Selected quad for the lemma: prayer_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prayer_n	angel_n	incense_n	offer_v	2,090	5	7.4727	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42726	An answer to the Bishop of Condom (now of Meaux) his Exposition of the Catholick faith, &c. wherein the doctrine of the Church of Rome is detected, and that of the Church of England expressed from the publick acts of both churches : to which are added reflections on his pastoral letter.	Gilbert, John, b. 1658 or 9.	1686 (1686)	Wing G708; ESTC R537	120,993	143

of Peter and the Principal Church from which the Sacerdotal Vnity hath taken its original c. Which any one that reads would think that St. Cyprian had said these things to distinguish that Church out of whose Communion there is no salvation whereas they are only some scattered Expressions of his used upon quite different occasions not in the least to mark out the Church as this man pretends He says not so far as I can find in any of the places cited that the Church acknowledges at Rome the Head of her Communion 'T is true in his Epistle to Antonian speaking of Cornelius he says That Epist ad Ant. 51. he was made Bishop when none was made before him when the place of Fabian i. e. the place of Peter and degree of the Sacerdotal Chair was void which as it was not spoken by him to distinguish the Church so the utmost that can be made of it is only that he look'd upon the Bishop of Rome as Successor to Peter Neither are the words in the Epistle to Cornelius used to the purpose pretended but occasionally only in writing to Cornelius about Fortunatus who being condemned and censured in his own Church had recourse to Rome which he calls the Chair of St. Peter and Principal Church where the Sacerdotal Vnity hath its original yet in that very place he disowns all Authority of the Roman Bishop above his Brethren and lets him know that every Pastor had a portion of the flock assigned him which every one was to rile and govern Ad Corn. Epist 54. being to give account thereof to God Again speaking of Cornelius in his Epistle to Antonian he highly commends his constancy and courage and lets him know how that he sate undaunted in the Sacerdotal Chair at that time when the Emperor was so incensed against the Christians and the Priests of God that he could less endure Epist 51. ad Anton. a Bishop at Rome then a Rival contending for the Empire But he says not a word of that which M. Meaux slyly insinuates the Emperor's taking on him the Title of Pontifex Maximus as though the Roman Bishop was hateful to him only as he was his Rival in the Priesthood as if the Christians had then acknowledged the Bishop of Rome to be the Chief Priest of the Christian World I am not concerned with those Objections he makes against the Ministry of the Reformists in France there being no such prejudice to our Succession in England and therefore may leave them to answer for themselves The next thing he attempts is to vindicate their Litanies wherein they pray to the Virgin Mary the Angels St. Peter c. to pray for them from tending to God's dishonour But that a man may pray to these to pray for him and yet come little short of Idolatry therein if he sets no bounds to his desires and considers not the infinite distance between God and his Creatures has been shewn by me p. 22. also that such Prayers tho' the difference be observed do notwithstanding tend to God's dishonour being necessarily made upon a supposition that the Saints are endued with such qualities as are peculiar to God and are not so far as we know communicated to them For which reasons I do not wonder that M. Meaux is so willing to pass over this as a captious Question Whether the Saints hear our Prayers or no For so long as this is a Question and likewise so long as it is not revealed that we should have recourse to these but only to God through one only Mediatour Christ Jesus all their extenuations and shifts will never be able to clear this practice from tending to God's dishonour and being injurious to Christ's mediatorship since it supposes such perfections in the Creature as are not revealed to us to be any where but in the Creator and is also no other than an invention of our own whereby we pretend to seek God by them that he has not directed us to approach him by But the reason upon which he calls this Question Captious is very inconsiderable for if we should allow that the Holy Angels hear us and pray for us I do not think it a Cavil to deny this if true which it is not to be a proof that the Saints do likewise hear us unless he had shewn us where he learnt what he so boldly asserts That the Beatified Souls are united with the Angels in the same Illuminations Besides whilst he finds so great fault with others for using the obscure parts of the Apocalypse against the Church of Rome it 's much he should make use of it himself as if it were a clear proof of his unwarrantable assertion The place cited is Rev. 8. v. 3 4 5. where indeed there is an Angel represented with Incense offering it with the Prayers of Saints and the smoke of the Incense offered with the Prayers ascending up before God But what ground is there from such a Representation exprest in a Vision very probably to prefigure the Devotions of Christians whose Prayers are here represented as coming up in remembrance before God and being accepted of him as incense ascending out of the hand of the Priest to infer either that the Angels do present our Prayers or that they hear the Prayers men make to them to Pray for them or to present their Devotions to God when the Scripture has expresly set forth unto us another High Priest who is set on the right hand of the Throne to appear in the presence of God for us Their Use of Images is the next thing he endeavors to defend wherein he is very unwilling to enter into dispute and controversie and therefore laying aside those Questions that ought to have been resolved in the first place Whether the Church can command the use of Images in Religious Worship without warrant from the Word of God whether it ought not now especially to lay aside a Practice which hath been experienced to bring in danger of Idolatry he sets his wits on work to find out Similies and such like Shifts that he thought might give some plausible colour to these Actions Whereupon first he asks us Whether we can believe an injury done to God in the kissing as they do the Book of the Gospel and rising up to honour it when it is carried in Ceremony before them and bowing the Head before it But now it cannot be said whether they do injure God thereby or not without a perfect knowledge of their Practice to which I am a Stranger yet undoubtedly it may be abused to that Superstition that God shall be dishonoured thereby and let them resolve us whether they think it would not if Divine and Religious Worship were given to it He further objects That we make no difficulty of swearing upon the Gospel when at the same time it is not by the Ink and Paper Letters and Characters that we swear but by the eternal Verity which these

and Redeemer After which it condemns those who teach a contrary Doctrine I shall find it necessary for my purpose to set down the particulars how it declares it to be impiety to say Sess 26. D●… de 〈◊〉 that Saints ought not to be invocated or that they do not pray for us or that it is folly to pray unto them Hence he again concludes That to Invocate the Saints in the sense of this Council is to have recourse to their Prayers for obtaining benefits from God through Jesus Christ so that in reality they are obtained no otherwise than by Jesus Christ since through and in his Name And here M. Condom not taking notice that aid and protection are mentioned by the Council as distinct from the Prayers of the Saints the Advertiser has p. 13. and tells us That it is a kind of aid succour and protection to recommend the miserable to him who alone can comfort them Such protection he says we may receive from Saints but yet he does not say it 's the only protection to be received or expected from them though for my own part I am as desirous that this should be the only sense of their Conceit as themselves pretend to be so they will grant for the future what I desire that those who have or do place any further reliance on them or seek them for greater purposes are hereby declared to be condemned as Idolaters which if they refuse to grant they argue both to little purpose From the premises thus laid he presumes they shall be no more accused of forsaking Jesus Christ when they beseech his members who are also ours his children who are our brethren and his Saints who are our first fruits to pray with us and for us to our common Master in the Name of our common Mediatour Plansibly said I confess but not so well considered on by one that should have known that the hope of our acceptance with God depends upon his promise which promise is made to those that ask of God immediately in his Son's Name and again that the honour due to Christ as our Mediator is not given him in that acceptable manner when we pretend to give it him by means of our own chusing as by those applications which he has taught us to make unto God through and in his Name and Merits upon which ground the Church of England well argues That we are to make our application to God Homily of Prayer through Christ alone for that the promise is made to them that pray in his Name and the Apostles tell us that he is our Advocate and only Mediator He further informs us That the Church of Rome when she offers to God the dreadful sacrifice to honour the memory of his Saints does not sacrifice to them but God in memory of them rendring thanks to him for their victories and demanding their assistance to the end those whose memory they celebrate upon earth would vouchsafe to pray for them in heaven Suppose it and yet hereby is confest by their demanding the assistance of these persons by vertue of this sacrifice that they do it in expectation of something from their intercession as well as from Christ's merits which seems to me a gross absurdity that they say the benefits they seek from the Saints are sought through Christ's merits and yet when they offer the sacrifice of Christ which pleads all his merits to God they should not so totally depend on that but expect another assistance from the Saints From the Doctrine thus proposed he infers That they neither rob God of the perfections of his essence nor attribute to the Creature any of those qualities which are peculiar to him only in that they do not as he says ascribe immensity or the knowledge of the secrets of our hearts to the Saints as having any such of themselves but to say a creature may have some knowledge communicated to it by God is not to elevate a creature above his condition God himself by making known future things to his Prophets having shewn that he can when he pleases communicate such things unto a creature whereas none of them hold the Saints to have any such knowledge by their own power But if this should not be to elevate the creature above the condition it is capable of if God please to communicate such knowledge to him yet it is raising him to such a condition which we are not sure he has and whereas he says they do not hereby rob God of any perfections peculiar to him because a creature is capable of having such as they give to Saints communicated to it it is worth considering whether to give perfections peculiar to God till he does communicate them to such as we are not assured he has given them will not be looked on by God as a Dishonour to him if he has really not communicated them for otherwise how can it ever be a Dishonour to him to ascribe the peculiar Properties of his Nature to any other there being none but he can when it pleases him possess with them in great part After which he concludes They cannot in respect of this Doctrine be Idolaters which he endeavors to prove by an Induction of several Arguments the strength of all which depends on these Suppositions That the Saints in Heaven do know our De●ires and have certainly the Knowledge of humane Affairs communicated to them by God that they do and have a power of assisting us by their Prayers which Power proceeds from their Acceptableness in God's sight for their Virtues which are the gifts of his Grace But if these Suppositions fail of Truth as they are altogether without ground all there said avails nothing to exempt them from Idolatry Whereas he infers at last That the exterior Veneration which they give to Saints ought to be judged of from their interior Sentiments This is a thing that must be left in Dispute for the Reason given by me Sect. 3. Now after our View and Remarks upon M. Condom's Explication of this Particular it is sit we should collect the Points in difference which are these First Whether the Saints have such a certain Knowledge of humane Affairs as can be sufficient Ground for us to request their Help Secondly Whether supposing the Intention of their Prayers to the Saints be quite different from what they have in those they make to God this can justifie them in the Use of Forms couched in the same Terms Thirdly Whether as the Church of Rome grounds in part these Prayers to Saints upon the Fellowship of Christ's Members one with another so the Invocation of these which it requires be nothing but a bare desire of them to pray for us or be not taught to be an humble supplicatory Desire and a Religious Worship as that signifies an Act of Devotion and piece of Gods Service Fourthly Whether this ought to be made a part of Faith that the Saints do know our Necessities and