Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	apostle_n	great_a	word_n	1,780	5	3.6962	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46722	The damning nature of rebellion, or, The universal unlawfulness of resistance under pain of damnation, in the saddest sense asserted in a sermon preached at the cathedral of Norwich, May 29, 1685, being the anniversary-day of the birth of His late Majesty Charles II, and of the happy restauration both of him and of the government from the great rebellion / by William Jegon ...	Jegon, William, 1650-1710.	1685 (1685)	Wing J530; ESTC R2562	26,268	40

ever happen again yet that it did so once is enough to assure us of God's eternal detestation of the Crime And in the next remarkable instance I mean that of Absalom so strangely infatuating the Counsels of the most politick and so amazingly bringing the miserable Ring-leader to his end by making the Hair of his Head instrumental to his ruin and cutting him off thus in the very act of his Crime notwithstanding all the care his Royal Father took to prevent it Sure if we reflect seriously upon God's severe displeasure so signally evinced by such astonishing instances of it we cannot with any shadow of reason imagine that Resisting should be so light and trivial a matter as some would fain have it from their fancied importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in my Text. And now I would fain persuade my self I have made it seem very probable at least that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place of my Text does really signifie Damnation in the saddest sense by what I have urged 1. From the Context which I am sure very strongly inclines to it if I must not say absolutely clears it From the concurrent sense of the most approved Expositors as well Antient as Modern And 3. From parallel places of Holy Writ which very plainly shew that Resisting is a sin exceedingly displeasing or rather detestable in the sight of God and consequently I may say of a damning nature I am sure our Church is very clear for the damning nature of it ●omily a●ainst Re●ellion ●ag 379. declaring in express terms that eternal Damnation is prepared for all impenitent Rebels in Hell with Satan the first founder of Rebellion and grand Captain of all Rebels And 't is plain that all Resisters with Her are Rebels And the first Council that ever made any Canons against Resisting was the fourth Council of Toledo in Spain Anno 633. for there never was any occasion for the Churches provision against it before that say some For certain there was not for the first three hundred and forty years if not much longer But that Council is very severe against the Authors and Abettors of the Crime not only Excommunicating and Anathematizing them but adjudging them to be damned in God's future Judgment and to have their part with Judas Iscariot And this Sentence was confirmed in the Fifth Council that followed there and the same was done in the Council of Calcuth But after all supposing it could not be made so clear as it may seem to be that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in this place of my Text eternal Damnation without Repentance yet what assurance can be given to any Christian that makes the least doubt or scruple whether it does not when it cannot be deny'd but the word is capable of that sense I cannot conceive any other way of satisfying the doubt or silencing the scruple but one of these two either a plain Demonstration or a new Revelation to the contrary As for the former of these the matter is not capable of it For who can pretend to Demonstrate or to use a term of greater Latitude undeniably convince any man living that the Apostle in this place and by this word did not mean Damnation in the saddest sense And for the other way of a new Revelation however the Person pretending to it may satisfie himself he cannot another of the truth of his Revelation without a Miracle or somewhat equivalent to attest it And without that what security can he give that he does not incur that Anathema of the Apostle against Angel or Man that should Preach another Gospel or the contrary to that he had Preached Gal. 1.8 9. And without such Conviction as either that of Demonstration or a new Revelation sufficiently attested what infinite hazard is it for a Christian to venture upon the guilt of Resisting which 't is more than possible for certain may be attended with Damnation in the saddest sense I am pretty sure there is no absolute security against it in case of actual Resisting but Repentance only And that must be granted infinitely hazardous in a War especially if the War be sinful And for a Person to be taken away suddenly by death in the very act of Resisting as 't is possible yea probable nay let me add 't is very great odds but he may if engaged in it and at his first appearance before the grand Tribunal hear the Holy Spirit or his Amanuensis St. Paul avouch that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place was truly meant Damnation in the saddest sense is infinitely astonishing and much too dreadful in Theory ever to be hazarded in Practice by rational Christians that does indeed believe and has any tolerable apprehension of Damnation Well! but supposing the worst Is there nothing to take off the force of this intermination No lawful ground of resisting the Higher Powers No not any as I come to shew according to my second Proposal namely that there is no just case of exception against the rule of my Text no pretence allowable But for Subjects to resist I mean forcibly to resist their Lawful Sovereign is absolutely and universally to incur Damnation and nothing to atone for the crime in the sight of God or to prevent the Punishment threatned here but Repentance I confess this assertion cannot but seem a little strange when there have been so many cases of exception made against this general Rule so many pretences set on foot and reckon'd allowable so many starting holes found out But I am sure I have very good Authority for what I say our Laws and Statutes as well as Canons and the declared Doctrine of our Church being clear on my side And this methinks should seem in all reason abundantly sufficient to any professed Member of our Church who must necessarily renounce such his Membership and cease to be of the Church of England before he can allow himself the liberty of resisting As for our Laws that of the 25 of Edw. 3. and those of the 13 14 of Charles the second declare it universally unlawful to make or levy any war against the King without the allowance of any case or pretence whatsoever and the same is expresly required to be acknowledged by all the Clergy in the Act of Vniformity and the same in substance is required of all Civil and Military Officers Our Canons declare expresly against all taking up of Arms whether offensive or defensive without the Royal Authority much more against it upon any pretence whatsoever under pain of Damnation for which they cite the words of my Text as very plain in their sense * The first of the Canons of 1640. Our Homilies teach us God hath shewn that he alloweth neither the Dignity of any Person nor the Multitude of any People nor the Weight of any Cause as sufficient for the which Subjects may move Rebellion against their Princes * Homily against Rebellion p. 368. It