Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	call_v	good_a	great_a	3,277	5	2.6620	3	true

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

Incarnation For this account will admit the Personality of Christ to be founded first in the Humane Nature according to some of his Lordship's Criticks which he dares not contradict who place the foundation of the Sonship in the lower Nature This is strange when his Lordship says a while after that Divine Person in whom dwelt the Eternal Pag. 45. Word Which makes him as well a Person before the Incarnation as it does the second Person in the Blessed Trinity because by the Eternal Word is always understood the second Person And since his Lordship does allow him to be a Divine Person as also to be Eternal I wonder how any Man can imagine that his Lordship does not teach any distinction in the Godhead before the Incarnation or that the Personality of Christ or the foundation of the Sonship was first placed in the Humane Nature Since his calling him the Eternal Word makes him a distinct Person from the Father from all Eternity as being second of the ever Blessed Trinity and his styling him a Divine Person supposes the Personality of Christ to be first founded in the Godhead For I should have thought had I not been prejudic'd by abundance of ill Nature that Christ could be called a Divine Person only upon the account of the Godhead dwelling in Flesh and not upon any account of his Manhood For else there would be two Persons in Christ And therefore I think that the Bishop can mean nothing else but that he was a Divine Person only as he was God and consequently so before he was Incarnate because he was Eternal in the Bishop's own Expression And therefore I may positively affirm that our Author's Assertion that the Bishop's plain intention by these words was to place Christ's Personality only in his Manhood to be False and Malicious Yea but says our Author this description of the Bishop's viz. That by the Vnion of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity God and Man truly became one Person will admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity For if the Eternal Word were no Person distinct from the Father the Vnion thereof with the Humanity constitutes the Father an Incarnate Person or otherwise by this state of his Lordship's Doctrine the Father Son and the Holy Ghost may be conceived as one Incarnate Person How our Critick came to think of this Remark I can't apprehend For I never yet met with any Man that thought the Eternal Word meant the whole Trinity but that when the Eternal Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was mentioned it was always understood of the second Person And when we use that Expression we always think we have explain'd our selves as much as though we had used the Name of tho second Person in the Trinity And the Bishop does seem so plainly to mean this by it that I wonder how any Man endued with Reason could force another Interpretation of it Especially when his Lordship in the very same Page calls the Father Son and Holy Ghost Pag. ●● three Persons by name and shews how far they are distinguisht the one from the other Which Doctrine I presume is impossible ever to admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity or to make the Father Son and Holy Ghost be conceived as one Incarnate Person when at the same time the Bishop affirms them to be Three Persons Which I must leave to our Author to reconcile Nay in the same Page he has Person three times repeated which shews that he was not either afraid or unwilling to use that Expression as our Author would have us believe besides that which he applies particularly to the Incarnate Word and in every one of these he refers to the Blessed Three 1. He tells us of the Name Person being applyed to the Three 2. He shews what is meant by Person when it is applyed to the Three 3. He tells us that by explaining he does not mean that be will pretend to tell us how this is to be understood and in what respect these Persons are believed to be One and in what respect they are Three Now can any man after all this affirm that his Lordships words would lead one to a Conclusion or at least a fair Jealousie that his Lordship does not believe any Distinction really Personal between the Father Word and Holy Spirit but that the true and real Personality of Christ is proper to the Humane Nature When he has been all along asserting a Personal Distinction in the Trinity and made the Second Person in the Trinity that is the Incarnate Word Eternal as plain as words can make it I shall add to this as well as to some other of his bitter and indecent Reflections What shall be given unto thee or what shall be done unto thee thou false Tongue Oh deliver my soul O Lord from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue I have not time or if I had I should not think it well spent to take notice of every trivial Insinuation of our Author's I see no cause to believe that his Lordship has used the word Person in any different sense than what ours and the whole Catholick Church has ever used it and if at any time he has omitted it when he names the Blessed Three yet he means as much by it as the Scripture does by his endeavouring to follow as much as may be the Scripture phrase and makes them as much different as the Church does when she names the Persons And it is not only some sly Insinuations and malicious Suppositions to the contrary but direct Proofs and downright Arguments and solid Reason that can satisfie any Impartial and Inquisitive Mind I shall here beg leave to use the Bishop's own words which in his Letter to Dr. Williams he inserts as a just Reflection upon the odd Comments of the Socinians Namely That the Best and I am sure the fairest rule of Criticism is to consider the whole Thread Strain and Phraseology of a Book and not to descant upon the various significations that the words themselves taken severally may be capable of Had our Critick observ'd this Rule he would never have troubled the World with his rude and confused Notions nor have abused himself as he hath now too inconsiderately done But now let us see what our Vindicator has to urge against the Bishop's saying That the Term Person came to Pag. 11. be applied to the Three to discover those who thought that these Three were different names of the same thing which were for the most part and were generally called Patripassians and were expelled as Hereticks from the Church Now as to this he takes up two or three Pages to say nothing only to yield up the Cause and yet to censure the Bishop for saying the Truth He quotes indeed a passage or two from Tertullian and Athanasius but for any thing that they are to his purpose he might as well have quoted Aristotle or