Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	body_n	heaven_n	soul_n	16,244	5	5.2792	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12482	An answer to Thomas Bels late challeng named by him The dovvnfal of popery wherin al his arguments are answered, his manifold vntruths, slaunders, ignorance, contradictions, and corruption of Scripture, & Fathers discouered and disproued: with one table of the articles and chapter, and an other of the more markable things conteyned in this booke. VVhat controuersies be here handled is declared in the next page. By S.R.	Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1605 (1605)	STC 22809; ESTC S110779	275,199	548

Iohannes Six emprisoned 9. Paschorlis 2. Boniface 8. Vrbanus 6. Clement 7. besyd Sergius 1. others whom they attempted to imprison They haue deposed as much as they could sixteene vz. Iohannes 12. al. 13. Benedict 5 Gregory 5. Benedict Sixteene deposed 8. and 9. Alexander 2. Gregory 6. and 7. Gelasius 2. Innocent 2. Alexander 3 Iohn 22. Vrban 6. Martin 5. by Alphons King of Arragon Platin. in Alexand. 3. Liberality of Popes tovvards England Stovve an 1171. Polidorus lib. 16. Comin ventura in relation de Napoli VVhen vvould Luther and Caluin haue giuen three Kingdomes to England Eugen. 4. by procurement of Philip Duke of Millen Iulius 2. whereas on the contrary side to omit spiritual benefits Popes haue bestowed the Empire vpon almost al them Emperours whom they deposed and haue refused to take the Empire from the Germans though they haue bene much sollicited thereto by the Grecians and to let passe their liberality to other Princes they haue bestowed the Kingdome of Ireland vpon Henry the second and of Naples and Sicily vpon Henry 3. and the most honourable title of defender of the faith vpon Henry 8. Kings of England hereby may the indifferent reader euen setting aside the iustice of the cause and considering only the fact clearly perceaue whether Christian Emperours and Princes haue more tiranized ouer Popes then Popes ouer them now let vs come to Bels proofe of his ould slaunder here againe renued of the Popes taking vpon them power proper to God alone 28. A Closse saith he affirmeth the Pope Bel pag. 14. Gloss lib. 1. tit 7. c. 3. to haue celestial arbitrement to be able to alter the nature of things applying the substance of one to an other and to make something of nothing and the Pope saith Bel is wel pleased there with Answer As for the Pope being pleased with the foresaid words it is more then Bel knoweth but sure I am he detesteth them if they be meant of power to create or proper to God alone But wel I see that which doth not displease Bel if it be giuen to Princes he condemneth as intolerable blasphemie if it be attributed to Popes For the foresaid words are al in the ciuil lawe and by the Emperours applied either to them selues or to the Pope as the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius de sum Three Emperours say the P. hath celestial arbitrement Trin. lib. 1. affirme the Popes to haue celestial arbitrement and condemne them as infamous hereticks who follow not the religion of Pope Damasus and his arbitrement in spiritual matters may be called heauenlie because his authority therein came from heauen That of altering the nature of things and applying the substance of one to an other the Emperour Iustinian C. communia de leg lib. 2. applieth to him selfe Of vvhat things Popes or Princes can alter the nature and meaneth of ciuil contracts as legacis and feoffees in trust which by his imperial power he can alter and change and the like power saith the glosse hath the Pope in contracts pertayning to spiritual matters But of altering the nature of natural things neither the Emperour nor the glosse dreamed 29. But the words which Bel most vrgeth are that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid something of nothing For saith he it is a thing proper to God to make something of nothing in al cases and at al tymes But besides that the glosse neither saith that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid neither yet in al cases and al times as Bel addeth the foresaid words are taken out of Iustinian C. de rei vxor act lib. 1. where the Emperour Of vvhat nothing Popes or Princes can make something saith that because he can make to be accompted a stipulation where none is much more he can an insufficient stipulatiō to be sufficient the like authority in humane contracts touching spiritual matters the glosse attributeth to the Pope this he meant when he said the Pope can de nullo fecere aliquid of no contract make one which Bel would applie to creatiō making creatures of nothing as God made the world 30. Secondlie he proueth his slaunder out of Gersons rep ort before answered and thirdlie out of Gregory 9. saying Ad firmamentum Gregor 9. lib. 1. de cre● tit 33. c. 6. Caeli c. to the firmament of heauen that is of the vniuersal church God made two lights Pontifical authority and power Roial that we may knowe there is as much difference betweene Pope Kings as bet wixt sunne moone Is here any word of authority belonging to God or yet of deposing Kings but only a cōparison of Pontifical Royal power with the sunne moone allowed by the publique letters VVritten 1279. and one extāt in Baron tom 10. an 996. Matth. 16. vers 19. 18. Iob. 21. v. 15. 16. Act. 20. v. 18. Matth. 28. v. 19. of three Princes electors and a preferring of the Pontifical before the Royal which if Bel had any feeling of Christianity in him he would not deny Is not the loosing and binding of sinns in heauen earth of preaching the ghospel admnistring the sacraments of feeding Christs sheepe and the like which belongeth to Bishops as is euident out of scripture far more excellent then Royal power which as wel woemen and children as men infidels as Christians may haue 31. The sunne moone are of the same Royal povver far inferour to Pontifical nature and quality differing only in more or lesse light but Royal power is both of nature and quality far inferiour to Pontifical thas is more humane and begun by Constantin called Bishops Gods and professed him self vnder them Ruffin lib. 1. hist c. 2. men this supernatural and instituted by God that common to Infidels this proper to christians that passeth not earth this reacheth to heauen that concerneth only the body this the soule that helpeth men to worldhe and transitorie quietnes this to heauenlie and euerlasting rest Bel could not abide Pope Gregory saying Pontifical authority excelled Royal as far as the sunne excelleth the moone nor the glosse saying it excelled it 47. times how then wil he abide S. Chrisostom saying it excelleth the kingdome Chrisost l. 3. de sacerd Ambros lib. de dignit sacerd c. 2. as much as the soule douth the body or S. Ambrose saying that nothing can be equal to Pontifical dignity and that Royal glorie and Princes crownes are far more inferiour to it then lead is to glistering gould And againe nothing in this world is more Ibid. cap. 3. excellent then priests nothing higher then Bishops or S. Ignatius saying that nothing is more honourable Ignat. epist ad Smirnenscs in the church then Bishops and that we owe the first honour to God the second to Bishops the third to Kings he exclamed against the glosse for affirming the Pope

touched And these kind of speaches we learnd of the holy Fathers For S. Chrisostom speakinge S. Chrysost hom 24. in 1. Cor. to 4. Hom. 83. in Math. to 3. of the sacrament saith expresly that Christs body is broken In other place we see feel eate and haue Christ within vs. Agayne Christ gaue him selfe to vs to touch to eate and Hom. 46. in Ier. to 3. 61. ad populum to 5. Tertul. l. de Idolatria fasten our teeth marke Bel on his flesh Tertullian inueighinge against vnworthy receauers saith Corpus Christi lacessunt They vex Christs body S. Ciprian of the same affirmeth They vse violence to Christ● body and S. Ciprian serm de lapsis blood and with their mouthes do offend him And they learnt these speeches of Christ him selfe saying This is my body which is broken 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. in the greeck Wil Bel now condemne Christ and these holy fathers of wickednes villany blasphemy and horrible impietie Surely they vse the very wordes of touching breaking and fasteninge or chewing with teeth Nay Bel pag. 30. wil he condemne both English and many forrayne Protestants whose constant doctrine Bel admitteth Christs body to be consumed saith he is that Christs body is broken torne consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good reader for Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany wickednes blasphemy and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and ●dde consuming too is good doctrine 4. But Bel wil say that he addeth that al Bel pag. 29. these are to be vnderstood significantly and sacramentally True And the same adde wee For as him selfe citeth out of Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil c. 8. It is and al wayes Bellarm. was certayne that Christs body being now vncorruptible can be nether broken nor torne but in a signe or sacrament But the difference is in the vnderstanding For we say Christs body is Catholiques and Protestants agreement and difference about the breaking of Christs body broken in a signe which really and truely contayneth it and Protestants say it is broken in a signe from which Christ is as far as heauen is from earth and to expresse this difference and to exclude the sense which Berengarius vsed and the Protestants haue learnt of him the Pope and Councel made him to professe That he beleeued this to be in rei veritate in the verity of the thing Not as if Christs body weare in it selfe so handled for therof there was neuer doubt but that it was not handled so in a bare signe but in such a signe as in rei veritate truely contayneth Christs body As the woman Luc. 8. did in rei veritate truely touch Christ when she touched his garment in S. Luke which he truely was as appeareth by his words ib. v. 46. Some body hath touched me But the Crucifiers when they parted the S. Ihon. 19. v. 23. same garments did not touch him in rei veritate truely because then he was not truely in them And hereby appeareth how the contrariety which Bel noteth betwixt the pag. 29. Councel and Bellarmine is none at al and how protestants can not verifie the breakinge of Christs body so wel as Catholiques can and least of al can as Bel imagineth verify Christs wordes of his body giuen blood shed for remission of sinns because neuer was any bare figure giuen or shed for remission of sinnes 5 But a singuler note saith Bel and pag. 30. worthy to be marked is gathered out of the glosse vpon the foresaid decree when it aduiseth vs That vnles we vnderstand Berengarius words soundly we may fal into worse heresie Marke these words saith Bel for th●y teach vs playnly that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon Popish decrees euen then when they pretend to reforme the Church and condemne heresies But better may we saye marke this note for it discouereth Bels malice and folly teacheth vs plainly that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon heretikes euen when they promise to auouch no vntruth of any man as Bel did a litle before For pag. 22. what aduiseth the glosse against the relying vpon Popes decrees and not onely against misunderstanding them May we not in like manner say of the scripture that vnles we soundly vnderstand those wordes ●hon 6. except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood you shal haue no life in you but grosly as the Capharnaits did of eating it sodde or rosted or cut in peeces as testify Ciprian de caena Domini S. Augustin tract 27. in Ioh. S. Ciprian and S. Austin we shal fal into greater heresie then that of Berengarius was What now Syr Thomas may we therfore infer that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon scripture 6. Finally Bel concludeth this third Bel pag. 30. 31. S. Augustin tract 59. in Ioan. member of his article with an argument drawne out of S. Austins words Illi manducabant panem Dominum illi panem Domini contra Dominum They the Apostles eat the bread our lord he Iudas eat the bread of our lord against our lord Out of which wordes Bel frameth an argument so inuincible in his conceypt as he promiseth to subscribe and neuer more to write against any parte of Papists doctrine if it be answered Marke therfore I pray thee gentle reader his argument and my answer and iudge whether he be not bound to turne his coate the third tyme if he wil performe his promise The argument he proposeth out of forme but it may be reduced to this Iudas receaued but Panem Domini the bread of our lord and not Panem Dominum the bread our lord therfore in the Eucharist is not Dominus our Lord. The Antecedent saith he is playnly auouched by S. Austin the consequence is cleere because if in the Eucharist weare our lord doubtles Iudas in receauing of it should haue receaued our lord Before I answer this argument I must aduertise the reader of three things first ●ow slenderly this fellow is grounded in his faith who promiseth to subscribe to the contrary if one onely argument grounded vpon one saying of one father can be solued Euident it is that he hath neyther playne scripture nor conuincent reason nor the testimony of other fathers for his religion who for answering of one fathers word wil forsake it Albeit this be les maruelous in Bel because hauing already twise altered his religion he wil find les difficulty to change the third tyme. 2. I note the extreame blindnes of this fellow who biddeth vs note and marke seriously that S. Austin Bel noteth a point quite against him self telleth vs that the bread vvhich the Apostles eate vvas our lord I would Bel had marked this him selfe for it is the very vpshot to vse his owne tearme of this controuersy and vnaswerable by any

Aug. lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 26. to 7. Apoc. 22. v. 8. c. 19. v 10. S. August q. 61. in Gen. ●● 4. Genes 29. v. 24. sinneth therin greeuously but the people worshiping erroniously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did S. Ihon when he worshiped an Angel as God thinking as saith S. Austin it had bene God him self or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verely it had bene his wife Rachel But to say that there is no consecration when the Priest omitteth any word at al or miscalleth any words so as the sense be not altered thereby is not Catholique doctrin but Bels vsual false dealing 9. His last contradiction is that vvhen pag. 34. many Priests are made together in Rome they al pronounce the vvords of consecration This is true but what then Papists saith he can not tel hovv many Gods or hovv many times God is made in a peece of bread O accusator fratrum Where didest thou heare of many Gods amongest Papists Where of making of God we say after S. Hierom and S. S. Hieron e●ist ad Hel●odor S. Pontian epist 1. Decretali Pontian that Priests conficiuni Corpus Christi make Christs body but dreame not of making God These be the slanders malitiously obiected to Catholikes against thine owne knowledge and Conscience But where is the contradiction Forsooth because Inocentius h●ldeth that al such Priests do consecrate Durand thinketh that he only who first pronounceth the words and Caietan is of an other opinion I graunt these contradict one an other But what is this to the Mass● are these contradictions in it You promised to shew vs Bel deceaueth his Reader contradictions in ●he Masse and twise you haue told vs of durand Caietans contradictions as often of other matters which had no shew of Contradiction Besides that the matter in which these three Authors contradict one an other is no point of faith For with Catholiques it is no more matter of faith whether al the said Priests or one only consecrate then it is with Protestants whither al or one should christen a child if many at once should dippe him into the font pronounce the words of Baptisme So the letter be wel sealed it skilleth not whither one or many be thought to make the print when many together put their hands to the seale 10. But if Bel when he looked vpon the Masse booke had looked on his communion booke and with the like eyes and affection Gilby admonition to England and Scotland fol. 70. he should haue found other stuffe in it then he did in the Masse For besyde that it is made out of our breuiary and Missal wherupon Gilby called King Edward the sixt his booke an English mattins patched forth of the Popes Portesse more then a thousand Ministers whome the vniuersity of Oxford acknowledged to be Ansvver to the Petitiō their brethren and fellow laborers in the Lords haruest in their petition exhibited Exhibited in April 1603. to his Maiesty say that they groan vnder a burden of humaine rites and ceremonies finde enormities in their Church discipline A thousand ministers censure of the communion booke and in their Churches seruice want of vniformity of doctrin Popish opinions and honor prescribed to the name of Iesus with diuers abuses which they are able say they to shew not to be agreable to Scripture Thus Syr haue your owne ministers deminished the credit of your communion booke And Reynolds an excellent ornament saith Ansvver to 8. reasons Confer p. 63. 86. pag. 25. pag. 59. Buckley in the conference at Hampton court 1. proued the communion booke to contradict twise the Byble the Bishops were faine to amend it 2. he argued it to contradict the 25. Article of their faith 3. to conteyne manifest errors directly repugnant to Scripture 4. he requested it to be pag. 23. fitted to more encrease of piety 5. professeth that vrging men to subscribe vnto it pag. 58. is a great impeachment to a learned ministery wherof he giueth diuers reasons as the repugnancy therin to Scripture the corruption of Scripture the interrogatories and ceremonies in baptisme and certayne D. R●inolds censure of the communion booke words in matrimony Thus syr the excellent ornament of your Church hath adorned your communion booke and this black verdict hath he giuen therof 11. And if I should but reckon the contradictions Protestants contradictiōs about their communion in Protestants doctrin about the Eucharist I shold neuer make an end only I wil requite Bel with some few 1. how Christs body saith Willet shold be verily 1. VVillet Tetrostyl col 2. part 3. p. 82. present and yet not really Can there be verum and not res or ens vere and not realiter 2. how there can be a real presence 2. Perkins Reform Cath. p. 185. 189. of Christ in the Sacrament as saith Perkins and yet Christ no otherwise present then a thing to it name 3 How God giueth Christ 3. Perkins sup in this Sacrament saith the same Minister as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and yet he is giuen by only faith 4. 4. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. paragr 10. How as Caluin teacheth the Eucharist is no empty signe but hath the verity of the thing vnited to it and yet Christ is only in heauen 5. How there is saith Caluin 5. Caluin sup parag 19. 15. a true and substantial communication of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist and yet Christ no more there then he was 6. Sainctes de Euchar. repetit 6. c. 1. p. 208. Mich. Fabrit ep de Beza in the Sacraments of the Iews which were before his body was any substance 6. How Christs body is truely really and substancially in the Eucharist as Beza wrote in his confession exhibited to the Count Palatine and vttered publikly in the disputation at Surius An. 1556. Poysi and yet withal as far from the Eucharist as heauen from earth Surely such fellows as these haue yea no in their religion 2. Cor. 1. v. 17. 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. or els walking in craftines adulterat as the Apostle speaketh Gods worde For if their words be vnderstood as they signify purport they include manifest contradiction and thus much of the second Article VVherfore be myndful Apotal Bel from whēce thou are fallen and do penance Apoc. 2. THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE POPES DISPENSATIONS CHAP. I. BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 36. the two former with vntruthes and dissimulatiōs His vntruths appeare in that he chargeth S. Antonin and Austin of Ancona Antonin 3. part tit 22. c. 5. parag 8. vntruth 42. vntruth 43. with teaching the Pope to haue equal powre with God Because S. Antonin writeth That seeing the Pope is Christs vicar none can lawfully withdraw him self from his