A serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy wherein these six propositions are asserted. 1. That some swearing is lawful. 2. That some promissory oaths are lawful. 3. That a promissory oath of allegiance and due obedience to a king is lawful. 4. That the King in his realm, is the onely supreme governour over all persons. 5. That the king is the governour of the realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things, or causes, as temporal. 6. That the jurisdictions, priviledges, preeminences, and authorities in that oath, may be assisted and defended. By John Tombes B.D.

A serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy wherein these six propositions are asserted. 1. That some swearing is lawful. 2. That some promissory oaths are lawful. 3. That a promissory oath of allegiance and due obedience to a king is lawful. 4. That the King in his realm, is the onely supreme governour over all persons. 5. That the king is the governour of the realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things, or causes, as temporal. 6. That the jurisdictions, priviledges, preeminences, and authorities in that oath, may be assisted and defended. By John Tombes B.D.

Table of contents

Title page

To the Christian Readers.

The OATH of SUPREMACY as it is in the Statute 1. Eliz. Cap. 1.

The Proviso in the Statute of 5. Eliz. Cap. 1.

The Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions.

The 37. Article professed in the Church of England.

The OATH of SUPREMACY briefly considered, and the lawfulness of taking it asserted.

§

[Page]

[Page]

A SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THE OATH OF THE Kings Supremacy:

Wherein these six Propositions are asserted.

1. That some Swearing is Lawful.

2. That some promissory Oaths are Lawful.

3. That a promissory Oath of Allegiance and due obedience to a King is Lawful.

4. That the King is His Realm, is the onely Supreme Governour over all persons.

5. That the King is the Governour of the Realm, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things, or causes, as temporal.

6. That the Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Preeminences, and Authorities in that Oath, may be assisted and defended.

By John Tombes B. D.

Prov. 23. 21. My son fear thou the LORD, and the King: and meddle not with them that are given to change.

LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, living in Aldersgate-street next door to the sign of the Peacock.

To the Christian Readers.

[Page]

BEing by special Providence brought hither upon some occasions of mine own, and finding many persons of different perswasions scrupling the taking of the oath of Supremacy now beginning to be urged, by reason of their unacquaintance with it through the long disuse of it; by various conferences I convinced sundry of them, that the end and matter of the oath was not such as they imagined: Whereupon some persons tender of the publique peace, and the liberties of those doubting persons, who still remained unsatisfied, earnestly pressed me to draw up something in writing, tending to the elucidation of this doubt: which I was unwilling to do, being absent from mine own Books and Collections, and hoping to have staid here less time then I am now necessitated to do: yet the instant pressure hath drawn from me this writing, though short and indigested, it being conceived useful in this juncture of time, wherein if I be offered on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoyce with you all, as being studious not how to have dominion over your faith, but to be a helper of your joy. For which and I crave your prayers, who am,

London Oct. 13. 1660.

Your brother and servant in Christ, John Tombes,

The OATH of SUPREMACY as it is in the Statute 1. Eliz. Cap. 1.

[Page]

I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my conscience, that the Queens Highness is the only supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other her Highness Dominions and Countreys, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes, as Temporal; and that no forreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate hath, or ought to have any Iurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preheminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign Iurisdictions. Powers, Superiorities and Authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Queens Highness, her Heirs and lawful Successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all Iurisdictions, Priviledges, Preheminencies and Authorities, granted or belonging to the Queens Highness, her Heirs and Successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So help me God, and by the Contents of this Book.

The Proviso in the Statute of 5. Eliz. Cap. 1.

PRovided also, That the Oath expressed in the said Act, made in the said first year, shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queens Majesties Injunctions, published in the first year of her Majesties Reign; That is to say, to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, none other Authority than that was challenged, and lately used by the noble King Henry the eighth, and King Edward the sixth, as in the said Admonition more plainly may appear.

The Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions.

THe Queens Majesty being informed, that in certain places of this Realm, sundry of her native Subjects, being called to Ecclesiastical ministery in the Church, be by sinister perswasion, and perverse construction induced [Page] to finde some scruple in the form of an othe which by an Act of the last Parliament, is prescribed to be required of divers persons, for the recognition of their Allegiance to her Majesty, which certainly neither was ever ment, ne by any equity of words or good sence, can be thereof gathered: Would that all her lovyng Subjects should understand, that nothing was, is, or shall be ment or intended by the same othe, to have any other duty, allegiance, or bonde required by the same othe, then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble kynges of famous memory, kyng Henry the viii. Her Majesties father, or kyng Edward the sixth, Her Majesties brother.

And further Her Majesty forbyddeth all manner Her subjects to give ear or credit to suche perverse and maliciouse persons, which most sinifferly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects, how by the words of the sayde othe, it may be collected the kings or Queens of this Realm, possessours of the Crowne, may challenge aucthority and power of ministrie of divine offices in the Churche, wherein Her said subjectes be much abused by such evyl disposed persons. For certainly her Majesty neither doth: ne ever wyll challenge any other aucthority, than that was challenged and lately used by the sayde noble kinges of famous memorye, king Henry the eight, and kynge Edward the sixt, which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crowne of this Realm. That is under God, to have the soverainty and rule over all maner persons born within these Her Realms, Dominions, and Countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal soever they be, so as no other forrain power shall or ought to have any superioritie over them. And if anye person that hath conceived anye other sence of the fourm of the sayde othe, shall accept the same othe with this interpretation, sence, or meaning, Her Majestie is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf, as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all maner penalties conteyned in the said Act against such as shall peremptorily, or obstinately refuse to take the same othe.

The 37. Article professed in the Church of England.

[Page]

The Kings Majesty hath the chief power in his Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they he Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all Causes doth appetain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any forrain jurisdiction: where we attribute to the Kings Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the mindes of some standerous folks to be offended, we give not to our Prince the ministring either of Gods Word, or of the Sacraments: the which thing, the Injunctions also, sometime set forth by Elizabeth our (late) Queen, do most plainly testifie, but that onely Prerogative, which we see to have been given to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself, that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn, and evil doers.

The OATH of SUPREMACY briefly considered, and the lawfulness of taking it asserted.

IT is questioned, whether the Oath of the Kings being acknowledged Supreme Governour in all causes, according to the Statute 1. Eliz. may be lawfully taken? To which I answer affirmatively, and thus argue,

If it may not be lawfully taken, it is either because no Oath may be taken, or no promissory Oath, or no promissory Oath to a King, or the matter of this Oath is not to be acknowledged or promised.

But none of these make it unlawful. Ergo.

The consequence is proved, because there is a sufficient enumeration made of things that seem to prohibit the taking of it: if not, let what else may make it unlawful be named. The minor is proved by parts, in confirming these six propositions.

I. That some swearing is lawful.

II. That promissory Oaths may be lawful.

[Page] III. That to swear to a King or Governour may be lawful.

IV. That the King is Supreme Governour over all persons in his Dominions.

V. That he is Governour in Ecclesiastical causes.

VI. That the Iurisdictions, Preeminences, and Priviledges meant in that Oath may be lawfully acknowledge and defended.

The first is proved thus.

I. That which is not de toto genere, in it's whole kind evil, may be lawful: But swearing is not de toto genere, or in its whole kind evil.

Therefore some swearing may be lawful.

The major is manifest of it self. The minor is thus proved.

That is not wholly evil about the use of which some directions are given by God. God doth not give directions about the use of Blasphemy, witchcraft, idolatry, &c. which are in their whole kind evil. But God giveth directions about the use of swearing, as in the third commandment (which is undoubtedly moral) Jer. 4. 2. where he saith, And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgement, and in righteousness. Ergo.

2. That which is approved by God, is lawful. But some swearing is approved by God. Psal. 63. 11. Every one that sweareth by God shall glory. Ergo.

The major is of it self manifest, the minor the text evidenceth, sith the swearing by God is made part of glorying in God, or of the swearers glory.

3. If it were unlawful to use any Oath, then it were unlawful to put any Oath on any. But this is not to be said. Ergo.

The consequence is manifest, sith we cannot lawfully urge any to that which is of it self sinful: Now that it is lawful to put an Oath on some persons at some times is manifest by Gods own appointment, Levit. 5. 1. 4. his ratifying Solomons petition concerning this thing, 1 King. 8. 31. 2 Chr. 6. 22. and the practise of Abraham in the old Testament, Gen. 24. 2, 3. putting an Oath on his servant, and Pauls in the New, putting an Oath on the Thessalonians, 1 Thes. 5. 27. for so the Greek word translated, I charge you by the Lord, or adjre you, as it is in the margin, by the Lord, is, I put the Lords Oath on you, or swear you that this Epistle be read to all the holy brethren. Alike charges are, 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1.

4. That which hath been the practise of the godly before, under the law, and in the times of the Gospel without reproof is lawful, for in all these times, and by such men moved as they were by Gods spirit, [Page] even in their holy speeches and writings, it would not have been done had it been sinful.

But some swearing hath been the practise of the godly, before, under the law and in the times of the Gospel, as is proved by instances, as of Abraham that lift up his hand to the most high God, Gen. 14. 22. of Isaac, Gen. 26. 31. of Jacob, Gen. 31. 53. under the law, of the people of Israel, Josh. 9. 19, 20. of David and Jonathan, 1 Sam. 20. 3. 42. David to Saul, 1 Sam 24 22. of Urijah, 2 Sam. 11. 11. of Ittai, 2. Sam. 15. 21. of David, 1 Kings 1. 29, 30 & 2. 8. of Solomon, Vers. 23. of Elijah, 1 Kings 17. 1. of Michajah, 1 Kings 22. 14. of Elisha, 2 King. 2. 4, 6. and 3. 14. and 5. 16. and the woman of Shunem, 2 King. 4. 30. in the times of the Gospel, of Paul, 2. Cor. 1. 18. using this Oath, As God is true, verse. 23. I call God to record upon my soul, and 11. 31. and 12. 19. 1 Cor. 15. 31. this is a form of swearing, By your rejoycing which I have in Christ Jesus, it being in the Greek [...] which is a particle of swearing, not [...] or [...], which are prepositions noting the means or instrument of the effect; of the Angel, Revel. 10. 6. who sware by him that liveth for ever. The like are Rom. 1. 9. & 9. 1. Gal. 1. 20. Philip. 1. 8. Ergo.

5 That which hath a necessary use for the benefit of humane society, is not unlawful.

But some swearing hath a necessary use for the benefit of humane society. Ergo.

The major is plain, it agreeing with the law of nature and nations, which is of necessary use for the benefit of humane society, which laws God the author of nature hath imprinted in all, and indeed hath made all his laws for men one towards another subservient thereto.

The minor is plain from the words of the Author to the Hebrews, Chap. 6. 16. An Oath to men is an end of strife, which is a necessary use for humane benefit.

6. That which hath been counted by all nations as a Sacred thing, a principal part of the acknowledgement and worship of God, is not unlawful of it self.

But so hath some swearing been counted. Ergo.

The minor is proved by Gods own words, Deut. 10. 20. Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave and swear by his name.

The second [That promissory Oaths may be lawful] is thus proved.

1. That is not altogether of it self evil or unlawful, which God makes a bond of the soul to be kept and performed to the Lord.

[Page] But some promissory Oaths God makes a bond of the soul to be kept and performed to the Lord.

Ergo. Some promissory Othes may be lawful.

The major is proved, because that which is altogether unlawful cannot bind the soul to God, nor is to be kept and performed to the Lord.

The minor is proved from Numb. 30. 2. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an Oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break or profane his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. Matth. 5. 33. Again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thy self, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oathes, where a promissory Oath is made a bond to bind the soul with, to be kept and performed to the Lord.

2. If holy men afore the Law, under the Law, in Gospel times have put promissory Oaths on others, then they are not altogether unlawful. This is proved by the same reason by which the like consequence is proved before, in proving the fourth argument of the former proposition.

But holy men afore the Law, as Abraham, Gen. 24. 2. 3. under the Law, as Moses, Deut. 29. 14. Jonathan, 1 Sam. 20. 17. Asa and the people of Israel, 2 Chron. 15. 12, 13, 14, 15. Ezra, Ezra 10. 5. in Gospel times, Paul, 1 Thes. 5. 27. adjuring the Thessalonians by the Lord, that that Epistle be read to all the holy brethren, have put promissory Oaths on others. Ergo.

3. That which godly men have practised and still counted as well done that is lawful.

But some promissory Oaths godly men have practised and still counted as well done. Ergo.

The major is probable, and in this case, considering the persons, and the holy Ghosts recording as he hath done, certain.

The minor is proved by instances, of David, Psal. 119. 106. I have sworn and will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgements. 1 Sam. 20. 42. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. Nehem. 10. 29. They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entred into a curse, and into an Oath to walk in Gods Law. 1 King. 1. 29, 30. And the king sware and said, As the Lord liveth, that hath redeemed my soul out of all distress, even as I sware unto thee, that by the Lord God of Israel assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall

[...] [Page] reproof is lawful, for in all these times, and by such men moved as they were by Gods spirit, even in their holy speeches and writings, it would not have been done, had it been sinful.

But some swearing hath been the practise of the godly, before, under the law and in the times of the Gospel, as is proved by instances, as of Abraham that lift up his hand to the most high God, Gen. 14. 22. of Isaac, Gen. 26. 31. of Jacob, Gen. 31. 53. under the law, of the people of Israel, Josh. 9. 19. 20. of David and Jonathan, 1 Sam. 20. 3. 42. David to Saul 1 Sam. 24. 22. of Urijah 2 Sam. 11. 11. of Ittai, 2 Sam. 15. 21. of David, 1 Kings 1. 29, 30. & 2. 8. of Solomon, Vers. 23. of Elijah, 1 Kings 17. 1. of Michajah, 1 King. 22. 14. of Elisha, 2 King. 2. 4. 6. and 3. 14. and 5. 16. and the woman of Shunem, 2 King. 4. 30. in the times of the Gospel, of Paul, 2 Cor. 1. 18. using this Oath, As God is true, vers. 23. I call God to record upon my soul, and 11. 31. and 12. 19. 1 Cor. 15. 31. this is a form of swearing, By your rejoycing which I have in Christ Jesus, it being in Greek [...] which is a particle of swearing, not [...] or [...], which are prepositions noting the means or instrument of the effect; of the Angel, Revel. 10. 6. who sware by him that liveth for ever. The like are Rom. 1. 9. & 9. 1. Gal. 1. 20. Philip. 1. 8. Ergo.

5. That which hath a necessary use for the benefit of humane society is not unlawful.

But some swearing hath a necessary use for the benefit of humane society. Ergo.

The major is plain, it agreeing with the law of nature and nations, which is of necessary use for the benefit of humane society, which lawes God the author of nature hath imprinted in all, and indeed hath made all his laws for men one towards another subservient thereto.

The minor is plain from the words of the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 6. 16. An Oath to men is an end of all strife, [Page] which is a necessary use for humane benefit.

6. That which hath been counted by all nations as a Sacred thing, a principal part of the acknowledgment and worship of God, is not unlawful of it self.

But so hath some swearing been counted. Ergo.

The minor is proved by Gods own words, Deut. 10. 20. Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name,

The second [That promissory Oaths may be lawful] is thus proved.

1. That is not altogether of it self evil or unlawful, which God makes a bond of the soul to be kept and performed to the Lord.

But some promissory Oaths God makes a bond of the soul to be kept and performed to the Lord.

Ergo. Some promissory Oaths may be lawful.

The major is proved, because that which is altogether unlawful cannot binde the soul to God, nor is to be kept and performed to the Lord.

The minor is proved from Numb. 30. 2. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an Oath to binde his soul with a bond, he shall not break or profane his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth, Matth. 5. 33. Again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thy self, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths, where a promissory Oath is made a bond to binde the soul with, to be kept and performed to the Lord.

2. If holy men afore the Law, under the Law, in Gospel times have put promissory Oaths on others, then they are not altogether unlawful. This is proved by the same reason by which the like consequence is proved before, in proving the fourth argument of the former proposition.

But holy men afore the Law, as Abraham, Gen. 24. 2. 3. under the Law, as Moses, Deut. 29. 14. Jonathan, 1 Sam. 20. 17. Asa and the people of Israel, 2 Chron. 15. 12, 13, 14, 15. [Page]Ezra, Ezra 10. 5. in Gospel times, Paul, 1 Thes. 5. 27. adjuring the Thessalonians by the Lord, that that Epistle be read to all the holy brethren, have put promissory Oaths on others. Ergo.

3 That which godly men have practised and still counted as well done that is lawful.

But some promissory Oaths godly men have practised and still counted as well done. Ergo.

The major is probable, and in this case, considering the persons, and the holy Ghosts recording as he hath done, certain.

The minor is proved by instances of David, Psal. 119. 106. I have sworn and will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgements, 1 Sam. 20. 42. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasomuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. Nehem. 10. 29. They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entred into a curse, and into an Oath to walk in Gods Law. 1 King. 1. 29, 30. And the king sware and said, As the Lord liveth, that hath redeemed my soul out of all distress, even as I sware unto thee that by the Lord God of Israel assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day.

4. That which is made a qualification of one that shall dwell in Gods holy hill, is not unlawful: but to swear to his hurt and not to change, that is, to take a promissory Oath, and not to change, though it be to his dammage is made a qualification of one that shall dwell in Gods holy hill, Psal. 15. 4.

Ergo. Some promissory Oaths are lawful.

The third Proposition [That to swear to a King or Governour is lawful] is proved,

1. From approved examples, which prove either a duty, or at least lawfulness of the thing.

[Page] That which hath been practised by holy men without reproof is lawful.

But swearing to Kings and Governours Allegiance and Obedience hath been practised by holy men. Ergo.

The minor is proved by instances of the people to David, 2 Sam. 5. 3. So all the elders came to the king to Hebron, and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed David king over Israel, 1 Chron. 11. 3. Then came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron, and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel according to the word of the Lord by Samuel. A Covenant before the Lord was an Oath, but the people of Israel, a holy people made a covenant before the Lord with David their king, therefore they entred into an Oath of Allegiance and due Obedience. The other is more plain, 2 King. 11. 4. And in the seventh year Jehojada sent and fet the rulers over hundreds with the captains and the guard, and brought them to him in the house of the Lord, and made a covenant with them, and took an Oath of them in the house of the Lord, and shewed them the kings son, vers. 17. And Jehojada made a covenant between the Lord and the king, and the people, that they should be the Lords people: between the king also and the people, 2 Chron. 23. 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the hosue of God: and he said unto them, Behold the kings son shall reign, as the Lord hath said of the sons of David, vers. 6. Then Jehojada made a covenant between him and all the people, and between the king, that they should be the Lords people. These are express examples of swearing Allegiance to Kings, which is consonant to what our Lord Christ teacheth, that we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, as to God the things that are Gods, Matth. 22. 21. Besides we finde David swearing to Saul, 1 Sam. 24. 22. the people conceiving themselves bound by Sauls adjuration, 1 Sam, 14. 24, 28. Shimei was bound by the Oath which [Page] Solomon imposed on him, where Solomon speaks thus to him, Why hast thou not kept the Oath of the Lord, and the commandment that I have charged thee with? Abrahams servant sware obedience to Abraham, and counted himself bound to keep it, Gen. 24. 2, 3. Then arose Ezra, and made the chief Priests, the Levites, and all Israel to swear, that they should do according to this word, and they sware, Ezra 10. 5. Nehemiah made them swear by God, saying, ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for your selves, Nehem. 13. 25.

2. From Gods dealing with Zedekiah, that kept not the Oath made to the King of Babylon, Ezek. 17. 18, 19. where God doth not except against the Oath, but the breaking of it calling it his Oath, which he had despised, and his covenant that he had broken; whence I argue,

That which God calls his Oath, the despising of which he avengeth, may be lawfully taken.

But an Oath of subjection even to the King of Babylon, God calls his Oath, the despising of which he avengeth, therefore some Oath of subjection to a King, may be lawfull.

3. From the words of Solomon, Eccles. 8. 2. I counsel thee to keep the kings commandment, and that in regard of the Oath of God. The Oath of God seemeth to be an Oath by God to the king, being made the reason of keeping the kings commandment, as the Oath of Shemei, 1 King. 2. 43. is termed the Oath of the Lord, Zedechiah's Oath to the King of Babylon, Gods Oath and Covenant, Ezek. 17. 19. Prov. 2. 17. the wives covenant with her husband, is called the covenant of her God; whence I argue,

That which is Gods Oath, and is urged as the reason of keeping the Kings command is lawful.

But an Oath of subjection to a King is Gods Oath, and urged as the reason of keeping his commandment, as the Text shews, therefore it is lawful. If by the Oath of God be [Page] meant, not a particular Oath to a King, but the general Oath or Covenant to obey God (which seems not so likely, because it is the special reason of keeping the Kings Commandment) yet thus also the argument holds: If it be lawful to make a general Oath to God of keeping his Laws, and this be one of Gods Laws to keep the Kings commandment, and that the particular Oath of subjection to the King is comprehended in the general Oath of keeping Gods commands, a particular Oath of obedience to the King is not unlawful.

4. That is lawful which is of necessary use for the Publique good.

But some swearing to a King or other Governors is of necessary use for the publique good, therefore it is lawful.

The major is confirmed in proving the major of the fifth argument of the first proposition, The minor is proved by experience, even Jehojada and David conceived so, and the reason is, because the common peace and good government cannot be kept but by good correspondence between Prince and people: therefore if mutual Oaths tend thereto, as often they do, they are of necessary use for the publique good.

The grand objection is from the words of our Saviour, Math. 5. 34, 35, 36, 37. But I say unto you, Swear not all, neither by heaven for it is Gods throne: nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay, for whatsover is more then these cometh of evil: and of the Apostles, Jam. 5. 12. But above all things my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other Oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation: which words do seem expresly and fully to forbid any swearing at all, excluding some sorts of Oaths by name, and the rest by General [Page] terms, with prescription that our communication be yea, yea, nay, nay, and determination, that what is more then these cometh of evil, or the evil one, which made some of the Ancients and later godly persons conclude all Oaths of any sort prohibited now to Christians, though they were not to the Jews. But the reasons foregiven are so cogent to the contrary, that we must of necessity finde out a limitation of the speeches, as we do, and rightly, for the next words of our Saviour following, vers. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. which are as full in shew for not resisting of evil, but offering our selves to receive further injury, and permitting more dammage and profuse vain casting away our estates, contrary to the law of nature, in our necessary defence, to that necessary moderate providence, which belongs to every man, that due respect which each is to have to the rules of mercy, bounty, and our own imployment and family, so that without good caution we shall make Christs precept in stead of being useful to become pernicious.

That we may then consider how to understand our Lords precept about swearing, we are to take this as certain, that Christs precept forbids somewhat which the Pharisaical teachers allowed, though they forbad perjury; now one thing seems to be forbidden by our Lord Christ, to wit, the making of such distinction of Oaths as the Pharisees did, and accordingly used them, which seems to have consisted in two things.

1. In conceiving they might use Oaths by some creatures, as if in such use there were no relation to God, and so no profaning of his name, or taking it in vain. The reason of this seems to be Christs and James his instances onely in such sorts of Oaths as were by creatures, and the refutation of their conceit, by shewing, that all referred to God, as the Oath by the heaven, was by God, sith it was his throne; by the earth, sith it is his footstool; by Jerusalem, sith it was his city; by the head sith he makes the hair white or black.

[Page] 2. That some of these Oaths made them debtors to perform what they sware and not other, which appears from Christs own charge upon them, Matth. 23. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. where he terms them fools and blinde guides for such decision, concluding that all those Oaths had respect to God, and did binde. And accordingly Christ is not to be understood as forbidding simply all Oaths, but such differencing of Oaths in their meaning and obligation, as the Pharisees, and other Jews, either superstitiously or otherwise erroneously used, yet I do not conceive this is all. For the words, Swear not at all, neither by heaven nor earth, nor any other Oath, but prescribing yea, yea, nay, nay, censuring more to be from evil, or the evil one, seems to forbid all Oaths in some cases or manner, which some conceive as if he forbad a promissory Oath universally, or a vow with an Oath: But these opinions stand not with the second Proposition before proved, nor do I finde any thing in the text leading to them. And therefore I conceive, that the prohibition is of that frequent, vain, light, profane, unnecessary, customary passionate swearing, or in secular matters of no importance, without any dread of an Oath, or consideration of the holiness of God, upon a provocation to anger, as David, 1 Sam. 25. 21. or deceifully as those, Psal. 24. 4. all who take Gods name in vain, which I gather from the text.

1. In that he prescribeth their yea, yea, nay, nay, to be in their speech or communication, which seems to be meant of their familiar speech one with another, in their answers to each other.

2. Because James saying, Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, doth exlude inconstancy and lightness, and prescribes such considerateness as that they need not unsay what they have said, that to use the Apostles speech, 2 Cor. 1. 18. Our words may not be yea, and nay, off and on, but yea and Amen, that is, firm and ratified, so as that deeds answer to words, as becomes men, that consider what they say, and still say [Page] that taught the good knowledge of the Lord, 2 Chron. 30. 1, 2, 5, 22. Removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it, 2 King. 18. 4. Appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites, with the portion to be given to the Priests and the Levites, 2. Chron. 31. 2, 4. Josiah purged the land of Idols, repaired the Lords house, gathered all the people to hear the Law read, and to make them to stand to the covenant he made before the Lord, to walk after the Lord. And in the doing of these things the Kings are said to do that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and to walk before the Lord with a perfect heart.

2. On the contrary, the not removing the high places, and permitting Idols, and neglecting the setting up of Gods true worship and service, is charged upon some of the Kings as their sin, 1 King. 15. 14. and 22. 43. 2 King. 14. 9. and 15. 4.

3. God gives a special charge to the King to have a copy of the Law, and to read therein, that he may learn to fear the Lord, and to keep all the words of the Law, Deut. 17. 18, 19. and therefore when Jehojada crowned King Jehoash he gave him the testimony, 2 King. 11. 12. that he might be minded, that he was, as a King, to know and to see to the keeping of the whole Law.

4. The open practice of Idolatry is imputed to the want of a King in Israel, Judg. 17. 5, 6. and 18. 1. which proves, that the King in Israel ought to restrain from Idolatry, and not to permit every man to do what was right in his own eyes.

The ma [...]or is manifest, because the Office of the Kings of Israel was no ceremonial function, as the Priests, but moral, and of perpetual use, and therefore belongs to other Kings as well as the Kings of Israel; nor doth the Gospel deprive them, or any other of their State and Authority, by their becoming Christians: for then suppose King Agrippa had become a Christian, he must have ceased to be a King, and have had his Kingly power diminished: but as the Apostle resolves concerning servants and persons of other conditions, 1 Cor. 7. 24. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called therein abide with God, that is, his Christian calling doth not bind him to leave the state and condition of life in which he was, nor diminish his Authority which he had when he was called to be a Christian, as not consisting with Christianity; so is it true concerning Kings and other Magistrates, [Page] they have greater obligation to God, and the Lord Christ, no less Authority and power as Kings by their Christianity: but they may abide in their Office, and exercise the lawful Authority they had before.

Perhaps it will be said, The Kings of Israel were types of Christ, and therefore their Power and Authority did cease in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, when Christ was come.

1. But to the contrary, this is said without proof, and so is rejected as easily as it is alledged.

2. It is true, Christ is often termed David, and it is said, he shall sit on Davids throne, Luk. 1. 32, 33. But this power of reforming Religion was not appropriate to David, or the race of the Kings of Judah, but belonged also to the Kings of Israel, (who were not types of Christ) who are charged with the permission or promoting of Idolatry, as their sin, as on Jeroboam, Ahab, &c. and Jehu is in some measure rewarded for the partial Reformation he made, 2 King. 10. 28, 29, 30. and therefore it belonged not to the Kings of Israel to reform Religion, onely as types of Christ, but even as Kings.

2. This is proved, and the Proposition it self. That is to be ascribed to the King, which was with approbation ascribed to Kings out of the Church.

But the Government in things and Causes spiritual or belonging to Religion, is ascribed with approbation to Kings out of the Church. Ergo.

The major is proved, because what of this kind is with approbation ascribed to Kings out of the Church, is to be taken as belonging to Kings as Kings, and not as typical Kings or Rulers.

The minor is proved by instances.

The first of Cyrus King of Persia of whom we read that the Lord stirred up his spirit to make a Proclamation for building of Gods house, 2. Chron. 36. 22, 23. Ezra. 1. 1, 2. in doing this he is called Gods shepherd, Isa 44. 28. and anointed by God, Isa. 45. 1. and the same was continued by Decrees of Darius, Ezra 6. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. and Artaxerxes, Ezra 7. 13, 21, 23, 26. now these things belonging to the building of Gods house, furthering his service, were spiritual things, and therefore Government in spiritual things belonging to Religion, is ascribed to Kings out of the Church.

To these may be added the Decree of Nebuchadnezzar against them that should speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, [Page]Meshach and Abednego. Dan. 3. 29. and of Darius, Dan. 6. 26. That in every Dominion of his Kingdom, men tremble and, fear before the God of Daniel, which are undoubtedly about spiritual Causes or Matters of Religion: and the King of Nineveh his Proclamation by the Decree of the King and his nobles, that all should fast covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God, Jonah 3. 7, 8. which is approved by God, in that he defer'd his judgement thereupon: in all which Government in matters of Religion was exercised and approved.

3. That which agrees to other Rulers besides Kings, agrees much more to Kings,

But to Govern in Causes spiritual or things of Religion, belongs to Governours below Kings, therefore much more to Kings.

4. The major is proved from the title given to the King, 1 Pet. 2. 13. where he is called the Supreme or Excelling, and of those that are in Authority or Excelling, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. the King is reckoned as chief; therefore if inferiour Governours are to Govern in matters of Religion, much more Kings. Now that they are to do so, appears by the practice of Nehemiah, who being not King, nor Priest, but Governour under the King of Persia, reformed the Priests, excluding aliens from the Priests chambers, giving the Levites their portion, and chiefly by restraining the profanation of the Sabbath, Nehem. 13. 9, 10, 15, 22. reckoning it among the works for which he would have God remember him. Jacob reforms his houshold by requiring them to put away the strange gods that were among them, and bury them, Gen. 35. 2, 4. Parents are required to bring up their children in the nurture, in Greek discipline or government and admonition of the Lord, Ephes. 5. 4. Servants are to be obedient to their masters as to Christ, Vers. 5. As the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, Vers. 6. With good will doing service as to the Lord and not to men: therefore Parents and Masters have Government in matters of Religion, much more the Father and Master of the Common-wealth, having a more ample Authority.

4. This is further confirmed in that the Apostle where he speaks of the Powers, he saith without limitation, that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evil: wilt thou not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same, he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, Rom. 13. 3. 4. Kings and Governours sent by them are for the punishment [Page]of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well, without limitation and distinction of Civil and Spiritual things, 1 Pet. 2. 14. Now where the Law doth not distinguish, neither are we, and therefore are to understand the Governing in the text to be in Religious things as well as Civil.

5. Which is further confirmed from the Titles given to them: they are termed gods, Psal. 82. 1, 6. John 10. 34, 35. Ministers of God, Rom. 13. 4. That judge not for man but for the Lord, 2 Chron. 19. 9. therefore they are to be ministers in a Political way, and to judge in things of the Lord.

6. Paul did not refuse to apologize for himself about the accusations of the Jews against him for his profession and preaching of Christian Religion, but did justifie himself before Felix, Festus and king Agrippa, and appealed to Caesar, Act. 23. 29. and 24. 5, 6, 8, 10. and 25. 8, 11, 19, 21, and 26. 2, 3. therefore he denied not, but acknowledged the Kings Government, even in the things and Causes that concern Christian Religion, and consequently we may in like manner acknowledge it.

7. Paul exhorts us to pray and give thanks for Kings and all that are in authority or excellency, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. therefore he supposeth that Kings have some Government in matters of godliness, as well as honesty, and therefore are Governours In Causes Spiritual, or of Religion.

8. From the absurdities which follow if this be not granted.

1. If the King be not Governour in Ecclesiastical things and Causes, then his Kingly power is of no use in matters of Religion, for if he have no Government in them he is to be a looker on, and in effect a meer cipher in respect of such things; But this is not to be said, sith matters of Religion do as much concern him to Govern in, as any causes, all experience shewing that no Government can be well ordered without some regard had to Religion.

2. All the actions which Kings have been commended for by godly persons were unjustifiable: the pulling down of Idols, restraining the importation and vending of Popes pardons, and consecrated ware, the causing the holy Bible to be translated, and publiquely to be read, proclaimnig fasts, and days of thanksgiving, with many of the like acts of Kingly Authority have been unwarrantable.

3. Kings should have no way of expressing their zeal for Gods [Page] worship and true Religion more then other men, if they were not Governours in spiritual things and Causes, nor be more accountable to God for neglect thereof, then other men, nor this sin of theirs of more guilt then the like sin of others, which are all absurd.

4. All the holy Martyrs who have owned their authority, and submitted to it when they suffered under it, all those who have petitioned for Reformation of Religion to Kings, have giventhanks to God for it, have advised that it should be sought from them, should be censured as foolish, if not sinfully countenancing an unrighteous usurpation, and the best Christian Kings who have done most for the settling the affairs of the Church censured [...] busie in other mens matters, and the like is to be said of Parliaments, and so all matters of Religion must be left wholly to Bishops, the evil and miserable effects of which are discernible in the Records of former and later times, to be intolerable; as it fell out in the troubles by Thomas Becket in the time of Henry the second, of Stephen Langton in King Johns days, the persecution in Queen Maries days by Bishops, whose disowning the Kings Supremacy and asserting the Popes, occasioned the making and the imposing of this Oath.

5. Those Titles which have been given them for their care in ordering the things of the Church, that they were nursing fathers and nursing mothers to it, according to Isaiahs prophecy, Isa. 49. 29. should be recalled: all the exhortations and charges given to them by preachers to take care of the Church of God, should be retracted, they should be no longer minded, that they are to be keepers of both tables of the Law; in a word, it should be their virtue to be as Gallio was, that cared for none of these things, Acts 18. 17. which are all absurd.

Against this many things are objected.

1. That to acknowledge the King the onely Supreme Governour is to make him God.

To this I answer: Not so, sith he is acknowledged Governour in his Dominions, and Supreme therein under God, and the exclusive term [onely] excludes foraign jurisdiction of the Pope and other Princes and States, (which by the Oath is renounced) not Gods Government.

Object. 2 If Kings are Governours in all causes, then they may appoint what Religion, and worship of God they please, and it is evil to disobey or gainsay what they impose.

[Page] Answer. Though in temporal things they be Governours, yet are they to Govern according to Laws. So in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things they are to Govern according to the Laws of Christ, and such rules as agree with them, and not in either, in a meerly arbitrary way after their own will: nor are we necessitated to obey or own what they require, if inconsistent with the laws of Christ, and such rules as agree with them.

Object. 3. If Kings be Governours in all Causes over all persons, then may they dissolve Churches and their Government, and mould and order them as they will.

Answ. So far as Church constitution, Government, and ordering is by Christs appointment, or such example which hath the force of an institution of Christ, it may not be altered by a King; But in such things as are left to humane prudence, and there is a concernment of the weal publique; Kings have authority to order them so, as that they tend to the real good and advantage of the Churches of Christ, and the glory of God, which is the highest and ultimate end of all.

Object. 4. This will make the use of Synods, and Assemblies of Pastors to determine things of Religion, and to order government unnecessary, sith the determination of all will lye in the Kings breast.

Answ. Though Statute-laws require the Kings assent, and the Government is to be exercised in his name, by his Commission, yet are not debates in Parliament, and passing bills by both Houses, nor consultations with judges, nor their decisions of cases unnecessary: The like is to be said of the use of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors and learned men, though the calling of them, and validity of their Canons, that is rules, in respect of the imposing them on others with civil penalties, require the Kings concurrence.

Object. 5. This hath occasioned great evils in so much that persecution hath been raised against godly persons as Heretiques and Schismatiques, when Princes have been misled; so as to burn, banish, imprison, and otherwise to afflict persons, judged by Prelates and others to be such.

Answ. 'Tis true this hath fallen out, when Princes ignorant of the true Religion, corrupted in their education, perverted by seducers and ungodly guides in their judgements have yielded too much to the misinformation of others, and so have been unhappy in the abuse of their Government to the great hurt in life, liberty, and estate of innocent persons: And the like hath been in mal-administration [Page] of civil affairs, through the like causes: yet the power and authority in neither is to be denied for some abuse: for that would introduce a worse evil of Anarchy and mischievous confusions. On the other side when Princes have been good, and have used such good Counsellours, as Jehojada was to Joash; their Government in Religion hath been of great advantage to the Church of Christ. And, as things have stood in England, it was the means under God whereby Popery was expelled, and the Protestant Reformation was established.

Object. 6. By allowing so much power in Ecclesiastical things, Religion is often changed with the King, and thereby peoples minds are at much uncertainty what Religion to be of, which tends to irreligion and Atheisme.

Answ. So it fell out in the Kingdom of Judah, yet the power of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion was not for this cause denied. And the like happens upon change of teachers, as in the Churches of Galatia: and Paul, Acts 20. 29, 30. foretels the like would be in the Church of Ephesus, yet is not therefore the use and Government of Pastors to be denied, but more diligence to be in using such holy means as prayer for Kings, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. &c. which by Gods blessing may prevent these evils.

Object. 7. No man is to Govern in that whereof he is no sit Judge, nor is any man a fit Judge but he that is skilful in the things he judgeth: which seldom happened to Kings in matters of Religion, and therefore Government therein is ill ascribed to them.

Ans. As a King may be fit to Govern in Temporal Causes (whereto is required skill in the laws of the Land, of which perhaps he hath little or no knowledge, not so much as a Judge is to have, who passeth sentence) if he choose and use them that are skilful and upright therein: so it may be in Ecclesiastical Causes, if he choose and use the help of them that are skilful and faithful in Religion. But in this thing there is need of the greatest circumspection, vigilancy and wariness, on the one side by reason of the cunning and diligence of seducers, and the violence of spirit in profane persons against the most holy and harmless Christians, and on the other side by reason of the weakness in the faith of many upright souls, whose consciences are very tender, and their wounds hardly cured: of whom our Lord Christ was very tender, Matth. 12. 20. and gentle toward them, as the great Shepherd [Page]of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Heb. 13. 20. as was foretold, Isai. 40. 11. and the Apostle Paul requires much indulgence to be given them, Rom. 14. 1, 4.

Object. 8. The acknowledgement of this Supremacy of the King hath been opposed by sundry godly Protestants, who have in their writings excepted against it, as Calvin, and the Century writers of Magdeburg.

Answ. Tis true, they excepted against the Title of head of the Church given to King Henry the eighth, as Stephen Gardiner, and such like persons misreported it, as if it gave to the King an uncontrollable authentique power, to determine of faith, and worship of God: but when those learned Protestants better understood what was meant by it, they withdrew their exceptions, as Doctor Rainold shews in his Conference with Hart in the Tower, chap. 10.

Object. 9. Many godly persons are offended with the taking, and defending the Lawfulness of the taking of this Oath, as fearing it many tend to the taking away those Liberties of their consciences in Religion, which are dearer to them then their lives: and being jealous of those who take it, least they betray those Liberties.

Ans. It is to be considered by those conscientious persons, who make this objection, that the takers, and defenders of the taking of this Oath do apprehend, that the imposing this Oath was for the excluding the Popes jurisdiction, and other Forreign power, as the admonition of Queen Elizabeth here prefixed shews, and therefore there is nothing done by such takers or defenders in prejudice of their brethrens Liberties, or imposition on the consciences of others: But they that have taken it, or conceive they may take it, if imposed, do it, as being satisfied in their consciences by the foregoing arguments, or such like, that they do but what they may do lawfully without offence, and hope that it will fall out as it did in the business of the Altar of Ed, Josh. 22. that a right intelligence of their fact will prevent any breach between them and others, and unite them more closely.

Object. 10. This acknowledgement of the Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical hath been but of late, not before King Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth.

Answer. The Title of head of the Church of England, (now altered into Supreme Governout over all persons) though it were not assumed by the Kings of England before [Page] Henry the eighth, yet the power of Supreme Government in Causes Ecclesiastical, as saith Bishop Bramhal in his answer to Militiere, pag. 111. The ancient Kings of England ever exercised, not onely before the Reformation, but before the Norman Conquest, as appeared by the Acts of their great Councils, by their Statutes, and Articles of the Clergy, by so many Laws of provision against the Bishop of Romes conferring Ecclesiastical dignities and benefices upon Foreigners, by so many sharp oppositions against the exactions and usurpations of the Court of Rome, by so many Laws concerning the Patronage of Bishopricks, and investitures of Bishops, by so many examples of Churchmen punished by the Civil Magistrate. This power, though not this name, the Christian Emperors of old assumed to themselves, to Convocate Synods, to preside in Synods, to confirm Synods, to establish Ecclesiastical Laws, to receive appeals, to nominate Bishops, to eject Bishops, to suppress Heresies, to Compose Ecclesiastical differences, in Councils, out of Councils, by themselves, by their Delegates. All which is as clear in the History of the Church, as if it were written with a beam of the Sun.

The sixth Proposition is [The Jurisdictions, Preeminences, Priviledges, and Authorities in that Oath may be assisted and defended] The jurisdictions, &c. meant I conceive to be expressed a little before the form of the Oath in the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Of which the Queens admonition saith, No other Authority is challenged, than that was challenged and lately used by King Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, that is, under God, to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of persons, born within her Realms, Dominions and Countreys, of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them. What was used in the days of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, appears by the book of Acts and Monumens and Statutes in their days, [Page] to wit, the rejecting the Popes jurisdiction, appointing visitors, judging and deposing some Bishops, commands to take down Images, causing Divine service to be in the English tongue, the Bible in the English tongue to be in Churches, with many other things of the like kinde. the promise to defend them is [to Our power] whether by opposing the bringers in of a Forreign power, especially the Popes or by aiding the King in the right use of this Authority, neither is the power granted which may not be lawfully used or exercised, nor is the abuse of it required to be defended. With this explication, the Proposition is thus proved.

That we may lawfully swear to assist and defend, which may lawfully be exercised, and may be of necessary use.

This Proposition needs not any further proof being of it self manifest.

But all the Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Preeminences and Authorities meant in the Oath according to the Queens explication in her Admonition, ratified in the proviso of the Statute 5. Eliz. may be lawfully exercised, and may be of necessary use, as appears by the recital of them and their use before specified: therefore we may lawfully swear to assist and defend them.

The Objection that is made against this is, that these Jurisdictions, Preeminences, Priviledges, and Authorities were the same that were taken from the Pope and given to the King, and thereby Papal power was conferred on him.

To which I answer, The power (saith Hart Conference with Rainold, chap. 1. division 2.) which we mean to the Pope by this title of the Supreme Head is, that the Government of the whole Church throughout the world doth depend of him: in him doth lie the power of judging and determining all causes of faith, of ruling Councils as President, and ratifying their Decrees; of ordering and confirming Bishops and Pastours; of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the Coasts of [Page]the earth, of reconciling any that are excommunicate, of excommunicating, suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend, yea, on Princes and Nations; finally of all things of the like sort, for Governing of the Church, even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Now this immense power, as too heavy for the shoulders of a mortal man, and as not belonging to the Kingly Office at all in many parts of it, is disclaimed by the Kings of England, as is before shewed, and not meant to be acknowledged in the Oath. Therefore, saith Dr. John Rainold Confer. with Hart, chap. 10. that which we take from the Pope we give not to any mortal creature, and having by the reading of Dr. Nowels reproof of Dormans proof of certain Articles convinced Hart the Jesuite, that no more is meant by it then what August. saith Epist. 50. that Kings do serve Gods as Kings, if in their own Realm they command good things, and forbid evil, not onely concerning the civil state of men, but the Religion of God also: thus much he did subscribe to. Out of all which I infer, that it was very presumptuously and unjustly made by Mounsier de la Militiere the crime of the Kings of England, which God chastised by the late Tragedy, that the Authority which God gave the King in Temporal matters was used by him for Governing Spiritual, in his tempting Epistle to his Majesty that now is, whom the Lord preserve and direct in the mannaging of this power of so great concernment to so many millions of precious souls as are within his Dominions. Amen.

FINIS.

Information about this book

Title statement

A serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy wherein these six propositions are asserted. 1. That some swearing is lawful. 2. That some promissory oaths are lawful. 3. That a promissory oath of allegiance and due obedience to a king is lawful. 4. That the King in his realm, is the onely supreme governour over all persons. 5. That the king is the governour of the realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things, or causes, as temporal. 6. That the jurisdictions, priviledges, preeminences, and authorities in that oath, may be assisted and defended. By John Tombes B.D.

Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.

Edition statement

1660

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A62874

ID [STC]

Wing T1818

ID [STC]

ESTC R220153

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99831579

ID [PROQUEST]

99831579

ID [VID]

36043

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62874)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 36043)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 2046:30)

Source

— A serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy wherein these six propositions are asserted. 1. That some swearing is lawful. 2. That some promissory oaths are lawful. 3. That a promissory oath of allegiance and due obedience to a king is lawful. 4. That the King in his realm, is the onely supreme governour over all persons. 5. That the king is the governour of the realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things, or causes, as temporal. 6. That the jurisdictions, priviledges, preeminences, and authorities in that oath, may be assisted and defended. By John Tombes B.D., Tombes, John, 1603?-1676..

Extent

27, [1] p.

printed by Henry Hills, living in Aldersgate-street next door to the sign of the Peacock,. London :: [1660]. (Publication date from Wing.) (Caption title on p. 3 reads: The Oath of Supremacy as it is in the Statute I. Eliz. cap. I.) (Reproduction of the original in the Harvard University Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.