Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	king_n	people_n	samuel_n	1,198	5	10.5950	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75313	The anatomy of Dr. Gauden's idolized non-sence and blasphemy, in his pretended Analysis, or setting forth the true sense of the covenant that is to say, of that sacred covenant taken by the Parliament, the commissioners of Scotland, and the assembly, September 11. 1643.		1660 (1660)	Wing A3055; Thomason E765_14; ESTC R207156	29,164	31

is limited by our Statute Laws none of which do appoint or approve any such Oath Nor can it be expected that if Episcopacy should be reduced to the Primitive Institution such tyranny will ever be again endured And as for that Oath what doth it require but obedience in omnibus licitis honestis which our late Episcopacy least cared for The Laws tye all men to things lawful and honest And if so then the same Doctor hath furnished me with an Argument strong enough to retort upon the Author of it against that Canonical Oath which himself urgeth against the Covenant pag. 15. inverting onely the name of the Covenant into that of this Oath They are not the bare words of the Oath of Canonical Obedience which as Charms can bind any mans Conscience to or against any thing but it is the force of Truth Reason Justice Religion and Duty to God and man our selves or others which morally and really obligeth men either by Gods general or particular Precepts which are as Iron and Adamantine Bands on every mans soul to chuse good and do it to hate evil and eschew it long before any of these withes or cords of mans combining or tying are put upon them By which he argues the needlesness of the Covenant and so do I of the unwarranted Oath of Canonical Obedience And if this Oath should be extended to obey such Bishops as Wren Peirce and others in all they of late enjoyned there is much more cause to conclude against it then against the Covenant though it should be extended to extirpation of all Episcopacy in the words of this Doctor pag. 8. It is therein of no bond or validity as to any good mans Conscience And so farewel such an Oath And touching the Kings Oath there is nothing obliging him further then to preserve that Government so far as it is agreeable to and warranted by the holy Scripture and Primitive Institution so far he condescended at the Isle of Wight And who requireth more And yet even this also may be changed by his Royal Assent to the Counsel and Desire of the two Houses of Parliament as this Doctor doth more then tacitely admit pag. 18. Cannot the Legislative Power change Government by Bishops as well as abrogate other Laws This is to charge some with perjury which he dareth not to name to fright others with a scare-Crow or man of Clouts and to condemn all the Churches of Christ that have laid Episcopacy aside His next Quarrel at the Covenant if it abjure all Episcopacy is this That it runs us upon a great Rock not onely of Novelty but of Schism and dasheth us both in opinion and practise against the Judgement and Custome of the Catholique Church in all places and ages till of latter years * He means till Calvin See his Dendrology in his sighs tears c from the Apostles days This he often harps upon in a Magisterial Traditionary way But once prove that our abolished Episcopacy was of so antient and universal Observation Et eris mihi Magnus Apollo Whoever will but read the judgement of Doctor John Reynolds concerning Episcopacy expressed in a Letter to Sir Francis Knolls in the year 1598. and Dr. Vshers Tract called The Reduction of Episcopacy proposed in the year 1641. will soon find this mans bold Assertion to dwindle into a vapor In the eighth place Pag. 10. under colour of propounding the Loyal and Religious sense of it he dasheth it with unlawfulness to be taken at all For when he would have men to retire to the sober sense wherein alone it might lawfully be taken he addeth an Alloy If it had been imposed by due Authority This sheweth his denial of the lawfulness of it And so in stead of satisfying a scrupulous Conscience how to take the Covenant a right he cunningly deterreth from the taking of it at all is not this Jugling By due Authority he meaneth Supreme Authority as is clear by his next Answer in examining whereof I shall endeavour to lay open the weakness and falshood of this suggestion Ninthly Pag. 0. he tells you It were easie to level to the ground all those fair but fallacious pretences drawn to fortifie the Covenant from Scripture-examples wherein the Jews sometimes solemnly renewed their Covenant with God But it was that express Covenant which God himself had first made with them in Horeb and Mount Sinai punctually prescribed by God to Moses and by Moses as their Supreme Governour or King imposed upon them This they sometimes renewed after they had broken it by their Apostacy to false and strange gods But this was not the case of the Church or people of England nor was there any need of such covenanting any more then there was any Moses or Hezekiah or Josiah or any chief Governour commanding it As the Hatlot is forward to call her Whore first with whom she unjusty quarrelleth so this Deceiver cries out upon the fallaciousness of the Covenant because he seeks fallaciously to take off all men from it In this reviling of his there are falshoods enow I will instance in some First it is false that there was no Covenant but of Gods own prescribing and secondly that he prescribed but one I shall for brevity discover the falshood of both these together If none but of his prescribing what meaneth that of this Doctors own quoting before Num. 30.2 which was spontaneous What that of Joshua and the Princes of the Congregation with the cheating Gibeonites Josh 9.15 And what that to omit sundry other of the children of Israel and the children of Judah after the Babylonish Captivity who joyned themselves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant never to be forgotten Jer. 50.5 These were all several Covenants of different kinds none of them prescribed yet all of them allowed and the breach of them punished by God To this may be added what the Vniversity of Oxford in their Reasons against the Covenant by general consent in Convocation June 1. 1647. Sect. 2. pag. 2 3. saith for it self that they are unsatisfied because the Covenant is imposed which is repugnant to the nature of a Covenant which being a contract implyeth a voluntary mutual consent of the Contractors It is also false that the Covenant on Mount Sinai was imposed by Moses as the Supreme Governour or King on the people For Moses was no more their Supreme Governour or King then Samuel to whom the people impetuously cryed for a King to judge them like all the Nations i 1 Sam. 8.5 when the Lord himself was their King k 1 Sam. 12 12. Nor did Moses but God himself impose that Covenant in Horeb as their Supreme Governour if Moses may be believed For he tells us that The Lord talked with them face to face in the Mount out of the midst of the fire Moses onely stood between the Lord and them at that time to shew them the word of the Lord. l Deut. 5.4