Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n according_a church_n word_n 2,678 5 4.0797 3 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A33205 An answer to the representer's reflections upon the state and view of the controversy with a reply to the vindicator's full answer, shewing, that the vindicator has utterly ruined the new design of expounding and representing popery. Clagett, William, 1646-1688.; Clagett, Nicholas, 1654-1727. 1688 (1688) Wing C4376; ESTC R11070 85,324 142

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

the Representer has made for us One thing I am sure of that the Converts of the City of Orange were received upon such easy terms in point of Declaration that if Subjection and Communion had not been to follow one would have look'd upon the whole Transaction as a solemn Jest between the French General and the Bishop of Orange on the one side and the Citizens of Orange on the other The Passage is very remarkable and instructing and therefore I shall not think much to set down the Articles of Reconciliation as I have received them from hands of unquestionable credit 1. The Citizens of the Town of Orange that are under written considering that it is the Will of God of which Kings are the principal Interpreters that all Christians should reunite themselves into the same Church To testify their submission to the Order of the Divine Providence and that which they bear to the Holy Intentions of the King do intreat of his Majesty that his Troops commanded by the Count de Tessé should depart from them and that the Expence which has been or shall be made by them be levied upon the whole State without distinction of Religion We Order the Execution of the present Article according to the full Tenor of it Tessé 2. They declare that they do reunite themselves to the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church after the manner which that Church do's use to believe and to profess all the Christian and Orthodox Truths contained in the Holy Scripture which God hath manifested to the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists following the Interpretation and Sense of the Universal Church and renouncing all Errors and Heresies contrary thereunto 3. That for their great Consolation and Edification every Sunday before the Service there shall be read a Chapter of the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament in French according to the Translations approved by the Church and that all the Divine Service which is performed in Latin shall be explained in French by the Pastors of the Church 4. That they shall invoke no other besides God the Father Son and Holy Ghost 5. That they shall not believe that it is necessary to Salvation to have any other Intercession and Mediation than that of our Lord Jesus Christ towards God the Father 6. That they shall not be obliged to render any Divine Honour to Images which shall be in the Church 7. That they shall adore Jesus Christ in the Eucharist who is Really Spiritually and Sacramentally contain'd in that Adorable Sacrament 8. That this Consolation shall be given to the Faithful that they shall communicate in both Kinds if the Universal Church shall think it convenient Done at Orange the 11th of Nov. 1685. We James d' Obeilh by the Grace of God Bishop of Orange Abbot and Count of Montfor Counsellor of the King in all his Councils have admitted these who are countersigned to the Reunion of the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church upon the Conditions expressed in the Eight Articles above written Done at Orange this 13th of Novemb. 1685. John James Bishop of Orange The Representer may I think see in this Example that he is out-done in his own way and that there are in the World more mild and inoffensive Representations of Popery than his own and some provisions for saving the Consciences of the Reformed which himself has not made But I would know of him whether he do's believe that those who united themselves to the Roman Church with these Cautions can be reasonably judged to have proceeded with satisfaction in themselves and about what they did Or rather whether there be not all the Signs that one can have in a thing of this Nature that being distressed between a troublesome Conscience on the one Hand and Count Tessés Troops on the other they capitulated as well as they could for their own quiet and granted what they did to be delivered from the Souldiers and no more than what they did if by that means they might pacify their own Minds A very miserable Case most certainly And that which is yet more to be lamented is that these things should be done by Christians upon Christians Let the Representer take it into his serious Consideration and I believe it will be one of those things that he will always forget to put into the Character of his Papist Represented But why must the Minds of Men be racked in this manner Why must they be brought under the most dangerous Temptations to cheat themselves and for the gaining of rest from outward Miseries to betray the Tranquillity of their own Consciences and be constrained to play such Tricks with them as if one Man should chuse to put upon another he would be accounted no better than a cunning Knave He that cannot see the true Reason of this unmerciful dealing and that too by this very Example can see but little It is Vnion that is to say Submission to what they call the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church that must be by these means or by any means carried on This we meet with at the very head of the Provisions and again at the foot of them in the Bishop's Certificate Nor are any of the Reformed to expect otherwise but that this shall be expresly insisted on But because the poor People knew that Union to that Church carried dreadful Things along with it therefore they strugled and it seems they gained one of the prittiest Limitations of that Vnion that ever was heard of viz. To believe and to profess all the Christian and Orthodox Truths contained in the Holy Scripture which God hath manifested to the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists But then this Limitation would make the Vnion very insignificant for thus one may be united to the Turk viz. to believe and to profess all the Christian and Orthodox Truths contained in the Holy Scripture And therefore something must be added to that and certainly greater Artifice on both sides shall seldom be seen than what is shewn in putting in these words after the manner which that Church dos use which may indifferently refer either to reuniting or believing The People may understand it of being united to the Roman Church after the manner it uses till the Bishop teaches them to understand it of believing the Christian Truths of the Scripture after the manner of that Church And so by understanding the Scripture after the Interpretation and Sense of the Vniversal Church the Bishop has his meaning and they have theirs as long as he will suffer them The most jealous Princes never treated more nicely for their Honour than these poor Protestants did for their Conscience and their Masters for the Church of Rome And considering that they had but two hours allowed them to unite to the Roman Church before the last Extremity should be used upon refusal and that there were Difficulties on both Sides the Protestants consulted for their Consciences as much as it was possible for Men to do
the same Worship as Christ himself and what does he conclude upon it Why that any one may hold which side they please as an Opinion or suspend their Judgment but neither side is truly what you ought to mean by Popery And therefore I conceive that if neither side be Popery the Representers side is not Popery but a private Opinion which the Church has not yet censured as the Vindicator says Now what the Vindicator said in this Case is applicable to all others where the Answerer plainly shewed that the Eminent and Leading Men of the R. Church were of a different Sentiment from the Representer Whereas therefore the Representer either promised or threatned great matters in his Introduction I 'll endeavour says he to separate these Calumnies and Scandals from what is REALLY THE FAITH AND DOCTRINE OF THE CHVRCH I 'll take off the Black and Dirt which has been thrown upon her and set her forth in her GENVINE Complexion I 'll Represent a Papist whose Faith and Exercise of his Religion is according to the Direction and Command of the Church The Vindicator has on the other hand knocked him down at one blow For says he So long as the Church determines not the Dispute any one may hold which side they please as an opinion but neither side is truly what you ought to mean by Popery This shews that I was not much out of the way when I noted the great hazard of these Expounding and Representing designs The truth is it was so nice a work that in prudence they ought to have committed it to one hand and the Representer should have been the Vindicator For while they are two and and each of them driven to straits one of them being pressed on one side and the other on another side the danger was great that each of them would shift for himself a several way and be exposed to the Reproaches of one another Thus it happened that the Representer being pressed by his Adversaries for not having fairly Represented Popery was fain at last to make a Rule to know the Churches Sense by which might serve his turn and what should that be but the Currant passing of his Book amongst Catholics for this he thinks was enough to shew that the Doctrine of it was Authentic But the Vindicator being pressed with the Opposition that is made in the Roman Communion to the Doctrine of the Exposition and perceiving that Currant passing would not serve his turn he I say comes out a Month after the Representer and will not allow any thing to make Doctrine Authentic under the express Words of a General Approved Council and he has utterly undone the poor Representer's Rule of Currant passing which he thought was enough to shew that his Doctrine was Authentic Nay the unfortunate Vindicator has blown up the Exposition of the Bishop of Meaux as well as the Characters of the Representer which indeed could not be avoided because one must necessarily follow the Fate of the other For the Bishop's Exposition was solemnly pretended to be An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in Matters of Controversie that is to say An Exposition of Popery But the Bishop has expounded many things for the Doctrine of the Catholic Church which other Members of the same Church condemn and so long as the Dispute remains undetermined neither Side is truly what you ought to call Popery And therefore the Bishop should have called his Book An Exposition of his own Private Sentiment concerning the Doctrine of the Catholic Church Thus I say he should have called it or else he should have found out another Vindicator Nay because the greatest Grace that his Doctrine seems now to have from the Church is That it is not censured by the Church The Title should have been a little more wary by running thus An Exposition of the Bishop's Private Sentiment which the Church has not yet censured concerning the Doctrine of the Catholic Church But because in truth the Living Church has begun to censure his Doctrine and they who have censured it are not censured for it The Title should have been yet more warily contrived thus An Exposition of the Bishop's Private Sentiment which Sentiment is not contrary to the express Words of a General Approved Council Then perhaps the Vindicator might have done something in discharge of the Duty of a Vindicator But as the case stands he ought henceforward to change his Name and to write himself the Betrayer of the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition but by no means the Vindicator of it Which himself so well understood that he thought fit to pass over all the Letter of the Defender to the Bishop and he gives this substantial Reason for it Because the Letter concerns not him the Vindicator nor the Doctrine of the Catholic Church which he is to vindicate In good time But the Letter sorely concerned the Bishop and the Doctrine of his Exposition Pag. 8. and therefore if it does not concern the Vindicator you are not to wonder at it because there have been great Changes of late and now the Doctrine of the Bishop's Exposition is one thing and the Doctrine of the Catholic Church is another I may without breach of Modesty say that hitherto I have given the Vindicator a Full Reply And I believe the Reader would be well satisfied that I should drop him here and leave his following Cavils to be confuted by any one that will take the pains to compare him and the Defender together But then this would be a Pretence for another Book and for some boasting that he is not answered A little therefore must be said to what remains Pag. 8. And 1. By many of the Roman Casuists allowing the Defamation of an Adversary by false Accusations as the Defender said in his Table it is so plain by the Book that he meant no more than that they maintained it to be but a Venial Sin that the Vindicator himself has not questioned it and therefore it was a mere Cavil to tax the Defender of Falsifying in this business tho to incourage the Vindicator to do well another time thus much he is to be commended for that he limited his Accusation to the expression of Allowing which he found in the Table This Sir as you here word it is a False Imputation Even where he does ill I am glad that he does no worse But to speak to the thing They that make one of the basest things in nature to be but a Venial Sin cannot reasonably be otherwise understood than that they intend to make it easie for their own Party to commit it And tho they flourish never so fairly with that Rule that No Evil is to be done that Good may come of it yet there are so many little ways amongst them of clearing themselves from Venial Sins that when so foul a Wickedness is made but Venial it can be with no other design than to encourage men to it