Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	heaven_n	lord_n	new_a	8,900	5	6.5298	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40721	The Socinian controversie touching the Son of God reduced, in a brief essay, to prove the Son one in essence with the Father, upon Socinian principles, concessions and reason : concluded with an humble and serious caution to the friends of the Church of England, against the approaches of Socinianism / by F.F. ...	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1693 (1693)	Wing F2516; ESTC R17950	19,397	38

the distinction of the chief or supreme God and a true God These Advances seriously weigh'd methinks while we grant and acknowledge the subordination of the Son to the Father as his Original and Beginning with the unanimous Consent of the Ancients as Dr. Bull and Bishop Pearson have observed and that the Divine Perfections of the Father and the Son are in the Son not co-ordinately but subordinately and communicated to him from the Father and in that sence the Father may be said to be greater than the Son in that he is the Origo and Principal Methinks I say they should see reason enough to meet us and acknowledge the Son with the Nicene Fathers and the Catholick Church to be God of God Light of Light very God of very God I shall conclude this Argument with the pertinent and forcible Reasoning of Dr. B. in his Second Edition If we consider saith he the thing it self it appeareth much more credible that the Eternal Son of God should descend to the nature of Man than that a Man should be made God endued with a new Omnipresence to hear and Omnipotence to grant the Prayers of all the Supplicants that in all places of the World should invoke him Again saith he if we regard the Dignity of his Person it is plainly more Honourable to believe him God the Creator than a Creature Deified If we consider the Fruits our Thankfulness must be greater c. So that upon all accounts were the Scriptures doubtful we ought rather to carry our Byass towards our Lord's Eternal Divinity than against it VII Authority the Ground of Faith That Belief which hath no Authority but is against all Authority competent in that Case ought not only to be suspected but to be rejected as groundless and false This is not to be questioned for seeing Authority is the only Reason and Ground of Faith that Belief that hath no competent Authority is groundless and that which is against such Authority must needs be false But the Socinian Belief that the Son of God had no Existence or Being before he was conceiv'd and born of the Virgin Mary hath no Authority and is against all Authority competent in that Case therefore such Belief is groundless and false Now that such Belief that our Saviour had no Being before he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary is without and against all competent Authority in the Case will easily appear by considering what is such Authority and the Socinian Concessions about it and the Evidence of the thing itself 1. What can be supposed competent Authority to ground the Christian Faith upon but the Holy Scriptures as they are in themselves or as they are expounded and understood by the Primitive Fathers Ecclesiastical Councils or the Vniversal Church 2. Now that the said Belief of Socinus and his Followers is without and against all this Authority 't is not my province to argue here which hath been done an hundred times invincibly by others only from the Socinians own Concessions and the Evidence of the thing itself 1. For the Holy Scriptures as they are in themselves tho' the Socinians make great Pretences that they are of their side yet 't is plain they dare not trust to them yea by two Observations 't is very apparent that they more than suspect they are against them The first Observation is That they pre-judge and indeed enervate all the Authority of the Holy Scripture by their bold and dear Proposition which they resolve shall serve them as an Asylum and Refuge where they cannot otherwise escape the Light and Force of the Text. The Proposition I mean is to this purpose That tho' the Holy Scripture speak a thing never so plainly i. e. that the true and proper sence cannot be evaded yet if the Matter thereof be contrary to their Sentiments or cannot be apprehended by them they are not bound to believe it but their own Reason To this purpose it is generally observed that Socinus and his Followers as particularly a late Socinian Pamphlet boldly consents declare themselves which if they were not jealous at least that the Scripture is plain against some of their Opinions such cunning Gamesters would not affirm to so great Reproach of their Profession and Scandal of the Christian Religion My other Observation is their playing and trisling with the Holy Scripture their straining their Wits and wracking their Fancies of which 't is confess'd they have good store to coin new and unheard-of Glosses for the wresting and bending of the Text to their new Hypothesis so strange to the plain Letter and Sence of the Text so impertinent to the Context so contrary to all ancient and other modern Expositions that we cannot have so much Charity for them as to think they believe themselves or have any Veneration or Respect to Divine Revelation Not here to dispute the Particulars or to enumerate all their finenesses of Criticism Wit and Fancy I shall only remark some Instances that carry a Confutation in their Foreheads When they tell us That in Joh. 1. in the Beginning is not in the Beginning of the World but of the Gospel When they interpret the Word was made Flesh it was so in the Infirmities i. e. Qualities of the Flesh not in the Substance When in the words following he is said to dwell among us they say it was after his Resurrection When upon the Text Before Abraham was I am they comment thus Before the Gentiles were actually called and became Abraham's Children When they observe that the words of St. Thomas My Lord and my God were spoken by way of admiration to God the Father and not to our Saviour when by Thrones Principalities in Heaven they would have us understand Men on Earth tho' the Text saith they are Invisible Col. 1. 16. When it is so frequently and plainly written That the Son of God made the Worlds and that all things are upheld and subsist by him they will have it meant only of Regeneration or the new Creation When our Saviour affirms I and my Father are one they say he meant so only in Will and Consent contrary directly to the scope and sence of the Context which speaks of their Power to keep his Disciples from Violence When upon that famous Scripture In him dwells all the fulness of the Scripture bodily they restrain it to his Doctrine and exclude his Person When by the Mystery of Godliness God manifested in the Flesh upon a Criticism they will have it the Gospel manifested in the Flesh which makes brave sence especially if you consider the words following And lastly to crown all when Socinus was puzzled with the frequent and plain Assertions that our Saviour came down from Heaven into the World he becomes Enthusiast and dreams of a Revelation he had That Christ after his Incarnation was taken up into Heaven to learn his Father's Will When I say we revolve and weigh these and such-like wild and unreasonable

but in Power which is inseparable from his Essence None shall pluck them out my Hand or John 10. 28 29 30. my Fathers I and my Father are one Accordingly Wolzogenius acknowledgeth that God made Christ in Authority Power and Wisdom like and equal to himself that he even equally as God might be omnipresent and be able to do what he will by his own Power and Spirit upon Earth So that he is omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent equally with God the Father which necessarily infers the Communication of the Divine Essence or Nature as the Subject or Seat of such Supreme and Divine Attributes or Qualifications 'T is confessed that Wolzog. in Mat. 28. 20. adds That though Christ be omnipresent as is said before 't is not necessary that we should understand it of his Essential Presence But we want a new Philosophy to prove that any thing yea God himself can act physically where he is not essentially present and hence we have a new Argument of our Saviour's Deity He is essentially present every where and therefore true God he is essentially present every where because he can do what he pleaseth every where I conclude this Argument with this note That the Socinians must dash and break upon one or both of these two hard Rocks that a meer man who is circumscribed is essentially present every where or really omnipresent or that a meer Man is able to do what he pleases by his own Power as Wolzeg affirms tho' communicated where he is not essentially that is really present which is one of the Phylosophical Mysteries of Socinianism V. Christ hath the Father's Glory He to whom the Father hath given his own Glory is the same God in Essence with the Father for God the Father protests he will not give his Glory to another But the Father hath given his own Glory to Christ this the Socinians generally acknowledge The Conclusion is necessary therefore Christ is the same in Essence with God the Father They tell us in answer that by another is meant an Idol or a false God Sol. Where the Law doth not distinguish in a Point of so great concernment who shall dare to do it Besides is not an Idol a Creature as well as they say our Saviour is And why should God give his Glory to one Creature rather than another What Scripture or Reason will warrant it Is it not Idolatry to give GOD's Glory to a Creature Or will God dispence with Idolatry in himself and not in us Or lastly how can we in reason imagine that God will frustrate his own ultimate End to glorifie himself above all by giving his own Glory to any Creature VI. Reason is Truth That which is most agreeable to Reason is the Truth This is the admired Maxim of the Socinians But that the Father communicateth his Divine Nature with his Divine Attributes to his Son is more agreeable to Reason i. e. more conceivable than that he should communicate them separately without or divided from his Nature Let us reflect upon their former Assertions that the Father hath communicated his own Wisdom his own Power his own Honour his own Glory and thereby made his Son not only like but equal to himself and let the Masters of Reason tell us any thing more absurd and inconsonant to Reason than to conceive such Qualities which are acknowledged by themselves to be truly and properly Divined to be actually separated from the Divine Substance seeing they also acknowledge that there is nothing in God that is not God himself and his Proprieties can only ratione inadaequato conceptu be distinguisht from his Essence Is it not more agreeable to Reason to conceive that seeing the Father hath communicated his own Wisdom c. to his Son he hath also communicated his own Nature to him forasmuch as we cannot conceive how they should be actually divided for his Attributes and Nature are really one and God's own Wisdom Knowledge Power Presence and Glory are nothing really but himself Thus it is if we consider the nature of God but more grosly absurd and unreasonable it appears if we consider the nature of Man which they would make the Subject of these Divine Qualities How monstrous is it to imagine that a meer Man as they say our Saviour is should be wise as God powerful as God omnipresent as God have equal Worship and the same Glory with God himself and be a meer Man still where is the Capacity the Powers the Seat of these Divine Excellencies of a true God as they acknowledge our Saviour to be in meer Man as they say he is Activity beyond the proper Sphere of the Agent Qualities and Endowments without a capable Subject are as fit for men of Reach and Reason to conceive as to imagine Reason and Religion in a Brute with all the Attributes of the Humane Nature and yet to be a Brute still Let them follow Reason but one step farther and acknowledg that what the Father communicateth to his Son carries the Essence of God with it according to Reason as well as the Scripture and we are agreed in a great Point And now what should put a stop to them seeing their Principles bring them so near us and so much Reason invites them home They acknowledge the necessity of believing Christ to be true God according to the Scriptures They say he is equal to God the Father and Socinus is angry that it should be doubted whether they believed so or not his words are remarkable Falsissimum est c. He saith It is most false that we do not affirm Christ to be true God yea we profess the contrary publickly and in our own both in the Latin and Polonian Tongue in not a few publick Writings And again as if we did deny Jesus Christ tho' he is Man yet to be God and equal to God or the proper Son of God and equal to his Father According to Smalcius our God and the true God summo jure he is so to be called and is so indeed They do generally own his Title Ro. 9. God over all blessed for ever Schlectingius in Joh. 4. 23. saith We must understand by it that Christ is Lord and God not over some things only but over all God and Lord of Heaven and Earth as Stigmannus adds in Joh. 10. 33. I confess Schlect his gloss hereupon is He is true God as true is opposed to false not as it is opposed to non summo or the Supreme God but if the Text be well consider'd and its proper sence allow'd I see not how he can be better signified to be the God of Israel than by the usual appellation of the God of Israel as the Learned note God blessed for ever or how the Supreme God can in other words be more fitly exprest than by these words God over all blessed for ever especially seeing as we have noted before that there is no ground either in Reason or Religion for