Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	henry_n	sir_n	thomas_n	14,508	5	9.0896	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41019	Virtumnus romanus, or, A discovrse penned by a Romish priest wherein he endevours to prove that it is lawfull for a papist in England to goe to the Protestant church, to receive the communion, and to take the oathes, both of allegiance and supremacie : to which are adjoyned animadversions in the in the [sic] margin by way of antidote against those places where the rankest poyson is couched / by Daniel Featley ...	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1642 (1642)	Wing F597; ESTC R2100	140,574	186

6● de leg cap. 1. upon the will and intention of the lawmaker which is the soule of the law the substance and force of the law doth chi●fly depend therefore it by any meanes the will of the lawmaker may be knowne according to it especially we must understand the words of the law But the will of the lawmaker is sufficiently knowne concerning this oath to make it apparently unlawfull for any Catholique to take as appeareth by the words of King Iames of blessed memory saying in his Premonition pag. 9. and in his Apology for the oath pag. 2. and 9. that by the oath of Allegiance he intended to demand of his subjects nothing else but a profession of that temporall Allegiance and civill obedience which all subjects by the law of God and nature doe owe to their lawfull Prince c. For as the Oath of Supremacie saith he was devised for putting a difference betweene Papists and them of our profession So was the oath of Allegiance ordained for making a difference between the civilly obedient Papists and the perverse disciples of the Powder treason by which words it appeareth that King Iames held both the law and the law maker intended by the oath of Supremacie to put a difference betweene Papists and Protestants and that no Papist would take that oath wherein the Jurisdiction of the Pope was intended to be abjured Ergo the said oath of Supremacie is to be interpreted accordingly all doubtfulnesse of words set aside and consequenter unlawfull for any Catholique to take To the Major of which Objection I answer first granting the same Secondly with a distinction that the intentions of the law and law maker are to bee sought when they interpret the law in a truer sense then the plaine words doe as they lie otherwise not lest it want veritie To Suarez I answer that himselfe saith in the place before cited that if at any time the propertie of the words of an oath should induce any injustice or like absurditie concerning the minde or meaning of the lawmaker they must be drawne to a sense although improper wherein the law may be just and reasonable for this is presumed to be the minde of the law maker as it hath beene declared by many lawes in F. tit de lege thus Suarez So that although there were in the words of this oath divers significations impropper and unusuall yet in the opinion of Suarez it might be taken and the words interpreted in the truest sense abstracting from the reall intention of the law maker how much more then say I the words being not improper or unusuall but according to the intention of the law and law maker may they be taken in the more favourable sence which may make the law to be just and reasonable See for this doctrine Can. Cum tu de testibus cap. 16. Can. ad nostram de Iurejurando cap. 21. et de regulis ●●ris in 6. reg 49. in paenis leg Benignius F. de leg Leg. In ambigua ibidem Hence it followeth first out of the doctrine of the said Suarez that although the words and sentences contained in this oath being considered barely by themselves and without due circumstances to wit the intention of the law and lawmaker and to what end and purpose the s●id oath was framed may seeme to some doubtfull and ambiguous although to me they seeme not so that is not cleare and morally certaine and so for one to sweare them in that doubtfull sence were to expose himselfe to danger of perjurie yet considering as I have said that such doubtfull words are to be taken in the more favourable sense and which maketh the law to be just and reasonable and to contain no falshood or injustice If any one sweare those words which of themselves are doubtfull in no doubtfull sense but in a true and determinate sense and wherein they are not doubtfull but cleere and morally certaine there is no danger of perjurie at all It may seeme to follow secondly out of the aforesaid doctrine that such as tooke the oath of Supremacie in King Henry the eighth dayes which rather then those famous and glorious men Sir Thomas Moore and Bishop Fisher would take they worthily chose to die were not to be condemned of perjurie because it might be supposed that they being learned Bishops and Noblemen knowing what belonged to an oath did draw the same to some improper sense which ought to have beene the intention of the aforesaid King to make the law just as if they should have sworne the then King Head or chiefe of the Church of his countrey for that he was Sovereigne Lord and ruler of both persons Spirituall and Temporall all sorts being bound to obey his lawfull civill lawes and commandements And so in this sense although it be a kinde of improper speech every King is Head of the Clergy and all others of his owne Countrey Or peradventure they might sweare him Supreame Head of the Church of England that is Chiefe of the congregation of beleevers within his dominions for so in our language we commonly say him to be the head of a Colledge Court or Citie that is the chiefe and him to be chiefe who is supreame therein The Church being then taken by all Divines for a congregation of men Why might not King Henrie be improperly sworne in the opinion of Suarez Head of the then congregation in England So that what Sir Thomas Moore lawfully and piously refused with relation to the intention of the aforesaid King others might without perjurie take with relation to the law of God abstracting from all unlawfull intentions to wit that every oath be just and reasonable as being to be taken in Veritie Iustice and Iudgement and so what was unlawfull in a proper sence might at lest be free from Perjurie in an improper Thus understanding the first branch and the second and third in the same sence before delivered they might peradventure be excused as I have said from perjurie But never from sinne For considering the state of England in those dayes and the absolute intention of the King which well knowne to the whole world was to be sworne Supreame Head of the Catholique Church Catholique religion still here remaining as I have said his oath was as much different from this now oath of Supremacie as darknesse from light For by this the Queene claimed not the Supremacie granted by Christ to Saint Peter as did her father but onely to be Supreame governour of a Church out of which she would not onely discard the Pope but likewise roote out all Catholique religion contrary to her fathers minde as I have shewed so that the question in the said Kings dayes was about an Article of faith viz. Whether the Supremacie were granted by God to the King or to the Pope Which Article they were bound with losse of their lives to have professed being called thereunto for then did occurre the