Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n body_n soul_n unite_v 4,194 5 9.8657 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A51287 An appendix to the late antidote against idolatry Wherein the true and adequate notion or definition of idolatry is proposed. Most instances of idolatry in the Roman Church thereby examined. Sundry uses in the Church of England cleared. With some serious monitions touching spiritual idolatry thereunto annexed. More, Henry, 1614-1687. 1673 (1673) Wing M2642; ESTC R223783 31,890 68

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

For quatenus Latria it can pass no further in truth and reality but ends there and in relation to God the act ceases to be Latria the honouring or worshipping of him but changes its Species and becomes an act of contempt reproach and disobedience against him and a foul dishonouring of him Nor can the intention of the Religionist alter the specification of the Act but that it will be a dishonouring of God though the Act cannot be avoided but it will have God for its Object but he will be the Object of this Act under this specification namely of dishonour As in that Physician that intended by such a Medicine to cure such a Patient but does really poyson him thereby the Patient notwithstanding the Physicians intention is no Object of a real cure but of the quite contrary of his poysoning him Wherefore no real Latria passing to God in this relative Idolatry but only dishonour and reproach the Latria is in truth let the intention be what it will terminated in the Image or Idol and therefore is Idolatry in the most proper and Scholastick sense For one and the same Act as it may have two contrary Specifications in respect of two several Objects so it may have two several terminations in respect of the same As suppose one Person loves a Rose another has a great Antipathy against it a third brings a basket of Roses into the room this one act is both a gratification and a displeasure a gratification to him that loves Roses a displeasure to him that has an Antipathy against them the Act of gratification terminates in one of these Objects the Person that loves Roses the Act of displeasure terminates on the other Just so the Act of Latria or Divine honour terminates on the Image or Idol the Act of dishonour and reproach on God who is provoked and disobeyed What can be more plain Wherefore the Divine honour terminating on the Image of Christ and not passing to him in reality and truth but only in our fond intention it is manifest that the peculiarities of God are here violated and that it is proper Idolatry XXIV Whether the doing Divine worship towards the Image of Christ violates the irrepresentableness of the Godhead or no as also towards the holy Ghosts But there is a more curious question whether the worshipping of the Image of Christ with Divine worship does involve also the other violation of the peculiarities of the Godhead in making it thus representable by an Image For Christ being Man as well as God seems to make the case different from that of the Image of God the Father But I answer the case is still the same Christ being the eternal infinite glorious Majesty of God as well as he is Man and uncapable of Divine worship but so far forth as he is that infinite Majesty Wherefore he that sets up an Image and calls it the Image of Christ and does Divine worship towards it does as palpably make the eternal infinite Majesty of the Godhead representable by a carved stock or stone as he that does Divine worship toward such a carved Image of God the Father For the Father and the Son are equal and therefore the Son equally irrepresentable as to that of him which is capable of Divine worship which this Image pretends to represent in pretending to be the Image of Christ and therefore violates that peculiarity of the infinite glorious Majesty of God that makes it irrepresentable by any bodily Figure He that worships Christ worships the very Godhead and therefore must not blaspheme his Majesty by making him representable by any corporeal Image The Godhead indeed is hypostatically intempled in the humane nature of Christ but it is the the eternal and infinite divinity there that we adore So little scruple need either Jevv or Turk have to turn Christians upon any Idolatry vve are guilty of in vvorshiping Christ. And vvhat I have said of the Images or Statues of the Father and the Son the same is to be said of the Image of the Holy Ghost A Dove may be the Hieroglyphick of him as that description of the Ancient of dayes in Daniel is an Hieroglyphick of God the Father But to do Divine worship toward such an Image of a Dove it is absolutely the same Idolatry that was in so doing to the Image of God the Father and of Christ. XXV That no symbolical presence but only the holy humanity of Christ is capable of divine worship done towards it No symbolical presence therefore or consistent visible animal figure saving the holy humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ which is Hypostatically united with the eternal Divinity can have divine worship done towards it but it is Idolatry ipso facto It the peculiar priviledge of the holy humanity of Christ to be capable of having divine worship done towards it because of its Union with the Divinity as it is the priviledge of the Body of a wise and vertuous Person for the wisdom and vertues sake that resides only in his Soul to have that great reverence done towards it by reason of the Soul with which it is Hypostatically united But the Soul once separate by Death the Body according to the common sense and practice of all men ceases to have that reverence done towards it that it had before So that there is naturally a peculiar middle kind of honour greater than any Creature besides has a capacity of though less than Divine that accrews to Christs humanity in vertue of his being Hypostatically united with the Godhead which the Image of Christ is not And therefore besides that gross Idolatry above specified in doing Divine worship towards his Image there is also a violation of the priviledge of this holy humanity of Christ towards which living Symbolical presence of the Godhead only it had been proper to do Divine worship when he was visible here upon Earth upon a clear declaration of this Union Which was more apertly and more seasonably manifested afterwards by St. John But considering the unexpressable profound Humility of our Saviour who upon ones saying to him Good Master straight way rebuked him declaring there was none good but one which is God Mark 10.17 it seems hugely probable that if any would have done express Divine worship towards his visible Humanity as the Lycaonians would have sacrificed to Paul and Barnabas that he would have declined it But this only by the by XXVI The necessity of the Romanists acknowledging of Latria relativa done to Images relating to God Hitherto of Images relating to God to which the second Nicene Council that excellently learned and judicious Patriarch of Constantinople Photius being Interpreter assigned Latria relativa which Azorius the Jesuite also acknowledges to be the constant opinion of the Roman Theologers And indeed it seems necessary it should be so to make the best sense of that kind of Religion for they burn incense to these Images which is a sacrifice And they