Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	false_a	religion_n	true_a	4,673	5	5.0261	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56100	The Protestants letter concerning the re-union of the two religions to the Assembly of the clergy of France, held at Paris, May, 1685 humbly offered to the consideration of all Protestants in England, as an expedient for reconciling the great differences in religion now among them.	Kidder, Richard, 1633-1703.; Catholic Church. Assemblée générale du clergé de France.	1690 (1690)	Wing P3851; Wing K409_CANCELLED; ESTC R882	28,330	38

an unmoveable Resolution to observe it would undoubtedly damn himself he would commit a Sin against his Conscience and in some sort against the Holy Ghost Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin and a Man who in doing an indifferent Action doth believe that he commits a mortal Sin doth sin mortally He acts by a Spirit of Revolt formally against the Ordinances of God or against that which he esteems to be the Law of God None therefore can nor ought to force any Party to concede any thing in such Points which they believe to be necessary but must first instruct convince and work them into a full Persuasion that they do needlesly startle at things which are not what they do believe them to be This is our second Principle which seems to us as indisputable as the former and to be built upon such solid Reason that it will be received by all Persons who are never so little disengaged from Prejudices 3. Our third Principle is this That when the Question is of any Article whether it be of Faith or of Practice which one of the Parties doth hold to be false and so false that the Belief or the Practice of that Article would essentially concern Religion and ruine the very Foundations thereof And the other Party holds it to be true but yet so as that the Practice or the Belief thereof is not according to his Opinion absolutely necessary unto the Essence of Religion In this case I say it is clear that Christian Charity and Prudence do require that the Party which holds that Article to be true but not necessary should yield and bear with the Weakness of him who looks upon it as false as intolerable and as ruinous unto the Fundamentals of Religion or as incompatible with Edification This Truth doth seem to me to carry so great an Evidence in it that I know not whether it be necessary to prove it Is it not clear by the precedent Principle that he who gives himself a Liberty in any Point which is really fundamental or which he believes to be so doth damn himself doth act against his Conscience and ruine his Salvation But on the contrary That he who takes a Liberty in any Point which he indeed doth believe to be true but doth not believe it to be of an absolute necessity doth do nothing against his Conscience In the first place he doth not betray the Truth for as we shall see in that which follows he is not to be obliged to subscribe the Rejection of that Belief as if it were false or of that Practice as if it were evil and criminal He may keep his own Opinion he may also declare that such a Belief is good though he tolerate that which is opposite thereunto and that such a Practice is innocent though he have renounced it for the benefit of Peace Secondly He doth not betray his Conscience nor Religion in suffering such a Practice to be abolished or in leaving every body free to such a Belief because he is persuaded that that Belief or that Practice are not of the Essence of Religion and that a Man may pass-well enough without them and never thereby run any hazard of his Salvation There is nothing that can be more evident than this That there are most innocent Practices yea such as are authorised by the Testimony of the whole Church which might yet notwithstanding be very well abandoned if any great Interest for the Glory of God or for the Good of the Church did depend thereupon As for Example The greatest part of the Christian Churches have in Baptism renounced Immersion or Dipping and do content themselves with the Baptism of Aspersion or Sprinkling But now if the Turks who were disposed otherwise to their Conversion should stumble hereat and say that it was of absolute necessity to plunge in the Water as many as are baptized that Jesus Christ did institute it after that manner that such was the practice of the Apostles and that it was the constant usage of the Primitive Church would not Christian Prudence be concerned now to abandon the Baptism of Sprinkling and to return again unto that of Dipping This would not be to impeach the Memory of our Fore-fathers for we should never say that the Baptism of simple Sprinkling is a Sacrilege Neither would this be the Betraying of the Truth for we should never subscribe that the Baptism of Sprinkling is insufficient It would only be a Sacrifizing unto a great Interest a Ceremony which we do not believe to be important Now let it be remembred that there can hardly be any greater Interest for the Glory of God and for the Good of the Church than the Re-union of those two Parties which do divide the Western Church If therefore there were on either Side any Articles of such a Character and Quality that the one Side did hold them to be entirely ruinous to Religion and that the other did not look upon them indeed as meerly indifferent but yet nevertheless as not necessary with an absolute necessity it is clear that that Party which regarded the Article in question as not being of exceeding great importance ought to yield in favour of the other who did look upon it as being absolutely incompatible with Religion And this is also another Principle which ought not as we conceive to be disputed 4. Our fourth Principle is this That when the Question is about Articles or Creeds whereof both Parties do agree that they are not of the utmost importance that if they be true yet they are not of the Essence of Religion and if they be false though they are believed to be true yet they do not destroy saving Faith In this case I say the ruling Party that which is the mightiest in Number in Credit and Authority ought to be tolerated by the Weaker who must accommodate themselves herein for the Benefit of Peace and to put a Cessation unto the Scandal of Schism As for Example If the Christians of both Communions could agree together that the Worshipping of Images and Praying unto Saints were not Practices ruinous to Religion and were no way prejudicial unto Piety It is clear that in those States where that Religion which invocates Saints doth bear the sway the others ought to accommodate themselves thereunto that is to say that they ought not to separate themselves from the Communion for that thing alone On the contrary in those States where the Religion which will not admit the Invocation of Saints doth rule they who are of a contrary Sentiment ought to accommodate themselves thereunto and not to seperate themselves from the publick Worship although the Saints were not there worshipped This is also a Rule of Sovereign Justice whose Equity seems unto us to be most manifestly evident the weaker Party would do nothing against his Conscience by adhering unto a Worship wherein he should see the Practice of Things which he doth not indeed believe to be either

necessary or so much as good but yet such as he should not on the other side believe to be either contrary or pernicious unto Religion it would only be a most sweet smelling Sacrifice which he would offer unto God for the Conservation of Peace And this we call another of our uncontestable Principles 5. Our fifth Principle is this that in regard of certain Articles of Belief or of Practice which the one side doth look upon as important in Religion and the other doth consider as less important these last ought to yield in favour of the former in not obliging them formally to renounce things which they should believe to be true they ought I say not to oblige them to the Abjuration or to the condemning of those Practices as pernicious or of those Beliefs as false I will explain my self by an Example The Roman Catholicks do believe that the Opinion of the Real Presence is a thing of importance the Reformed on the contrary do believe that it is a great Errour but yet they do not believe that this Errour doth ruine the Fundamentals for which cause they will tolerate it in the Protestants of the Confession of Ausbourg If therefore they should enter into a Treaty of Re-union with the Christians of the Roman Communion it would not be just to oblige them to the Abjuration of the Real Presence unless they could find means to persuade them that it was false Now this is a thing which no means can be found to do in a Treaty and which would also be no way convenient to attempt for there is no endeavouring to persuade them that the Real Presence is false but by a Dispute but in a Treaty of Re union all controversal Disputes ought to be avoided like a most dangerous Rock In the Re-union therefore none ought to be obliged to the abjuring of Articles of the falsity of which one of the two Parties cannot be so quickly persuaded The Reason of this Rule of Equity is evident for no Man ought to be persuaded to do any thing against his Conscience To abjure an Errour which a Man doth think to be a Truth is a base and fearful Cowardice for which if it be persevered in I do not believe that there is any Place for Mercy in so doing he is an Heretick for he doth still retain the Heresie inwardly and he is an Hypocrite to boot for he confesseth the Truth with his Mouth but doth renounce it with his Heart No Man ought ever to oblige any one to commit so great a Crime Moreover whosoever doth yield in this respect without obliging the other to abjure he himself doth nothing against his Conscience for in suffering another to believe as a Truth that which he doth look upon as a non-fundamental Error he doth not oblige himself to speak of that Errour as of a Truth or to make any profession thereof nay he doth reserve unto himself a Liberty of resisting that Errour as long as he shall believe it to be false Neither doth he do any thing against his Conscience in not obliging others to the abjuration of such an Opinion for not believing it to be destructive of Religion he doth not believe that they who retain it do run any hazard of their Salvation We do never sin against our Consciences in tolerating that in another which we judge to be an Error but when we do at the same time judge that Error to be Fundamental and Mortal in respect of Salvation If then we do tolerate our Neighbour in such Errors we do suffer him to destroy himself without ever opposing his ruine which is an unconscionable Proceeding One of the Communions which doth divide the West doth hold the Real Presence as an important Truth the other looks on it as a tolerable Error It is clear that whosoever doth esteem it to be a tolerable Error ought not to oblige the Party who holds it to be an important Truth unto the abjuration of that Opinion which observation doth amount to this in one Word that Men ought to bear with one another and to unite themselves by the way of Toleration in those things that are tolerable as the Theologues Thomists and Scotists do bear with one another in most considerable differences about matter of Grace without making any separate Communion 6. Our Sixth Principle is this That there is an infinite difference between tolerating an Error and making profession that we do believe it the first is an Action of Christian Wisdom and Prudence the second is a Cowardice infinitely Criminal and a base Action to which we ought never to solicite or tempt any Person Truth is a thing so venerable that respect is also due unto its very shadow for so I call those false Opinions which by the favour of prejudices have established themselves in the Minds of Men as if they were unquestionable Truths and so much respect is owing even to them that none ought to exact from any Person the renunciation of them as long as that Person doth account them to be Truths When those Errors are capital and fundamental after we have endeavoured to deliver them who are prepossessed by them if we cannot effect that we must abandon the infected and renounce all Communion but we must in no wise force them to profess the Truths which they do not believe While Errors are tolerable we may use our best Efforts to dispossess Men's Minds of them but if we are not able to bring that about we ought never to force their Mouth to a Confession of that which would be contradicted by their Hearts We must tolerate such Errors and endeavour to instruct the Persons with the Spirit of Meekness and of Gentleness This Observation is of absolute necessity in this present subject The Question is of re-uniting the Protestants to the Roman Church It must be conceived that they would be capable of tolerating many false Opinions the belief of which they were not able to profess and it would be unreasonable to tell them You do not hold that this Belief or that that Practice is mortal therefore you ought to subscribe and be conformable thereunto This is also an undisputable Principle and one that needs no proving that a Man may safely tolerate divers things which he ought not to adopt nor practice 7. Our seventh and last Principle is this That no Treaty ought to be made to the prejudice of Truth and most especially of important Truths Truth must have her Rights secured and made good unto her and it is a Right belonging to Truth to produce it self and to prove it self And therefore in a Treaty of Re-union by which there should be an agreement of Toleration in many Opinions upon the Substance and Matter whereof they could not agree each Party ought to be left to its liberty to examine those Truths about which they were not come to any particular determination and also there ought to be a free permission to examine