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	reason_n	scripture_n	3,945	5	6.1612	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75507	An apologie for the six book-sellers, subscribers of the second Beacon fired. Or, A vindication of them from the foul and unjust aspersions cast upon them by M. John Goodwin in a late pamphlet intituled A fresh discovery of the high Presbyterian spirit. Together with brief observations upon some remarkable passages in the said book. / By one that subscribes not his name, because he confesseth himself to be nullius nominis.	Nullius Nominus.	1655 (1655)	Wing A3557; Thomason E826_8; ESTC R10427	8,136	12

day to hate to morrow I leave to all those to judge that have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil And whereas M. Goodwins salvo is this Gods love is the same he always loves righteousness and hates unrighteousness and so there is no alteration in him but in the person beloved I answer there is a twofold love in God a love to righteousness a love to persons the former is unchangeable I confess according to M. Goodwin but the latter about which the difference lies M. Goodwin makes changeable which may appear by this similitude A Prince that loves a loyal and faithful subject but when he proves disloyal he hates him Will any man deny that the Princes affections are changed and yet he continues to love loyalty and hate disloyalty A Judge that loves righteousness and hates iniquity unchangeably loves his friend if he be righteous if he turn wicked he hates him and punishes him Can any deny that there is a change in him So in this case if God loves to day and hates to morrow is not here a change It is true the original cause of the change in all these cases is the person offending but still the subject of the change according to this Hypothesis is as the Prince and the Judge so God himself and so God is according to M. Goodwins doctrine as M. Goodwin hath proved himself to be not unchangeable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if God be not altered in this case M. Goodwin is desired to tell us what alteration is or when a person may be said to be changed in regard of his mind or affections If Master Goodwin mean to make this good he must as he hath done in part bring into the world a new Philosophy as he hath done a new Divinity Again this dreadful consequence which is justly charged upon M. Goodwin not only is hanged upon this such unchangeableness which he would have to be thought to be some other and higher degree of it then men dare to assert but doth no less truly flow from other passages in his Book where this word such is not found I will use but one argument which is c. 13. § 37. arg 8. It is too large to transcribe the sum of it I appeal to M. Goodwin is this That doctrine which evacuates turns into weakness folly all that gracious counsel of the H. Ghost c. these are his very words must needs be a doctrine of vanity and errour But such is the common doctrine of absolute and infallible perseverance mark it he saith the common doctrine and who ever doubted that the Book-sellers meant that very thing Thence let me use this one Argument That doctrine which in M. Goodwins judgement evacuates and turns into weakness and folly all that gracious counsel of the H. Ghost c. were it to be found in or regularly deduced from the Scriptures it were a just ground to any intelligent man to question their Authority and whether they were from God or no But such is the common doctrine of absolute and infallible perseverance Ergo I confess the syllogisme is somewhat long But M. Goodwin is a Ciceronian he useth to dispute in words at length not in figures The major I know he will grant the minor he cannot deny it is his own words and I hope he will suffer the conclusion to pass peaceably And if so M. Goodwin doth stil lie under the just imputation of that odious consequence which according to these other expressions of his is this If the Scripture should maintain the common doctrine of absolute and infallible perseverance it were a just ground to any rational man to doubt of its divine Authority which let any sober man judge what it differs from the words which the Book-sellers use Nay more plainly That such unchangeableness is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of the common doctrine of perseverance He often saith in his voluminous discourse and in hIs Letter to M. Caryl annexed to his last piece p. 78. upon this very particular occasion Nor do I wrong your doctrine of perseverance to the value of the least hair on your head because evident it is that without SUCH an UNCHANGEABLENESSE supposed the said doctrine will neither have footing nor foundation to support it From hence with M Goodwins favour I will try one syllogism If the doctrine of such unchangeableness and the common doctrine of perseverance are inseparably joined together and the one inevitably flows from the other then that consequence which follows from the one follows also from the other But the doctrine of such unchangeableness and the common doctrin of perseverance are inseparably conjoined c. nay are to M. Goodwin one of the same Ergo the Book-sellers did him no wrong when they fastened his odious consequence to the common doctrine of Gods unchangeableness which he there fastens to such unchangeableness Nor doth M. Goodwin wash off the guilt of this consequence in his Letter to M. Caryl where he hath these wordes The style of the discourse is built upon this foundation That God cannot deny himself he cannot blaspheme himself If therefore any Book contains any thing blasphemous against God the divine Authority of it might justly be questioned But Mr. Goodwin should consider that it is one thing when a Book contains something which doth expresly or undenyably blaspheme God then M. Goodwins reasoning were tolerable but if it contain it only doubtfully and by a remote and controverted consequence it is not modesty to use no harsher expression in M. Goodwin to say if any thing be said in the Scripture which his weak and dark so all mens are and prejudicate apprehehensions conceive repugnant to Gods holiness c. he may rationally doubt of the divinity of it And truly Sir to speak impartially if any man who believes the truth of the doctrine of perseverance should use such expressions as these If any unchangeableness of Gods love were to be found in or regularly deduced from the Scriptures it were just ground to any rational man to doubt of its divine Authority I should both question his modesty and lesse value his judgement And yet I think nay certain I am he might shew as fair and fairer cards from reason and rational consequence against the doctrine of Gods changeableness then you can against the unchangeableness of his love I could tell Mr. Goodwin of very considerable Authours that in their highest debates on the behalf of the truth when reason pleads the most strongly for their doctrines yet have so much sobriety as to put in this Proviso That if God in Scripture evidently say such a thing they wil receive it and conclude that there reason mistook in this as it commonly doth in other things and I do not mean Lutherans neither And it is observable the many words you spend to take off the odiousness of your consequence do not at all prevail with M. Caryl to eat his words