Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	amen_n	jesus_n	lord_n	1,685	5	3.6084	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25667	The anti-Quaker, or, A compendious answer to a tedious pamphlet entituled, A treatise of oaths subscribed by a jury of 12 Quakers, whose names are prefixed to it, together with the fore-man of that jury ... William Penn : alledging several reasons why they ... refuse to swear, which are refuted, and the vanity of them demonstrated both by Scripture, reason, and authority of ancient and modern writers / by Misorcus, a professed adversary of vain swearing in common discourse and communication.	Misorcus.	1676 (1676)	Wing A3506; ESTC R165	32,510	58

and an help to Truth and to proof appointed by God and oftentimes very necessary we must restrain this command of Christ to wit Swear not at all to voluntary Oaths not required by them who have Authority vain frivolous and vicious Oaths seeing those things which are set down here have relation onely to such Be not righteous overmuch perverse Separatist for why shouldst thou destroy thy self i.e. as Tremelius upon the Text By thy pride and arrogancy run headlong into destruction Col 1.18 Eph. 4.15 by undergoing the penalties of the Laws here and endangering the salvation of thy soul hereafter Separation from the Church his mystical Body is a dividing from Christ the Head In the last place and for a close of all I do earnestly desire the Heads and Abettors of the Quaking party to afford me so much Charity as to believe that I had no other design in undertaking the Refutation of their Treatise put into my hands by a most religious knowing person but onely their Conviction and Conversion For when I had read what is the sixth of eleven things which they desire to be considered viz. Pag. 155 156 157. That their Refusal to Swear in all cases is a matter of Faith and whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin I pitied their mistake as to the former part of their Position and conceived it my duty with others of the Clergy to undeceive them poor mistaken souls by demonstrating that as it is usual with God to send men as the Apostle speaks strong delusions to believe a lye 2 Thes 10.11 because they received not the love of the Truth that they might be saved so They believe that to be true which is apparently false and that it is a sin to do what they though falsly believe ought not to be done i. e. To Swear by the Name of God although it may be for God's glory in the vindication of the Truth or to promote a Neighbours good My next design was which is every mans duty to prevent the Contagion which might spread amongst the poor people from their * 2 Tim. 2.17 Their word will eat as doth a Canker Gangreen-Opinion for whilst they profess Conscience for their disobedience alledg Scripture though misconstrued for their Conscience and colour all with an appearance of outward Sanctity in their lives not usually tainted with debauchery and drunnkeness it may be justly feared that the Populacy if not fortified by pregnant demonstrations of Truth against their spreading errours and Opinions will cry up their Piety they appearing for a great part of them morally Just and civilly Innocent as were some of the refined Heathens and by degrees joyn with them in their Confederacy against the Laws of the Kingdoms and the Churche's Constitutions there being sown in the hearts of the people the seeds of Rebellion Faction and Sedition which are oft-times sad effects of Conventicles or private Meetings called by alearned Greek Father from the sad experience he found of them Denns of Thieves or Robbers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan for that the Meeting-Masters steal the hearts of Subjects from their King and Governors of Wives from their Husbands and of these from their Wives of Children from their Parents of Servants from their Masters for there can be no true love or affection where there is a difference of Opinion and Practice whilst two or three of a Family go to Conventicles and the rest to open Churches to joyn with Gods Saints and Servants in the publick Service of God as it is enjoyned by the fourth Commandment He likewise terms them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Receptacles of evil Spirits such as filled and possessed the hearts of Judas and Simon Magus and may possess the hearts of many of the Leaders and Teachers in them For a Coronis or superpondium of all hath been writ in the defence of the Legality of a Judicial and in some cases of a private Oath I desire the Treatist once more to consider what he hath said Pag. 27. of his Treatise Take away lying and there remains no more ground for Swearing He should have said there will be no ground for Perjury For suppose a man never told a Lye yet if an Oath should be required of him by the Magistrate to vindicate his own or anothers suspected Honesty and Truth he would have a good ground for his Swearing in this Case he being commanded to do it so that the Treatist's Proposal is vain as it is likewise of a thing that is impossible 1 Cor. 11 19. For as there must be Heresies i. e. they cannot be hindred so there will be as long as the world lasts lying or false-speaking with dissimulation amongst men Ergo by the Quakers own concession there will be a necessity of Swearing Thus I may retort and say the Anti-Jurist is as the Giant Goliah was wounded with his own weapon 1 Sam. 17.51 refuted by his own Argument But I shall not out of my tender pity and regard to his Soul and to the deluded Souls of his Disciples leave him gasping and bleeding under his wound but as I formerly praised him and them for their pretended awful reverence to Gods holy Name so as it becomes a merciful Soul-Physician as the good Samaritan did to the wounded Traveller Luke 10. I shall pour the oyl of my prayers into his wound beseeching God the Father of mercyes so to open his and the eye of their understandings as he did the eyes of Balaam and the door of their hearts as he did open Lydia's that they may laying aside all prejudice attend to those saving Truths which have been delivered in this Anti-Treatise Num. 21.31 Act. 16.14 and being convinced of their errors submit with a due and humble obedience according to the will of God to the wholsom Laws of the Realm and to the Churches laudable constitutions that so they and we may meet now together in love unity and concord and hereafter in the great Congregation of Heaven above into which none shall be admitted but only those who are the true and lively members of Christ their Head who are animated quickned and guided by his good Spirit the spirit of love and unity which rests not in the breast of a perverse malicious Schismatick and the spirit of Truth where with the soul of a proud obstinate Heretick who maintains and propagates opinions repugnant to the word of God is not enlightned From that Venom of Schism and this Pest of Heresie Lord preserve and defend thy Church And so sanctifie the Hearts and govern the Tongues of all profane Swearers that being aw'd by a trembling fear of those dreadful Judgments which have in all ages fallen upon such miscreants they may with thankful lips and by the holiness of their lives advance thy glory and publish thy praises O let thy mercy be glorified in their Conversion and not thy Justice magnified in their Confusion This I humbly beg in the behalf of them and all Dissenters from the Orthodox Professors of thy Truth and sound Religion for thy mercies sake and alone merits of thy beloved Son our Lord and only Saviour Christ Jesus Amen FINIS

Swear by the Name of God to the prohibitive command of our Saviour let me premise this for an undeniable Maxime or Thesis That the Precepts of the Gospel are not repugnant Praecepta Evangelii non contrariantur praeceptis legis Aug. or contrary to the Commands of the Law This Position is defended and proved at large by S. Augustine in his Nineteenth Book against Faustus the Heretick Cap. 16. What the Law commands the Gospel does not forbid and what the one forbids the other does not allow but both meet together in a sweet consent and harmony of Truth and as it were kiss and embrace each other so that the Gospel in a manner bespeaks the Law in the words of that Parasitical Servant in the Comedie to his Master Quod ais aio quod negas nego what you command I commend what you condemn I disallow and there is no surer or better way of expounding the Law than by the Gospel and of the Gospel than by the Law according to that known saying of Irenaeus l. 4. c. 63. Secundùm Scripturas expositio legitima est sine periculo It is the safest course and method for the ending of Disputes to expound Scripture by Scripture one Text by another if there be a seeming difference in the former from the later Now I must put this Question to a dissenting Quaker to any one of the People so called Dost thou imagine or darest thou say that Moses and the Prophets borrowed not their Light of Revelation or Doctrine from Christ the everlasting Sun of Righteousness who likewise being the Eternal Word of God Mal. 4.2 spake to them by his Spirit and dictated to them what we find in their Writings as Rules of our Faith and Manners I presume thou wilt not say it and unless thou wilt assert that they were not true Stars but only slimie Meleors coloured with shews and pretences of Truth and that their Doctrine is false unless thou assert this which is an horrid and hainous crime even blasphemy but to think and I know thou wilt not then thou must set thy Seal to this undeniable Truth that in some cases it is not unlawful or sinful to use an Oath according to that of the Prophet Jeremiah in his Exhortation to revolted Israel Thou shalt swear Ierem. 4. ● The Lord liveth in Truth in Judgement and in Righteousness i. e. When thou makest or takest an Oath Iudicio caret juramentum incautum veritate juramentum mendax Iustitia juramentum iniquum illicitum Aquin. thou shalt swear by the Eternal Lord of Life who is a discerner of the mind and heart to whom are clearly known the inward motions of it who will likewise severely punish us if we be false in our sayings and unjust in our doings This profession we make when we invocate him in taking of an Oath being called to it by the Magistrate and hereby God's name is sanctified it being an extraordinary part of God's worship but with this proviso That the three forenamed Cautions or Circumstances mentioned before by the Prophet do attend it They that thus Swear by Gods Name shall be commended Psal 63.12 i.e. They that swear in weighty matters when they are urged to it either for the confirmation of the Truth or to maintain their suspected Innocency and oblige themselves by an Oath before a Magistrate to do that which is righteous just honest and good such men sin not neither offend against our Saviour's or S. James his Prohibition Swear not chap. 5.12 by which is condemned and forbid only rash and inconsiderate false and dishonest Swearing approved not of by the Laws of men and condemned by the Word of God by which the contrary is commended Isa 65.16 He that Sweareth in the earth shall Swear by the God of Truth To my former Position and Question proposed to a Scrupulous Quaker or rather Anabaptist I shall add another Quaere which I desire him to consider it is this Whether Christ's Assertion and Testimony of Himself be not true Matth. 5.17 I came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it I cannot expect if I should talk with him but that he would say in his proper Language Yea. This being granted as he dares not deny it then I would reply and tell him That if Christ came not to destroy the Law then he forbade not what the Law commands and if he came to fulfil it then he must acknowledge that Christ did that for which he came into the World for his coming was not in vain or fruitless and that He in whom dwelleth the fulness of tine Godhead Gal. 2.9 i.e. who is perfect God and man in one person and in whom there is a fulness of Wisdom and all heavenly Grace fulfilled the Law two manner of ways Aquin. 12.101 Q. 2. Art opere ore by his Works and Words or Divine Doctrine First by his Works or Deeds in that to leave us an Example of a meek heart and sound obedience he submitted himself to the Ceremonial Law being circumcis'd the Eighth day c. So likewise to satisfie the rigour of God's Justice he fully performed the Moral by his Active obedience doing what the Lord required of us to be done thereby to bring us to Heaven and by his Passive suffering for our Sins to redeem us from the pains and torments of Hell Verum legis sensum exptimendo Secondly he fulfilled the Law by his heavenly Doctrine this he did by explaining the full scope the intent or meaning of the Law as in those two Cases of Murder and Adultery Praecepta legis ordinando ut tutiùs observaretur quod lex vetuer at Aquin Matth. 5.21 27. and by prescribing Rules for the better observing of the Laws Affirmative and Negative commands Thus because the Law forbids all kinds of Perjury Thou shalt not Swear by my Name falsly Lev. 6.5 that this Prohibition might be the better kept and observed and men secured from the danger of so great a sin in regard that men accustomed to Swearing account Perjury but a light and frivolous thing Christ therefore in his Sermon upon the Mount gave to his Auditors or Disciples a safe and wholsom admonition Swear not at all i.e. never nisi in causâ necessitatis as the Learned Zanchy upon that Text except in cases of Necessity Vbi gloria Domini vindicanda … t fratris aedifcatio promovenda when and where the glory of God is to be vindicated by a bold defence of the Truth opposed and when our neighbours welfare may thereby be promoted and either our own credit or reputation preserved St. Chrysostome himself who was a rigid enemy to Swearing i.e. to vain and idle Oaths in mutual and private Conference and in whose mistaken and wrested Sayings the Pen-man of the Treatise against Oaths does much * The Author has stuff'd two and twenty Pages in his Treatise with Citations out of that most Eloquent Father which

much to God's honour and to the glory of his Name by the acknowledgment or confession of his Truth Knowledge Justice and Almighty Power all these four Attributes we acknowledge to be in him when in taking of an Oath we call upon him to be out witness and Judge What can the Treatist answer to this how can he vindicate himself from the guilt of notorious falsity and forgery by averring that the Bishop asserted that Christ by his prohibitive Precept exceeded the Prohibition of the Law or Third Commandment by commanding us not only not to Swear vainly or falsly but not to use an Oath in any case whatsoever Does not that godly Prelate in his Tenth Section of his Seventh Praelection lay this down for an undeniable conclusion Juramenti usus est licitus and proves an Oath to be lawful as by divers weighty Reasons drawn from the use of it in the Old and New Testament for that the * Rom. 1.9 Gal. 1.20 Gen. 14.22.26.31.31.53 Apostle Saint Paul and holy Patriarchs did use it and all Controversies were appointed by Moses to be terminated or ended by it Exod. 2.11 so also from the Conditions to be observed in Swearing prescribed by the Prophets as in that fourth Chapter of Jerem. vers 2. which I have formerly cited and illustrated after all which he challenges any man to give just Reason why under the Old Testament it should be lawful for holy men to Swear and not for the Faithful under the New seeing this act of Swearing did not appertain to the Ceremonial Law which was abrogated by Christ as is evident by the end of it which is of perpetual use and that is the confirmation of the Truth and ending all litigious Disputes and strifes about it And will not any prudent man conclude from all this that an Oath to its own and proper nature is not an evil thing but lawful and good when much hurt and many disturbances which may happen in the transaction of humane affairs may by it be prevented This is attested by Saint Paul Heb. 6.16 An Oath for confirmation is an end of all strife i. e. where there is no end of contradicting there an Oath is expedient when the Plaintiff affirms and the Defendant stifly denies when there is no other way of finding out the Truth one part of the contradiction being confirmed by the interposition of an Oath the other part ceases and so the strife is terminated Can we imagine then that the God of peace unity and concord our Lord Christ would wholly forbid Swearing or the use of an Oath at any time or in any case by means whereof oft-times as litigious suits and strifes at Law are ended so Faith and Justice the two most firm bonds and ligaments of humane Society are preserved for he that lies under a solemn Oath dares not be unfaithful or unjust I am sure our Saviour never did forbid it but only the light rash and vain use of an Oath in our ordinary and common discourse this he did and so our most judicious * Praelect 7. Sect. 11. ad finem Bishop expounds those words of our Saviour Matth. 5.34 and the same repeated by Saint James Chap. 5.12 which are the Quakers or Anabaptists only Asylum to which they flie for Sanctuary when they are urged to take an Oath by the Magistrate but I hope they will be effectually beaten or driven from their Asylum when their shallow and dark understandings are better enlightned and they being convinc'd shall acknowledge in their hearts though they will hardly confess it with their tongues that the whole weight of their rotten Position hangs upon a weak and slender thread even one word Omninò at all which is by them misinterpreted A good construction whereof is that expression of one Eusebius a Gentile Philosopher in * Serm. 37. Stobaeus Many sayes he there exhort men to Swear the Truth but my exhortation to them is Ut ne quidem omnino facilè jurent That they Swear not at all easily he means familiarly without great necessity which is the principal or prime meaning of our Saviours Prohibition Swear not at all I should here have given a stop to my flying Pen and taken both it and my wearied hand on from this Paper had not my Zeal inflamed with indignation spurred me on to a just vindication of the honour of another holy and more ancient Father most renowned as the former was in his generation which was 422. years after Christ for his holy life and stupendious knowledge in Divine and Humane Learning I mean St. Jerom Pag. 11. whom the Impostor or Treatist challenges as a Patron of his Opinion saying though most falsly That he makes this the reason why God indulged the Jews in the use of Swearing That they were but in the state of Infancy and that they might be kept from Swearing by false Gods I was amazed when I read this so will the judicious Readers be astonished at the boldness and madness I may add Falsity and Folly of the Treatist inciting the Gloss of St. Jerom upon that Text Matth. 5.34 it being so clearly and wholly against him The Father's Gloss is this which for the benefit of an illiterate Quaker I shall translate word for word into English Hanc per elementa jurandi pessimam consuetudinem semper habuere Iudaei c. This most ungodly custome of Swearing by the Elements was ever in use amongst the Jews for which they are oft condemned by the month of the Prophets He that sweareth either worshippeth or loves him by whom he sweareth We are commanded in the Law to Swear by none but by the Lord our God The Jews swearing by the Angels by the City of Jerusalem by the Temple and by the Elements gave that honour and worship to the Creatures and carnal things which was only due to God But * Let the Author of the Treatife and his Brethren consider this consider that our Saviour does not forbid us to Swear by God but by Heaven and Earth by Hierusalem and by the Head Et hoc quasi parvulis fuerat lege concessum and this subaud he forbids as if it had been permitted to the Jews as to little Ones even as they offer'd Victims unto God that they might not sacrifice the same unto Idols so they should be permitted to Swear in Deum against God not that they should do well in so doing but that it was better to exhibit that honour to God viz. by Swearing by his Temple c. than to Daemons From the later part of this Comment beginning at Et hoc quasi parvulis c. altogether misconstrued by him the Treatift though most absurdly inferrs that God indulged in the opinion of St Jerom the Jews in the use of Swearing they being then in the state of Infancy that they might be kept from Swearing by false Gods For St. Jerom or to vindicate him I appeal to St. Jerom Doth he say

for himself and his Brethren He cannot but know and be assured of it that if he breaks his promise by joyning in a private Conspiracy against the King or by open rebellion raising any popular commotion or tumults he will be indicted for Felony or Treason and so lose his life in an halter instead of his ears And what securitie can the King have from W. P. or any of his Tribe for his own safety and the Kingdoms Peace or be assured that he will keep his promise and not be attached for a Lye in breaking of it when he the supposed prime Penman of the Treatise makes no conscience to assert or affirm what is most false as in the Case of Bishop Sanderson and Saint Jerom hath been demonstrated to his great shame He that shall once baffle me with a bold lye I will hardly take his word or rest in his Yea and he that has invented and publickly vented one out of the Press it may be suspected he will not keep his private promise and that his bare word will not bind him to an exact performance which a solemn Oath might do whereby he calls God to be both a witness of his promise Num. 22.31 and a severe Judge to punish him both in body and soul if he be a Promissifragus An Oath like to the Angel with a glittering Sword in his hand who stopped Balaam in his way to Balak is of more force and energy than a naked word to bind a man to his duty and there is no man that has an honest heart and meaning and knows the many temptations he is exposed to from his own corrupt nature the Fles● the World and the Devil but will chearifully and solemnly take an Oath first praying to God that he may have by his grace strength and power to keep it whereby he may be the more aw'd by fear of God's vindicative Justice to be faithful and just in the discharge of his duty or any publick office which will procure to him the peace of a quiet mind or indistur'd Conscience which is a great blessing and is gain'd many times by means of a Promissory Oath in Swearing There is besides the former Proposal of the Quakers a Question put by the Author of the Treatise whom I find to be in divers shapes sometimes acting the part of a Pelagian in saying that Truth which is a grace of God is natural to him next of a perfect Jesuit as in the point of Dispensation to the Jews and his false Citations and corrupting of the Fathers and now the part of a downright audacious Quaker Pag. 14.15 Quo te Constringam vultus mutantem Protea nodo His Quaere is this Why their Yea and Nay may not be admitted instead of an Oath as well as the Lords Avouchment upon their Honour by which must be understood Vertue in the sense of the best and most ancient Philosophers what does he infer from this though he be mistaken in the proper notion of Vertue His words are Vertue needs not Swear c. and belyes too the Philosophers This is his Inference or to this effect We are Vertuous persons therefore we need not Swear much less have Oaths impos'd upon us to tell the Truth the onely use of Oaths My good vertuous Friend I must tell thee mildly this is a Thrasonical brag But to come to the Quaere My answer to it in general is That it is impertinent and incongruous For first the Quaker's Yea is onely a simple Affirmation to assert the Truth or what has been said or done a Question to this purpose having been put unto him But the Avouchment of a Lord upon his Honour is a more solemn Protestation and Asseveration of a Truth and implies an Option or wish as an Oath does an Imprecation and the sense or meaning of it being but an abridgment of his * This Form was antiently the Lords Protestation per Fidem Allegiantiam meam is this As I bear true Faith and Allegiance to my Soveraign Lord the King so is that which I say most true and if I witness an untruth or promise what I do not purpose nor will perform let disgrace and reproach fall upon my Honourable person let me listed amongst those that are disloyal and not faithful to their King let me be counted for a vile person unworthy of any honour or respect from men c. So that by Honour is not meant Vertue properly so called as the Treatist fondly imagines for Vertue or vertuous actions is onely the ground of Honour which is In honorante not in honorato as the * Aristot Philosopher attests in his Ethicks or Book of Manners which the Quaker never studied It is in the Honourer not in him that is honoured being nothing else but an high esteem and outward Reverence which men have of and exhibit to a Noble person for his Vertue for his Piety towards God and Loyalty to his King By this we may collect how the Treatist is mistaken I will not say for want of Learning to which he pretends by citing many Authors and it argues a cripple or lame Cause that needs so many Crutches I rather impute it to his Sophistical crafty industrie in laying hold on any thing though it be but one word by which and that misunderstood he may gain a little countenance to his exploded Opinion Besides this he cannot be excused for his Malapert rudeness who dares put himself into the Scales with the best of the Lords and those vertuous Persons and conclude that because in some cases they have a priviledge to attest onely upon their Honours therefore he may challenge the same for his Yea and Nay by which many credulous and well-meaning men have been deluded and drawn into Errours witness E. B. a late Brewer in Westminster who is famous rather infamous for cheating all his Creditors to the ruine of many Families Moreover I must acquaint him for a further refutation of his bold Proposal with what I have learn'd from that great Oracle of Law and Law-Cases Sir Ed. Cook in the 12 Part of his Reports p. 95 96. There he tells us that If any one who is Noble and a Peer of the Realm be sued in Chancery he ought to answer upon his Oath and if any Noble person be produced as a witness between party and party he ought to be sworn or otherwise his Testimony is of no value in these cases his attestation or Avouchment upon his Honour will not be admitted though in many others it may and ought to be accepted Furthermore I must in lieu of his Proposal to the King and Parliament propound a Question to him which is whether the King and his Lords both Spiritual and Temporal committed an hainous sin when his Majesty at his Coronation bound himself by a gracious condescension in an Oath to discharge faithfully that great Trust for the wellfare of the Church and State committed by God unto