Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	lord_n	majesty_n	temporal_a	3,873	5	8.1133	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25667	The anti-Quaker, or, A compendious answer to a tedious pamphlet entituled, A treatise of oaths subscribed by a jury of 12 Quakers, whose names are prefixed to it, together with the fore-man of that jury ... William Penn : alledging several reasons why they ... refuse to swear, which are refuted, and the vanity of them demonstrated both by Scripture, reason, and authority of ancient and modern writers / by Misorcus, a professed adversary of vain swearing in common discourse and communication.	Misorcus.	1676 (1676)	Wing A3506; ESTC R165	32,510	58

for himself and his Brethren He cannot but know and be assured of it that if he breaks his promise by joyning in a private Conspiracy against the King or by open rebellion raising any popular commotion or tumults he will be indicted for Felony or Treason and so lose his life in an halter instead of his ears And what securitie can the King have from W. P. or any of his Tribe for his own safety and the Kingdoms Peace or be assured that he will keep his promise and not be attached for a Lye in breaking of it when he the supposed prime Penman of the Treatise makes no conscience to assert or affirm what is most false as in the Case of Bishop Sanderson and Saint Jerom hath been demonstrated to his great shame He that shall once baffle me with a bold lye I will hardly take his word or rest in his Yea and he that has invented and publickly vented one out of the Press it may be suspected he will not keep his private promise and that his bare word will not bind him to an exact performance which a solemn Oath might do whereby he calls God to be both a witness of his promise Num. 22.31 and a severe Judge to punish him both in body and soul if he be a Promissifragus An Oath like to the Angel with a glittering Sword in his hand who stopped Balaam in his way to Balak is of more force and energy than a naked word to bind a man to his duty and there is no man that has an honest heart and meaning and knows the many temptations he is exposed to from his own corrupt nature the Fles● the World and the Devil but will chearifully and solemnly take an Oath first praying to God that he may have by his grace strength and power to keep it whereby he may be the more aw'd by fear of God's vindicative Justice to be faithful and just in the discharge of his duty or any publick office which will procure to him the peace of a quiet mind or indistur'd Conscience which is a great blessing and is gain'd many times by means of a Promissory Oath in Swearing There is besides the former Proposal of the Quakers a Question put by the Author of the Treatise whom I find to be in divers shapes sometimes acting the part of a Pelagian in saying that Truth which is a grace of God is natural to him next of a perfect Jesuit as in the point of Dispensation to the Jews and his false Citations and corrupting of the Fathers and now the part of a downright audacious Quaker Pag. 14.15 Quo te Constringam vultus mutantem Protea nodo His Quaere is this Why their Yea and Nay may not be admitted instead of an Oath as well as the Lords Avouchment upon their Honour by which must be understood Vertue in the sense of the best and most ancient Philosophers what does he infer from this though he be mistaken in the proper notion of Vertue His words are Vertue needs not Swear c. and belyes too the Philosophers This is his Inference or to this effect We are Vertuous persons therefore we need not Swear much less have Oaths impos'd upon us to tell the Truth the onely use of Oaths My good vertuous Friend I must tell thee mildly this is a Thrasonical brag But to come to the Quaere My answer to it in general is That it is impertinent and incongruous For first the Quaker's Yea is onely a simple Affirmation to assert the Truth or what has been said or done a Question to this purpose having been put unto him But the Avouchment of a Lord upon his Honour is a more solemn Protestation and Asseveration of a Truth and implies an Option or wish as an Oath does an Imprecation and the sense or meaning of it being but an abridgment of his * This Form was antiently the Lords Protestation per Fidem Allegiantiam meam is this As I bear true Faith and Allegiance to my Soveraign Lord the King so is that which I say most true and if I witness an untruth or promise what I do not purpose nor will perform let disgrace and reproach fall upon my Honourable person let me listed amongst those that are disloyal and not faithful to their King let me be counted for a vile person unworthy of any honour or respect from men c. So that by Honour is not meant Vertue properly so called as the Treatist fondly imagines for Vertue or vertuous actions is onely the ground of Honour which is In honorante not in honorato as the * Aristot Philosopher attests in his Ethicks or Book of Manners which the Quaker never studied It is in the Honourer not in him that is honoured being nothing else but an high esteem and outward Reverence which men have of and exhibit to a Noble person for his Vertue for his Piety towards God and Loyalty to his King By this we may collect how the Treatist is mistaken I will not say for want of Learning to which he pretends by citing many Authors and it argues a cripple or lame Cause that needs so many Crutches I rather impute it to his Sophistical crafty industrie in laying hold on any thing though it be but one word by which and that misunderstood he may gain a little countenance to his exploded Opinion Besides this he cannot be excused for his Malapert rudeness who dares put himself into the Scales with the best of the Lords and those vertuous Persons and conclude that because in some cases they have a priviledge to attest onely upon their Honours therefore he may challenge the same for his Yea and Nay by which many credulous and well-meaning men have been deluded and drawn into Errours witness E. B. a late Brewer in Westminster who is famous rather infamous for cheating all his Creditors to the ruine of many Families Moreover I must acquaint him for a further refutation of his bold Proposal with what I have learn'd from that great Oracle of Law and Law-Cases Sir Ed. Cook in the 12 Part of his Reports p. 95 96. There he tells us that If any one who is Noble and a Peer of the Realm be sued in Chancery he ought to answer upon his Oath and if any Noble person be produced as a witness between party and party he ought to be sworn or otherwise his Testimony is of no value in these cases his attestation or Avouchment upon his Honour will not be admitted though in many others it may and ought to be accepted Furthermore I must in lieu of his Proposal to the King and Parliament propound a Question to him which is whether the King and his Lords both Spiritual and Temporal committed an hainous sin when his Majesty at his Coronation bound himself by a gracious condescension in an Oath to discharge faithfully that great Trust for the wellfare of the Church and State committed by God unto

A Jury of 12 QUAKERS William Penn Foreman Alexander Parker George Whitehead Stephen Crisp William Mead Gerrard Roberts William Welsh Samuel Newton Thomas Heart John Osgood James Claypoole Thomas Rudyard Richard Richardson THE Anti-Quaker OR A Compendious Answer to a tedious Pamphlet Entituled A Treatise of Oaths Subscribed By a Jury of 12 Quakers whose names are prefixed to it together with the Fore-man of that Jury the Ring-leader of that Tribe and Head of that Faction William Penn Alledging several Reasons why they no cases excepted refuse to swear which are refuted and the Vanity of them Demonstrated both by Scripture Reason and Authority of Ancient and Modern Writers By MISORCUS A Professed Adversary of Vain Swearing in common discourse and communication Fear God and keep his Commandments For this is the whole duty of man Eccles 12.13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God him shalt thou serve and cleave unto him and swear by his Name Deut. 10.20 LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to his most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner 1676. TO The most Judicious View of the Right Honourable the Lords and Commons Assembled in the High Court of Parliament THE unworthy Author most Humbly presents the ensuing Treatise as the 13 Head-Quakers did of late most boldly dedicate their's Subscrib'd by them on the behalf of the rest of their Friends they are their own words with an earnest supplicate to be freed from the imposition of all Oaths which for pure conscience sake as they say they cannot take at all concealing what is their main drift their desire to obtain a free use for the future of their private Meetings or Conventicles the Seed-plots of faction and seditious practises as St. Augustine proves at large in divers Epistles to the then Raigning Emperours against the Donatists the Quakers Progenitors commending to them by way of advice this moderate State-maxime Doctrina praecedat Disciplina sequatur With respect to the former part of it I have as many of my Brethren in the Ministry have learnedly done before me imployed my weak endeavours for the satisfaction of their scrupulous Consciences referring the execution of the latter part of it for severe * Corrigi eos cupimus non necari nee Disciplinam circa eos negligi Aug. Ep. 127. Discipline to your Honours great Authority and most Sage Counsels for a blessing on which to the advancement of Gods glory the good of the Church the safety honour and wellfare of our Soveraign and his Kingdoms with the publick you have the daily private Prayers and Supplications of him who conceales his Name not out of a guilty Fear but a cautious Prudence not willing to have it aspers'd with reproaches and unjust calumnies with bitter railings and Invectives against which there is no fence from the most unspotted Innocence and wherewith they usually bespatter those who dissent from them in their vain false and Antiscriptural opinions which they cannot maintain either by Gods holy Word or any rational Arguments as I shall God assisting me Prove and Illustrate in the following Treatise presented in all Humility to your Honours for its Patronage not doubting of your gracious pardon for the boldness of my Dedication THE REFUTER'S Preface THERE is a Generation sayes Solomon Prov. 30.12 that are pure in their own eyes and yet are not washed from their filthiness a sort of men that walk after the Flesh in the lust of Vncleanness and despise Government presumptuous self-willed and that are not afraid to speak evil of Dignities or those that are set over them by God to be their Rulers and Governours 2 Pet. 2.10 yet being swell'd with a Tympany of Pride are admirers of themselves even to the contempt of others I heartily wish for their Souls sake that this Character of St. Peter and Solomon might not justly be appropriated to some of the People called Quakers who refuse to Swear and will not be tied to the discharge of their Duties by Oaths ministred unto them by Subordinate Magistrates whereby they deserve to be move properly called as they are indeed Anabaptists Quo genere hominum nullum aut pertinacius aut arrogantius aut in erroribus aut figmentis feracius so the judicious Cramerus in his third Classis of Hereticks cap. 4. Than whom no kind of men are more pertinacious and arrogant and more pregnant in the propagating of false and erroneous Opinions of which amongst divers others this is one That it is not lawfull to Swear in any case whatsoever and this opinion they ground upon our Saviours Precept or Injunction Matth. 5.34 The proper sense and meaning of which Precept when I have fully demonstrated both from the occasion of his delivering it and from the scope or intention of it confirming my Interpretation by the joynt consent of the best Interpreters also by the strength of divers weighty Reasons it will appear to all judicious Readers that the foresaid Tenet is both absurd false and frivolous and that all their numerous Allegations or Testimonies to the contrary which are no fewer than 207. out of the Writings of Gentiles Jews and Christians are to little or no purpose of no validity to maintain the Quaker's Thesis or Position in regard that most of them only inveigh against Perjury and ordinary or common Swearing in our familiar Discourses which was chiefly intended as it shall be evidently proved by our Saviours Prohibition Swear not at all Upon the rind or shell i. e. the Letter of which words the forenamed feed so much and gnaw the Bone that they never come at the Kernel and Marrow or true meaning of them Before I proceed to the explication of this prohibitive Precept I must take leave to commend to the view of the people that go under the name of Quakers or rather to the Pen-men of that Treatise a Saying of a Christian Divine Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athenag l. de Resurrectione There was never any Truth though ratified by the Authoritie of God's Word which had not a Lye for its Attendant which must not be so understood as if Truth were the natural Parent of a Lye but in regard of the malice and perverseness of men who did darken it with their misty Glosses and corrupt it by their wresting of it with false Interpretations Thus the Scribes and Pharisees like many in our Dayes had learned this Art of spreading and maintaining their false Doctrine by corrupting the Sacred Text. For whereas God commanding us to have in due and awful Reverence his holy Name forbade the Jews and in them us Christians to take the same in vain Exod. 20.7 i. e. to take it into our mouths idly or to no purpose without any warrant from Necessity and without respect to the advance of his Glory the Scribes or Doctors of the Law expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vain by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falsly i. e. to back and confirm a Lye which word we find