Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	faith_n	scripture_n	spirit_n	4,731	5	5.2562	4	true

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

Untruth for both our Religion and Principles as well as our Personal Reputations are concern'd in our Charge against Tho. Hicks as appears plainly both in his Forgeries Perversions and Slanders which concern both Doctrine and Practice but it seems Jeremy is very raw and unversed in the Controversies between us and yet his Confidence will serve him to engage in the Quarrel for Tho. Hicks To the second He counts this another of our poor Put-offs and Unreasonable that he should make good any more then he has charg'd against us He counts it unreasonable then to personate T. H. in the Matter that we charge against him was it not then Unreasonable he should so deeply engage for him before But Jeremy sayes He is ready to make good what he has charged against us by the Grace of God if we DARE meet him But this is to be understood as a distinct Offer of it self without Respect to the Matter about Tho. Hicks However it is but single Daring and Vapouring Jeremy still whose Brags and Attempts we value not but slight his Folly therein To the third He counts this impertinent When saith he we tell them they are no Christians either of one sort or another This he tells the Quakers and it is but his own telling and I do not think but he doth in this violate some better Perswasions and Convictions that he has had in himself And while he confesseth that he is a good Christian that hath a Rule for his Faith and Practice in the Christian-Religion and endeavours to the uttermost of his Strength and Understanding to believe and live accordingly He concludes they are No Christians that have no Rule for their Faith and Practice in the Christian Religion and such are the Quakers saith he pag. 14. See what an Imperious and Censorious Judge this is He says we have No Rule though we prosess believe and practically own the Guidance of the Spirit of Christ and in Subjection thereto do own the Holy Scriptures And for our Lives and Conversations I hope he doth not conclude that either the People called Quakers in general are therein Unchristian or that his own is more Christian then theirs how comes he then to presume that we have not the Spirit of Christ or none of his Light in us for a Rule in affirming that the Quakers have No Rule for their Faith and Practice in the Christian Religion But this Presumption is not strange to us since he could openly tell William Gibson and me that We were not inlightened with the Light of Christ. I could not but then take notice of the Man's Insolency and Foolish Censoriousness but how doth he prove that the Quakers have No Rule for their Faith and Practice in the Christian Religion and therefore are no Christians He thus attempts it viz. That though George Keith to keep up your Credit with the People said The Scriptures were onned by you as a Seoundary Rule for your Faith and Practice yet Edw. Burroughs contradicts him and tells us in so many words That the Scriptures are NO Rule or Guide of Faith and Life to the Saints see his Works fol. 515. and reconcile your Prophets as well as you can Thus far Jeremy He would make the World believe that he has here given the Quakers a deadly Blow in rendring their Prophets irreconcileable yea and to fasten the Contradiction he saith that E. B. tells us in so many words That the Scriptures are NO RULE or Guide of Faith c. for this he bids us see his Works fol. 515. How now bold Jeremy I have seen the place quoted by thee and thou hast manifestly belyed Edw. Burroughs to prove thy false Charge for Edwards Words in the place are thus viz. The Scriptures are profitable and were given forth to be read and to be fulfilled yet they are not THE RULE and Guide of Faith and Life unto the Saints but the SPIRIT of God that gave forth the Scriptures that is THE RULE and Guide Teacher and Leader into all Truth See also his following words in the next Clause affirming That the Scriptures are the Words of God that the Spirit of God is THE RULE of Faith and Life to the Saints that men ought to search the Scriptures and believe what is therein written c. See now Jeremy that Edward Burroughs his words are not as thou citest them that the Scriptures are NO RULE but that they are not THE RULE and Guide of Faith and Life unto the Saints but the Spirit and yet the Scriptures to be Searched Read and Fulfilled so that he denyes them not but plainly implyes them to be A RULE but not THE RULE that is not the most Eminent or Highest Rule but the Spirit And how doth this contradict George Keith's saying That we own the Scriptures as a Secundary Rule which also implies a primary or Principal Rule to wit the Holy Spirit as well as E. B. doth in his words before For my part I cannot understand any more Contradiction between saying The Scriptures are a Secundary Rule and yet not THE RULE and Guide of Faith and Life unto the Saints then there is between saying Jeremy Ives is a Baptist Preacher and yet not the principal Preacher among them or between Jeremy Ives's being a Man and yet not the Chief or Best of Men though I confess this too mean an Instance for the Subject before but only somewhat to illustrate the Distinction I was unwilling to have charged Jeremy with Forgery from the Place he quotes in saying that E. B. tells us in so many words that the Scriptures are NO Rule But now upon Enquiry and Search into his Falshood herein I am satisfied that I should do him no Wrong to charge It upon him and let the Place quoted by him in E. B's Works determine it Again I find no Inconsistency between William Smith's confessing Christ and the Spirit of God to be the Rule for trying Spirits searching the Heart and not the Scriptures yet confessing them to be of great Service and G. K.'s owning the Scriptures for a Secundary Rule that Christ should be preferred before and above the Scriptures both as to trying and discovering and yet they serviceable in their place as Christ opens the Understanding in them can be no Opposition But Jeremy objects That the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice comprehensive of the whole Duty of Man 1. That they are so comprehensive as declaring the whole Duty of Man respecting Faith and Practice as to the Sum and Substance thereof respecting Man's Salvation I know none of us deny But that they are not that Manifesting Rule of every particular Act of Faith and Obedience that God may require respectively I think this Opposer cannot deny but that he hath granted thus much at sundry Discourses as with respect to such Prophets and Messengers as God might for ought he knew raise up in these dayes and peculiarly commissionate and

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