification of the heads of Policy set downe in the second book of discipline Which act is renewed act 60. anno 1593. and the power of Presbyteries acknowledged 1594. act 129. and was never rescinded expresly in totum but only in part by the ratification of the act of Glasgow Which now cannot be respected but falleth ex consequenti seeing that Assembly of Glasgow is now upon just and infallible reasons declared to have been null ab initio and so this act of Parliament wisely omitted by the collecter to the Cōmissioners grace might serve alone without our preceeding speciall answers for clearing the whole preceeding acts The 23. act 1597. granteth the priviledge of a voyce in Parliament to the whole Kirk and under that name to Abbots or other persons provided to prelacies as well as Bishops even as in time of papistry So as Sir Robert Spottiswood Abbot of New-abbay road thereafter in Parliament which was both unwarrantable and unusuall Which doth nothing contribute for the Bishops advantage because albeit the benefice was not extinct yet neither the King nor the Parliament might give them the office so oft condemned by this Kirk which is also acknowledged in the same act because after the granting to them of the said voyce the Parliament remitteth them to the King and the Assembly concerning their office in their spirituall policy and government in the Kirk 2. The said act beareth expresly to be but prejudice of the jurisdiction and discipline of the Kirk established by acts of Parliament made in any time preceeding and permitted by the said acts to all provinciall and generall Assemblies and other whatsoever Presbyteries and Sessions of the Kirk and so the same cannot derogate from the former acts ratifying the present discipline of the Kirk especially the said act 1592. nor yet from the acts of the Assembly abjuring Episcopacy 3. The priviledge is granted upon condition they be actuall Pastors and Ministers And so we referre to the world and themselves if with good consciences they may claime the benefice of that act 4. That priviledge was obtruded and pretended to be introduced in favours of the Kirk who may and hath renounced the same as being incompatible with their spirituall function as the act of the Assembly at more length beareth upon undeniable reasons 5. When voyce in Parliament was first plausible obtruded upon the Kirk it was neither proponed nor tolerated in other tearmes then that onely such should have vote in Parliament as had Commissiom from the Kirk So that not as Bishops but as Ministers Commissioners from the Kirk they had vote in Parliament Like as the Assembly at Montrose 1600. being so hardly prest by authority that they could not get it altogether refused albeit in their conference at Haly-rud-house 1599. they proponed unanswerable reasons against this and all other civill places of pastours set downe cautions binding the Ministers voters in Parliament to bee insert in the act of parliament subsequent which was omitted notwithstanding of the Bishops oath and duty in the contrare for the breach whereof they are now most justly censured 6. The ratificatory acts of the priviledges of the Kirk and Discipline thereof then profest are not thereby abrogate but notwithstanding thereof must stand in force because it is ever understood and frequently provided in Parliament that all acts thereof are made salvo jure cujuslibe● far more salvo jure ecclesiae sponsae Christi when she is robbed of her right without audience especially seeing her right is usually ratified in the first act of every Parliament 7. Albeit it were granted that by this Act of Parliament or any whatsoever the Prelates had voice in Parliament yet that doth not exeime them from Ecclesiastick censure nor forefault the Kirks right whereby she may condemne them for their transgressions as now this Assembly most justly hath done for by their own caveats whosoever is ecclesiastically censured by Presbyteries and provinciall Assemblies ipso facto loseth his benefice and vote in Parliament 8. Further the Bishops in their declinatour professe they never had commission from this Kirk to voice for her in Parliament according to the cautions set down in the Assembly at Montrose for the which cautions that Assembly was never challenged as trenching upon the third estate The act of parliament 1606. is coincident with the nature of the preceeding acts for albeit the King and parliament might have reponed them to their rents teends lands c. which were annexed to the Crown yea might have disponed to them any part of the patrimony of the Crown If lordly titles and civill places in the persons of pastors separat to the Gospel had been lawfull yet could not give them the spirituall office and jurisdiction spirituall which was abolished and abjured by many preceeding acts of Assembly and parliament forecited Et quod illud tantum agebatur is evident by the whole straine of the act reponing them for remeed of their contempt and poverty to their dignities priviledges livings rents lands and teinds and this alwayes

Majesties Proclamation bearing date the ninth of September in their ninth reason against the subscription urged by his Majestie do plainely averre that this Oath urged by his Majestie doth oblige the takers of it to maintaine Perth Articles and to maintaine Episcopacie Why therefore some men swearing the same words and syllables should have their words taken to another sense and bee thought to abjure Episcopall government more then others who have taken the same oath in the same words must needs passe the capacitie of an ordinarie understanding It is a received maxime and it cannot be denied but that oaths ministred unto us must either bee refused or else taken according to the knowne minde professed intention and expresse command of Authoritie urging the same A proposition not onely received in all Schooles but positively set down by the adherers to the said protestation totidem verbis in the place above cited But it is notoriously knowne even unto those who subscribed the Confession of Faith by his Majesties commandment that his Majestie not onely in his Kingdomes of England and Ireland is a maintainer and upholder of Episcopall government according to the laws of the said Churches and Kingdomes but that likewaies he is a defender and intends to continue a defender of the same government in his Kingdome of Scotland both before the time and at the time when hee urged this oath as is evident by that which is in my Lord Commissioner his Preface both concerning his Majesties instructions to his Grace and his Graces expressing his Majesties minde both to the Lords of Councell and to the Lords of Session and the same likewayes is plainly expressed and acknowledged by the adherers to the said protestation in the place above cited their words being these And it is most manifest that his Majesties minde intention and commandment is no other but that the Confession be sworne for the maintenance of Religion as it is already or presently professed these two being co-incident altogether one and the same not onely in our common forme of speaking but in all his Majesties Proclamations and thus as it includeth and continueth within the compasse thereof the foresaids novations and Episcopacie which under that name were also ratified in the first Parliament holden by his Majestie From whence it is plaine that Episcopacie not being taken away or suspended by any of his Majesties declarations as these other things were which they call novations it must needs both in deed and in the judgement of the said protesters no wayes bee intended by his Majestie to be abjured by the said oath Now both the major and that part of the minor which concerneth Episcopall government in the Church of Scotland being clearly acknowledged by the Protesters and the other part of the minor concerning that government in his other two Kingdomes being notoriously knowne not onely to them but to all others who know his Majestie how it can be imagined that his Majestie by that oath should command Episcopacie to be abjured or how could any one to whom his Majesties minde concerning Episcopall government was known honestly or safely abjure it let it be left to the whole world to judge especially considering that the Protesters themselves in that place above cited by a dilemma which we leave to themselves to answer have averred that when that Act of Councell should come out yet that it could not be inferred from thence that any such thing was abjured Fifthly and lastly If the explanation in that Act of Councell be taken in that not onely rigid but unreasonable and senslesse sense which they urge yet they can never make it appeare that Episcopall government at the first time of the administring of that oath was abolished The very words of that Confession of Faith immediatly after the beginning of it being these Received beleeved defended by many and sundrie notable Kirks and Realmes but chiefly by the Kirk of Scotland the Kings Majestie and three Estates of this Realme as Gods eternall truth and onely ground of our salvation c. By which it is evident that the subscription to this Confession of Faith is to be urged in no other sense then as it was then beleeved and received by the Kings Majestie and the three Estates of this Realme at that time in being and it is well knowne that at that time Bishops Abbats and Priors made up a third Estate of this Realme which gave approbation to this Confession of Faith and therefore it is not to bee conceived that this third Estate did then abjure Episcopacie or that Episcopacie was at the first swearing of that Confession abolished But say that at that time it was abolished by Acts of generall Assemblie yet was it not so by any Act of Parliament nay by many Acts of Parliament it was in force because none of them was repealed some whereof are annexed in the sheet immediatly after these reasons which wee pray the Reader carefully to peruse and ponder and at the very time of the taking of this oath and after Bishops whose names are well knowne were in being Now it is to bee hoped that in a Monarchie or any other well constituted republick that damnable Jesuiticall position shall never take place That what is once enacted by a Monarch and his three Estates in Parliament shall ever be held repealed or repealable by any Ecclesiasticall nationall Synod By all which it is evident that the explanation of that Act of Councell so groundlesly urged can induce no man to imagine that by the Confession of Faith lately sworne by his Majesties commandment Episcopall government which then did and yet doth stand established by Acts of this Church and Kingdome either was or possibly could be abjured And having now good Reader heard his Majesties minde in his instructions to us our minde in requiring in his Majesties name this oath to be taken and these few reasons of many which doe evidently evince the inconsequence of that sense which without any shew of inference is put upon it by those who would go on in making men still beleeve that all which they doe or say is grounded upon Authority though they themselves doe well know the contrary wee suppose that all they who have taken this oath will rest satisfied that they have not abjured Episcopall government and that they who shall take it will take it in no other sense Which timely warning of ours we are the more willing to give because we are given to understand that even they who were wont to call the takers of this oath notwithstanding of that explanation by act of councell perjured and damned persons and in their pulpits called the urging of it the depth of sathan doe now meane to take it themselves and urge others to take it in that sense which they make men beleeve though wrongfully that act of councell makes advantageous to their ends But we doe in his Majesties name require that none presume to take the said oath