Selected quad for the lemma: child_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
child_n	father_n	israel_n	tribe_n	4,559	5	10.6477	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85826	The Covenanters plea against absolvers. Or, A modest discourse, shewing why those who in England & Scotland took the Solemn League and Covenant, cannot judge their consciences discharged from the obligation of it, by any thing heretofore said by the Oxford men; or lately by Dr Featly, Dr. Gauden, or any others. In which also several cases relating to promisory oathes, and to the said Covenant in special, are spoken to, and determined by Scripture, reason, and the joynt suffrages of casuists. Contrary to the indigested notions of some late writers; yet much to the sense of the Reverend Dr. Sanderson. Written by Theophilus Timorcus a well-wisher to students in casuistical divinity.	Timorcus, Theophilus.; Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654, attributed name.; Vines, Richard, 1600?-1656, attributed name.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691, attributed name.	1660 (1660)	Wing G314; Thomason E1053_13; ESTC R202125	85,431	115

this time was speaking to the Heads of the Tribes concerning the Children of Israel yet he omits this case as having no special Command from the Lord in it and it will be granted that in many things wherein the Magistrate hath not power over his Subjects the Husband hath power over his wife and the Father over the Child § 6. That the words of this Text are not to be understood in their utmost Latitude is universally acknowledged by Casuists Aq. 22. e. q. 89. art 9 Filiucias tract 25. cap. 9. Azor. mor. inst l. 11. cap. 10. Sanches l. 3. cap 9 11. Ames cas l. 4. cap. 22. qu 11. League illleg p. 10 11. § 1. The matter of the Vow must be such wherein the Law of God hath subjected us to the power of our Superiors Thus Aquinas Sanchez Azorius Filiucius Dr. Ames Dr. Sanderson and indeed all others agree Dr. Featly discoursing against the Covenant saith that to fulfil the express Command of God no man doubteth but that a Covenant may be made not only without but even against the Command of a Prince And indeed the reason is evident because the dominion of the Superior is the reason of the discharge or the suspension of the obligation of such Oaths But saith Dr. Sanderson there is none so much under the power of another but as to some things he is sui juris in his own power and not under his dominion § 2. The Superior when he hears of his Subjects Oaths in such matter must declare openly his dissent For saith the Text if he holds his peace De jur prom prael 4. §. 6. he hath confirmed the Oath To the ratification of an Interiors Oath a praecedaneous express consent is not necessary but a tacit consent is sufficient § 3. The Superior must declare his dissent presently The Text saith in the day that he heard thereof If he hath omitted it but one day saith the Doctor he hath ratified the Oath Qui serò●fe nolle significat putandus est aliquandiu voluisse The dissent must be not only palam but statim § 4. It must be a constant dissent For suppose an Inferior hath sworn an Oath and his Superior hearing of it saith to him presently you shall not do it and the next day or at any time afterwards saith he shall or gives him leave to do it the Inferiors Oath will from that day bind again the reason of this is here Because the Superiours power doth not extend so far as to cancel the obligation of an Oath but only to suspend it De Jur. prom pr. 3. Sect. 10. Dr. Sanderson saith excellently That there is in every Oath a natural and inseparable obliging vertue the operation of which may be hindred but that impediment being removed the Bowl returns to its Byas the Oath binds and this as naturally as water runs in its channel when the dam is thrown down that hinders it or a stone moves to its center when the thing that staied it is removed God himself cannot make a thing that is not to have bin The Oath having been made hath its natural and inseparable vertue the operation of which in some cases indeed the Superiors dissent may hinder but cannot deprive it of its obliging vertue So that though at first he dissents and so stops the Oath from its present working upon the Conscience yet he cannot destroy the nature of it and when his dissent is removed upon second thoughts the Oath obligeth § 5. If once the Superior hath consenied either tacitly or expresly praecedaneously or subsequently he can never by his dissent again either discharge us from the Oath or suspend the Obligation of it Dr. Sand. 16. prael 7. sect 6. In this case saith Dr. Sanderson it is a true Rule Quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet The reason is because Gods Word in this case declares the Oath established for ever Dr. Sanderson saith truly That if the Superior hath either consented to the Oath before the taking of it or at any time after the taking of it he can never afterwards make it void or take away its Obligation An Oath is not a thing to be jested with Ludere cum sacris prophanum est § 6. To apply this to the present case of the Covenant Is it clear that people are under the power of Magistrates so far as to the things of God that the Magistrates may set up what Government in the Church they please and under what Officers they please Or hath not Christ in the Gospel determined the Substantials of Government as to Officers and Rules of Government If the latter be true Dr. Featly saith none doubts but people may covenant without their Superiors to fulfil the Laws of God If there be no Law of God in the case why do our Brethren plead Episcopacy by divine right and not tell the Parliament that they may alter that Form if they please § 7. Secondly We must profess our selves no Lawyers but may it be taken for an undoubted truth That the Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament have no power to impose an Oath upon people otherwise good and lawful without the King of Englands consent first had If it be so we freely submit and have nothing to say against it but then it will only follow that it was sinfully imposed and taken not that it doth not oblige If it be not so the want of the Superiors consent is not to be pleaded in the case § 8. Did his Sacred Majesty in the day that he heard thereof presently and openly declare his disallowance of it If not it is ratified for ever We have heard indeed but never saw his Majesties Proclamation against it We are sure that Printed with Dr. Featly's Book relates not to it but to a former Vow and Covenant quite of another nature § 9. However it is certain that his Sacred Majesty if that Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be his which we think none in their wits doubt after it was taken declares That good men should least offend God and him in keeping of it Though inded his Sacred Majesty liked not to impose it upon those of his Subjects who might in Conscience scruple it yet he certainly ratifies the obligation of the Oath in Conscience to those that had taken it He was not willing by making his Peoples Oath void according to Numb 30.25 to bear their iniquity CHAP. XIII Where the Absolvers Plea from the force attending the Covenant is considered and proved vain Oaths extorted by fear do obligè in Conscience proved from Scripture Reason the Opinions of Dr. Sanderson Aquinas Azorius and all sober Casuists for their Obligation § 1. WE are told in the next place that the Covenant was forced and extorted by penalties and that not only from Ministers and Fellowes of Colledges and from the vulgar people but even from his Sacred Majesty and therefore it is null and void

the Power imposing if true proved insufficient § 1. HAving hitherto cleared the matter of the Oath which is upon us from any exceptions against it pretending to evince it so far unlawful that we having taken it are not obliged by it We come in the next place to consider it as to the efficient Cause to clear it from any exceptions made against it upon that account following the Method of the aforementioned Reverend Professor Dr. Sanderson who in his Book de Juramento promissorii hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least acquitted himself to all Learned and Conscientious men whatever he hath done in his latter Book de obligatione Conscientiae which we have not so well weighed § 2. There are several cases which the Dr. puts relating to the efficient cause of promissory Oaths under which he comprehends both the external and internal cause the Agent and impulsive causes As First Whether and how far the Oaths of Children Fooles and Madmen or such as are drunk either with wine or passion are lawful and oblige none of which concern us in this Discourse There are only 2 or 3 cases under this head to be spoken to viz. 1. How far an Oath may be lawful or binding taken as imposed by an unlawful Authority 2. How far the Oath of one who is under the power of another is lawful or obligatory 3. How far an Oath is lawful or obligatory to which we are forced or into which we are frighted through fear of danger in case we refuse it For all these things are improved to the heighth against the Covenant by our Absolvers They tell us it was imposed upon us by an unlawful Power That we were Subjects and could not take it without the Kings consent lawfully and he dissenting though we have taken it it is null and doth not oblige us That the generality were forced to it yea that his Sacred Majesty who now is was frighted into the taking of it by the Scottish force and threatning and is therefore discharged from any obligation to it How truly this is spoken and how consonantly to the judgment of Dr. Sanderson and all sober Casuists let us now enquire De juram prom prael 4. §. 7. § 3. As to the former part of the first case whether it be unlawful to take an Oath from an usurped power Dr. Sanderson determines it affirmatively because it becomes not a pious and couragious Christian to make himself a slave yet the same Dr. allowes it lawful if we cannot avoid it without great danger provided that the Oath be otherwise lawful and that we do not shew too much forwardness in the doing of it but do it with some testimony of reluctancy § 4. But how fat this is applicable to the present case we are not able to determine Lawyers must first resolve us whether the Lords and Commons of England assembled in Parliament have not a power to make a new Oath and impose it upon people unlesse the King first consent When that point of Law is determined the Doctors determination may be applied to it which will much help the Covenanters in Conscience if the case be in Law determined against them § 5. The third Conclusion of Dr. Sanderson's determination in the case is sufficient to our purpose Qui juramentum susceperit à personâ justam authoritatem non habente Dr. Sanderson ibid. delatum sed nulla alia ex parte vitiosum omnino teneri ad implendum quod juravit i.e. He who hath taken an Oath from one who had no authority to give it if the Oath be not otherwise faulty is fully bound to perform what he hath sworn So that our Absolvers may see they are beside their divinity in discharging men from the Obligation of the Covenant because those who imposed it as they pretend had no lawful power to impose it for supposing that the Oath being taken saith Dr. Sanderson doth oblige CHAP. XII The Absolvers Arguments from the present dissent of the King who then was Argued The Case stated and resolved The Rules applied to the present Case The Argument from hence for the irritation of the Covenant proved vain § 1. VVE are now come to our Absolvers strong Forts whatsoever they talk that the Covenant is Schismatical that it was against the Lawes of the Nation they know are convinced in their own Consciences that there is nothing in these Pleas sufficient to discharge any Conscience and therefore being pursued hither they run as to their strong Castle It was unlawful being given and taken without the Kings consent and is therefore null and void Or else 2. It was a forced Oath extorted by fear and such Oaths do not oblige this is the Doctrine they preach to their hearers How true it is let us now enquire § 2. The foundation of any case here whether an Oath taken by an Inferiour be void or obliging lies in that known place of Scripture Numb 30. And indeed Oaths so strictly obliging by divine Institution it is reasonable that the irritation or obligation of them should also from thence be determined and by the Scripture we freely will be tried it being the proper Bar for judgment in things of Conscience § 3. That Chapter beginneth thus And Moses spake unto the Heads of the Tribes concerning the Children of Israel This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded V. 2. If any man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an Oath to bind himself in a bond he shall not break his word he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth This is the general Rule and Law of God concerning Oaths But God is pleased to reserve some Cases The case of a woman in her Fathers house v. 3. The case of a woman who hath an Husband living v. 6 7 8 11 12. § 4. Concerning these cases God thus determines that if the Father of such a Daughter vowing or swearing v. 5. Or the Husband of such a wife v. 7. shall hold his peace at her v. 4 7. then such vows shall stand 2. But if the Father of such a Child or the Husband of such a Wife shall disallow it in the day he hears thereof v. 5 8. then not any of their vowes shall stand v. 4. but shall be of none effect v. 8. But v. 14. If the Husband altogether hold his peace at his wife from day to day then he establisheth all her vowes or all her bonds which are upon her he confirmeth them because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them v. 15. But if he shall any way make them void after that he hath heard them he shall bear her iniquity § 5. Divines do grant by Analogy in respect of parity of reason that the case is the same concerning Subjects in some cases as to the Oaths they take without the knowledge or praevious consent of their Superiors though it be observable that although Moses at