Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	greek_a	latin_a	translation_n	3,103	5	9.6519	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82528	A friendly debate on a weighty subject: or, a conference by writing betwixt Mr Samuel Eaton and Mr John Knowles concerning the divinity of Iesus Christ: for the beating out, and further clearing up of truth.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.; Knowles, John, fl. 1646-1668.	1650 (1650)	Wing E121; Thomason E609_16; ESTC R205964	49,997	66

Prince of Peace This lection Calvin mentions and knowing that the words may admit of this construction the verb being of a neutral as wel as a passive signification speaks in objecting no more then this Quorsum tot epitheta in Deum Patrem hoc loce congesta forent Calv. Instit l. 1. Cap. 13. p. 35. That is To what end should so many epithets be heaped together in this place on God the Father when the purpose of the Prophet was to adorn Christ with famous titles which might build up our faith in him Wherefore 't is no doubt but that by the same reason he is now called The strong God as a little before Immanuel Others there be that give those Titles typically to King Hezekiah Amongst whom Et vocabitur nomen ejus In Hebraeo est vocabit Supple quisque Notum autem Hebraeis dici sic vel sic vocari aliquem cui tales tituli aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveniunt Hugo Grot. in loc that learned man Hugo Grotius is one whose Annotations on the place be pleased to take And his name shall be called Every one that 's supply'd shall call him Now 't is known to the Hebrews that any one is thus named or called thus to whom such titles or epithets do agree Wonderful For those very excellent vertues which shall be in him Counsellor mighty God Yea rather one that asketh counsel of the mighty God One that in all businesses seeks counsel from God to wit by the Prophets The Father of an age One who should leave after him many posterities and for a long time 2. But were it granted that the Text speaks onely of Jesus Christ yet would not the thing in question be thence concluded Because that the Titles amount not to so much as most high God which are the terms of the Question Ael Gibbor Mighty God is not so much as Ael Shaddai Almighty God by which the most High is called Gen. 17.1 And both these terms are communicable to the Creature Ael is used Psal 82.1 Aelohim standeth in the assembly of Ael which is translated the mighty but is the same with this in Isaiah Englished God That it is here attributed unto Magistrates appears from the Septuagint reading these words thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God standeth in the assembly of gods the Magistrates in Israel And the other epither mighty is given to the Captains of Nebuchadnezzar's Army Ezek. 32.12 if we consult with the Septuagintversion where the words are thus read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strong God to which is exegetically added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord to expound it or with Symmachus and Theodoret with whom the words are thus rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is strong mighty putting a Comma between the words as Montanus doth in his Interlinial Bible we shal not find so much strength in the words as some suppose to bear up the Doctrine now in dispute Now for this Title Everlasting Father 1. Our Translation differs from most if not all both Greek and Latine Versions The Septuagint thus renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Father of Eternity life or world to come Sym. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Father of the world Theod. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is from the Hebrew word for word and may be thus Englished A Father unto posterity Hierome pater futuri saeculi in the Margin but in the Line pater aeternitatis a Father of Eternity to which Tremellius and Piscator agree Now the reason saith Paraem why he is called a Father of Eternity is because he is the Authour of Eternal life 2. Our Translation gain-says a main part of the Common opinion It is the Doctrine of our Divines that the Persons in the Trinity may be distinguished but not divided nor confounded The Person of the Father say they is not the Person of the Son nor is the Son the Father c. Now there is but one Everlasting Father But if Christ be the Everlasting Father either there are two Everlasting Fathers or the Person of the Father and the Son are confounded 3. But in the last place were it granted that those titles belong to Christ onely and that they are equivalent with that of Most High God yet will it not of necessity follow that Jesus Christ is the Most High God 1. Because titles may be translated from one to another to whom they properly do not belong Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar King of Kings Dan. 2.37 In the Old Testament 't is a usuall thing for Angels and Men who did represent God to bear his Name 2. Because enough may be found in the Text to distinguish this glorious one who bears those glorious names from the Most High God 1. In that those titles of glory are given to the Childe that should be born which was the Man Christ Jesus without making mention of any other nature v. 6. 2. In that the Person to whom those titles appertain is called a Son and is said to be given Vnto us a Childe is born unto us a Son is given c. which notes out another person and one greater for he that gives is greater then he that 's given for none but Superiours can give or dispose of others 3. Because there is another spoken of in the Text who is exalted above him to whom those titles belong by a name more noble Iehovah of Sabbaoth or Hosts which by the Apostle from Esay 6.3 is translated Lord Almighty Rev. 4.8 and given to him that sits on the Throne who is distinguished from the Lamb chap. 5.13 And in that all those things spoken of the Son are appropriated to another as the Author thereof The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform or doe this v. 7. Now I shall close up the Answer with an Exposition that a learned godly man gives of the place His words are these Vnto us a Childe is born unto us a Son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called WONDERFUL by reason of his exaltation which is so strange and wonderful that even the greatest part of Christians cannot believe it and therefore imagine another nature in Christ besides his Humane Nature as thinking a man uncapable of so transcendent an exaltation COUNCELLOUR In being made acquainted with all the Councels of God MIGHTY GOD by reason of the Divine Empire over all things both in Heaven and Earth conferred on him by the Father agreeably whereunto Paul calleth him God over all blessed for evermore Rom. 9.5 A Father of the age In being the Authour of the age to come as both the Septuagint and old Latin Interpreter expound it or else a Father of Eternity in being Authour of Eternal Life to all that obey him For to render the words as the English Translators do who here call Christ the Everlasting Father is to confound the Person of the Son with that of the Father and so to introduce

Sabellianism Your Third Scripture is Tit. 3.13 Tit. 3.13 which I shall pass over till I come to your second paper where it is brought forth in a more formal way and with an appearance of greater strength THat which follows is 1 Iohn 5.20 1 Iohn 5.20 This is the true God and eternall life Answ Christ is the most high God in that he is as you suppose here called the true God The words I confess at the first blush seems to stand on your side but if well considered they speak not a word for your cause for they relate not to the Son but to the Father onely First if we consider these words this is the true God and eternal life as an intire body of themselves not having dependance on the words immediately preceding as probably they have not being by a full point separated from them then they are the Epitome Abridgement or summe of the whole Epistle And so the Apostles mind seems to be this This Father which I have in this my Epistle treated of is the true God and this Iesus Christ of whom I have spoken and in whom ye have believed is eternal life that is the way to it Secondly but were it granted that these words This is the true God do depend on the foregoing words yet will it not of necessity follow that the Son not the Father is the Antecedent to the Relative this and so that the sentence must be thus understood This Son is the true God In the precedent words there is mention made of the Father And we know saith the Apostle that the Son of God is come i. e. We Believers assuredly know that the Son of God is already come in the flesh notwithstanding many at this time gain-say and deny it And hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true and this Jesus Christ being in the bosome of the Father and having received from him the promise of the spirit hath anointed the eyes of our mindes that we might savingly know him that is true that is the true God as some Greek Copies have it And we are in him that is true c. If with Erasmus and Tindal we read the words thus and we are in him that is true through his Son Jesus Christ the meaning is this We have not only an apprehension of but also union and communion with him who is the true God by the means of his Son Jesus Christ But if we follow Piscator the words hold out that oneness and fellowship which the Saints have with the Father and his Son Jesus For thus he would have them read And we are in him that is true to with the Father and in his Son Iesus Christ But last of all if we consent with Hierome who by making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a redundant hath them thus and we are in this true Son Iesus Christ they speak only of that oneness we have with Christ Now the words that follow relate to the Father This is the true God The Apostle intends the Father But because his assertion is contrary to many mens interpretation take for the backing of it these few Reasons 1. Because the Text will Grammatically bear it for the words may be thus rendred That is the true God and so the Antecedent to the Relative is not the Person immediatly foregoing which is Jesus Christ but another spoken of at a farther distance to wit the Father 2. Because Jesus Christ no where in the Scripture is called the true God and therefore is it the more questionable whether he be so called here the place being somewhat doubtful and ambiguous 3. Because the Father is called the true God distinct from the Son 1 Thess 1.9 10. For they themselves shew of us what manner of entring in we had unto you and how ye turned to God from Idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Iesus which delivered us from the wrath to come It is evident from this Text that the Father distinct from the Son is called the living and true God and therefore is it probable that in the Text under Examination the Father onely is intended in this expression this is the true God 4. Because the Father is called the onely true God John 17.3 And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ Here the Father is called the onely true God and so the Son is excluded from being the true God and therefore of necessity in 1 Iohn 5.20 The Father onely is intended THe Text which comes next to be scanned Ier. 23 6. is Ier. 23.6 And this is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness Hence is gathered that Iesus Christ is the most High God because the incommunicable name Jehovah is attributed to him Answ First that it is a probable conjecture that our English Translators saw not this Mystery wrapt up in the name Jehovah In that they do not here follow their usuall custome in giving the Hebrew name for they read not Jehovah but the Lord our righteousness Yea that the Apostles themselves were ignorant of the use where unto the name Jehovah is put by you and others For though we have in the New Testament Hebrew names yet Jehovah appears not there but in stead thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord which is a common name Against this you once objected That the name Iehovah cannot be exprest in the Greek language But to me this seems not true for there is no letter in Iehovah which the Greeks want but may be found in other names which in the New Testament are rendred in imitation of the Hebrew as Iacob Abraham David And it cannot but seem strange that that name which cannot as you say be expressed in the Greek language by which the Old and New Testament was published to the greatest part of the world should be a foundation for that which you call a truth fundamental Secondly that it is not an undeniable consequent that Jesus Christ is the Most High God because called Iehovah for although the name may most properly belong to the most High God yet 't is communicated in the Scripture unto creatures To Angels frequently Gen. 19.24 Then Iehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from Iehovah out of Heaven That is the Angel which did sustain the name of Iehovah he rained c. If credit may be given to some the title Iehovah is in this of Ieremiah appropriated to the people of Israel and Iudah They read the words thus and this is the name which they shall call it to wit the people Iehovah our righteousness that is God hath done well for us In Ier. 33.16 the people of Ierusalem and Iudah in the letter but according to a Mysticall sense the Church of Christ is called Iehovah our righteousness

proportion betwixt one meer man dying for sin and many men sinning and deserving death each of them for the sins they have committed And how an Infinite Justice offended should be satisfied with the sacrifice finite in value is unconceivable and against the tenure of the Scripture Answ Considering the words of this Instance with its scope we may draw up this Argument That Doctrine which takes away the value of Christs offering and destroys the satisfaction which he gave to Divine Iustice brings in as it were another Gospel c. But that Doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature doth so Therefore I shall grant the Major but how prove you the Minor You would confirm your Doctrine by asking two Queries 1. If Christ was say you a meer creature then who could he satisfie for the sins of many transgressours c Sir if it please you to consider Rom. 5.12 and so forward you may answer your own Query or see as good Reason of this which I shall now propound If Adam were a meer creature how could his sin make many transgressours If through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many Rom. 5.15 Christ as well as Adam was a common person and therefore the Lord having laid upon him the iniquities of us all and he bearing the curse of the Law his Members are delivered from both the sin and the curse Your Second Query is this How is it conceivable that an Infinite Iustice offended should be satisfied by a Sacrifice finite in value What matters it Sir if it be unconceivable must it therefore be uncredible Doubtless in all Controversall doctrines you will not hold this for an Orthodoxall tenent In the Doctrine of the Trinity credit must be given to things unconceivable but the like liberty it seems will not be allowed in Christs Mediatorship Eut Sir the foundation you build upon is not a little questionable you take that for granted and so infer from it which you are to confirm Sure I am that not a few errours may lie under your Non-Scripturall-Language Ye tell us of an Infinite Sacrifice but what you mean by it and where Scripture tells us I am yet for to learn The Scripture tells us that Christ was made sin or a sin offering for us by taking our sins and bearing the curse But how this Sacrifice was infinite remains to me unconceivable If the suffering of Christ had been Infinite there had been no end of it If the curse had been Infinite man could not have born it being uncapable of any thing Infinite in the Infinity of it It is enough for me to believe that my Lord Jesus suffered for me whatever I deserved to suffer and that was the curse of the Law be that what it will There is a Scripture which I finde in your Instance and that is Acts 20.28 and I knew no fitteer place then the close of my Answer for it Sir I shall offer these few things to your consideration 1. That there may be some mistake in the Text. God may be put for Lord or Christ which if granted the words are thus to be read Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the slock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of Christ which he hath purchased with his own bloud The Churches of the Saints are called the Churches of Christ Rom. 16.16 This conceit of a mistake may receive countenance from the possibility probability and facility thereof It is possible that the Scribe through carelesness or something worse might here put God for Christ There are two places one in the Old Testament another in the New which Willet conceiveth to have been mistaken by the Scribes negligence or something worse The first is Psal 22.16 where Caari signifying as a Lion is put for Caru they pierced The other is Rom. 12.11 we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time for Lord Also it is probable that here is a mistake for as Grotius observes many Copies have Lord and the Syriack Christ not God Lastly it was easie to mistake taking one for the other from that compendious writing which was anciently much in use where for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they wrote onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. But in the next place if it be proved that there is no mistake in the Text yet there may be a defect in the words For the last clause some Greek copies thus have it which he hath purchased with the blood of his own and so the word Son is to be understood with the blood of his own Son 3. Last of all if both these may bee removed yet the words may have another meaning then what you and many others allot to them Christs blood may be said to be Gods own blood in way of eminency it being more excellent by farre then the blood of the Legall Sacrifices In the old Testament tall trees are called Cedars of God the like Phrases are frequently there to be found And the New Testament is not wholly a stranger to the like Phrases In this sence Christ is called the Lamb of God Joh. 1.36 because he was far more excellent then either the Paschall Lamb or any other Lamb which was to be slain in way of Sacrifice under the Leviticall Priesthood The Divine Authour to the Hebrewes speaking both of the blood of legall sacrifices and of Christ Jesus preferres the blood of Christ far before all other blood that was shed for the expiation of sinne Heb. 9.13.14 Now I hasten to your ninth substance which is this Instance 1 If Christ be a meere creature then the intercession of Christ is overthrown for Christ if meere man being in heaven cannot know the state of the Church in all places upon earth therefore cannot intercede for it Answ Sir the reducing of this your Instance into an Argument will be sufficient to discover its vanity and weaknesse Thus it may be formed without the least injury to your meaning if your mind agree with the import of your words That Doctrine which utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ brings in as it were another Gospel c. But the Doctrine which makes Christ to be a meere creature utterly overthrows the intercesson of Christ Therefore Sir to your major I yield the fullest concession being so much a friend to Christs Incercession Your minor brings in an high accusation but pray Sir how is it attended with probation you onely say that if Christ were a meere creature being in heaven he could not know the state of the Churches in all places upon earth and therefore if he were but a meere creature he could not intercede What must we again take your word for a proffer I wish a better for there is no goodnesse in that We have already been too long troubled with the word I say in