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 reason_n scripture_n 3,945 5 6.1612 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A65844 The case of the Quakers concerning oaths defended as evangelical in answer to a book, entituled, The case of the Quakers relating to oaths stated by J.S. Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723. 1674 (1674) Wing W1899; ESTC R19753 38,726 52

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Judge we pray what Retractation is this And should not our Opposer have shewed us where he retracted that Opinion aforesaid against Oaths if he could or where ever he acknowledg'd himself convinc'd that this was an Error His Submission was principally to the Evangely or Gospel of Jesus Christ which J. S. leaves out as he doth holy before Church we hope he will not charge W. Brute that he design'd a Submission contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ being that principal thing without which the other could not determine But we do not find that W. Brute retracted any more in the words above then he did sometime before when he told the Bishop thus If any man will shew me that I Err in my Writing or Sayings by the Authority of sacred Scripture or by Authority of Reason grounded thereon I will humbly and glady receive his Determination But as for the bare words of any Teacher Christ only excepted I will not simply believe except he be able to establish them by the Truth of Experience or of the Scripture Now consider Reader that this was but a Submission conditionally proposed any more then the other and that some time after this he positively wrote against Oaths for which we refer thee to the Quotations And this conditional Submission seems rather to argue his Belief that they could not convince him of Error herein no more then the Bishop of Hereford did when he could not confute Walter Brute's Exhibits on his own Defence And has it not been a common thing with many established in the Truth to propose such conditional Submissions to be convinced and receive Information by or according to the Holy Scriptures For our parts we do not find this man's Representation of Walt●r Brute to have so much as a face of Truth in it or that he was either doubtful of or did recant of that Opinion charged against him by the publick Notary viz. That he held that it is not lawful for Christians for any Cause in any Case to swear by the Creator neither by the Creature But rather that he was positive in this amongst his last Testimonies against the Pope and Church of Rome see Act. Mon. vol. ● fol. 653. As for J. S. his Conclusion pag. 43. it savours both of Scorn and Envy and a Persecuting Spirit that would instigate the King and Parliament to afflict us as if we were not Conscientious in what we profess but we knowing the contrary in our Consciences as being therein oblieged to Christ and his Command we sleight our Enemies Flouts and Revilings To his saying The Order of Middleburgh is no ways applicable to the Quakers Case who have refus'd to pay Church duties The man seems herein wilfully to shut his Eyes for the said Order is very plain for Liberty of Conscience and Freedom from the Imposition of Oaths unto those Inhabitants who refus'd the taking the accustom●d Oaths and who instead thereof proffered as the Quakers do That their Yea should stand instead of an Oath and the Transgressors thereof be punished as perjured Persons which with the Advice of the Governour and Council of Zealand was accordingly ordained and confirmed That this Peoples Yea aforesaid should stand instead of an Oath before the Magistrates of the said City A Noble President to our Purpose Obj. But the Quakers have refused to pay Church-Duties and thereby Rob the Royal Exchequer which is partly supplyed out of Tenths and First Fruits To the first of refusing to pay Church-Duties it seems he means Tythes to the Priests And must we therefore not be allowed the Liberty of our Consciences but be exposed to Ruin Loss of Estates and Livelihoods because we cannot pay Tenths to the Priests Oh hard Man and unjust Judge that respects more the Pope's Yoak and Antichristian Imposition then the Lives or Liberties of Protestant Subjects and True Christians And his implying an Indulgence for us if we did not refuse to pay the Priests Tythe is like as to tell us We may have the Liberty of our Consciences if we will be Conformable Oh generous Indulgence to such as need it not Could our Consciences serve us to Conform Pay Tythes Uphold Priests c. what needed we make Address for Liberty His charge of Robbing the Royal Exchequer is envious and false shewing a Persecuting Spirit The Priests ●yth-Barns are not the Royal Exchequer we cannot help to fill them They demand Tyths of us not only of our Lands but of the Fruits and Encrease of our Labours and Industry a manifest Extortion and their Demand of them is as Ministers of Christ and on a Religious Account as claiming a Divine Right in neither of which are we sati●fied nor can we own either and we have reason to think that the King is more Merciful to them about the First Fruits then they are to us and doth not so severely prosecute or strictly look after them as they do to us having caused many deeply to suffer both in Persons and Estates and made grievous Havock by taking away and spoiling mens Goods driving away their Cows Oxen c. many times more then the value of the Tvthe besides the sweeping away House-hold Goods and exposing many poor industrious Families to Ruin as also the many long tedious Imprisonments which they have caused many to suffer in till Death But when have we refused to pay our Civil-Duties or Taxes being in a Capacity that is out of Bonds and Sufferings which have disabled many And if the King and Great Council of the Nation were pleased to repeal those old Laws inforcing the Payment of Tythes and to convert them into some necessary civil Use as for the Poor or some National Service and Benefit it would appear whether we should not pay our parts and whether the Royal Exchequer would not be conveniently supplyed without the Tenths from the Priests As for our Desire of being exempted from taking an Oath because our Consciences will not allow us to swear to this our Adversary adds viz. When you actually do Swear in as solemn august a Form as its possible for the Tongue of man to express even then when you say You dare not Swear God who is the Searcher of Hearts knows that it is with a Holy Respect to the Reputation of Christianity the Evangelical Dispensation and to Christ's express Prohibition c. This Person has given us various Definitions of an Oath of which he reckons that to say God who is the Searcher of Hearts knows is a most solemn august Form of Swearing But surely he egregiously misseth in this for at this rate of defining a solemn form of an Oath we shall scarce know how to mention the Name of God in any serious or solemn Way either in Prayer Thanksgiving Appeal to him either as witness for us or singly as desiring that the Truth may be discovered in any case but this must all be lookt upon as a most solemn and august Form
also presumes to tell us Here is nothing forbidden but what was forbidden in the Law when Swearing by the Lord was not only lawful but expresly commanded Deut. 6. 13. 10. 20. All which is answered by Christ himself where he recites what was said in old time in this Case of Swearing as namely It hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not Forswear thy self but shalt perform to the Lord thy Oathes But I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. But let your Communication be Yea Yea Nay Nay c. Which makes it very plain that here was more forbidden by Christ then what was by the Law his words in this holding parallel with his very next words Ye have heard that it hath been saith An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth but I say unto you That ye resist not Evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right Cheek turn to him the other also vers 38 39. Did not Christ himself hereby forbid his Disciples that kind of severe Retaliation which was allowed under the Law as he allowed divers and other things in Condescension to the People's Weakness Deut. 24. 1. Matth. 5. 31 32. Luke 16. 18. And in this Case of God's allowing the Jews to swear under the Law where he said Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him and shalt Swear by his Name Deut. 6. 13. This appears plainly to be a Condescension to their Weakness and an Obligation to prevent them from going after other Gods as is evident by the very next words Ye shall not go after other Gods of the Gods of the people that are round about you vers 14. This State was much below the Evangelical State of the true Christians who in the Love they bear to the Lord are engaged to speak the Truth in Yea and Nay without an Oath as Christ his Apostles have taught So the Difference lies here the Jews when bound by an Oath they feared the Oath or the Curse contained or implyed in it they Swearing by the Great God as chiefly to be feared them with regard to his Power to judge and avenge c. and this was for a time some tye upon them to prevent them from going after other Gods The True Christians are bound in their Consciences by the Royal and Evangelical Law of Love which was before Swearing was and takes away the Occasion of Oaths to serve God and speak the Truth every man to his Neighbour without Swearing So that the Disparity between the State under the Law and that under the Gospel lies here Under the Law Thou shalt fear the Lord and Swear by his Name Under the Gospel Thou shalt so Love the Lord as to speak the Truth and confirm it in Yea and Nay without being bound by an Oath Now judge serious Reader which of these do express more Love Respect and Honour to God whether he that 's bound by an Oath not to go after other Gods and to speak the Truth as fearing an Oath and the Curse which was the better use of Oaths which now few that use them regard or he that is bound in Conscience to speak and do Truth without an Oath whose word Yea and Nay is more binding to him and of more Value and Credit then men's Swearing Imprecations and Curses And likewise between man and man and Neighbours which do express most Love one to another and Confidence in each other they that will not believe one another without Oathes and Curses or they that will like Christians speak the Truth and believe one another's plain and simple Yea Yea and Nay Nay as Christ and his Apostle has commanded Such are the true Christians and People of God as are come to the fulfilling of the Evangelical Prophesie Surely they are my People Children that will not Lye and so was he their Saviour Isa. 63. 8. And the Remnant of Israel shall not speak Lyes neither shall a Deceitful Tongue be found in their Mouth But to return to Christ and his Apostles express Prohibition But I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. nor by ANY OTHER Oath Hereby Christians are so plainly forbidden Swearing in any Case as Christ forbids an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth or hating thine Enemy see Mat. 5. 39 44. Or else what Coherence is there in his Words and what Difference is there between the Dispensation of the Law and that of the Gospel if as this man sayes Christ here forbids nothing but what was forbid in the Law By which he renders Christ as thus speaking It hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not Forswear thy self but shalt perform to the Lord thine Oaths And I say the same Instead of But I say unto you Swear not at all And likewsie ye have heard that it hath been said An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth And I say the same to you instead of But I say unto you Resist not Evil c. And so this would make Christ still leave his Followers in the Fighting Revengful Nature as this man's limiting his words for Swearing as the Jews did renders Christ as leaving his Followers but still in the same common Humane Infirmity as his words are and weak Distrusting and unsteady Condition as the Jews under the Works of the Law were in who were allowed to Swear by the Lord as a Prevention from running after other Gods and to remove Jealousie or Hard Thoughts out of the Minds one of another as about the Case mentioned Exod. 22. 10 11. Upon the words Neither by any other Oath J. S. adds Swear not at all by Heaven Earth or any other of those Forms of Swearing by the Creature that Christ forbad the use of p. 17. whereas the words of the Apostle who well knew the Mind of Christ extend farther as not only a forbidding a Swearing by Heaven or Earth but also by ANY OTHER OATH But mark how presently after this Oath-Vindicator hath opposed Swearing by Heaven Earth or the Creature he contradicts himself in the same page where he saith He that swears by Heaven swears by him whose Throne it is He that swears by Earth swears by him whose Foot-Stool it is because though God's Name be not expresly mentioned in such Forms of Oaths yet it is implyed and therefore we are not to use such Forms in our common Speech any more then the Name of God himself but in Reverence and in extreme Necessity p. 17. So that by this he allows of such a Form as Swearing by Heaven or Earth that thereby they may Swear by God that dwells therein when before they are not at all to Swear by Heaven Earth or any other of th●se Forms See what an eminent Antagonist this is that undertakes to confute the Quakers and yet contradicts himself in one and the same page As much as to say We may not