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	time_n	word_n	3,498	5	3.4534	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34536	An enquiry into the oath required of non-conformists by an act made at Oxford wherein the true meaning of it, and the warrantableness of taking it, is considered / by John Corbett ...	Corbet, John, 1620-1680.	1682 (1682)	Wing C6254; ESTC R5701	7,310	22

AN ENQUIRY INTO THE OATH Required OF Non-Conformists By an ACT Made at OXFORD Wherein the True Meaning of IT and the Warrantableness of Taking it is Considered By JOHN CORBETT late Minister at Chichester LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1682. An ENQUIRY into the OATH Required of NON-CONFORMISTS By an ACT made at OXFORD 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 Traiterous 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 THE Interpretation of the Oath here given is not peremptorily determined but probably concluded and humbly proposed by the Inquirer to men of sober and Impartial Judgment in order to the clearing of his own Judgment and the settling of his own Conscience about this important Matter In Considering the Warrantableness of taking this Oath these two main things do necessarily come under consideration I. Whether the words do signifie a just and good meaning according to a Rational Interpretation II. Whether such just and good meaning was the very meaning of the Law-makers in the Enacting of this form of Words The First Inquiry is whether the Words do signifie a just and good meaning according to a Rational interpretation Now in the way of Rational Interpretation these things are to Observed 1. We must proceed no otherwise than the Words will bear in their ordinary signification For Words as taken in their common use are the first and most noted means of signifying the Mind of those that use them Therefore to force upon them a sense in it self Rational enough which is Alien from their ordinary signification is indeed Irrational 2. A Meaning which the Words taken by themselves may bear may not be rigidly insisted on against the intent of the Law For the Words of a Law are many times more rigorous than the intent nevertheless they are but subservient to it and may not be urged to the perverting of it 3. It is Rational to Interpret a Law if the Words will bear it in a sense agreeable to right Reason and Equity For by the Reverence that is due to Governours we are forbidden to put upon their Acts a sense repugnant to Reason and Equity unless that repugnancy be apparent 4. It is Rational to consider this Law not by it self alone but as it is a Law of this Realm and in Conjunctionwith the other Laws there of and consequently to interpret it farre as the Words will bear in a sense consistent with the constitution of the Realm and with the other Laws and with the ordinary legal Practice For the Law-makers must not be supposed to enact things inconsistent unless the inconsistency be manifest In this way of proceeding I come to consider the just and good meaning which the words of the injoyned do admit The First Part of the OATH I do Swear that it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King IN this part these or the like words I do hold or I do believe are necessarily and evidently to be understood For the thing that the Law seeks or aimes at is not the truth of the Proposition which is presupposed but the discovery of the swearers Judgment concerning it This may further appear from some other Act where the said Words are expressed in the like imposition I Swear that I hold it unlawful to take Arms against the King As for these words upon any pretence whatsoever they signifie no less than upon any cause or in any case whatsoever so that this Tenet as I apprehend is sworn to without any restriction or limitation But then it must be considered that these Words to take Arms against the King must be taken in their due and legal sense and so taken they import the resisting of the Soveraign Authority or the power ordained of God which is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever I know it is objected that some of the most eminent Assertors of the power of Princes as Grotius ` Barclay c. have Restrictions and Cases of Exception in this Point But I conceive that the objected Cases of Exception delivered by them are not properly Restrictions laid upon the Tenet but Explanations of its meaning that their Readers may not mistake some for delinquents against it who indeed are not such according to their Judgement The design of this part of the Oath is to Renounce all Rebellion and all resistance contrary to due Subjection as not to be justified upon any Cause or in any Case that may come to pass And its due legal meaning is Rationally conceived to be That it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever for any of the King's Majesties Subjects to take Arms against his Person or Authority or any of his Rights and Dignities The Second Part of the OATH And that I do abhorre that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him in pursuance of such Commissions THE Position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his Person is justly to be disclaimed Though the King's Person and his Authority be distinct yet they are not separate The King's Authority is inherent in his Person and in no other Though it be exercised by an other during his Natural incapacity as in his infancy yet his Person alone is the proper Seat and Subject of it and that other exerciseth it only in his Name and as his Vicegerent Indeed sometimes an inferiour Authority as that of a Judge or Justice of Peace or Constable is called the King's Authority but in proper signification it is no more than the Authority of the said Officers derived from the King as the Fountain thereof Now it is most absurdly spoken or imagined that the King's Authority which is inherent in his Person only can be exerted in taking Arms against his Person Likewise it is as absurdly spoken or imagined that an Authority inherent in an other but derived from the King and dependent on him should be so exerted The following Words or against those that are Commissionated by him are most Rationally understood of those that are Legally Commissionated by him Likewise by pursuance of such Commissions is meant Legal Pursuance It cannot reasonably be supposed that a Law on the behalf of Persons Commissionated doth intend any other than such as are Commissionated not against but according to Law A Commission against Law is no Commission Wherefore Commissionated in this place is of the same import with authorized The Third Part of the OATH That I will not at any time endeavour any Alteration of Government either in Church or State I Confess that these Words I will

not at any time endeavour any Alteration taken by themselves may be interpreted so unlimitedly as to import the abjuring of all kind of endeavour of any Alteration whatsoever whether great or small for the better or the worse necessary or unnecessary Nevertheless being considered as the words of a Law in Conjunction with other Laws they may be well limited to a more temperate and equitable meaning We cannot reasonably imagine that the intendment of this Oath extends so far as the abjuring of all lawful endeavour in our place and calling of any alteration whatsoever in any point of Government though never so small never so necessary never so advantageous for the publick good in this or after times The informing and petitioning of Parliament-men and legally acting in them in order to the alteration of particular Laws is warranted by the Fundamental Constitution of this Realm Wherefore it is Rationally conceived that the true intent of this part is to engage against disturbing the Publick Peace and Government now Established by Rebellion Sedition or any other unlawful practice and that the endeavour here abjured is only such as is forbidden or not Warrantable by Law For a Law ought to be interpreted as far as is possible so as to be consistent with Equity and Justice and it ought not to be so interpreted as to damn the ordinary Course of Law and the necessary allowed practice such as is the Alteration of Laws both in Civil and Ecclesiastical matters from time to time as need requires The Restrictive Interpretation here given is no forcing of the intendment of the Oath in this part into a narrower Compass than the form of Expression can well bear Indefinite Words are to be limited according to the Nature and Reason of the thing about which they are used So is the indefinite expression of endeavour to be here limited that the Oath may bear a just and equal sense in Conformity to other Laws and to the ordinary Legal Practice Besides seeing the Words any Alteration of Government are an unlimited form of Expression and put no difference between the most alterable and the most unalterable Points certainly it is most Rational to conceive that the Word endeavour is to be taken in a restrained sense For it is not to be thought that the Law should intend the perpetual securing of the least and most alterable points of Government as much as the greatest and most unalterable Yet it could intend no less if the abjuring of all kind of endeavour of any Alteration were intended Moreover though the Law doth not explicitly yet it doth implicitly distinguish in the present case and restrain it to Rebellious Seditious Schismatical or other unlawful endeavour For it is the declared end of the Law to obviate the designs of such as take opportunity to instill Poisonous Principles of Schism and Rebellion into the hearts of his Majesties Subjects as the Words thereof are The second thing to be considered is whether the just and good meaning before set forth was the very meaning of the Law-makers in the enacting of this form of words A Law being the Will of the Lawgiver must be taken in that meaning which is therein immediately signified by him to be his Will And that meaning being not his secret or private but his declared and publick will must some way or other be so evident and open as that the Subjects may be sufficiently informed thereof if they be not culpably negligent That the meaning of the Law-giver be made thus open and evident is a condition necessary to be constituting of the Subjects Duty Now to discern what it is they are to use their Judgments of Discretion that their submission to it may be according to right Reason and Good Conscience In the present Case the declared and publick will and meaning of the King and his two Houses of Parliament is to be considered and discerned Sometimes the meaning of the Law-giver may be so clearly expressed in the Law it self that he who hath the understanding of a man cannot or need not mistake it and then there needs no farther inquiry about it Sometimes being not so clearly expressed in the Law it self it may be more fully done by some other declarative act or open express signification of the Law-giver and then also their needs no further inquiry But in case the said meaning be not so clearly signified by the Law it self nor by some Authoritative Declaration nor by other open express signification then of necessity recourse must be had to a Rational interpretation And according to Reason that sense which the words do conveniently import which is agreeable to the Law of God and which the Constitution of the Realm and other Laws thereof and the ordinary legal practice do require is to be taken for the declared and publick Will and meaning of the Law-giver Especially if it answer the design of that very particular Law The meaning of the Oath now considered is not so clearly expressed in the Words taken by themselves as to prevent all mistaking or doubting thereof in all that are men of Understanding and make use of it The Words may bear a far more extensive sense than what may be judged to be the true intent and meaning of the Law-makers The sense of many Laws which are unquestionably Just and Good do lye in a Narrower Compass than the full extent of the Words taken by themselves as is manifest in these Divine Laws Swear not at all Call no man Father on the Earth The Law-makers have not by any Authoritative Declaration or open act signified that their meaning in this Oath is as extensive as any sense which the Words taken by themselves will bear or that it is not to be limited to an equitable intendment in a Consistency with the other Laws and that legal practice which they themselves own and maintain Therefore that equal sense which the Words do fairly bear and which bears Conformity to the Law of God and which the other Laws and the Constitution of the Realm and the ordinary legal practice do require and which suits with the design of this very Law is in Reason to be taken for their declared and publick Will and meaning in this Oath Here let us look back upon the Interpretation before given Is there any just Reason to conceive that the Law-makers or the Major part of them did in the first part of the Oath intend by taking Arms against the King any other than what is such by the Law of this Kingdom Or that in the second Part they intended by those that are Commissionated by him any others than those that are Commissionated by him according to Law Or that in the third Part they intended the abjuring of all kind of endeavour and not that only which the Law forbids or is not warranted by Law And more especially concerning the third Part which hath been most called into question can it Rationally be supposed