Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	3,024	5	6.5132	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57864	A vindication of the Church of Scotland being an answer to a paper, intituled, Some questions concerning Episcopal and Presbyterial government in Scotland : wherein the latter is vindicated from the arguments and calumnies of that author, and the former is made appear to be a stranger in that nation/ by a minister of the Church of Scotland, as it is now established by law.	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1691 (1691)	Wing R2231; ESTC R6234	39,235	42

instances of many thousands is all that can be given § 2. To prove his Conclusion viz. That the Presbyterians were for taking away the Penal Laws against Papists he bringeth two Arguments which a man pretending to reason might be ashamed to use The first is They accepted and gave thanks for the Indulgence notwithstanding that they knew that all the designs of Court were for advancing of Popery Answ. They accepted an Indulgence for themselves and gave thanks for that alone which was their due by Christ's grant and which had injuriously been withheld from them but that to the Papists they were no further concern'd in than to lament it which they did and witnessed against it as they had occasion For the designs of the Court it was not their part to consider them further than to endeavour to disappoint them which they did to the uttermost of their power both by warning and principling the people a-against Popery and also by doing what they could to keep the Laws standing in force against Papists It had been a strange thing if they should have been backward to preach and hear the Gospel when a door was opened for it because some men had a design against the Gospel in their opening of it Surely their silence and peevish refusing on that occasion had been much to the hurt of the Gospel for then Papists who would not fail to use the liberty for their part should have had the fairest occasion imaginable to mislead the people without any to oppose them on the contrary their using of the liberty was the great mean by which with the blessing of the Lord so very few during that time of liberty were perverted to Popery in this Nation and they that were so drawn away were none of our party We have cause to think that if we had refused to use this liberty this Man and his Party would have lashed us with their tongues for so doing as they now do for the contrary for they did so by some who in former years refused to use a liberty granted which we all know was designed for the same end But we expect not that we shall be able to please them whatever course we take § 3. His second Argument is notoriously false in all the parts and circumstances of it and I affirm that a man that knoweth our affairs shall not find one word of truth in all his long Paragraph that he hath p. 24. That they were silent against Popery in K. James ' s time is grosly and notoriously false it is true some of them thought the best Antidote against liberty for Popery and other sinful Ways to be a sound work of grace in the Soul and ingaging people to be seriously religious and therefore insisted mainly on such subjects yet did not neglect to instruct people in the controverted points of our Religion nor to hold forth the evil and danger of Popery in particular For what he saith of the Reverend and Worthy Dr. Hardy who preached faithfully against Popery that his Brethren either blamed him or disowned him is most false they did often visit him in the Prison which I had from his own mouth that Episcopal Advocates and Judges pleaded for him and acquitted him was no more but what the one ought to do for their Hire and the other were bound to by their Places they acquitted an innocent man when no crime was proved against him QUEST IX Whether Scottish Presbytery in the Church be consistent with the Legal Monarchy in that Kingdom IF this Author knew us he would not move this Question and if he did not hate us and not resolved to say all manner of evil against us right or wrong he would not as he doth resolve it in the Negative We have no other proofs of the falshood of what he asserteth but 1. Experience which sheweth that in many Ages in which Presbytery hath had place in this Kingdom as hath been shewed above it did well consist with the legal Monarchy of it And 2. that he nor none else cannot shew what principle of Presbyterian Government nor what practice of Presbyterians that is commune to them all or generally is inconsistent with Monarchical Government as it hath been by Law owned in this Nation We deny not but there have been some things acted by men of our Principles in their Zeal for Religion which we do resolve not to imitate and tho' we can clear them from that degree of blame that the malice of their enemies casteth on them and particularly from being no friends to Monarchy and unfaithful to their Kings yet we hope the excesses that have been in former Ages while both parties were overheated in their contendings will be a mean to teach more moderation to this and following Generations Let us then hear what he hath to say for this his most absurd malicious and false Position After I have told the Reader that the only thing that can with any shew give rise to such an apprehension is that Presbyterians being generally the more conscientious part of the Nation could not comply with the lusts of some of their Rulers nor subject the interest of Religion to their will while others were ready to abandon Law Religion and Reason to please Men who in recompence of this did exalt them above their Brethren § 2. What he asserteth he offereth to prove from the opposition of the Covenant to Acts of Parliament the latter giving to the King what the former taketh from him The first thing that he bringeth as an instance of this is That Par. 1. ch 2. Act 2. it is the King's prerogative to chuse Officers of State Counsellors Iudges but the Covenant maketh this the prerogative of the Kirk in that Art 4. we swear to discover evil instruments that they may be brought to tryal and confirmeth it that Anno 1648. it is asserted by the Church that Duties between King and Subjects are the subject of Ministerial Doctrine for what he saith that the Kirk must be as infallible in this as at Rome I pass it as the froth of a malicious mind void of reason A. 1. These passages were 20 or some fewer years before the Act of Parliament cited how then can they be charged as taking from the King what he had not by those Acts for so many years after But this is but a small escape in this learned Writer 2. Will any man of sense say that the power of chusing Officers is taken from the King because Subjects are obliged to discover and complain of ill men or because Churchmen may tell Kings and Subjects their duties such reasonings are to be hissed at not answered Hath a man lost the priviledge of chusing his own servant because his son may tell him he hath hired a very bad man Another Argument he bringeth is yet more ridiculous It is the King's prerogative to call Parliaments but Scotch Presbyterians hold that the power of calling Assemblies doth not flow

immediately from the King but from Christ. Answ. Baculus est in angulo ergo petrus stat is just as concludent What affinity is there between the King's power of calling Parliaments and the Churches having no power to call Assemblies for Religious Matters We deny not power to the King even to call Church-Assemblies neither will we call any in contempt of the Magistrate but we maintain that the Church hath from Christ an intrinsick power to convene about his Matters tho' the Magistrate should neglect to call them but we confidently deny that the Church of Scotland ever did or thought it fit to be done call an Assembly without the authority of their King where he was a friend to true Religion Let him shew us what Magistrate called the Council that is mentioned Acts 15. Another Argument he taketh from the King's power of dissolving Parliaments inconsistent with which he saith is the 2d Article of the Covenant he should have said the 3d Article where we bind to maintain the priviledges of Parliament one of which is the General Assembly 1648. declareth against the Negative Vote in Parliament Answ. Could any other-man have made such an inference unless Presbyterians had declared that it is not in the King's power to dissolve a Parliament but they may sit as long as they will which never was said nor imagined for the General Assembly 1648. denying to the King a Negative Vote in Parliament this doth not concern the sitting of the Parliament but the validity of their decisions while they sit also they say very little to this purpose only in their Declaration July 31. they say that they see not how the priviledges of Parliaments and the King 's Negative Vote can consist I wish this had been left to the cognition of Politicians But what the Assembly there says was not their sentiment only but of the Parliaments both of England and Scotland at that time so that his inference is no better against Scotch Presbytery than if he had asserted the inconsistency of Parliaments in both Nations with the Legal Monarchy That was a time when Debates about Prerogative and Priviledge had issued in a bloody War the result of which was the ruin of both Whereas now the King's Prerogative and the the Priviledges of Parliament being setled and acknowledged and the King 's Negative Vote owned by all none do more chearfully submit to the Legal Establishment in these things than the Presbyterians do § 3. He saith The Covenant depriveth the King of the power of making Laws because Covenanters swear to continue in the Covenant all their days against all opposition A goodly Consequence indeed We swear not to obey sinful Laws ergo the King and Parliament may make no Laws at all What he alledgeth in further proof That the Assembly July 28. 1648. declared against an Act of Parliament Committee of Estates dated in June the same Year and in general against all others made in the Common Cause without consent of the Church is as little to the purpose For it is not the same thing to declare the Laws of Christ condemning the sinful Laws of Men and to affirm that Men may make no Laws without the Churches consent neither will we plead for every thing that hath been acted Notwithstanding I hope Presbyterians will learn to give all due deference to the Publick Acts of the State even when they cannot comply nor give obedience to them He further Argueth That they deny to the King the Prerogative of making Leagues and Conventions of the Subjects because the Covenant was taken without the King This was no Act of Presbyterian Government but an Act of the Estates of Scotland of all Ranks and this they thought to be necessary for securing of their Religion from Popish Adversaries who designed to overturn it as afterward appeared when the Design was more ripe and it was fit to bring it more above board He proveth also that Scotch Presbyterians are against this Prerogative of the King because June 3. 1648. The Assembly declareth against the Bond subscribed by the Scotch Lords at Oxford and inflicteth the highest Ecclesiastical Censures against them and such as had a hand in it Answ. Sure he could not obtrude this on the belief of any unless he had been confident that what he saith would never be examined For in that Act of the Assembly there is nothing like condemning the King's calling his Subjects together but their condemning of a wicked Act that some of them being but in a private capacity did when they were together For this Bond was not framed nor signed by any Parliament or other Representative of the Nation called by the King but by a few Lords sojourning out of the Nation who met and condemned what was done at home by the Representatives of the whole Nation This Bond was sent to the Assembly by the Convention of Estates of the Nation as the Act it self saith that the Assembly might give their Opinion about it and they declared the wickedness of it and appointed Church-censures against the guilty What is there in all this that is derogatory from the King's Prerogative of Convening his Subjects § 4. His last Effort to prove the inconsistency of Monarchy and Presbytery is That the Presbyterians deny the King's Prerogative of making Peace and War Which he proveth because the Assembly 1645. Feb. 12. declare them guilty of sin and censurable who did not contribute to carry on the War Answ. All that the Church did in this was That in a solemn warning to all the People of all Ranks for convincing them of sin and pointing out their Duty to them among other Duties such as Repentance Reformation c. they held it forth as a Duty for People to obey the Orders of the Estates of Parliament toward their own Defence when a bloody Army of barbarous Irish-men was in their Bowels If this his Argument can cast any blame on Presbyterians 't is this that there are cases in which they allow the States and Body of the Nation to resist the King so far as to hinder him to root out the Religion that is by Law established among them And one should think that he might have been by this time convinced that this is not peculiar to Presbyterians but that all the Protestants in Britain are engaged in the same thing Nor can Papists reproach Protestants with it for their Principles runneth yet higher QUEST X. HE hath said so much to little purpose he is now come to his last Effort which doth evidently shew a fainting Cause but strong and growing Confidence For he Querieth Whether Scottish Presbytery be agreeable to the general Inclinations of that People This he denyeth we affirm it and wish the matter could be put to the Poll among them that are sober and that do any way concern themselves in Religion We do not grudge them a multitude of debauched Persons who hate Presbytery as the Curb of their Lusts and

Spondan exit Annal. Baron ad Annum Christi 431. p. mihi 592. hath these words Sanctus Prosper missum ait Palladium ordinatum primum Episcopum ad Scotos He was sent thither by Pope Celestine who ascended that Chair Anno 424. So that the Scotch Christians lived without Bishops for about 320 years until Popery and its Appendices did overspread the World What is alledged by some that Palladius was sent to convert the Scots is contrary to Beda who tells us lib. 1. cap. 13. that he was sent ad Scotos in Christum credentes And what others alledge that he was sent to the Irish in Ireland who then were called Scots is without ground For 1. Beda Hist. lib. 1. c. 12. sheweth whom he meaneth by Scots to wit those that were separated from the Britains by the two Seas which he sheweth to be Clyde and Forth 2. Patrick was sent to them at the same time viz. Palladius was sent to Scotland Anno 431. and Celestine died in the beginning of 132. who yet sent Patrick to Ireland and there is sufficient ground for this from Balaeus cited by Sir G. Mekenzie against St. Asaph where it is said that Palladius was sent to Scotland that Claruit Anno 434. and therefore could not dye to make room for Patrick in Ireland 431. and that he died at Fordon in the Mernes in Scotland Also Tertullian who lived in the beginning of the Third Century speaketh of the Scots as then Christians Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca Christo vero subdita which Baronius applieth to the Scots and to no other in that Ifle it can be applied Spanhem Epit. Isag. ad Hist. N. T. Saecul 3. Sect. 2. distichon hoc dicit esse Vulgatum Christi transactis tribus Annis atque ducentis Scotia Catholicam coepit habere fidem Besides this it is clear from Beda Hist. lib. 3. c. 25. lib. 5. c. 16. 22. how averse the Scots were from the practises of the Romish Church in the Observation of Easter and the Tonsure And that Venerable Author taxeth them as ignorant of the Canons and that they knew nothing but the Writings of the Apostles Which may give good ground to think that it was long before that Church-Domination Prelacy which at last they were forced to submit to got place among them § 7. That Bishops were setled in Scotland with the beginning of Christianity Arch-Bishop Spotswood doth boldly assert but doth not bring any Vouchers for what he affirmeth Neither doth he name any one of these Bishops till Amphibalus who he saith sat first Bishop in the Isle Iona or Icolmkill But this was long after Christianity came into Scotland to wit all the time was now lapsed that the Culdees remained in the Isle of Man where Crathelinth little less than a hundred Years after Donald and the entrance of Christianity built a Church for them called Fanum Sodorense so that they were at least above a Hundred Years without a Bishop Again Spotswood is alone in this all other Historians making Palladius the first Bishop Neither is there any ground to think that Amphibalus was in any degree of Jurisdiction above other Culdees but that he was a Famous Man and the first of them that is expressed by Name in History This Author telleth also of other Bishops but giveth no ground to believe any more of them than that there were Men so named who were Famous among the Scotch Christians and it is like were their Preachers We conclude then that the Christian Church of Scotland was governed by the Culdees who are sometimes called Priests sometimes Monks sometimes Bishops Neither is there any ground to think that this Name was appropriated to any of them secluding the rest till Palladius came to Scotland far less that any of them had Jurisdiction over the rest What may be met with concerning any Famous Man that was Head over the Society at Icolmkill or elsewhere maketh nothing for Episcopacy for he was there the Head of a School where Students were bred for the Ministry but that he had Jurisdiction over the Culdees who either there or through the Country preached the Gospel to the People hath no semblance of truth Yea we further assert that however a Prelacy together with other Romish Innovations was brought into the Scotch Church with Palladius yet Episcopacy as our Pamphleteer pleadeth for it and as it was lately in Scotland was not known in this Church for a long time after For Constantine the Second King of Scots in the Ninth Century made a Law against Church-men's medling with Secular Business so that they could not sit in Parliament And it was Malcolme Canmore in the Eleventh Century who as he brought in new Titles of Honour into the Civil State so he changed the Discipline of the Church and brought Episcopacy to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 8. The second thing that we above have asserted is That when the Reformed Religion was brought into Scotland and Popery cast out of it this Protestant Church was not setled under Episcopal Government but under Presbytery and did so continue for many years till by the secret practices and at last by open force of ambitious men the Government was changed to the great disquiet of the Nation Although the knowledge of the Truth did begin privately to creep into Scotland and spread among the People more early even in the Reign of K. James the Fifth and made greater advances under his Daughter Queen Mary yet the first publick step of the Reformation that is found in History was in 1540. when in a Parliament the rigour of Acts against them who have English Bibles was taken off and liberty was granted to read the Bible in their Mother-Tongue also to read other Treatises this was 1543. After this for divers Years many of the Nobility Gentry and Commons owned the true Religion tho' the publick Profession was still Popish Yea by many of the Nobility and Gentry a Bond was solemnly entred into for the defence of the Truth and adherence to it Anno 1557. In the same Year the Queen granted Liberty for Publick Administration of the Word and Sacraments as was desired by a Petition of the Protestants Anno 1559. the Protestant Ministers and People held a General Assembly at St. Johnstown saith Knox Hist. lib. 2. 137. at which I. Knox was present All this while there was no Episcopal Authority owned or submitted to among the Protestants however Bishops still retained their places in the Romish Church and in the State In the Year 1560. July 17. in a Parliament held at Edenburgh the Confession of Faith containing the Heads of the Protestant Religion was by Law established August 24. an Act past against saying of Mass. The same Year the Pope's Authority in Scotland was abolished by Act of Parliament Anno 1561. the first Book of Discipline was presented to the Convention of Estates but delayed and not approved nor condemned at that time yet soon