Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	king_n	reign_v	year_n	7,526	5	6.3099	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85826	The Covenanters plea against absolvers. Or, A modest discourse, shewing why those who in England & Scotland took the Solemn League and Covenant, cannot judge their consciences discharged from the obligation of it, by any thing heretofore said by the Oxford men; or lately by Dr Featly, Dr. Gauden, or any others. In which also several cases relating to promisory oathes, and to the said Covenant in special, are spoken to, and determined by Scripture, reason, and the joynt suffrages of casuists. Contrary to the indigested notions of some late writers; yet much to the sense of the Reverend Dr. Sanderson. Written by Theophilus Timorcus a well-wisher to students in casuistical divinity.	Timorcus, Theophilus.; Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654, attributed name.; Vines, Richard, 1600?-1656, attributed name.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691, attributed name.	1660 (1660)	Wing G314; Thomason E1053_13; ESTC R202125	85,431	115

bed and v. 12. requires of them to swear unto her by the Lord that as she had shewed kindness unto them so that when they had conquered Jericho they would save alive her Father and her Mother and her Brethren and her Sisters and all that they had They swear accordingly In the 6th of Joshua you read that Jericho was taken by the Israelites V. 22. Joshua commands these Spies to go into the Harlots house and to bring out the woman and all that she had as they sware unto her If Joshua and the rest of the Israelites had been of the Religion of our late Absolvers how much might they have pleaded in discharge of this Oath 1. As to the matter of it there is an appearance of unlawfulness in it because of the Command of God to destroy the Canaanites and not to pity or spare them 2. It was made without Joshua's advice 3. It was imposed by an unlawful power 4. The men could not but fear that if they had refused Rahab might have discovered them which had she done they must unquestionably have died But that age it seems was not so cunning to quit themselves of Oaths It is the probable opinion of Magalianus that the Precept of God for destroying the Canaanites was with an exception to such of them as should express signal kindness to the Israelites And for other things they were to learn that an Oath taken otherwise lawful was discharged by any such pretences § 9. The second Instance is that of Zedekiah The story is this Zedekiah was a third Son of Josiah The Scripture mentioneth three Sons of that good King Jehoahaz who succeeded Josiah immediatly Jehoiachim and Zedekiah called by his Father Mattaniah Jehoahaz having reigned wickedly three moneths was overcome and carried into captivity by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt where he died for ought we know childless 2 Kings 23.32 33 34. The King of Egypt setteth up in his stead Eliakim a second Son of Josiah and turns his Name to Jehoiachim he reigneth 11 years In his daies Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon conquers his Land He dieth also and leaveth only one Son mentioned in Scripture Jehoiachin called by the Prophet Jeremy also Jeconiah and so ordinarily by the 70 Interpreters Jeremiah also in contempt cals him Coniah Domini nomen à Regis nomine avulsum fuit saith Hierom. This man died childless according to that Jer. 32.30 Write this man childlesse Where and when he dyed the Scripture speaketh not probably he died a prisoner in Babilon 2 Chron. 36.13 The King of Babilon makes Mattaniah a third Sonne of Josiah brother by Father and Mothers side to Jehoahaz they were both the sons of Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah 2 Kings 23.31 ch 24.18 King in his stead He took an Oath of Zedekiah by God 2 Chron. 36.13 That this Oath was extorted by fear is past denial Zedekiah was of the Kings seed Ezek. 17.13 Son of Josiah Brother to Jehoahaz Uncle to Jehoiachin or Jechoniah There appears nought to the contrary but that he was the right heir to the Crown Jehoahaz and Jehoiachim being dead and probably Jeconiah dead too sure we are he had a right to his liberty He could neither have this Crown nor yet his Liberty without taking this Oath to the Usurper the King of Babilon he must else have alwaies lived a slave to a Pagan Prince and have been in daily danger of his life and the more as the refusing such an Oath would have rendered him to the King of Babilon as suspicious for hatching some designe for the recovery of his own and his Countreyes Liberty He takes it And 't is very like that he had some about him of the complexion of our late Casuists who might tell him it was an Oath against the Lawes of Israel imposed by an Usurper forced upon him as a Prisoner and therefore did not oblige What ever the motive was he brake it and Ezech. 17.15 sent Ambassadors into Egypt to give him horses and much people But observe how God takes this whether he also concurred that Zedekiahs Oath and Covenant was null and void God declareth his sense of it by the Prophet Ezech. chap. 17. under the Parable of two Eagles and a Vine from v. 1. to v. 11. he expounds this Parable ver 11. sequent Say now to the Rebellious house c. V. 12. Behold the King of Babilon is come to Hierusalem and hath taken the King thereof and the Princes thereof and led them with him into Babilon V. 13. And hath taken of the Kings seed and made a Covenant with him and hath taken an Oath of him he hath taken also the mighty of the Land V. 14. That the Kingdome might be base that it might not lift up it self but that by keeping of his Covenant it might stand V. 15. But he rebelled against him sending Embassadors into Egypt that they might give him chariots and horses c. Might he not do so notwithstanding his Oath According to our new Casuists the Oath was null and void Zedekiah was a prisoner the Jews in captivity Zedekiah had never sworn to be tributary to the King of Babilon surely if it had not been to recover his rights if he had not been afraid of death or imprisonment or perpetual exile certainly he could not offend God in violating such a forced Oath But it seems the thoughts of God were otherwise for the Prophet goes on Shall he prosper shall he escape that doth such things or shall he break the Covenant and be delivered V. 16. As I live saith the Lord God surely in the place where the King liveth that made him King whose Oath he despised and whose Covenant he brake even with him in the middest of Babilon he shall dye V. 18. Seeing he despised the Oath by breaking the Covenant when lo he had given his hand and done all these things he shall not escape V. 19. Therefore thus saith the Lord God as I live surely mine Oath that he hath despised and my Covenant that he hath broken even it will I recompence upon his head Is it possible now that any owning the name of Divines and Interpreters of Scriptures should tell us that Oaths extorted by fear do not oblige § 10. Nor have our Absolvers any better encouragement from the suffrage of Divines in the case whether they be Ancient or Modern Papists or Protestants Azorius tels us it is Communis sententia the common sense of Divines that Oaths so extorted do binde in conscience Sanches saith that Quidam antiqui some old Divines did think they doe not oblige but who they are we cannot find Aq. 21 ae q. 89. art 7. resp ad 3. Sure we are that Aquinas Sayrus Azorius Filiucius Sanches Al. Hales Bonaventure Richardus Gabriel John Bacon Panormitan Durandus Scotus Estius Soto Cajetan Navarrus Suarez Valentia Layman Antoninus Dr. Ames Dr. Sanderson Baldwin c. all determine that such Oaths do oblige Some of

Conscience sake and therefore humbly beg that you would weigh our Answers to the slighty and Atheological Pleas of those who pretend to prove the Covenant void and not obligatory What they say appears to us to be against Scripture Reason and the judgment of all sober Casuists and we believe will so appear to you § 19. The Princes of the greatest Congregation of England Right Honourable i. e. The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament were those who sware and who engaged us to swear If our Adversaries may be believed the design of the Oath was to engage the Scots in the Parliaments quarrel His Majesty then living as we said before had more charitable thoughts sure it is that it was a mutual stipulation between the Scots and us Casuists say that my Oath doth not bind my Heir which is true in some cases but they as generally agree the real obligation of an Oath as to the person to whom we swear for their advantages We are sure the Jews which were punished with three years Famine in Saul's time were none of those who had personally sworn to the Gibeonites in the time of Joshuah yet God revengeth their Breach of their Fathers Oath upon them It may be worthy of your Honours consideration whether the Obligation contracted by Oath by the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament 1643 1644. do not bind the Noble Lords with your selves who this day make up those Honourable Assemblies though personally you never were engaged in it § 20. However we know and believe that your Honours will be so jealous for the Glorious Name of God so tender of the Souls of the People in these Nations engaged in that Sacred Bond and so afraid of the wrath of God revealed in his Word and by his Providence against those who have made others Sufferers for righteousnesse sake and so careful for the Honour of the Nation that you will not by any Act of yours contribute to any of these ends which will all be the certain consequents of the violation of that Sacred Oath § 21. For as it cannot be imagined but that your Honours Authority establishing any thing contrary to that Oath will be a temptation to many to break that sacred Bond so it can as little be thought but that there will be many thousands in England who will believe that nothing can discharge their Consciences from the Obligation of the Oath of God which is upon them and therefore will be obliged to go chearfully into the Prisons which shall be provided for them and to suffer any thing rather than to sin against the Lord by such a presumptuous transgression § 22. Besides this we most humbly beseech your Honours to consider whether the things endeavoured to be restored have upon former experience proved or may probably be judged like to prove of such advantage either to the civil or religious interests of England as may be fit to be laid in the Ballance with the laying aside so many hundreds if not thousands of Godly Ministers and the sufferings and undoing of so many peaceable and godly people as will be laid a side and made sufferers by the restoring of things in the Church to their formes state after an Oath taken to the contrary § 23. Many of your Honours we know have not yet forgotten how many hard things were suffered in former times by many Godly people in this Nation because in Conscience they could not submit to these things how many of the Kings Subjects were to the weakning of the Nation driven into Forreign Lands to the undoing of themselves and their Families how by this means divers Mysteries of Trades of manufacture in which the wealth of this Nation much lay were communicated to other People all which things formerly were judged worthy of Parliamentary Consideration § 24. We humbly beseech your Honours to consider whether the same persons in most places of England be not again endeavouring to be possessed if they be not already invested with the same power and whether after twenty years suffering it be probably to be conceived that they are less full of rage Let enquiry be made at Oxford Cambridge Peterborough c. than formerly And if any hath so much Charity as to think that their sufferings have taught them more moderation we desire your Honours would enquire what specimens they have any where already given of it This we humbly move to your Honours that you may represent it to his Majesty whose Royal Grandfather was such a Zealous Defender of the free Grace of God against Arminians and who himself hath declared such a Zeal against vitious prophane and debauched persons that we cannot but believe him not truly informed either concerning the Principles or conversations of divers persons to whom advantages are given against their Brethren § 25. We are not Right Honourable against the use of an unimposed Lyturgy nor against Primitive Episcopacy we can submit to both we do not think the Covenant was intended against either of these But we are against the divine Right of Archbishops Bishops c. We believe that in the Primitive Church there might be Episcopus praeses a Grave Minister President over his Brethren living within a Circuit proportionate to his Ability for inspection and that without him nothing was ordinarily done in Ordination or Jurisdiction But that he alone could do any thing in either we utterly deny We are sure that in the Primitive Church there was no Archbishops Deans Deans and Chapters Prebends Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons We are against those Forms of Worship contained in the Service-Book ordinary to be had We believe they are not established by the Lawes of the Land as we have heretofore in a Book for that purpose published made evident to your Honours We are sure that we have lifted up our hands to God that we will endeavour a Reformation in that Point We know that they are offensive in an high degree to the generality of godly and sober men that there are many things in those Books not to be justified in Divinity We are not against the 39 Articles which is usually called the Doctrine of the Church of England We are ready to subscribe all of them so far as they concern matters of Doctrine But we are against Arminianism against which not only King James of Glorious Memory gave an open testimony but the Parliament of England hath also heretofore openly declared And in regard the Patrons of those Points take advantage of some doubtful terms in those Articles as patronizing those their Tenets though the Kings and Parliaments of England have heretofore declared their detestation of those Points We could heartily wish a further explanation of them We are against moral and significant Ceremonies such as the Surplice the Cross in Baptism Bowing at the Name of Jesus Cringing to Altars c. We believe that these things are not only scandalous and unprofitable things that perish with the using but also

Argument for the Absolution of any The Question is here viz. Whether he that hath subscribed that the form of Consecration of Arch-Bishops Bishops c. expressed in the Common-Prayer book contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God and who hath promised Obedience to his Ordinary and sworn to it may not after this take an oath in his calling to endeavour the extirpation of the Government by Arch-Bishops c. § 14. First suppose that upon mature deliberation the Ministers that subscribed and took that Oath of Canonical Obedience find that it was an unlawfull Oath or Subscription as obliging them to the acknowledgement of such a power in the Church as is by no means allowed in the Word of God they are in such a case onely obliged to be humbled for their rash subscription and taking of that Oath and their Second Oath against them will hold valid Nay secondly suppose that that Oath of Canonical Obedience was imposed without authority of Parliament And the Parliament as soon as they took notice of it declared their dissent to it and to all Oathes imposed without their authority Certainly this should go far with them who make the like plea against us as to the Obligation of the Covenant § 15. But thirdly we will for once suppose the Oath materially good and lawfull as to the efficient cause yet certainly the Oath is irritated and made voyd by the Parliaments taking away of the matter of it Nor do we understand how any person by a promise or an oath to be obedient in things lawfull and honest to this or that Governour doth oblige himself whatever evil he seeth in such a Governour either through want of just title or male-administration of his trust never to endeavour to free himselfe from that servitude If indeed we had sworn in the Oath of Canonical Obedience never to have endeavoured the Extirpation of the Government then to have taken the Covenant had been to have sworn to contradictions and the first Oath would have made the latter voyd unless the matter of the first had been proved to have been unlawfull and so the first Oath had been Vinculum iniquitatis But we shall need add no more in answer to this Plea which if it were good could absolve very few § 16. The next Oath to which they pretend the Covenant to be contradictive is the Oath which the Kings of England take at their Coronation We must confess we are not so fit to speak to this being no Lawyers onely thus much at first offers its self 1. That his Majesty who now is hath not taken it as yet but hath taken the Covenant 2. We cannot find that the King doth swear to maintain and uphold the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops and never to consent to an Act of Parliament for the extirpation of them there is certainly no such thing Ah but he swears to defend the rights of the Church they will say and Episcopacy is one of the rights of the Church The Oxford men quote the passages of the Coronation Oath which they conceive the Covenant contradicting Thus He swears That he will keep grant and confirm the Laws Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King See this Case of Conscience about the Kings Coronation Oath excellently resolved by M John Geree St. Edward And that he will grant and preserve unto the Bishops and to the Churches committed to their charge all Canonical priviledges due Law and Justice And that he will protect and defend them as every good King in his Kingdom ought to be protectour and defender of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government § 17. We doubt whether both these clauses be to be found in any Coronation Oath which our Princes have taken If Mr. Prin gives us a true relation neither of them were promised by Edw. 6. We find them indeed both the first in the Oath which King James took at his Coronation in England the second in the Oath which K. Charles the first took in Scotland they might for ought I know be put together in the Oath which K. Charles the first took in England where there was certainly an alteration made in the forms of prayer lately used some were added which were omitted ever since Hen. 6. time Reign of King Charles p. 20. saith Mr. Le-Strange the same Gentleman avows there was no alteration made in the Oath 2. It seems strange to us that the Reverend Bishops should put the King to swear the Confirmation of the Liberties and Rights granted to the Church by Edward the Confessor many of which were before taken away by Act of Parliament as may be seen by comparing the Acts of Parliament since the time of Hen. 8. with the Records of those Grants of Edw. the Confessor which the Reader may find in the close of Sir H. Spilmans Concilia Pambrittanica § 18. However it is certaine that one thing which the King also sware was the Government of the Nation according to the Laws of the Land made or to be made so that his Oath for confirming the Churches Rights and Priviledges must be interpreted as to those Rights which were and should continue ratified by the Laws of the Land otherwise there was a manifest contradiction in the Oath as to those two passages § 19. For the Kings Oath to maintain the Bishops and their Churches it contradicts not the Covenant which strikes at nothing but Prelacy of Bishops Arch-bishops Chancellors Deans Prebends c. Bishops and their Churches may be preserved in England though these be extirpated But no more need be said as to our present case for the Oath which any former King of England took concerned onely himself Obligatio juramenti est personalis non realis as I think all Casuists agree His Majesty that now is is obliged by no such Oath § 20. For the Contradiction which Doctor Featly assignes in the Covenant to the Protestation by which we sware to preserve the Liberties of Subjects out of which number Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters are not to be excepted it is not worthy of an answer for by the same Argument after that Protestation taken the Parliament could not have questioned any one Minister of State or any other person at least not annull their office which certainly none will assert since their Liberties as Subjects might be preserved sure and yet their Liberties as Prelates abridged CHAP. VIII The Absolvers Plea for the irritation of the Covenant from the supposed Contradictions in it self Confuted and the Covenant notwithstanding this suggestion proved valid and obligatory § 1. HAving reconciled the Covenant to former Oathes it is time that we should reconcile it to it self for as through its fighting with its elders and betters 't is possible an Oath may so lose its strength that it cannot hold a soul so by hard conflictings within it self too 't is possible it may contract