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	high_a	place_n	6,761	5	4.5017	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85889	A defence of A treatise against superstitious Iesu-worship, falsely called scandalous, against the truely scandalous answer of the parson of Westminston in Sussex. Wherein also the whole structure of his Antiteichisma, so farre as it concernes the po[i]nt in controversie is overthrowne, the truth more fully cleared, and the iniquitie of that superstition more throughly detected. By M.G. the author of the former treatise, published Anno Dom. 1642	Giles, Mascall, 1595 or 6-1652.	1643 (1643)	Wing G46; Thomason E64_6; ESTC R16778	55,127	71

in the sense above spoken therefore it followes that it cannot be understood of the Name Jesus because the name in the Text is a name of power and authoritie as that parallel place proves it Matth. 28. 18. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} all power is given me So Master Calvin on that place Quo etiam pertinet illud Pauli to which pertaines that of Paul hee emptied himselfe wherefore God exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name Again the scope of the name proves it for Subjection must be given in this name signified by bowing the knee Authority subjection are relatives there is no Subjection due where there is no Power or Authority Now the Name Jesus is a name of Salvation and not a name properly denoting Command and Authority Secondly though it should be granted that the Name Jesus is a name of Authority yet it is not a name of the highest Authority Doctor Page your own witnesse shall be Judge whom you judge unreproveable in his judgement who in his answer to Master Prynnes Reply to Widdowes Master Prynne having brought many places to prove that the name Christ denominates Christs Sacraments his Church his Apostles his Ministers his Saints his Kingdome and therefore a Name especially venerable amongst Christians doth acknowledge that the name Christ may be of greater Authoritie and dignitie then the Name Jesus though not of greater savour and mercy Now let Doctor Page with all his learning and Master Barton with all his Sophistrie reconcile this if they can how the Name Jesus can be above every name yet it be possible that any other name may be of greater dignitie and authority than it seeing Name in the Text doth expresly denote dignitie and authoritie Thirdly thought it should be granted that the Name Jesus is of highest authority in regard of the Church only yet in this respect neither can it be the name above every name in the Text for this name is of highest authority in regard of the whole creation heaven and earth and therefore without controversie in respect of Angels Devils and all men whatsoever according to the forecited place Matth. 28. 18. All power is given me in heaven and earth Christ in this name commands the whole heaven and earth Now the Name Jesus cannot command the Angels because to them he is not Jesus by redemption as the name signifies much lesse can it command the Devills and it cannot command the whole earth for many nations have no knowledge of his written Law much lesse the Gospell therefore neither doth he command them as Jesus neither can any of these submit and bow to him as Jesus Therefore here the Name Jesus standeth as a bare name to Angels devills reprobates and many nations of the earth And let not Master Barton be angry if I affirme that he and his fellowes adore the bare Name Jesus For first understanding the Text of the Name Jesus they appoint the bowing to the Name onely and not to the person as I have proved and they cannot intend it to the person except they adde to the Text Secondly when the person of our Saviour is as fully denominated under his other titles as Jesus they move not but onely at the name Jesus Thirdly when they stand or sit to heare the Word a gesture allowable by the Word as soone as the Name Jesus is mentioned they immediatly bow and when oftentimes the great mercy of God in saving us is largely and copiously laid open in a Sermon or when in reading of a Chapter many excellent sentences are related wherein the sense of our salvation is more clearely notified to our understanding then by the Name Jesus yet there is no stirre no adoration but onely at the Name Jesus no not at the title Saviour which is the very sense of the name Jesus and better understood of all Fourthly it is ordinary with these men when they be upon their knees at the prayers to God and Christ then to make a speciall incurvation of the body at the sound of Jesus a plaine argument that these men are guilty of Syllabicall worship and worship the bare name more then God or Christ himselfe That I alone doe not so charge them Master * Calvin and Master * Babington do both of them lay syllable worship to their charge Therefore I returne Master Bartons scoffes upon himselfe and I would faine see how not poore silly flies but such mighty Elephants as this Saphister is can escape out of these nets and therefore his Crambe so often Cocta cast upon me is more then ridiculous viz. Name above every name as a bare name cannot be understood of the Name Jesus as a bare name and this shall serve to answer it every where when it is brought To the second part viz. If it should be understood of a proper name yet may it not bee understood of the Name Jesus my first reason is because the word Jesus doth no where denote the name Jesus but onely Matth. 1. 21. and Luke 2. 21. where it must needs so signifie but hee will have my meaning to be this that the word Jesus doth not signifie the word Jesus which is a Crotchet of his owne devising I say the word Jesus doth not signifie the name not the word your instance of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to signifie Jehovah in the old Testament is nothing to the purpose for I speake here of Jesus neither is the Parallel brought right for you should have produced where the word Jehovah is taken for the Name Jehovah and if you did it is besides the Question which is onely there concerning the Name Jesus But you can prove you say that name is often used for Jesus and instance in one place which if true it is not for your turne for you must prove that Jesus is taken for the Name Jesus but that place of Acts 5. 41. is not for you doth the Apostle speake there barely of the name or appellation Jesus you thought belike you should never be answered these be the words they rejoyced that they were counted worthy to suffer rebuke for his name what is name taken for the name Jesus here properly did the Appellation Jesus offend the Apostles enemies did not they call him Jesus as well as the Apostles This is that offended them for preaching that Jesus not the name but person was the Christ no quarrell at all about the name Jesus Would it be thought that one that professeth himselfe such a Scholler as Master Barton is should run into such an absurditie To my second reason viz. that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is never taken for the name Jesus you object that I take the word without the sense but Sir you must not take the sense without the name the question is about the name Jesus as a name and though you take the sense with it yet you cannot bring any

hold that hee shall confound any as Iesus against whom as Iesus they never sinned Therefore Master Barton you have shewed your selfe a Master Schismatique in delivering an opinion that was never knowne in the Christian world till you uttered it making it a necessary point of faith threatning the neglect of the practise of it with eternall damnation which you cannot prove by the Scriptures but is contrary to the Scriptures Therefore you make your selfe a very Antichrist in creating new points of faith and making Lawes to binde the conscience and therefore without repentance your selfe are liable to damnation It followes then expressely that all the gay learned stuffe in your Arn. as touching the Question is overthrowne and falls downe upon your head your wound is incurable it cannot be healed and if any shall follow your doctrine and practise of necessity wee shall have a new sect of Bartonists But you hold another Crotchet as ridiculous as this viz. that the name Iesus shall to all eternitie be bowed to after the day of judgement This you would faine prove from Rev. 22. 4. where it is said that the Saints shall see Christs face and his name written on their foreheads and then you say wee shall see it alwayes heare it alwayes but I pray what shew of Text can you bring that it shall be alwayes heard it seemes now you make it indifferent to bow to the name scene as wel as heard but you are besides the Text The best expositors hold that it doth not concerne heaven Thus saith Master Brightman on that place they shall enjoy a clearer vision than before yet farre from that which they shall enjoy in heaven and he applyeth the prophesie of Zachary to these times But grant that it should bee referred to heaven yet first It cannot concerne the state of glory after the day of judgement but before for Christs comming is mentioned after in the 12. Verse of this Chapter Secondly it is absurd to take it literally If it should be so it denotes the name Iesus no more than any other name and there is nothing consequent that any bowing shall be to it but it is not so Thus saith Master Brightman on that parallel place Rev. 1. 14. You may observe that this is no sensible signing Bowing is subjection and Iesus is the name of our Mediator this Doctrine will make Christ Mediator for ever contrary to 1 Cor. 15. 24. for if we must bow to him in heaven by the name of his Mediatorship we must bow also by the vertue of his Mediatorship and so the Saints shall never be in perfect blisse nor the enemies perfectly destroyed And I pray how shall the devils and damned bow after the day of judgement at this name for if the Saints must they must also except you will grant that the name Iesus shall be also written upon their foreheads None ever in this point exceeded so farre in blasphemy and absurditie as you have done You gave a childish answer to my third Reason for if it bee no more than corporall bowing at a Name a childe can performe the like to his father and so Christ should have a weake kingdome As for Bishop Andrewes I am not the first that have so taken him as I have set downe and he is plainely so to bee taken otherwise there will be no sense in the words and so being taken the consequences that I have noted will directly follow Though names be metaphoricall Images yet they represent the Person to our understanding as well as true Images and I suppose that if a Iew should see you bow to the Name Jehovah written upon a wall for writing you make all one with mentioning as before and there is no cause why you should doe otherwise by your interpretation that he would fling a stone in your face and I perswade me that if a subject should bow to the Kings Name or picture before his face hee would defie him and though we are bound to confesse Christ according to his word yet are we no where commanded to adore a bare Name which to doe before Christs face I say againe is worse then Idolatrie For the two Arguments in the conclusion for the first of them the minor which you except against hath beene proved and till that you explaine how the Marginall note failes in your accusation you are answered For the second Argument The denied Major hath beene sufficiently proved and so doth Calvin testifie for me where he saith expressely that all things are now in subjection though the Subjection shall not be perfect till the day of judgement SECT. IX I Say here that this exposition makes disparitie of worship betweene the persons of the Trinitie contrary to John 5. 23. therefore it is false you say it doth not make disparitie the maine evasion you have here is your conceit that the Name Iesus is in it selfe the essentiall name of God but made proper to the Sonne by dispensation But if you could prove that God in his essence was ever called Jesus which you cannot prove there might be some shew for you but yet this is nothing for whether it be proper to the Sonne in it selfe or by dispensation or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} pertaines not to the question but whether it be proper or no that it is proper you cannot deny Then it will follow that to performe a dutie to a name properly denoting the Sonne and not doing the like to the Fathers proper name is honouring the Sonne above the Father It is a monstrous errour to say that Iesus is the essentiall name of God Hence it will follow that God had his essence because of mans sinne and that if man had not sinned God had not beene a most Blasphemous and yet inevitable consequence Therefore Sir prove this or all that you say in this Section is but babling for by this conceit you answer all I have not slandered you in saying that by the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} you understood a truenesse of worship and not every way an equall correspondencie you have affirmed it sundry times and once at a table when our maine dispute was about the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} In my reply I have not changed the principle but you have runne your selfe into a contradiction for whereas you hold it indifferent to bow at any name of the Trinity if wee please then you presently say that our not bowing at the name of the Father nor at the name of the Sonne nor at the Name of the Holy Ghost but at the name of Iesus shewes that they being three one to another but one in themselves and that our salvation was wrought equally by them three onely terminated in the Son for by giving toleration above specified you overthrow this demonstrative end which you set downe and this reason is but a Phantasie of your braine without proofe Whereas in