Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	covenant_n	old_a	testament_n	1,680	5	9.6229	5	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

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