Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	speak_v	true_a	word_n	8,834	5	4.4618	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43139	A Sermon disswading obloquie against governours preached on Sunday Decemb. 7, 1662 in a solemne audience, and now, at the request of divers that heard it, made publick / by William Haywood.	Haywood, William, 1599 or 1600-1663.	1663 (1663)	Wing H1238; ESTC R25425	18,140	47

have known my duty better and given him no such language Excuse S. Paul therefore as one truly ignorant who Ananias was nor marvel if he were ignorant of him by face though haply not by name For S. Paul had now been many years absent from Jerusalem and this meeting was not in the Synagogue where he might distinguish the High Priest by his order of sitting but in the Castle where the chief Captain kept his Garrison and in likelihood the Jewish Rabbines stood not upon formalities there So the high Priest by his sitting S. Paul might not know But I pray how could he chuse but know him to be one of his Judges notwithstanding One of his Judges he himself confesseth him For Sittest thou here to judge me according to Law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the Law How is this then May a Judge on the Bench be reviled and not a High Priest whereas the Law saith plainly Thou shalt not curse the Gods that is the Judges And we have concluded neither superiour nor inferiour Magistrates subject to our reviling Which way will ye excuse the Apostle then from transgressing the Law Divers defences of S. Paul are here used by divers but one of the best is S. Chrysostom's That Saint Paul's answer to Ananias was not meant as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Reviling but a kind of free speaking To which liberty of speech S. Paul was constrained for Lysias the chief Captain 's sake there present The day before when the chief Captain went about to scourge him Act. 22.25 S. Paul pleaded his priviledge as a Roman Now when the High Priest commanded so basely to smite him should he that would not take scourging at the Romans hands take beating so patiently at the hand of the Jews who were underlings to the Romans the chief Captain might well have thought him foolish and slavishly abject to the will of the Synagogue Needful therefore for his credit's sake S. Paul should answer stoutly and so he doth directing his reproof not to them that smote him but to him that commanded him to be smitten Howbeit such a reproof as though it did not become him toward the High Priest toward an inferiour Judge might become him well enough S. Paul therefore being made to know his errour is not ashamed to let the standers by know his ignorance and that such freedome of speech he would not have used had he known the dignity of him to whom he spake as being not ignorant that it is written in God's Law Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people Divers moral inferences might hence be gathered which we have not time now to insist on As That though Rulers forget their Duty we are not to forget our Reverence 2. That toward supreme Magistrates supreme Honour is required And That freedom of speech which toward an inferiour Governour were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tongue-liberty toward a Superiour may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flat Contumely 3. That it will not suffice to say he was no good man no lawfull Ruler we reviled when we are judicially convented before him and the people esteem him so 4. That Scripture-plea will not bear us out S. Paul might have defended God shall smite thee from Psal 3.7 Thou smitest all thine enemies upon the cheek-bone and Thou whited wall from Christ's own resemblance of the Pharisees to whited sepulchres Mat. 23.27 c. Yet he alledges no Scripture for Contumely S. Paul knows a stronger and a plainer Scripture against Contumely to Governours namely Non maledices Principi 5. That if we have exceeded through Passion or Ignorance in intemperate speeches we should be ready to acknowledge our errour with Nesciebam fratres I knew not what I did 6. That evil speaking such as scandals the hearers in audience of the very same hearers would be recanted That scandal is enough to make our speeches evil though otherwise in themselves true justifiable But this touches upon the nature of evil speaking it self and so leads us to the 3d. general of our Division Having heard against whom evil may not be spoken and the parties forbidden to speak evil come we in the next place to Evil speaking it self the abuse here forbidden that we may shew what it is and why forbidden First What it is And though evil speaking be of many kinds as Cursing Railing Slandering Depraving yet none are so directly here intended as those evil speakings which imply the party we speak of to be evil Dicere Principem malum hoc est maledicere Principi saith one To utter words such as infer our Rulers to be evil this is properly to speak evil of Rulers Why but in so saying perhaps we say true And may we not speak truth of our Rulers affirming them to be as they are Hath not the Prophet a Woe for them that call evil good or good evil Admit he hath yet no warrant have we for all that to call that evil which is evil unless charity lead us to it For ● Cor. 16.14 Let all your things be done with charity saith the Apostle and charity will seldome lead us to speak evil of our Neighbors but of our lawful Governors never For the very scandal of such speaking though it be true will out-weigh the benefit of knowing such truth Better it were by far for those under authority falsely to believe and speak well of those in authority so they doe it ignorantly then to believe or speak evil of their Rulers never so knowingly The reason of which appears grounded upon two of the ten Commandments namely the Fifth and the Sixth Honour thy Father and thy Mother first and thy Ruler is a Father In reference to his dignity speak not evil of him though he deserve it For a Father be he never so bad ought not by his own children to be dishonoured And then Doe no murther ye cannot speak evil of a Magistrate but ye help forward to Sedition and Sedition is manifold Murther But not to fall upon the reasons why no evil speaking till ye have seen what note that evil speaking in general is by some divided into Judicative and Optative Judicative affirming evil and Optative wishing evil both are in S. Paul's answer to Ananias Some divide it into evil speaking in presence that is Contumely 2 Sam. 16.7 as Shimei to David Come forth thou man of bloud and evil speaking in absence as Miriam spake against Moses Num. 12.1 that is Detraction The fittest division for our purpose seems drawn from the Text as it stands in the old Law Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Where the former Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Vilifying or Detracting and the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Railing or Cursing Which two seem to point us to the two Fountains from whence all evil speaking proceeds viz.