Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	death_n	life_n	world_n	5,607	5	4.5010	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60941	Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book, entituled A vindication of the holy and ever-blessed Trinity, &c, together with a more necessary vindication of that sacred and prime article of the Christian faith from his new notions, and false explications of it / humbly offered to his admirers, and to himself the chief of them, by a divine of the Church of England.	South, Robert, 1634-1716.	1693 (1693)	Wing S4731; ESTC R10418	260,169	412

which he appeared of old and the other to that Body which he was Born with in the World All which Positions are horrid and monstrous but unavoidably consequent from the foregoing Assertion But for the further Illustration of the Case I do here affirm to this Author That God is as visible in an assumed Body whether of Air or Aether or whatsoever other Materials it might be formed of as in a Body of Flesh and Blood personally united to him I say as visible For notwithstanding the great difference of these Bodies and the difference of their Union and Relation to God One being by a temporary Assumption and the other by a personal Incarnation yet no Corporeal Eye could discern this Difference during the Appearance but that one was for the time as visible as the other and therefore since both of them were truly Symbols of God's peculiar Presence the only way by which the Divine Nature becomes visible to a Mortal Eye it demonstratively overthrows that positive false Assertion of this Author That nothing can make God visible but a personal Union to a visible Nature PARADOX All the Circumstances of our Saviour's Birth and Life and Death were so punctually foretold by the Prophets and so peremptorily decreed by God that after he was come into the World there was no place for his Choice and Election And he could not shew either his Love or his Humility by choosing Poverty Death c. Page 242. Line 5. Answer This is False Absurd and Dangerous and indeed next to Blasphemous as overthrowing the whole Oeconomy of Man's Redemption by the Merits of Christ. For that which leaves no place for Choice leaves no possibility for Merit For all Merit is founded in freedom of Action and that in Choice And if Christ after his Incarnation had not this he could not Merit And whereas the Author says That Christ chose all this as the second Person of the Trinity antecedently to his Incarnation I Answer That this is indeed true but reaches not the present Case For what he did before he was Incarnate was the Act of him purely as God but a meritorious Action must still be an humane Action which could not proceed from the second Person before his Assumption of an humane Nature I readily grant and hold That the Actions of Christ's humane Nature received a peculiar Worth and Value from its Union with his Divine Person yet still I affirm that this Worth and Value was subjected and inherent in his humane Actions as such and thereby qualified them with so high a degree of Merit So that whencesoever this Merit might flow they were only his humane Actions viz. such as proceeded from him as a Man that were properly and formally meritorious And whereas this Author states the Reason of this his horrid Assertion upon the Predictions of the Prophets and the peremptory Decrees of God concerning all that belonged to or befell Christ I do here tell him That neither Predictions nor Decrees though never so punctual and peremptory do or can infringe or take away the freedom of Man's Choice or Election about the things so decreed or foretold how difficult soever it may be for humane Reason to reconcile them and if this Man will affirm the contrary he must either banish all Choice and Freedom of Action or all certain Predictions and peremptory Decrees out of the World let him choose which of these two Rocks he will run himself against for he will be assuredly split upon either This vile Assertion really deserves the Censure of a Convocation and it is pity for the Church's sake but in due time it should find it PARADOX Concerning Person and Personality he has these following Assertions which I have here drawn together from several parts of his Book viz. The Mind is a Person Page 191. Line 21 22. A Soul without a Vital Union to a Body is a Person Page 262. Line 17. And the Soul is the Person because it is the Superiour governing power and Constitutes the Person Page 268. Line 28. A Beast which has no Reasonable Soul but only an Animal Life is a Person c. Page 262. Line 18 19 20. And again We may find the Reasonable and Animal Life subsisting apart and when they do so they are Two Persons and but One Person when United Page the same at the end of it And lastly One Agent is One Person Page 268. Line 2. Answer In all these Propositions so confidently laid down by this Man there are almost as many Absurdities and Falsities as there are Words I have already shewn this of some of them in Chap. 3. and therefore I shall be the briefer in my Remarks upon them here And first for that Assertion That the Mind is a Person To this I Answer That the Mind may be taken Two ways First Either for that Intellectual Power or Faculty by which the Soul understands and Reasons Or Secondly For the Rational Soul it self In the former Sense it is but an Accident and particularly a Quality In the second it is an Essential part of the whole Man and therefore upon neither of these Accounts can be a Person For neither an Accident nor a Part can be a Person which as such must be both a Substance and a compleat Substance too And secondly Whereas he says That a Soul without a vital Union to the Body is a Person I tell him That the Soul without such an Union is still an incomplete Being as being originally and naturally designed for the Completion and Composition of the whole Man and therefore for that reason cannot be a Person And then Thirdly whereas he adds That the Soul is the Person because it is the Superiour governing Power and Constitutes the Person I answer That it is the former and does the latter only as it is the prime essential part of the whole Man and for that very cause is an incomplete Being as every part is and must be and consequently cannot be a Person In the next place for an Answer to his saying That a Beast is a Person I refer him to his own positive Affirmation pag. 69. line 18. That a Person and an Intelligent Substance are reciprocal Terms And the same may serve for an Answer to his next Absurdity That when the Reasonable and the Animal Life subsist apart they are Two Persons For the Animal Life separate from the Rational is void of all Reason and the very Definition of a Person is That it is Suppositum Rationale aut Intelligens In the last place By his saying That One Agent is One Person which I am sure he affirms universally of every single Agent he makes every Living Creature under Heaven a Person For every such Creature is endued with a Principle of Life and Action and accordingly acts by it and by so acting is properly an Agent From all which it follows That this Author as great as his Retinue may be has many more Persons in his Family

the whole Oeconomy of the Christian Religion And it is that Wonderful Assertion concerning the Goodness of God in Page 44. of his Knowledge of Christ viz. That it is not possible to understand what Goodness is without Pardoning Grace Now certain it is that Natural Reason by its own light is able from the Common Works of God's Providence to collect the Knowledge of God's Goodness as St. Paul expresly told those Heathens of Lycaonia Acts 14. 17. and therefore if the Knowledge of God's Goodness necessarily implies in it the Knowledge of Pardoning Grace it will follow That the Heathens by understanding one from the Works of Providence must needs understand and know the other also and consequently that the Knowledge of Pardoning Grace is not owing to Revelation nor the Gospel necessary to make a Discovery of it to Mankind A Blessed Principle and Foundation no doubt to establish the New-designed Scheme of a Natural Religion upon For it is not unknown what Projects were on foot amongst some when this Book was Wrote though the Author had the ill luck to be left in the Lurch and not seconded in the Attempt But in opposition to this Paganish Assertion I do here affirm That if God may be Good and that both as to the Essential Attribute of his Goodness and as to the actual Exercise of the same without the Pardon of Sin then it is not impossible to understand the Goodness of God without Pardoning Grace The Consequence is evident For whatsoever any Thing is it is capable of being understood to be And as for the Antecedent that is manifest from these Considerations First That God was Good and exerted Acts of Goodness before there was any Sin in the World and therefore might be and undoubtedly was understood both as Good and as exercising his Goodness by the Angels before the Fall of any of them and for that reason before Pardon of Sin could come into Consideration In the next Place God had been Good and had exercised his Goodness had Men and Angels been Created Impeccable and I am sure it is no Contradiction to hold That they might have been Originally made such as all Glorified Spirits now actually are And Lastly God is and may be understood to be Good even in respect of those whose Sins shall never be pardoned And therefore that Assertion of this Author That it is not possible to understand what Goodness is without Pardoning Grace is apparently false and absurd as drawing after it One of these Two Consequences First That either we cannot understand the Creation and Support of Angels and of this visible World and particularly of Mankind to have been Acts and Instances of the Divine Goodness which yet no doubt were very great ones Or Secondly That we cannot understand them as such but by understanding them also to imply in them Pardoning Grace And if so then supposing the Creation of Man and his Sin after his Creation and the Goodness of God remaining still entire notwithstanding Man's Sin as it certainly did it will follow that Pardoning Grace having according to the forementioned Principle a necessary Connexion with or result from the said Goodness must have fallen in of course and by necessary consequence from thence And then Where could be the Freedom of this Grace Nay Where could be this Grace it self For the very Nature of Grace consists in this that it be an Act perfectly Free so free that God might have chosen after Man had sinned whether he would ever have offered him any Conditions of Pardon or no And if he had not Men might notwithstanding that have abundantly known and understood the Goodness of God by several other Acts and Instances in which it had sufficiently declared it self So that the foregoing Assertion is nothing but a gross Paradox and a Scurvy Blow at all Revealed Religion besides if the Knowledge of Pardoning Grace could or may be had without it And now after this Absurdity presented to the Reader 's Examination I shall point out to him some of the Blasphemies also that occurr in the same Book Such as are these that follow The Justice of God says he having glutted it self with Revenge on Sin in the Death of Christ henceforward we may be sure he will be very kind as a Revengeful Man is when his Passion is over Knowledge of Christ P. 46. Again the Sum of the Matter is That God is all Love and Patience when he has taken his fill of Revenge as others use to say That the Devil himself is very good when he is pleased Pag. 47. Again The Death of Christ says he discovers the Naturalness of Justice to God that is That he is so Just that he has not one Dram of Goodness in him till his Rage and Vengeance be satisfied which I confess is a glorious kind of Justice And presently after Now the Justice and Vengeance of God having their Actings assigned them to the full being glutted and satiated with the Blood of Christ God may pardon as many and great Sins as he pleases P. 59. And sutable to this he likewise calls the Method of God 's saving Sinners upon a Previous Satisfaction made to his Iustice as necessary for the Remission of Sin God's Trucking and Bartering with Sin and the Devil for his Glory P. 52. Concerning which and the like Expressions uttered by this Great-Good Man as a certain poor Wretch calls him I cannot but out of a due Zeal and concern for that Eternal Truth by which I hope to be Saved declare That the Tongue that should Speak such things deserves to Speak no more and the Hand that should Write them to Write no more And great pity it is that at this time and in this case also his Ascendant had not tyed up his Hands from Writing For see how one of the Leading Dissenters Insults over our Church upon occasion of these Horrid Passages Is this says he Language becoming a Son of the Church of England Ought it not more justly to have been expected from a Iew or a Mahometan From Servetus or Socinus from whom also it was borrowed than from a Son of the Church in a Book published by Licence and Authority And thus he goes on equally Chastising his Arrogance and Exposing his Ignorance the poor Church 's Reputation all the while paying the Scores of both But now if either He himself or any for him shall plead That it was not fairly done to charge him with those Blasphemies which he may and perhaps does pretend to have been uttered by Him in the Person of his Adversary and as the genuine Consequences of the Doctrine maintained by him To this I Answer First That he who pretends to speak in the Person of another ought according to all Justice and Decorum to speak only such Things as that other whom he personates uses to speak and consonant to his known Avowed Sence But did his Adversary Dr. Owen ever speak so Or use the Expressions here