Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	according_a	see_v	word_n	2,821	5	3.5360	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86884	Comprehension promoted. Whether there be not as much reason, in regard to the ease of the most sober consciences, to take away the subscription in the Act of Uniformity, as well as the declaration of assent and consent?	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1704 (1704)	Wing H3675; ESTC R178383	6,720	8

Comprehension PROMOTED Whether there be not as much reason in regard to the ease of the most Sober Consciences to take away the Subscription in the Act of Vniformity as well as the Declaration of Assent and Consent THough I am a person who according to my Genius and the Preparation of my Studies should be apt to offer something to the Nonconformist for their Compliance at this time with the Church in general as Protestants rather than discourage any body with Scruples Yet do I see reason under this present Juncture of Affairs and the kind Inclinations of the House toward Union in their voting away the Declaration of Assent and Consent to represent also the Subscription in the same Act and the Oath imposed in the Act at Oxford for the like redress unto their tender Considerations THE SUBSCRIPTION I A. B. do declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the KING And that I do abhor that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him And that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established And I do declare that I do hold there lyes no Obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom THE OATH I A. B. do swear That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the KING And that I do abhor that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him in pursuance of such Commissions And that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government either in Church or State In this Oath and Subscription we have the Matter and the Form of words that is the Substance and the Composure And the one and the other in both are lyable to the ensuing Exceptions To begin with the Oath Here are three parts of it The first part appears not consistent with Judgment the second with Truth nor the last with Righteousness I will take up the last part first And I will not endeavour any Alteration of Government There is no Government on earth is so perfect that it hath need of Laws like the Medes and Persians Alteration of Laws and so Government in the Administration is as necessary many times upon emergent occasions to the Politick Body as the fresh Air is to the Natural This Oath was brought into the House to have been made common It were not a thing Righteous to have had that Engagement laid on persons in such a capacity it is not Righteous to have it laid on any who are Free-Holders and Free-Subjects as we are The Constitution of our Nation as Parliamentary is such That no Law can be Established or Repealed but it must pass the House of Commons and so the whole Body doth concur in their Representatives to every Alteration of Government that is made if it be Legal And no House of Commons are chosen but by the People Every English man is intended to be there present either in Person or by Procuration and the consent of the Parliament is taken to be every mans consent says Sir Thomas Smith De Rep. Ang. l. 2. c. 2. Nay while the King Consilio assensu Baronum leges olim imposuit universo Regno consentire inferior quisque visus est in persona Domini sui capitalis prout hodie per procuratores Comitatus By the Counsel and Assent of his Barons did give Laws to his whole Realm every inferior seemed to consent in the person of his chief Lord as now they do by their Burgesses and Knights of the Shires says Sir Henry Spelman This is so true that in this sense it is that the Laws that pass are said to be Quas vulgus elegerit Which the people shall chuse Now then if every Free-Subject hath a fundamental Liberty to chuse Knights and Burgesses and accordingly to inform them of their Grievances and petition them for Redress and in them as their Representatives do consent to the Alteration of Government and Laws as are profitable for the Nation how can such an Oath be imposed on any that they will not endeavour any Alteration as this is Is not chusing Burgesses informing them petitioning them acting and legally consenting in them to that end an Endeavour and that as much as can be in their place and calling And no more than an endeavour in their place and calling was challenged by any It not the Foundation-Liberty of the whole people and our selves with them here in danger Judg ye that are Wise For the Words then or Form I wonder at this rigour in the Compiler that a man must swear not to endeavour any alteration Had it not been enough to be engaged not to endeavour the alteration of the Substance of our Government Episcopacy in the Church and Monarchy in the State but must it be not any alteration It were well we were so absolutely perfect And again must they not at any time endeavour any alteration What if Times should turn and we be in as great a confusion as we were or any the like chance or change come Must these men be bound up that they cannot endeavour to reduce back this Government that we now have No not the King and Bishops if the iniquity of the Times should put them out for they have sworn they will not at any time endeavour any alteration in Church or State Sirs The Matter of this Obligation being against the Fundamental-Freedom of the Subject and Parliament and the Words as you see so ensnaring and that against that duty all owe to the Publick Good I offer it you to consider in the first place whether this last part be according to Righteousness For the middle part of the Oath Here is a Position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against any Commissionated by him which must be sworn to as abhor'd and trayterous There is now a case in the mouths of all the understanding Refusers of the Oath of Subscription Suppose some Writ sued out and comes to the Sheriffs hands and suppose some to oppose the execution by the Kings personal Command or Commission and he thereupon raises the Posse Comitatus upon them I will ask here Whether the Sheriff acts not herein by the Kings authority I think it cannot be denied By the Kings Authority is all one as by the Law or in the Name of the King according to Law And when he can act so against any for all their Commission and the Law will bear him out how is this Position in this case trayterous and to be abhor'd For my part

I do resolutely believe that it was not ever the intent of the Parliament in this Oath or the Subscription as to the major part we may be bold to advance the personal Will or Commission of the King above Law which were to make his Power Despotical and not Royal Non est Rex says Bracton ubi Dominatur voluntas non Lex He is not a King that governs by his Will and not by the Law And how this Position indefinitely without exception of this case at least must be sworn to as altogether trayterous I am to learn The Courts of Law can avoid the Kings Charters or Commissions which are passed against Law for the King is subject to the Law and sworn to maintain it says Judg Jenkins in his Works p. 48. As for the Form then of the words It abhor this trayterous Position they are harsh the word abhor especially is a word of Interest and Passion a cooler word as I disown or disallow might have served Some of the more grave as Calamy particularly were much offended at that word I may say a thing is unlawful in my Conscience when I cannot say according to truth I abhor it There is never a Gentleman in the Land but may swear truly that he believes it unlawful to company with any other Woman as his own Wife but if each one were put to swear he abhors it I suppose some very good Sons of the Church as well as Brethren would be found willing to be Non-conformists to such an Oath Well Sirs When these words Abhor and Trayterous are so harsh in the Composure and when there is such a case and the like perhaps to it may be put as to the Position in the Matter of it wherein it seems justifiable and without offence I offer it in the next place to consideration Whether this middle part of the Oath and Subscription be according to Truth For the first part we have a large assertion roundly sworn The Oath and Subscription runs not only that it is not lawful to take Arms against the King or that it is not lawful on any pretence but on any pretence or cause whatsoever The Gramatical literal construction of that word seems to intimate no less than that this Proposition must be held without restraint or limitation Among the most eminent of Authors who have wrote for the power of Princes and establisht it against resistance in their writing on this subject I suppose there are few or none to be valued above these three Barclay Grotius Arnisaeus And we shall find that they have all their restrictions or cases of exception in the maintenance of this tenet And how shall any be over-earnest here to punish the refuser when if the matter be scan'd the reason perhaps why he refuses will be found only because he hath read more than some others that yield their submission I begin with Barclay that is William Barclay a Scot and Counsellor to the King of France who writes against Bucha●an Boucher and other Monarcho-macists as he calls them This learned man endeavours to make his Prince to be above the whole People That consequently no Arms can be taken against him nevertheless when he comes to put some pressing cases he thus limits himself Quid ergo nulli ne casus incidere possunt quibus populo in Regem arma capere jure suo liceat Nulli certe quamdiu Rex manet What then Can there no cases happen wherein it is lawful for the People to take arms against the King by right None certainlly so long as he remains a King There are cases indeed he accounts in which a King does exuere personam Regis or dominatu se exuere put off the person of a King And particularly l. 3. c. 16. he mentions two Si Regnum alienet Si Rempublicam evertere conetur If he go to alienate his Kingdom If he go to overthrow the Commonwealth I do not say I approve this Doctrine The Papists use the same we know in another case We may not fight against our King but if the Pope Excommunicate him he shall be no King with them Let us come to Grotius and first quote him in his judgment of Barclay lest you may think else I mistake him Barclaius says he Regii imperii licet assertor fortissimus huc tamen descendit ut Populo insigni ejus parti jus concedit se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiam Barclay though the most strong assertor of Kingly Government does descend to this that he grants a right to the People or the most eminent part of them of defending themselves against intollerable oppression For himself then after he hath asserted this Tenet Summum imperivm tenentibus jure resisti non posse That the higher Powers may not lawfully be resisted from Scripture Antiquity Authority and Example to as much purpose perhaps as any he comes to put seven Cases wherein he does Lectorem monere ne putet in hanc legem delinquere eos qui revera non delinquent 〈◊〉 warn his Reader lest he mistake some for Delinquents that are not For Arnisaeus he hath wrote three learned Books of Politicks De Jure Majestatis De Doctrina Politica De Authoritate Principum in Populum semper inviolabili seu Quod nulla ex causa subditis fas sit contra legitimum Principem arma sumere That the Authority of Princes over the People ought to be inviolable or That it is lawful for no cause to take up Arms against our lawful Prince Here then we have our Tenet In the state whereof he comes in the issue to distinguish between Rex and Tyrannus A King and a Tyrant Tyrannus in Titulo Tyrannus in exerntio A Tyrant in Title and in Practise And Tyrannus in Exercitio he counts do excidere de jure etsi haereditario Does fall from his right though hereditary Traditur Respublica Principi in eum finem says he ut illi praesit in salutem omnium a quo si prorsus desciverit etiam de potestate cadit quam non alio fine sibi commissam habebat The Commonwealth is delivered to the Prince that he should rule over it for the common safety from which if he departs altogether he falls even from the power it self which was committed to him only for this end By such Testimonies as these without naming others I would convince those persons who were the Compilers of these Declarations to be subscribed or sworn with some resentment that when the sense and meaning of them is such as we are not like to boggle at they should be yet composed so in terminis as to be obnoxious to so grand Exception For the form then yet of the words I A. B. do swear that it is not lawful c. Here is an Oath to the matter of a Proposition and that questioned to the determination of a point of Conscience and that diversly decided An Oath should be to a matter of Fact and cannot