Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	earth_n	power_n	principality_n	1,975	5	10.5828	5	false

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

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

them For unto which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee These words say they in their original and primary Sense are spoken of David but in their mystical Sense are a Prophecy concerning Christ. Was this mystical Sense primarily intended or not If not they are only an accommodation and no proof But they say even in that mystical Sense they were intended not of the Lord Christ's supposed eternal Generation from the Essence of the Father but of his Resurrection from the dead But if that be not taken as an Evidence of his being the eternal Son of God how doth this prove him above Angels Heb. 1.6 And again when he bringeth his first begotten into the World he saith And let all the Angels of God Worship him This one would think home to the business But our wise Interpreters tell us plainly that the words were used by the Psalmist on another occasion i. e. they are nothing to the purpose But being told of this instead of mending the matter they have made it far worse for upon second thoughts but not wiser they say The words are not taken out of the Psalm but out of Deut. 32.43 where the words are not spoken of God but of God's People and if this be said of God's People they hope it may be said of Christ too without concluding from thence that Christ is the supreme God But we must conclude from hence that these are far from being wise Interpreters for what consequence is this the Angels worship God's People therefore Christ is superiour to Angels Heb. 1.8 Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever i. e. say they God is thy Throne for ever And so they relate not to Christ but to God And to what purpose then are they brought Heb. 1.10 Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of thy Hands These words say they are to be understood not of Christ but of God Which is to charge the Apostle with arguing out of the old Testament very impertinently Is this interpreting the Scriptures like wise Men Is it not rather exposing and ridiculing them Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to give such a forced Sense of the beginning of S. John's Gospel as was never thought of from the writing of it till some in the last Age thought it necessary to avoid the proof of Christ's Divinity from it For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never taken in the Sense they put upon it for him that was to preach the Word in S. Iohn's time but the signification of it was then well understood from the Alexandrian School as appears by Philo whence it was brought by Cerinthus into those parts of Asia where S. Iohn lived when he wrote his Gospel and one of themselves confesses that Cerinthus did by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean something divine which rested upon and inhabited the Person of Iesus and was that power by which God created original Matter and made the World but as the Christ or the Word descended on Iesus at his Baptism so it left him at his Crucifixion That which I observe from hence is that there was a known and current Sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the time of S. Iohn's writing his Gospel very different from that of a Preacher of the Word of God and therefore I cannot but think it the wisest way of interpreting S. John to understand him in a Sense then commonly known and so he affirms the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been in the beginning i. e. before the Creation for he saith afterwards All things were made by him and that he was with God and was God and this Word did not inhabit Iesus as Cerinthus held but was made Flesh and dwelt among us And so S. Iohn clearly asserted the Divinity and Incarnation of the Son of God And in all the Disputes afterwards with Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus it appears that they understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not for any meer Man but for some Divine Power which rested upon the Person of Iesus So that this was a very late and I think no very Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn And even Sandius Confesses That Socinus his Sense was wholly new and unheard of in the ancient Church not only among the Fathers but the Hereticks as I have before observed For they agreed except their good Friends the Alogi who went the surest way to work that by the Word no meer Man was understood Let them produce one if they can saith Sandius even the learned and judicious Sandius Did they all interpret the Scriptures like Fools and not like Wise Men But if the Christian Interpreters were such Fools what think they of the Deists whom they seem to have a better opinion of as to their Wisdom What if Men without Biass of Interest or Education think ours the more proper and agreeable Sense The late Archbishop to this purpose had mentioned Amelius the Platonist as an indifferent Iudge But what say our Wise Interpreters to this Truly they say That the Credit of the Trinitarian Cause runs very low when an uncertain Tale of an obscure Platonist of no Reputation for Learning or Wit is made to be a good part of the Proof which is alledged for these Doctrines If a Man happen to stand in their way he must be content with such a Character as they will be pleased to give him If he had despised S. Iohn's Gospel and manner of expression he had been as Wise as the Alogi but notwithstanding the extraordinary Character given of Friend Amelius as they call him by Eusebius by Porphyrius by Proclus and by Damascenus this very Saying of his sinks his Reputation for ever with them What would Iulian have given for such a Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn when he cannot deny but that he did set up the Divinity of Christ by these Expressions and upbraids the Christians of Alexandria for giving Worship to Iesus as the Word and God With what satisfaction would he have received such a Sense of his Words when he Complemented Photinus for denying the Divinity of Christ while other Chrians asserted it But they do not by any means deal fairly with the late Archbishop as to the Story of Amelius for they bring it in as if he had laid the weight of the Cause upon it whereas he only mentions it as a Confirmation of a probable Conjecture That Plato had the Notion of the Word of God from the Jews because that was a Title which the Jews did commonly give to the Messias as he proves from Philo and the Chaldee Paraphrast To which they give no manner of Answer But they affirm in answer to my Sermon p. 9. That Socinus his Sense was That Christ was called the Word because he was the Bringer or Messenger