Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	agree_v	church_n	true_a	1,693	5	5.5079	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66189	An exposition of the doctrine of the Church of England in the several articles proposed by Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, in his Exposition of the doctrine of the Catholick Church to which is prefix'd a particular account of Monsieur de Meaux's book.	Wake, William, 1657-1737.	1686 (1686)	Wing W243; ESTC R25162	71,836	127

word to say That the Death of Christ was a perfect Sacrifice and one drop of his Blood more than sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind and nevertheless go on to require our Satisfactions as necessary too and oblige us to believe that other Propitiatory Sacrifices besides that of the Cross ought to be offered up continually to God in his Church for the Sins both of the Dead and the Living This must certainly be the part of a Disputant either too ignorant to understand or too obstinate to submit to any Conviction Monsieur de Meaux the design of whose Exposition seems rather to be an Apology for the Popish Religion than a free Assertion and Vindication of its Errors is above all things sensible of the Justice of this Reflection and therefore endeavours by all means possible in the very entry of his Treatise to prepare his Reader against it By shewing the Injustice of charging Consequences upon Men which they do not allow and that therefore tho their Superstructure should chance to overthrow their Foundation yet since they profess not to know that it does so they ought not to be taxed with what they do not believe It is not deny'd but that Consequences may be sometimes either so obscure or so far distant that a Person prejudicate for the Principle may well be excused the charge of a Collection which his Actions shew he neither believes nor approves But when the Conclusions as well as Principles are plain and confess'd and the Dispute is only about the Name not the Thing we must beg leave to profess that we cannot chuse but say that he believes not as he ought the infinite Merits of Christ's Sacrifice who requires any other Offering for Sin and that no subtilty of Argument will ever perswade us that those destroy not their Principle of worshipping God only whom we see contrary to his express Command prostrate every day before an Image with Prayers and Hymns to Creatures that have been subject to like Infirmities with our selves and that are perhaps at this very time in a worser Estate than the most miserable of those that call upon them for their assistance Be it therefore allow'd to be as great a Calumny as Monsieur de Meaux can suppose it to accuse Men of Consequences obscure and disavow'd the Opinions we charge the Church of Rome with are plain and confess'd the Practice and Prescription of the chiefest Authority in it And to refuse our Charge of them is in good earnest nothing else than to protest against a matter of Fact a Plea which even Justice it self has told us may without Calumny be rejected as invalid However thus much at least we have got by this Reflection that it directs us to the true State of the Controversy between us and shews That we who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as Innovators in Religion are at last by their own confession allow'd to hold the ancient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith and that the Question between us therefore is not Whether what we hold be true which is on all hands agreed but Whether those things which the Roman Church has added as Superstructures to it and which as such we reject be not so far from being necessary Articles of Religion as they pretend that they indeed overthrow that Truth which is on both sides allow'd to be Divine and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them The Declaration of this not so much by any new proof as by clearing rather the true state of those Points which are the subject of our Difference is the design of the following Articles in which I shall endeavour to give a clear and free account of what we can approve and what it is that we dislike in their Doctrine and as far as the shortness of this Discourse will allow touch also upon some of those Reasons that are the most usually given by us for both ARTICLE II. That Religious Worship is to be paid to God only THat Religious Worship is due to God only how necessary soever those Practices of the Roman Church which we are hereafter to consider may have rendred it to Monsieur de Meaux to declare yet is it we suppose but little necessary for us to say We firmly believe that the inward acknowledgment of his Divine Excellencies as the Creator and Lord of all things is a part of the supream Worship that is due to him We believe that all the Powers of our Soul ought to be tied to him by Faith Hope and Charity as to that God who alone can establish and make us happy And tho we do not think that there is now any sensible or material Sacrifice to be offered to Him under the Gospel as there was heretofore under the Law yet do we with all Antiquity suppose the Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving to be so peculiarly his due that it cannot without derogation to his Honour be applied to any other What our Opinion is of that Worship which the Roman Church pays to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed we shall hereafter fully shew But certainly great was the difference of those Holy Men whom Monsieur de Meaux mentions as their fore-runners in this practice from the present manner of the Popish Invocation Gregory Nazianzen in a Rhetorical Apostrophe called to Constantius in one to his Sister Gorgonia in another Oration but he prayed to neither St. Basil St. Ambrose St. J. Chrysostom St. Hierom St. Augustin they desired sometimes that the Martyr or Saint would joyn with them in their requests but they were rather Raptures and Wishes than direct Prayers and their formal Petitions but especially those of the Church were only to God Almighty They doubted whether the Saints could hear them or no and were rather inclined to believe that they could not The Addresses of the Mind which the Church of Rome allows no less than the others to them they look'd upon to be so peculiarly God's due that they supposed he did not communicate them to the very Angels that are in Heaven They declared against all thoughts of being assisted by the Merits of their Saints or that God would ever the more readily or indeed so soon accept their Prayers coming by the Intercession of another as if they had gone themselves directly to the Throne of Grace In a word they never imagined that this was an Honour due to them but on the contrary constantly taught that it was a Service belonging only to God Almighty Well therefore might * And that it is the most he does Se de Cult Lat. l. 3. c. 18. Monsieur Daillé refer the beginnings of this Invocation to these Men whose innocent Wishes and Rhetorical Flights being still increased by the Superstition of after-Ages first gave birth to this Worship But certainly the Romanists cannot with any reason alledge them in favour of their Error till it be shewn either that we are mistaken in those