Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	word_n	world_n	zealous_a	76	3	8.4060	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30542	Some of the principles of the Quakers (scornfully so called by men) vindicated and proved sound and true and according to the Scriptures in oposition to the false charges and lying reports given forth against the truth in two printed books put forth by one Philip Taverner, a supposed minister of the Gospel in Middlesex near Vxbridge ... / by Edw. Burrough.	Burrough, Edward, 1634-1662.	1658 (1658)	Wing B6024; ESTC R28519	19,009	24

SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE QUAKERS Scornfully so called by Men VINDICATED And proved sound and true and according to the SCRIPTURES In opposition to the false Charges and lying Reports given forth against the Truth in two printed Books put forth by one Philip Taverner a supposed Minister of the Gospel in Middlesex near Vxbridge And hereby Truth is manifest and discovered and the Controversie determined by the judgement of Truth between Philip Taverner aforesaid the Accuser and Edw. Burrough Defendant of the Truth who contends for the Faith of the Gospel and for the Word of God in the Heart against all such Gain-sayers as have the form of Godliness but denies the Power and many such are in this Age And this is given forth for the satisfaction of all that desires to know the Truth of the Controversie between them aforesaid By Edw. Burrough LONDON Printed in the Year 1658. Some of the Principles of the QVAKERS scornfully so called by men vindicated and proved sound and true and according to the Scriptures In opposition to the false Charges and lying reports given forth against the Truth in two printed Books put forth by one Philip Taverner a supposed Minister of the Gospel in Middlesex near Vxbridge WHereas Philip Taverner one of Truths Opposers whether through ignorance or subtilty I now determine not hath again appeared against me and Truth in Print as in vindication of himself and his former work who about four months ago gave a false relation of a Dispute but instead of mending the matter he hath made his own cause the more vile as may appear to such who takes a perfect view of the proceedings from the beginning to the end thereof row the intent of this my Reply is to clear the Truth further and to take off h●s false aspersions which he hath cast upon my innocent words in my former Book in answer to his first And as for the rest of his Book which hath no relation to mine nor to the Dispute I shall pass it by The Title of my first Book was Something of Truth made manifest c. To which saist thou a plausible title to cover a railing and bitter Spirit under that it may walk in the world less suspected c. Reply My words are truth for in that book truth was made manifest to many in relation to the former dispute to the satisfaction of many and as for rayling and bitterness of spirit I do deny only I am zealous for the Lords truth to speak plainly by reproving them that gain-say it and to that of God in every mans conscience do I desire to be manifest and seeks not by flattering words to cover evil that I may not be suspected though thou seem falsly to say it but let all my enemies suspect what they will for of the Lord do I seek to stand approved and not of man for the Jew inward hath no praise of man but of God and as for rayling language and bitter words against thee I have used none but speaks the truth in plainness The next thing thou seems to stumble at is whereas I said I supposed thou hadst Ambitiously stiled thy selfe Mr. Phillip Taverner and thou now seeks to hide thy self from the force of my words to the sight of the world which appears a little to strike upon thee with some shame And thou saist thou did not prefix Mr. before thy name but the Stationer did it who saist thou was pleased to honour the man with that title c. Reply Now instead of clearing himself he hath shewed more guilt of ambition then before and my words were I supposed and not an absolute charge as he saith and had not I good reason to suppose it that it was his ambition being also contrary to the express command of Christ Mat 23. And indeed I hardly ever read any subscription like to it by the greatest and noblest of men as men account and it is a thing far above humility and not beseeming any man much less one that professes himself to be a Minister of Christ ●o subscribe himself or be with his consent Mr. such an one but he seems to cover himself from ambition because saith he he did it not himself but another I say I shall not charge him here with falsehood but I am sure it is very unusual for any man to add any thing to another mans book without his knowledg I never knew it done by any Stationer who hath had some knowledg of their wayes but yet he acknowledges it was done in honour to him to subscribe him Master and here he hath Justified the thing and shewed that he is indeed guilty of ambition who confesseth that it is an honour to him to be subscribed Mr. by another for he saith the man that did it honoured him with that title and here men may take notice what honour this my adversary looks after even the honor that Christ forbids who saith to his ministers be not ye called of men masters but the man hath honoured Phil. Taverner with titling him Mr. as he saith The next thing treated proves also that he is ambitious for he pleads much the lawfulness of titles of civil respects as he calls it And this is all to justifie the title of master to himself and thereupon hath wrested divers scr●ptures what though the unbeleeving Greeks used the word Master or Sir John 12. which he hath quoted is this an example sufficient for Christians to break the command of Christ Mat. 23.10 neither are any other Scriptures a warrant for any man so to do though for a whole page he treats only as for the lawfulness of such titles yet in the end would shut guilt from his own door that he affects not titles For he saith this he speaks not that he would have it so done to him and this his seeming justifying himself proves himself guilty knowing that he had given truly occasion for people to judg he would have it so and in the end would blind the minds of the simple with words of seeming humility that he would not have it so done to him as if he cared not for it And whereas I said in my first that I am without any prejudice towards the man viz. P. T. he saith I must give him leave to question it first from my rayling words against him secondly from my scornful pitty expressed c. saith he Reply I have no prejudice against him God is my witness and he may question what he will who is in the unb●lief for its manifest by his former that he quest●ons where he hath no just occasion shewing much prejudice in himself for he said in his first relation commenting upon some of my words if by such words I meant so then it was truth but if I meant so then it was false and was not this a perfect sign of prejudice in him who had not just occasion to except against the words as they lay nor could

I refer the Reader to understand more of P. T. his folly and the manifestation of truth And wheeras he again charged the Quakers with a Spirit of jeering and scorns and jeers are not a fruit of the Spirit saith he c. Reply He here again charges falsly for we know that Scorning and jeers after the flesh are not works of the Spirit nor fruits of it but that we have denyed and it s cast out neither do we scorn or jeer any saving as in Isa. 37.22 Then he no less then confesses his wrong dealing who in his last changed R. G. word from called to owned which word is of much consequence in that place but would cover R. G. by saying that R. G. did not undertake to prove the Scriptures considered as meer writings but the thing contained in the Scriptures to be the word of God c. Reply Here P. T. hath endeavoured to mend the matter by his conception and meaning given to R. G. words now the words of R. Goodgroom was he said he would prove the letter the word and upon that brought his Argument and is not the letter meer writings and nothing else but when they see they cannot make good their own words then they turn of the strength of reproof by they meant so or they meant so and no man ever yet could or can prove in all the Scriptures that the letter the writings are called the word but as I still confessed that which is written of is the word and the writings are the words that declares of the word which was in the beginning but P. T. would fain reconcile this difference between us say they the writings the letter are the word say I that which is written of is the word now betwixt these are great difference as spiritual men may judge as much as between a dead Trumpet and a liveing breath sounded through it nay its hard to reconcile that which is contrary in nature they must leave preaching for money and cease to take Tythes and gifts for preaching before I can be at unity and another birth must speak and live in them and that which now lives in them must be slain and their Crown laid down before reconciled I can be to them or they to me though I have no envy against persons more then the Saints had with them that opposed the truth nor no weapon shall I use against them saving that that is Spiritual and the sword that goes out of the Lambs mouth and all the many Scriptures which he quotes p● 23. doth neither say nor signifie that the letter the writings are the word or so called though Moses Deut. 5.5 said he would shew them the word of the Lord did he then shew them the letter the writings the Scripture I say no therefore he did not call the writings and the letter the word of God as you affirmed and seeks now to prove but thou perverts Scripture and proves nothing to purpose and though many times the word of the Lord came to such a Prophet and such a Prophet as thou hast proved in Hosea Ioel and others yet did the writings and the letter come to them or that which the letter and writings declares of let wise men judge that nor all thou canst say doth prove that the writings the letter is the word of God or that ever any of the holy men of God called them so so that till better proof be given which I never expect I need not revoke any thing that I have said contrary viz. that the letter and writings are the word or by the holy men of God so called but still I say the writings and letter are not the word but the thing written of is the word of God that lives for ever Then in that I charged R. Goodgroom with saying when I had my Bible in my hand at the dispute I had the thing signified in my hand said he which thing P. T. in his first relation had much falcified but now he seems to acknowledg the thing and excuses it by supposing it was a slip of his tongue the highest matter of offence in it as for the words not only my self but divers others do well remember them spoken by R. G. thy fellow disputant and had he or you then confessed a slip of the tongue it had gone no further but in that thou in thy first relation gave a wrong account thereof and had laid down the thing quite otherwise then he spoke it this made the matter more a transgression and thy account to be false neither am I ready to catch words from the mouth of my apponent as thou charges me but that charge is justified against me and the truth I must needs make use of it to shew the folly of such men that will so do even out of their own mouths often and by their own words to confound them and would thou have me to give away a just cause through n●glect of hearing and taking notice of such foul words as to say I had the thing in my hand that was signified of in the Bible when I had the Bible in my hand and so set deceit a top on me for want of repoving evil I am otherwise taught do thou judge what thou wil● and herein my principles are found to agree with the Scriptures for it saith a man shall be justified by his words and by his words shall he be condemned And as for my answers to his queries raised from some words of mine written in a book called the Standard c. my answer saist thou is little else then asserting the same thing over again c. now I say its needless here to transcribe the Queries and answers over again but let them be looked in my first booke Iled something of truth made manifest c where it may be seen that my answers are sufficient and laid down to the satisfaction of all reasonable men that desires to be resolved though thou say there is as little evidence of truth in the last as in the first but doth not at all discover the falsness of them in any particular which had been right for thee to have done and not to have charged evil in general upon my answers and prove nothing but who will believe him except such as takes his words for an oracle for them that have received the good undestanding cannot believe him Then in the conclusion he charges me with harsh kind of censoriousness because I said what can be in the heart of such a man that can draw so bad consequence from such upright words when in his former he had concluded that I held forth giddy doctrine and weakned the authority of Scriptures to beget undervaluing thoughts of them and such like because I had affirmed the truth in saying the divel and Pharoah spoke something that 's written in Scripture and had I not reason to question what is in his heart who had the boldness without