Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	king_n	majesty_n	parliament_n	3,897	5	6.3360	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75445	An answer to the Solemne League & Covenant; presented to the publick view of all loyall subiects in England, Scotland, and Ireland; in the twelfth year of the reign of our most gracious sovereign Lord Charles by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Published according to order.		1660 (1660)	Wing A3448; Thomason E1045_3; ESTC R207947	9,622	16

Body politick and how should the Members enter into a covenant or frame and devise it without the head But the King is so far from yielding his royall assent to this Covenant that he striotly forbids it and that under the pain of Treason in his Proclamation printed at Oxford Ergo We may not enter into this Covenant nor entangle our consciences with this new Oath This Covenant we make with God and in all things especially the things appertaining to God we must obey God rather then man We have the Kings vertua consent thereunto for though he be not present in person at the Parliament nor hath given his Royall assent under his hand yet this Parliament is called and continued by his Authority and his consent is vertually contained in the Votes of both Houses It is a ruled case in Divinity That we must obey God rather then man when God commandeth one thing and man another but when the commands of God and of his Vicegerent upon earth clash not one against another St. Bernards doctrine is most true we must obey him as God who is in the place of God in those things which are not against God When St. Peter and St. John returned this answer to the Councell the Councell forbad that which God commanded God commanded the Apostles to preach Christs Resurrection and the Assembly of Priests and Elders forbad them This is not the Covenante's case for where doth God command the English to swear to preserve the Scotch Discipline and Liturgie which they themselves have often varied Or to abjure Episcopacie which was the only government of the Church for more then 1500 years and under whose shade Christian Religion most flourished and the Church stretched forth her branches to the Rivers and her boughs to the ends of the earth Where doth the Scripture warrant much less command the association of two Kingdomes and joyntly taking up armes in the quarrell of the Gospel and defending and propagating Religion by the sword The calling of the Parliament by the Kings Authority doth not conclude his assent to all the Ordinances of both the Houses for is it were so why did this Parliament after they had voted the Militia and the extirpation of Prelacie and Pluralities send to his Majesty and humbly intreat his royall assent nay why in all Parliaments since the first even till this day after both Houses had past bills did still the Lords and Commons lay them at his Majesties feet beseeching him in humblest manner to take them up and signe them with his royall hand and if he liked them his answer hath been Le Roy vieut if he ditated them Le Roy s'avisera Did the calling of a Parliament in the Kings name and by his Authority vertually include or conclude his Royall assent to all the Acts King Richard the 2d had given his consent to his own deposing for that Parliament wherein he was deposed was called in his name and by his Authority 4. No Covenant especially publick and solemn between two Nations for reformation of Religion may be taken without warrant from Gods word for in every such Covenant God is a partie and his consent must be both had and known which cannot be but from his word Beside this Covenant is bound with an Oath which is an Act of Religion and cultus latriae that is a part of divine worship and if it be not commanded by God it is forbidden in Scripture under the name of will-worship Moreover that golden rule of the Apostle applyed by him to the use of things indifferent stretcheth also to this case of Conscience Whatsoever Oath we take or Covenant we enter into not perswaded in Conscience that we have good ground for what we do in Scripture is sinne to us But this Covenant hath no warrant for it in holy Scripture for from the Alpha of Genesis to the Omega of the Apocalypse there is no v●la nor vestigium of such a Covenant as this Ergo This Covenant must not be taken by any who desire to walk exactly before God according to the precise rule of his word There is warrant in Gods word both for the matter of this Covenant and the form and manner of taking the oath For the matter we have a pattern of a Covenant taken for the reformation of the false and preservation of the true Worship of God and the uniting of Kingdoms in the truth thus reformed 1 Sam. 18.3 4. 2 Kings 23.5 2 Chron. 25.8 9. 2 Chron. 30. Ezra 10.2 And for the form and manner of taking it by lifting up the hand we have a Precedent Apoc. 10.50 None of these instances are ad Rhombum all those Covenants were made against idolatrie and other sins expresly forbidden by the law of God but this Covenant is against Prelacie and such a form of worship practised in the Church of England as hath been justified by the word of God and unanswerable a guments drawn from Scripture by Whitgift and Hooker in their answer to Cartwright Covell to Barrow and Browne Burges to Ames and Ball to Can and many others In all those Covenants the King had the main stroak but in this none at all 1. For the Covenant mentioned 1 Sam. 18.3 4. it comes not home to our case for that was a private Covenant between two intimate friends for the safety of both their lives sought after by a bloody Tyrant this is a National Covenant between two Kingdoms for the Reforming Religion and settling Peace that was made by the true King appointed by God and anointed before this by Samuel against him who indeed held the Crown but was rejected by God himself this a Covenant made by Subjects against the Commands of a most gracious Prince 2. For the Covenant mentioned 2 King 23.5 the text saith King Josiah made this Covenant that they should walk after the Lord and keep his Commandements and his Testimonies and his Statutes with all their heart c. And that he put down the Chemarims c. There the King makes a Covenant and reforms a Church and not the People here the people enter into a Covenant without the King and they take upon them against his command to Reform or rather Deform the Church by overthrowing the Hierarchy and abolishing Episcopacy Chius ad Choum these things agree as well as Harp and Harrow 3. For the Covenant mentioned 2 Chr. 15.8 9. King Asa gathered all Judah and Benjamin together to Jerusalem where they offered to the Lord of the spoyles and made this Covenant and in performance of this Oath or Covenant v. 16. he deposed Maacah his Mother from her Regency because she had made an Idoll in a grove and Asa brake down her Idoll and stampt it and burned it at the brook Kidron 4. Eor the example of Israel 2 Chron. 30. who in the dayes of Hezekiah though they were under another King yet joyned with the men of Judah in keeping the Passover it yeilds no support at

all to their tottering cause For 1. They entred not into any solemn League with the men of Judah though for the present they joyned with them in a Religious duty commanded by the Law 2. What they did they were invited to do by King Hezekiah whereas the Scotch are not invited to this League with the English by the King 3. The King of Ashur forbad not the Israelites to joyn with their Brethren of Judah in keeping the Passover but the King forbids any of his Subjects to enter into this Covenant 4. The King who Reigned over the Israelites was an Idolater but our King is a worshipper of the true God And albeit in some case and quarrel the worshippers of the true God may joyn with their Brethren of the same Religion in another Kingdome in a Defensive League though the King being an Idolater should forbid it yet it follows not that they may do so without the consent and against the command of a Christian Prince who is a professor of the true Religion Lastly The Israelites besides the invitation of King Hezekiah to keep a solemn Passover with the Jews had the express command of God himself whereas neither English nor Scotch have any command from God expresly or implicitly to enter into this League for the Defence of the Protestant Religion against Papists without the King the King himself undertaking and that by most solemn Oathes and Protestations to defend the same 5. For the Covenant mentioned Ezra 10.3 that was meerly to remove a Scandal from the Jews and to fulfill the express command of God for putting away strange wives set down in the Law of Moses in which case no man doubteth but a Covenant may be made not only without but against the commandement of a Prince Yet here the Jews besides the command of Nehemiah the Viceroy had the approbation of the Prince for making this Covenant for the King of Persia at this time favoured the Jews and cont●ibuted largely to the reedifying of the Temple and gave order to Ezra the Priest to adorn the house of God and perform all things in his service according to the Law Ezra 7.10 The last example Rev. 10.5 is least to our present purpose for the Angel there made no Covenant but only swear by the living God that time should be no more It is true he lifted up his hand yet that no way helpeth the Covenanters cause for that might be a fit gesture in an Angel menacing a fatal doom to the world and the out-dating of all time which yet may not be thought so fit a gesture for men entring into a holy League for the preservation of two Kingdoms If they can as the Angel did stand upon the Earth and the Sea at the same time let them also further imitate the Angel in lifting up their hands to Heaven when they make their Covenant Howsoever for the gesture we will not contend with them I think it fitter in taking this Oath then after the usuall manner to lay the hand upon the Bible for this Oath and Covenant hath no ground or foundation at all in that book and the lifting up of the hand very well expresseth the purport of this Covenant which is a lifting up of their hands against the Lords anointed and his Church yet under pretence of defence of the Kings person never so much endangered as by their Armies and of Religion never so profaned as by their Reformadoes and of the liberties of Subjects never so much infringed as by Arbitrary Votes Before we take this Oath of Reformation we must desire a Reformation of the Oath for it is full of Ambiguities and Contradictions whence I thus frame a fifth argument 5. No Ambiguous Oath ought to be taken or Covenant signed for here one of Pythagoras golden Preceps taketh place Loquere cum lumine all Ambiguities Equivocations or mental reservations especially in Leagues and Oaths are abominated by all Protestants He that swearath ambiguously sweareth not in simplicity of heart nor can keep his Oath sincerely and intirely But in this Covenant and Oath there are many Ambiguities For what is meant in the first clause by common Enemies Either the world the flesh and the Divel which indeed are as it were sworn Enemies to all true Religion or Papists or Independants who are both enemies to the Discipline and Government of the Scotch Church In the second clause what is meant by Church Government by Archbishops Bishops c either all government by Bishops or the present Government only with the late Innovations and abuses thereof If all Government by Bishops then in taking this Oath we condemn not only the perpetual Government of the Church from the Apostles time till the Reformation of Religion in the dayes of Hen. 8. but also the Reformed Churches in England Ireland Denmark Swethland Poland Saxonie and other parts of Germany where either they have Archbishops and Bishops or tantmount Intendents and Superintendents If the present Government only with innovations and abuses let them explain what are the innovations and abuses we swear against else we cannot swear in judgment What is meant by Hierarchy the word signifieth holy Government being derived from Iera holy and Arkirule or government And is it fit crudely without any gloss to forswear all holy Government In the third clause what is meant by defending the Kings person in the defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms Is it a limitation or not If it be no limitation what doth it there There ought to be no idle and if I may so speak hang-by words in an Oath for the Wiseman teacheth us when he speak to God our words must be few If it be a limitation how doth this Covenant agree with the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance by which we are absolutely bound to defend the Kings person Royal D●●nities and Prerogatives of the Crown with any if or of restriction or qualification In the fourth clause What is meant by Malignants or evil Instruments A word never used till of late in any Statute Law or Ordinance and never so much abused as at this day In the sixth clause how far extend these words I will assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and persuance thereof Doth it reach to giving battle to the KING Sequestring Estates plundering houses and trampling all Lawes under foot and to the justifying all the outrages committed in the maintaining and pursuing this League If not why is it not ci cumscribed with that limitation in the first Protestation By all good and lawfull means or so far as lawfully I may There being so many Amphibologies Ambiguities and Kiddles in this Oath we must have some Oedipus of the Synod to read and clearly expound them before we can safely engage our conscience by Oath to perform them No Covenant may be made or Oath taken which implyeth in it contradictions for in such an Oath or