Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	word_n	world_n	yield_v	174	3	6.6076	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B04263	A second part of Observations, censures, and confutations of divers errours in Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan beginning at the seventeenth chapter of that book. / By William Lucy, Bishop of S. David's.; Observations, censures, and confutations of notorious errours in Mr. Hobbes his Leviathan. Part 2	Lucy, William, 1594-1677.	1673 (1673)	Wing L3454A; ESTC R220049	191,568	301

abominable that Moses should be placed as a person in the Trinity well let us see his answer further in this place that saith he the Authour did labour to explain the Trinity was pia voluntas but erronea explicatio it was a pious desire but an erroneous explication surely it is a pious desire in any man to endeavour to explain any Divine truth out certainly it cannot be imagined that a man of his parts and learning could be so overseen in so high a Point of Divinity as to think that such a person ought to pass for the father but that he would steal a discredit of that great and most universally received truth by interposing such a cloud before it for saith he Moses because he after some manner seems to bear the person of God as do all Christian Kings he seems to make him one person of the Trinity valde negligenter this was exceeding negligently done and pittiful repentance for such a crime to blaspheme God and call man God for so must each person in the Trinity be no it looks not like repentance but a vain excuse which near upon amounts to a justification but he proceeds If saith he he had said that God in his proper person had made the world in the person of his Son had redeemed mankind in the person of the holy Ghost had sanctified his Church be had said no more then is in the Catechisme put out by the Church certainly he is much out in this saying for the Catechisme of the Church of England has no such saying as God in prop iâ personâ God in his proper person did make the world this expression propriâ personâ is not there nor I think in any confession of any Christian Church to be used for the Father all three are proper Persons no one more then other neither doth the Catechism use that very phrase Person in that whole answer for it is thus I believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world not that he made it in propriâ personâ for it was the work of the whole Trinity and the God who is the whole Trinity is the Almighty Father which made the world no one word which signifieth one person to be more proper then another Secondly in God the Son who hath Redeemed me and all mankind it is true this Redemption being a glorious effect of the Death and Sufferance of Christ which must needs be acted in his humanity which was united to his Divinity to the second Person in the Trinity hath a most proper termination in the Son so that I do yield it must be implyed that it was acted in the Son but it is not expressed and therefore although it was materially the same yet formally it was not and he said more then was in the Catechism and for the last it is not said in the Catechism that God in the Person of the Holy Ghost did Sanctify his Church but in God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the Elect People of God which although God the Holy Ghost in the Catechism be the same with the third Person yet he is not called so there and we may mark that although these three Persons are put down in the Catechisme as fountains of those great Blessings comminicated to man yet no where is any called proper person of God more then the other nor is any of those blessings appropriated to any person exclusively shutting out the other so that although it is said God the Father who made me it is not said without the Son of which abundance of Scripture affirms he made the World and Mr. Hobs dealt unhandsomly with our Catechism when he forced such a sense upon it SECT III. Another Answer Censur'd BUt perhaps he hath a better Exposition afterwards for when the Objector immediately after urged that Mr. Hobs used that Language in divers places he answered That all of them might receive that Exposition but he a little further explains himself thus Vel si dixisset or saith he if he had said God in his proper person had constituted himself a Church by the Ministry of Moses in the person of his Son had redeemed the same in the person of the holy Ghost had sanctified the same he had not erred Thus far he but it seems to me strange that both these should be without Errors for they are extreamly different in the first God in his proper person to Create the World and the second in his proper person by the Administration of Moses to constitute a Church but that phrase of in his proper person is unheard of amongst any who are not with it called Hereticks for if God the Father did any of those great works in his proper person then the Son did not operate in them which is against the whole sense of Scripture Joh. 1.3 All things were made by him and without him was nothing made that was made Of which I have treated at large in my former Piece with much more which is to be seen in every Writer upon this Subject or else the same must be the very person of the Father which is horrid Divinity or else not a proper but an improper person of the Deity which is alike hateful Then consider his next proposition that God in the person of the Son did redeem the same what is that he calls the same surely that was the Church of the Israelites only for Moses constituted no other Church then Christ Redemed them only when before in the former opposition according to our Church Cat●chisme he Redeems Mankind which is much larger then the Church which Moses constituted and then last of all when he saith that God in the person of the Holy Ghost did sanctifie the same it is too narrow for his former proposition which was that in the Person of the Holy Ghost God did Sanctifie the Church which is much larger then the Synagogue which was constituted by Moses and when he said he had not Erred if he had phrased it after that manner I say it is evident he had erred and erred grievously in expressing himself either of these ways CAP. V. Joh. 1.1 Explained I Pass now to Page 364. where at the top is objected that in his 43. Cap. he should say Joh. 1.1 that the word there and so likewise in the 14. verse doth signifie a promise and that promise is the same with the thing promised that is Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 it is Psalm 105.19 and the 40.13 and other places I will not dispute this further I have writ at large concerning this place and do answer to him both in this objection and to his Justification of it in his answer that avails him nothing towards his disgrace of the Divine Nature of this word if it should be allowed such a sense for that he was the person is evident out of his gloss and let that person be eternally with God and be God as the Text speaks that he

others in doing the like although a better man than he be joyned with him which is David and so I come to his second instance CHAP. XX. SECT III. The murther of Uriah discussed Mr Hobbs his distinction censured Killing of an innocent contrary not only to the equitable part but the very letter of the law of nature The law not the executioner kills a Criminal No power given by Uriah to David to kill him being an innocent Mr. Hobbs his errors multiplied from his fictitious institution of Soveraignes by popular election Uriah not impowered to dispose of his own life HIs words are In which and the like cases he that so dyeth had liberty to do the action for which he is nevertheless without injury put to death I have shewed the contrary it is an injury to put any man to death for that which he had liberty that is was not bound by law not to do and such a law which enjoyned such a penalty for the breach of it Again he And the same holdeth also in a Soveraign Prince that putteth to death an innocent Subject What a Tautologie is this I thought he had discoursed of a Soveraign Prince all this while if not it is more abominable I but he hath reason for what he hath delivered for sath he Though the action be against the law of nature as being contrary to equitie as was the killing of Uriah by David yet it was not an injury to Uriah but to God A very fine and delicate distinction of which I have spoke before But now concerning this language as it is used here though the action saith he be against the law of nature as being contrary to equitie First Reader consider if he take equity as many times it is for a mitigation or a gentle exposition which moderates the extream rigor of the law this surely may be deduced out of the law of nature then saith he it is against the law of nature because against the kind and charitable exposition of the law of nature only but without question killing an innocent is most directly contrary to the very letter of the law of nature and the full sence of it for although he makes nothing of the positive law of God in this discourse yet the ten commandments being by all understood to be an illustration or explication of that law writ in our hearts as he himself seems to allow hereafter therefore that law being clear Thou shalt not kill and this killing an innocent being the most detestable of all other it is most clearly not only against the equity but the letter that is that sence which the law intends for the law of nature directs and commands that vertue and vertuous men should be rewarded and incouraged and vice punished Thou shalt not kill for the satisfaction of thy passion whom the law doth not direct but if the law command killing lest the Common-wealth be hurt by so wicked a person lest vice may be nourished then the law kills not thou who art an executioner of the law And therefore to kill an innocent is a monstrous crime whom no law kills he gives an instance again as was the killing of Uriah by David yet it was not an injury to Uriah but to God yes the greatest injury could be done to him No saith he not to Uriah because the right to do what he pleased was given him by Uriah himself Shew that concession or gift from Vriah and it will go a great way to my satisfaction nay certainly there was never such a concession from Uriah or any Subject that the King shall kill him being an innocent It is not good for the Common-wealth that any have such a power because by such a wicked act the Commonwealth loseth a worthy member as was Vriah but that abominable false foundation of the only way of instituting a Common-wealth by the popular election that impossible error leads him into many more but suppose Vriah yielded such a power yea if it had been done by such a consent as he expressed yet they had no power over their own lives and therefore could not impower him over them especially when embodied into a Common-wealth for his country hath a share in every Subjects life and good subjects well-being by which it is amended and bettered so that he must needs do an injury to others by such an act for it is wrong and again all justice that man should suffer by weldoing This may suffice for the first piece of that sentence now we will examine the second CHAP. XX. SECT IV. Davids sin in murthering Uriah a sin against God because an injury to man St. Ambrose explained David his soveraignty freed from the punishment of sin but not from the guilt of it Rom. 13.4 the first epistle of St. Peter 2.14 explained The former assertions proved against Mr. Hobbs by the authority of St. Basil St. Chrysostome St. Hierom and St. Augustin The authors sence of these words tibi soli peccavi Mr. Hobbs his variation from the authority and reading of England The former conclusions recapitulated and asserted against Mr. Hobbs from the meaning of this text A And yet to God because David was Gods Subject and prohibited all iniquity by the law of nature Well now let us consider why this was iniquity for no other reason certainly but because it was injustice done to another man The law of nature prescribes all and nothing but in justice if it be towards God it is called religion which payes to God the duty which we owe him and is set down in the four first commandements of the Decalogue but all the justice which is due to man is set down in the six latter I must then tell him that that act of Murther in David was not a sin against God but only out of regard that it was an injury to man for therefore the law of nature written in mens hearts and the positive law of God was against it because it was unjust for man to do it so that the reason why it was an offence against God being only because it was an injury to man it must follow that it cannot be an injury to God but it must likewise be an injury to man I but saith he it was against God because King David was Gods subject Yet give me leave although King David was Gods subject yet it doth not follow that in murthering his fellow subjects he did no injury to them no more than the Kings subjects officers or Judges under him may be said in condemning innocent blood to injure only the King and not the person whom he so murthered it is most evident therefore that that sin was against both God and man But he brings scripture for what he writes which distinction David himself when he repented the fact evidently confirmed saying To thee only have I sinned Which text you may read Psalm 51.4 and to understand the sence of it let us reflect upon the story

man the foundation of all his duty from whence it is derived that he owes God his being soul and Body that he should be humble who was taken out of the dust and to dust he must return that he that made him can destroy him and the like which God being pretended to do no where else it is most reasonable to think it is done here CHAP. XXII SECT II. The doctrine of the new Testament and particularly the incarnation of our blessed Saviour and the manner of it not possible to be known without a revelation The truth of the incarnation evicted from the miraculous Life and Actions of our blessed Saviour and the prophecies of the Old Testament and especially of Isaias The Jewes witnesses of the truth of the Books of the Old Testament SO then this being a truth fit for a man to know it being impossible for man to know it without a revelation a man may justly be assured that it was revealed by God and so I will pass to the New Testament where we will consider the conception of the blessed Virgin as related there and so not possible to be recorded but from a divine revelation Men might be assured from the Prophets who writ before of it that there should be such a thing and that it should be about that time but that it should happen now and that this should be the Virgin which should be the mother of our Saviour that none could tell but by revelation no not she her self It is true when she found her self with child she might wonder how that should come about since she knew not man as she answered the Angel who foretold it to her Luke the 1. and the 24. but that it should be so contrived and perfected as it was by the overshadowing of the Highest this she could not have known but by a revelation But I doubt Mr. Hobbs will answer this was not so his wicked wit seems to imagine such a thing I will prove it therefore by the glorious fruit of her womb which shewed it self to arise from such a stock and living and dying as he did he could not be less than descended from such a supernatural generation Well then he was so conceived as is taught and this could not be taught but by divine revelation therefore he who taught it had divine revelation I must not spend time in particulars look upon all the Prophecies in the whole Book of God so many as their time is expired we find them all fufilled the Prophecies made to Abraham of the children of Israels long captivity in Aegypt and their extraction thence and plantation in the land of Canaan of all the great transactions of the highest affairs of the world The erection and destruction of all the great Monarchies which were punctually foretold and accomplished and foretold long before could these be foretold by any other way than by divine revelation Certainly it could not be nor can the wit of man think how it should be done Jaddus the high Priest shewed Alexander his own story foretold by Daniel Let us consider how the Prophets long before prophesied of Christ how the Prophet Isaiah writ like an antedated Evangelist differing only in these words shall and did only in the time Let us consider how not only those great and remarkable passages of his birth his miracles his death his resurrection but even such little things as the piercing of his side the parting of his garment casting lots for his vesture his burial were foretold hundreds of yeares before Let Mr. Hobbs or any other heathen tell me how these could be foretold without divine revelation But perhaps he will say as before these were not true books nor prophecies but fained since Christianity No even the Jewes themselves yet remaining in the world do consent unto them and are preserved by God a glorious witness of these truths who are the greatest enemies of Christianity CHAP. XXII SECT III. The former assertion further proved from the piety of the doctrines taught in the scriptures and excellency of the matter contained in them The power of the word of God and efficacy of Scripture above the reach of Philosophie BUt then consider the doctrines taught here they are so full of religious piety to God so full of such excellent moral conversation betwixt men that the wit of man could not invent them there must needs be divine revelation in them there was never any thing delivered by men meer men without divine revelation that had not imperfections in it he who reads the Philosophers may find it I do not love to rake their Dunghills and shew their filth but the duties taught in this book are so divine and so like God from whence they came that they are able to make a man absolutely good if practised Wherefore as a tree may be known by its fruits as the heart of man by his language so these Books may be known to be Gods by the heavenliness of the matters delivered in them which have such a power of sanctity in them as is able to make such as receive them of a more Godly disposition than other men yea than themselves at other times before they received these doctrines I could treat of a strange Metamorphosis in Saul to Paul who was a persecutor a destroyer and when converted with this doctrine accounted it joy to suffer and be persecuted for this cause As also of King David who to hide the shame of his adultery committed Murther and slept securely in his sin yet when awakened from that stupidity he was in and taught his state by the Prophet Nathan he cares for no shame of this world so God be pleased cares for nothing but the shame of his sin and made his penitence for it to be chaunted out in all ages for all Churches in the 51. Psalm So that there is a strange power and force in the word of God to turn men to godliness which no other hath And the great and mighty effects wrought by this scripture do fully evince it to be divine having divine power annexed to them Thus having shewed that the doctrines contained in scripture are fit for a man to believe they are divine and by divine revelation yea that they could not proceed from a pen which was not guided and assisted by the holy spirit we therefore may have assurance that they were such I shall come next to shew how we may be further assured from the manner of their delivery CHAP. XXII SECT IV. The second Argument from the difference of the Style of the Scriptures from the books of Philosophers The propositions and conclusions in Scripture not so much deduced from reason as asserted from the Majesty of God not disputing or endeavouring to perswade but commanding to do The rewards and punishments proposed in scripture of eternal truth impossible to be propounded or given but by God himself LEt a man look upon all the doctrines of the

should make all things and the like he must needs be that person which we conceive he ●s and referring the Reader to what I have formerly writ where the genuine sense of that word is exprest I pass to the next objection which immediately follows and crosses one conclusion of mine in this Treatise though I know not punctually where my papers being now with the Printer CAP. VI. Whether it be Lawful for a Faithful man to deny Christ Examined THe Conclusion by the Objector set down is drawn from an answer to a Question What If a faithful man should be commanded by his Prince to deny Christ what should he do he saith it is lawful to obey his Superiors by the Example of Naaman the Assyrian who was by the Prophet bid go in Peace which words saith the Objector seem to me not a permission but a form of Valediction Mr. Hobs justifies the conclusion and begins his answer fortasse perhaps it is so if he had answered any thing else either approving or disproving h●s Petition but in this place it can be understood of nothing but a Permission I will stop here for this present and examine it first what the offence was that he seems to parallel with the denying of Christ the Story is Recorded in the second Book of Kings Cap. 5. where in the 17. vers you may observe that Naaman professing thy Servant will from henceforth neither offer burnt Offerings or Sacrifice to other Gods but unto the Lord. By burnt Offerings and Sacrifice we must understand all Religious worship which was due to God for so it was to him but then in the 18. verse he begins to make a scruple that his attendance upon his Master at his Idolatrical worship may seem to be a Divine worship because it might seem to have an affinity with it and in this doubt he prays a pardon thus In this thing the Lord pardon thy Servant that when my Master goeth into the house of Rimmo● to worship there and he leaneth on my hand and I bow my self in the house of Rimmon the Lord pardon thy Servant in this thing Mark you this it was a tender nicety in this man who was but little acquainted with true Religion and but newly converted to one Article of Faith that the Lord 〈◊〉 God ●●t certainly I find not so great fault in this action as Mr. Hobs seems to do in comparing it with the denyal of Christ for first it is not said he did worship Rimmon but only that he went into the house and bowed in the house not to Rimmon but if he had I think I may boldly say that Idolatry worshiping a false God is not so bad as to deny a true one and therefore if he had worshipt Rimmon it had not been so bad as to deny Christ but I deny that he did worship or in that act shew so much as a practical Idolatry for to bow to Baal to bow to Rimmon is the sin of Idolatry not to be in the house where Baal or Rimmon was or to bow in that house which yet is all that is desired by him If Elisha had the thoughts which I have that valedictions may seem to imply a tacite assent of his to what he said he going no further in worshiping Rimmon but he proves it farther from the practise of the Primitive Church SECT II. The Canons of the Councel of Nice Examined I Will set down his words You know saith he that there were many Christians a little before the Nicene Synod good men but not most valiant who being threatned with Deaths or Torments renounced their Christianity what punishment do you think was appointed them in that general Synod at Nice In the 19. Canon of that Councel it is Decreed that be who should do that is his Phrase which is deny his Christianity without Torments or danger should return to the Catechism Here I will pause and indeed did when I read it for I was well acquainted with that Councel and the story of it but remembred no such easie Penance whereupon being not in my Study I borrowed Binnius and there found in his two first Lections no such thing in the 19. Canon of either as he speaks of or relating to it in the 11. of both the vulgar Editions and the 19. of Pisanus I did it would be tedious to transcribe the words but what is material will easily appear in the canvassing his discourse consider therefore first that in his answer to the question he said it was lawful to obey his Prince commanding to deny Christ how can any thing in this Cannon prove it to be such if it were only as he said condemning to be amongst the Catechismens this supposeth it a fault for which a man should be amongst the Catechismens this supposeth it a fault for which he should be banished the Communion and on such terms as they were it could not be unless they had thought it a hainous crime then I observe that in that Eleventh Canon as the vulgar it is said of those which prevaricated without necessity or without the taking away their goods or danger of the life as was done under the Tyranny of Lucinius here is not Mr. Hobs his case Licinius persecuted Christians severely which being discerned by many a fearful Christian they would deny Christ before they came to suffer for him rather than put themselves in that hazard just as Mr. Hobs would have men afterwards repenting of that fault they would seek admittance into Gods mercies communicated in the Church what thinks the Councel Thus although such men are adjudged unworthy of humanity yet let benevolence be administred to them or as the other Reading although they are unworthy of mercy yet let them have humanity shewed them Here you see what a severe judgment was past upon these men for this Crime that they are unworthy of any mercy in themselves who should deny Christ to flatter Princes but let us see the humanity judged fit to use towards them it is true the Church should imitate God who hath shut the Gates of Heaven to no penitent Soul but because the Church cannot have the All-seeing Eye of God to discern who is penitent but by the outward expressions therefore the Councel sets down what shall be thought a sufficient evidence of it That which he termes redire ad Catechumenos to return the Catechumens was somewhat but not half his work for saith that Councel quicunque whosoever do truly Repent let him spend three years inter audiculos amongst the hearers which were the Catechumens for they were admitted to hear the Catechistical Sermons Preached before they went to Prayers but not to the Communion of Prayers which kind of Penance too many men amongst us punish themselves with but this is not all then let him detest himself seven years more with all contrition nor hath the Councel done yet let them communicate with the people two years more in Prayer so that here