Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	according_a	church_n	doctrine_n	4,717	5	6.8021	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86003	Male audis or An answer to Mr. Coleman his Malè dicis. Wherein the repugnancy of his Erastian doctrine to the word of God, to the solemne League and Covenant, and to the ordinances of Parliament: also his contradictions, tergiversations, heterodoxies, calumnies, and perverting of testimonies, are made more apparent then formerly. Together with some animadversions upon Master Hussey his Plea for Christian magistracy: shewing, that in divers of the afore mentioned particulars he hath miscarried as much, and in some particulars more then Mr Coleman. / By George Gillespie, minister at Edinbrugh. Published by authority.	Gillespie, George, 1613-1648.	1646 (1646)	Wing G754; Thomason E317_16; ESTC R200545	44,904	65

for sparing the Towne Alexander preventeth him with an Oath that he would not doe that thing which Anaximenes should make petition for whereupon Anaximenes made Petition that he would destroy the Towne Alexander found himselfe bound by the plaine words of his Oath to doe what he intended and so did forbeare And to adde a divine Story to an humane Joshua and the Princes of Israel did sweare to the Gibeonites upon a supposition that was not true yet they found themselves tyed by their Oath So he that sweareth to his owne hurt must not change the Oath being otherwise lawfull Psal. 15. 4. yet that selfe hurt which is wrapped up in the matter of his Oath was not intended in swearing Sometimes againe that which is supposed and implyed in an Oath lyeth also in the thoughts and intention of those that sweare Now where those two are co-incident that is where the thing supposed in an Oath is both implyed necessarily in the words of the Oath and is also according to the apprehensions of those that sweare which is the case here in the Covenant and is acknowledged by the Reverend Brother I should thinke it most strange how any Divine can have the least doubt concerning the obligation of such a thing except he conceive the thing it selfe to be unlawfull His second Answer is this In my way saith he the Governments Civill and Ecclesiasticall are in the subject matter clearly distinct When the Parliament handles matters of Warre it is a Military Court when businesse of State it is a Civill Court when matters of Religion it is an Ecclesiasticall Court If this hold good then it will follow 1. That the Parliament when they deliberate about matters of Warre or matters of Religion are not at least formally and properly a Civill Court else how makes he these so clearly distinct 2. That Ministers may be called Civill Officers for consider his words in his Re-examination pag 11. I doe not exclude Mininisters neither from Ecclesiasticall nor Civill Government in a Ministeriall way doctrinally and declaratively Compare this with his present Answer it will amount to thus much That different denominations being taken from the different subject matter Ministers when they handle Doctrinally matters of Religion are Ecclesiasticall Ministers and when they handle Doctrinally matters of Civill Government which himselfe alloweth them to doe they are Civill Ministers But now to apply his Answer to the Argument How doth all this salve the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the Covenant If he had examined my Arguments he had found that most of them proove from the Covenant a Church-Government distinct from Civill Government Suctjective as well as Objective that is another Government besides Magistracy different Agents as well as different Acts different hands as well as handling of different matters I know the Christian Magistrate may and ought to have a great influence into matters of Religion and whatsoever is due to him by the Word of God or by the Doctrine either of the Antient or Reformed Churches I doe not infringe but doe maintaine and strengthen it But the point in hand is That the Covenant doth undeniably suppose and clearly hold forth a Government in the Church distinct from Magistracy which is proved by these Arguments which as they are not yet answered so I will briefly apply them to the proofe of that point which now Master Coleman sticks at 1. The Church Government mentioned in the Covenant is as distinct from the Priviledges of Parliament as the first Article of the Covenant is distinct from the third Article 2. The Church-Government in the first Article of the Covenant the Reformation wherof we are to endeavour differeth from Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. mentioned in the second Article as much as a thing to be reformed differeth from a thing to be extirpated so that the Church-Government formerly used in the Church of England is looked upon two waies in the Covenant either qua Church-Government and so we sweare to endeavour the Reformation of it which I hope was not meant of reforming that part of the Priviledges of Parliament whereby they meddle with Religion in a Parliamentary way Or qua Church-Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops c. and so we sweare to endeavour the extirpation of it This difference betweene the first and second Articles between Reformation and Extirpation proveth that the Covenant doth suppose that the Church-Government formerly used in the Church of England in so far as it was a Church-Government is not eatenus to be abolished but in so far as it was a corrupt Church-Government that is Prelaticall 3. Church-Government in the Covenant is matched with Doctrine Worship and Catechising Now these are subjectively different from Civill Government for the Civill Magistrate doth not act doctrinally nor catechistically neither can he dispence the Word and Sacraments as Master Coleman acknowledgeth 4. In the first part of the first Article of the Covenant concerning The preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government It is uncontroverted that Discipline and Government are Ecclesiasticall and subjectively different from Civill Government that is though divers who have a hand in the Civill Government are ruling Elders yet it is as true that divers Members of Parliament and inferiour Civill Courts are not Church Officers● and of the Ministery none are Civill Governours which makes the two Governments clearly distinct subjective Now the second part of that Article concerning the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government cannot so farre differ from the first part of that Article in the sense of the words Discipline and Government as that the same words in the same Article of the same Covenant should signifie things differing t●to genere which will follow unlesse Discipline and Government in the second branch and forme of Church-Government in the third branch be understood of the power of Church Officers and not of the Magistrate 5. We did sweare to endeavour the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches Now the Word of God holds forth another Government besides Magistracy for Master Coleman himselfe hath acknowledged that he findes in the New Testament Ministers to be Rulers yea instituted Rulers And the example of the best Reformed Churches without all doubt leadeth us to an Ecclesiasticall Government different from Magistracy Neither hath the Reverend Brother so much as once adventured to alledge the contrary except of the Church of Israel which as it heterogeneous being none of the Reformed Churches mentioned in the Covenant so it shall be discussed in due place From all which reasons I conclude that the wit of man cannot reconcile Master Colemans Doctrine with the Covenant I adde 6. A confutation of him out of himselfe thus No

to them yea all that I said in my Nihil Respondes pag. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34. in prosecution of this Argument concerning Covenant-breaking the Reverend Brother hath skipped over sicco pede in the halfe of one page viz. pag. 23. all that followes is new and other matter wherein he did not minde his owne Answer to the learned Viewer pag. 33. I will keepe you to the Lawes of Disputation and will not answer but as it is to the matter in hand I leave it to be Judged by men of knowledge and piety whether such a one doth not give them some ground to apprehend that he is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is self-judged who first calleth so eagerly for making out a charge against him and then when it is made out doth decline the charge and not answer the Arguments and such as esteeme the charge of Covenant-breaking to be a Nihil Respondes and the Argument of the Covenant too low to be thought on in a controversie about Church-Government O my Soule come not thou into their secret unto their assembly my glory be not thou united It is in vaine for them to palliat or shelter their Covenant-breaking with appealing from the Covenant to the Scripture for subordinata non pugnant The Covenant is norma recta a right rule though the Scripture alone be norma recti the rule of right If they hold the Covenant to be unlawfull or to have any thing in it contrary to the Word of God let them speake out But to professe the breach of the Covenant to be a grievous and great fault and worthy of a severe censure and yet to decline the charge and proofes thereof is a most horrible scandall yea be astonished O yee Heavens at this and give eare O Earth how small regard is had to the Oath of God by men professing the Name of God As for that little which the reverend Brother hath replyed unto First he takes notice of a passage of his Sermon at the taking of the Covenant which I had put him in minde of but he answereth onely to one particular viz. concerning that clause Doubtlesse many materialls of Prelacy must of necessity be retained as absolutely necessary I asked what he understood by this clause Now observe his answer I answer ingenuously as he desires and fully as I conceive these materialls of Prelacy are Ordination Remember you said many materialls of Prelacy I beseech you Sir how many is Ordination Ordination Ordination Ordination tell on till you thinke you have made many materialls and withall tell us if this be the meaning that Ordination should be retained without any power of Ecclesiasticall Government in the Ministery how was it imaginable that he could hereby satisfie that scruple which then he spoke to viz. the scruple about the purging away of the exorbitancies of Prelacy and retaining a regulated Prelacy And after all this I shall desire him to expound that other clause which I desired before but he hath not done it taking away said he the exorbitancies the remaining will be a new Government and no Prelacy Either he meanes this of a new Church-Government distinct from the Civill so that the Ministery should have new power of Government or he meant it of the way which now he pleads for If the former I have what I would Master Coleman himselfe as well as other men took the Covenant with an intention to have an Ecclesiasticall Government distinct from the Civill If the latter then let him answer these two things 1. What good sence there was in applying such an Answer to such a Scruple as if the Erastian way or the appropriating of all Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction wholly to the civill Magistrate could be the way to satisfie those who scrupled the totall abolition of Prelacy 2. How will he reconcile himselfe with himselfe for here pag. 22. he saith That his way was in practice before I was borne and the constant practice of England alwaies This as it is a most notorious untruth for the constant practice of England hath granted to the Clergy as he calls them after the Popish Dialect a power of Deposition and Excommunication whereas his way denies all corrective power or Church-censures to the Ministery so if it were a truth it is utrerly inconsistent with that which he said of the remaining part namely that it will be a new Government If it be his way how will he make it the constant practice of England alwaies and a new Government too In the next place the Reverend Brother makes short work of my five Arguments to prove the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the solemne League and Covenant They were too hot for him to be much touched upon All is but this much saith he The Covenant mentioneth and supposeth a distinct Church-Government It is hard when Arguments are neither repeated nor answered He repeats a Point which was proved and but a part of that but not the proofes And so he answereth rather to the conclusion then to the Arguments these two things First saith he the expressions in the Covenant are according to the generall apprehensions of the times which tooke such a thing for granted yet I beleeve Master Gillespie cannot make such a supposition obligatory Now you yeeld Sir what before you eagerly contended against viz. That the Covenant doth suppose a Church-Government Remember your Simile of the Jury sworne to enquire into the felony of a Prisoner which Oath doth not suppose the Prisoner to be guilty of felony but he is to be tried Guilty or not Guilty We are now so farre agreed that the Covenant doth suppose a Church-Government distinct from the civill Government and yet not meerly Doctrinall for that was the point which I proved and which here he yeelds As for the obligation of an Oath sworne upon such supposition I answer 1. It is more then supposed the words and expressions of the Covenant doe plainly hold out the thing as I proved and as the Reverend Brother seemes here to yeeld 2. That which an Oath doth necessarily suppose if the Oath be lawfull and the thing supposed lawfull is without all controversie obligatory Now the Reverend B●other doth acknowledge both the Covenant it selfe to be a lawfull Oath and that which the Covenant supposeth namely a Church-Government distinct from the Civill Government and yet not meerly Doctrinall to be a lawfull thing for he professeth to yeeld it though not Jure divino yet in prudence which he cannot doe if he make the thing unlawfull 3. That which an Oath doth suppose is sometimes supposed Vi materiae or consequentiae that is the words of the Oath doe necessarily imply such a thing though it be not intended by the swearer and here I will tell Master Coleman one Story of Alexander for another When Alexander was comming against a Towne to destroy it he met Anaximenes who as he understood came to make intercession and supplication