Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	allegiance_n	king_n	oath_n	1,772	5	8.0172	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94740	A supplement to the Serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy; published October 1660. In, first, some consideration of the oath of allegiance. Secondly, vindicating of the consideration of the oaths of the Kings supremacy and allegiance, from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn, Samuel Fisher, Samuel Hodgkin, and some others against them, in the points of swearing in some case, and the matters of those oaths. By John Tombes B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1661 (1661)	Wing T1821; Thomason E1084_1; ESTC R207991	39,490	48

the actions of some of the members yet by outward force a thing cannot be imposed on the conscience For then only is a thing imposed on the conscience when the conscience is convinced that he ought to do or not to do it which must be done by doctrine or some other way insinuating into the conscience the necessity or lawfulness of doing or not doing a thing which outward force cannot perform 2. That it is a greater mistake That the King in the Oath of Supremacy is acknowledged to have power to be a Lord over faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God on mens consciences This mistake might have been rectified if they had heeded the Oath Proviso Admonition 37th Article prefixed before my book and the explication of the 5th and 6th Propositions which I gave conformably to the speeches of learned approved men by the Princes that have been and are which I find not yet any persons in authority have disallowed and yet I conceive by their words in the end of their petition they were not ignorant thereof sith they cite the proviso of the Statute 5. Eliz. and the admonition which I presume they found printed in my book By which they might have understood that Kings are acknowledged Governors in spiritual things as well and no otherwise as in temporal things Now in temporal things they have not power to impose any thing on mens consciences by outward force not is the King a Lord over our faith in temporal things so as that if he should tell us we may marry our brothers wife or command us to fight a duel for our honour we may think we are bound in conscience to do it or that we may lawfully do it much less that he is Lord over our faith in the things of God so as to impose on our consciences what we shall believe concerning God Christ the Covenant of grace the doctrine of salvation c. or to form the worship of God by addition or diminution otherwise then is appointed by Gods word but as Dr. Rainold's Confer with Hart chap. 10. cites the words of Augustine which I find in the seventh Tome of his works in the third book against Cresconius the Grammarian chap. 51. more fully then in the fiftieth Epistle For in this kings as it is commanded them by God served God as they are Kings if in their Kingdom they command good things and forbid evil things not only which pertain to humane society but also which pertain to the Religion of God And as they are not to govern in temporal things but according to just Laws of the Commonwealth so neither in the things of God but according to the holy Laws of God and although they have more authority in making and executing Laws in Civil things then in Religious yet in neither to make or execute Laws contrary to Gods Laws nor to usurp that prerogative which belongs to God to dispense with his Laws or to hinder the doing of a duty imposed in the first or second table of the Law or to mould or urge doctrines of faith or worship otherwise then God in Scripture declares or appoints nor do we acknowledge by taking that Oath that we owe them active obedience if they urge us by Laws and Edicts thereto in things reserved to Gods prerogative or such as are contrary to his Laws in force only we are to yield passive obedience by suffering and not resisting the power and authority thus abused Nor is there any thing in the words of Q. Elizabeths Admonition annexed to her injunctions contrary to this explication For the Queen doth not say that She challenged by that Oath such a power as was challenged by her Father King Henry the eighth which was to burn his subjects at the stake for their dissenting from him in religious matters But She saith That nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other duty allegiance or bond required by the same Oath then was acknowledged to be due to the most Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the eighth Her Majesties Father or King Edward the sixth Her Majesties Brother And again For certainly her Majesty neither doth ne ever will challenge any other authority then that was challenged and lately used by the said Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the eighth and King Edward the sixth which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the soverainty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these Her Realms Dominions and Countries of what estate either Ecclesiastical or temporal soever they be so as no other forrein power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Now if She had challenged power to burn at a stake her subjects for their dissenting from King Henry the eighth in religious matters then she must challenge power to burn all his Protestant subjects at a stake and therefore she must be conceived to challenge only authority over all persons to govern them according to just Laws excluding forrein power Whereto agree both the words of the 37th Article set down in my former book and the word of King James in this That in that Oath only is contained the Kings absolute power to be Judge over all persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical excluding all forrein powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions Nor is it true That by King Henries practice appears that Q. Elizabeth challenged power to burn dissenters from King Henry in matters of Religion For she did not challenge all the power which King Henry practised for then she should have challenged a power to behead her mother which he practised and if the Queen her self exercised the same authority though it be not to be called authority or power truly but an usurpation or abuse of power in putting some to death for their conscience in Religion yet doubtless she challenged no other power then what before had been or might be lawfully exercised or used as the words are in the Statute 1. Eliz. c. 1. a little before the Oath of Supremacy nor doth the Oath acknowledge the King Governor or to have any other power or authority to be assisted defended or actively obeyed then as it is lawful and used or exercised lawfully and therefore in answer to the three Arguments of the Petitioners I say 1. That by the acknowledgement of the Kings Supremacy in spirituals as a Magistrate neither is a man bound to change his Religion as the King doth nor to forbear Gods worship which he forbids nor to deny Christ or worship other Gods because he commands it It followes in the Maidston prisoners Petition And now O King that no man as he is a Christian hath power to be a Lord over anothers faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God is as clear 1. Because the

A SUPPLEMENT TO THE Serious consideration of the Oath of the KINGS Supremacy Published October 1660. IN First Some consideration OF THE Oath of Allegiance Secondly Vindicating of the consideration of the Oaths of the Kings Supremacy and Allegiance from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn Samuel Fisher Samuel Hodgkin and some others against them in the points of swearing in some case and the matters of those Oaths By John Tombes B. D. Mat. 22. 21. Render therefore to Caesar the things tbat are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods LONDON Printed by Henry Hills living in Aldersgate-street next door to the sign of the Peacock To the Christian Readers I Need not tell you again what may be seen in my Epistle to the Readers before my book of the serious consideration of the oath of the Kings Supremacy how I was induced to compose and publish it conceiving it to be a work of charity to others and a necessary duty to my self as circumstances then concurred I have found not a little fruit of my labor therein by satisfying many that I know and more as I am told whom I know not of the lawfulness of taking such oaths as are therein asserted and thereby preventing the ruine of themselves and families though I find by the opposition of some that it hath proved an offence to others insomuch that I was told that I had thereby given occasion of the alienation of many hundreds from me of whose peace and welfare I was and still am very tender Besides what exceptions have been made in private conference which I have in such conferences endeavoured to remove Richard Hubberthorn Samuel Fisher and some others have in print opposed that writing Richard Hubberthorn intitles his writing Antichristianism reproved as if my book had contained Antichristianism which is a term that affrights many weak Christians and is therefore by those that craftily endeavour to uphold and further divisions put upon those actions doctrines and writings which they would scare less discerning souls from and so separate them from others and fasten them to their party though it be for the most part but a frivolous imputation and a gross calumny Antichristianism according to the Apostle John who only of all the holy Writers useth the term Antichrist being a greater matter then some errors or evil in some points of practice to wit a denial of the father and the son 1 John 2. 22 23. not confessing Jesus Christ come in the flesh 1 John 4. 3 4. 2 John 7. of which sort my defending the lawfulness of some swearing is not And to omit his nonsense in saying the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is justified against swearing meaning my doctrine of swearing where he saith that it is there proved according to the Scriptures that all my six Propositions for the lawfulness of swearing are both against Christ and his Apostles doctrine It must needs be false sith he hath not brought any Scriptures against the three last Propositions As for his Epistle to me that which he insinuates by his expostulations with me of dividing my self from mine own people of teaching people to swear first one way and then another of my being long a hiding my self under so many false covers is the foam and froth of his railing spirit of which he and others of the Quakers seem by their frequent venting reproaches unjust censurings and revilings to have gotten an habit and are more like Antichristianism then any of my doctrines who preach not up that which Christ and his Apostles deny but endeavour to clear their words from mistake Nor was my writing indigested as if God did not brook it though I confessed in respect of the composure of it there was want of such accurate digesting that is framing in respect of words method and matter as the thing required by reason of my shortness of time and yet there was no cause for Samuel Fisher to term it a toy as he doth in the margin of his Epistle to the Reader before his impetuous though impotent book intitled the Rusticks alarm to the Rabbies so terming Dr. Owen Mr. Danson Mr. Richard Baxter and my self I confess I had an intention and began to draw up a writing to that purpose to publish a fuller Treatise about swearing having in Catechetical Lectures somewhat largely handled the general nature of an Oath the several forms and rites of swearing the lawfulness of swearing the sorts of Oaths the rules obligation urging dispensation of Oaths But my late continual molestations imprisonment restraint from my Ministery in the place where I was seated thirty years before and the uncertainty of my dwelling have hindred me from prosecuting thereof and other works which I hoped to accomplish for publique good nor am I yet secured from the like molestation and uncertainties and therefore know not what I shall do or resolve to do therein Wherefore I have being requested thereto published this little Supplement whereby my aim is to benefit others though I find as I have always done the cleering of truth in this to have occasioned many hard censures of me and much injury to me which the Lord forgive Yet I hope I shall truly say with the Apostle 2 Cor. 12. 15. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you though the more I love you the less I be loved As for those that find any benefit by my labors in this matter or any other I request them that they would return thanks to God for it and that all would in their prayers to God for me help me who am Their brother and servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES London March 6. 1660. The Oath of Obedience in the Act for discovery and repressing Popish Recusants 30. of Jac. c. 4. commonly called the Oath of ALLEGIANCE IAB doe truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the world that our Soveraign Lord King JAMES is lawful and rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries and that the Pope neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any power or authority to depose the King or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy him or his Countries or to discharge any of his subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear Arms raise tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person State or Government or to any of his Majesties subjects within his Majesties Dominions Also I do swear from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of Excommunication or deprivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his successors or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See against the

lawfulness of oaths in all which the Apostle took God to witness his love to the Saints and labour in the work of his Ministry signifying that all understand how that he spoke the truth and did not lie and kept to his yea and nay according to Christs doctrine and did not swear at all I reply 1. Those Texts were not brought by me as a proof for men to swear and take oaths for men or against men but to prove that some swearing in Gospel-times may be lawful sith the Apostle Paul a man moved by the holy spirit even in his holy writings and speeches did swear which is enough against R. H. and his complices who deny any swearing lawful in any case 2. I say that these speeches God is my witness I speak the truth in Christ I lie not my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost behold before God I lie not God is my record are forms of swearing it being the definition of an oath which all Writers that I know of agree in that an oath is an appeal to or invocation of God as joint witness with us of the truth of our speeches and therefore in this I write nothing but what God will witness the truth of I speak truth before God without abusing the Apostles words in pleading for the lawfulness of some swearing and in this I dare stand to the arbitrement of sober honest-hearted intelligent men not fearing the censure of R. H. as if I were a Novice who have been a professor of Christianity above forty years and a Preacher of the Gospel above thirty and wish R. H. do not accuse me as lifted up with pride with the like spirit as it is said that Diogenes trampled on Plato's pride with greater pride there being not many branches of pride greater then this to take on him to judge the secrets of anothers heart and to foretel what he will do it being to behave himself as if he were God Sure they that know me and judge of me with a charitable mind they that have had experience of my adventures and losses for asserting truth will not believe R. H. in what he here suggests that I would do or say any thing for hire Who would thank R. H. if he would shew what hire I have taken which the words of Christ and his Apostle allow not Luke 10. 7. 1 Cor. 9. 7 10 11 13 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17 18. Gal. 6. 6. But if he think his tongue is his own that he may accuse and reproach at his pleasure I think it my duty to tell him that his practice is rayling and false accusing and that his tongue is set on fire of hell and that without repentance he shall not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. He proceeds in the same vein of reviling censuring and false accusing in his speech of my fifth Argument to which he makes no answer but this That to break Christs command is of no necessary use that I might as well have stated my Argument That to break Christs command is of benefit to humane society therefore to break Christs command is lawful c. and might thus have proved it that except we break Christs command we cannot preach for hire nor sue men at law for tithes nor live in pride ease and vanity nor keep our places of profit and benefits which is necessary for our society of Priests Ergo. But we whose eyes God hath opened do see that all his book tends to perswading of people to swear when Christ hath said Swear not at all and that which he would now swear for again would swear against for the same advantage and profits which he hath in his eye yea or he would perswade all men not to swear and bring scripture to prove it upon the same account so that what he doth in this kind is because of advantage for two years since he did not preach this doctrine nor write those arguments To which I reply The Lord rebuke thee there 's none of thy accusations of divinations here after thy rayling fashion brought by thee which thou canst prove by me and those that know me know it to be false which thou suggests concerning my seeking gain and suiting my actions thereto and changing my doctrin There is no doctrin in that book thou here opposest or the other of the insufficiency of light in each man which hath not been my constant doctrine What thou wouldst have imagined as if no swearing were of necessary use to humane society is contrary to all experience of governors of Kingdoms and Commonwealths and the Apostles words alledged by me Heb. 6. 16. An oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife That which Samuel Fisher saith That what swearing was then allowed of as before a ruler it then was to end a strife among men who are yet in strife is now unlawful among his Saints who are redeemed out of strife and the rest of those fleshly works which it is one of Gal. 5. is a silly shift For 1. The Saints are men 2. Those of the old Testament were Saints and yet were to swear 3. If men not Saints may swear to end strife then it is not prohibited by Christ to them to swear in some cases and sith the precept of not swearing is not limited to Saints if others may swear in some cases notwithstanding that precept Saints may swear also 4. Saints are redeemed from other works of the flesh yet are not so redeemed but that they may have envyings wrath emulations However Quakers imagine themselves perfect yet the Scripture doth not say that the most eminent Saint is so redeemed out of strife but that he may be tempted to and guilty of some unlawfull strife while he is in the body 5. There was strife between Paul and Barnabas Acts 15. 39. Paul and Peter Gal. 2. 11. the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. 11. Who were termed Saints ver 2. 6. Quakers are guilty of strifes in opposing Preachers and reviling dissenters from them and therefore if it be necessary to end strifes of men that there be oaths it is also necessary to swear to end strifes with them Do not they seek to recover stollen goods due debts and if so oaths are necessary for them 7. Oftimes Saints are found so guilty of contentions among themselves that were not Magistrates impowred to compose them they would be endless and remediless The story of the libels brought to Constantine the great at the Nicene Council of one Bishop and Confessour against another and burnt by him shewes how ill it would fare with the best Saints if Magistracy did not quiet them Our own times have had too much experience of this 8. Saints live among men unholy to whom they owe duties of love and righteousness which cannot be done without testifying the truth in many cases wherein they differ to end their strife and therefore Saints are bound when the laws require oaths

living and true God is called to witness Numb 30. 2. To which Samuel Hodgkin faith To this I answer That every sacred Oath by which God is called to witness to the truth of a thing or to the performance of a lawful thing is a bond whereby the soul is bound but every calling God to witness in lawful things is not an Oath As appears thus if a bare calling God to witness be swearing by God then calling the heaven and earth to witness is swearing by heaven and earth for then Moses had sworn by creatures Deut. 4. 26. I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day And so likewise God himself in Deut. 30. 19. I call heaven and earth to record against you chap. 31. 28. But it was ever unlawful to swear by creatures therefore I conclude that a bare calling to witness is not swearing I reply The conclusion is granted and yet the definition of Jeremiah Ives stands good who did not say that a bare calling to witness is swearing but calling God to witness to the speaking of that which is true And this to be an oath is granted by Samuel Hodgkin himself p. 16. when he saith That calling God to witness is not swearing but when we read of the servants of the Lord swearing in Scripture we find that it was not only a bare calling God to witness but they swear by God that they did speak the truth or that they would do such a thing Now swearing by God at least in assertory oaths can be no other then calling God to witness of the truth of that we speak and in promissory of the truth of our intention to perform what we say we will do That which Samuel Hodgkin saith Now to swear by the Lord is to say that they do speak the truth or will do such a thing by the Lord as much as if they should say that the Lord do help them in what they do or that they do it by his assistance And hence it comes to pass that it was unlawful for a man to swear by any creature because no creature can help him to speak the truth or perform what he promised and hence it is that God took it ill when they did not speak truth because they did as much as say that God did help them to speak a lie and so they blasphemed the name of God in the highest nature and doubtless those that made the oath we have in our common Law did understand no less and therefore they charge the witness By the help of God to speak the truth is a manifest mistake of the meaning of the phrase to swear by the Lord which it seems he understands to signifie not only that he that swears calls God to be a witness of the truth of what he saith in assertory oaths and of the truth of his intentions to perform what he saith in promissory oaths but also that he calls God to witness that he speaks truth by his help or God helping him to speak truth in assertory oaths and that his intention is to perform what he promiseth by Gods help or assistance So that according to this mans conceits it is no swearing unless the person swearing do call God to be witness not only of the truth of his words and intentions but also of his acknowledging of Gods help in speaking truth in assertory oaths and his expectation of Gods help to perform what he saith he will do in promissory which is a new and wild conceit New for none as far as I know ever vented it before but all Writers that I have met with have made the calling of God to witness the truth of our speech in assertory oaths and of our intentions to perform what we say in promissory without this addition of acknowledging that it is by Gods help we speak truth or of expectation of help from God to do what we promise to be swearing And it is a wild conceit For 1. It is frivolous to call God to witness that he speaks truth by his help or that he expects his help to do what he promiseth it being impertinent to the occasion and end of swearing the occasion of swearing being some uncertainty of the truth of his words and intentions and the end to take away that there is no question or controversie to be decided by whose help he speaks truth nor by whose help he expects to perform what he promiseth Every man knowes that what is spoken or done is by Gods help else it could not be but whether it be certainly true which he affirms and his intentions true and real to perform the consideration by whose help he speaks or expects to do what he promiseth is not at all required or minded by the exactor of the oath as belonging to the oath but the acknowledging that he speaks truth by Gods help is only a duty of thankfulness which is fittest to be done by the person swearing after the oath is taken and the expectation of help from God to perform what he promises is a duty of trust in God or dependance on him to be done after the swearing 2. If this were necessary to an oath then he were forsworn or unsworn that did not acknowledge that he spake truth by Gods help or did not depend on Gods help for performance of what he promised and all infidels hypocrites Saints that neglect their duty herein let their words or intentions be never so true and their performance never so punctual and exact should be perjured or unsworn That which he alledgeth for this conceit is frivolous For the unlawfulness of swearing by any creature is not because no creature can help him that swears to speak the truth or perform what he promised he that informs him of the truth may help the swearer to speak truth though he be a creature and he that will aid him with money c. may help him to perform what he promised but because God only is a witness of secret truths and sincerity of intentions and can only be his judge and avenger if he speak not truth and therefore more fully oaths are expressed in such forms as these God be my judge witness helper c. Nor is the reason why God takes it ill that men swear falsly by his name because it is as much as to say that God did help them to speak a lie for then in promissory oaths when they swearby God he should take it ill if they do not perform their promise because it is as much as to say that God helps them to neglect their promise which is a sense no swearer imagins his words bear nor any reprover of perjury did ever give as the reason of the iniquity of the breaker of his oath but because he by false swearing shews he either believes not or fears not Gods discovery or avenging of his deceit In the form of swearing in our common Law So help me God the words are