Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	christian_a	good_a	great_a	1,012	4	2.0712	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41815	A reply to A vindication of a discourse concerning the unreasonableness of a new separation &c.	Grascome, Samuel, 1641-1708?	1691 (1691)	Wing G1576; ESTC R31730	40,185	31

be considered whether it be the particular Case and whether the Publick Good be Secured or Advanced And here it would be enquired Whether Religion be better Secured to us Whether Mens Lives and Properties are more Safe How we encrease in Strength in Trade in Riches and the like And though I do not admire our Gain yet many of these Things are out of my way but there is a certain Tract called the DEAR BARGAIN which speaks of these Things and if the Government would encourage that Author to write I am perswaded he would quickly set that Controversie in the true Light and to him as the fittest Man I leave it The next thing is the Practicability of this Principle of Publick Good Now whatever the Publick Good is or whatever it may Warrant yet if People are to make that their Rule they will judge of it and then every one will judge of Publick Good according to his own Interest and Persuasion and this by several Arguments I did prove would fill the World with Violence and Confusion But he is so far from answering any of my Arguments that he never mentioneth one of 'em as sensible that it would spoil all that he intended to sham on me afterwards But very honestly he Sums up my Argument as I neither laid nor meant it and tells me That the Publick Good 's being liable to be abused is an inconcluding Argument not only because of the Inconsequence but because this is a way of Arguing that may serve against any thing and if we put Publick Justice or Laws or Religion or Reformation into the place of Publick Good it will hold in any of them as well as the other Grant this to be true though it is of his own making yet will this conclude that whoever pleads Publick Good Religion or Reformation is necessarily in the Right And if it be so liable to be abused Doth it not nearly concern us to examine well whether it be not abused When so many have been imposed upon by it and even we our selves so very lately almost to our utter Ruin must we still be such Fools as to believe without more adoe every bawling or self-interessed Fellow who cries Publick Good For this Reason I did then fairly intimate That Publick Good as a common Noise or solitary Plea is never to be admitted without such Criterions and other Evidences accompanying it as may make it appear that what is pleaded is real And thus it will be in any of the Cases he supposeth if he please he may set up the cry of Reformation and then the Church of England is for Reforming the Church of Rome yea at this time perhaps one part of it is for Reforming another the Presbyterian would Reform them both and the Independent outdoeth him and still the Anabaptist hath a Knack of Reforming further and the Quaker he is for Reforming them all Now set all these on Work and encourage them by telling them That the Plea of Reformation being liable to be abused is no Argument but it is Inconsequent and would reach to Publick Good or any thing else and if they were suffered to go on in this mad Humour I am apt to think that in a short time they would reform away all Religion And if therefore Reformation be required we must not presently fall to altering or pulling down but first enquire whether there be any thing that stands in need of Reformation For if things be either well or near well change is rarely for the better But if there be discovered either such gross Errors or intolerable Abuses as need Reformation yet it must be done in a regular Course for though there should be never so much need of Reformation if you will allow all to be Publick Reformers you will mend Religion worse than those Tinkers do Kettles who instead of stopping one hole make two And thus as to Publick Good the bare Name of it is not enough especially when such great Actions are pretended for the sake of it as for any thing we know may prove fatal and therefore when such a Pretence is set up I think there is a double Test whereby it ought to be tryed for as a Civil Society we ought to examine such Pretences with their agreeableness to our Constitutions for if they be contrary to them they portend a Civil Destruction But then as we are a Christian Society this Pretence of Publick Good must be examined by the Rules of Righteousness and the Gospel of the Blessed Jesus and if Men will pretend for Publick Good to disannul indispensable Duties to destroy all Faith and Truth amongst Men and to over-throw the very Nature of Good and Evil by making it Changeable and Subservient to every present Turn and Occasion this is the ready way to destroy not only the Civil Society but the Christian Church And if that which makes void Promises and Oaths which evacuates God's Commandments which transforms Treachery into Vertue and either makes it lawful to do Evil that Good may come of it or flatly says it is no Evil if Good may happen to come of it for I think there is not much Good come of it yet I say if this be not Destructive of the Evangelical Rule I know not what can And if disinteressed Persons were to judge of Particulars in the present Case I dread to think on which Side even a Moral Heathen would give the Verdict to the Shame of such numbers of Christians The third thing proposed is who shall be Judge i. e. either of the Mischief or the Remedy As to the former he says The Case before us is supposed to be notorious It is indeed supposed but it was never proved Must we destroy a King and Government for the Shams and Slanders that malicious Men suppose in defence of their Wickedness Two things indeed he mentions which have a Tendency as he saith to the Destruction of a Government Desertion and Lunacy Now if K. J. was Lunatick this is the first time I have heard of it but if he was that is not a sufficient ground to depose him Indeed it may warrant the setting up a Protector or Regent to act in his Name but the Honour and Title still remain with him This seems to be the Case of Edward III. who at the latter end of his Reign being sensible of his Indisposition for Government made Lionel Duke of Clarence Regent of the Realm But this bereaved neither Edward III. his Father nor Richard II. his Nephew of their Right As for Desertion I think they ought not for shame to have named it unless they had returned some better Answer to the Paper called Desertion Discuss'd than imprisoning the Author But he saith I might as well have asked who shall be the Judge whether the Banks are broken down in an Inundation c. I hope he doth not mean an Inundation of Foreigners Poverty and Cruelty But who is it hath broke the Banks or made

Unjust and Wicked How can I joyn with those in every time of whose solemn Worship I am required more then once to pray to God that he would approve and prosper the breach of his Commandments and most signally and notoriously the Fifth Sixth and Eighth To pray not only for that which is highly unjust but also for the Prosperity and Continuance of it is that which no Christian ought to do and where he is enjoyned to do it he not only may but ought to separate from such and so I leave others to judge whether there be any Reason for the Peoples non Communion as he Styles it Other Reasons I could add but because the Author of The Caution against Incōsistency has clearly proved That those who think the Oaths unlawful ought for the same Reason to condemn the Prayers which relate the Matter of the Oath and consequently ought not to joyn where they by being inserted in the daily Office are made a condition of Communion I refer to that for more full Satisfaction in that particular Only this I shall add that in conclusion of the Church Prayers we return Thanks to God Who hath given us Grace with one accord to make our Prayers and Supplications Now let Men pretend what they will in repeating this Prayer either they say true or false if they say true then they joyn in those Prayers which contain the Matter of the Oath but if they do not joyn in those Prayers then this Prayer is a lye in their Mouths Yet there is one thing more I shall propound That though personal Failings of any Man are not a good Warrant to others to abstain from Communion whether nevertheless the Teaching Preaching and Maintaining Immoralities and Opinions destructive of Christian Practice may not as well justifie a Separation from such as Errors in the Faith For though our Adversaries do not say That Perjury is lawful yet they argue upon such Principles as if there could hardly be any such thing They make Oaths to be no Security to any Governours which is enough to make all Governours hate and root out that Religion which teacheth so The effect of their Discourse tends to the destroying of all Faith Truth and Justice amongst Mankind than which nothing can be more scandalous or dangerous to that Religion which prescribes and requires the highest Simplicity and Sincerity And this thing alone I think may go a great way towards justifying a Separation from such Persons From what hath been said the Answer is easie to what follows For it is apparent That it is not barely a Political Security required of us nor do we and God forbid either we or any others should Revenge our Wrongs upon the Church as he maliciously insinuates But we preserve our own Innocency and what in us lyes by lawful and honest Means the Churches Purity and just Authority though we heartily mourn That the Wickedness of others hath unavoidably put us upon the necessity of taking the Course we now do As to that which he calls my second Argument he tells me in the First place That I proceed upon a gross Mistake by confounding Deprivation with Degradation and yet with his leave the Mistake was not mine for I called it Deprivation as he doth I never mentioned Degradation But if the Civil Power inflict a Penalty under the name of Deprivation which tantamounts to a Degradation I could only argue against it as it was Now to take away a Character and make it eternally useless is in effect the same thing and this is the Case we are not only deprived of our Livelihoods and shut out from our proper Cures but perpetually discharged from the Exercise of the Ministerial Function unless we will sin against the known Laws of God and the Land and the Dictates of our own Consciences which we ought not upon any account to do And I think this wants very little of being equivalent to a Degradation let them call it by what Name they will But what if the Civil Power never so much as thought of your Distinction as I am apt to think they little Regard it When the High-Priest and Rulers of the Jews first consulted and resolved amongst themselves straitly to threaten the Apostles That they speak henceforth to no Man in this i. e. Christ's Name Act. 4 17. and after put their Resolves in Execution expresly commanding them not to Speak at all nor Teach in the Name of Jesus vers 18. do you think they troubled their heads with your Distinction of Deprivation and Degradation And how much is our Case different For we are obliged what in them lyes either not to speak in that Name or to act contrary to it and therefore I think we may very justly take up the Apostles Answer Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye vers 19. When the Heathen Emperors who set themselves against Christianity it self Banish'd the Bishops and Martyr'd others they did but deprive them they would not for all the World sure have thought of degrading them And after all what if your new Masters do assert that Power in themselves You know many of them are Erastians and how much such Men set by your Distinction you can scarce be ignorant But to go a little farther with you those Men who pretend to make Laws are commonly presumed best to understand their Meaning Now it is not long since that a haughty Member of the Convention plainly told me That it was in their power to take away our Orders and Unpriest and Unbishop us for which he gave this worshipful Reason That the Legislative Power ought not to be stinted And thus neither the Authority nor Establishment of God himself or his Christ nor the Bounds of Good and Evil must be suffered to set any Limits to a proud pragmatical Conventioner By this you may see That the Saviours you adore reckon That our being at any time in Statu quo lyes wholly at their Mercy and that even your selves if you do not absolutely please your new Masters and go through Stitch Right or Wrong with their Commands can pretend to little Benefit from your Character or Orders Besides I have lately heard of a Man who hath accepted a Commission to visit all the Exempts in the City of London and within Ten Miles of it by Vertue of which for any thing I know a busie Chego-pated Priest may insolently attempt to Visit his Metropolitan And whether this may not be improved in time to grant by Commission the Exercise of Episcopal Jurisdiction to any Persons whom they please without Regard to Orders I cannot say but I think it is a prety Step and fair Advance towards it But be the Mistake whose it will I shall now try what he answers to the Argument for it is that which is the Concern And here he deals most disingeniously by me For First in reciting my Argument he leaves out those