Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	church_n	holy_a	scripture_n	9,894	5	6.0621	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47295	The duty of allegiance settled upon its true grounds, according to Scripture, reason, and the opinion of the Church in answer to a late book of Dr. William Sherlock, master of the Temple, entituled, The case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, stated, and resolved, according to Scripture, &c. : with a more particular respect to the oath lately injoyn'd.	Kettlewell, John, 1653-1695.	1691 (1691)	Wing K366; ESTC R13840	111,563	86

Justly therefore might God Condemn Zedekiah and the Jews for standing out against the King of Babylon which was only to Condemn Subjects for standing out against their King I add That as to Ieremiah's Prophesies they were Predictions of Events and of the final Success of the Babylonian either against the Jews or other Nations and so were Warnings to all that would believe the Prophet to prevent Extremities by early Submissions and to compound and make good Terms for themselves And the great Offence of any People so far as concerns these Predictions setting aside what might concern them any otherwise as they were his Subjects before was Disbelief of God's Prophet and hearkning to false Prophets against God which in the Event would be its own Punishment when they should be carried away by standing out who might have stayed in their own Land had they believed God and submitted as he directed Jer. 27. 9 10 11. 5. Lastly If Allegiance must only go to rightful Powers they who are to obey will be concerned to understand who is the Right and this he thinks would be such a Perplexity of Conscience as God never designs especially in Duties that concern all Persons But now this Perplexity of Conscience is not confined to the Right of Princes but is common to all Rights either of Princes or of private Persons For if their Conscience is tyed up to a private Right there is the same Necessity of being able to judge between a pretended and real Right and of knowing exactly what gives a real Right that they may not misplace the payment of it which are the Difficulties of Conscience he mentions in giving a Prince his Right And yet for all these Perplexities 't is plain God has bound all Mens Consciences to such Right else they would not be bound in Conscience to give every Man his Due or to be Righteous other Duties also are as lyable to these Perplexities as Right is Idolatry concerns all Mens Consciences and particularly the Worship of Images against the First and Second Commandments And are not all Mens Consciences as lyable to be perplexed in understanding what Idolatry it and what is an Idolatrous Image and what an Idolatrous Worship thereof and are not as perplexed Disputes raised about them betwixt us and the Papists as any that are lyable to be raised about Rights Lying concerns all Mens Consciences And may not Mens Consciences be sufficiently perplexed in inquiring what makes the Evil of a Lye and how far Men are obliged and how they come to be so to use Words in such a certain Sense to know when they do and when they do not tell those Lies which are against Conscience And the like Perplexities are lyable to be started about Oaths and Sabbaths and Government and Property and Adultery that is about all the Commandments And yet for all this lyableness to such Perplexities God has made them all to be matter of Conscience to all Men. So that this is no more an Argument against our Consciences being bound to the Rights of Princes than against their being bound to any other Thing The Truth of the Case is as I conceive there is a plain understanding of the Things themselves and that is obvious But there is a seeking to understand further by searching into Grounds and Reasons and that is full of Perplexities The First way of Understanding is the way of plain Minds the later of nice Wits and Philosophers And Men generally understand the First way whilst they are willing to do a Duty but they then more especially set their Wits to understand the later way when they are unwilling to do it and fall a turning every Stone to evade it And thus I think all the foresaid Duties are plain to all Men who would take them in a plain and obvious Understanding as Men willing to do them and all will be perplexed when they come to be Disputed and Spun out into Niceties by learned Men when they grow uneasy under and study to avoid them And I think one shall hear no Complaint of the perplexedness of any of the foresaid Moral Duties till Disputing Wits came to perplex and meddle in them Particularly as to the Right of Princes I see not but that is as plain as the Right of a private Person They have as plain a way among us of coming to have Right as any private Person for it is the very same viz. Proximity of Blood or Lineal Descent by inheriting from their Fathers or Predecessors And do not other Men in every Neighborhood come the same way by their Estate So that in ordinary Course they may as easily know their Princes Right as their own Right or their Neighbor's Right And then they may as easily know how to do him Right as how to do them Right And who should have the Crown after him is as well known as who should have their own Estate of Inheritance after them 'T is as easy to know who is the King's Heir as who is their own or their Landlord's Heir For the King's Children are more notirous or better known and the Ages of them than the Children of any private Person Sometimes I grant a Dispute may be raised about them and all Disputes bring on Allegations to serve turns and will perplex any Thing But may not the same be raised concerning any private Right or any other Thing So their Rights are knowable as any private Persons in all ordinary Course and lyable only as these are by accident to be perplexed by contingent Disputes and therefore one is no harder upon the Conscience for ought I see than the other is But were it their Duty to submit only to him that has Right they could not Discharge that Duty he says or understand the Prince to be Right who claims it without turning over the Laws and History of a Nation and being well skilled in them But cannot a Man that knows neither Law nor History know the next in Blood to the former King has the Right to the English Crown This is known by the general Consent and Acknowledgment of Men in all parts of the Realm And if a Man is not Book learned such a Traditionary Knowledge of the Law in that Point is enough for him So that thus far he may easily satisfy himself viz. who is the rightful King according to the present received way of Succeeding But whether this has always given Right and was formerly the way must depend on History unless the Government had begun within Memory of Man and were but of yesterday But the same Question must do so in any other Thing that begun long ago And in particular all the Truths and Duties of our Holy Religion are much Older than our Government And if any one is not content to take any of them as he finds them now at present in the Holy Scriptures and the Practice and Profession of the Church shall make a Question whether they

either to Swear Allegiance or undergo these hard things then they must suffer as Confessors for their Duty in this as other good Men have done for Duty in other Instances And the Duty of Confessing is never the less because there is so great a number of Confessors And if that Society be broken up by this means it is not too good to be parted with to keep Innocence and a good Conscience All Civil Society and the Benefits thereof being under the Restraint of the Rules of Righteousness and never to be sought or preserved by breaking any of God's Laws about Society or any others but only so far as they can be had by keeping of them Men must never purchase any Society by Sin and Sin is never the less sinful for being required of them on that Condition But p. 45. is not Obedience to Government it self for the Preservation of human Society Yes as all other Rules of Righteousness which are Social Virtues But they are for it not as discretionary means which Men may use or omit as they see it serves turns but as standing Rules and Laws of God which they are to keep without Exceptions They must rule us in all Cases and Pursuits either of Society or any thing else And a Liberty to transgress these when it may seem to serve present turns would leave neither security in nor benefit by any Societies But as for this Objection against an obstinate Allegiance it is not peculiar to it but will lye equally against an obstinate Picty or any other Virtues when they fall into the hands of such Persecutors as will allow no benefit of Society without breach thereof In the Dioclesian Persecution he knows the Christians were removed from the Emperor's Protection and from all Claim and Use of Laws and what benefit of Society then if they would not first Sacrifice to the Heathen Gods And the like may be under any Idolatrous or Heretical Prince who will tyranically make any other Instances of Idolatry or Heresy the Condition of living under him or of Civil Society Or such a Decree as Nebuebadnezzar did to destroy all People Nations and Languages that would not worship his Golden Image Dan. 3. 6. And so it may in any Church when they will tyranically impose any Sins or Errors as Conditions of their Communion to all that live under them or of Church Society Which yet all good Christians are bound to seek for the benefit of their Souls as much as Civil Society for the benefit of their Bodies and worldly Interests So that Obstinacy in any Truths or Duties will as much destroy Society as Obstinacy in Allegiance when they fall into such Princes or Persons hands who will let none live in their Country or have any Protection there if they do without renouncing them And yet these are Duties then notwithstanding and Men are then called to lay down not only the benefits of Society but their very Lives for them 6. His last Reason is p. 43. That these Principles of his answer all the ends of Government for Security both of Prince and Subjects But First Do they answer all the ends of Justice and keeping the Commandments I think I have made it plain they do not do that because they do not give every Man his own but justifie unjust Possession and give Right to unrighteous Actions destroying the Obligations laid and the Securities given by Right and Wrong among Men. And Government and Civil Society are for having these things done and for being ruled in all things by them and the greatest Blessing that comes thereby is the Observance of them Then as to the Purposes of Princes his Principle indeed answers an Usurpur's Purpose which is to keep what he has unjustly got and it shews him he may very justly and conscionably do that and that he has the People as fast tyed and as far obliged to him for all he has no good Title as they would be if he had the best Title But yet all his Purposes it will not serve For he that is once possessed of a Crown would not have it lye at other Peoples Liberty if they can to take it from him but would be glad of some such Title and such an human Right would prove if once he came to acquire that as would make every one else afraid in Conscience if they make any Conscience of what they do to desire or attempt to wrest it out of his hands And this the Title of Providential Possession doth not do For as that way he holds it only by Strength any other that can make a greater Strength will start a better Title to it than he has And as for the Rightful King's Purpose I think it no way answers it For his Purpose and that a very reasonable and just one too would be to have his Right to hold it when he has it and to have it unlawful for any Man to disturb his Possession of it or to get it from him or when he has done so to keep it as his own and not restore it to him again Yea to have Right from his Subjects as well as from the Usurper That since it is his Right they should not help to hinder him of it and since he has Authority over them that they should keep under Obedience to him And as it is the constant Purpose of Authority to bind to such Obedience so it is the constant Purpose of Right to have these Effects not only in the King but in any other Person And lastly as for the Purpose of Subjects if they all purpose as they all should do in the first place to keep a good Conscience I think his Principles may appear from what I have said to be far from that since they would carry them to resist him that has Authority over them which would be Rebellious and to oppose Right and maintain Wrong which is very unrighteous And as to their Preservation and outward Security in this world though in making them more externally easie under the Possessor whilst he holds the Possession it would serve this end at that turn yet would it deserve it a great deal more as I before noted in destroying Right and Wrong the best Guard of their worldly Preservation and in multiplying such Changes and Revolutions all the Compassings whereof are the greatest Blow and Bane thereto And though I am sure this is no end either of Government or Governors who are not for serving but keeping out such Changes and Revolutions yet it seems a very natural and the most natural end of his Right of Providence And then as he p. 43. grants Princes themselves as well as Subjects have Cause enough to be jealous of it since whatever Servive it might do them at one turn it might do them as great Diss●●vice at another For to give Authority to Revolutions and to justifie those that act in them I think are the great ways that any Principles can serve