Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	king_n	lord_n	secretary_n	1,929	5	10.0398	5	true

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

Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples would never by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine for when the disciples of Christ supposing they might use violence as under the law would have commanded fire to come from heaven as Elias did to consume them that would not receive them Christ turned and rebuked saying ye know not what spirit ye are of for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them Answ To be Governor in things and causes spiritual and Ecclesiastical is ascribed to the King as King and not as a Christian for a Christian as a Christian hath not the Government of any others besides himself in any causes and he is Governor in Ecclesiastical causes as well as temporal But he is not governor in temporal things as a Christian but as a King although it is true that a Christian is better fitted to govern in both causes in that he is a Christian his Christianity by framing his spirit to wisedom justice clemency c. producing more aptitude to govern though not more authority and therefore were there not in this part of the Petition sundry mistakes by which those Petitioners incommodate and harm themselves and others and there seems to be some reflection on my book of the Serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy I should let this pass But for these reasons I shall a little examine what is said 1. The mistake is continued as if by acknowledging the King supreme Governor in spiritual things he had a power given him to be Lord over anothers faith which were indeed to ascribe that to the King which the Pope takes on him to determine what a Christian is to believe which Hart the Jesuite imagined was given to the King by that Oath but was rectified therein by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 10. 2. If by imposing by outward force any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing on the conscience the same mistake is continued which I have before discovered But if by outward force imposing any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing by civil penalties on the outward man something in Gods worship there is need of much caution to determine of their power Civil penalties are greater as death banishment mutilation imprisonment spoiling of estate liberty of trade c. Or less as some small diminution of priviledges office c. The things imposed on men may be either the commands or plain institutions of Christ or some things devised by men as Councils Fathers Prelates c. And these impositions may be either in circumstances of time place order which are undetermined by Christ or in such points of doctrine or worship as are of greater moment and determined by Christ The impositions may be such as are termed by the Apostle hay and stubble or such as overthrow the foundation which is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11 12. such as are impositions tending to Idolatry Superstition Profaneness heresies of perdition blasphemy The imposition may be on Teachers or Learners stronger or weaker Christians to be subscribed to or taught or to be conformed to or professed and this to be done either by bare presence which infers no consent or by some act which shews consent It cannot be denied but that Kings by reason of their errour and rigour have very sadly miscarried in their impositions on Christian brethren in matters of faith and worship there having been many mistakes in the best Councils Fathers Prelates and learned men since the Apostles days who have seldome been so equal as to permit those they have been prejudiced against to debate freely and fully what they hold nor are they heard with that equanimity which were requisite And therefore Princes Parliaments Republiques have made many hard Laws and done innumerable unrighteous executions to shedding of much innocent blood and most heavy oppressions of men either guiltless or not deserving such severe penalties as they have indured I think Kings and Parliaments who see not much with their own eyes but are fain to use the judgements of Learned men and Prelates who are often partial through prejudice or interest or not studied in the points about which they advice do often stand in a very slippery place and that Law-makers and Officers of justice have need of very much circumspection and tenderness ere they make penal Laws in matter of Religion that they should not make heresie by the determinations of any Councils since the Apostles days nor urge subscriptions and conformity under civil penalties but in things plainly set down in holy Scripture that so much liberty to dissents and different usages should be given as may stand with peace Yet that Kings should use no civil penalties on men for any disorders or errours in any matters of saith or worship of God I am not yet convinced by any thing I have read much less by the Arguments of these Petitioners Not by the first For a King may do that which our Lord Christ in his state of humiliation would not do He would not divide an inheritance among brethren Luke 12. 13 14. and yet a king may do it For though Christ was King in right yet he refused at that time to take upon him or to execute the office of a King but took upon him the form of a servant Phil. 2. 7. And therefore a King on his throne is not debarred from doing that which Christ would not do in his debasement And yet even then the Lord Christ did whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple and overthrew the tables of the money-changers John 2. 15 16. Mat. 21. 12. I will not now dispute whether Christ did this jure zelotarum by the right that Zelots of the Law among the Jews claimed to themselves or jure Regio by the right of a King under which notion acclamation was made to him when he rode on an Ass into Jerusalem Luke 19. 38. after which he did expel the buyers and sellers out of the Temple ver 45. nor whether this be a good proof for Magistrates to intermeddle in matters of Religion as it hath been argued by Mr. Cobbet of New England It is sufficient for my present purpose that the alledging of Christs example by these Petitioners is so far from making against the Kings power in Ecclesiastical causes that it rather makes for it Nor is it against the Kings power in causes Ecclesiastical that the Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples never would by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine For besides what is already said of Christs example there is a great difference to be made between professed infidels and disorderly Christians between planting of the Gospel at first and resorming Christians who have in shew received it there may be reason to do the latter by civil penalties though not the former though men are not to be

not in the Indicative Mood as if it were God doth help me or will help me but ita me Deus adiuvet in the Imperative or Potential let God help me may God help me I pray or wish God may help me or not according as I speak truly or otherwise nor is the charge given by the giver of the oath to the witness by the help of God to speak truth but he requires him to speak truth as he expects help from God in other things as his salvation c. When the swearer speaketh the words it is his pawning his help he expects from God as a voucher that he speaks truth not an acknowledging he speaks truth by Gods helping him only in that act of speaking As for what he alledgeth out of Deut. 4. 26. and 30. 13. and 31. 28. to prove that all calling to witness is not swearing it is granted him I easily yield that men and inanimate things may be taken to witness without swearing as Gen. 31. 48. Josh 22. 34. But nevertheless calling God to witness that we speak truth or intend as we speak is swearing Even as though such rhetorical speeches as are used Isa 1. 2. Jer. 22. 29 c. are not prayers or invitations to hear yet the words of Solomon 1 Kin. 8. 28 30. are prayer so though it be not swearing which is used Deut. 30. 19. yet it is swearing which is used 2 Cor 1. 23. Another thing which Samuel Hodgkin affirms is That all promissory oaths are forbidden by Christ Mat. 5. 34. Jam. 5. 12. he grants assertory oaths not forbidden because they were commanded in the old Testament Exod. 22. 11. but denies promissory oaths to be lawful because they are voluntary and the occasion of the precept was about voluntary oaths ver 33. and therefore they are wholly forbidden but not assertory Whence he infers that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy so far as they are promissory are forbidden Concerning this opinion I deny not but that there are learned men that conceive that promissory oaths of secular matters especially of small moment are forbidden because of the occasion ver 33. of the prohibition Mat. 5. 34. But if promissory oaths be forbidden universally then the promissory oaths to the Lord are forbidden and not only oaths of secular matters between man and man And if all promissory oaths be forbidden the swearing according to our common Law not excepted against by S. H. should be unlawful For thus usually is the witness sworn You shall make true answer to such questions as shall be demanded of you You shall speak the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth The Jury thus You shall well and truly trie and true deliverance make All which are requiring of a promise and so exacting a promissory oath But that promissory oaths are not universally forbidden I prove 1. From 1 Thes 5. 27. where the Apostle urgeth the Thessalonians thus I adjure you by the Lord that this Epistle be read to all the holy brethren That this passage contains urging by oath hath been proved before in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and in this Supplement in my Reply to Richard Hubberthorn and Samuel Fisher But this oath which he urgeth on them was promissory it being of a thing to be done by them to wit the reading of that Epistle to all the holy brethren Whence I argue That sort of oath by which Paul adjured bound or urged the Thessalonians was lawful else the Apostle would not have urged it or them by it But Paul adjured bound by or urged the Thessalonians by a promissory oath therefore a promissory oath is lawful in the new Testament That which Samuel Hodgkin saith That the Text speaks not a word of swearing is not true the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies I adjure or urge you by oath it is the same word that is used Mat. 26. 63. which Samuel Hodgkin himself p. 5. denies not to have been a charging Christ to swear by the living God saving that Mat. 26. 63. it is the compound Verb but 1 Thes 5. 27. the simple But saith Samuel Hodgkin were it not more reasonable to think that if the Thessalonians did value Pauls charge they would as soon have read this Epistle without swearing as to be sworn to read it for doubtless if they had not valued his charging them to read it they would not have valued his charging them to swear to read it I reply Whether the Thessalonians did value Pauls charge or no cannot be determined by us but this we know that adjuring or urging by oath being a stricter bond then urging to promise or requiring without an oath it may well be conceived that the Apostle had reason to charge them by oath and not barely to charge them without it 2. I urge that passage Heb. 6. 16. An oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife of which Samuel Hodgkin p. 8. grants that it contains the end of oaths commanded and so cannot in reason deny that those oaths which are there meant having the end of swearing are lawful But that passage speaks of the end of promissory oaths for such was Gods oath of which the Apostle there speaks ver 14. 15 17. and therefore they have the end of swearing to take away strife or contradiction or doubt concerning mens intentions and purposes one to another and so are for a necessary use and consequently lawful 3. The Angels swearing Rev. 10. 6. that there should be time no longer was of a thing future and therefore to be reduced to promissory oaths if the division of oaths into assertory and promissory be full it cannot be reduced to assertory oaths therefore it must be reduced to promissory and therefore promissory oaths are not wholly forbidden 4. That which the Psalmist makes a property of one that was to dwell in Gods holy hill Psal 15. was moral and so not unlawful as abrogated in the new Testament but when he saith a person making a promissory oath is not to change that is not to neglect to keep it though it be to his own hurt he allows a promissory oath as in some cases lawful 5. Add hereto that a promissory oath if unlawful is so either because it is swearing and then all swearing should be unlawful contrary to the grant concerning assertory oaths by Samuel Hodgkin if as promissory then all promises should be unlawful and so all civil contracts unlawful marriage covenants c. 6. If no promissory oaths be lawful to a Christian then a Christian Prince may not confirm a league with another Prince or State nor any Magistrates Officers of Justice take promissory oaths no Souldiers no Trustees Secretaries c. are to make promissory oaths of faithfulness which would expose all affairs of government and trust to such hazard and uncertainty as would take away as things and men are much of that security men have in their affairs and hasten the ruine of States That which Samuel Hodgkin saith that there is no command for promissory oaths is said without proof For the precepts Deut. 6. 13. Deut. 10. 20. Jer. 4. 2. do include promissory oaths as well as assertory As there is no difference made in the Text so there is as much if not more likelihood that promissory oaths should be chiefly meant because the oaths of which we have examples in the old Testament are most of them promissory 'T is true Mat. 5. 33. speaks of promissory oaths but that the prohibition ver 34. is limited to promissory as forbidding them only and not assertory or forbidding promissory oaths universally so as to allow none of that sort is said without proof and there is this in the text to shew that it is meant not of those promissory oaths which are meant ver 33. to wit special vows to God but of other oaths whether promissory or assertory which are in our ordinary speech 1. That the forms of oaths by the heaven by the earth by Jerusalem by the head there expressed are not used in special vowes but in common speech of one man with another and most likely in customary light needless passionate swearing 2. The expression let your communication or speech notes their conference one with another 3. And so do the terms yea and nay which are used most fitly in colloquies or speeches wherein one answers another FINIS