Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	custom_n	king_n	law_n	7,430	5	5.3189	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35118	The case of swearing, at all, discussed with several objections answered, the primitive practices therein asserted out of several ancient authors : together with several presidents out of the book of martyrs : the inconveniences that follows the present practice of swearing, which might easily be prevented by a law to punish false witnesse-bearing, and lying as well as other evils : also, a word to all people that are zealous for the commands of Christ, recorded in the Scripture / by a friend of truth and righteousness, John Crook.	Crook, John, 1617-1699.	1660 (1660)	Wing C7197; ESTC R5532	23,258	32

Justice and instead of being made void as being against Justice they are incouraged and hath been Again it is the Law of England 9. Hen. 3.29 That Right and justice should neither be sold deferred nor denie● to any man c. But let those that have to do at Courts speak and bear witness whether both denying and delaying both of Law and Right be not that which they meet withall and for selling and buying of it let the great and excessive Fees which some Lawyers take for pleading speak who are in repute and as the people say if you can but retain such a man you need not fear your Cause c. Again it is the Law of England that none should be put into Office upon suit or for favour or affection but upon desert 12 Rich. 2.2 5. Edw. 6.16 The first part of Cooks Institutes page 2.34 A Law sayes Cook worthy to be written in letters of Gold But how contrary to these Statutes the present practises are let the righteous judge Further both by the Common-law and Statute law the Judges were not to hear the Plantiffs Cause if he first put not in security to answer his Adversaries damages if he complained of him wrongfully Mirror page 64. 37 Edw. 3. 18. 38 Edw. 3. 9. And he that chargeth a man with any accusation ought to put in Security to make good his accusation and the Law hath previded a punishment for him that makes not his accusation good But how contrary the present practises and proceedings of Courts are at this day let the Causes that comes into them speak Do not they issue out their Writs grounded upon divers plain and notorious lyes As that they have sent to the Sheriff of Middlesex which they have not done and that he hath returned that the Party is not within his Liberty which he hath not done but lies lurking in another County which is most commonly false the man going up and down as at other times and the Sheriff of Middlesex knowing nothing of it Again They say they have taken Pledges to prosecute viz John Doe and Richard Roe which is also a Deceipt and a Lye those being common feigned names put into all Writs and these Writs made up of so many lyes being framed by any Clerk and given forth in the chief Magistrates name is borne witness to be the Chief Justice of England is the ground and foundation of all proceedings at Law whereby the known Law of England in Cases of Debt men ought to be first summoned to appear to answer the Plantiff before they be arrested but how contrary the present proceedings are let all sober men judge Again the Law saves Mirror page 2. 49. It is an abuse of the Common-Law to appear or answer by an Attorney But the present practise is quite contrary for they have and do deny to accept of a mans Appearance in person although the words of their own Writs are so In these words So that we may have his body before us at our Court at Westminster such a day c. And it is further evidenced that the Appearing by an Attorney was first in favour and in ease of the Subject that so they might depute one for their ease as in the book De Atturnati Faciendo but now so is Justice and Judgement turned backward that that which was for the ease of the people is now made use of to maintain a trade of deceipt It is written in Cooks Reports in Richard Go frey's Case that Excessus in re qualibet jure reprobatur communi as excessive distresses excessive aids excessive ame●ciaments are against the Common-Law And how contrary the present practises is let the proceedings against the innocent people called Quakers bear witness in d vers Counties in England who have been fined more then they have been worth some it may be for not swearing and others for not respecting of mens persons but Presidents enough may be seen of their cruel Oppressions in this kinde in a book in Print called The Record of the sufferings for Tythes and in most Prisons in England examples of excessive cruelty may be found exercised upon poor innocent people because they cannot submit to pay these excessive Fines imposed on them contrary to any known Law and the practises of Ages past but such men flye to Custome when no known Law can be found and abuse the word Custome as many Justices do and have done the word Discretion neither of them warranting the practises of proud self-willed men there being Customes that are evill which ought to be abolished as sayes the Law and Cook in his Reports in Gatewards Cause sayes Custome ought to be reasonable Et excerta Causa rationab●li usitata as Littleton sayes and if every Custome should be a Law because Judges calls them so surely it may be said that King and Bishops would have been still standing in England and the word Discretion is as much abused by corrupt men they making it a Cloak to cover their deceitful Actings when they have no Law to warrant their practises But Discretion as Cook sayes is a knowledge or understanding to discern betwixt truth and falshood and between right and wrong between shadowes and substance and between equity and colourable glosses and pretences and not to do according to our wills and private affections For sayes he Talis discretio discessionem confundit and hath been adjudged in the ●a●e of Commission of Suers Discretion is to be bounded with Reason Law and Justice and so the word Custome is abus●● 〈◊〉 urged by corrupt men in opposition to the express Command of Christ Who sayes Swear not at all By these Exam●les the honest-hearted may see how contrary the p●e●en● practises of the Law is to the foundation of the Law and to that which is good being used lawfully is beco●e a dead thing execution being the Life of the Law and hereby the ●●ghteous that it is not made for is most hurt by it and the Flatterer and Evil-doer incouraged therefore their reasoning is not good who say all men ought to swear because of long time they have used to do so and continue still to do so therefore the question is not what men do practise but what men ought to practise according to a true Rule and Line For we read not that I remember among all Israels Laws that any of their Officers were made by an Oath as Judges Rulers Kings or Priests or Prophets or required to swear before they took the work or Office upon them But we read Deuter. 19.15 At the mouth of two or at the mouth of three Witnesses shall the matter be established Mark the matter was to be established without swearing For if they should have been first sworn it would have been so written it being a Command to Israel and in the case of Life and Death At the mouth of two or three Witnesses shall he that is worthy of Death be put to Death but at the mouth

invention of the Objector and no where so said in the Scripture of t●u●h it needs no other answer then a denyal but the word in the Greek reads it thus It was said to them of old time thereby implying those to whom and by whom God spake c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an t quis But it is st●ongly ob●ected That the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews allows of swearing before a Magistrate as in Hebrews 6.16 in these words For men verily swears by the greater and an Oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife c. To which is replyed there the Apostle by a similitude makes it out to the Hebrews how that God sware by himself because he could not swear by a greater to confirm the Promise That by two immutable things by which it was not possible for God to lye that they might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before them and God being more abundantly willing to shew to the Heirs of the promise the immutability of his Counsel confirmed it by an Oath which thing was used among men that lived in strife to put an end to strife they used an Oath and they sware by the greater an Oath for confirmation was to them an end of all strife and because God could not swear by a greater he sware by himself and by the Oath of God is the promise confirmed to the righteous seed that they might have strong consolation no more to suffer strife and fears and doubts to enter upon them but that they all might witness in themselves an end put to all strife and contention c. as truly and really in the inward man by Christ Jesus Gods Oath and Covenant as an outward Oath used among men that live in strife was to them for confirmation the end of all strife And in this case under the Law was an Oath required Exodus 22.10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an Oxe or an Asse or a sheep or any beast to keep and it die or be hurt or driven away no man seeing it then shall an Oath of the Lord be between them both that he hath not put his hand to his neighbours goods and the Owner of it shall accept thereof and he shall not make it good Mark the Owner of the goods was to accept thereof and he shall not make it good so an Oath for confirmation was an end to the controversie and in this old time under the Law they were not to forswear themselves but Christ sayes Swear not at all who is the end of the Law for Righteousness c. Now the Apostle never intended by that which was used in old time and among men that lived in strife all which he brings in as a comparison and a fimilitude to confirm the promise c. and not to incourage men to break Christs Commands who sayes Swear not at all nor to give any sort of men incouragement to walk contrary to the Apostles Doctrine who said Above all things my Brethren swear not c. Neither that they should take incouragement from his comparison to live in strife because men that used swearing at all did so neither did the Apostle any more intend to lay a foundation for swearing or for men to impose Oaths upon others by his similitude of what was used among strifeful men then he intended that the Ministers of Christ should bring a Heathen Poet to prove their Doctrine because he sayes Acts 17.28 As certain also of your own Poets have said c. And may it not be as justly concluded that Parents should take incouragement to correct their children after their own pleasure because he sayes Heb. 12.9.10 We have had Fathers of our flesh who for a few dayes chastised us after their own pleasures c. And as honestly as it may or ought to be concluded that the Apostle intended that men should either swear themselves at all or compel others so to do from these words viz. For verily menswears by the greater and an Oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife And further is there any more ground given by the Apostle fo● the Saints to swear at all by any Oath from the words before-mentioned then there is ground from Christs words to the Saints to exercise Lord●hip one over another because he sayes Mark 10.42 the Gentiles do so Besides did not those that used swearing use it onely in those cases where an Oath would put an end to all strifes But is not Oaths imposed at this day where no strife is Nay are they not imposed for the beginning of strife Let the righteous judge how far those that would be accouned Saints are fallen that they are short in their practises of those men that lived in strife in ages past Again to impose Oaths upon others from the Apostles words is to make the Apostle a Transgressor for he sayes Galathians 2.18 If I build again the things that I destroyed am I not a Transgressor Now he condemned some among the Corinthians for walking as men 1 Cor. 3.3 For ye are yet carnal whereas there is envying among you division and strife are you not carnal and walk as men Mark there was strife and division among them and from thence he proves them carnal and therefore they walk as men which the Apostle condemns whereas they should walk as became Saints who are redemed from among men Revel 14.14 out of envy strife and division and are called unto love righteousness and peace which all who walk as becomes Saints witness Object That an oath cannot be bad because even God himself did often use swearing in Scripture c. Answ That it may become God alone to swear because he alone is true and cannot lye but all men a●e lyars as sayes the Apostle And the Lord hath sworn and will not repent Psa 110.4 Let him then swear that cannot repent of his Oath and he is not to be imitated in swearing by that man who cannot imitate him in fulfilling It is again objec●●● by some that all proceedings at Law depends upon swearing therefore they conclude that all men must swear c. Answ That the foundation of the Law of England and the present practise and proceedings thereupon do not agree as may appea● by the●e instances following viz. One main and principal foundation of the Law of England is the Law of God so sayes the Law-book Docter and Student Chapter 2. page 4. in these words There is a Law written in the heart of man which is man created in the Image of God and this Law is alwayes good and righteous stirring up the man to do the goo● and abhor the evil and therefore against this Law sayes the book Prescription Statute Custome may not prevail and if any be brought in against it they be void and against Justice Now consider according to your Law how few proceedings are according to

who gives this the preheminence in a peculiar manner above all other things that those whom he wrote to should be carefull to keep and observe saying Above all things my Brethren swear not neither by Heaven nor Earth nor any other oath which is an absolute negative exclusion of all swearing in all cases And Eusebius an Antient Writer of no mean esteem among the learned writes in his sixth book Chapter 4 page 98. about the year 200. that Basilides a Souldier unto wh●m the Virgin Potamioena was committed as one appointed for Marty●dome But not long after the same Basilides being required by his fellow-souldiers to swear upon some occasion that fell out affirmed plainly it was not lawful for him to swear for he said he was a Christian and that he would in very deed protest the same who afterward was beheaded as a Martyr And of the Waldenses of whom the first Book of Martyrs makes much mention and are said by some immediately to succeed the Apostles and were dispersed into most parts of the world and to be the most antient and true Protestants as may be seen by what Fox records of them in the Book of Martyrs and this they maintained among other things that all manner of swearing was unlawfull as may appear by Parsons Sanders ●occius and others and by Bishop U●her a late Writer and a man reputed for learning who hath by way of Apology for the Waldenses in this case of swearing seemed to justifie them therein as in his book De Succes Cap. 6. And the said Usher further sayes in his eighth Chap. quoting some antient Authors that the Waldenses as well as Anabaptists of late did professe it to be no way lawfull for a Christian to swear upon any occasion And Theophil●te upon Matthew 5.37 Sayes that though in the time of the Old Law it was not ev●l to swear but since the coming of Christ it is evil as is Circumcision and in sum whatever is judaical for it may become a Child to suck but not a man And further in the Book of Martyrs 1 Voll page 701. it is charged against William Thorp in his Sermon that he preached at Shrewsbury that it is not lawfull to swear in any case To which he answered he denied to swear by a book as being made up of creatures and quoats Chrysostome in these words who blamed them greatly who brought forth books to swear whether they think a man to swear true or false c. The Arch-bishop and his Clarks scorned this saying of Thorp and the Bishop manaced him with great punishment except he left this opinion of swearing to which Thorp answered it was not his Opinion but the opinion of Christ and of Saint James and of Chrysostome and of other divers Saints and Doctors The Arch-bishop caused to be read this Homily of Chrysostome which the Clark did accordingly until he came to a Clause where Chrysostome sayes That it is sin to swear well c. And again in Fox Voll 1. pa. 527. in the Ploughmans prayer in these words Thou gavest us a Commandment in truth in bidding us say yea yea nay nay and swear for nothing Thou gavest us also a Commandment of meekness and another of poorness but Lord he that cleepeth himself thy Vickar on earth hath both broken these Commandments for he makes a Law to compel men to swear and by his Law he teacheth that a man to save his life may forswear and lye and so Lord through comfort of him and his Law the people ne dreadeth not to swear and to liven ought time to forswear them Lord here is little truth c. Again William Swinderby an Article charged against him that no man owns to swear for any thing but simply without an Oath to affirm or deny and if he swears he sins And those that are conversant in our Law what was the practice in antient time where they testifie that Oaths antiently were not called imprecations but attestations And by the Statute-Law an Act of Parliament made 28 Hen. 8.7 in these words it is said No man of what esta●e degree or condition soever he be hath power to dispence with Gods Law as all the Clergy of this Realm in the said Convocation and most part of all the Universiteis of Christendome and we also do affirm and think c. which makes void all Lawes and practises and customes that are contrary to Christs Law and the Apostles Doct●ine which sayes Swear not at all and above all things my Brethren swear not neither by heaven nor earth nor any other Oath c. And to conclude this head a lively Embleme we have this day practised in England where it is practised that those who are called Noble-men of England are not put to their oaths as it is said in any case but onely their testimony is taken upon their words affirming or denying upon their Honours And is there nothing left among Christians in these our dayes or the people of the Lord that is as dear unto them as an earthly great mans repute and honour in the world is unto him Blush for shame and let it not be told in Gath nor published in Askelon that Christianity is grown out of repute or that a true Christian may not be believed when he speaks in the presence and fear of the Lord although at the same time and in the same case he shall be believed that testifies onely upon his earthly honour And to this Courts Martial may not be an unfit president who proceeds both to the tryal and condemnation of persons without an Oath taken by those that sit as Judges and that upon this ground also because a Souldier is supposed to be so tender of his honour that he will not impeach it by injuring another or advantaging himself So let all these things be put together and what can be more clear then that Oaths or swearing men since the comming of Christ before either they can be capable of office or serving their Countrey or their testimony be received in cases of difference before Courts of Judicature is a Popish Institution and hath no foundation or footing in the Scripture of truth nor in the practise of the Primitive Christians nor hath not been without a testimony against it by some in all ages even down to this day Now follows the severall inconveniences that necessarily follow the imposition of Oaths which might be prevented if swearing were not compelled BEsides all that hath been said do not these inconveniences and mischiefs necessa●ily follow the imposition of Oaths or determining things by swearing c. Is not that which is called an Oath in many cases once taken untraversable As for instance one man having sworn against another positively is not he that is sworn against left without remedy and do not those before whom the oath is taken in some cases take themselves concluded and bound up by that oath without any further examining witnesses on the other