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
A54581	The obligation resulting from the Oath of Supremacy to assist and defend the pre-eminence or prerogative of the dispensative power belonging to the King, his heirs and successors. In the asserting of that power various historical passages occurring in the usurpation after the year 1641. are occasionally mentioned; and an account is given at large of the progress of the power of dispensing as to acts of Parliament about religion since the reformation; and of divers judgments of Parliaments declaring their approbation of the exercise of such power, and particularly in what concerns the punishment of disability, or incapacity.	Pett, Peter, Sir, 1630-1699.	1687 (1687)	Wing P1884; ESTC R218916	193,183	151

Peace and Quietness of the People might be disturb'd by the Annual Calling of Parliaments according to the tenour of those Laws our Princes as Supreme Governors of the Realm did often dispense with their observance The Author of the Book call'd The Long Parliament Dissolv'd Printed in the year 1676. refers to the Laws of 4 o E. 3. c. 10. and 36. E. 3. c. 14. 5. E. 3. N o. 141. 5. E. 2. N o. 1. R. 2. N o. 95. as positively appointing the Meeting of a Parliament once within a year And the People saith he have silently waited and born the Omission of our Princes in not so Calling Parliaments And he further mentions how Queen Elizabeth Prorogued a Parliament for three days more then a year and he presumes to complain of His late Majesty's Proroguing his long Parliament to above a years time as illegal and he argues for that Parliaments being disabled from Sitting and acting afterward as a Parliament by reason of such Prorogation as contrary to the aforesaid Laws and which he saith were declared to be in force when the triennial Act was made in 16. Caroli 1 mi. and so likewise in the Statute for repealing that triennial Act in 16. Car. 2 o. in these words And because by the Ancient Laws and Statutes of this Realm made in the Reign of King Edward the Third Parliaments are to be held very often c. And how the Iudgment of the House of Lords was assertive of the legality of that Parliaments not being disabled from sitting after such His late Majesty's Prorogation is fresh in memory But to return from whence I digress'd I may here take notice to you how our Princes as Supreme Governors of the Realm and as having the Rule of all Persons committed to them by God and to whom they stand accountable for the same have held themselves obliged further to dispense with disability incurr'd by Acts of Parliament upon a Religionary account and which they have done to the general satisfaction of their Subjects of all Religions A What do you here intend to refer to B. I do here intend to refer to the Statute of 3 o Iacobi c. 5. by one Clause in which Act Convict Recusants are DISABLED from practising Physick or bearing any Office or Charge Military and by which Clause every Person offending is to forfeit for every such Offence 100 l. and the one Moyety thereof to be to the King and the other Moyety to him that will sue for the same c. But notwithstanding the Zeal of that Prince against Popery he out of a tender regard to the Bodies and Healths of his People and the ennabling many learned Roman-Catholick Physicians to preserve them did by Connivence sufficient●…y dispense with that Law insomuch that it may be said that that severe disabling Law came on the Stage but as Cato into the Theatre only to go off again And I have elsewhere mention'd it that a Book afterward Printed in his Reign call'd The Foot out of the Snare sets down the Names of about Twenty five famous Roman-Catholick Physicians then Practising in London and the places of their abodes and whom yet I believe no Informer ever molested And notwithstanding the disability incurr'd by that Act of Parliament I account that an eminent Roman-Catholick Physician not long since dead was not by any among our various Sects of Protestants in the Plot-times envy'd the liberty of being in our Metropolis the greatest Practicioner of that noble Science By the same Clause Roman-Catholick Lawyers are likewise disabled from Practice and under the same Penalty but who likewise enjoy'd the same Dispensation by Connivence with those of the other Profession accordingly as Mr. Nye in his Book call'd Beams of former Light observes p. 146. viz. The Law Physick Merchandize c. may be practised by a Turk or Iew or Papist here among us c. How severe the Laws in being are against Roman-Catholicks of the other great Profession namely of Theology and of the Clerical or●…er officiating here you know But you likewise know my opinion I discours'd to you of in the Conjuncture of the Plot and Panick fears namely that by virtue of the Contents of the Assertory part of the Oath we are upon even our Protestant Kings as Supreme Governors of the Realm both in Matters Ecclesiastical and Civil and as having the Rule of all Persons committed to them by God were morally bound to see our Roman-Catholick Countreymen while living among us here provided with a Competent Priesthood as Physicians for their Souls and to administer the Sacraments to them A. Yes I remember you Discourse of that matter then and how you mention'd it that if any Turks or Iews or any Heterodox Religionaries desired to live here without a Priesthood the Prince as Guardian of both Tables was obliged by his Coercive Power to make them put their own Principles in practice by their having a Competent Priesthood and which all the Sects of the Mahumetan Paga●… Iewish and Christian Religion own it as their Principle to have and that as Religion was necessary to the State to make men good Subjects and ready to serve their Prince and just Dealers a Priesthood was necessary to Religion B. You are not therefore to wonder at the Dispensation by Connivence so many Roman-Catholick Priests enjoy'd here in the Reig●…s of former Princes And I shall some other time tell you how our Laws that DISABLE Papists from bearing Arms were in the time of the Rebellion after A. 1640. necessarily dispens'd with by the Royal Martyr as Supreme Governor of the Realm and that none of the Church of England did look with an evil eye in the least on such disability being then dispens'd with by Prerogative A. I suppose you may have heard it objected that by the Statute of 25. C. 2. which has lately employ'd your thoughts the Prerogative of the King is not touch'd for that the King may grant the Offices to any of his Subjects and that the Act is only a Direction to the Subject to qualifie himself accordingly for the King's Service and that if he be uncapable to serve the King 't is through his own default and he is punishable for the same as happen'd in the Case of one who was made Sheriff and neglected to take the Oaths and that there was an Opinion given in the Case that no Subject could put himself out of a Capacity to serve the King but for so doing he is punishable B. But the more you think of this Matter you will find the unreasonableness of the Objection recurring upon your thoughts with greater force For it is not in mens Power to qualifie themselves to serve the King by believing what doctrinal Propositions they will and tho you have heard of a Faith that will remove Mountains yet you may consider that 't is as easie to remove them as your Faith it self about Matters of reveal'd truth and that considering the Circumstances

Now you know how much Simplicity becomes an Oath and how requisite it is that it should be conceiv'd in plain and liquid terms and taken in the Imposer's sense and without mental reservations and that you should Swear therein to no dogmatical Assertion and as to which Mr. Nye saith well in his Observations on that Oath to swear positively to any dogmatical Assertion is not required It would be a taking the Name of God in vain for if it be a certain and undoubted truth in it self and to others as are Principles of Reason and Articles of Faith an Oath is vain for it ends no strife If doubtful and a question whether true or not tho such an Oath puts it out of question that I believe so yet not that it is a truth My belief tho never so much evidenced and confirm'd doth not make a doubtful matter in it self more credible nor is one man's believing an Assertion just ground for another man to believe the same Such an Oath therefore is in vain and not a fit Medium to end such a Controversy Now how far your declaring in your Oath that no foreign Prela●…e hath nor ought to have any Iurisdiction Spiritual within this Realm and the Interpretation of it pursuant to the 37th Article delivering the Plain words The Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction c. may bring you within the Verge of swearing what is dogmatical I leave you to judge but shall take the liberty to tell you that when I see some of our Laws and particularly this about our Oath girdled with so many Interpretations like new tender-sided Ships I shall be apt to take little pleasure in embarquing my Conscience in such an Oath and am apt to call to mind the Censure which Mr. Milton's Character of the Long Parliament of 40. fulminates against his Countrymen and by which he so much disables our understandings as to Political Government and saith that the Sun which we want ripens Wits as well as Fruits and as Wine and Oyl are imported to us from abroad so must ripe understanding c. B. But however tho our Wine and Oyl are imported to us from abroad our Dispensations are not and we have no Occasion to send Gold to Rome for Lead And I assure you he who shall consider that the English Virtuosi were the last that did receive the yokes of the old Imperial and later Papal Power of Rome and the first that threw them off will tho we are Crasso sub aëre nati have no cause to vilifie our understandings but rather to envy their triumphs over Infallibility so call'd And perhaps when I shall have told you of another passage of the Bishop P. 59. in his Schism guarded you will think the Eyes of our Ancestors understandings did look out sharp when the two Statutes of the 25th of H. 8. and 1 o Eliz. were made and there he saith Suppose any of our Reformers have run into any Excesses or Extremes either in their Expressions or perhaps in their Actions it is a difficult thing in great changes to observe a just mean it may be out of Humane Frailty as Lycurgus out of hatred to Drunkenness cut down all the Vines about Sparta or it may be out of Policy as men use to bend a Crooked rod as much the contrary way or as expert Masters of Musick do sometimes draw up their Scholars a Note too high to bring them to a just tone what is that to us as long as we practice the Mean and maintain the Mean and guide our selves by the certain line and level of Apostolical and Primitive Tradition There is no doubt but in the framing of the Statute of 1 o Eliz. and the Oath therein regard was had to the Oath in the 35th of H. 8. c. 1. viz. I having now the veil of Darkness of the Usurped Power Authority and Iurisdiction of the See and Bishops of Rome clearly taken away from mine Eyes do utterly testify and declare in my Conscience that neither the See nor the Bishop of Rome nor any foreign Potentate hath nor ought to have any Iurisdiction Power or Authority within this Realm neither by God's Law nor any other just Law or means c. and that I shall never consent nor agree that the aforesaid See or Bishop of Rome or their Successors shall exercise or have any manner of Authority Iurisdiction or Power within this Realm c. And this Oath remain'd the same all the rest of his Reign and all Edward the 6th's time and as to which Queen Elizabeth changed the Expression of Supreme Head and both Harry the 8th and She having their Eyes on the effect of Papal Excommunications and concern'd to have the nullity of them believed by their Subjects might seem according to the Primate's Expression to bend the crooked rod of the Papal Iurisdiction overmuch the contrary way in their Oaths that so it might come to that just straitness referr'd to according to the Primate's measures of it But after all I shall tell you that I think no Political respects can justifie the putting doubtful Expressions into an Oath or the taking of one with mental reservations of a sense different from the Common one of the words and I do therefore joyn issue with you in the Point that the Clause in the Oath That no foreign Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction c. being the very same in the 37th Article and in the Interpretation of which Article King Iames his Canons have as you said made you a sharer with the Clergy you and all others who take the Oath may be thankful for the benefit of that King having further exercised the Dispensative Power of his interpreting the whole intent of that Oath And that Interpretation of it which hath made the Coast of the Oath clear to you in this Point you will find agreeing to what he hath in our Language Publish'd to the World and dedicated to eternity For he having in his Premonition to all Christian Monarchs mention'd how he caus'd the House of Commons to Reform a Clause they had put into the Oath of Allegiance derogatory to the Pope's spiritual Power viz. That the Pope had no Power to Excommunicate him and that he was ready to consent that the Bishop of Rome should have the first Seat and be Patriarch of the West and be Primus Episcopus inter omnes Episcopos princeps Episcoporum so it be no otherwise but as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum takes occasion in his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance to let the World know his Royal judgment of the intent of the OATH of SUPREMACT and there in Confutation of the Pope's Breves and Bellarmine's Letter he saith in p. 108. that the rendring Christian Kings within their own Dominions Governors of their Church as well as of the rest of their People in being Custodes utriusque tabulae not by making new Articles of Faith c. but by