Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	act_n	law_n	parliament_n	2,185	5	6.6353	4	true

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

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

in opposition to this Assertion another saying of the same Royal Author mentioned a little below § 3. His Preface taketh notice of two opposite Narratives concerning Episcopacy the one to the Act restoring it 1662. the other to the Act by which it was abolished 1689. whether of these contain most Truth and Sincerity is not to be judged of but by entring on the Merits of the Cause and his Pamphlet with this Answer to it may contribute some light to it But that he supposeth Episcopacy to be best fitted to keep out Heresie is gratis dictum and the falshood of it is manifest if we accompt Popery to be Heresie the Abominations of which arose and grew up under that Government of the Church in this Nation what might be its effects in other Churches we do not now consider And our Experience may inform us what steps have been made not only toward the Superstitions but even the Doctrines of Popery under its Wings since its restauration And how Arminianism hath been warmed and got life by its influence in Scotland is too well known He cannot be ignorant of what K. James VI. whose Authority in matters of Truth he often brings as an Argument used to say of Presbytery as managed in Scotland That no Error could get footing there while Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General Assemblies stood in their force What evil speaking and reviling there is in the Brief and True Account of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland occasioned by the Episcopalians since the Year 1660. I know not not having seen that Book But I am sure his Party is in mala fide to challenge it their stile being such to the Life not in this Pamphlet only but especially in those before mentioned § 4. The first of his Questions is Whether Presbytery as contrary to the Episcopacy restored in Scotland 1662. was settled by Law when the Protestant Religion came to have the Legal Establishment in that Kingdom Which Question may be two ways understood and neither of them much to his purpose either whether the Protestant Religion when it was setled by Law found Presbytery already established which is a foolish Question for who ever heard of Presbytery under regnant Popery we deny not Episcopacy to be as old as Popery or whether Protestanism and Presbytery were by Law established at the same instant neither is this Question to the present purpose for it is enough to shew the Opinion of the Church of Scotland as soon as reformed about Church Government if our Adversaries cannot make it appear that she chused to be governed by Bishops And if we can shew that Presbytery was the Government practised in her from the beginning of the Reformation and that it was by Law established as soon as any fixed Government could be settled And good Reasons may be given why it was not done at the very first First The Errors and Idolatry of that way were so gross and of such immediate hazard to the Souls of People that it is no wonder that our Reformers minded these first and mainly and thought it a great step to get these removed so that they took some more time to consult about the reforming of the Government of the Church Secondly It was possible at first when the Nation was scarcely crept out of Popery to get a competent number of Ministers and Elders who might manage the Government of the Church but this behoved to be a work of time But what they did in this and what was their Sentiments about Church Order we shall after have occasion to discourse § 5. Toward the Resolution of his first Question he tells us in several particulars wherein all the dispute is that is intrinsick to the Notion of a Church Government which his Question he stateth with no great shew of understanding in these Controversies But that I insist not on that which is here chiefly to be observed is that he overlooketh that which is the chief yea the only Question on which our Controversie with the Prelatists doth turn viz. Whether the Government of the Church should be in the hands of a single Person or of a Community whether the Rulers of the Church ought to manage that Work in parity or one should manage it as Supreme and the rest in Subordination to him The distorted notion of a Moderator in Church Meetings that he hath taken up seemeth to mislead him in this matter for we will not yield that the Moderator qua talis is a Church Governour nor that he hath any Jurisdiction over his Brethren his power is meerly ordinative not decisive to be the Mouth of the Meeting not to be their Will or commanding Faculty to keep order in the manner and managing what cometh before them not to determine what is debated among them The Author talketh at random not knowing what he saith nor whereof he affirmeth when he speaketh of our election of a Moderator as done by the Clergy as he speaketh Lay-Elders and Deacons For where was it ever heard of that Deacons had a Vote in Presbyteries or Synods among Scotch Presbyterians we count them though they are Officers of Divine appointment yet the Servants of the Church not her Rulers they are employed about her Goods not in the Government § 6. He asserteth that the Protestant Religion was by Law established in Anno 1567. and the Constitution of Bishops remained as the Legal establishment and that Presbytery was not legally settled till 1592. His proofs for this and Objections that he obviateth against it I shall consider after I have given a true Historical Accompt of the being and establishment of Presbytery in this Nation Two things we maintain as to this the former is That not Episcopacy but a Government managed by the Teachers of the Church acting in commune and in parity had place in the Church of Scotland with its first Christianity and some Ages after The other is That not Episcopacy but Presbytery was the Government of the Church of Scotland as soon as it was reformed from Popery For the former Though we assert not that the first Christians in Scotland had Presbytery in all the Modes of it as we have neither can we attain the distinct Knowledge of the Actings of these Times by any Records that are left us yet that there was a Parity and no Prelacy among the Church Rulers in Scotland For all agree that Donald who entered upon the Government in the Year 199. was the first Christian King in Scotland though it is rationally thought by the best Historians that Christianity was embraced by many of the people before that And Baronius affirmeth That the Scots received the Christian Faith from Pope Victor had he said in his time we should have assented fully but what he saith is enough to our purpose who was Bishop of Rome from 194. to 203. And it is clear from Baronius and the current of Historians that Palladius was the first Bishop of the Scots

Scotland and to so great a number and to whom the people were under a relation as their Pastors being thrust from their Charges for their faithfulness in that time of Tryal and others being obtruded on them many of whom were very unqualified for the Ministry and they entring without the peoples call or consent they would not own them for their Pastors nor thought themselves obliged to wait on their Ministry but thought it their Duty rather to hear their own faithful Pastors or others who walked in their steps who were not unministred by any Church-Act but only restrained by the force of a Civil Law which could neither derogate from their Ministerial Authority nor loose the relation that the people had to them I deny not but some went beyond the limits of this Moderation but that is not to be imputed to all the Presbyterians being neither the conclusion of any Church-meeting among them nor the sentiment of all § 4. This being considered taketh off the edge of all that he enlargeth on about the Episcopal party agreeing with us in the Confession of Faith Directory for Worship and Administration of Sacraments For it is on none of these accounts that we withdraw from them but partly because they suffer none to be Ministers among them but such as comply with Episcopal Jurisdiction partly because they deprived us of the Ministers that we stand in relation to and ought to own partly because the Ministers obtruded on us are none of our choice as they ought to be by the priviledge that Christ hath given to his Church And indeed many of them unfit to be chosen and partly because this change is made not by any Church-Authority that we can own but by the State and by an unlawful Church-power It seemeth his Arguments are run low when he chargeth us with Nonconformity even to the Presbyterian Church in that we use not the Doxology nor the words of the Lord's Prayer nor the Belief at Baptism For when or where were these injoyned by the Presbyterian Church And if they had been we cannot by such Injunctions be bound to what is after found to be inconvenient That we are tyed to the use of the Doxology by the Covenant he doth most ridiculously affirm For whoever esteemed that a part of the Reformation then engaged to Using the Lord's Prayer we never condemned but that Christ hath enjoyned the using of these express words or that that Prayer was given as a form of words rather than as a Directory for the matter of Prayer we deny Neither do we condemn the use of the Creed but we think that they who have their Children baptized should profess their Faith so as may more clearly distinguish them from Popish and other Hereticks than that Confession of Faith can do QUEST V. In this Question he advanceth a Paradox The Question is Whether the Penal Laws against Scotch Presbyterians had any thing of Persecution in them THis Question he concludeth Negatively with the same brow that Maimburg and other French Popish Writers do affirm That all the Protestants who lately in France turned Papists did turn voluntarily without any compulsion and that no Rigour nor Persecution hath been used to move them to this change This is a degree of effrontedness of bidding Defiance to Truth and the God of it of bold imposing on the Reason yea and the common Sense of Mankind that the World doth purely owe to this Age and to Jesuitical obfirmation of mind But let us hear how he will prove this his strange assertion As these Laws have beat out the Brains of many good Christians that could not comply with them so this Man thinketh by his Arguings to beat out of the brains of such as remain all Sense and Reason whereby they may judge of what they hear see and feel In clearing the state of his Question he confesseth There may be too severe Laws under which men may suffer for Conscience-sake this will increase the wonder of intelligent unbyassed men who know our Affairs that such Laws are possible and yet ours are innocent but maketh the Question to be Whether our Laws were not necessary for preserving true Religion and publick Peace or whether they were the uncharitable effects of a peevish Resentment inconsistent with good Nature and Christianity Tho' even that cloak of smooth words will not hide the nakedness of the Bloody Laws that he pleadeth for nor could warrant a man that believeth Heaven or Hell to plead for such cruel Execution of them as was among us Yet this state of the Question is not the same with what in the Title is proposed For there have been few Persecutions in the World for which Necessity hath not been pretended and that were given forth to be for preserving a false Religion or for hindring publick Peace or that the Actors in them would call peevish and inconsistent with good Nature and Christianity or Moral Goodness And it is certain that where publick Peace may be preserved without such severe Laws the enacting of them is Persecution which was our case for nothing caused the sad breaches of the Peace that were in this Nation in 1666. and 1679. but the unsupportable Hardships tending to make wise men mad that they who feared God lay under by the severity of these Laws and the Barbarity used in executing them § 2. To vindicate the Laws from all blame of Persecution he giveth a lame unjust and disingenuous account of them Wo to Posterity if they be abused with such false History it is little Honesty to transmit such things to after-ages but it is the height of Impudence to publish them among such as were Eye-witnesses of them and among whom the sad effects of them remain with grief and smarting to this day I shall first examine the account that he giveth of these Laws and then shew how defective it is by supplying what he hath omitted He telleth a story of the endeavours of the Synod of Edenburgh to have Presbytery established and who can blame them especially seeing their Attempt was only an Application to a Person of Interest with His Majesty He telleth us likewise of their sending a Clergy-man whom he will not name to the same Great Man who is also nameless with a threatning Message That if they would not settle Presbytery they should have the people let loose upon them This story I never heard before nor know I how to examine the truth of it neither can I meet with any Person that hath heard of it and so have more than probable grounds to let it pass as a Forgery And if it had been true was this private surmise a sufficient ground for a Parliament to make such Bloody Laws against so great a Body of People as the Dissenters Men will think it a weak Cause that must be supported by such silly shifts I take no notice of the Act annulling so many preceding Parliaments and their Acts tho' this were