Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	worship_n	worship_v	yield_v	76	3	7.0761	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61588	A rational account of the grounds of Protestant religion being a vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's relation of a conference, &c., from the pretended answer by T.C. : wherein the true grounds of faith are cleared and the false discovered, the Church of England vindicated from the imputation of schism, and the most important particular controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined / by Edward Stillingfleet ...	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1665 (1665)	Wing S5624; ESTC R1133	917,562	674

to God in behalf of the Martyrs At which they had their Orationum Sacrificia too as Tertullian calls them who saith Vnder the Gospel the pure Sacrifice is Prayer to God and that the sinner being cleansed ought to offer to God munus apud Templum orationem sci gratiarum actionem apud Ecclesiam per Jesum Christum Catholicum Patris Sacerdotem a Sacrifice in his Temple viz. prayer and praise in his Church through Jesus Christ the Catholick High Priest of his Father Hence S. Cyprian Quando in Sacrificiis precem cum pluribus facimus which Rigaltius explains by the publick prayers which the Priest made for the people and understands it wholly of the Sacrifices of prayers So that these solemn thanksgivings to God in behalf of the Martyrs and the prayers which were made for others are those Sacrifices which did belong to these anniversary solemnities Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitiis annuâ die facimus Those oblationes pro natalitiis were nothing else but these solemn Eucharistical Sacrifices in behalf of the Martyrs sufferings which were called their Natalitia Now to apply this to S. Austin among the honours belonging to the Martyrs he mentions the Sacrifice which was offered to God in Commemoration of them and What can this be other than on that anniversary solemnity which Tertullian and Cyprian mention that was duly kept on that account Now at this Sacrifice saith he they are named in their order but not invocated Which being understood of the anniversary day and of the Sacrifices of prayers and praises nothing can be more express against Invocation of Saints than this place is For if ever they were solemnly invocated it certainly would be on the day of the great solemnity for them and if then all prayers and praises were looked on as due only to God as Sacrifices belonging to him then it cannot but be a robbing God of his honour to offer up either prayers or praises to any but himself But because it was the custom at those solemnities to have the Eucharist administred and that S. Austin afterwards mentions this I shall not exclude the Eucharist here yet that Sacrifice may still comprehend all the supplications which were then used and if the Saints were not invocated then we have reason to conclude they were not at all For the Commemoration of the Martyrs was made after the Ite missa est and the Catechumens were departed so that there was no such occasion for their Invocation at any other time as then So that if there were no Invocation of them at the Sacrifice much less was there out of it since all the solemnities concerning the Martyrs were used in the time of Celebration Thus we see this place of S. Austin is full and clear against Invocation of Saints and we must now enquire into what he saith elsewhere Only we take notice here that S. Austin not only appropriates Sacrifices as a thing peculiar to God but Temples and Altars too And that Sacrifice which was then appropriated to God was not a propitiatory Sacrifice but Eucharistical and supplicatory and by consequence if Sacrifice only belongs to God then all Thanksgiving and Invocation doth too For both those we see were comprehended by the African Fathers under the notion of Sacrifice We proceed now to enquire what S. Austin saith elsewhere Whether he doth any where else allow Invocation as due to Saints For which we must consider that St. Austin every where appropriates all acts of Religion only to God for he expresly saith That we must only ask of God that good which we hope to do that God alone must be served by the soul because he alone is the Creatour of it and that every glorified rational creature is only to be loved and imitated that we ought not to apply our Religion to yield service to the dead that they must be honoured for imitation not worshipped for Religion That Religion is nothing else but the Worship of God and therefore we ought not to consecrate our selves to any thing else by any Religious rites That those who have gone to Angels instead of God have fallen into many illusions and deceitful fancies Now is it conceivable that a person constant to himself should so often and on such good grounds assert that all Acts of Religion belong only to God and yet withall ascribe religious Invocation as due either to Saints or Angels But we must further consider that the ground of S. Austin's distinguishing between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not to assert different degrees of religious worship but to make different kinds of worship of those two the one being properly religious worship the other only cultus dilectionis societatis as he calls it a worship only of love and respect So that we quarrel not with the distinction it self but with your misapplying it For St. Austin plainly makes the honour given to Saints departed to be of the same nature with that which is given them while they live all the difference is saith he we may render that honour to them with the more confidence after they have over come But still adds That all religious worship is proper only to God The only difficulty then is What is to be understood by those other passages you produce out of him And this we have gained already that they cannot be understood of any religious worship without an apparent contradiction Your first Citation is That the commemoration of Martyrs at the Holy Table is not that we should pray for them but rather that they should pray for us To the same purpose the second is That it is an injury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we our selves ought to be recommended The only things which can be drawn from hence are that the Martyrs do pray for the Church on earth and that we ought to recommend our selves to their prayers But what is this to an Invocation of them when it doth not so much as imply a direct desire of them to pray for us When this recommending our selves to the prayers of the Martyrs is probably understood of nothing else but a desire that God would hear the prayers which the Saints in Heaven do make on our behalf without any address to the Martyrs themselves that they would pray for us Which seems very unreasonable without good assurance that they did hear or understand those requests of that nature which are made to them It is not therefore the saying that the Saints do pray for us which makes it either lawful or profitable for us to pray to them For since they ascribe that honour as alone due to God so ought we to do too and I can hardly see how the very praying to Saints to pray for us being performed with all the rites of solemn and Religious Invocation can be excused from attributing that honour to the creature which

Civil Power hath a right to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters And though you express never so much honour to civil authority yet still you limit it to the administration meerly of civil affairs and how far that is is well enough known You tell us plainly That it doth not belong to the Emperour to order the affairs of the Church But why do you not answer the Reasons and Instances which his Lordship brings to the contrary Yet you yield That in case of notorious and gross abuses manifestly contrary to Religion and connived at by the Pastors of the Church Christian Princes may lawfully and piously use their Authority in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastors as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove But in case the High-Priest would not have yielded to such a reformation Might not those Princes by the assistance of other Priests have effected it This is the case you were to speak to For whereas you fly out and say That Princes may not take the Priests office upon them Whom do you dispute against in that Not his Lordship certainly nor any of the Church of England who never said they might though they have been most injuriously calumniated as though they did That which we assert is That Princes may enact Laws concerning Religion and reform abuses in Divine Worship but we do not say they may take the Pastoral office upon them and therefore you say no more in that than we do our selves But when you say They may not reform Religion in the substance of it I cannot well tell How to understand you If you mean not so reform Religion as to take away any of the substance that is a Reformation to purpose but if you bring it ad hypothesin we utterly deny that any of the substance of Religion was taken away upon our Churches Reformation If you mean not reform abuses which go under the name of the substance of Religion that will be to make the most unsufferable abuses the most incurable But when you add That nothing must be enacted pertaining to Religion by their own Authority without or contrary to the Priests consent the High-Priest I suppose you mean shew us Where the Kings of Israel were bound not to reform in case the High-Priest did not consent and if you could do this you must prove such a High-Priest now and that Princes are bound to wait his leisure for reforming abuses in Religion when his pretended Authority is upheld by maintaining them As for your commendations of Pope Hildebrand and Innocent the Third for very prudent men and worthy Champions of your Church we see What prudence is with you and what a worthy Church you have But it is still an excellent evasion That they never endeavoured to subject the Emperour to themselves in temporal matters no nor Alexander the Third neither when he trod upon the Emperours neck But the proceedings of these Popes with the Emperours as likewise Adrian 4. Lucius 3. and others are so gross that it had been more for your Interest with Christian Princes to disown them than to go about to palliate them with such frivolous distinctions that his Vnderstanding must be as blind as his Obedience that doth not see thorough them You are much concerned that his Lordship should seem to give a lash to those mortified self-denying men the Jesuits in bidding them leave their practising to advance the greatness of the Pope and Emperour for Who could believe they should deprive themselves of the riches and pleasures of the world upon such designs Undoubtedly you are one of the number for I never heard that any other Order among you did ever give them half so good words but condemned them as much for their practising as we do our selves And What holy men they are and what excellent Casuistical Divinity about both the riches and pleasures of the world if we did not otherwise know the Mysteries of Jesuitism would sufficiently discover To what his Lordship saith further That there is no necessity of one Supreme Living Judge to keep the Church in peace and unity but that the several Bishops under their Soveraign Princes are sufficient in order to it you only say That he quotes Occham for it But Doth he nothing else but quote Occham Why do you not answer to the thing and not barely to Occham You have very good reason for it for you have little to say to the thing it self but for Occham you have enough to tell him in his ear 1. That he is in the Index of forbidden Books a good testimony for the man's honesty 2. That he sided with the Emperour a crime beyond an Index Expurgatorius at Rome 3. That if there were such a Government as Occham supposes all those Governours must be Infallible or else there would be meer Anarchy in the Church And Why not as well in the State without Infallibility there You say For want of this Infallibility those Countries where it is not acknowledged are in Schisms And we say The pretence of this Infallibity hath caused the greatest of them 4. You say Occham speaks only de possibili of what might have been if our Saviour had pleased but Occhamsayes There is no necessity there should be one chief Governour under Christ and we say You can never prove that Christ hath appointed that there shall be one and therefore this is more than disputing a bare possibility But now as though all your beggings the Question had been arguments all your sayings proofs and all your proofs demonstrations with as much authority as if you were in Cathedrâ you conculde Remain it therefore a settled Catholick Principle that the Pope hath power over the whole Church of God But you leave out something which should be at the end of it among all those who can believe things as strongly without reason as with it And for the greater solemnity of the Sentence you give it in the words of the Oecumenical Council at Florence And I must needs say You have fitted them very well for that was just as much an Oecumenical Council as the Pope is Oecumenical Pastor but that neither the one nor the other is so I have sufficiently proved already CHAP. VIII Of the Council of Trent The Illegality of it manifested first from the insufficiency of the Rule it proceeded by different from that of the first General Councils and from the Popes Presidency in it The matter of Right concerning it discussed In what Cases Superiours may be excepted against as Parties The Pope justly excepted against as a Party and therefore ought not to be Judge The Necessity of a Reformation in the Court of Rome acknowledged by Roman Catholicks The matter of fact enquired into as to the Popes Presidency in General Councils Hosius did not preside in the Nicene Council as the Popes Legat. The Pope had nothing to do in the second General Council Two Councils held at Constantinople

such Miracles as 〈◊〉 did besides all which they do tends to advance these evil spirits in the world but the design of the true Prophets is to declare the True God and his Son Christ. But May then any one by the innate power of his mind yield a divine assent to these things No but pray earnestly to God to enlighten your mind for this is the effect of Divine Grace in and through Christ. What part is there now of our resolution of Faith which is not herein asserted If you ask Why you believe there were such men in the World as these Prophets The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it If you ask Why you should believe them to be True Prophets The excellency of their Doctrine joyned with the fulfilling Prophecies and working Miracles abundantly prove it But if you lastly ask Whether besides objective evidence there be not some higher efficient requisite to produce a Divine Faith The Answer is That depends upon the Grace of God in Christ So that here we have most evidently all those things concurring which his Lordship asserts in the resolution of Faith Moral inducement preparing the mind rational evidence from the thing into which Faith is resolved and Divine Grace requisite in the nature of an efficient cause But Where is there the least intimation of any Churches Infallibility requisite to make men believe with a firm and Divine Faith No doubt that was a Divine Faith which Justin was bid to pray so heartily for and which was only in those to whom it was given and yet even this Faith had no other assurance to build it self upon but that rational evidence which is before discovered That Divine Person never thought of mens believing with their Wills much less that the Books of Scripture had no more evidence of themselves than distinction of colours to a blind man he did not think Christ an Ignoramus or Impostor because he left no Church infallible nor that God by the Prophets laid a Foundation upon sand or that would last but a few years because he did not continue such an Infallible Assistance as the Prophets had to the Church in all ages yet these are all brave assertions of yours which doubtless you would be ashamed of and recant if you had not as Casaubon saith of the Person whom you could not tell whether he was a Jesuit or no but by that character you might guess it that he had frontem ferream cor involutum a brow of steel and a heartfull of Meanders to use your own fine expression Upon this Justin tells us a divine ardour was raised in his mind and a love of the Prophets and such as were the Friends of Christ and upon further consideration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I found this the only certain and profitable Philosophy and thereupon commends the Doctrine of Christ to Trypho and his Company for something which was certainly innate to it that it had a kind of awe and majesty in it and is excellent at terrifying and perswading those who were out of the right way and brings the sweetest tranquillity to such as are conversant in it And afterwards undertakes to demonstrate the truth of our Religion from the reasonableness of it that we have not yielded our assent to vain and empty Fables nor to assertions uncapable of evidence and demonstration but to such as are filled with a Divine Spirit overflowing with Power and flourishing with Grace And accordingly manageth his discourse quite through shewing the insufficiency of the Ceremonial Law and the Truth and Excellency both of the Person and Doctrine of Christ. But what need all this if he had believed your Doctrine It had been but proving the Church Infallible by Motives of Credibility and then to be sure whatever was propounded to be believed by it was infallibly true But older and wiser it seems must hold here to Justin though so near the Apostles times went a much further way about but it was well for him he lived so long ago else he might have been accused of Heresie or making Faith uncertain if he had lived in our times and such Doctrine of his might have merited an Index Expurgatorius But it seems he was not afraid of it then for he often elsewhere speaks to the same purpose For in his Paraenesis to the Greeks he makes it his business first to shew the unreasonableness of believing those who were the great Authours of all their superstitions for the Poets were manifestly ridiculous the Philosophers at continual dissentions among themselves so that there was no relying on them for the finding out of Truth or the redress of the miseries of humane nature and then comes to the Authours of our Religion who were both much elder than any of theirs and did not teach any thing of their own heads nor dissented from one another in what they delivered or sought to confute each other as the Philosophers did but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all jarring and contention they delivered to men the Doctrine which they received from God For saith he it was not possible for them to know such great and divine things by nature or humane wit but by a heavenly gift descending from above upon holy men It seems Justin believed there was such evidence in the matters contained in Scripture which might perswade men to believe that they came from God that they were but as instruments to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he expresseth it to that Divine Spirit which did strike upon them whence with one consent and harmony they sound forth the Doctrine of God the worlds Creation and Mans the Immortality of the soul Judgment to come and all things else which are necessary for us to know which they unanimously deliver to us though at great distances from each other both in regard of time and place And so proves the Antiquity of the Writings of Moses above all the Wise men of the Greeks by the testimony of their own Authours Polemon Appion Ptolomaeus Mendesius and many others and concludes his discourse with this speech That it is impossible for us to know any thing certainly concerning God or Religion but from Divine Inspiration which alone was in the Prophets In his first Apology for the Christians he tells us what it was while he was a Platonist which brought him to a good Opinion of Christianity which was the observing the power and efficacy that Doctrine had upon the Christians to undergo with so much courage what was accounted most terrible to humane nature which are death and torments From whence he reasoned with himself that although the Christians were so much calumniated yet certainly they could not be vitious persons who were so little fearful of those great Bug-bears of humane nature For Who is there that is a lover of pleasure or intemperate or cruel that can chearfully embrace death so as thereby to be deprived