Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	lord_n	moses_n	1,875	5	7.6833	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66115	Remarks of an university-man upon a late book, falsly called A vindication of the primitive fathers, against the imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum, written by Mr. Hill of Killmington	Willes, John, 1646 or 7-1700.	1695 (1695)	Wing W2302; ESTC R11250	29,989	42

REMARKS Of an University-Man UPON A Late BOOK Falsly called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum Written by Mr. Hill of Killmington LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCXCV REMARKS UPON A late Book falsly called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers c. THE great Satisfaction I had in reading the Lord Bishop of Sarum ' s Four Discourses to his Clergy and that especially concerning the Divinity of our Saviour wherein I met with such excellent Arguments as I had not found in other Authors for the Confirmation of that great Article of our Faith oblig'd me to think that they could not but be receiv'd with as general an Esteem and Approbation as in my Judgment they deserv'd And as I was persuaded they would be extreamly useful so I could not but imagine they would remain unexcepted against by the most Malicious and Ill-natured unless they were such as denied the very Divinity of our Saviour All which I was the more fully convinc'd of and believ'd I might relie upon them as agreeable to the true and orthodox Doctrine of the Church since they appeared in Publick with the Approbation and Licence of the never enough to be admired Late Archbishop of Canterbury whose Sincerity Clearness and Strength of Judgment I was well assured would approve of nothing as the Doctrine of the Church and fit to believed by its Clergy which deserv'd the Censure of a Convocation And though there came out some Exceptions against the Second Discourse which relates to the Divinity and Death of Christ as well as against the Archbishop's Sermons and one of the Bishop of Worcester ' s by the Socinian Party yet they appear'd so trifling especially since they have been answered by the Bishop of Sarum ' s Letter to Dr. Williams which is annex'd to his Learned Vindication of the other Two that they rather confirm'd than lessen'd my Opinion of it But I must confess I was something surpris'd and began to distrust my Judgment when I saw Mr. Hill's Book come forth with such a Title as I thought was almost enough had there been nothing more in it to have made the Bishop's Second Discourse which is the only one aim'd at be censur'd as Heretical and had it been made good must have thought it my Duty also as being a Member of one of those Bodies to whose Judgment the Book is referred as well as to the Church Vniversal the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England and the next Session of Convocation to assist at the Solemnity of condemning the Bishop himself for an Heretick But when I considered that it was grown to too general a Custom for Authors to make large and specious Titles to make amends for the emptiness of the Book and that they oftner give a Specimen of their own ill Nature than of any real Errors they discover I began to be no more concern'd at the Title than I was at the mighty Quotations which this Author makes use of when I considered that by turning to the Indexes of the Paris Editions of the Fathers in our Publick Library I could quote as much and as little to the Purpose as our Author has done I am almost apt to think it would be labour lost to run through his whole Book to detect every Absurdity in it since I believe those who have read the Preface to it were so sufficiently convinc'd of the weakness of the Author that they could not think it worth their while to make any farther search into it 'T is a great deal of Pity that the Letter which he mentions to have sent to his Lordship did not appear with the Preface for certainly it must have prov'd as great a Satire upon himself as the Preface appears to be But I am too forward in my Censure for if you will believe him the Bishop is mightily beholding to him for his gentle usage of him and for not divulging some Private Practice which upon fitting terms he is contented to hush up at present And therefore his Lordship had not best provoke him and think of returning an Answer for if he doth he shall then be set free from all Obligations to Secrecy and good Manners and then Wo betide him This I take to be the Sense of what follows viz. But for the Private Practice objected to him I will at present spare him and if his Lordship will be so kind to himself as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Matter shall be hushed up A trifling and Childish Insinuation For had the Bishop been really guilty of any such Private Practice as would have been a dishonourable Reflection upon him I question not but we should have heard more of it since so much Malice could never have let slip so fair an Occasion without making the best Improvements of it had there been any thing more that could have advanc'd the Credit of the other Aspersions or have been any support to the weakness of the Cause The rest of the Preface is of the same Piece and thus he concludes it But as to his Doctrine it is gone abroad and cannot return and if it be of evil Influence on young Students or Men prepar'd to Irreligion or of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign or State of Religion every Man has a just right fairly and bravely to oppose it without fear of Men or respect of Persons And if it be not so I promise his Lordship the most publick Recantation and Penance And supposing he should be oblig'd to undergo it with the utmost severity the Law could inflict he may remain a lasting and sad Example of the Punishment due to all Libellers and to all malicious Forgers of Falsehood For though I have made a very diligent search into the Bishop's Discourse and into the Objections this Author has made against it yet I do solemnly protest that I do not find any one of those Charges made good against it What he means by these Words of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign I can't guess I believe they are not only very rude but such a malicious Insinuation as if it can be understood deserves a more severe Answer and of a different Nature than I am able to give him How fairly and bravely he has opposed any thing that the Bishop has said or rather how fairly and openly he has rendred himself contemptible is now high time to consider He begins his Book with a great deal of Confidence and supercilious Contempt That he has Two things to urge against the Lord Bishop of Sarum in his Discourse on the Divinity and Death of Christ 1. That the Bishop very defectively to say no worse states our Faith and Doctrine in the Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation And 2. That he exposes the Fathers under the same and worse Imputations which is the Second thing that he says offends All that the Bishop

saying that Jehovah was a foederal Name of God which being generally translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Septuagint which Name was applyed to our Saviour in the New Testament by way of Eminence to shew that he was the true Jehovah who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always in the Septuagint Translation Now though our Author does seem to approve of the Argument drawn from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he is angry that his Lordship should call Jehovah a federal Name of God And his Reasons are because he was called Jehovah by Balaam and also by Job who were in no Covenant with him Now as to Balaam we may answer that he speaks of Jehovah as the God of Israel And his Words Numb 23 21. are Jehovah his God is with him which seem directly to mean that their God who by them is called Jehovah is with them and if he did not mean so why did he say any thing more than his God is with him Whence it seems plain that he means by it that the God who was more peculiarly styled Jehovah amongst them was ready to help and defend them And it is very probable that the Name was only known amongst the Jews by the very signification of it according to Dr. Lightfoot which was faithful in performing what he had promised that is in keeping the Promises made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob concerning their Seed And though that Name is also mentioned in Job yet it is certain that Job could not come by it unless he had it from some particular Revelation from God And therefore in answer to our Author I will venture to advance this probable Account of it That though Job as is now generally believ'd liv'd in the time of the Israelites Bondage in Egypt and was not in the same Covenant with them yet the Jews meeting with the History of him might change the Name of God into that of Jehovah and probably Moses himself might do it or if the Author or Translator of that Book was Moses or one of the Jewish Nation he to make the whole Old Testament of a Piece might call God by the Name of Jehovah tho' neither Job nor his Friends knew any thing of it as also thereby to shew the Israelites and others that it was the same Jehovah who was their God and in covenant with them least the People who were very prone to Idolatry should think it was some other God who had brought such strange things to pass and thereupon pay Adoration to him These are the two chief Arguments our Author insists upon All the rest are very little if at all to his purpose And seeing his Pag. 90. Lordship in answer to his Socinian Adversary answer'd this Objection which our Vindicator makes I shall no longer dwell upon it And if our Author has no better Objections to urge I don't see what reason he has to call it a federal Whimsie Here I can't help observing our Pag. 45. Author's conclusion of this Paragraph which may serve as a convincing Argument that all our Author says is the Result of Malice and ill Nature which seem to be the only Causes and not the false Doctrine of his Lordship's Discourse that first persuaded him to appear in Publick and to let the World see what manner of Spirit he was of And therefore says he after all his Lordship's critical Trifling he wisely comes to say a great many Good and Orthodox Truths on this Article so far as that that Christ was God who manifested himself in our Flesh which being so dissonant to all his former Modes of Expressions and avowed Notions which what they are God only knows I see nothing contrary to the true Doctrine of the Church seem to have dropt from him either unawares or for a Colour of Defence against a foreseen Charge of Heresie which certainly he had no reason to fear since it doth not appear that he hath hitherto said any thing that looks in the least that way or perhaps the singular Providence of God might so over-rule the Madness of the Prophet to make him speak that for the Christian Faith which he had no mind to that his manifest Inconsistences might render him of no Authority for the use of Hereticks either in present or future Ages I think I need make no Answer to this or bring against this most uncharitable and undeserved Calumny any railing Accusation but only say the Lord rebuke him But now that we may end the first part of this falsly styled Vindication let us consider the Answer that he makes to his Lordship's Argument for the Deity of Christ 45 46. which is that the Jews and Apostates from Christianity never charged the Apostles nor Church with Idolatry or Creature Worship which they would certainly have done had the Christian Principles been Arian or Socinian Against this our Vindicator urges that it was the common Opprobrium both of Jews and Gentiles and perfect Apostates that the Christians ador'd a meer Malefactor which was certainly an imputation of Creature Worship And that the Jews ever did Pag. 47. and do at this day charge us with the Worship of a vile Creature who really as they think had no Deity in him else had they also thought him to be God they had been ipso facto converted to us the want of this Faith being the only Bar to their Conversion and the Cause why they execrate both our Lord and us for this very Doctrine And then he concludes very triumphantly So unlucky is his Lordship even Pag. 48. in the fairest part of this Discourse as if God had laid this Curse on him that he that had sophistically handled the Christian Faith in most part of it should not have the Glory or Comfort of having serv'd it in any one Particular Certainly any one that reads this would imagine that the Bishop was the most profligate Enemy to the Christian Faith that ever appeared against it But if we can find no just ground for such opprobrious Speeches then certainly the Author of them has the greater Sin Now I will readily grant with our Author that the Jews did not believe our Saviour to be God but only that he was a meer Man nor do I find that his Lordship denies it All that I perceive his Lordship intends by it is that the Jews expected their Messias should be God and that upon supposition it was he that was come into the World they did not urge it as Idolatry to worship him which certainly they would have done had they thought he would have been a meer Man or a God only by Office as the Socinians would have him and not from all Eternity coessential with the Father Now I leave any Man to judge if this does not seem to be a just Account and a fair Interpretation of his Lordship's Argument For I suppose no one can think that the Bishop design'd by it to shew that the Jews did