Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	christian_a	church_n	religion_n	1,340	5	5.5492	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61627	Several conferences between a Romish priest, a fanatick chaplain, and a divine of the Church of England concerning the idolatry of the Church of Rome, being a full answer to the late dialogues of T.G.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1679 (1679)	Wing S5667; ESTC R18131	239,123	580

giving Doulia to Christ to be Idolatry 5. That the notion of an Idol is so far from being a meer imaginary figment or Chimera that it was attributed by the Fathers to the most excellent Being even to Christ himself when Divine Worship was given to him as a Creature These are matters of great moment if they hold good doth he pass all these by only to fall upon one single Testimony If he doth it is a shrewd sign though he cried out of Gregory Nyssen yet he was pinched somewhere else Well but what is this horrible crime about Gregory Nyssen Hath he brought him under an Index Expurgatorius Hath he falsified his words and corrupted the Text Or hath he wilfully altered his sense and meaning Hath he done it in all the quotations out of him or only in one Whatever it is let us have it R. P. It is in the citation out of his Oration de laudibus Basilii P. D. But the Dr. hath three or four more out of the same Author It seems they stand well enough Hath not the Dr. truly cited his words R. P. Yes T. G. saith as to the general truly enough P. D. What is the fault then R. P. That he doth not add the words that follow wherein he shews what kind of worship that was which the Arians gave to Christ viz. not only to worship and serve him but also to six hopes of salvation in a Creature and to expect judgement from it And was it not neatly done of the Doctor to wrap up all this in those short words The Devil perswaded men to return to the worship of the Creature Which is a Laconism not observed by him on other occasions but it was here done on purpose to conceal from the Reader the apparent difference between the worship of Saints in the Church of Rome and the Arians worship of Christ. P. D. I am glad it is out at last after so much straining See how much choler there is in it Indeed it might have done him much harm if he had kept it in any longer But I wonder the Laconick Gentleman doth complain of shortness Do you think the Laconian in Boccalini would have made such a noise for missing a page or two in Guicciardins War of Pisa Do you in earnest think Dr. St. should take such pains to conceal that which every one knows that the Arians fixed their hopes of Salvation on Christ and expected him to come to Judgement What wonderful discovery is this which T. G. hath made Nay Dr. St. himself takes notice of this Objection that they did give a higher degree of worship to Christ than any do to Saints and returns this Answer to it that they did only give a degree of worship proportionable to the degrees of excellency supposed to be in him far above any other creatures whatsoever But still that worship was inferiour to that which they gave to God the Father and at the highest such as the Platonists gave to their celestial Deities And although the Arians did invocate Christ and put their trust in him yet they still supposed him to be a creature and therefore believed that all the Power and Authority he had was given to him so that the worship they gave to Christ must be inferiour to that honour they gave to the Supreme God whom they believed to be Supreme Absolute and Independent R. P. T. G. takes notice of this Answer and objects two things against it First That it stands too far off from the words of Nyssen at the distance of 350 pages and so proves a very late salve for so old a wound P. D. Especially considering how poor Nyssen lay a bleeding all that while Is it not enough for us to unswer Objections unless we put them just in the page you would have them after the way of Objections and Solutions I pity the hard fate of the Laconian that hath 350 leaves to turn over longer than the War of Pisa. O for the Gallies But I hope he will consider better of it R. P. You may jest as you please at this Answer but the second is a very solid one for T. G. shews the parallel to be inconsistent both with the practice of the Arians and Doctrine of the Fathers P. D. What parallel doth he mean Dr. St. proves from hence inferiour relative worship given to a creature to be Idolatry in the sense of the Fathers Is this true or is it not R. P. You have not patience to hear T. G.'s answer out For 1. He saith The Fathers do acknowledge a worship due to the Saints and particularly Gregory Nyssen in an Oration produced by him and therefore if they had condemned the Arians of Idolatry for giving only a like worship to Christ though in a higher degree they had condemned themselves for the like crime 2. The Arians made no such Apology for themselves as the Doctor makes for them viz. that they gave Soveraign and absolute worship to God and only inferiour and relative worship to Christ. 3. Why might not the generality at least believe Christ to be of a superiour Order so as to have true Divinity in him as the Heathens did of their lesser Gods and that being assumed as a Consort in the Empire absolute Divine Honour was due to him 4. They were chargeable with Idolatry because they did avowedly give those Acts of Worship to Christ believing him to be a Creature which by the common consent and publick practice of Christians from whence exteriour signs in the duties of Religion receive their determination were understood to be due only to God incarnate Which makes their case very much different from that of the Church of Rome which gave to Saints and Images only such Acts of Worship as by the common use and practice of the Christian World before Luther were determined and understood when applied to Saints and Images to express an inferiour degree of Reverence or Worship than what is due to God himself This is the substance of T. G.'s answer P. D. I confess T. G. now offers something worthy a serious debate Which may be reduced to these two things 1. What those Acts of Worship were which the Arians were charged with Idolatry for giving to Christ supposing him a Creature 2. How far the Church of Rome is liable to the same charge for the worship she gives to Saints and Images 1. For the Acts of Worship which the Arians were charged with Idolatry in giving to Christ as a Creature The strength of T. G.'s answer lies in two things 1. That they were given absolutely to Christ as a lesser God 2. That they were such Acts which by the consent of the Church did signifie proper Divine worship 1. Let us consider whether the worship given to Christ could be absolute upon their supposition that Christ was a Creature T. G. speaks somewhat faintly in this matter at first saying only Why might it not be absolute

external Act of worship belonging to all Christians because this sacrifice belongs to the Priests only to offer P. D. And what answer doth T. G. give to that R. P. He saith that nothing is more notorious than that those of the Church of Rome are bound on every Sunday and Holy Day to hear Mass. P. D. To hear Mass A very Christian duty no doubt especially if they understand never a word of it and as Diana saith a man is not bound to hear a word that is said But what then R. P. By this external Act he saith they testifie the uniting their intention with the Priest as the publick Officer of the Church in the Oblation of the sacrifice P. D. I have often heard of the skill you have of directing intentions but I never knew of this knack of uniting Intentions before I know how necessary the Priests intention is in your Church but what if the People should fail of uniting their intention with his as they often think and talk of other things at hearing Mass would it not be a sacrifice without the Vnion of their Intentions Suppose the Priests Intention should wander what would the Peoples uniting their intentions signifie towards the Sacrifice You will not say they have any power to offer the sacrifice therefore the Act of sacrificing belongs only to the Priest whether the Peoples intentions be united or not If the People first offered that which was to be sacrificed to the Priest and then he sacrificed it in their name as among the Jews they might be said to have a share in the sacrifice but when the sacrifice is supposed to come down from Heaven upon the Priests words and he doth not represent the People but Christ in the Act of sacrificing What doth the Peoples uniting their intentions signifie to the sacrifice I pray tell me in whose name doth the Priest pretend to the power of offering up the Body of Christ in Sacrifice on the Altar the Peoples or Christs R. P. In the name of Christ doubtless for the People have no power to do it P. D. If they have no power to do it and all the Authority be supposed to be derived from Christ for doing it what doth the uniting the Peoples intentions with the Priests signifie as to the offering up the sacrifice You might as well say that the Jews under the Cross might unite their intentions to Christs in offering himself on the Cross to the Father and so it might become their Act as well as Christ's But in my mind your phrase of hearing and seeing Mass is much more proper if men were bound either to hear or see which your Casuists say they are not than this of uniting their intentions with the Priest which is absurd and ridiculous Doth T. G. so little consider the honour of the Priestly Office as to talk of the Peoples uniting their intentions with the Priests in the oblation of the Sacrifice The next step may be that the sacrificing may depend on the Peoples Intentions as well as the Priests and what a case are you in then Aquinas and Cajetan were much wiser than T. G. in this matter for they both declare that this sacrifice belongs only to the Priests and not to the People as Dr. St. told T. G. R. P. T. G. saith he cannot find the Citation in the place quoted by him but he dares affirm that Cajetan was not so silly a Divine as to deny it to belong to the People to offer the sacrifice by and with the Priest P. D. And I dare affirm Cajetan was much wiser than to say that the offering the sacrifice did in any sense belong to the People and so much T. G. might have found in the place cited by the Doctour only qu. 86. was put for q. 85. and not as Cajetans bare opinion but as the judgement of Aquinas too He saith indeed that the Priests do offer the sacrifice for themselves and others but he was not so silly to imagine that they were to unite their intentions with the Priests in the oblation but that expression only shews for whose sake and not in whose name the sacrifice was offered For there are other sacrifices saith he which every one may offer for himself and those saith Cajetan are spiritual sacrifices of Devotion and Vertue but for the sacrifice of the Altar that belongs only to the Priests and Officers of the Church R. P. But the very Mass-Book calls it meum ac vestrum sacrificium and desires God to accept it for all those pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium P. D. I will tell you the mysterie of this business and so put an end to this long Conference It was the ancient custom of the Roman Church as well as others for the Communicants to make an oblation of the Bread and Wine at the Altar of which they were afterwards to partake This I prove from the Sacramentary of S. Gregory published by Pamelius where it is said while the Offertory is singing i. e. the Anthem then used the oblations are made by the People and laid upon the Altar that they might be consecrated And the Ordo Romanus declares these oblations to be the Bread and Wine of which it adds that the Arch-deacon took as much and laid upon the Altar as would serve for the people that were to communicate These oblations continued in the Church a long time and were inforced by Canons and Constitutions when the people began to slacken in their devotion Upon which the Church of Rome thought fit to bring in the use of Wafers instead of common bread and so these oblations grew into disuse or were turned into offerings of money instead of them Sirmondus and Card. Bona have proved beyond all dispute that the ancient Latin Church did use common and leavened Bread in the Eucharist that was offered by the people till a thousand years after Christ. But then the doctrine of Transubstantiation coming into the Roman Church it was no longer thought fit that the Bread which was to be turned into the Son of God should be made after a common manner or with the unsanctified hands of the Laity but by those who did attend upon the Altar remembring what the good woman told Gregory I. that she wondred that the Bread which she made with her own hands should be called the Body of Jesus Christ which the people had more reason to do when they came to define the manner of the presence as they did about this time although it were not made an Article of Faith till afterwards From hence the dispute began between the Greeks and Latins about unleavened bread and from henceforward the custom of oblations for the service of the Altar declined and is only kept up on some particular solemnities as Canonization of Saints Inauguration of Princes Consecration of Bishops Marriages and Funerals however the