Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	new_a	old_a	testament_n	3,965	5	8.0680	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39312	Truth prevailing and detecting error, or, An answer to a book mis-called, A friendly conference between a minister and a parishioner of his, inclining to Quakerism, &c. by Thomas Ellwood.	Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1676 (1676)	Wing E630; ESTC R15648	157,165	374

that Vsage which they confess was then lawful Answ. He mistakes the Case they are not brought in speaking against that which was then lawful but against that which was then unlawful namely the wrong Use and Abuse of Oaths who that hath at all converst with Books is ignorant that it is usual at the Foot of a Title page to insert some Sentences out of Holy Scripture if the Subject of the Book be Religion out of prophane Authors if the Discourse be of another Nature ● somwhat relating or alluding to the matter treated of The Subject R. H. was treating of was this that all manner of swearing being forbidden by Christ all Oaths are now unlawful and therefore the Use of any Oaths must needs provoke the Displeasure of God against that Nation where they are used This being the Subject of his Book he did very a●tly allude to those Words of the Prophet Hosea Because of Oaths the Land mourns The Land mourned then because of Oaths Why because those Oaths then were Vnlawful The Land mourns now because of Oat●s why because all Oaths are now unlawful The like is to be said of the Words of Zachary and this is further to be noted that in R. H.'s Book it is thus And as saith the Prophet Every one that sweareth shall be cut off but this Parenthesis as saith the Prophet the Priest leaves out which was not fairly done of him for it shews the Intention of R. H. to be only to allude to the words of the Prophet as if he had said as the Prophet saith in another Case so say I in this he said every one that swears falsly shall be cut off because it was unlawful to swear falsly then I say every one that swears at all shall be cut off because it is unlawful to swear at all now it was therefore ignorantly at least if not maliciously done of the Priest to infinuate that R.H. brought these Scriptures to prove that all Oaths were as unlawful then as now for himself confesseth that R. H. doth yield that some Oaths were lawful then Besides what Reason had he to say of those Scriptures These are his Proofs what doth he mean they were Proofs of He himself in his own Book hath set at the Foot of his Title-page this Scripture 2 Thes. 2.11 For this cause God shall send them strong Delusion that they should believe a Lye Did he intend this for a Proof of what I would know Is it to prove his Book a Conference between a Minister and a Parishioner of his Is it to prove his Parishioner was inclining to Quakerism Is it to prove that the absurd Opinions of that Sect are detected and exposed to a just Censure This is the sume of his Title or is it to prove that they who credit what he hath ●herein written against the Principles of the People called Quakers are indeed under strong Delusion and do believe a Lye But letting his pass let us now hear what the Priest ●an say in defence of Swearing That our Saviour Christ when he said ●ear not at all c. Mat 5. did not forbid ●ll manner of Oaths he takes upon him to prove and saith he will do it in this order First By proving an Oath an Act of natural Religion towards God Secondly An Act of necessary Iustice and Charity towards men Thirdly That it is therefore a Part of that Moral and Eternal Law which our Saviour professeth he came not to destroy but to fulfil Fourthly That we find it practised in the new Testament page 5.6 His first Proposition viz. That an Oath is an Act of natural Religion towards God I deny He offers to prove it by Reason and Consent of Nations By Reason thus That whereby we glorifie God and adore his Attributes is an Act of Religion but by an Oath rightly taken we glorifie God and adore his Attributes therefore such an Oath is an Act of Religion Answ. The first Part of this Argument doth not reach the Proposition he undertook to prove namely That an Oath is an Act of natural Religion for in his Argument he drops the Word Natural and makes no mention of it neither doth he in the Conclusion of his Argument infer that an Oath is an Act of Natural Religion but barely thu● Therefore such an Oath is an Act of Religion Now a thing may be an Act of Religion and yet not an Act of Natural Religion as he calls it that i● it may be an Act of Religion by Precept or Institution yet not an Act of Religion barely of it ●elf or simply from the Nature of the thing● th●t may be an Act of Religion being commanded which was not an Act of Religion before it was command●d nor will be an Act of Re●igion after that Command which made it so is repealed T●us●●s it in the Ca●e of Circumcision it was an Act of Religion yet not an Act of Natural Religion It was no ●ct o● Religion before it was commanded It was an Act of Religion after it was commanded it is no Act of Religion since that Command which made it so is repealed Here then he hath missed his A●m and that abundantly short of the Mark And it is a very material Consideration for for his main Drift in asserting an Oath to be an Act of Natural Religion seems to be that he might wholely free it from Dependence upon Precept and establish it as a Pa●t of the Moral and Eternal Law which in his third Proposition he ushers in with a Therefore that it being an Act of Natural Religion c. It is therefore a Part of the Moral and Eternal Law c. But his Therefore being built upon a false Foundation must needs therefore fall to the Ground And as in the first Part of his Argument there is a D●f●ct so in the second there is a Redu●da●cy which makes it stark naught for therein he Assumes thus But by an Oath rightly taken we glorifie God c. The Fa●lacy lies in those Words rightly taken b● which he would take for granted that an Oath may be rightly taken this is meer begging of th● Qu●stion for that is the main thing in Controversie if we c●uld grant that an Oath may be rightly taken we should not refu●e to take it our selves but we ●ay no Oath can be rightly taken because all Oaths are by Christ forbidden The Premisses being both faulty his Conclusion to be sure cannot be good theref●●e what he builds thereupon deserves the less Regard He enumerates many Attributes of God which he saith are acknowledged by an Oath to which no other Answer need be given then that the divine Attributes are acknowledged by speaking the Truth without an Oath and God thereby more glorified in having re●eemed a ●eople from ●e●fidiousness Treachery and Falshood and brought them to that State of integrity and Uprightness of Heart that ha●ing put away ●ll Lying which was t●e Occasion of Swearing they can now sp●●k every

That the Inspirations which the Apostles had or the Teaching of the Spirit whereby the mind of God was communicated to them had no Dependency upon Miracles I have shewed before As for New Revelations it is a Phrase of his own not used by us and if by New he intend New as to Substance he doth not rightly represent us for we do not expect a Revelation of any other Gospel of any other Way of Salvation of any other Ess●ntials in the Christian Religion then what were revealed to the primitive Christians and have been in all Ages revealed to the ●aints in 〈◊〉 D●gree or other and which by the divinely inspired Penmen were committed to writing and are declared of in the holy Scriptures but as no Prophecy of old ●ime came by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost so n●ither can the true Sense and Meaning of tho●e heavenly Doctrines contained in the holy ●criptures be comprehended or understood by the Wit and Wisdom of man in his highest Natural Attainments but only alone by the Openings and Discoveries of that holy Spirit by which they were at first revealed Those divine Mysteries are Mysteries indeed and remain so as a sealed Book which neither the unlearned nor yet the most learned in the wisdom of this World is able by that Learning to open until Christ the Lamb doth open them And these Heavenly things and divine Mysteries so opened by him who hath the Key of David wherewith he openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man with all his humane Learning openeth are not New Revelations that is New things revealed but rather renewed Revelations that is Old things revealed anew The same Gospel the same Way of Salvation the same Essentials of Religion the same Principles and Doctrine in a word the same Good Old Truths which were revealed to the Saints of old and are recorded in the holy Scriptures revealed now anew And this Revelation is absolutely necessary for without it there is no true no certain no living Knowledge of God the Father or of Jesus Christ his Son This our Saviour told the Iews No man sayes he knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him Humane Learning cannot do it Nor can the Doctrines of the Gospel or the Mysteries of God's Kingdom be known to man but by the Rev●lation of the Holy Spirit Humane Learning cannot discover them for The things of God saith Paul knoweth no man but the Spirit of God Perhaps the Priest will say They are revealed in the Scriptures But I shall then tell him That Revelation is necessary yea of Necessity even to understand the Scriptures For he himself observes p. 96. that it is not the Letter but the Sense that is the Word of God If so it is not enough for any man to have and read the Letter only though he spend his Age therein but if he expect profit thereby he must come to the true Sense which how learned soever he be in the Wisdom of this World he never can attain unto until the holy Spirit reveal it to him And to this purpose must his own words serve if they will serve to any purpose at all namely We confess that the Spirit helpeth us to understand old Truths already reveal●d i● Scripture and we pray for his Assistance therein pag. 103. In which words though he mistakes in saying they are revealed already to him that doth not understand them yet by confessing that the Spirit doth help to understand and praying for his Assistance therein he acknowledges that the Truths contained in the Scriptures are to be revealed by the Spirit Having promised this I hold my self the less concern'd to take notice of what he sayes concerned new Revelations because he speaks up●n a false Ground and shoots at random Yet some things scattered here and there in his Discourse I may speak briefly to to make him more sensible of his Mistakes 1 st He says These New Revelations highly disparage the Scriptures Answ. He that desires and waits to have the Truth 's Record in the Scriptures revealed to him by the same Spirit from which they were written doth not at all disparage the Scriptures but honours them But he sayes The Scripture if it be true and may be believed declares it self to be a perfect and sufficient Rule in order to Salvation 2 Tim. 3.17 Answ. The Scripture so far as it hath escaped Corruption from Mis-transcribing Mis-translating Mis-printing and the like is true and not only may but ought to be believed But I do not find it declares that of it self which he hath here declared of it from 2 Tim. 3.17 namely that it is a perfect and sufficient Rule in order to Salvation That place sayes thus Vers. 16. for the 17th Verse depends on that and is imperfect without it All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction for Instruction in Righteousness Vers. 17. That the Man of God may be perfect throughly furnisht unto all Good Works Now to let pass the Translation which is not altogether so well as it might be here is no mention of a Rule at ●ll The Scripture is here said to be profitable but I hope the Priest will not say every thing that is profitable is a perfect and sufficient Rule He sayes humane Learning is profitable and not only so but nec●ssary yea of Necessity to the Understanding Preaching the Gospel will he therefore make humane Learning the Rule But how regardless is this man of speaking Truth who so confidently sayes the Scripture declares it self to be a perfect and sufficient Rule in order to Salvation whena● that Scripture which he brings to prove this hath no such words in it But he adds That the Scripture accurses all that shall preach any other Doctrine Gal. 1.8 9. Answ. If he means any other Doctrine then this which he has preached concerning the Scripture being a perfect and sufficient Rule he errs and wrongs the Text. For the Apostle there sayes If any man preach any ●●her G●spel unto you then that we ha●e preached and you have received let him be acursed And so say I He that preaches any other Gospel then what was then preached by the Apostle the Curse and Wo is to him But let me withal tell my Adversary he did unadvisedly to bring these two Scriptures together For in that to Timothy the Apostle saith That the Man of God may be perfect but that the Priest denyes it is possible for him to be So that he preaches not only another but a directly contrary Doctrine to what the Apostle preacht Let him look again then and consider whether he has not brought the Curse to his own Door Again he sayes pag. 104. Consider how contrary these new Revelations are to God's