Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bear_v	truth_n	witness_n	3,073	5	8.6773	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91254	A letter of due censure, and redargvtion [sic] to Lieut: Coll: John Lilburne: touching his triall at Guild-Hall-London in Octob: last. 1649. Wherein if there be contemper'd some corrosive ingredients, tis not to be imputed unto malice: the intent is, to eat away the patients proud, dead flesh, not to destroy any sincere, sound part.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1650 (1650)	Wing P405; Thomason E603_14; ESTC R205827	37,997	43

precedents are all liable to your condemnation if you say they are irrationall or savour of innovation that 's sufficient to over rule them and as for Divine Authorities t is in your breast to interpret them and no mans else whereupon they are made Lesbian rules to you and they must not conform but must be conformed to your judgement Ex gra The 4. Evangelists testifie that our Saviour being presented in judgement before divers Tribunals made such pleas and confessions as drew on upon himself a capitall sentence and were the only evidence that either the Jews had to condemne him of blasphemy or the Romans of sedition You neverthelesse say that our Saviour by silence avoided the danger of his Examiners and left you a warrant thereby to conceal your guilt from the Judges and to evade that danger of condemnation which the prescription of our Laws would else intangle you in When the States Atturney Generall presses you for an answer to his proofs and not meer allegations which make you the Author of seditious books you more then once aver that our Saviour shook off his Interrogators with an eluding answer and therefore in imitation of Christ you say Thou M Prideaux affirmest I am the Author of seditious books but prove it if thou canst. This is ruffe handling of humane Magistrates and Laws but this is worse handling of Inspired Writers and worst of all is the false glosse you set upon our Saviours actions Our Saviour being demanded by Caiphas in the Counsell of the Jews whether he were the Son of God or no according to Matthew and Luke returned answer Thou saidst it and Mark repeating the same Answer makes it a pure affirmation or an assent confirming what the high Priest said For Marks relation which must be the same as the other Evangelists was answers positively and fully to the question I am the Son of God 2ly All these Evangelists record this further of our Saviour that immediately after his answer to the high Priest He proceeded to tell the Counsell that they themselves should one day see him sitting on Gods right hand and so be convinced of that now they would not beleeve 3ly The Counsell understood our Saviours Answer to be affirmative and positive for upon that Answer according to all the Evangelists He was instantly condemned of blasphemy from the confession of his own mouth Neither did our Saviour being examined before Pilate concerning his regall interest give an evading Answer Pilates question was Art thou a King our Saviours answer was Thou sayest it but to shew that this Answer was a positive affirmation of the thing questioned our Saviour added immediately To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witnesse unto the truth And we finde that Pilate doubted not of our Saviours meaning whether it were affirmative or elusive This is therefore an high violation of Divine Authority that you should call those Answers and pleas of our Saviour dilatory and fallacious which the Evangelist makes to be so plain and the Jewish and Romane Magistrates both entertained as so positive and that you should flatly say our Saviour patroniz'd obstinate silence in all Delinquents and therefore would not reveal truth when He saies directly of Himself that He was born and sent into this world to bear witnesse to the truth 4ly How can you imagine that our Saviours silence to some impertinet questions was any justification of your not pleading when our Saviour had not the same reasons of silence as you and other Delinquents have and pretend for For first our Saviour was guilty of nothing which in justice could take away his life or expose him to any other the least lash of the Law If you will beleeve the Romane Judge before whom he was tryed He was convinced and thrice labour'd to save him knowing that the Jews of envie prosecuted against him and being driven to wash his hands of so foule and murtherous sentence argued with the Jews that He had not onely examined him himself and found no capitall delinquencie in him but had also sent him to Herod and by Herod He was also sent back acquitted this makes our Saviours case very different from yours 2ly Our Saviour knew his doom was unavoidable and so He could not make use of silence upon the same grounds as you do 3ly Our Saviours silence was not obstinate against any clear Law as yours is 4ly It was not generall or continuall when he was questioned either about his Divinity or regallity things questionable in Law He gave direct answers and even when He was questioned extravagantly about his Disciples or the nature of truth or his doctrine after some space of modest silence He gave reasons of his silence He told them they were resolved before hand not to believe him and that he had alwayes taught openly and not in corners so that the testimony of his auditors and spectators would be more proper in matters of that nature then his own Hereupon Pilate received satisfaction as also Herod though all their impertinent questions were not presently answered and when Pilate washed his hands before the people in token of his innocency and pleaded earnestly for his inlargement more then once or twice He told the people plainly that Herod to whom He had sent him to be examined had sent him back again being of his judgement and finding nothing worthy of death in him Lastly if our Saviour had refused to answer Caiaphas Herod and Pilate who had not due jurisdictions over him this affords no plea nor patronage for your peremptory silence forasmuch as our Saviour was a King de jure though He would not take upon him the office of a King de facto and it may be beleeved that in some acts of his He did transcend the capacity and condition of a meer private person in which He is not imitable by you I shall infer therfore that you when you cite our Saviours example and practise to justifie your opposing Judges and Laws and to smother Treason and frustrate judgement contrary to that which is asserted by all the Evangelists you do blasphemously and impudently make God the countenancer of sin that you may make man the apter to sin against God The 5th and last matter of scandall in your book is your double dealings with the Jury for though your 12. men are most religiously obliged to bring in a verdict without favour or fear you neverthelesse endeavour both wayes to force them from their religious obligations aswell by terror as by arts of embracery On one side you are their brother Citizen a great honourer doubtlesse of your City matriculation some of them you know to be honest men as you are a profound metaposcopist there are lineaments of honesty drawn in their very faces and the whole aray of them has this preferment from you that they were the only supreme dispencers of justice in England and that the