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	name_n	see_v	2,453	5	3.4415	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49896	An historical vindication of The naked Gospel recommended to the University of Oxford.	Le Clerc, Jean, 1657-1736.	1690 (1690)	Wing L816; ESTC R21019	43,004	72

and made a Discourse in Latin wherein he represented That he had no greater Affliction than the Divisions he observ'd among Christians exhorting the Bishops very earnestly to Peace An Interpreter afterwards turn'd the Speech into Greek for the Eastern Bishops understood not Latin Although it seems that Business was prepared in particular Assemblies before hand yet there arose at first a great Controversie and Constantine had the patience to hear long Contests wherein he exercised the Office of Moderator in endeavouring to accord those whose Sentiments or Expressions appear'd remote in upholding the Arguments which seem'd to him weak and in giving Praises to such who seem'd to speak well Eusebius of Cesarea long held our against the use which they would (a) Socrat. lib. 1. c. 8. c. Theod. lib. i. cap. 12. make of the Word Consubstantial He offered another Confession of Faith wherein it was omitted and wherein he call'd the Son barely God born of God Light of Light Life of Life only Son first born of all Creatures begotten of his Father before all Worlds The Emperor approv'd this Confession of Faith and exhorted the Fathers of the Synod to follow it in adding thereto only the Word Consubstantial Afterwards the Confession was read which had been drawn up with this Word the Terms of which have been already recited Anathema's were joyn'd thereto against those who should use on this Occasion other Terms than those of the Holy Scripture which must be understood with an Exception of those which the Council thought fit to confecrate This Proposition was particularly condemn'd That the Son existed not before he was begotten Eusebias and others requested That the Terms of the Symbol and Anathema's might be explain'd 1. It was said That the Word Begotten was used and not made because this last Word expresses the Production of Creatures to which the Son has no likeness being of a Substance far more excellent than they begotten by the Father in an incomprehensible manner 2. As for the Word Consubstantial it is proper to the Son not in the sense wherein it is taken when we speak of Bodies or mortal Animals the Son being Consubstantial with the Father neither by a Division of the Divine Substance of which he possesses a part nor by any change of this same Substance The meaning of which is only this That the Son has no Resemblance with the Creatures which he has made but that he is in all things like to his Father by whom he has been begotten or that he is not of another Hypostasis or Substance but of that of the Father 3. Those were condemn'd who said that the Son was not before he was born seeing that he existed before his corporal Birth and even before his divine Generation according to Constantin's Argument (a) These Words of Eusebius's Letter are not to be found but in Theodoret Socrates having retrenched them For before said he that he was actually begotten he was in Power in his Father in a manner unbegotten the Father having been always Father as he is ever always King and Saviour and all things in his Power being eternally in the same Condition It will perhaps seem that this is pure Arianism and that this is to deny the Eternity of the Son but we must observe that in the Style of that time to exist before the World and to be eternal is the same thing seeing that to prove his Eternity this Passage is cited (b) Vid Ep. Alexandri Ep. In the Beginning was the Word and it sufficed to shew that he was begotten before there was any time So that we must not reject these Words as suppositious meerly for this Reason and it is so ordinary to find hard Expressions in those who attempt to explain in any sort this incomprehensible Mystery that if one might hence judge of them one would be apt to declare them all Hereticks which is to say to anathemize the greatest part of the Ancients Besides this St. Athanasius who (a) De. Deret Nican Tom. l. pag. 251. openly treats Eusebius as an Arian makes allusion to one part of this passage and draws thence a consequence which Eusebius without doubt would not have owned which is that the Arians believed that the Divinity of Jesus Christ did not exist before his corporal Birth After these explications Eusebius subscribed as he himself testifies in the Letter above recited (b) Athanas ibid. altho ' he had refused it the day before The long and formal opposition which he had made against the word Consubstantial caused it to be suspected that there was want of sincerity in this subscription In fine Arius and his Party were anathematized and all their Books condemned and particularly a Poem which Arius had entituled Thalia Most of the Arian Bishops subscribed after Euesebius his example to this confession of Faith and the Anathema's after the explications above mentioned Yet there were some of 'em who refused at first to sign (a) Socr. lib. l. cap. 8. the principal of which were Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis of Nice Maris of Calcedon Theonas of Marmarica and Secondus of Ptolemaida They were immediately Excommunicated by the Council and were to be sent afterwards as well as Arius into Exile by Constantin The Council wrote a circular Letter (b) Socr. lib. l. Cap. 9. to the Churches of Egypt denoting to 'em in what sort they had carried themselves in the business of Arius and what had been ordered touching Melece the Schismatical Bishop and the observation of Easter Constantin wrote also to the Church of Alexandria to assure it that after a full and mature examination Arius had been condemned by the common consent He greatly vaunted of the moderation and learning of the Bishops making no mention of their quarrels according to the Custom observed in publick Acts and such like occasions where every thing is supprest which may give an ill opinion of the Decrees of these kinds of Assemblies In another Letter directed to the Bishops and Churches he enjoyns the name of Porphyrus to be given to Arius and his followers to be called Porphyrians This Porphyry was a famous Platonist who had written against the Christian Religion and whose Books Constantin had caus'd to be burnt Lucas Holstenius has written his Life which is to be found at the end of the Book of the Abstinence of Animals Constantin design'd to declare hereby Arius an Enemy to the Christian Religion and not in any manner reproach him with being a Platonist touching the Trinity seeing Constantin did not disapprove as we have seen the sentiments of Plato It 's true the Arians have been upbraided with their too great application to the reading of this Phylosopher and other Heathen Authors Revera de Platonis et Aristophanis sinu says St. Jerom (a) Advers Lucif T. 2. p. 142. in episcopatum alleguntur Quotus enim quisque est qui non apprime in his eraditus sit Accedit ad

whole is of one and the same Species of the same Nature and Co essential 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this does not happen in the case proposed by Porphyry One may see hereby the Subtilty with which the Platonists handled these Matters and the Terms they used But we should take notice of two things in endeavouring to form to our selves an Idea of their Sentiments The first that we must not always suppose they had a clear and distinct knowledge of what they would say themselves and that they saw all the consequences of their Opinions So that it would be perhaps in vain to endeavour to draw out of their Writings a clear Idea of their Sentiment touching the three Principles of all things because perhaps they themselves conceiv'd not clearly what they said at least their Style is so different on this Occasion from that which is observable in the Passages of their Writings wherein they speak of things which they may know that it is apparent they contain'd not the subject of the three Principles like an infinite of others which they have known how to express in an even clear and elegant manner The second thing we should observe is That in so difficult a matter we must content our selves with what they say positively without attempting to draw far-fetch'd Consequences from their Principles which we cannot understand but by halfs otherwise we are in danger of attributing to them such Notions as they never had Neither must we endeavour to reconcile in so abstracted a subject the contradictions which seem to appear in their Doctrin nor conclude that they could not mean things in such a manner because then they must contradict themselves It was the custom of these Philosophers to affect certain apparent Contradictions in using the same Terms in divers Senses Besides its obvious enough to imagine that they may have sometimes contradicted themselves on a subject whereof they had no distinct Idea These two Remarks were necessary to prevent the questions which might be offer'd on these matters and to shew that in writing the History of these Doctrins one should keep wholly to Facts and the Terms of the Authors we treat of A second Opinion of the Platonists which has made a great noise in the World is that of the Prae existence of Souls in places above the Moon (b) Vid. Plato's Timoeus of the faults which they may have there commited of their banishment from these happy Abodes to come to inhabit in differently disposed Bodies according to the different merits of these Souls in fine of their return into places whence they drew their Original We shall not trouble our selves to explain this Doctrin because it belongs not to the Relation in hand having only made mention of it for a particular Reason which will appear in its Place The Kings of Egypt and Syria having carried the Sciences of the Greeks into Asia the Jews who were in great numbers in these two Kingdoms and who were oblig'd to converse with them learnt of them their Opinions and made no difficulty of embracing those which did not appear to 'em contrary to their Religion Their Books containing nothing inconsistent with sundry of the Platonic Doctrins they believ'd therefore that these Doctrins might be true and receiv'd them so much the more easily in that they thought they might hereby defend their Religion against the Pagans and make them rellish it the better Plato every where affirm'd the Unity of the supream Being yet without denying that there are other Beings which may be called Gods to wit the Angels which is agreeable to the Expressions of the Old Testament And this is apparently one of the things which made the Jews better rellish the Opinions of this Philosopher But we should give some particular Proofs of this The Author of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon was plainly of the Opinion of the Prae existence of Souls as it appears from these Words of the viii Ch. 19 20 verses For I was a witty Child and had a good Spirit Yea rather being good I came into a Body undefiled The same Author has used the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason in some places where Plato would have used it were he to have said the same thing Thus in the 18 ch 15 16 v. in speaking of the Deliverer of the Israelites he says Thy Almighty Reason descended from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as a fierce Man of War into the midst of a Land of Destruction and brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp Sword and standing up fill'd all things with Death and it touched the Heav'n but it stood upon the Earth In the ix Ch. 1 v. He says that God has made all things by his Reason It cannot be alledg'd that he has been the only one of the Jews that has spoke in this manner seeing that Philo who liv'd a little while after our Saviour is full of the like Expressions as several of the learned have observ'd It 's known that this Author has so well imitated Plato that he has been call'd the Jewish Plato He believ'd that there was one only supream God as all the rest of the Jews do whom he calls TO ON the being through Excellency But he farther acknowledged a Divine Nature which he calls ΛΟΓΟΣ the Reason as well as Plato and another whom he calls likewise the Soul of the World His Writings are so full of these manners of speaking that there is no need of offering Instances The Jews were of these Opinions when our Saviour and his Apostles came into the World and this is perhaps the Reason why we find accordingly as it has been observ'd by several learned Men several Platonic Phrases in the New Testament especially in the Gospel of St. John It 's well known that Amelius the Platonic Philosopher having read the beginning of this Gospel remarked that this Apostle spake like Plato In effect this Philosopher might have said according to his Principles The Reason was in the beginning with God and was God She it is who hath made all things who is life and the light of Men c. We find several Passages in Philo like to this This Jewish Philosopher calls Reason the Priest the Mediator between God and Men the eldest Son of God c. wherein it is observable that he mixes his Jewish Notions with the manners of speaking of Plato He has likewise used in one Place the Term Paraclete (a) De Vit Mos p. 521. Edit Gen. Graeco Lat Intercessour in speaking of the Reason It was necessary said he that the High Priest who is to offer Sacrifices to the Father of the World should have for Intercessour him of his Sons whose Vertue is the most perfect for to obtain the pardon of Sins and abundant Graces He had said (b) ●uod det pot insid p. 137. that Moses denoted by the Manna and by the Rock of the Desert the same Reason The