Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	church_n	head_n	visible_a	4,516	5	9.9185	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61548	A discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity with an answer to the late Socinian objections against it from Scripture, antiquity and reason, and a preface concerning the different explications of the Trinity, and the tendency of the present Socinian controversie / by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1697 (1697)	Wing S5585; ESTC R14244	164,643	376

to him But who made them subject to him The Man Christ Iesus No God appointed him to be the Lord of every Creature Then they were not created by Christ but by God but the Apostle saith they were created by Christ. But God made him Head of the Church and as Head of the Body he rules over all This we do not at all question but how this comes to be creating Dominions and Powers visible and invisible Did God make the Earth and all the living Creatures in it when he made Man Lord over them Or rather was Man said to create them because he was made their Head If this be their interpreting Scripture like wise Men I shall be content with a less measure of Understanding and thank God for it XI Lastly Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men to leave the form of Baptism doubtful whether it were not inserted into S. Matthew's Gospel or to understand it in another Sense than the Christian Church hath done from the Apostles times I say first Leave it doubtful because they say That Learned Criticks have given very strong Reasons why they believe these Words In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost were not spoke by our Saviour but have been added to the Gospel of S. Matthew from the common Form and Practise of the Church Why are these strong Reasons of learned Criticks mentioned but to raise Doubts in Peoples minds about them But they declare afterwards against them Not too much of that For they say only That they are not without their weight but they have observed several things that make them think that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture Very Wisely and Discreetly spoken The Reasons are strong and weighty but they think otherwise I wish they had told the World who these learned Criticks were lest it should be suspected that they were their own Inventions But I find a certain Nameless Socinian was the Author of them and his Words are produced by Sandius a Person highly commended by them for his Industry and Learning but as much condemned by others for want of Skill or Ingenuity The reason of writing these Reasons Sandius freely Confesses was because this place clearly proved a Trinity of Persons against the Socinians But what are these very strong and weighty Reasons For it is great Pity but they should be known In the first place he observes That S. Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew and the Original he saith is lost and he suspects that either S. Jerom was himself the Translator into Greek and Latin who was a Corrupter of Scripture and Origen or some unknow Person from whence it follows that our Gospel of S. Matthew is not of such Authority that an Article of such moment should depend upon it Is not this a very strong and weighty Reason Must not this be a very learned Critick who could mention S. Ierom as Translator of S. Matthews Gospel into Greek But then one would think this Interpreter might have been wise enough to have added this of himself No he dares not say that but that it was added by Transcribers But whence or how To that he saith That they seem to be taken out of the Gospel according to the Egyptians This is great News indeed But comes it from a good hand Yes from Epiphanius And what saith he to this purpose He saith That the Sabellians made use of the counterfeit Egyptian Gospel and there it was declared that Father Son and Holy Ghost were the same And what then Doth he say they borrowed the Form of Baptism from thence Nothing like it But on the contrary Epiphanius urges this very Form in that place against the Sabellians and quotes S. Matthew's Authority for it But this worthy Author produces other Reasons which Sandius himself laughs at and despises and therefore I pass them over The most material seems to be if it hold That the most ancient Writers on S. Matthew take no notice of them and he mentions Origen Hilary and S. Chrysostom but these Negative Arguments Sandius thinks of no force Origen and S. Chrysostom he saith reach not that Chapter the Opus Imperfectum which was none of his doth not but his own Commentaries do and there he not only mentions the Form but takes notice of the Compendious Doctrine delivered by it which can be nothing else but that of the Trinity In the Greek Catena on S. Matthew there is more mentioned viz. That Christ had not then first his Power given him for he was with God before and was himself by Nature God And there Gregory Nazianzen saith The Form of Baptism was in the Name of the Holy Trinity and he there speaks more fully Remember saith he the Faith into which thou wert baptized Into the Father That is well but that is no farther than the Jews go for they own one God and one Person Into the Son That is beyound them but not yet perfect Into the Holy Ghost Yes saith he this is perfect Baptism But what is the common Name of these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plainly that of God But this learned Critick observes that Hilary in some Copies takes no notice of this Form That is truly observed for the very Conclusion is not Hilary's but taken out of S. Ierom but if he had look'd into Hilary's Works he would have found the Form of Baptism owned and asserted by him For he not only sets it down as the Form of Faith as well as our Baptism appointed by Christ but argues from it against the Sabellians and Ebionites as well as others Thus we see how very strong and weighty the Arguments of this learned Critick were CHAP. IX The General Sense of the Christian Church proved from the Form of Baptism as it was understood in the first Ages BUT our Vnitarians pretend that they are satisfied that the Form of Baptism is found in all Copies and all the ancient Translations and that it was used before the Council of Nice as appears by several places of Tertullian But how then There are two things stick with them 1. That the Ante-Nicene Fathers do not alledge it to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Ghost 2. That the Form of Words here used doth not prove the Doctrine of the Trinity Both which must be strictly Examined 1. As to the former It cannot but seem strange to any one conversant in the Writings of those Fathers when S. Cyprian saith expressly That the Form of Baptism is prescribed by Christ that it should be in plenâ aduna●â Trinitate i. e. in the full Confession of the Holy Trinity and therefore he denied the Baptism of the Marcionites because the Faith of the Trinity was not sincere among them as appears at large in that Epistle And this as far as I can find was the general Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers as well as others And it

a strange piece of boldness in him For Beza saith He had the use of them all from him and H. Stephens let him have his Father's Copy compared with 25 MSS. and he affirms That he found it in several of R. Stephens his old MSS. besides the Codex Britannicus and the Complutensian Copy and therefore he concludes that it ought to be retained And so it was after these Copies were come abroad in the Bishop's Bible under Queen Elizabeth without any distinction of character as likewise in our last Translation And it is observable that Amelote affirms that he found it in the most ancient Greek Copy in the Vatican Library but the Roman Criticks confess it was not in their 8 MSS. yet they thought it fit to be retained from the common Greek Copies and the Testimonies of the Fathers agreeing with the Vulgar Latin 2. This Verse was in the Copies of the African Churches from S. Cyprian's time as appears by the Testimonies of S. Cyprian Fulgentius Facundus Victor Vitensis and Vigilius Tapsensis which are produced by others F. Simon hath a bold conjecture of which he is not sparing that Victor Vitensis is the first who produced it as S. John 's saying and that it was S. Cyprian 's own Assertion and not made use of by him as a Testimony of Scripture But they who can say such things as these are not much to be trusted For S. Cyprian's words are speaking of S. Iohn before Et iterum de Patre Filio scriptum est hi tres unum sunt And it was not Victor Vitensis but the African Bishops and Eugenius in the head of them who made that address to Huneric wherein they say That it is clearer than Light that Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God and prove it by the Testimony of S. John Tres sunt qui Testimonium perhibent in caelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi Tres unum sunt 3. In the former Testimony the authority of the Vulgar Latin was made use of and why is it rejected here When Morinus confesses there is no variety in the Copies of it Vulgata versio hunc versum constanter habet And he observes that those of the Fathers who seem to omit it as S. Augustin against Maximinus did not follow the old Latin Version Lucas Brugensis saith only That in 35 old Copies they found it wanting but in five As to S. Ierom's Prologue I am not concerned to defend it but Erasmus thought it had too much of S. Jerom in it and others think it hath too little F. Simon confesses that P. Pithaeus and Mabillon think it was S. Ierom's and that it was in the MSS. But I conclude with saying That whoever was the Author at the time when it was written the Greek Copies had this Verse or else he was a notorious Impostor X. The next thing I shall ask these wise Interpreters of Scripture is Whether when the Scripture so often affirms That the World was made by the Son and that all things were created by him in Heaven and in Earth it be reasonable to understand them of Creating nothing For after all their Shifts and Evasions it comes to nothing at last But that we may see how much they are confounded with these places we may observe 1. They sometimes say that where the Creation of all things is spoken of it is not meant of Christ but of God For in the answer they give to the place of the Epistle to the Colossians they have these words For by him all things were created are not spoken of Christ but of God the sense of the whole Context is this The Lord Christ is the most perfect Image of the invisible God the first born from the dead of every Creature for O Colossians by him even by the invisible God were all things created they were not from all eternity nor rose from the concourse of Atoms but all of them whether things in Heaven or things in Earth whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers are Creatures and were by God created who is before them all and by him they all consist This is a very fair Concession that of whomsoever these words are spoken he must be God 2. But in the defence of this very Book they go about to prove That the Creation of the World is not meant by these words Is not this interpreting like wise Men indeed And they tell us They cannot but wonder that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ. Wise Men do not use to wonder at plain things For what is the old or first Creation but the making the World and creating all things in Heaven and Earth And these things are attribu●ed to the Word to the Son to Christ. But say they The Scripture does never say in express words that Christ hath created the Heaven and the Earth What would these wise Interpreters have Doth not by whom all things were created in Heaven and Earth imply that Heaven and Earth were created by him But they have a notable observation from the Language of the New Testament viz That Christ is never said to have created the Heaven the Earth and the Sea and all that therein is but we are apt to think that creating all things takes in ●he Sea too and that in the Scripture Language Heaven and Earth are the same with the World and I hope the World takes in the Sea and the World is said to be made by him and do not all things take in all No say they all things are limited to all Thrones Principalities and Powers visible and invisible Then however the making of these is attributed to Christ. And if he made all Powers Visible and invisible he must be God Not so neither What then is the meaning of the words By him were all things created that are in Heaven and in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him Surely then these Dominions and Powers were created by him No say they that which we render created ought to be rendred modelled disposed or reformed into a new Order Were ever wise Men driven to such miserable Shifts One while these words are very strong and good proof of the Creation of the World against Atheists and Epicureans and by and by they prove nothing of all this but only a new modelling of some things called Dominions and Powers Do they hope ever to convince Men at this rate of wise interpreting Well but what is this creating or disposing things into a new order And who are these Dominions and Powers they answer Men and Angels How are the Angels created by him and for him Did he die to reform them as well as Mankind No but they are put under him And so they were created by him that is they were not created by him but only made subject