Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	believe_v	faith_n	jesus_n	17,223	5	6.3565	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36460	The Leviathan heretical, or, The charge exhibited in Parliament against M. Hobbs justified by the refutation of a book of his entituled The historical narration of heresie and the punishments thereof by John Dowel.	Dowell, John, ca. 1627-1690.	1683 (1683)	Wing D2056; ESTC R27156	30,110	170

evident by 5 Eliz. Cap. 23 with the significavit to be added to the Writ and in that Significavit 'tis joyn'd that the Excommunication doth proceed upon some cause of some Original matter of Heresy or Error in Religion or Doctrine now received and allowed in the said Church of England whereby it appears that Persons for Heresy might be Imprisoned and so Heresy to become Criminal For it was to be punished by the civil Magistrate with Corporal Mulcts and farther lay a Writ de Heretico comburendo if nothing was declared Heresy why did their lye such a Writ That such a Writ was in force is clear by the annulling of it when this fetal Plot was detected then the Parliament made an Act to Cancel it either it was in force or not if in force the Parliament was Prudent in making it void if not it casts a reproach upon the Two Houses to annul that which was exploded That these Writs were in force is declared and that the Writ de excommunicato capiendo retains its Vigor is evinc'd by the usage of the Kingdome of England As for the Writ de Heretico comburendo it was put in execution in King James his time Legat Wightman were Burnt the one in Smith-field and the other in Litchfield for the Arrian Heresy He saith that they which approve such executions may peradventure know better grounds for them then I do But grounds are very well worthy to be enquired after but he might very well know the just grounds for them He that affirms the Law to be the Sole rule of just and unjust could not be ignorant that by the common Law of England the Writ de Heretico comburendo was valid and thereupon an Heretick might legally be Burnt My Lord Cook part 3. cap. 5. affirms that by the Books of the common Law the King Issuing our his VVrit de Heretico comburendo an Heretick ought to be Burnt That Heresy might be punished by Corporeal and pecumiary Mulcts is clear by the Queens Letters Patents authorized by the 1. Statute of her Reign She did give to the Arch Bishop of Cant. the Bishop of London and divers others any Three or more of them full Power and Authority to reforme redress order correct and amend c. and to have full Power and Authority to order and award to every such offendor by Fine Imprisonment Censure of the Church or otherways or all or any of the said ways Cawdrys Case and in that same case it is resolved by the Judges that the Statute of the First of Queen Elizabeth did not introduce any new Law but declared an ancient one The Title of the Statute being an Act restoring to the Crown the Ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual The Sovereign being the Supream head of the Church without whose Authority no person can or ought to exercise any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction or proceed to any Censure it demonstrates that by the Royal Power an Heretick might be punished with a Civil and Corporeal Mulct Farther the Star-Chamber was an ancient Court grounded upon the common Law of England and confirmed by Act of Parliament Which Court took cognizance not onely of Civil Crimes but also of Ecclesiastical and did punish Hereticks by Imprisoning Fineing and Stigmatizeing as appears by the Records of that Court and that famous Instance of Thrask who in the 16. year of King James for spreading of Judaical Heresies he was cited into the Court and being obstinate was sentenced to be set in the Pillory Whipt to the Fleet Fined and Imprisoned all which was executed by which it appears what truth there is in this assertion of Mr. Hobs During the Time the High Commission was in being there was no Statute by which an Heretick might be punished otherwise than by the ordinary Censure of the Church for 't is proved that by the Common Law of England and the Statute Law during the time of the High Commission Hereticks might suffer in their Bodies and Purses hence it follows that Heresy was criminal and he hath not vindicated himself from that contradiction with which he stands charged He farther proceeds ' That no Doctrine could be accounted Heresy unless Commissioners had actually declared and published that what was made Heresy by the Four first general Councils should be Heresie ' but I never heard yet there was any such declaration made either by Proclamation by Recording in Churches or by Printing as is requisite in Penal Laws We have before proved that the High Commission was not the Sole Judges of Heresy That which the Church and Law of England condemns for Heresy is as fully divulged as can be expected The 39. Articles are sufficiently known and those Doctrines which the Four first general Councils received as Orthodox or condemned as Heretical are ratifi'd by the Law and Church of England and sufficiently promulged The Nicene Creed which was completed by the Fourth general Council is read in every Church on Sundaies and Holy daies The Athanasian Creed is to be read at peculiar Festivals both which Creeds as also the Apostles are part of the Liturgy of the Church which is imbodyed into the Laws of the Land and that the opinions which are contrary are made Heretical appears by these Clauses of the Athanasian Creed He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity Furthermore it is Necessary to Everlasting Salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and this Clause ends the Creed This is the Catholick Faith which except a man believe Faithfully he cannot be saved The Doctrines therefore declared to be Heretical are sufficiently by Printing and Recording in Churches divulged To alleviate his Crime or at least to vindicare himself from Heresie he reflects upon our late sad distractions w ch to me administers matter of horror ' Before arms were taken up saith he the King abolished the High Commission but the Parliament pursued the Rebellion and put down both Episopacy and Monarchy erecting a power by them called a Common wealth by others the Rump which men obeyed not out of Duty but Fear ' those actions were dreadfull and are the fontinels of all those fears which now afflict us The just principles by which Government is formed and established and reasonable laws are enacted deservedly reprove and condemn those actions perpetrated in our late confusions which gave a scandall to our Religion and Nation But how can he cast an odium upon those actions his sentiments justifie Saith he ' there were no humane Laws left in force to restrain any man from Preaching or Writing any Doctrine concerning Religion that he pleased And in this time it was that a book called the Leviathan was writ in defence of the Kings Power Spiritual or Temporal without any word against Episcopacy or against Bishop or against the publick Doctrine of the Church ' To which t is thus Replyed ' the Leviathan was impressed 1651 and come out

Hermogines not from the recited proposition but his own contrarietys the same may be applyed to what he disputes against Marchiaean Apelles and Praxeas Therefore against Mr. Hobs I may be confident to averr that Tertullian never attempts the refuting Apelles or any other Heretick in his time from this Topick whatsoever was not Corporeal was a Phantasme T is true the Nicene Fathers went to establish one Individual God in Trinity to abolish the diversity of Species in God and t is not true that they did not intend to destroy the distinction of here and there for the Council in explaining the word did say that it could not be understood of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Essence of God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the discourse is not concerning the intent of the Council Since the Council judged the nature of God to be Immaterial and Incorporeal they did conclude that an Incorporeal Substance was not a contradiction therefore the holy Fathers must needs have thought that God had no extended parts nor any sort of parts and therefore not be considered as here and there What a force is don by him to the Apostles question St. Paul asks the Corinthians Is Christ divided which he thus interprets ' He did not think they thought him impossible to be considered as having hands and feet but that they might think him alluding to the manner of the Gentiles one of the sons of God but not the only begotten Thus expounded in Athanasius his Creed Not Confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance i. e. God is not divided into 3 Persons Peter James and John nor are the 3 Persons one and the same Person ' T is granted that the Fathers intended the last but it is denied that they had any such intent by not dividing the Substance to have a respect unto various Individuals for in that division the Persons substances are divided the Substances are different and not the same but in the persons of the Individual Trinity the Substance is the same And in created beings the Persona of every Individual is really distinct not onely from the essence and person of another Individual but from the Substance in which it doth subsist which appears in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ who assumed not the Person but Nature of Man but the mistery being great above all the understanding and apprehension of man it is rather the object of Faith than Reason My main undertaking against Mr. Hobs in this Tract is not to illustrate or prove the meaning but to manifest that he has not cleared himself of the contradiction and that in his attempts he throws himself into new absurdities one of which is this Paragraph ' But Aristotle and from him all the Greek Fathers and other learned men when they distinguish the general latitude of a word they call it division as when they divide the Animal into Man and Beast they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Species and when they again divide the Species Man into Peter and John they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partes individuae And by this confounding the division of the Substance with the distinction of words divers men have been led into Error of attributing to God a name which is not the name of any Substance at all viz. Incorporeal ' 'T is true that the Philosophers when they divide Animae or the Genus into Men or Beasts they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Species but when they again divide the Species Man into Peter and John they never call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Partes Individuae for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are partes dividuae therefore Individua are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what sence there is in his deduction I 'le give when I understand it There is a substance which is Incorporeal the Philosophers were led into that truth by observing the operations of some beings which are not Corporeal where it must needs follow that these essences are Incorporeal and by some other Arguments but that they should be led into this which he calls an Error by confounding the division of Substance with the distinction of words is a thing far from Truth and any conception of mine ' Many Heresies which were Antecedent to the first general Council were condemned as that of Manes he might have added Marcion by the first article I believe in one God ' This was not directed onely against them but also against the polutheisme of the Heathens ' tho to me it seems still to remain in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which so attributes a liberty of the will to men as that their will and purpose to commit sin uot should proceed from the cause of all things God but originally from themselves or from the Devil ' Indeed Marcion and Manes attributed Sin to an evill God but the Church of Rome the Church of England and all other Churches look upon that Opinion as Heretical why this Doctrine of the Liberty of the will is to remain in the Church of Rome this is to palliate This Doctrine continues in the Church of England and in all the Churches of Christ The Devil does vehemently tempt to sin but he is not the cause of sin hence that good Axom is received by all knowing men No body is injured but by himself that which is properly an Evil is the Evil of Sin which our selves only can inflict upon us but how comes it to pass that this Doctrine of the Liberty of the Will should be opposed by this Article I believe in one God they who maintain that Doctrine firmly believe this Article They say that the one true God is infinitely glorious in all perfections amongst which is the Liberty of his will he created all things amongst which he created Rational beings which he endowed with the Liberty of Will whereby they are made capable of being vertuous and so to be rewarded or vitious and so to be punished where is there by this sentiment a setting up another God by God he means one first Cause which necessarily moved from all eternity from which necessary cause there flows an infinite concatenation of necessary causes whence if any say that there is a Liberty of the Will he must assigne another first Cause and from thence oppose this Article I believe in one God we say there is but one first Cause and that a free Agent whence springs the Liberty of Rational Beings By the account which Mr. Hobs gives of God and by several of his opinions it must be concluded that he believes there is no God One of his sayings is He that saith there is no mind in the World hath no mind This is a gingling quibble besides many gross absurdites with w ch his opinion is charged this is no mean one God is the Author of Sin to which he replys Leviath cap. 46. by this distinction God is not the