Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	command_v	day_n	sabbath_n	10,415	5	9.9260	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53737	A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux wherein the principles of the Roman church, as to moderation, unity and truth are examined and sundry important controversies concerning the rule of faith, papal supremacy, the mass, images, &c. discussed / by John Owen.	Owen, John, 1616-1683.	1664 (1664)	Wing O822; ESTC R17597	313,141	517

The first beginning of their use arising from Heathens as Eusebius declares Lib. 7. cap. 18. But if you intend your Roman Catholick Councils and Practice your Assertion is as devoid of Truth as any thing you can possibly utter What kind of Assistance in devotion these your sacred Figures do yield we shall anon consider It is added in the Animadversions that it was God who appointed these Cherubims to be made and placed where they were never seen of the people and that his special dispensation of a Law constitutes no general rule so he commanded his people to spoil the Aegyptians though he forbid all men to steal This was said on supposition that they were Images or adored both which I shewed to be false And it is the answer given by Tertullian When he was pleading against all making up of pictures which we do not Now do you produce Gods special command for the makeing use and veneration of your Images and this contest will soon be at an end But whereas God who commanded these Cherubims to be made hath severely interdicted the making of Images as to any use in his worship unto us what conclusion you can hence draw I see not To this you reply in a large discourse wherein are many things Atheological I shall briefly pass through what you say Thus then you begin We must know you as well as I that God who forbids men to steal did not then command to steal as you say he did when he bad his People spoil the Aegyptians under the species of a loan Malum omen You stumble at the threshold Did I say that God commanded men to steal porrige frontem the words of the Animadversions lay before you when you wrote this and you could not but know that you wrote that which was not true This immorality doth not become any man of what Religion soever he be Stealing denotes the pravity of taking that which is another mans This God neither doth nor can command for the taking of that which formerly belonged unto another is not stealing if God command it for the reason which your self have stumbled on as we shall see afterwards The Aegyptians were spoyled by Gods Command but the People did not steal for his Command who is the Soveraign Lord of all things the great possessor of Heaven and earth dispenced with his Law of one mans taking that which before belonged unto another as to that particular whereunto his Command extended in reference whereunto stealing or the pravity of that act of alienation consists and so it is in other Cases It is murder for a Father to slay his Son Neither can God command a man to murder his Son and yet he commanded Abraham to slay his To so little purpose is your following attempt to prove that the Hebrews did not steal and that God did not command them to steal which ●ou fancied or rather feigned to be asserted in the Animadversions that you might make a pretence of saying something so that it had been much better to have passed over this whole matter with your wonted silence which relieves you against the things which you despair of returning a reply unto You say the Hebrews might have right to those few goods they took in satisfaction for their long oppression and it may be their own allowance was not paid them But this right whatever it may be pretended was only ad rem a general equity which they had no warrant to put in execution by any particular instance And therefore you add Secondly Because it is a thing of danger that any servant should be allowed to right himself by putting his hand to his Masters Goods though his Case of wrong be never so clear therefore did the Command of God intervene to justifie their action But why do you call this a thing of danger only is it not of more then danger even expresly sinfull Then is a thing morally dangerous when there may be sin in it not when unavoidably there is then indeed there is danger of punishment or rather certainty of it without repentance but we do not say then there is danger of sinning It may be you do it to comply with your Casuists who have determined that in some Cases it is lawful for a servant himself to make up his wrongs out of his Masters Goods which caused your friends some trouble as you know in the Case of John de Alva You proceed and insist upon the Command of God proceeding from his Soveraignty and Lordship over all warranting the Hebrews to take the Aegyptians goods and so spoil them and that rightly But this say you can no way be applyed unto Images nor could God command the Hebrews to make any Images if he bad absolutely forbidden to have any at all made Sir This is not our Case God forbad the Hebrews to make any images so as to bow down to them in a way of Religious Worship and yet might command them to make Hieroglyphical representations of his care and watchfulness and to set them up where they might not be worshipped But let us suppose that you speak ●d idem and pertinently let us see how you prove what you say For this say you concerns not any affair between neighbour and neighbour whereof the Supreme Lord hath absolute dominion but the service only and ●●ration due from man to his Maker which God being absolutely good and immutably true cannot 〈◊〉 dispense with Nor doth it stand with his nature and Deity to change dispence or vary the first table of his Law concerning himself as he may the 〈◊〉 which concerns neighbours for want of that 〈◊〉 ever himself which h● hath over any crea●●● 〈◊〉 away its right to preserve or destroy it 〈…〉 pleaseth and therefore you conclude that 〈…〉 his people to set up no Images 〈…〉 h●ve commanded them to set up any be●●● 〈◊〉 would imply a contradiction in himself A very 〈◊〉 Theol●gical discourse which might bec●●● one of the Angelical or Seraphical Doctors of your Church But who I pray told you that the●e was the same resason of all the Commands of the 〈◊〉 Table Vows and Oaths are a part of the worship of God 〈◊〉 in the third Commandment yet 〈◊〉 God can do your Pope takes upon himself 〈◊〉 dispense with them every day He so dispe●●ed with the Oath of Ladis●aus King of Hunger●● made in his Peace with the Turks to the extream danger of his whole Kingdom the irrep●rable loss and almost ruine of all Christendom So he dispensed with the Oath of Henry the Second of France which ended in his expulsion out of Italy his loss of the famous Battail at St. Quintins and the danger of his whole Kingdom The strict Observation of the Sabbath by the Jews was commanded unto them in a Precept of the first Table and w●s not a matter between neighbours but belonged immediately to the worship of God himself according to your Divinity God could not dispense

with them to do any labour that day But our Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us that by his Command the Priests were to labour on that day in killing the Sacrifice by vertue of an after exception And your Book of Macchabees will inform you that the whole people judged themselves dispensed withal in case of imminent danger The whole fabrick of Mosaical worship was a thing that belonged immediately to God himself aod was not a matter between neighbours which had its foundation in the second Commandment and yet I suppose you will grant that God hath altered it changed it and taken it away So excellent is your Rule as to all the precepts of the first Table which indeed holds only in the first Command Things that naturally and necessarily belong to the dependance of the rational creature on God as the first Cause last End and Supreme Lord of all are absolutely indispensable which are in general all comprized as to their nature in the first precept wherein we are commanded to receive him alone as our God and consequently to yield him that obedience of faith love honour which is due to him as God but the outward modes and wayes of expressing and testifying that subjection and obedience which we owe unto him depending on his arbitrary institution are changeable dispensable and lyable to be varied at his pleasure which they were at several seasons before the last hand was put to the Revelation of his will by his Son And then though God did absolutely forbid his people the making of images as to any use of them in his Worship and Service he might by particular exception have made some himself or appointed them to be made and have designed them to what use he pleased from whence it would not follow in the least that they who were to regulate their obedience by his command and not by that instance of his own particular exception unto his institution might set up any other images for the same end and purpose no more then they might set up other Altars for Sacrifice besides that appointed by him when he had commanded that they should not do so Supposing then that which is not true and which you can give no colour of proof to namely that the Cherubims were Images properly so called and set up by Gods command to be adored Yet they were no less still under the force of his prohibition against the making of Images then if he had never appointed any to be made at all It was no more free for them to do so then it is for you now under the New Testament to make five Sacraments more of your own heads because he hath appointed two So unhappy are you in the Confirmation of your own supposition which yet as I have shewed you is by no means to be granted And this is the substance of your plea for this practice and usage of your Church which whether it will justifie you in your open transgression of so many express Commands that lye against you in this matter the day that shall discover all things will manifest You proceed to the vindication of another passage in your Fiat from the Animadversions upon it with as little success as the former you have attempted Fiat Lux sayes God forbad forreign Images such as Moloch Dagon and Astaroth but he command his own Sir Moloch and Astaroth were not Images properly so called whatever may be said of Dagon the one was the Sun the other the hoast of Heaven or the Moon and Stars but the Animadversions say that God forbad any likeness of himself to be made they do so and what say you to the contrary why You may know and consider that the Statues and graven Images of the Heathen towards whose land Israel then in the wilderness was journeying were ever made by the Pagans to represent God and not any devils although they were deluded in it But 1. Your good friends will give you little thanks for this concession whose strongest plea to vindicate themselves and you from Idolatry in your image worship is that the Images of the Heathen were not made to represent God but that an Idol was really and absolutely nothing 2. God did not forbid the people in particular the making Images unto Molock Dagon or Astaroth but prohibits the worshipping of the Idols themselves in any way but he forbids the making of any Images and similitudes of himself in the first place and of all other things to worship them But what of all this why then say you there was good reason that the Hebrews who should be cautioned from such snares should be forbidden to make to themselves any similitude or likeness of God Well then they were so forbidden this is that which the Animadversions affirmed before and Fiat Lux denyed affirming that they were the ugly faces of Moloch that were forbidden Moses say you p. 294. forbad prophane and forraign images but he commanded his own but here you grant that God forbad the making of any similitude or likeness of himself the reason of it we shall not much dispute whilest the thing is confessed though I must inform you that himself insists upon another and not that which you suggest which you will find if you will but peruse the places I formerly directed you unto But say you what figure or similitude the true God had allowed his people that let them hold and use untill the fulness of time should come when the figure of his substance the splendor of his glory and only image of his nature should appear and now since God hath been pleased to shew us his face pray give Christians leave to keep and honour it I presume you know not that your discourse is Sophistical and Atheological and I shall therefore give you a little light into your mistakes 1. What do you mean by figure or similitude that the true God had allowed his people Was it any figure or similitude of himself not of Moloch which you were speaking of immediately before and which your following words interpret your meaning of where you affirm that in the fulness of time he hath given us the image of himself have you not denyed it in the words last mentioned have you no regard how you jumble contradictions together so you may make a shew of saying something Do you intend any other likeness or similitude why then do you deal sophistically in using the same expression to denote diverse things 2. It is Atheological that you af●●●● Christ to be the image of the nature of God He is and is said to be the image of his fathers person Heb. 1. 2. And when he is said to be the image of the invisible God the term God is to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Person of the Father and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the nature or substance or essence of God 3. Christ is the essen●eal image of the Father in his Divine nature in