Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	bishop_n	church_n	see_v	3,056	5	3.9474	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A05345	A full confutation of the covenant lately sworne and subscribed by many in Scotland; delivered in a speech, at the visitation of Downe and Conner, held in Lisnegarvy the 26th. of September, 1638. Published by authority.; Speech, delivered at the visitation of Downe and Conner, held in Lisnegarvy the 26th. of September, 1638	Leslie, Henry, 1580-1661.	1639 (1639)	STC 15497; ESTC S102367	22,621	42

not abjured in the Negative confession nor so much as mentioned If any man shall say That Episcopacy is included under the Popes wicked Hierarchy which there is denied he will prove himself ridiculous for it is well known unto all that ever looked into the Ecclesiasticall history that the Church was governed by Bishops 600 yeers before the Popes wicked Hierarchy began And as that government was not abjured so neither is it any innovation at all for it is evident that in the yeere 81. they had Bishops and it is yet to be seen registrate in the Books of Councell and subscribed by the Commissioners for the time how that but a little time before the publishing of that Confession the generall Assembly did agree with his Majesties Regents in his minority Kings declaration that the estate of Bishops which is one of the estates of Parliament should be maintained and authorized But about foure or five yeeres after about the yeere 83. the generall Assembly tooke upon them contrary to their own subscriptions to discharge the estate of Bishops and to declare the same to be unlawfull commanding all the Bishops in the kingdome to dimit their places and Jurisdictions under paine of Excommunication and in like manner commanding the King and his Councell under the like payne not to choose any others in their place But when that wise King saw their proceedings and how they took more upon them then ever the Bishops had done and under the pretence of their new discipline trod upon his Scepter labouring to establish an Ecclesiasticall tyranny of infinite Jurisdiction and perceiving withall that their new erected government was the mother of all faction confusion and rebellion And that it tended to Anabaptisme and popularity and to the overthrow of his State Crowne and kingdome 1584 he called a Parliament and by the consent of all his States hee overthrew their Presbytries and restored againe the Bishops to their places But indeed at that time the Sonnes of Zerviah were too strong for him that hee could never invest the Bishops with their full power and authority untill that happy time that his Majesty came unto the Crowne of England And then not long after by a free Generall assembly held at Glasgow he did not erect but ratify and confirme the estate of Bishops The acts of which Assembly were immediately after confirmed by Act of Parliament So that Episcopacy is no Innovation as is pretended in this last Oath And as for the 5. Acts of Perth Assembly they were never intended to be abjured in the Negative confession for there is no mention of any of them neither can they be comprehended under popish rites Kneeling at the Communion is no popish rite for I have upon another occasion proved it to be the gesture used in the Primitive Church at the receiving of the Sacrament And that the first that ever did sit after their fashion was the Pope to expresse his state So that we may justly charge them that the gesture which they use is abjured in that confession amongst the rest of popish rits The Five Holy-dayes established by the Assembly of Perth are not Popish rites but such as were observed in the Church since the dayes of the Apostles as may appeare by that bitter contention between the Easterne and Westerne Churches about the observation of Easter And as for the other three Articles for private Baptisme the Communion of the sick and Confirmation of Children There is no man in his right wits who will not acknowledge that they were in use many hundred yeeres before Popery was hatched and are in themselves things not onely lawfull and expedient but in some cases necessary But yet they will say that these things are abjured in generall termes when they sweare to continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of that Kirk For answer wherunto I shall desire you to consider First that they say not they will continue in the present discipline of this Kirk as these new men doe interpret it but indefinitely that they will continue in the discipline of this Kirk Secondly albeit they had said so yet by the discipline we must understand that discipline which was established by authority and Law And not that which was violently brought in by some factious Ministers and their adherents Now I have shewed that Episcopall government was ratified and confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament but never dissolved by any and that their Presbyteriall government was put down by act of Parliament but never established by any Thirdly say that by discipline we should yeeld to understand that discipline which then was used though brought in by private authority Yet certainly it ●●s never their intent to sweare to maintaine that ●●scipline in all particulars without alteration or ad●●tion for such an oath had been simply unlawfull because that thereby they should have made a per●●●uall Law concerning ceremonies and rites which 〈◊〉 themselves and must be changeable according 〈◊〉 the Exigency of the times And so if that inter●●●tation which is now given of the words were ●●…e it would follow 1 That their negative Confession were directly ●●ntrary unto their positive Confession which is the ●nly true Nationall confession of the Church of Scotland For in that confession in the 20th Article touching matters of Policy and order they say Not that we thirk that one policy and one order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all ages times and places For ●s Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporall ●o may and ought they to be changed when they rather suffer Supersition then that they edifie the Church using the ●ame So that by these mens Interpretation here is Confession against Confession The positive Confession declares matters of Policy and order to be alterable and such as upon occasion both may and ought to be changed But these men do so interpret the negative Confession and Covenant as if they were bound by an oath to preserve the same Orders that were used in the yeer 81. inviolably for ever 2 Such an Interpretation is against all right reason For the condition of the Church being changeable the same Orders cannot be convenient for her at all times As the same policy is not fit for the Church in all places so neither for one and the same Church at all times 3 Such an Interpretation shall condemne the practice of the ancient Church which did upon occasion often change her rites as namely dipping in Baptisme which she changed from once into thrice and again from thrice into once 4 It is contrary to the Judgement of all Divines Mr. Calvin tells us that In externall discipline and Ceremonies Christ would not particularly prescribe what we sho●… to follow Quod istud pendere a temporum varietate pravideret And again he saith That sometimes it profiteth and is expedient that there be a difference in these things lest men should think that Religion were tyed unto outward

Ceremonies And indeed to make the Rites of the Church unchangeable were to confound matters of Doctrine and matters of Discipline matters of Faith and matters of Order The rule therefore of Tertullian is infallible Regula fidei immobilis irrefragabilis Caetera disciplinae admittunt novitatem correctionis 5 If they had sworne as these men would have it to maintaine their discipline which they then used without alteration or addition like the Laws of the Medes and Persians Then had they ascribed unto themselves an absolute perfection more then ever did the Pharisees in Christs dayes or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after or the Popes of late since they established their own infallibility Surely the contrivers of the first Confession did manifest a great deal of more modesty in their Preface Protesting that if any man shall note in this our Confession any Article or Sentence repugnant to Gods holy Word and do admonish of the same in Writing we by Gods grace do promise unto him satisfaction from the mouth of God that is from his holy Scriptures or else reformation of that which he shall prove to be amisse And are these men become wiser then their Fathers to think that nothing which they did could be amended 6 That could not be the meaning of the first Oath to maintain their discipline in all points without alteration For they themselves during the days of the Presbytery did change many things and that as I beleeve without violation of their Oath Sometimes their Lay-elders had voyce in the Presbytery afterwards the Ministers perceiving the inconvenience restrained them to their Parish-sessions Sometimes it was made altogether unlawfull to bury in Churches afterwards they did permit it And if I had the inspection of the Book of the Acts of the generall Assembly which I have not seen these four and twenty yeers I would make it appear that every Assembly did either alter or adde something in matters of discipline Finally How could they Swear to maintain that discipline in all points when there are many things in their new found discipline whereof they were not agreed nor are to this day as namely Whether Pastors and Doctors be one office or distinct And if distinct Whether Doctors have any voyce in government What is the Office of Deacons and whether they may give a voyce in the consistory with the rest Whether their ruling Eldermen be Ecclesiasticall persons or Lay-men Whether their Office should be only annuall or during life Whether those Elders should have a voice in the election Ordination deprivation of ministers and in weilding of the keyes for Excommunication and Absolution By all which it is more then manifest that the meaning of these words in the former Oath We will continue in the obedience of the discipline of this Kirk is not that they would observe the same discipline then used in all particulars without alteration or addition for so their Oath must be contrary to their Confession of faith contrary to right reason to the practise of the Primitive Church to the opinion of all Divines yea contrary to their owne practice and indeed such an Oath as were both unlawfull and impossible to be observed And unlesse that Interpretation be allowed them that Oath makes nothing either against Episcopacy or the five Articles of Perth we must therefore finde out some other meaning of these words of the Covenant It is a rule in the civill Law Semper in dubijs benigniora sunt praeferendae And again Non sunt reyiciendae leges quae interpretatione aliquâ possunt convenire If any thing Fact writing or Law may in reasonable construction admit two interpretations the best and mildest is ever to be received But the words in the former Oath may admit a good interpretation namely they did sweare to continue in the discipline of that Kirk in regard of all substantials viz. for administration of the Sacraments and weilding of the Keyes for binding and loosing of sinners and that for the particular determination of person time place and outward forme of administration They would observe the discipline of that Kirk which should be from time to time lawfully established And therefore it is as I observed before that they did not say The present discipline of this Kirk And by this Interpretation which is the only reasonable sense of these words that can be given they are all bound by their nationall Oath as they terme it to submit themselves to Episcopall government and the Articles of Perth which were lawfully established and are now a part of the Discipline of that Church Thus have I shewed that this late Oath is substantially different from the former in that now they doe not sweare with the King but against him It containes a bond of mutuall defence of one another It inables Subjects to take Armes without lawfull Authority and containes such an interpretation of the Old covenant as is manifestly false In all which respects the Oath is unlawfull But yet to convince them further of perjury I will shew unto you that they have not observed any of these conditions which God himselfe requireth in an Oath In the fourth of Ieremy and second verse Thou shalt sweare the Lord liveth in trueth in iudgement and in righteousnesse In trueth and therefore not falsly In judgement and therefore not rashly In righteousnesse and therefore not lewdly nor to a bad end We must sweare in trueth and not falsly for the Lord himselfe saith Yee shall not sweare by my name falsly Levit. 19.12 The onely true matter of an Oath is trueth but all the grounds of this last Oath are notoriously false as namely that the Negative Confession is the Nationall confession of the church of Scotland And I have shewed that to be otherwise That this Oath is the very same that King Iames and his Family did sweare And I have proved that not to be so That Episcopacie and the five Articles of Perth are innovations abjured in the former Oath and I have manifested that to be evidently false Finally That what they doe is to avert The danger of the true reformed religion of the Kings honor and of the publick peace of the Kingdome When as indeed they could not have taken a course more to indanger the true Religion wound the Kings honour and disturbe the publick peace So that in this late Oath there is no trueth Againe We must sweare in judgement that is out of a certain knowledge of the thing which we sweare We finde in the fifth of Leviticus that when a man did sweare that which was hid from him It was a sin for which a Trespasse-offering was to be offered And now they have sworn unto many things which are hid from them and whereof they could have no certaine knowledge for they could not know that the Negative Confession is the National Confession of that Church nor that this Oath is the same with that which the King did sweare nor that Episcopacy and