Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	england_n	king_n	law_n	4,152	5	4.9568	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94740	A supplement to the Serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy; published October 1660. In, first, some consideration of the oath of allegiance. Secondly, vindicating of the consideration of the oaths of the Kings supremacy and allegiance, from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn, Samuel Fisher, Samuel Hodgkin, and some others against them, in the points of swearing in some case, and the matters of those oaths. By John Tombes B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1661 (1661)	Wing T1821; Thomason E1084_1; ESTC R207991	39,490	48

Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples would never by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine for when the disciples of Christ supposing they might use violence as under the law would have commanded fire to come from heaven as Elias did to consume them that would not receive them Christ turned and rebuked saying ye know not what spirit ye are of for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them Answ To be Governor in things and causes spiritual and Ecclesiastical is ascribed to the King as King and not as a Christian for a Christian as a Christian hath not the Government of any others besides himself in any causes and he is Governor in Ecclesiastical causes as well as temporal But he is not governor in temporal things as a Christian but as a King although it is true that a Christian is better fitted to govern in both causes in that he is a Christian his Christianity by framing his spirit to wisedom justice clemency c. producing more aptitude to govern though not more authority and therefore were there not in this part of the Petition sundry mistakes by which those Petitioners incommodate and harm themselves and others and there seems to be some reflection on my book of the Serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy I should let this pass But for these reasons I shall a little examine what is said 1. The mistake is continued as if by acknowledging the King supreme Governor in spiritual things he had a power given him to be Lord over anothers faith which were indeed to ascribe that to the King which the Pope takes on him to determine what a Christian is to believe which Hart the Jesuite imagined was given to the King by that Oath but was rectified therein by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 10. 2. If by imposing by outward force any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing on the conscience the same mistake is continued which I have before discovered But if by outward force imposing any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing by civil penalties on the outward man something in Gods worship there is need of much caution to determine of their power Civil penalties are greater as death banishment mutilation imprisonment spoiling of estate liberty of trade c. Or less as some small diminution of priviledges office c. The things imposed on men may be either the commands or plain institutions of Christ or some things devised by men as Councils Fathers Prelates c. And these impositions may be either in circumstances of time place order which are undetermined by Christ or in such points of doctrine or worship as are of greater moment and determined by Christ The impositions may be such as are termed by the Apostle hay and stubble or such as overthrow the foundation which is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11 12. such as are impositions tending to Idolatry Superstition Profaneness heresies of perdition blasphemy The imposition may be on Teachers or Learners stronger or weaker Christians to be subscribed to or taught or to be conformed to or professed and this to be done either by bare presence which infers no consent or by some act which shews consent It cannot be denied but that Kings by reason of their errour and rigour have very sadly miscarried in their impositions on Christian brethren in matters of faith and worship there having been many mistakes in the best Councils Fathers Prelates and learned men since the Apostles days who have seldome been so equal as to permit those they have been prejudiced against to debate freely and fully what they hold nor are they heard with that equanimity which were requisite And therefore Princes Parliaments Republiques have made many hard Laws and done innumerable unrighteous executions to shedding of much innocent blood and most heavy oppressions of men either guiltless or not deserving such severe penalties as they have indured I think Kings and Parliaments who see not much with their own eyes but are fain to use the judgements of Learned men and Prelates who are often partial through prejudice or interest or not studied in the points about which they advice do often stand in a very slippery place and that Law-makers and Officers of justice have need of very much circumspection and tenderness ere they make penal Laws in matter of Religion that they should not make heresie by the determinations of any Councils since the Apostles days nor urge subscriptions and conformity under civil penalties but in things plainly set down in holy Scripture that so much liberty to dissents and different usages should be given as may stand with peace Yet that Kings should use no civil penalties on men for any disorders or errours in any matters of saith or worship of God I am not yet convinced by any thing I have read much less by the Arguments of these Petitioners Not by the first For a King may do that which our Lord Christ in his state of humiliation would not do He would not divide an inheritance among brethren Luke 12. 13 14. and yet a king may do it For though Christ was King in right yet he refused at that time to take upon him or to execute the office of a King but took upon him the form of a servant Phil. 2. 7. And therefore a King on his throne is not debarred from doing that which Christ would not do in his debasement And yet even then the Lord Christ did whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple and overthrew the tables of the money-changers John 2. 15 16. Mat. 21. 12. I will not now dispute whether Christ did this jure zelotarum by the right that Zelots of the Law among the Jews claimed to themselves or jure Regio by the right of a King under which notion acclamation was made to him when he rode on an Ass into Jerusalem Luke 19. 38. after which he did expel the buyers and sellers out of the Temple ver 45. nor whether this be a good proof for Magistrates to intermeddle in matters of Religion as it hath been argued by Mr. Cobbet of New England It is sufficient for my present purpose that the alledging of Christs example by these Petitioners is so far from making against the Kings power in Ecclesiastical causes that it rather makes for it Nor is it against the Kings power in causes Ecclesiastical that the Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples never would by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine For besides what is already said of Christs example there is a great difference to be made between professed infidels and disorderly Christians between planting of the Gospel at first and resorming Christians who have in shew received it there may be reason to do the latter by civil penalties though not the former though men are not to be

that had the Law of God amongst them and were famous in the world for their earthly wisdom and knowledge Stephen was stoned and James the Apostle killed with the sword supposed to be tares or the children of the wicked One when they were the pretious wheat of God Acts 6. 13 14. and 12. 2. The Christians that suffered in the ten persecutions were they not accused of being pestilent fellows movers of sedition turners of the world upside down enemies to Caesar Acts 24. 5 12. and 17. 6 7. when the contrary was most true and they will be found to be the faithful martyrs of Jesus So in latter times many of those that have been put to death for heresie and blasphemy are by this age acknowledged to be the Saints of God O King that our words might be acceptable to thee consider that neither thy Self nor Counsellors have the spirit of infallibility if the Apostles that had an extraordinary spirit of discerning must not pluck up the tares lest they root up the wheat also how can any Prince on earth undertake a work so dangerous It is possible many of those that are counted false worshippers and hereticks in this day may at the time when God shall judge the world in righteousness be servants of the most high God Remember we pray thee that those that lived in the days of the Lord Jesus accused their fathers for being guilty of the blood of the Prophets saying If we had been in the days of our Fathers we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Prophets Mat. 23. 29 30. yet themselves killed the Lord of life The Romish Church also saith if we had lived in the days of the heathen Emperors we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Christians yet puts to death many as righteous as they were and now many of thy subjects in this Nation are ready to say If we had lived in the days of Queen Mary we would not have been guilty with our Fathers in the blood of those good men that then suffered yet such a spirit of persecution is now risen up as if not restrained will terminate in the blood of many good men and so bring down the wrath of God upon this generation and there will be no remedy Answ I could eccho out all this after them were not this alledged as a ground of their denial of the taking the Oath of the Kings Supremacy It is a good wish that the King would deeply consider and remember all this some acts of his give cause to think he doth and to hope he will remember it I said somewhat to the same effect in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and such things as have lately hapned give still cause to inculcate this that his Majesty his Counsel and Ministers of justice have need of very much circumspection how they imprison and other ways punish men for their dissent from that which is established in matters of faith and worship sith this power of punishing for supposed heresies errours and schisms hath been so unhappily and unrighteously managed as gives cause to fear that it neither was nor will nor can be well used without destruction of many innocent persons God forbid I should justifie any abuse or neglect according to my power and place the seeking of reformation Nevertheless all this amounts not to a sufficient ground or reason to deny the Kings Supremacy in spirituals sith the like abuses happen in temporal things and yet these Petitioners deny not the promise yea and that indeed in words of swearing of obedience in temporal causes We might make a Catalogue of Sauls Davids Solomons and others oppressions in temporal things shall we therefore deny their regal power in them no but acknowledge the power and oppose the abuse yet not by arms or other unpeaceable ways but by Petitions to the Rulers prayers to God patient suffering which are the weapons whereby Christians conquer For which reason I except not against that which the Petitioners adde 4. To inflict temporal punishmemts upon any of us thy subjects for not conforming to thy decrees that restrain us from the worship that we know to be of God Is it not a breach of that royal law that commands thee that whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do you even so to them for this is the law and the Prophets Mat. 7. 12. And we would in all humility offer to thy consideration if thy soul were in our souls stead wouldest thou be satisfied with the same measure as is now dealt unto us when neither the God of heaven nor our own consciences condemn us of any evil intended against thy person or authority Nor can the greatest of our enemies make any due proof of any combination or plotting with any upon the face of the earth for the disturbance of the publique peace And this we can with boldness say because we know our own innocency Yet cannot this be a sufficient ground of denying the Kings Supremacy in spirituals nor is the proof of that Supremacy enervated by what follows But whereas it is objected that the Kings of Israel and Judah under the old Testament had power in spiritual causes and did punish blasphemy and Idolatry which are crimes of the highest nature against God we confess they had such power which was given to them in plain precepts written in the law of Moses but the Gospel that we live under is another dispensation in which the Lord Jesus is the only Law-giver who doth not as Moses proceed against the transgressors of his precepts by external force and power to the destroying them in their bodies and estates in this life but in long suffering waits on men not willing they should perish but rather that they should repent and be saved 2 Thes 1. 9. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Acts 17. 31. and when any continues in disobedience to the Gospel his punishment is eternal in the world to come The Apostle Paul testifies of himself that he was a blasphemer and perescuter 1 Tim. 1. 20. And if the mind of God had been that he should have suffered death in that condition how should he have had repentance given him and been such a glorious instrument in the Church as he was Furthermore it is too well known that the Jews are the greatest blasphemers against our Lord Jesus Christ as are on the earth yet it is not the mind of the Lord they should be destroyed from the face of the earth for how then should the Scripture be fulfilled wherein God hath promised to call them and to make them the most glorious Nation of the world Oh how can they be converted if they be not permitted where the Gospel is preached We speak not this in favour of any blasphemy for our souls abhor it but because we would have the lives of men as precious in thy eyes O King as they are in

the eyes of the righteous and most holy God Answ It is true that I alledged in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy the power of the Kings of Israel in spirituals to prove the King to be Governor in spiritual causes I did not nor was it necessary I should assert the same power every way or the justice of proceeding now by the same Laws which were in many things appropriate to the policy of that Nation nor am I of opinion that the judicial laws of Moses bind us any farther then their common equity nor do I think it necessary we should fetch our Laws from them they being in many things fitted to the policy of that people which is different from ours Nor do I deny that there is not the same reason of punishing some idolatry and blasphemy of professed Christians as was of punishing the idolatry and blasphemy of the Israelites in the worshipping of the golden Calf Baal Ashtaroth Molech there being such special warnings given them before such great things done by God for them as made their engagement greater and their revolt to other gods worse and more detestable then in other people and if it be true which Dr. John Burges in his rejoinder to the reply to Bishop Mortons defence of the three Ceremonies that the Popish idolatry is not so bad as the Israelites then there may be cause why that idolatry which the Papists use should not be punished with death though the worship of the golden Calf Baal Molech and such Idols were And for some blasphemies against Christ as the Messiah or Son of God and some errours or heresies which under the name of blasphemies have been punished with death and perhaps by Laws in force are liable to the same punishments I dare not say that they are equally evil or to be punished as the blasphemy of the mungrel was Lev. 24. 14 15 16. Nor do I take upon me to justifie those Laws by which death is awarded to heretiques nor to avow the sentences that have been past against persons as heretiques because condemned by Canons of Councils He that should now enact a law to put men to death for breaking the Sabbath because God did so appoint it Numb 15. 35. in the case of him that gathered the sticks on the Sabbath day or should make a law that the father and mother of a stubborn son should bring him to the Elders of the City to be stoned to death as it is Deut. 21. 18 19 20 21. should as it is said of Draco the Athenian write his laws in blood I deny not but that in the New Testament punishments are put off to the last judgement that Christ hath told us Mark 3. 28. that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men and blasphemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme excepting that against the holy Ghost that John 8. 7 8 9 10. Christ if that story be genuine would not condemn the woman taken in adultery but rather furthered her escape from stoning that the Gospel we live under is another dispensation as the Petitioners speak meaning that it is not so severe and rigid a Covenant as the Law was that the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ John 1. 17. And therefore I count them too severe beyond Christian moderation that inflict death imprisonment banishment for some errours termed heresies for non-conformity to some forms of worship for some conceived blasphemies Some eminent Protestants have been censured as too cruel even by men of great understanding for their severity in these things According to this determination a prevention may be made of destroying such a blasphemer as Paul or the Jews and yet the Kings Supremacy proved from the example of the Kings of Israel even in spirituals which may be exercised for publique peace and common good if good caution be used without such direful and cruel persecutions as have been A fathers power may be proved from the Law Deut. 21. 18 19 20 21. though that law stand not in force and so may the Kings power in causes Ecclesiastical be proved from the power of the Kings of Israel though it be denied that he is to punish Idolatry blasphemy heresie as they did or some would now have it once more say the Petitioners 5. As it is no wayes lawful from the word of God for Christian Magistrates to destroy and root out the contrary minded in religious matters although Idolaters so such proceedings may many times prove inconsistent with the very being of nations for suppose any Nation were wholly heathenish idolaters and the word of God coming in amongst them should convert the chief Magistrates and twentieth part of the Nation more must he with that twentieth part destroy all the other nineteen if they will not be converted but continue in their heathenish Idolatry it cannot possibly be supposed warrantable Answ All this may be granted The Spaniards practice in destroying the Americans is condemned by Bartholomew de Casa a Spanish Bishop their practises in their bloody Inquisition are abhorred by all sober people that are not made drunk with the wine of the whore of Babylons fornications few men of good temper and wisdome do allow making war to propagate Religion the zeal of Princes and Bishops in persecuting Christians adjudged heretiques by them is censured as madness by well composed men In the multitude of people is the Kings honour but in the want of people is the destruction of the Prince Prov. 14. 28. Thou shalt not be joyned in burial because thou hast destroyed thy land and slain thy people Isa 14. 20. Doubtless a Prince ought to be tender of his subjects as of his children and yet he may correct them and though he be not to destroy those that remain infidel-idolaters nor to force them to be Christians yet he may have a power to govern in things spiritual And this if wisely and uprightly managed may be of great advantage to the Church of God and is not to be denied because he doth much less because he may or we are jealous he will abuse it Thus much be said in answer to those Petitioners Afore the first sheet of this Supplement was printed off I met with a little piece intituled A caution to the sons of Zion by Samuel Hodgkin in which he grants assertory oaths in judicial proceedings not to be forbidden by Christ Mat. 5. 34. because commanded in the law of Moses and overthrows the Quakers plea that no swearing is lawful yet denies any promissory oath lawful and therefore in that respect opposeth the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and saith he is imprisoned for that reason In that book he first excepts against the definition Jeremiah Ives gave of a sacred oath that it is a bond by which a man binds his soul to the speaking of that which is in it self true or the doing of that which is in it self lawful unto which the