Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	believe_v	faith_n	word_n	11,191	5	4.5836	4	false

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

supposeth that swearing allowed by God in the Old Testament which Christ corrects was not only frivolous and vain oaths but the true oaths which the Jews were commanded and Christ was to end who is Gods oath But he considers not that swearing was common to all Nations as Philistines Gen. 21. 31. 26. 28. Syrians Gen. 31. 53 c. Nor is Christ any where termed in Scripture Gods oath nor an oath made worship peculiar to the Jews nor a shadow or ceremony which might typifie Christ Now my major proposition being as the words shew I understood it thus expressed That action belonging to manners common to all Nations and not proper to the Jews about the use of which God giveth some directions is not wholly evil is firm and unshaken by the instances of R. H. which are not of moral but ceremonial Rites which ended in Christ but not so the moral commandment of which sort swearing is and so may be lawful 2. To my second Argument from Psal 63. 11. his answer is Only that David was in the old covenant of the law but Christ in the new Covenant bids Swear not at all Hereto I reply This answer presupposeth that an oath was appropriated to the Covenant of the law But this is false sith it was in other Nations besides Israelites customary to swear even before the law as the instances in Genesis and elsewhere shew As for his flings at hireling Priests and hypocrites I let them pass as being only reviling in general terms in which is commonly guile slander To the instances which I bring for the lawfulness of some swearing and urging to swear out of the Old Testament he saith all these were under the first Covenant and in that which Christ called the old time Mat. 5. and proves nothing that Christians in the new Covenant should swear To which I reply 1. Abraham Isaac Jacob Joseph were before the law and they took oaths of Nations which were not under the law 2. In moral things the commands and examples of the old Testament are rules to us still Mat. 7. 12. Rom. 13. 8 9. Ephes 6. 1 2. James 2. 8 10. 11. Nor doth he say any thing to the Angels swearing Rev. 10. 6. but this that Christ saith Swear not all which doth not at all avoid the objection that the Angel knew Christs words do not forbid all swearing otherwise he would not have sworn at all But to the instances of Pauls adjuring and swearing he writes somewhat more To the allegation of 1 Thes 5. 27. where the word signifies I swear you by the Lord he saith 1. This is the long and thick mist of darkness which hath been long kept over the understandings of people that when the plain Scripture will not prove their ends and intents then they tell the people it is otherwise in the Greek or Hebrew I reply 1. It is no darkning of peoples understandings by latter translations to mend or to adde to former translations sith as in all other Writings and Arts Dies diem docet One day teacheth another latter Commentators and Interpreters without arrogancy refine former Nor doth this darken but inlighten mens understandings nor give any occasion to doubt of the faithfulness of former Translators but only shews the imperfection of their knowledge Nor is there any just cause why for this reason men should waver in their faith the main doctrines of faith and manners being by common consent expressed either in the same words or words of the same meaning and if any should deprave them the variety of Copies and translations would remedy it 2. Saith Hubberthorn Did not the Translator of the Bible understand Greek as well as John Tombes Answ Yes and as John Tombes understood it which he told his Reader that the Greek word was translated I charge you by the Lord or adjure you as it is in the margin 3. Saith he Or are we not to believe the Scripture as it spoaks till again it be translated by him Answ Yes no doubt and this place the rather because it is translated by him no otherwise then by the Translators only the word adjure which is made an English word out of the Latin is explained by I swear you by the Lord I urge or put an oath on you by the Lord or as Samuel Fisher saith it signifies I bind you by oath 4. Saith he It is I oblige or charge you in the presence of God c. I reply it is I charge or oblige you by oath or swearing not only in the presence of God but also by the Lord. 5. Saith he seeing John Tombes saith he swore them he might have declared in what manner they were sworn seeing Paul was at Athens when he wrote to Thessaloniea I reply He might understand how Paul at Athens could swear them at Thessalonica if he understood how Saul charged by oath or adjured or bound by oath the people and Jonathan his son though absent and ignorant 1 Sam. 14. 24 28 42. 6. Saith he John Tombes makes the like charge to be in 1 Tim. 6. 13. which according to the Greek he would make an oath but it is I injoin or command thee before God not putting an oath on them or causing them to swear And 2 Tim. 4. 1. not that he took him sworn or put an oath on him but did charge him I reply I said not they were the same but like charges yet differing 1. In that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5. 27. doth expresly include an oath or swearing which I confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I command or injoin doth not yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I witness before God 2 Tim. 4. 1. doth come near it 2. That 1 Thes 5. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the accusative case cannot be understood any otherwise then thus by the Lord which is a form of swearing more plain then that 2 Tim. 4. 1. though it be like it But Samuel Fisher saith nor doth John Tombes insisting on the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5. 27. adde a jor to his proof for howbeit it is ordinarily us'd to signifie to adjure or bind one by oath yet being as some suppose of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confine or as some of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bound or limit it originally signifies to bind limit confine oblige any way by word or promise as well as oath And J. T. confessing Pauls charge in that place and 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1. to be alike therein confutes himself however For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there used are no more then to engage before some witness God or man or solemnly to command or charge and not to swear one and cannot be taken so strictly as to adjure though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken in the moderate sense i. e. any way to oblige as well as in that rigid way of