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	lie_v	speak_v	1,709	5	4.3933	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65887	A serious search into Jeremy Ives's questions to the Quakers who are herein cleared from his scornful abuses : and Jer. Ives himself manifest to be no Christian from his own observations, reviling, ostentation, &c. / by a witness for Christianity in faith and life, George Whitehead.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1674 (1674)	Wing W1958; ESTC R5315	30,089	74

such Cases the Law is used Lawfully being for Justice and Right It s probable that if the Quakers could neither make use of the Law nor have their Answers accepted for what 's their own proper Rights but be devoured by Unreasonable or Wicked Men our Opposer would not be so offended nor inquisitive as he is into our Friends Affairs but he would think it ill to be so dealt by If his Brethren should be asked What think you of Jeremy Ives who boasts that he is able to approve himself as Honest in all his Correspondencies in the World as the best of the Quakers But hath he done so hath he performed Promise and Covenant with all and satisfied all his Creditors have none of them had cause to complain of him in those Matters It s not unlike but he would be very short at this and give such an Answer as this What 's that to you meddle with your own Business I will not make you my Confessor or I have done what I can to satisfie all or so far as I was able And so our Friends can easily answer What 's their Concerns to Ier. Ives What has he to do to question or accuse them therein They have endeavoured to keep their Consciences in-offensive towards God and Men as those that must give an Account to God and not unto their Adversaries who hav● no Jurisdiction over them or their Consciences 5. I must take Leave further to enquire seeing that Jer. Ives and Henry Don with divers others have thus defined an Oath viz. to say God is my Witness God is my Record I speak the Truth in Christ I lye not my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit c. that these Expressions with many more of the like Nature are equivalent to an Oath and these to evince That the Apostle Paul himself sware and that not only Christ but the Apostle did both practise enjoyn and exact Swearing upon others and to prove that he charged others to swear J. I. cites 2 Tim. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 27. Also J. Tombs in his Supplement about Swearing saith That the using these Speeches I affirm before God or this we say in the Presence of him that shall judge the Quick and the Dead c. is plain Swearing Concerning which Definition and Plea for Swearing under the Gospel these men are answered by that faithful Servant of the Lord and Sufferer for the Cause of Christ Samuel ●●sher in his Antidote against Swearing and his Supplementum Sublatum Now suppose that any of our Friends find Freedom to use some such Expressions in their Testimonies before Authority as God is my Witness I speak the Truth in the Presence of God or I speak in the Fear of God or God knows I lye not and this without Regret or Scruple of Conscience and suppose what they say be believed and accepted of as equivalent to an Oath and that those Magistrates or Ministers in Trust are satisfied therewith and do not think it prejudicial to their Consciences to accept thereof what Instruction has Jeremy to give in such Cases What has he to do to shew himself a Busie Body in other Men's Matters And why should he rake into his Neighbours Affairs either to find out Occasion against them or to prejudice them in their Properties Should not Jeremy's Business rather be to convince the Quakers of the real Definition of an Oath that they may not interfer with their Principle rather then to seek to make them odious to the World as Men perfidious therein For this is not the Way to perswade them to Jeremy's Christianity they would not willingly or wittingly profess one Thing and practise another Thus far I have signified what I really think in Answer to Jeremy's Question As for his high Charge viz. 1. How Impious then are the Quakers who some of them swear themselves and most of them take Pleasure in them that do so 2. Can Quakers be Men of Conscience and Integrity that while they judge Swearing will procure Men to swear Both which are manifestly false for they neither take Pleasure therein nor procure Men to swear if any of them have Occasion for Witnesses that do not scruple an Oath it is the Magistrates not the Quakers that put them upon or tender them an Oath for if their Testimony without an Oath might be accepted the Quakers would be better satisfied Let the Magistrates enjoyn them to speak Truth upon what Penalty they shall see meet we have proposed this for our selves as well as others Whereas Ieremy takes the Grant that W. P. gave to his Request for a Meeting to be upon Dishonourable or Impossible Conditions and so worse then a Down-right Denyal of which he first mentio●●th that If Mr. Kiffin Mr. Plant Mr. Dike and Mr. Hicks will give it under their Hands that they will be bound to stand to what Jeremy shall Answer Propose Affirm or Deny W. P's first Proposal runs thus viz. 1st Let Jeremy Ives make it appear to us that he is deputed to this Work for it is beneath US to engage against a single Person as well as beside our Business as the Case lieth to think our selves concerned in his Rodemontado's and vapouring Challenges He is Privateer but for himself and stands upon no Body's Legs but his own and some think not alwayes well on them neither And why is this Impossible I suppose he doth not count it Dishonourable to be Deputed But if them Impossible it argues they have not so much Confidence in Ieremy as he has in himself and that they think not fit t● embarque their Cause in that Bottom And what Reason is there then for a whole Body of People to subject themselves to the imperious Daring and Examination of such a singular boasting Bravado if his own Brethren cannot confide in nor subject their Cause to him and then is it reasonable We should meet him alone without a Deputation from them to this Work Another Condition is That all we have against T. H. may be first debated and this is but reasonable and J. I. unreasonable in interposing to divert our Prosecution of this The Condition is thus laid down by W. P. 2. That he to wit Jeremy Ives pe●●sonate T. Hicks as to the Matter charged by us against him to wit of writing Forgeries Perversions and Slanders 3. That before he enters upon proving us No Christians he would tell us what a True Christian is or we go by no Standard 4. Prove to us that he is that Christian or else he is unfit to prove another No Christian. 5. That we are not such Christians but Hereticks and Impostors To our proposing that what we have against T. H. may be first debated Jer. tells us that we will not vindicate the Honour of our Profession till we have vindicated the Honour of our Personal Reputations as being more zealous thereof then of the Honour of God and Religion This is a gross and apparent