Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	ancient_a	doctrine_n	father_n	2,828	5	4.7388	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44019	Tracts of Mr. Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury containing I. Behemoth, the history of the causes of the civil wars of England, from 1640 to 1660, printed from the author's own copy never printed (but with a thousand faults) before, II. An answer to Arch-bishop Bramhall's book called the catching of the Leviathan, never before printed, III. An historical narration of heresie and the punishment thereof, corrected by the true copy, IV. Philosophical problems dedicated to the King in 1662, but never printed before.; Selections. 1682	Hobbes, Thomas, 1588-1679.	1682 (1682)	Wing H2265; ESTC R19913	258,262	615

Attributes And the words God and Deity are of different signification Damascene a Father of the Church expounding the Nicene Creed denies plainly that the Deity was incarnate but all true Christians hold that God was incarnate Therefore God and the Deity signifie divers things and therefore Eternal and Eternity are not the same no more than a wise man and his wisdom are the same Nor God and his justice the same thing and universally 't is false that the Attribute in the Abstract is the same with the Substance to which it is attributed Also it is universally true of God that the Attribute in the Concrete and the substance to which it is attributed is not the same thing I come now to his next Period or Paragraph wherein he would fain prove that by denying Incorporeal Substance I take away Gods Existence The words he cites here are mine To say an Angel or Spirit is an Incorporeal Substance is to say in effect there is no Angel nor Spirit at all It is true also that to say that God is an Incorporeal Substance is to say in effect there is no God at all What alledges he against it but the School-Divinity which I have already answered Scripture he can bring none because the word Incorporeal is not found in Scripture But the Bishop trusting to his Aristotelean and Scholastick Learning hath hitherto made no use of Scripture save only of these Texts Who hath planted a Vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock and Rev. 4.11 Thou art worthy O Lord to receive glory honour and power for thou hast created all things and for thy pleasure they were created thereby to prove that the right of God to govern and punish mankind is not derived from his Omnipotence Let us now see how he proves Incorporeity by his own Reason without Scripture Either God he saith is Incorporeal or Finite He knows I deny both and say he is Corporeal and Infinite against which he offers no proof but only according to his custom of disputing calls it the root of Atheism and interrogates me what real thing is left in the world if God be Incorporeal but Body and Accidents I say there is nothing left but Corporeal Substance For I have denyed as he knew that there is any reality in accidents and nevertheless maintain Gods Existence and that he is a most pure and most simple Corporeal Spirit Here his Lordship catching nothing removes to the eternity of the Trinity which these my grounds he says destroy How so I say the Trinity and the Persons thereof are that one pure simple and eternal Corporeal Spirit and why does this destroy the Trinity more than if I had called it Incorporeal He labours here and seeketh somewhat to refresh himself in the word Person by the same grounds he saith every King has as many Persons as there be Justices of Peace in his Kingdom and God Almighty hath as many Persons as there be Kings why not For I never said that all those Kings were that God and yet God giveth that name to the Kings of the earth For the signification of the word Person I shall expound it by and by in another place Here ends his Lordships School Argument now let me come with my Scripture Argument St. Paul concerning Christ Col. 2.9 saith thus In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily This place Athanasius a great and zealous Doctor in the Nicene Councel and vehement enemy of Arius the Heretick who allowed Christ to be no otherwise God then as men of excellent piety were so called expoundeth thus The fullness of the Godhead dwelleth in him Bodily Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Realiter So there is one Father for Corporality and that God was in Christ in such manner as Body is in Body Again there were in the primitive Church a sort of Hereticks who maintained that Jesus Christ had not a true real Body but was onely a Phantasm or Spright such as the Latins called Spectra Against the head of this Sect whose name I think was Apelles Tertullian wrote a Book now extant amongst his other Works intituled De Carne Christi wherein after he had spoken of the nature of Phantasms and shewed that they had nothing of reality in them he concludeth with these words whatsoever is not Body is Nothing So here is on my side a plain Text of Scripture and two ancient and learned Fathers nor was this Doctrine of Tertullian condemned in the Council of Nice but the division of the Divine Substance into God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost For these words God has no parts were added for explication of the word Consubstantial at the request of the dissenting Fathers and are farther explained both in Athanasius his Creed in these words not three Gods but one God and by the constant Attribute ever since of the Individual Trinity The same words nevertheless do condemn the Anthropomorphites also For though there appeared no Christians that professed that God had an Organical Body and consequently that the Persons were three Individuals yet the Gentiles were all Anthropomorphites and there condemned by those words God has no parts And thus I have answered his accusation concerning the Eternity and Existence of the Divine Substance and made appear that in truth the question between us is whether God be a Phantasme id est an Idol of the Fancy which St. Paul saith is nothing or a Corporeal Spirit that is to say something that has Magnitude In this place I think it not amiss leaving for a little while this Theological dispute to examine the signification of those words which have occasioned so much diversity of opinion in this kind of Doctrine The word Substance in Greek Hypostasis Hypostan Hypostamenon signifie the same thing namely a Ground a Base any thing that has Existence or Subsistence in it self any thing that upholdeth that which else would fall in which sence God is properly the Hypostasis Base and Substance that upholdeth all the world having Subsistence not only in himself but from himself whereas other Substances have their subsistence only in themselves not from themselves But Metaphorically Faith is called a Substance Heb. 11.1 because it is the foundation or Base of our Hope for Faith failing our Hope falls And 2 Cor. 9.4 St. Paul having boasted of the liberal promise of the Corinthians towards the Macedonians calls that promise the ground the Hypostasis of that his boasting And Heb. 1.3 Christ is called the Image of the Substance the Hypostasis of his Father and for the proper and adequate signification of the word Hypostasis the Greek Fathers did always oppose it to Apparition or Phantasme as when a man seeth his face in the water his real face is called the Hypostasis of the phantastick face in the water So also in

were not only a sinful Scandal in respect of other Christian Mens Consciences but a perfidious forsaking of his Charge In which words I distinguish between a Pastor and one of the Sheep of his Flock St. Peter sinned in denying Christ and so does every Pastor that having undertaken the Charge of Preaching the Gospel in the Kingdom of an Infidel where he could expect at the undertaking of his Charge no less than Death And why but because he violates his Trust in doing contrary to his Commission St. Peter was an Apostle of Christ and bound by his voluntary undertaking of that Office not only to Confess Christ but also to Preach him before those Infidels whom he knew would like Wolves devour him And therefore when Paul and the rest of the Apostles were forbidden to preach Christ they gave this Answer We ought to obey God rather than Men. And it was to his Disciples only which had undertaken that Office that Christ saith he that denyeth me before Men shall be denyed before the Angels of God And so I think I have sufficiently answered this place and shewed that I do not allow the denying of Christ upon any colour of Torments to his Lordship nor to any other that has undertaken the Office of a Preacher Which if he think right he will perhaps in this case put himself into the number of those whom he calls merciful Doctors whereas now he extends his severity beyond the bounds of common equity He has read Cicero and perhaps this Story in him The Senate of Rome would have sent Cicero to treat of Peace with Marcus Antonius but when Cicero had shewed them the just fear he had of being killed by him he was excused and if they had forced him to it and he by terror turned Enemy to them he had in equity been excusable But his Lordship I believe did write this more valiantly than he would have acted it J. D. He Deposeth Christ from his true Kingly Office making his Kingdom not to Commence or begin before the day of Judgment And the Regiment wherewith Christ Governeth his Faithful in this Life is not properly a Kingdom but a Pastoral Office or a right to Teach And a little after Christ had not Kingly Authority committed to him by his Father in this World but only Consiliary and Doctrinal T. H. How do I take away Christs Kingly Office He neither draws it by Consequence from my Words nor offers any Argument at all against my Doctrine The words he cites are in the Contents of Chap. 17. de Cive In the Body of the Chapter it is thus The time of Christ's being upon the Earth is called in Scripture the Regeneration often but the Kingdom never When the Son of God comes in Majesty and all the Angels with him then he shall sit on the seat of Majesty My Kingdom is not of this World God sent not his Son that he should Judge the World I came not to Judge the World but to save the World Man who made me a Judge or Divider amongst you Let thy Kingdom come And other words to the same purpose out of which it is clear that Christ took upon him no Regal Power upon Earth before his Assumption But at his Assumption his Apostles asked him if he would then restore the Kingdom to Israel and he Answered it was not for them to know So that hitherto Christ had not taken that Office upon him unless his Lordship think that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Christ be two distinct Kingdoms From the Assumption ever since all true Christians say daily in their Prayers Thy Kingdom come But his Lordship had perhaps forgot that But when then beginneth Christ to be a King I say it shall be then when he comes again in Majesty with all the Angels And even then he shall Reign as he is Man under his Father For St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 15.25 26. He must Raign till he hath put all Enemies under his feet the last Enemy that shall be destroyed is Death But when shall God the Father Raign again St. Paul saith in the same Chapter verse 28. When all things shall be subdued unto him then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all And verse 24. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God even the Father when he shall have put down all Rule Authority and Power This is at the Resurrection And by this it is manifest that his Lordship was not so well versed in Scripture as he ought to have been J. D. He taketh away his Priestly or Propitiatory Office And although this Act of our Redemption be not alwayes in Scripture called a Sacrifice and Oblation but sometimes a Price yet by Price we are not to understand any thing by the value whereof he could claim right to a Pardon for us from his Offended Father but that Price which God the Father was pleased in mercy to demand And again Not that the Death of one Man though without sin can satisfie for the Offences of all Men in the rigour of Justice but in the mercy of God that ordained such Sacrifices for sin as he was pleased in mercy to accept He knoweth no difference between one who is meer man and one who was both God and man between a Levitical Sacrifice and the All-sufficient Sacrifice of the Cross between the Blood of a Calf and the precious Blood of the Son of God T. H. Yes I know there is a difference between Blood and Blood but not any such as can make a difference in the Case here questioned Our Saviour's Blood was most precious but still it was Humane Blood and I hope his Lordship did never think otherwise or that it was not accepted by his Father for our Redemption J. D. And touching the Prophetical Office of Christ I do much doubt whether he do believe in earnest that there is any such thing as Prophecy in the World He maketh very little difference between a Prophet and a Mad-man and a Demoniack And if there were nothing else says he that bewrayed their madness yet that very arrogating such inspiration to themselves is Argument enough He maketh the pretence of Inspiration in any man to be and always to have been on opinion pernicious to Peace and tending to the dissolution of all Civil Government He subjecteth all Prophetical Revelations from God to the sole Pleasure and Censure of the Soveraign Prince either to Authorize them or to Exauctorate them So as two Prophets prophecying the same thing at the same time in the Dominions of two different Princes the one shall be a true Prophet the other a false And Christ who had the approbation of no Soveraign Prince upon his grounds was to be reputed a false Prophet every where Every man therefore ought to consider who is the Soveraign Prophet that is to say who it is

there is an Ens a God a Man c. So also if there be any real thing that is white or black hot or cold the same may be considered by it self but whiteness blackness heat coldness cannot be considered unless it be first supposed that there is some real thing to which they are attributed These real things are called by the Latine Philosophers Entia subjecta substantiae and by the Greek Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other which are Incorporeal are called by the Greek Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but most of the Latine Philosophers use to convert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into substantia and so confound real and corporeal things with incorporeal which is not well For Essence and Substance signifie divers things And this mistake is received and continues still in these parts in all Disputes both of Philosophy and Divinity For in truth Essentia signifies no more than if we should talk ridiculously of the Isness of the thing that is By whom all things were made This is proved out of St. John cap. 1. vers 1 2 3. and Heb. cap. 1. vers 3. and that again out of Gen. 1. where God is said to create every thing by his sole Word as when he said Let there be Light and there was Light And then that Christ was that Word and in the beginning with God may be gathered out of divers places of Moses David and other of the Prophets Nor was it ever questioned amongst Christians except by the Arians but that Christ was God Eternal and his Incarnation eternally decreed But the Fathers all that write Expositions on this Creed could not forbear to philosophize upon it and most of them out of the Principles of Aristotle Which are the same the School-men now use as may partly appear by this that many of them amongst their Treatises of Religion have affected to publish Logick and Physick Principles according to the sense of Aristotle as Athanasius and Damascene And so some later Divines of Note still confound the Concreet with the Abstract Deus with Deitas Ens with Essentia Sapiens with Sapientia Aeternus with Aeternitas If it be for exact and rigid Truth sake why do they not say also that Holiness is a Holy man Covetousness a Covetous man Hypocrisie an Hypocrite and Drunkenness a Drunkard and the like but that it is an Error The Fathers agree that the Wisdom of God is the eternal Son of God by whom all things were made and that he was incarnate by the Holy Ghost if they meant it in the Abstract For if Deitas abstracted be Deus we make two Gods of one This was well understood by Damascene in his Treatise De Fide Orthodoxâ which is an Exposition of the Nicene Creed where he denies absolutely that Deitas is Deus lest seeing God was made man it should follow the Deity was made man which is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nicene Fathers The Attributes therefore of God in the Abstract when they are put for God are put Metonymically which is a common thing in Scripture for Example Prov. 8.28 where it is said Before the mountains were setled before the Hills was I brought forth the Wisdom there spoken of being the Wisdom of God signifies the same with the wise God This kind of speaking is also ordinary in all Languages This considered such abstracted words ought not to be used in Arguing and especially in the deducing the Articles of our Faith though in the Language of God's eternal Worship and in all Godly Discourses they cannot be avoided And the Creed it self is less difficult to be assented to in its own words than in all such Expositions of the Fathers Who for us men and our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Uirgin Mary and was made Man I have not read of any exception to this For where Athanasius in his Creed says of the Son He was not made but begotten it is to be understood of the Son as he was God Eternal whereas here it is spoken of the Son as he is man And of the Son also as he was man it may be said he was begotten of the Holy Ghost for a Woman conceiveth not but of him that begetteth which is also confirmed Mat. 1.20 That which is begotten in her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Holy Ghost And was also Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate He suffered and was buried And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into Heaven and sitteth on the right hand of the Father And he shall come again with Glory to judge both the Quick and the Dead Whose Kingdom shall have no end Of this part of the Creed I have not met with any doubt made by any Christian. Hither the Council of Nice proceedeth in their general Confession of Faith and no further This finished some of the Bishops present at the Council seventeen or eighteen whereof Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea was one not sufficiently satisfied refused to subscribe till this Doctrine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be better explained Thereupon the Council Decreed that whosoever shall say that God hath parts shall be Anathematized to which the said Bishops subscribed And Eusebius by Order of the Council wrote a Letter the Copies whereof were sent to every absent Bishop that being satisfied with the reason of their subscribing they also should subscribe The reason they gave of their Subscription was this That they had now a form of words prescribed by which as a Rule they might guide themselves so as not to violate the Peace of the Church By this it is manifest that no man was an Heretick but he that in plain and direct words contradicted that Form by the Church prescribed and that no man could be made an Heretick by Consequence And because the said Form was not put into the body of the Creed but directed only to the Bishops there was no reason to punish any Lay-person that should speak to the contrary But what was the meaning of this Doctrine That God has no Parts Was it made Heresie to say that God who is a real substance cannot be considered or spoken of as here or there or any where which are parts of places Or that there is any real thing without length every way that is to say which hath no Magnitude at all finite nor infinite Or is there any whole substance whose two halves or three thirds are not the same with that whole Or did they mean to condemn the Argument of Tertullian by which he confuted Apolles and other Hereticks of his time namely Whatsoever was not Corporeal was nothing but Fantasm and not Corporeal for Heretical No certainly no Divines say that They went to establish the Doctrine of One individual God in Trinity to abolish the diversity of species in God not the distinction of here and there in substance When St. Paul