Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	speak_v	true_a	word_n	8,834	5	4.4618	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48963	Logikē latreia the reasonablenesse of divine service : or non-conformity to common-prayer, proved not conformable to common reason : in answer to the contrary pretensions of H. D. in a late discourse concerning the interest of words in prayer and liturgies / by Ireneus Freeman ...	Freeman, Ireneus.	1661 (1661)	Wing L2841; ESTC R1576	82,822	110

that while the Authors labour to extricate themselves out of the stringent nooses of their Opposites retortion they have only more intricatly involved and entangled themselves It is time now to proceed in my animadversions to the next Paragraph of their Chapter under debate in which they explain their fore-cited Reason in other words and enlarge it with one consideration not hinted by them before viz that there be other forms of prayer to be had beside those used by Idolaters Their words are these exactly Prayer is a piece of Gospel-sacrifice and by a Rational act of our souls to be offered to God Now whether it be lawful for us when the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof whereas God hath given us an ability to speak words in another form to take-those very forms and to offer them up to God in true Gospel-worship which have been offered in an idolatrous service though the matter of those forms be not idolatrous is to us a great doubt nor can we be satisfied in the lawfulness of it This affectation of using diversity of phrase from the Papists I never saw pleaded for before but have often observed to be practised to my sorrow For some men labouring to get far enough from the Papists in their Dialect have spoken like Turks in point of mans will and like Gnosticks and Libertines in point of good works But the true Catholick Christian can approve a good saying whoever be the speaker and will behave himself to the Papists as Seneca to the Epicureans who though he was a Stoick confesseth he borrowed many things from Epicurus and gives this reason because he could call truth his own though he found it in the enemies camp and under the enemies colours The true Shibboleth which must distinguish a true Catholick from a Papist and all other Hereticks is not words and phrases tones countenances habits and gestures by which characters Popery is usually defined and distinguished among us but it is a greater Humility Charity and Freedom of spirit And that the Papists and other Hereticks may see that we differ from them and place the difference of our Religion in these excellent uncontrovertible and most material points I with with all my heart that our language and phrase were as like to theirs as truly and lawfully may be provided we still retain our Christian liberty of varying from them For if the words and forms of prayer which they use be in themselves true and good it is not their using them which can make them unlawful notwithstanding what I have newly quoted to the contrary For what though prayer be a piece of Gospel sacrifice c. so are our bodies so are our estates and both to be offered to God by a rational act of our souls Suppose then that my right knee hath bowed to an Idol upon my conversion must not I bow to the true God with that knee seeing I have another but only with my left Surely I should use that knee to chuse in Gods worship which had been defiled in the service of Idols Again in point of Alms which is no lesse a piece of Gospel-sacrifice to be offered to God by a rational act of our souls then prayer is may not a man give that money to the poor which he knoweth hath been offered to a false God or to the true God in an idolatrous service When the Temples of the Pagans were in many places demolished might not the Emperour as well yea much better have given the gold and silver that was found there consecrated to Idols unto the poor then have employed it about the use of his Pallace or the affairs of State But since I see this Reason on foot I lesse wonder that those who had the Revenues of the Church so long in their hands did so little good with them May be they thought that they had been offered to an Idol before and therefore ought not to be given to the true God but to be called Nehushtan and condemned to the base service of their belly I shall conclude my notes on the last quoted passage with one more Instance of common practice which I hope the Authors themselves allow of though it be vertually condemned by the Reason which they alledge Who the Authors of the Book are I know not nor what their way is But I am sure others of their mind in point of non-conformity will use some sentences of the Common-prayer in their extempore Prayers as ●hat Gods service is perfect freedom and the like Now if a whole Prayer be defiled by the Papists use of it every part of it must be so defiled If they say that they use no Sentences in their prayers which have been used by Idolaters in theirs excepting such as are agreeable to the Scriptures I must require them to shew what sentence of a Prayer in the Liturgy is not agreeable to the Scriptures and when they have shewn that I yield them the cause But their present reason argues against the lawfulnesse of using such forms of words which themselves confesse are for the matter of them true and agreeable to the Scriptures SECT V. Their Argument from 1 Cor. 10. about Meats offered to Idols answered Several Reasons why Forms of prayer cannot be liable to those pollutions which those meats were THese confessed absurdities following from their assertion let us now see upon what grounds it is built to which end I shall here transcribe their next words The ground of our scruple is in that known Text 1 Cor. 10. where the Apostle treateth concerning the lawfulnesse of eating meats that had been once offered to Idols He determines as to a double case 1. That it is not lawful to eat such meats in an Idols Temple 2. In case it be sold in the shambles and we know it not he determines that we may buy and eat it But in case our Brother saith unto us This hath been offered to an Idol he saith eat it not so that our Brothers scandal upon such a foundation is to be avoided by us He gives the Reason because there is other meat to eat The earth is the Lords and the fulnesse thereof Here they interweave an Argument from scandal with that they have been so long upon drawn from the unlawfulnesse of offering that to God which had been offered to Idols I shall consider the case of scandal by it self in the next Chapter For they are two Arguments though the Authors observing its likely the weaknesse of each of them confound them together in these words But I shall distinguish them in my answer since if neither of them is of force singly they cannot be of force conjunctly For if the Common-prayer may not be used because it hath been polluted by the known use of it in an idolatrous service as they have spent a whole leaf to prove already without mentioning scandal then it were a sin to use it though no man took offence at it and to

no Living and no body will lend him his Pulpit How doth he use his gift in Publick If it be said he cannot it is true though he hath a natural Power to usurp another mans Pulpit yet he cannot do it of Right Why Because the Laws forbid it For were it not for humane Laws a stranger might use his gift in any Church as well as the Parochial Minister So then the Result is this He cannot use his gift because the Laws forbid him and because he cannot therefore he is excused In like manner he cannot use his gift of prayer in his own Church who is forbid by the Laws and becase he cannot he is guiltless notwithstanding this objection drawn from the use and end of the gift They go on in the same page thus We are yet to learn that it is not as lawfull to impose Forms of Sermons upon Ministers as forms of Prayer Both of them are lamentable restraints put upon the Gifts of God bestowed on his Ministers From which words charity will gather That the Authors of this Book were none of the contrivers or approvers of the Directory For these lamentable restraints both of Prayers and Sermons are to be found there But I cannot conceive them so unlearned as to be yet to learn why Forms of Sermons should not be imposed as well as forms of Prayer A mans Mother wit without the help of much learning will prompt him easily with two Reasons 1. Because in the Sermon the Minister speaks what he thinks is the Truth and if it appear otherwise they may reject it But in prayer the Minister in the name of the people for he saith not I but We presenteth desires to God which sometimes happen to be quite contrary to the desires of some of the People yea of all the People it may possibly fall out that the people can joyn with him not in one expression whereby it comes to pass both that the Ministers prayer is a falshood and that the people being in a praying posture do make a kind of profession that they say Amen to those Petitions which their souls abominate which makes it appear why there is more reason the people should know before hand what shall be prayed then what shall be preached which fore-knowledge is the effect of Forms 2. Because the Minister in his preaching is to expound confirm and apply to his people all the Articles of Faith as shall be occasion a work which will require many dayes if not years It would be endless to comprise the subjects of all Sermons in forms But we pray for the same things continually and therefore the directory saw reason to put down the sense and Matter of Prayer though not of Sermons But this is so eccentrical to the Question I am sorry I have said so much of it For if it were granted that both forms of Prayer and Sermons were miserable restraints Yet the gifts of many an honest Prisoner have been under miserable Restraints and yet he never the less honest for that SECT VI. Another of their Arguments That a man must pray with the greatest intention and fervour which is abated by Forms answered No man is bound to a greater intention then may be procured by lawfull means In some cases a man may lawfully do that which naturally will remit his fervour Their own experience proves not that a man may not be as fervent with a form as without it This kind of Fervour argues not the excellency of those Prayers in which it is most procured It being often the Result of meer natural and animal forces I Proceed to the next words because they have some shew of an Argument The Major Proposition whereof is this We are sure it is the unquestionable duty of every one that prayeth to do it with the highest intention of mind imaginable and with the greatest fervency of Spirit And that it is not lawfull for any man in Prayer to allow himself in any thing which may either divert his mind from the most fixed contemplation of God or intention upon his duty or which may any way cool the Heat and Fervency of his Spirit I answer to this Proposition by a distinction thus True Every man is bound to pray with the highest intention of Mind and with the greatest fervency of Spirit that can be obtained by the use of just means But no man is to use unjust means to procure that intention and fervency And again True it is not lawfull for any man to allow himself in any thing that may hinder the foresaid intention and fervency if the phrase allow signifies only to approve and like such an impediment or such a condition as is necessarily exposed to it But if allowing signifies not accusing himself or the vindication of himself from the accusations of others that impute sin to him for praying while he labours under such an impediment then I say a man may allow himself in something that may hinder the intention of his mind and fervency of his spirit in Prayer If He or they that made this book take their Proposition in that sense wherein I grant it it is nothing to the purpose For a man may use the Common Prayer and yet wish he might be at his Liberty if the Magistrate thought good Therefore the Proposition must needs be taken in the sense wherein I deny it and the Reason of my denyal is evident from the forementioned Instance He that is forbid by the Magistrate to go to the next Church and therefore is necessitated to go to one more remote must needs be more indisposed to Prayer by his long journey except some men of a temper by themselves so that he shall not perform that duty with so high an Intention of mind or with so great a fervency of Spirit as might probably be experienced in case he came into the Church less weary and weather-beaten But yet such a man may lawfully go to the furthest Church and pray there though these hinderances of intention and fervour be consequent thereupon The Reason is Because they are necessary and not voluntary He wisheth the case were otherwise with him but as things stand if he should go to the next Church contrary to the Magistrates prohibition he should sin and Evil is not to be done that good may come of it especially when a greater evil would come of it then the good aimed at as it is in this case And consequently he may allow himself that is not accuse himself for praying under such clogs and remora's of his devotion By the same Reason though it were granted that the use of the Common Prayer did hinder that height of Intention and fervour of spirit they speak off yet the not using it being forbid by the Magistrate a man may use it and allow himself in the use For it is clear that these inconveniences render it only inexpedient but not unlawfull Indeed p. 90. they urge that things which though