Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	aaron_n	able_a	moses_n	21	3	5.9834	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64939	A review and examination of a book bearing the title of The history of the indulgence wherein the lawfulness of the acceptance of the peaceable exercise of the ministry granted by the Acts of the magistrates indulgence is demonstrated, contrary objections answered, and the vindication of such as withdraw from hearing indulged ministers is confuted : to which is added a survey of the mischievous absurdities of the late bond and Sanquhair declaration.	Vilant, William.	1681 (1681)	Wing V383; ESTC R23580	356,028	660

20. Servants be Subject to your Masters with all fear not only to the good but to the froward or perverse as it 's also rendered This Scripture is cited in the larger Catechism in explication of the fifth Commandment to shew what is the Honour that Inferiours owe to Superiours If the miscarriages of Magistrates Masters Parents or the miscarriages of Inferiours did dissolve the Relation and make it void And if the miscarriages of Married Persons did nullifie the Marriage-relation and loose the Party wronged from all Obligation towards the Party that 's injurious this would quickly dissolve the Bonds of all Humane Society and make Men like a multitude of loose Cartel If Subjects were not bound to give due Obedience to Magistrates except they did preserve the true Religion then all the Directions that Christ and his Apostles gave to Honour and be Subject to and pay Tribute to and pray for the Magistrates and Powers that then were did not oblige the People to whom they were first directed for all the Magistrates then were Infidels and Idolaters In the Confession of Faith Chap. 23. Art 4. It 's the Duty of People to pray for Magistrates to Honour their Persons to pay them Tribute and other dues to obey their Lawful Commands and to be Subject to their Authority for Conscience sake Infidelity or difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and Legal Authority nor free the People from their due obedience to him And the General Assembly Anno 1639. in their Supplication to the Commissioner and Council say We have Solemnly sworn and do swear not only our mutual Concurrence and Assistance for the cause of Religion and to the utmost of our Power with our Means and Lives to stand to the Defence of our dread Sovereign his Person and Authority in the Preservation of true Religion Liberties and Laws of this Kirk and Kingdom but also in every Cause which may concern His Majesties Honour shall concur with our Friends and followers as we shall be required Preach Subjects are not obliged to concur with and assist Rulers in doing ill Min. That 's true for to concur with them in assisting them to do evil were to partake of their sin But though we may not partake of their evil yet that will not follow that we must not maintain their Person and Authority Although the Israelites would not assist and concur with Saul in destroying Jonathan but rescued him yet they thought themselves bound to defend Saul's Person and Authority It 's one thing not to concur with Superiours in evil and another thing to destroy their Persons and their Power because they do evil But ye cannot deny but the Covenant obliges to defend and maintain the King in so far as he maintains the true Religion and Righteousness and I think ye will not deny that the King doth in part maintain the true Religion and Righteousness and therefore ye are bound to defend his Person and Authority and how can ye defend his Person and Authority in doing any good if ye destroy his Person and Power as is designed and sworn in this Band. There are many other Absurdities in that fourth Article of the Band which were tedious to repeat and refute In the fifth Article they say We then being made free by God and their own doings he giving the Law and they giving the transgression of that Law which is the cause that we are loosed from all Obligations Divine and Civil to them It 's strange that men who cry out against these who break other Articles of the Covenant should so boldly shake off the Obligation of the third Article of the Covenant and so increase the sin of the Nation by adding the breach of the Civil part of the Covenant to the breach of the Religious part of it To make out what they assert it 's not enough to prove that the Rulers have transgressed the Law of God for they must also shew from the Law that it is the will of God that Subjects should upon such and such transgressions shake off all Obligations towards such Rulers But this they have never attempted because they could not I would enquire at them doth every transgression loose these Obligations If not then how many and how great must these transgressions be And then shall a few private Persons who have very little Interest in the Nation determine this Question How many and how great transgressions makes Rulers no Rulers and Subjects no Subjects Then they promise to set up Government and Governours according to the Word of God especially Exod. 18.21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the People able Men such as fear God Men of Truth hating Covetousness c. I wish they had pondered Prov. 24.21 22. My Son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change For their Calamity shall rise suddenly and who knoweth the ruine of them both The Dutch Interpreters expound it of these who are addicted to changes and novelties departing from the Obedience which they owe to God and their Lawful Magistrates and rising up in Rebellion against them Moses was King in Jesurun and his setting up subordinate Rulers is no pattern for their shaking off the Yoke of Subjection and setting up Usurpers and an unlawful Government The 16 of Numbers where Subjects do Seditiously exalt themselves against Moses and Aaron quadrats better with their case than the 18 of Exodus where Moses makes subordinate Rulers for his own and the Peoples ease And how could they in Reason expect that able men wise and prudent men fit for Government or men fearing God or men of Truth would undertake to be Governours over them For wise men would see the sin and snare and hazard in breaking down the hedge of Civil or Ecclesiastical Government Eccles 10.8 Men fearing God they also fear the King and fear an Oath and men of Truth will not deal falsely in the matter of their Covenant with God or Man And who but foolish rash Persons would take upon them to Rule such an unruly and disorderly People who had destroyed all Order Civil and Ecclesiastical It 's strange that they durst speak as they do of Kingly Government and Lineal Succession seeing the Lord established both among his People in the House of David the man after his own heart Kingly Government as established in these Nations in which King and Parliament make Laws is a form of Government so excellent that few except Persons byassed with prejudice will find fault with it The faults of Rulers should not be imputed to the form of Government They engage to set up the Judicial Law but they apprehend it would not reach far enough and they reject some parts of it but beside these things which they mention there are several other things which would not suit with us Some even of their Capital Laws have intimate connexion with their Ceremonial Law and derive much of

ye were with If the person be silent and give no answer the suspicious Inquisitor will be more confirmed in his suspicion and readily conclude the man guilty If the man be really guilty and yet clears himself he sins by lying If he confess his guilt he makes a scandal in an unwarrantable divulging of his sin and though it may be he hath behaved himself blamelesly yet a tender person upon such an enquiry may readily be put to a demur and suspect that he may at least have omitted something which he ought to have done and so cannot give any present account of the serenity of his foul in that matter which will encrease the sinful suspiciousness of his Inquisitor and though he be altogether blameless and his Conscience serene yet the very questioning of such things is apt to breed suspicions and scandals But to come to his Question His design in it is to find the Indulged Ministers guilty by their own Confession of the neglect of a Testimony against the wickedness of this Invasion made by the overturners of the Work of Christ The Question is Whether it was the duty of those Ministers at that time to give in a Testimony of that nature He determines they should have done it then or never Now he hath so conceived his Question that whether they answer yea or nay he will conclude them guilty for not giving in such a Testimony as he requires at that time for if they say they were helped to witness a good Confession against this wickedness then he will conclude that then it was duty to give in such a Testimony as he requires at that time for to make a Confession good it 's required that it be seasonable an unseasonable Confession is not a good Confession for the seasonableness of a Confession is one of those things which are required to the goodness of it and a good thing is made up of intire causes but any defect makes a thing evil Again it cannot be said that men with serenity of soul can have confidence to give Christ thanks for helping them to give an unseasonable Confession or a Confession out of season But again if they answer that they were not helped by Christ to give such a good Confession then he will conclude that they are guilty of neglecting to give in that Confession at that time seeing it was a good Confession and so seasonable which if they had given they would have done it by the help of Christ and would have had matter of thanksgiving and seeing they have not done it they have not been helped by him to that which was good and their duty at that time Thus whether they answer his Question affirmatively or negatively he will conclude them guilty The Author made his Address as he says not as an acute disputant but as a poor blunt plain open-hearted man in a few plain Questions he should not after such a profession of plain-dealing in the very Entry begun with Sophistry with a Caption from many Interrogations Solomon says Prov. 9.8 Reprove not a Scorner lest he hate thee So that a man may forbear to reprove a Scorner and yet not be guilty of a sinful neglect but by such a captious Question as this any man who hath been with and heard Scorners will be found guilty for if ye spear at him were ye helped by Christ to witness a good Confession against such a Scorner or to give a good reproof to such a scorner if he answer that he was not helped to give him a good reproof then ye conclude that he omitted good and so sinned in not reproving him whereas Solomon forbids to reprove him If he say he gave him a good reproof then he calls that good which the Scripture forbiddeth or if this question be moved to one who hath not reproved a man when he was not in a case to receive reproof suppose when in drink or in the height of rage or when in such distemper and under such prejudice as the reproving of him would hinder him from doing some good that he were about to do and in all probability make him worse if the person perceive not the captiousness and sophistry of the Question but answer yea or nay he will be intangled but such may easily answer the Question thus 1. That they did not reprove such a person in such a case and 2. That it was not good to reprove him in such a case or at such a time and that therefore he was not guilty of neglecting a good reproof because it was not seasonable to reprove at that time If the Prefacer would have dealt as plainly as he promised he should have plainly proved that these Ministers should at that time have given in such a Testimony as he requireth The command that requires the making of Confession is an affirmative Precept and though it be obliged at all times yet doth not oblige to give a Testimony at all times we must never deny the truth but we must not ever make Confession of it as all Casuists grant We do not hear that Moses and Aaron made any formal protestation against Pharaohs Blasphemy and avowed Rebellion against God they heard him say Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice to let Israel go I know not the Lord neither will I let Israel go They make no Protestation nor Declaration against this blasphemous Speech and avowed Rebellion against God they only shew their Warrant and humbly insist in their Petition and yet these extraordinary Embassadours of God were in another manner of capacity for doing this if it had been necessary and seasonable than ordinary Ministers are read Exod. 5.2 3. Nor do we hear that the other Children gave any written or verbal Protestation against the making of the Image and Proclaimation to worship it Nor did Daniel give any written subscribed or verbal Declaration against the making signing publishing of that Decree which discharged all Petitions to be given to any for thirty days but to Darius which was to make him God alone All that they did was they did not obey but acted contrary to those godless Decrees and chused rather to suffer death than obey them Nor did our Saviour speak any thing before Herod though a vile man when he was before him Christ held his peace a long time before the Council and when he spoke he gave in no written or verbal Protestation against the Council it 's constitution and corruptions nor against the sentence they pronounced against him as a Blasphemer Nor when Paul compeared at Rome do we hear of any Protestation against the monstrous abominations and persecutions of Nero. Many Martyrs and Confessors did forbear to make publick Protestation against the Idols and Idolatry of their Persecutors and all that many of them said was this That they were Christians and upon that suffered How many both private Christians and Ministers have appeared before the Council since the Supremacy was established