Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	faith_n	reveal_v	5,457	5	8.8529	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A05345	A full confutation of the covenant lately sworne and subscribed by many in Scotland; delivered in a speech, at the visitation of Downe and Conner, held in Lisnegarvy the 26th. of September, 1638. Published by authority.; Speech, delivered at the visitation of Downe and Conner, held in Lisnegarvy the 26th. of September, 1638	Leslie, Henry, 1580-1661.	1639 (1639)	STC 15497; ESTC S102367	22,621	42

Craig for the detecting of some disguised Papists who by Equivocation or out of hope of Papall dispensation did for feare of the Laws subscribe unto the former confession That negative confession I say was never confirmed by any Parliament What Confirmation it had was onely from the Kings mandate whom they procured not only himselfe to sweare and subscribe but also to command all his Subjects to do so But here I pray you to consider first What age the King was of then not full Fifteen yeeres by foure moneths And how easie a matter was it to abuse his tender youth Let us therfore appeale from K. Iames a minor unto himselfe when he was of riper yeeres And we shall find that he did utterly disallow of that fact insomuch that in the Parliament held the yeere 84. he procured the first confession to be confirmed but without any mention of the latter and so in divers Parliaments following And in the Conference at Hampton Court he did fully manifest his dislike of that Negative confession saying that Mr. Craig with his I renounce and I detest did multiply so many particulars that simple people were not able to conceive And so being amazed did either fall backe into Popery or remaine still in their ignorance And saith he If I should hold my selfe to that forme the confession of my faith must bee in my Table-booke and not in my head So that it hath no civill confirmation at all But you will say that a Sinodicall confirmation by a generall Assembly held at Edenburgh another at Glasgow wherunto I answer that the act of the Synod had onely relation unto the Kings mandate For thus the words runne Forasmuch as the Kings Majestie hath set forth and proclaimed a Godly Confession of faith This present Assembly doth appoint that all Ministers shall conforme themselves therunto under paine of deprivation So that whatsoever strength is in the Synodicall confirmation depends upon the force and vigor of the Kings mandate while that was in force the confirmation of the Synod was in force and that being expired the confirmation of the Synod is likewise expired But the Kings mandate is expired because upon mature judgment hee did retract and disallow it in his life time and though he had not yet the same being a personall act of the Kings without the consent of the States of Parliament is now certainly expired with his royall breath For Mortuo mandatore expirat mandatum So that indeed this Confession which they now urge so violently upon the Kings Subjects hath no legall confirmation at all And as it hath no confirmation So it never had the honour to be received into the body of the Confessions of reformed Churches as was the former Confession neither indeed was it worthy for it is not a Confession of faith at all but a Confession of unbeleefe The author tels us not what he doth beleeve but what he doth not beleeve And I hope you will all confesse that faith consists in assenting to revealed truths and not in dissenting from errors Besides is it not more fit for a Minister to teach his people positive truths of Christian Doctrine then to spend his time in telling them of unknown heresies And as that Negative Confession is not the nationall confession of that Church so the Oath that is now ministred is not the same with that which was received by the Kings Majesty and his Subjects in the yeere 81 as is pretended But is substantially different from it in many respects 1 In the former Oath or Covenant they did swear with the King and by his commandement and their is no doubt but it is most lawfull for Subjects if the matter of the Oath be true and Lawfull to swear by the commandement of the king to whom primarily and Originally belongs the power to minister an Oath and to others only by Commission and power delegated from him But this new Oath is not only without the King but against him and flat contrary to his commandement For since the time that his Majesty manifested his Royall pleasure requiring them to renounce their covenant they have proceeded and sworn many thousands of people So that I am sure by the Lawes of our Kingdome they are in a great Premunire 2. In the first Oath or Covenant there is no bond of mutuall defence But in this new Oath there is a bond of mutuall defence of one another Against all persons whatsoever the King himselfe not excepted 3. Although there had been such a bond of mutuall defence in the former Covenant yet ought it not to be in this for Subjects may lawfully make a Covenant of mutuall defence by Armes by the consent of the King who only hath the power of the Sword within his dominions But they who made this late Covenant had not the Kings consent but did it contrary to the Kings expresse will and pleasure wherein they have violated the lawes of their own kingdome which they were bound to maintaine for by an act of Parliament Anno 1585 all leagues or bonds of mutuall defence made without the privity and consent of the King are expresly forbidden And as in this respect their Covenant is contrary to the Lawes of their kingdome So I am sure it is contrary unto the Law of God for I never knew any Divine who doth not maintain that unto the undertaking of a just warre there is required not only a good cause but also lawfull authority A just cause of warre doth not warrant every man to undertake warre though against a stranger much lesse against the King against whom no cause though never so just can make a warre undertaken by his Subjects warrantable But a just cause doth only warrant the King or supreme Magistrate in whom authority is originally and Primarily and without whose commission the Warres undertaken by private men are no better then robbery and murther That rash and heady adventure of the Israelits against the Canaanites Num. cap. 14. v. 44. was without authority for neither Moses nor the Arke went up with them and therfore Moses doth call their attempt a presumption and they prospered accordingly for they were smitten unto Hormah a name answerable unto the event namely destruction Lastly this Oath is not the same with the former because it contains not only the old Covenant or confession but also their owne interpretation of it For they do plainly insinuate that Episcopall government and the 5. Articles of Perth are abjured in that Confession Now it is reasonable that a few factious spirits who are the Authors of this conspiracy should take upon them to interpret a Nationall confession and obtrude their interpretation upon the whole Church forcing all men to sweare unto it This were too much though their interpretation were true because it wants publique authority and approbation But indeed the interpretation is most notoriously false and like the glosse of Orleance which destroyes the Text. Episcopall government is