Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	lamb_n	life_n	name_n	3,669	5	5.9066	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45406	A continuation of the defence of Hvgo Grotivs, in an answer to the review of his annotations whereto is subjoyned a reply to some passages of the reviewer in his late book of schisme, concerning his charge of corruptions in the primitive church, and some other particulars / by H. Hammond ...	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1657 (1657)	Wing H529; ESTC R17947	36,523	52

to the washing of the soule Which words are certainly of competent largenesse to contain and so exclude not the doctrine of satisfaction that being of the number of those things which in Gods counsel were appointed and so required to the washing of our souls This being considered it will be no prejudice to that learned man that in the former words he took in Socinus's interpretation of morte suâ certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quae docuerat quae talia sunt ut nihil sit aptius ad purgandos à vitiis animos For of that there is no question but that Christ by his death did give us assurance of the truth of his doctrine and that this assurance is very apt to purge us from our evil and vitious courses In respect of which purgation Saint Paul himself saith Tit. 2. 4. that Christ gave himself that is surely even to dye for us that he might redeem us from all in quity the power as well as guilt of it and purifie unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works And Gal. 1. 4. he gave himself for our sins and thereby I suppose made a satisfaction for us that he might deliver us from this present evil world from the vices and abominations thereof And Eph. 5. 25. Christ gave himself for the Church that he might sanctifie and cleanse it that he might present it unto himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing From whence I conclude that the Socinians errour consists not herein that they affirm this but that they say this is all that Christ did by his death and so exclude his satisfaction which can by no means be affirmed of Grotius who as he wrote a Book in defence of it so in this very place ascribes to Christ the performing omnia all things indefinitely which were required to the washing of our souls from which number his expiatory sacrifice was never excluded by Grotius 28. And then it may be fit to be remembred that as the denying the satisfaction of Christ is one great errour justly charged on the Socinians so the confining the effects of the death of Christ to that one head of satisfaction is an errour also very carefully to be averted by him that desires to reap benefit by Christs death 29. After his view of this place he is pleased to prevent the Readers farther trouble to refer him to Grotius's Annotation on one place more of the Revelation chap. 13. 9. and I have observed his directions and can assure him there is not there one word to this matter Onely that Arethas rightly applies the phrase from the foundation of the world to the word book not to the word slain evincing it from the parallel place chap. 17. 8. where so it is joyned Whose names are written in the book of life from the foundation of the world the book of life in one place and the book of life of the lamb slain or the slain lambs book of life in the other being perfectly aequipollent 30. The remainder of the Catalogue of Texts that is added is all again out of the Epistles and so hath already more then once been accounted for by denying the Annotations on them to have been perfected by Grotius And this is all that need to be considered in reference to the first branch of the suggestion that concerning the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ 31. On the second Socinian head of doctrine that concerning the Deity of Christ whereon the Disputer had affirmed that of all the texts of the Old and New Testament whereby the Deity of Christ is usually confirmed Grotius hath not left any more then one if one speaking any thing clearly to this purpose I thought I had given some matter of conviction by referring to that learned man's Annotations on John 1. when both that one signal text is left by him speaking clearly to this purpose and many other places of Scripture are mentioned and interpreted and applied to the same sense as parallel and answerable to that To this he replies that this of John 1. was the one place by him expresly excepted and therefore this instance would not evade the charge And for the other places Prov. 8 c. he is pleased to suppose that on the view of my defence men must needs suppose that in the Annotations on the places repeted Grotius must give their sense as bearing witness to the Deity of Christ Hereupon he will turn to the several places and give the Reader an account of them 32. But before he proceed to that and to save the pains of many of them it may be soon considered that what Grotius doth in the Notes on John 1. is as truly his act as any thing that is done by him in any other place much more so than what is publisht under his name in the Annotations on the Epistles and consequently that as many places as he hath there affirmed to be parallel to John 1. 1. so many places he hath left speaking clearly to this purpose Grotius had not at that time publisht any other Notes on any part of the Bible but those onely on the Gospels On the rest of the New Testament he never lived to publish any yet here on John 1. hath affirmed the words of Saint Paul Col. 1. 16. all things were created by Christ to be agreeable to the words of Saint John that without him was nothing made that was made Is it not now as visible that he hath left that place of Col. 1. 16. speaking clearly to the Deity and creative power of Christ by which all things were at first made as if he had lived to set out Annotations purposely on that place and had therein so interpreted it This certainly is so clear that I cannot yet doubt what ever the Reviewers sarcasme would suggest of being a successful advocate in this matter 33. The same is again as clear of 2 Pet. 3. 5. and of the two places brought by him in concent with it from the Chaldee Paraphrast on Isai. 45. 12. 48. 13. to testifie that by this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. by the word of the Lord Christ the whole world was founded which again though he never should mention them again in all his writings are yet solemnly left by him to testifie clearly to the Deity of Christ And so more than that one of John 1. 34. But the place more largely recited by Grotius to this purpose is that of Prov. 8. from verse 23. A seculo habui principatum I was set up from everlasting to verse 27. when he prepared the heavens I was there And this the Reviewer thinks fit to examine by repairing to his Annotations on the Old Testament and there 1. he finds his first note on the Wisdome there spoken of to be Haec de eâ sapientiâ quae in lege apparet exponunt Hebraei sane ei si non soli at

A CONTINUATION OF THE DEFENCE OF HVGO GROTIVS IN AN ANSWER TO The Review of his ANNOTATIONS Whereto is subjoyned a REPLY to some passages of the REVIEWER in his late Book of Schisme concerning his charge of Corruptions in the Primitive Church and some other particulars By H. Hammond D. D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy. Lane M. DC LVII To the STATIONER Mr Royston I Have been so often called on for the Reply to the Review of Grotius's Annotations that I am at length inclined to change my former purpose and permie those few sheets prepared as soon as the Review came to my hands but then laid aside on a perswasion that they might be safely spared to follow the former on that subject rather then deny to any so easie a request I am Your Friend H. H. Septemb. 4. 1656. A CONTINVATION OF THE DEFENCE OF HVGO GROTIVS In ANSWER to the REVIEW of his Annotations 1. IF he that hath read the Review of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius which is offered as a Reply to the second Defence of that learned man seem from thence to have any new scruples infused into his mind it will not cost him many minutes to deposite them by observing with me this method 2. First by adverting on the first head that of the satisfaction of Christ not onely what fair and large characters of his thoughts lie legible to all men in his Book De satisfactione written on purpose against Sosinus on this subject but also how those have been since back'd with indubitable evidences of a later and fresher date taken from his own express words in his Discussio the last thing he wrote and in a letter under his own hand dated after the time of his surmised change written on purpose to forest all this surmise and to assure us of his constant adhering to that sense which he had delivered in his Book De satisfactione Which two as they are most irresrugable proofs of the matter in hand being testimonies of him that certainly best knew his own thoughts whether he were changed or no so to neither of these is the least word of Reply here offered by the Reviewer and so stand in full force against all that is here suggested 3. Secondly by remembring that from the a beginning of this debate the posthumous Annotations on the Epistles were expresly renounced and reiected by me as departing manifestly from the judgment of that learned man formerly expressed in those writings which he had completed and published in his life time and consequently as unsufficient arguments or testimonies of his change when produced against his own repeted and express declarations to the contrary And yet from these are the proofs now principally brought in this Review and by the contrariety betwixt these and his Book De satisfact his change concluded with what appearance of reason the Reader will soon discern when he hath considered the premisses and what shall now occasionally be added thereto 4. For this manner of dealing two things onely are pleaded in the Review which here must be regarded before I proceed 1. That the Accuser having to deal with that book of Annotations that goes under his name If they are none of his it is neither on the one hand or other of any concernment to him 5. To this I reply first that it is in the Reviewer a manifest diversion a course which is sure to render all debates infinitet In my answer to his Preface of Animadversions on Iguntius's Epistles c. I inserted ex abundanti one and onely one Digression A Defence of the learned H. Grotius And streightwayes the whole stream of the Controversie is diverted into that one narrow chanel removed from the question of Episcopacy to the inquiry into Grotius's his opinions and that is one compitent diversion After this when both in that my Digression and also in my second Defence I had confined my plea to Grotius himself and those writings published by him in his life time and known to be written and perfected by him expresly rejecting this book of posthumous Annotations on the Epistles the Reviewer is now pleased principally to insist and found his charge against Grotius on those his posthumous Annotations which is a perfect diversion again instead of a reply and to the waving evidently because changing of the whole question 6. Secondly as uneffectual at this plea it it is yet much more unreasonable if circumstances be considered being evidently prevented and superseded by that which hath past in this debate For if there were any truth in those words of his Epistle to the Oxford Heads My Defensative as to my dealing with Grotious's Annotations is suited to what the Doctor pliads in his behalf then certainly he must be concern'd in this which yet he resolves to be none of his concernments For it is sure that my plea was framed in Defence of Grotius himself not of those incomplete if not false images of him those parts of the Annotations which I professed to reject and not to plead for Accordingly my words in the first proposal of this matter to debate were these This very pious learned and judicious man hath of late among many fallen under a very unhappy Fate being most unjustly calumniated sometimes as a Socinian sometimes as a Papist And then how can this Defensative be according to his promise conformed or suited to my plea if it refer not to the same subject viz. to Grotius or those Books of his which are acknowledged to be his completed genuine writings such alone being competent testifications of his sense and so measures to judge of his perswasions whether he were a Socinian or no 7. A second part of his plea is by reflecting again on that evidence which saith he he had formerly offered from the Printers Preface to the volume of Annotations on the Epistles But here in the very entrance is a mistake which for the clearing of my self more then on apprehension of any advantage the Reviewer can gain by it I must first take notice of The Evidence was by him b cited from some words of the Preface to the last part of the Annotations beginning thus Jam vero sciendum est To those words there found I gave answer in my second Defence p. 7. and he now tels me that a slight in spection will serve to manifest how ill it i. e. my answer or the sense I gave of the words produced agrees with the intention and words of the Prefacer who saith he tells us that Grotius had himself published his Annotations on the Gospel five years before and so proceeds reciting the words of the Prefacer for eight lines together and concluding that if the Apologist read this Preface he ought to have desisted from the plea insisted on If he did not he thought assuredly he had much reason to despise them with whom he had to do Who would not think