Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	lawful_a	oath_n	swear_v	2,912	5	8.9124	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45123	An answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's sermon, by some nonconformists, being the peaceable design renewed wherein the imputation of schism wherewith the doctor hath charged the nonconformists meetings, is removed, their nonconformity justified, and materials for union drawn up together, which will heal both parties.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.; Lobb, Stephen, d. 1699.	1680 (1680)	Wing H3668; ESTC R22261	36,018	45

of the Church would be willing to be Non-conformists to such an Oath Well Sirs when these words Abhor and Traiterous are so harsh in the Composure and when such Cases as above-mentioned may be put as to the Position in the Matter of it wherein it seems justifiable and without offence We offer it in the next place to consideration whether this middle part of the Oath and Subscription be according to Truth For the first part We have a large Assertion roundly sworn The Oath and Subscription runs not only that it is not lawful to take Arms against the King or that it is not lawful on any pretence but on any pretence or cause whatsoever The Grammatical literal construction of that word seems to intimate no less than that this Proposition must be held without restraint or limitation Amongst the most eminent of Authors which have wrote of the Power of Princes and establish'd it against Resistance in their writings on this Subject we suppose there are few or none to be valued above these Three Barclay Grotius Arnisaeus And we shall find that they have all their restrictions or cases of Exceptions in the maintenance of this Tenet And how shall any be over earnest here in punishing the Refuser when if the matter be well scan'd the reason perhaps why he refuses will be found only because he hath read more than some others that yield their submission We begin with Barclay that is William Barclay a Scot and Councellor to the French King who writes against Buchanan Boucher and other Monarchomachists as he calls them This learned man endeavours to make his Prince to be above the whole People that consequently no Arms can be taken against him Nevertheless when he comes to put some pressing Cases he thus limits him Quid ergo nulli ne Casus incidere possunt quibus populo in Regem arma capere jure suo liceat nulli certe quamdiu Rex manet What then Can there no Cases happen wherein it is lawful for the people to take Arms against the King by Right None certainly so long as he remains a King There are Cases indeed he accounts in which a King doth Exuere personam Regis or Dominatu se exuere Put off the Person of a King And particularly l. 3. c. 16. he mentions two Si regnum alienet si Rempublicam evertere conatur If he go to alienate his Kingdom if he go to overthrow the Common-wealth We cannot tell how to approve this Doctrine the Papists use the same we know in another Case We may not fight against our King but if the People Excommunicate him he shall be no King with them Let us come to Grotius and first quote him in his Judgment of Barclay lest you may think else we mistake him Barclaius says he Regii imperii licet assertor fortissimus huc tamen descendit ut populo insigni ejus parti jus concedit se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiam Barelay though the most strong assertor of Kingly Government does come to this that he grants a Right to the People or the most emsnent part of them of defending themselves against intolerable oppression For himself then after he hath asserted this Tenet Summum imperium tenentibus jure resists non posse That the higher Power may not lawfully be resisted from Scripture Antiquity Authority and Example to as much purpose perhaps as any he descends to put seven Cases wherein he does Lectorem monere Warn his Reader ne putet in hanc legem delinquere eos qui revera non delinquunt lest he mistake some for delinquents that are not For Arnisaeus he hath wrote Three learned Books of Politicks De Jure Majestatis De Doctrina Politica De Authoritate principum in populum semper Inviolabili seu quod nulla ex cause subditis fas sit contra legitimum principem arma sumere That the Authority of Princes over the People ought to be inviolable or that it is lawful for no cause to take up Arms against our lawful Prince Here then we have our Tenet in the stated whereof he comes in the issus to distinguish between Rex and Tyrannus a King and a Tyrant Tyrannus in Titulo Tyrannus in Exercitio A Tyrant in Title and in Practice And Tyrannus in Exercitio A Tyrant in Practise he accounts does Excidere de Jure etsi Haereditario Fall from his Right though Hereditary Traditur Respublica Principi in eum finem says he ut illi praesitin salutem omnium a quo si prorsus desciverit etiam de potestate cadit quam non alio fine sibi commissam habebat The Common-wealth is delivered to the Prince that he should rule over it for the eommon safety from which if he depart altogether he falls even from the Power it self which was committed to him only for this end We do not give our consent to nor pass our censure upon the words we cite But by such Testimonies as these without naming others we would convince those persons who were the Compilers of these Declarations to be subscribed or swon with some resentment and shame that when the Temperate sense and meaning of them is such as we were not like to boggle at they should be yet composed so in terminis as to be obnoxious to so grand Exception For the form then yet of the Words I A. B. do swear that it is not lawful c. Here is an Oath to the matter of a Proposition questioned to the determination of a Point of Conscience and that diversly decided An Oath should be to a matter of Fact and cannot be taken but to that whereof we are certain To require of Men therefore to swear to the verity of a Doctrine is not according to Judgment being a thing impossible because no Man is infallible Now then Sirs When here is such an Erratum in the Composure as the want of the words I believe or the like I swear that I hold or believe that it is not lawful c. and so material an Exception as the Judgment of the most learned in general comes to against the Substance in Terminis of the first part of this Oath which yet goes down ordinarily without Chewing we humbly offer it in the third place to be considered how this Oath can be taken either in Truth or Judgment An Oath must be taken in Judgment in Truth and in Righteousness The first part we argue is not according to Judgment The second not according to Truth The third not according to Righteousness We speak it humbly by way only of Argumentation as we have said craving pardon if it offend for the manner of the Expression We proceed to the Subscription conjoyned which hath we count Two Parts The one is the purport wholly of the Oath whereof therefore we shall add no more but this That when the matter of the one and the other in the former part is such as enters the foundation of Politicks

Laws may be made and Old repealed without alteration of the Constitution but not without Alteration of Government because Government takes in both the Administration and the Constitution Let us suppose therefore the word Government confined only to the Constitution There is the Constitution of the Government in the State which is a Legal Monarchy and this indeed we are so far bound from endeavouring to alter as we think it is not alterable by the King himself and Parliament because the Supream Power for the Administration must be supposed in all Communities to be derived from and held by the Constitution But as for Government in the Church we are to know and acknowledge that the Constitution hereof it self is but a Law of the Administration in reference to the State And consequently when all Laws for the Administration are liable to the Regulation of Parliaments the great Question will remain How those Men who are Presbyterian or In dependent in their Judgment and think Episcopacy against the Scripture can be abridged the Endeavour only afore-mentioned which consists but in choosing Representatives and doing no more than the Constitution allows in order to the Prosecution of what they think themselves obliged to in Conscience both by Oath and the word of God Is not the foundation Liberty of the whole People and our selves with them here in danger Judge ye that are Wise And what an Anointed Plot have we had here on the Nation that an Allegiance in effect should be sworn to the Bishops as well as to the King by such Impositions For the Words then or Form we wonder at this Rigour in the Compiler That a Man must swear not to endeavour any Alteration Had it not been enough to be engaged not to endeavour the Alteration of the Substance of our Government Episcopacy in the Church and Monarchy in the State but it must be not any Alteration It were well we were so absolutely Perfect And again must they not at any time endeavour any Alteration What if Times should turn and we be in a Confusion as we were or any the like Chance or Change come Must these Men be bound up that they cannot endeavour to reduce back this Government that we have No not the King and Bishops if the Iniquity of the Times should put them out for they have sworn they will not at any time endeavour any Alteration in Church or State Sirs The Matter of this Obligation being against the Fundamental Freedom of the Subject and Parliament and the Words you see so ensnaring and that against the Duty all owe to the Publick Good we offer it to you to consider in the first place whether this last part be according to Righteousness For the middle of the Oath Here is a Position of taking Arms by the Kings authority against any Commissionated by him which must be sworn to as abhor'd and traiterous There is now a Case in the mouths of all the understanding Refusers of the Oath and Subscription Suppose some Writ sued out and comes to the Sheriffs hands and suppose some to oppose the Execution by the Kings Personal Command or Commission and he thereupon raises the posse Comitatus upon them We will ask here whether the Sheriff acts not herein by the Kings Authority We think it cannot be denyed By the Kings Authority is all one as by the Law And when he can act so against any for all their Commission and the Law will bear him out how is this position in this case traiterous and to be ahor'd For our parts we do resolutely believe that it was not ever the intent of the Parliament in this Oath the Subscription as to the Major part we may be bold to advance the personal will or Commission of the King above Law which were to make his power Despotical and not Royal. Non est Rex says Bracton ubi dominatur voluntas non Lex He is no King that Governs by his will and not by the Law And how this position indefinitly without exception of this Case at least must be sworn to as altogether Traiterous ☞ we are to learn What if any should come with a Commission under the Seal to raise Money without an Act of Parliament and by vertue of such Commission shall seize our Goods rifle our Houses ' and Ravish our Wives May not the People or our inferior Magistrates or the Sheriff for the County withstand such violence May not the Constable alone by a Warrant from the Justice to keep the Peace raise the Neighbour-hood and do it If he may or the Sheriff may it must be in the Name of the King or by Authority of the Law and then is there some Case or Cases where Arms or Force may be raised by the Authority of the King against such as are Commissionated by him though never against his own Sacred Person Suppose again that Papists or Fanaticks should either by Power or Suprise at any time get the King into their hands as the Duke of Guise once dealt with the French King and prevail with him for fear of his life to grant Commissions under his Hand and Seal destructive to the Church and State must the Nation be remediless in this Case and so the King and Kingdom ruin'd by these Commissions Nay what security hath the Nation that a Lord Keeper may not prove Traytor to his King and Countrey If we may suppose such a thing possible what if such a Lord Keeper should under the Broad Seal grant Commissions to disband his Majesties Life-Guard deliver up the Navy or Sea Port Towns seize the Tower or places or strength in what a condition were the King and Kingdom brought if the Subjects hands be bound up by an Oath not to resist or take Arms against the Execution of such Commissions Suppose but so long as till they understand his design for by that time the whole Nation may be past recovery We are offended at the sense and stand amaze at the Horror of those sad Comsequences into which the Imposition of such like Tests or Injunctions as these if not timely retrenched may lead our Posterity The Courts of Law can avoid the Kings Charters or Commissions which are passed against Law For the King is subject to the Law and sworn to maintain it Judge Jenkens in his Works p. 48. As for the Form then of the Words I abhor this Traiterous Position They are harsh The word Abhor especially is a word of Interest and Passion A cooler word as I disown or disallow might have served Some of the most Grave as Calamy particularly were much offended at that word A man may say a thing is unlawful in his Conscience when he cannot say according to the Truth I Abhor it There is never a Gentleman in the Land but may swear truly That he believes it unlawful to company with any other Woman as his own Wife but if each one was put to swear he Abhors it we suppose some Sons