Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	law_n	obedience_n	obligation_n	1,036	5	9.4199	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37367	A Short surveigh of the grand case of the present ministry whether they may lawfully subscribe and declare as by the late Act of uniformity is required, and the several cases thence arising, especially about the covenant / by some conformable non-conformists.	M. D.	1663 (1663)	Wing D64; ESTC R14722	29,525	48

third part of this Declaration which concerneth the Solemn League and Covenant which is indeed the Great Mountaine in our way to be removed by a faith of Miracles This you do again divide into three parts its Obligation its unlawfulness in its self and its Opposition to the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdome but your Resolution is to the particular Cases following Case VI. Whether we may lawfully declare in these words Case 6th Pa. 221 23. I do bold these lies no Obligation on me nor any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any Alteration of Government either in Church or State 1 TO this Sir you tell us it is No great venture to say such who have taken the Covenant may thus declare This we confess is facile dictum but the quod demonstrandum restat the convinceing demonstration of this hath made many learned men sweat and appeareth Hic labor hoc opus a knot cut by the sword of Authority whilst it cannot be loosed by Religious Reason 2. We consent to your concessions to the contestors for the Covenant viz. That the Covenant illegally taken and given may bind Secondly That it binds not to alteration of the Government of State Thirdly That the unlawful matter made it void ipso facto Fourthly That Mr. Crofton and the Covenanters-plea do grant that the unlawful matter dath void the Covenant ipso facto But now Sir give us leave to call for your strong Reasons 3. Here Sir you pitch and your work is to prove that the Covenant so far as it engageth the Takers of it against Church Government to the Exstirpation or change of it is unlawful and sinful in the matter of it This made good Nobis eris magnus Apollo We shall therefore with all dilligence observe your motion in maintenance hereof 4. Your first onset is by Dr. Saundersons distinction of Iuramentum illicitum de se per accidens and you grant the matter of the Covenant is not simply and of it self unlawful your Antagonist lye strongly entrenched in this and thence defend the Covenant against all other assaults it had been a noble Enterprise to have beaten them at this weapon but ad impossibile nemo teneatur We joyn issues with you on the second and wish we may see you may prove the Covenant Ratione subjecti by the accident of its Takers condition and Capacity is unlawful in the matter of it Yet Sir 5. We must make bold to minde you that the learned Casuist on whom you depend in this Case and Determination hath determined with an Ordinary his words are Hac Iurament a ordinarie non obligant or dinarié dico quia fortasse possunt dare Casus in quibus Iuramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut vocationis adversari si non debuerit sussepi suseptum tamen potest obligari Sir we study loosing not binding in this great Case yet cannot but say on all sides the Covenant is confessed to be an extraordinary Oath and it is a question whether it can be brought within your Casuists Ordinarie the advocates of the Covenant think it no hard taske to bring the Covenant into your Casuists Exception and so conclude Suscepi non debuerit susceptum tamen obligat we leave it to them if they dare to make it good our work is to weigh what you say to the contrary 6. Addressing your self to your proof you have most prudently waved the Ius divinum of your Church Government which to affirme Non multum ab insania differt you consider the Covenanters as single Persons or as vinted in the great body of the Nation Now Sir your field fills us with a reviving murmer of of which alas we must sit down and sing Expectata seges vanis illusit arenis Case VII Whether any private or single person can lawfully endeavour the alteration of Church Government by vertue of the Covenant Case 7. a. 26 1. SIR This you say seemeth much to be the proper Case because the Parliament which imposed the Covenant are dissolved and become private persons But Sir 2. Do you not here build on a Petio principii That the long Parliament is not dissolved we dare not say but it hath been said and those words in the Statute which concerneth their continuance whatsoever shall happen or be done to the dissolving them shall be void and null are a stone at which our Consciences cannot but stumble whilst we are in obedience to present Laws submissively silent 3. You conclude the Covenant to be onely private and personal an obligation on single persons but Sir Mr. Crofton hath affirmed An ●alepsis Sect 6. it is publick and National Iuramentum reale obliging all the Nation and all after-Generations fide Anglorum thereby engaged This he hath demonstrated beyond our capacity of contradiction and enforced by the consentient judgement of 600. Divines most of them yet living You Sir are pleased to tell us you have not used one Argument answered or prevented by Mr. Crofton yet Sir Pa. 13● you nor any other have not so much as attempted an Answer to this Position of Mr. Croftons which stands intire and unaslaul●ed 4. You suppose each single person who swear the Covenant in such a capacity as to be concludent by your subsequent Arguments The Truth is our Affections are such as make us wish it were so but to satisfie our Consciences in abjuring you are angry at that word we will therefore say disclaiming the Obligation of the Coverant we must have our Jadgements convinced it is so because our Declaration doth discleim the Obligation of the Covenant on our selves or any other person which cannot be done if we conceive any person to have taken it who is not in the same common capacity with our selves 5. Upon these ungranted Principles you conclude for such to stand ingaged by a publick Covenant against a setled Government to endeavour the exstirpation or change of it is palpably sinful both as such a Covenant and such endeavours are against the Right of the King the Lawes of the Land the priviledges of Parliament Liberties of the Subject and former obligations laid on the Nation all Arguments of weight but so sick of a Noli me tangere that they sound in our ears a Ne plus ultra Edge-tools which make your Antagonists cry Tolle legem fiat disputatio Who dare touch at them did not your sencures of us as Fures Felones proditores de se cut our consciences and constrain our consideration and utmost endeavours of conviction we therefore affirming nothing will adventure to weigh your following demonstration of the sinful matter of the Covenant in reference to those particulars Case VIII Whether to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church be against the Right of the King Case 8th Pa. 28.29.30 Case IX Whether to endeavour thus against the Right of the King as obliged thereunto

impowring a Person to Commissionate such Governours to the Church 15. The first of these you grant your Government hath not nor do you prove the second your Argument doth at most conclude for Governours and the Question is about the Frame of Government Your Proof is for Governors indefinite and we have told you the Supremacy of the King may exist in and operate by Church Governours under other Appellations We do not say men must Exstirpate Governors they may subsist when their capacities are changed but a full Establishment of this Special Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops c. we are as ready to seek and as farr from finding now we have read your distinctions as we were before 15. What you urge concerning the Common Law common usage is so fully obviated by the Covenanters-Plea that we shall say nothing to it onely let us tell you Prescription is a poor Fence to Usurpation and a bad Guard for a Power in its origo manifestly Forinsecal Usury is a common usage yet no man will say it is sinful and against law for men to swear in their Places and Callings they will endeavour to exstirpate an evil custome though a common usage Case XII Whether the Covenant taken first can oblige against a future Law Case 12. Pa. 47. 1. IN this Case you urge an Establishment of Episcopal Government by a Law made since the Covenant was taken But Sir you herein move upon a Petitio principii and conclude what we must make bold to deny 2. We have perused the late Statutes and finde indeed Bishops restored to some priveledges which had been denyed to them and this Government is guarded against some Batteries to which it was obnoxous both these are speciallities under which the Government is left to stand on its old bottome for it hath not received any more express Establishment then it had before Now Sir if Usery should by a new Law be restored to Eight per Cent. we hope it had not acquired any new Establishment which should make the endeavour of its exstirpation any more sinful then before 3. We must make bold to tell you you read without book when you say this Government is Established by the Act for Uniformity that so much as endeavours of alteration are prohibited Ministers are bound to declare they may not so much as endeavour against it For Sir simple endeavour is not by this Law prohibited not is this to be declared against which certainly were destructive to the liberty of the Subject and priveledge of Parliament who must have a freedome to the alteration of Laws as they prove inconvenient 4. This Law doth binde Ministers to disclaime a principle not to disavow a power in themselves to declare that the Covenant doth oblige to endeavour not that endeavour shall be simply unlawful they are not barred from lawful endeavours on good ground and woful experience of the evil of this Government but from improving the Covenant to provoke the same from a special to conclude generally is no good Argumentation 5. Your first proposition failing doth save us the labour of discussing the second how far an Oath may binde against Law we shall only tell you that your Antagonists cry out that you conclude this also in our Case on a Petitio principii taking for granted what they deny As 1. That this Governmet is in it self Lawful which they say is sinful 2. That inconveniences may not necessitate and warrant an alteration and lawful endeavour to alter or remove a thing in it self lawful and by Law Established 3. That this Oath was private and personal by fingle men and so square to the Case of your Jesuites which they say Analeps Analepth Pa. 133. Sect 6. and Mr. Crofton as we before told you hath averred to be publick and National sworn by the people Collectively and Distributively considered 4. That the Oath of the people so sworn layeth no barr on the Laws Decrees or Act of the Magistrate the contrary whereto Mr. Crofton hath asserted from the Oath of Israel hindring Sauls Law and Oath against Ionathan to which you have given nothing in answer we think few Polititians will conclude the subjection of Political Children to be so fully and formally puerile as you suppose it is 6. We Sir insist not on these things because we undertake not to become your opponents we only crave leave to let you know Oaths are sacred things and post-Post-laws are a ready Papacie to absolve them according to your Divinity we have sworn allegiance to and an acknowledgement of the Kings Supremacy and cannot be willing his Majesties Subjects should be made to beleive a Law by a Queen Marys Parliament will absolve their Consciences and Oath Yet we are not convinced that it is simply unlawful for Princes to give up their power or part thereof unto some forreigne Potentate but we for bear because these strings are not struck with Prudence or Piety These affirmed sound Atheism and Irreligion these denied sound Treason or at least Sedition Case XIII Whether submitting to the Penalty annexed Case 13th Pa. 60. be a due fulfilling or obeying the Law in the point of Conscience 1. SIr To what you urge against us in this Case we say First you suppose that to be in the Law which we finde not to be in it as we have before noted 2. you state your Case to narrow when you confine it to a single Act of obedience to a single Law we well know who so suffers by a Law suffereth as a transgressour of the Law which is fulfilled by punishing him whose Act was not conforme unto it The Case Sir we conceive ought to be thus stated Is not a quiet and chearful submission to the Penalty assigned by a Law commanding an Act which conscience judging sinful doth inhibit a formal Act of that Consciencious obedience Christianity bindeth us to yeild to all Superiors This Sir was the honour of the Christian Leagions that they were willingly led by droves to the Slaughter-house and did not run into Mutinious and Rebelious routes though armed with power when commanded to sin Christians as Christ have a formal obedience unto the Cross This Sir is yet our Comfort though we be transgressours to this single Law we are by Loyalty and sincere obedience resigned in the to will of our Soveraigne Lord the King and Conscience to do what is commanded or cheerfully to suffer what is adjudged is the security of human peace and order Case XIV VVhether to endeavour the Exstirpation of Church Government by virtue of the Covenant notwithstanding the Laws to the contrary Case 14th Pa 67 be not against the Priviledge of Parliament and consequently sinful 1. THis Sir you assirme and about it make many words which yet reach not the least satisfaction to our minds because you take for granted things denyed First That the Covenant was an Oath private and personal good Sir will you please to tell us whether