Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	allegiance_n	pope_n	subject_n	2,580	5	6.5986	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

said King his heirs or successors or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his heirs and successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration or otherwise and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty his heirs and successors all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them And I do further swear that I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subjects or any other whatsoever And I do believe and in conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministred unto me and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever And I do make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily willingly and truly upon the true faith of a Christian So help me God The words of King JAMES in his Apology for the Oath of ALLEGIANCE p. 46 c. in his answer to Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter AS the Oath of Supremacy was devised for putting a difference between Papists and them of our profession so was this Oath of Allegiance which Bellarmine would seem to impugn ordained for making a difference between the civilly obedient Papists and the perverse disciples of the Powder-treason In King Henry the eighths time was the Oath of Supremacy first made by him were Thomas Moor and Roffensis put to death partly for refusing of it From his time till now have all the Princes of this Land professing this Religion successively in effect maintained the same and 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 Whereas this last made Oath containeth no such matter only medling with the civil obedience of subjects to their Soveraign in meer temporal causes And that the injustice as well as the errour of Bellarmine's gross mistaking in this point may yet be more clearly discovered I have also thought good to insert here immediately after the Oath of Supremacy the contrary conclusions to all the Points and Articles whereof this other late Oath doth consist whereby it may appear what unreasonable and rebellious points he would drive my subjects unto by refusing the whole body of that Oath as it is conceived For he that shall refuse to take this Oath must of necessity hold all or some of these Propositions following 1. That I King James am not the lawful King of this Kingdom and of all other my Dominions 2. That the Pope by his own authority may depose me If not by his own authority yet by some other authority of the Church or of the See of Rome If not by some other authority of the Church and See of Rome yet by other means with others help he may depose me 3. That the Pope may dispose of my Kingdoms and Dominions 4. That the Pope may give authority to some forrein Prince to invade my Dominions 5. That the Pope may discharge my subjects of their obedience and allegiance to me 6. That the Pope may give licence to one or more of my subjects to bear arms against me 7. That the Pope may give leave to my subjects to offer violence to my person or to my Government or to some of my subjects 8. That if the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose me my subjects are not to bear faith and allegiance to me 9. If the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose me my subjects are not bound to defend with all their power my Person and Crown 10. If the Pope shall give out any sentence of excommunication or deprivation against me my subjects by reason of that sentence are not bound to reveal all conspiracies and treasons against me which shall come to their hearing and knowledge 11. That it is not heretical and detestable to hold that Princes being excommunicated by the Pope may be either deposed or killed by their subjects or any other 12. That the Pope hath power to absolve my subjects from this Oath or from some part thereof 13. That this Oath is not administred to my subjects by a full and lawful authority 14. That this Oath is to be taken with equivocation mental evasion or secret reservation and not with the heart and good will sincerely in the faith of a Christian man These are the true and natural branches of the body of this Oath In the book intitled God and the King imprinted at London 1615. by King James his special priviledge and command p. 27. is thus said The matter or main subject of this Oath which is the principal thing whereof I conceive you desire to have a more distinct and full understanding may to this purpose be resolved into these ensuing assertions 1. Our Soveraign Lord King James is the lawful King of this Kingdom and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries 2. The Pope neither by his own authority nor by any other authority of the Church or of the See of Rome nor by any other means with any others help can depose his Majesty 3. The Pope cannot dispose of any of his Majesties Kingdoms and Dominions 4. The Pope cannot give authority to any forraign Prince to invade his Dominions 5. The Pope cannot discharge his subjects of their allegiance unto his majesty 6. The Pope cannot give licence to one or more of his subjects to bear arms against him 7. The Pope cannot give leave to any of his subjects to offer violence unto his Royal person or to his Government or to any of his Majesties subjects 8. Although the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose his Majesty or absolve his subjects from their obedience notwithstanding they are to bear faith and true allegiance unto his Majesty 9. If the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose his Majesty nevertheless his subjects are bound to defend his Person and Crown against all attempts and conspiracies whatsoever 10. If the Pope shall give out any sentence of excommunication or deprivation against his Majesty notwithstanding his subjects are bound to reveal all conspiracies and treasons against his Majesty which shall come to

their hearing and knowledge 11. It is heretical and detestable to hold That Princes being excommunicate by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subjects or any other 12. The Pope hath not power to absolve his Majesties subjects from their oath of allegiance or any part thereof When Cardinal Bellarmine disguised under the name of Matthaeus Tortus as his Chaplain took upon him to reply to King James his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance and would have it believed that by that Oath was intended the denying the Popes Ecclesiastical power which he claims and is with Papists an Article of their Faith Lancelot Andrews then Bishop of Chichester after of Ely and Winchester then very eminent for his learning and repute at Court answers him in his book intitled Tortura Torti in words in Latin which I have Englished thus Art thou well in thy wits who babblest these things That thou an Italian ignorant of our language shouldst understand the Oath that the Author who is skilled in the language as being his own native proper should not understand it Whence art thou to us a new interpreter of Laws yea whence art thou an interpreter of our Laws which thou didst not make It belongs verily to them to interpret to whom it belongs to make Laws yet I say not that only but this also Is there for this reason any mortal man that understands the intention of the Law and the Law-maker himself for the same person was author of the Law and of the book nor wast thou ignorant of this the Law-maker I say himself should not understand his intention concerning his Law Thou wilt never bring it to pass that he should be ignorant of that which he himself would to himself when he made the Law when he made the Oath He is best privy to his own intention But his intention was that he might be secure of the fidelity and constancy of his own subjects yea this was his only intention no other man knows this for the hearts of men he knows not only he who hath known the Law knows what he requires in his Law King James in his Catalogue of Tortus lies at the end of his premonition to all Christian Princes saith The Puritans do not decline the Oath of Supremacy but do daily take it neither ever refused it And the same Supremacy is defended by Calvin himself Instit lib. 4. cap. 20. Bishop Andrews in the book forenamed p. 110. The Puritans of their own accord take the Oath of Supremacy and have often professed and that in books published by themselves that this is a meer calumny that they abhor the Oath of Supremacy neither did they ever decline that Oath But if there were at any time any scraple in them it was about the term it was not about the thing The head of the Church sith it is said of Christ seemed to them a higher title then that it might be given to any mortal man so for a while they stuck at the giving that title now they stick not Concerning the thing it self concerning the Kingly authority they have always fully professed Quakers do inveigh against my book intitled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy because it defends the lawfulness of some swearing yet Samuel Fisher in his book intitled The Rusticks alarm to the Rabbies Exercit. 1. chap. 3. p. 48. saith I should God knows please my self much more to sit down in silence p. 61. I affirm here before God and all men and the humble petition of some called Anabaptists prisoners in Maidstone dated January 25. saith thus Yet God is our witness who is the searcher of all hearts we deny not this Oath because we would not yield due subjection and obedience unto thee and thy authority for this we say in the presence of him that shall judge the quick and the dead we do without any deceit promise to live peaceably under thy Government and in case any thing should be by thee commanded in spiritual matters wherein we cannot obey we shall not then take up any carnal or temporal weapon against thee or thy authority but patiently suffer such punishment as shall be inflicted on us for our consciences But the using of these speeches God knowes I affirm before God God is our witness this we say in the presence of him that shall judge the quick and dead as an appeal to Gods contestation is plain swearing So that while these men and more of the same mind do speak against all swearing they indeed practice some swearing And those of Maidstone who offer an engagement taken before some Justice of the Peace in a solemn manner with calling God to witness of the truth of what they say do offer to swear or take an oath The lawfulness of which and particularly the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and my writing about the former I shall now endeavour to vindicate from the writings and sayings against them which have occurred to me Richard Hubberthorn having recited my first Argument for my first Proposition thus That is not wholly evil about the use of which some directions are given by God but God giveth directions about the use of swearing Jer. 4. 2. Ergo Answers By the same argument may it as well be proved that the Christians and believers in Christ may be circumcised offer incense burnt offerings and sacrifices because for the use of it God gave some directions and therefore it is lawful But as circumcision incense burnt offerings and sacrifices of the law is ended in Christ so is the oath which was among the Jews in him ended also to the believers and by him forbidden for as it was said in old time thou shalt swear and shalt perform thy oath to the Lord but Christ in the 5. of Mat. making mention of the Jews oath which God gave once direction for yet saith Swear not at all Here Christ puts an end not only to frivolous vain oaths but to the true oaths which the Jews was once commanded of God to swear for these oaths are they which Christs words hath relation to for he came to end the Jews worships and oaths who is the oath of God Christ the truth and righteousness of God saith Swear not at all which ends the Jewes which was to swear in truth and righteousness To which I reply Had not Samuel Fisher told me in the place forementioned that my book is answered by Richard Hubberthorn I should not have thought it worth while to reply to it there being in it so much defect of sense and reason as makes it inconsiderable But sith he mentions my book as scarce worth any further answer then that of Hubberthorn it seems he esteems it of some moment And therefore I say that 1. Richard Hubberthorn leaves out of the proof of my minor as in the third Commandment which is undoubtedly moral which words shew that I mean my major proposition of moral actions 2. He

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

the eyes of the righteous and most holy God Answ It is true that I alledged in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy the power of the Kings of Israel in spirituals to prove the King to be Governor in spiritual causes I did not nor was it necessary I should assert the same power every way or the justice of proceeding now by the same Laws which were in many things appropriate to the policy of that Nation nor am I of opinion that the judicial laws of Moses bind us any farther then their common equity nor do I think it necessary we should fetch our Laws from them they being in many things fitted to the policy of that people which is different from ours Nor do I deny that there is not the same reason of punishing some idolatry and blasphemy of professed Christians as was of punishing the idolatry and blasphemy of the Israelites in the worshipping of the golden Calf Baal Ashtaroth Molech there being such special warnings given them before such great things done by God for them as made their engagement greater and their revolt to other gods worse and more detestable then in other people and if it be true which Dr. John Burges in his rejoinder to the reply to Bishop Mortons defence of the three Ceremonies that the Popish idolatry is not so bad as the Israelites then there may be cause why that idolatry which the Papists use should not be punished with death though the worship of the golden Calf Baal Molech and such Idols were And for some blasphemies against Christ as the Messiah or Son of God and some errours or heresies which under the name of blasphemies have been punished with death and perhaps by Laws in force are liable to the same punishments I dare not say that they are equally evil or to be punished as the blasphemy of the mungrel was Lev. 24. 14 15 16. Nor do I take upon me to justifie those Laws by which death is awarded to heretiques nor to avow the sentences that have been past against persons as heretiques because condemned by Canons of Councils He that should now enact a law to put men to death for breaking the Sabbath because God did so appoint it Numb 15. 35. in the case of him that gathered the sticks on the Sabbath day or should make a law that the father and mother of a stubborn son should bring him to the Elders of the City to be stoned to death as it is Deut. 21. 18 19 20 21. should as it is said of Draco the Athenian write his laws in blood I deny not but that in the New Testament punishments are put off to the last judgement that Christ hath told us Mark 3. 28. that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men and blasphemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme excepting that against the holy Ghost that John 8. 7 8 9 10. Christ if that story be genuine would not condemn the woman taken in adultery but rather furthered her escape from stoning that the Gospel we live under is another dispensation as the Petitioners speak meaning that it is not so severe and rigid a Covenant as the Law was that the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ John 1. 17. And therefore I count them too severe beyond Christian moderation that inflict death imprisonment banishment for some errours termed heresies for non-conformity to some forms of worship for some conceived blasphemies Some eminent Protestants have been censured as too cruel even by men of great understanding for their severity in these things According to this determination a prevention may be made of destroying such a blasphemer as Paul or the Jews and yet the Kings Supremacy proved from the example of the Kings of Israel even in spirituals which may be exercised for publique peace and common good if good caution be used without such direful and cruel persecutions as have been A fathers power may be proved from the Law Deut. 21. 18 19 20 21. though that law stand not in force and so may the Kings power in causes Ecclesiastical be proved from the power of the Kings of Israel though it be denied that he is to punish Idolatry blasphemy heresie as they did or some would now have it once more say the Petitioners 5. As it is no wayes lawful from the word of God for Christian Magistrates to destroy and root out the contrary minded in religious matters although Idolaters so such proceedings may many times prove inconsistent with the very being of nations for suppose any Nation were wholly heathenish idolaters and the word of God coming in amongst them should convert the chief Magistrates and twentieth part of the Nation more must he with that twentieth part destroy all the other nineteen if they will not be converted but continue in their heathenish Idolatry it cannot possibly be supposed warrantable Answ All this may be granted The Spaniards practice in destroying the Americans is condemned by Bartholomew de Casa a Spanish Bishop their practises in their bloody Inquisition are abhorred by all sober people that are not made drunk with the wine of the whore of Babylons fornications few men of good temper and wisdome do allow making war to propagate Religion the zeal of Princes and Bishops in persecuting Christians adjudged heretiques by them is censured as madness by well composed men In the multitude of people is the Kings honour but in the want of people is the destruction of the Prince Prov. 14. 28. Thou shalt not be joyned in burial because thou hast destroyed thy land and slain thy people Isa 14. 20. Doubtless a Prince ought to be tender of his subjects as of his children and yet he may correct them and though he be not to destroy those that remain infidel-idolaters nor to force them to be Christians yet he may have a power to govern in things spiritual And this if wisely and uprightly managed may be of great advantage to the Church of God and is not to be denied because he doth much less because he may or we are jealous he will abuse it Thus much be said in answer to those Petitioners Afore the first sheet of this Supplement was printed off I met with a little piece intituled A caution to the sons of Zion by Samuel Hodgkin in which he grants assertory oaths in judicial proceedings not to be forbidden by Christ Mat. 5. 34. because commanded in the law of Moses and overthrows the Quakers plea that no swearing is lawful yet denies any promissory oath lawful and therefore in that respect opposeth the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and saith he is imprisoned for that reason In that book he first excepts against the definition Jeremiah Ives gave of a sacred oath that it is a bond by which a man binds his soul to the speaking of that which is in it self true or the doing of that which is in it self lawful unto which the