Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	aaron_n	act_n	word_n	41	3	3.6319	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61540	A discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the danger of salvation in the communion of it in an answer to some papers of a revolted Protestant : wherein a particular account is given of the fanaticism and divisions of that church / by Edward Stilingfleet.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1671 (1671)	Wing S5577; ESTC R28180	300,770	620

painted and he ought not to be worshipped in any Image but what he hath prescribed us to worship which is Christ that adoration is external or internal that both of them are called Religion by which we are bound eternally to God and only to him from whence it follows that neither Angels nor Saints are to be worshipped by any religious worship for this is the Law of Adoration that no creature no phantasm of God in our minds no work of mens hands ought to be worshipped for if Gods creatures are not to be worshipped much less ours such as Images of God Angels and Saints are Neither is it enough to say that they do not worship the Image but the thing represented for the object terminates the worship and it is a deceit of the Devil under the pretence of honouring the Saints to bring mens minds to Idols and from the true God to carnal things that Images are to be used only for shew and memory and not at all for Religion that God alone is to be worshipped with all Religious worship whether called Latria or Doulia or what name soever and for the casting away all superstition that no Images be painted in Churches no Statues erected nor accounted holy that the true God may be worshipped alone for ever This is the abstract of his Doctrine delivered by Massonus whose other Writings shew he was far from being partial towards the Reformation And the Book it self is lately published by Baluzius again where any one may easily satisfie himself concerning fidelity But Baluzius very honestly tells us some have suspected this Book not to be very Catholick and therefore it was censured by Baronius and the Spanish Index yet he ingenuously confesseth he saith no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age. What that was I have already shewed This I have the larger insisted upon to shew that it is no new thing for us to plead for all Religious worship being appropriated to God and that the command against Image-worship was no Ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews but that the reason of it doth extend to all Ages and Nations and especially to us who live under the Gospel From all which it follows that it was not meerly the Heathen Idolatry which was forbidden by God nor barely to prevent their falling to that by degrees but the giving to himself such a worship which he judges so unworthy of him § 10. 3. From those who were best able to understand the meaning of it We can imagine none so competent a Judge of the meaning of a Law as the giver of it and what he afterwards declares to be the sense of this Law The first occasion given for knowing the meaning of the Law concerning Images was not long after the making of it when upon Moses his absence they compelled Aaron to make them a Golden Calf Exod. 32. 4. Here was an Image made contrary to the Law as is on all sides acknowledged but the question is Whether by this the Israelites did fall into the Heathen Idolatry or only worship the true God under that Symbol of his presence That they did not herein fall back to the Heathen Idolatry I thus prove 1. From the occasion of it which was not upon the least pretence of Infidelity as to the true God or that they had now better reason given them for the worship of other Gods besides him but all they say was that Moses had been so long absent they knew not what was become of him and therefore they say to Aaron make us Gods or a God as in Nehem. 9. 18. to go before us We cannot imagine the people so sottish to desire Aaron to make them a God in the proper sense as though they could believe the Calf newly made to have been the God which before it was made brought them out of the Land of Aegypt as they say afterwards v. 4. but it must be understood as the symbol of that God which did bring them from thence the controversie then lyes here Whether they thought the Aegyptian Gods delivered them out of Aegypt while they forsook all their own worshippers to preserve those who were so great enemies to them that their very way of worship was an abomination to all the Aegyptians Exod 8. 26. and whether they could think the Gods of Aegypt had wrought all the Miracles for them in their deliverance and after it Whether they appeared not long before on Mount Sinai and delivered the Law to them Or whether it were not the true God they meant who had made that the Preface to his Laws I am the God that brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt to whom they intended still to give honour but the only question was concerning the symbol of his presence that was to go before them For which we are to consider that immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount the last promise God made to them was that he would send his Angel before them Exod. 23. 20 23. which is elsewhere called his presence Exod. 33. 14. Moreover they understood that there should be some extraordinary symbol of this presence but what it was they could not tell for Moses was then gone into the Mount to learn but he not being heard of in forty dayes they took it for granted he was not to be heard of more therefore they fall upon devising among themselves what was the fittest symbol for the presence of God going before them and herein the greatest number being possessed with the prejudices of their education in Aegypt where golden Bulls were the symbols of their chief God Osiris they pitch upon that and force Aaron to a complyance with them in it 2. There is no intimation given in the whole story that they fell into the Heathen Idolatry for when afterwards they fell into it the particular names of the Gods are mentioned as Baal-peor Moloch Remphan Numb 25. 3. Acts 7. 43. But here on the contrary Aaron expresly proclaims a Feast to the Lord Exod. 32. 5. and the people accordingly met and offered their accustomed offerings v. 6. whereas if it had been the Aegyptian Idolatry their common Sacrifices were abominations they must not have sacrificed Sheep and Oxen as they were wont to do And that it was not the Idolatry of other Nations who worshipped the Host of Heaven is plain from St. Stephens words Acts 7. 41 42. And they made a Calf in those dayes and offered Sacrifice unto Idols and rejoyced in the works of their own hands then God turned and gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven Whereby it is both observable that the Idolatry of the Calf was distinct from the other Heathen Idolatry this being a punishment of the other and withal though the Calf was intended by them to be only a symbol of Gods presence yet being directly against Gods Command and having divine worship given it it is by S. Stephen called an Idol

ought not only perform the offices of Religion out of obedience to his divine commands but with a due Veneration of his Majesty and power with thankfulness for his infinite goodness and with trust in his promises and subjection of our souls to his supream Authority About these things which are the main parts of divine and spiritual Worship we have no quarrel nor do we find fault with any for giving too much to Christ in this manner but rather for placing too much in the bare external acts of adoration which may be performed with all external pomp and shew where there is no inward reverence nor sincere devotion And yet 4. It is not concerning external Reverence to be shewn in the time of receiving the Eucharist For that our Church not only allowes but enjoynes and that not barely for the avoiding such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue but for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefit of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers But it is withall declared that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood as I have already recited it But the Controversie concerning the adoration of the Host lyes in these two things 1. Whether proper divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal presence of Christ under them 2. Whether out of the time of receiving the same adoration ought to be given to it when it is elevated or carried in procession which we would give to the very person of Christ And that this is the true state of the Controversie I appeal to the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point For it is expresly determined by the Council of Trent That there is no manner of doubt left but that all Christians ought to give the same Worship to this holy Sacrament which they give to God himself For it is not therefore less to be Worshipped because it was instituted by Christ our Lord that it might be taken By which words the true state of the Controversie is made evident which is not about the reverence due only to Christ supposed to be corporally present there but the adoration due to the Sacrament upon that account And by the Sacrament the Council must understand the elements or accidents or whatever name they call them by as the immediate term of that divine Worship or else the latter words signifie nothing at all For what was that which was instituted by our Lord as a Sacrament was it not the external and visible signes or elements why do they urge that the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken but to take off the common objection that we ought not to give divine Worship to that which we eat And what can this have respect to but the Elements But this is not denyed that I know of by any who understand either the doctrine or practice of that Church although to answer our Arguments they would seem to direct their Worship only to Christ as present under the elements yet yielding that on the account of this corporal presence that which appears ought to have the same Worship given to it with that which is supposed or believed And so they make the accidents of the Sacrament to have the very same honour which the humane nature of Christ hath which they say hath no divine honour for it self but on the account of the conjunction of the divinity with it § 4. The Controversie being thus stated I come to shew that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives Adoration to the Host. For it is a principle indisputable among them that to give proper divine honour called by them Adoration to a creature is Idolatry but no man upon the principles of their Church can be assured every time he Worships the Host that he doth not give proper divine honour to a creature For there are two things absolutely necessary to secure a mans mind in the performance of an act of divine Worship 1. That either the object be such in it self which deserves and requires such Worship from us as in the divine nature of Christ Or 2. That if of it self it doth not deserve it there be a reason sufficient to give it as is the humane nature of Christ upon its union with the Divine but in this matter of the adoration of the Host no man can be secure of either of these upon their own Principles 1. He cannot be secure that the object is such as doth deserve divine worship If a man should chance to believe his senses or hearken to his reason or at least think the matter disputable whether that which he sees to be bread be not really bread what case is this man in He becomes an Idolater by not being a fool or a mad man But because we are not now to proceed upon the principles of sense or reason but those of the Church of Rome I will suppose the case of one that goes firmly upon the received principles of it and try whether such a one can be satisfied in his mind that when he gives divine worship to the Host he doth not give it to a creature And because we are now supposing unreasonable things I will suppose my self to be that person The Mass-bell now rings and I must give the same divine honour to the Host which I do to Christ himself but hold if it should be but a meer creature all the world cannot excuse me from Idolatry and my own Church condemns me all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry how come I then to be assured that what but a little before was a meer creature is upon the pronouncing a few words turned into my Creator A strange and sudden change And I can hardly say that God becoming man was so great a wonder as a little piece of bread becoming God When God became man he shewed himself to be God by Wonders and Miracles which he wrought for the conviction of the world I will see if I can find any such evidence of so wonderful a transformation from a Wafer to a Deity I see it to be the very same it was I handle it as I did if I taste it it hath the very same agreeableness to the Palat it had Where then lyes this mighty change But O carnal reason what have I to do with thee in these mysteries of faith I remember what Church I am of and how much I am bid to beware of thee but how then shall I be satisfied Must I relye on the bare words of Christ This is my body But I have been told the Scripture is very obscure and