Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	allegiance_n	king_n	oath_n	2,942	5	7.6429	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62891	Short strictures or animadversions on so much of Mr. Croftons Fastning St Peters bonds, as concern the reasons of the University of Oxford concerning the covenant by Tho. Tomkins ...	Tomkins, Thomas, 1637?-1675.	1661 (1661)	Wing T1839; ESTC R10998	57,066	192

of the Lords Supper as of greater solemnity and consequently requiring greater preparation Yet Baptism alwayes so esteemed as not to be administred by a Deacon but in the absence of a Priest The great clamor amounts to this then The Sacrament of Baptism because of the sudden occasions which may often require haste hath therefore been thought fit by the wisdom of the Church rather than the administration thereof in case of danger should be omitted to be permitted to be performed by a Deacon in case a Priest be not at hand to perform it The case in the Lords Supper is clear otherwise because that is not usually administred without publike notice given to the People some convenient time before when it shall be done at which time it is presumed the Priest who gave the notice will be present to attend the service There is a clear disparity in the Natures of the two Sacraments those Reasons which Apologize for Permission in case of the one will by no means reach the other Nor do we want evidence for the Deacons power to Baptize out of Scripture it self In the 8. of the Acts we read that Philip the Deacon ver 12. Baptized that it was that Philip not the Apostle appears because we find Peter and Iohn sent to lay hands on those he preached to that they might receive the Holy Ghost and accordingly we read that they two did lay their hands but no manner of intimation that he did joyn with them which he would certainly have done had he been an Apostle In the 21. of the Acts where his being one of the seven i. e. a Deacon is expresly mentioned he is there owned an Evangelist though but a Deacon He who will say he was a Presbyter ought well to consider how to prove it The next of the Oxf. Reasons is That in taking this Oath they should break another And what security can they expect by an Oath who themselves teach men to break them By this Covenant they swear to alter what they had by the Parliaments Order sworn to maintain in the Protestation 5. of May 1641. Which Mr. Cr. thus reconciles p. 65. The House of Commons the then known Legislators explained the Protestation to be meant only so far as is opposite to Popery That is to say The House of Commons are Legislators distinct from King and Peers For in that capacity they made that interpretation of an Oath which sure they were not solely to interpret because they were not the sole Imposers and they declared the Lords meaning contrary to their Lordships express protest to the contrary that that was not their meaning Their being sole Legislators in defiance of King and Peers for so it was in that case is very prety Doctrine which I would have been glad to have seen one Law to have proved I wonder Mr. Cr. should think it would be taken for granted But indeed Mr. Cr. hath one expression which could not have been well spared The House of Commons were then known to be c. I must confess there were many prety things then known to be though no man knew why The words of the Protestation The Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England c. Now what is in the 39. Articles is I suppose The Doctrine of the Church of England and then if the Covenant be contrary to any of those these are contradictory Oaths The 36. Article which declares that there is nothing in the Book of Consecration superstitious or ungodly is hardly reconcileable to the second Article of the Covenant Sure the meeting of the Assembly is irreconcileable with the 21. Article if we suppose His Majesty was a King at that time As to the explication of it by the House of Commons notwithstanding the Lords express dissent it was an arrogating of the whole Parliamentary Power and more to themselves solely and so a breach of the Fundamental Constitution of that Assembly And then declaring none fit to bear Office but those who would except of that explication and so concur with and assist them in that violence was against the Liberty of the Subject as depriving Men of what they had no way legally forfeited Where the Legislative Power resides I do not here mean to decide But certainly according to the worst Principles then owned The Commons were not the sole Legislators and then sure not the sole Interpreters and therefore the Oxf. Men had very little cause to accept of their meaning for Authentick That Man is little obeyed whose words must be taken in the sense that another and he as frequently in our case his declared Enemy shall put upon them The next is The consistency of the Covenant with the Oath of Supremacy which binds us to defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies granted or belonging united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm of which in the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. this is one That the Clergy are not to Enact Promulge c. any new Canons Constitutions c. or by whatever Name they shall be called unless the KINGS ROYAL Assent first be had to make promulge c. Now the very meeting of the Assembly and this Covenant was a defiance to this His Prerogative unless the Votes of the two Houses be the KINGS ROYAL Assent Mr. Cr. answer to this is p. 67. in short High Treason That the Power given to the King is such a Power as Bishops Cardinals Popes had used not such as Parliaments who ever retained a Iurisdiction in themselves over Church and Crown As I understand words Your Majesties humble and Loyal Subjects assembled in Parliament signifies not your Lords and Masters How comes Treason to be against the King and not against them if they are Supream How come they to have ever retained a Iurisdiction over the Crown when our Law so often owns all Iurisdiction to flow from the Crown How comes the Kings Masters to be so absolutely at His disposal as to be turned out as easily as it is possible for him to say so How comes England in our own and other Chronicles and Laws to be styled a Monarchy an Imperial Crown How comes it to pass that we neither pay nor promise Allegiance to these our true Soveraigns The King is expresly called sole Supream Governour in the Oath of Supremacy and yet he hath Superiours Sharing in the Supremacy with the King was all I had thought would have been required not retaining Iurisdiction over him I wonder if this be true That Mr. Cr. did so prevaricate with his Brethren when he pleaded as he calls it for the King when it was indeed only against the Sectaries and so was not Loyalty but Spite But why did he if this be true urge Precepts for and Examples of Obedience out of Scripture and the Primitive Church though by the way they were such as themselves had before taught them to slight or answer Why did he urge them when they reached

not the case For those Princes were confessedly Supream Our King it seems is not not God's Vicegerent but the Peoples Officer from whom he received his Power and is but Tenant at Will at best They still retaining Iurisdiction over him may abridge it at pleasure He is a stranger in England that doth not know all Land to be held of the Crown and every one of us pays acknowledgment that we received it from thence and all manner of Iurisdiction to be owned in Law to proceed from the King without the least concurrence of the two Houses In England when any doth Homage Fealty c. in their Oath they perpetually have a Salvo of saving their Faith to other Lords In the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy we find no such salvo of our Faith to the two Houses No nor if any of us take them during their Session do we promise any equal Allegiance But the very Members do promise Allegiance to the King inasmuch as no Member though never so fairly elected can sit without taking those Oaths But according to this Doctrine of Iurisdiction over the King never any Laws in the World were so sottishly penned as the English to place all Marks of Soveraignty where it is not and none at all where it is Nay that the very two Houses when they send to the King as in that capacity should Petition their Inferiour and acknowledge themselves Humble Loyal and Obedient Subjects to him over whom they ever retained Iurisdiction Ever retained O the brave English Monarchy of the two Houses of Parliament This is a strange concealed Iurisdiction of the two Houses which never any King owned or Parliament claimed When King Iames came in he should have recognized them not they him Nor was that Parliament faithful either to King or Countrey in concealing so important a concernment I will cite but one Law and that not Ancient for none I think can doubt its Opinion in this point but one When the assent of the two Houses to Law-making was required and after those words so much to serve some mens turns wrested beyond their import Be it Enacted by the King Lords and Commons came in fashion It is Anno 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Whereas by sundry old Authentick Histories it is manifestly expressed That this Realm of England is an Empire governed by One Supream Head and King having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the IMPERIAL Crown of this Realm unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People and divided in terms and by names of Spiritualty Temporalty bin bound and ought to bear next to God a natural and humble Obedience If the King is next to God what Iurisdiction the two Houses have over Him I profess my self unable to comprehend or how owning natural and humble Obedience signifies retaining Iurisdiction over Him But those who are not of this wild Opinion do yet embrace the ground of it and stand stiff for a share in the Government These two grounds Mr. Cr. often insists upon That their Assent is necessary to the making and repealing Laws and that the King receiving his Power from them they reserved a considerable part of it to themselves The former I have spoken to in The Rebels Plea That that doth not at all evince any such thing and it is also false in Experience for the Monarchs of the East whom none ever supposed to have sharers in the Government could not alter all their Laws at pleasure c. And I there referred to an Author who had so admirably stated that Point in Law and Reason in that Incomparable Treatise The Case of our Affairs that nothing can be added on that Head it is there done so fully and clearly I think it is not easie to shew such a King whose Laws are as ambulatory as his pleasure and yet sure there are some whose Subjects are not Partners in the Soveraignty And certainly so long as Kings are but single men and not naturally stronger then all their Subjects they must rule by the help and advice either of Gentlemen or Ianizaries The former way is I think more honourable for the King and better for his People There can be no way of proving this Proposition unless it carries its own Evidence which though generally granted I do not apprehend why The Prince promises not to exercise such a part of his Power without the consent of his People Ergo They share with him in it is a consequence far from Necessary When Tenants get Rights by Promise Grant or Custom do they presently share in the Dominion Is none a perfect Landlord that cannot turn out all his Tenants as easily as say so Can no man make another a firm Estate in the Tenancy but eo ipso he makes him his Co-Landlord Is it the same to have sharers in the Authority and to be limited in the exercise of it This is perfectly the case The King hath granted to us that he will not alter our old Laws or make new till by common consent it is represented to him expedient for the Publique good from hence alone we gather that we share with him in the making of them As to the other Point That Princes received their Power by Election is a very plausible Impossibility Let us consider a rude scattered multitude as Men are supposed to have been when they chose their first Governours living sine Lege sine Lare to meet together about a business of that nature where could not but be many who apprehended it their Interest to use Violence Can we suppose them all to carry it fairly and prudently and equally A thing which certainly we could not expect from the most civilized Common-wealth this day in the World There could not want bold Villains who would make it their business to usurp Dominion over their well-meaning neighbours There could not but be many who would think themselves wise enough to Rule Nor could there want enow to make their title good by strong hand by the Combination though of a very few and the Combination of a very few could not but have overpowred a very great undisciplined Rabble Surely those men were not of the same species with us where a whole People meet together without any force over them every one gives his Vote freely every one names his man every one acquiesces It were certainly a prety sight when all the World was wise and innocent and had it been so still they would have sound no want of vernment If the Original of Government had been a fair and free Election it is not at all probable that the most ancient Governments would have been Monarchies Not only for that to have made more then one would have been a very good exdient to reconcile competitors But because it seems also at the first sight better to trust more then One. Or if they had been so it is not like they would have been so absolute Arbitria Frincipum pro-legibus