Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	faith_n	persuade_v	2,025	5	7.4870	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70175	Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty, or, The true resolution of a present controversie concerning liberty of conscience here you have the question stated, the middle way betwixt popish tyrannie and schismatizing liberty approved and also confirmed from Scripture and the testimonies of divines, yea of whole churches : the chiefe arguments and exceptions used in the bloudy tenent, The compassionate samaritane, M.S. to A.S. &c., examined : eight distinctions added for qualifying and clearing the whole matter : and in conclusion a parænetick to the five apologists for choosing accommodation rather than toleration.	Gillespie, George, 1613-1648.	1645 (1645)	Wing G765; ESTC R21730	38,146	48

Answ 1. The question is not whether a man ought to be punished for his judgement but whether a man ought to be punished for such professions or practises in religion as are found to be pernicious hurtfull and destructive to the glory of God the truth of the Gospell the Ordinances of Christ the reformation of Religion the peace of the Church I know he will be ready still to set on foot his argument for that a mans judgement and reason doth so necessitate and conclude him that he cannot chuse but professe and practice as he doth Therefore I adde 2. this argument of his striketh against the justice of the Parliament done or to be done upon Malignants for as much as their judgement bindeth them and their reason doth necessitate them to judge and speak and act as they doe 3. It striketh at the very justice of God upon reprobate and unbeleeving men for as much as they cannot receive the things of God 1 Cor. 2. 14. cannot hear the words of Christ Joh. 8. 43. cannot receive the spirit of truth Ioh. 14. 17. But 4. the formall solution is this there is a grosse fallacy in the argument for we must distinguish necessity there is a naturall necessity which takes away the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and a morall necessity which takes away the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of a mans being of another judgement or way Again there is an absolute necessity and a hypotheticall necessity Now the necessity of a Hereticks judging thus because his reason concludeth him thus is not a morall necessity or obligation upon him as if it were not lawfull to him to judge or doe otherwise nay he ought and is bound by the word of God to judge otherwise and doe otherwise but it is a naturall necessity I meane of sinfull nature and that not simple and absolute neither but hypotheticall only and upon this supposition that he hath not yet opened his eyes to receive more light nor set his heart singly and in the feare of God to seeke more light So that the plaine English of this Samaritan argument is this Though Gods word bindeth a man to such a duty yet if his owne erroneous perverse and corrupt judgement conclude him so farre that his opinion cannot agree with the word of God and himselfe cannot be brought to the practice of that necessary duty such a man ought not to be punished Or as if one should argue thus He that hath borrowed from me a thousand pound hath by his owne sault disabled himselfe to pay it therefore I may not call him to an account for it But let us see whether this Samaritan be happier in his second argument Which is this It 's knowne that the Fathers Generall Councels Nationall Assemblies Synods and Parliaments in their times have beene most grossely mistaken and though the present times be wiser then the former c. yet since there remaines a possibility of error notwithstanding never so great presumptions to the contrary one sort of men are not to compell another since this hazard is run thereby that he who is in an error may be the constrainer of him who is in the truth Answ 1. Farewell Parliaments if this argument hold good The Parliament may fine no man imprison no man banish no man they may compell no man to Assessements Taxes Excise Billeting of Souldiers c. And why forsooth because they may not presume of an infallible and unerring spirit but may erre and have erred as well as other men 2 He argueth from the hazard of compulsion it may fall out that he who is in the truth may be constrained and persecuted True it may fall out so and the Lord save us that we never be accessary to the persecuting of any who is in the truth for so it may be againe through mens corruption and abuse of the magistrates power so the best things may be abused But the liberty of conscience which he pleadeth for runs a farre greater hazard even the hazard of not only shaking but overturning truth and peace and religion and ordinances and Church and soules and all To the ruine of all these and to a thousand mischiefes this kinde of liberty prepareth a broad way and openeth a wide doore and it is better as he said to live where nothing is lawfull then where every thing is lawfull 3. It followes not that because Parliaments may not presume of an unerring spirit therefore they cannot be certaine that they are in the truth concerning this or that particular so that they may confidently compell men to it without feare of fighting against God The acknowledgement of a possibility of error and that we know but in part as long as we are in this world may well consist with mens fulnesse of perswasion from the light of Gods word concerning this or that truth to be beleeved or duty to be done I make haste to his third argument To compell me saith he against my conscience is to compell me against what I beleeve to be true and so against my faith now whatsoever is not of faith is sinne to compell me therefore against my conscience is to compell me to doe that which is sinfull And Againe I am counselled by the Apostle to be perswaded in my owne minde of the truth of that way wherein I serve the Lord c. Answ 1. This also shaketh loose Parliamentary authority though the Gentleman who wrote these arguments pretendeth to stand for it as much as any other His argument will conclude if it concludeth at all that the Parliament may not compell Malignants disaffected persons Rebels to any thing which they are not perswaded in their own minds to be right It is against my conscience wil the Antiparliamentary malignant say to contribute to the war to acknowledge this for a Parliament as long as the King doth not acknowledg it to reveal such a design or to confesse this or that plot against the Parliament whē I am examined therefore I shal sin if I do so for whatsoever is not of faith is sinne and the Parliament shall compell me to sinne if they compell me to doe so For though the thing may be in it selfe good yet if it doe not appeare to be so to my conscience the practice thereof in me is sinfull which therefore I ought not to bee compelled unto saith the Samaritan If hee say his argument is only concerning matters of religion I answer Whatever his intention be in offering the argument the very nature and force of the argument it selfe driveth universally against the compelling of a man to any thing whatsoever which is against his owne conscience except he will say that it is a sinne to serve God against my cons●ience but it is no sinne to serve the Parliament against my conscience Saith not the Apostle WHATSOEVER is not of faith is sinne and He that doubteth is damned But 2. when the Apostle saith so