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 saint_n world_n 6,085 5 4.5948 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A07805 The encounter against M. Parsons, by a revievv of his last sober reckoning, and his exceptions vrged in the treatise of his mitigation. Wherein moreouer is inserted: 1. A confession of some Romanists, both concerning the particular falsifications of principall Romanists, as namely, Bellarmine, Suarez, and others: as also concerning the generall fraude of that curch, in corrupting of authors. 2. A confutation of slaunders, which Bellarmine vrged against Protestants. 3. A performance of the challenge, which Mr. Parsons made, for the examining of sixtie Fathers, cited by Coccius for proofe of Purgatorie ... 4. A censure of a late pamphlet, intituled, The patterne of a Protestant, by one once termed the moderate answerer. 5. An handling of his question of mentall equiuocation (after his boldnesse with the L. Cooke) vpon occasion of the most memorable, and feyned Yorkeshire case of equiuocating; and of his raging against D. Kings sermon. Published by authoritie Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659. 1610 (1610) STC 18183; ESTC S112913 342,598 466

There are 3 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

though there were not in heauen as Christ speaketh many Mansions and that he who is not in the chiefe place of heauen were therefore excluded out of heauen This is another falshood 41. Thirdly Caluine speaketh of a porch of Heauen by allusion vnto the people of the olde lawe who stood in the Porch whilst only the high Priest went into the Sanctuary to offer for the people and saith that so Christ our high Priest is onely entred into the Sanctuary of Heauen that he may offer vp the vowes of the people which stand in the Porch a farre off meaning the people of the militant Church in this life of whom he said Sic membrorum omnium adhuc in terra laborantium vnus Mediator Christus That is Christ is the onely Mediator for his members which trauell in this earth And now to change the Atrium of Saints in this world into the Atrium of Saints in glorie is to turn earth into heauen which is another iniury 42. Lastly if we shall suppose that Caluine by Atrium had meant the place of soules departed and had said that the soules departed could not enter into the Sanctuary yet Bellarmine knowing other plaine and iustifiable sentences of Caluine might haue affoorded his obscure places as fauourable an exposition as he allowed S. Bernard who taught an Atrium also to wit Dicit quidem Bernardus c. Bernard indeed saith that the Saints shal not see God before the resurrection and vntill then to remaine in Atrio That is in the Porch Whereby he meant not saith Bellarmine to denie the simple vision of God but that perfect vision which shall be both in body and soule after the resurrection Here againe wee may discerne a malignancie in our Romish Writers who when they finde Fathers and Protestants agreeing in the same tearmes as before was obserued in the testimony of Tertullian yet do they iustifie the sayings of the Fathers as holy truths and reiect the sentences of Protestants as damnable heresies The same slaunder fastened by Bellarm. vpon Luther I Haue consulted with Bellarmine at least with his booke and he ascribeth this heresie vnto Caluine and Luther c. The Reueiwe 43. He doth so indeed Luther saith Bellarmine held the same errour in his Lectures vpon Genesis as Fredericus Staphylus doth cyte him Who accuseth Luther Bellarmine a professed Reader against him but by what witnesse euen by Staphylus a Romanist and a professed Rayler against Luther Lastly from what place From his Lectures vpon Gen. where I can finde nothing for defence of that errour but much for the confutation thereof For Praelect in Gen. cap. 25. where after that hee had affirmed that the soules of the iust after death doe not go eyther into Hell or into Purgatorie but into peace he saith Iustos omnes c. That is That all the iust when they depart out of this life doe goe to Christ and are receiued into his bosome euen into Paradise which Paradise he there calleth Heauen Therfore the former accusation doubtlesse came not from heauen 44. It may please the Reader to obserue that whereas I happended to produce the testimony of Tolossanus a Romish Authour cyting Frising ensis against the violent and turbulent practizes of later Popes M. Parsons held it to be a fraudulent iniury to alleage the Relater Tolossanus and not Frisingensis who was the Authour himselfe But now M. Parsons in this place seeth Bellarmine cyting Staphylus the professed enemy of Luther by whose testimony Luther is noted of Heresie and yet he thinketh that Bellarmine hath done honestly Here is good Reckoning The sixt slaunder vsed by Cardinall Bellarmine against Caluine 45. Bellarmine challengeth Calnine for as he calleth it an auncient Heresie alleaged by Theodoret affirming that there is onely a figure of Christs body in the Eucharist And yet in another place affirming both That that opinion is not auncient nor yet now to be found in Theodoret and also that The foresaid doctrine of Caluine doth teach that in the Eucharist there is to be exhibited vnto the faithful not onely a figure of Christs body but also the body and blood it selfe by which meat soules are nourished vnto eternall life Or as another Iesuite testifieth for Caluine That our soules communicate with the body of Christ substantially Here is no more oddes in this Accusation then ancient and not auncient heresie and not heresie Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THE obiected contradiction in this place is that Bellarmine confesseth Caluine to hold that together with the Sacrament of the Eucharist God doth exhibite vnto the faithfull not onely a signe of Christs body but also the body and blood it selfe yea and as Valentia addeth further that aCluine confesseth that our soules doe communicate with the body of Christ substantially Whereunto I answere true it is that in wordes al Cuine doth affirme as much in some parts of his workes but denyeth it againe in others and thereupon doe both Bellarmine and Valentia conuince him of most eiudent and palpable contradictions in this matter Which prooueth no contradiction in Bellarmine but in Caluine himselfe The Reueiwe 46. So doe you pursue many testimonies of Caluine to no purpose for there is a reall eating of Christs body spiritually and not onely bodily all the question is whether in the Sacrament we receiue onely a Signe of Christ and not the very body it selfe So said those auncient Heretickes and so Caluine is traduced by Ballarmine to haue affirmed This matter would bee better examined A Syllogisme would set all straight Maior No man admitting more then a Signe of Christs body to be receiued in the Eucharist doth concurre with the auncient Heretickes mentioned by Theodoret who defended receiuing only of the signe of Christs body Minor But Caluine by the confession of Bellarmine and others taught that we receiue in the Eucharist more then a signe of Christ his bodie Ergo Caluine taught not that auncient Heresie mentioned by Theodoret. 47. The Maior will not be denied the Minor is this that Calume taught that we receiue more then a signe euen a Seale also as M. Parsons noteth by vertue where of Caluine saith that We receiue the very body and blood of Christ as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth not onely Sacramentally but as Valentia witnesseth Substantially communicating in our soule with the body of Christ. So that in the conclusion which is contradictory vnto Bellarmine his assertion wee see in Bellarmine a manifest contradiction Neyther shall Master Parsons with all the arte hee hath auoyde this vntill he can shew some place in Caluine wherein it is said that We receiue onely a signe of Christs body in the Eucharist and not his bodie which neyther he nor any of his Disciples shall euer be able to performe 48. A second contradiction is as plaine wherein as hee would charge Caluine with an Auncient Heresie mentioned by Theodoret and yet saith
for my selfe desiring M. Parsons to loooke into Gretzer and to examine the places wherein he doth insist in Confutation of any thing that I haue written and iudge betweene vs and acccordingly to esteeme of Gretzers Censure In the meane time I shall answer vnto the censure which M. Parsons himselfe hath made against me M. PARSONS his Reckoning Neither will I alleage any thing iniuriously against M. Mortons person which I doe loue from my heart in the true loue of Christ our Sauiour wishing his best spirituall good as mine owne and doe esteeme him also for the good parts that God hath bestowed vpon him though I doe pitty the euill imployment thereof in the cause he defendeth The Reuew 10 You shal not need M. Parsons to do that you haue aboundantly done which is To alleage matters iniuriously against me Notwithstanding I do imbrace your tender of loue and shall I hope not be ouercome in this contention by affecting your eternall good euen as mine owne neither shall I further esteeme of my selfe than that my imploiment may be for defence of a cause which I ought to loue a thousand times aboue my selfe Hactenùs de me Now I come to you M. Parsons SECT II. Concerning the Challenges made against M. PARSONS M. PARSONS Reckoning Mr. Morton hath lost himselfe through vehemency of Passion in this place where he censureth his Aduersary in fower seuerall challenges which I haue thought good to set downe together and not to answer them seuerally as I did in the former Paragraph for that indeed there is in them nothing but excesse of intemperate heat in contumelious speech c. The reuew 11 If M. Parsons would haue confidered either his owne desert or my behauiour he would neuer haue complained of contumelious speeches For neither am I so lauish but that their owne Apologists whom he greatly commendeth haue allowed me the Title of A man not intemperate neither yet vsed M. Parsons to be so moderate but that his owne fellow could note him from the mouth of Cardinall Alan to be a man of a Uery violent and vnquiet spirit Yea and M. Parsons himselfe also hath wished that He had not vsed such asperity of speech against me Wherefore I passe ouer personal and offensiue tearmes which notwithstanding were onely expressed in Latine and I come to the Materiall points to trie whether I haue beene able to performe my chalenge against him or not There were foure principall parts of the chalenge against M. Parsons 1. The Discouery of Romish Positions and practises of Rebellion to be iust 2. His Treatise of Mitigation to be falsly so intituled 3. His Mentall AEquiuocation to be an Art of lying 4. The Romanists to support their causes by lying The Performance of the first part of the Chalenge 12. As the presence of light dispelleth darknesse so Uerum est Iudex sui obliqui Seeing now therefore that after M. Parsons hath made his full Reckoning and that answer hath beene made to all his exceptions we finde that their former Bulles and practises of their Popes such as were Pope Greg. 7. Paulus 3. Sixtus Quintus Pius Quintus and that the sentences of their owne Doctors such as were Card. Bellarmine Boucher Carerius Bozius Rainolds Allen Simancha Costerus Sanders Creswell Dolman doe without exemption defend a rooting out of all Princes who shall not subiect themselues vnder the Pope of Rome whensoeuer there is a sufficient power to preuaile Albeit it doth no lesse manifestly appeare and that by the confession of their owne Authors that in the time of the old law the High Priests were subiect vnto Kings And in the new Testament that Christ and his immediate Disciples did not affect or exercise power ouer Kings in Temporall things and as for the succeeding Fathers such as were Tert. Cyprian Chrysostom Athanasius Ambrose Leo Augustine and Gregory the Great that they as it hath beene likewise confessed did professe their subiection vnto the Emperours of their time according to the doctrine maintained in our Church All these Considerations cannot but iustifie the first part of my Chalenge concerning the Discouery of seditious Romish Positions and Practises of Rebellion The discharge of the second Part. 13 As for the decyphering of the disloyall affection of M. Parsons the former Mitigator what can be more pregnant then are his owne clauses who permitteth a subiection vnto Protestant Kings with a May and of a Possibility instead of a Must and Necessity who also alloweth his Catholiks to acknowledge their loyalty vnto our king only so long as they are Vsed as Subiects and then complaineth that they are not vsed as Subiects Who teacheth that they who are Lawfully Excommunicate by the Pope persist obstinate may not be heads in Christian Communion who can affoord no more grieuous epithet vnto the horrible plot of the Gunpowder Treason than to call it A temerarious fact notwithstanding it were a fact which both heauen and earth doe detest and at which hell it selfe as it were standeth all agast who being vrged to answere whether their part would not eradicate Protestants if they had power to execute their will could finde no better euasion then to say that the question was Impertinent Finally who defendeth the booke of Dolman al 's Parsons which hath bene condemned by their owne Priest as most Rebellious against the English State How shall not this be held a iust performance of the second part of the Challenge The discharge of the third part of the Challenge against Mentall Equiuocation as it hath beene described by M. Parsons 14 The Mentall Equiuocation which M. Parsons hath propounded as iustifiable in the iudgement of all Schooles Chaires and Vniuersities is in sundry places of this Encounter largely discussed and prooued to a lie not only from Reason but also from the iudgement of Romish Doctors such as were Sepulveda Aquinas Gabriel Biel Scotus Henricus de Gandauo Azorius and Sotus and was neuer iustified for true by any Heathenish man whereof there will be occasion to say much more in the answer to the Appendix following wherein the Reader will finde I hope a due satisfaction to this question The performance of the last part of the Challenge to wit that the great Support of Romanists is by lying Deuises 15 What would any Reader require for the due performance of this discharge The dispositions which their Writers haue to falsifie Then see aboue their Suarez condemned by Cumel their Baronius reprooued by their Venetian Doctor their Boucher controlled by Barclay their Gratian corrected by their Archbishop Tarraconensis their Bellarmine condemned by Marsilius by P. Paulus and Barclay and lastly their M. Parsons and their Moderate Pamphletter confuted in this Encounter 16 Would he furthemore haue it shewne vnto him wherein they haue abused the Fathers hee need but looke backe againe vnto the former Chapters where
absolutely Reserued in the minde the first kinde I graunt to be if he will more then a thousand times vsed in Scripture but the second of his maner of Reserued could neuer finde any Iota in all Scripture to countenance so vile a deuice Which although I haue confuted by many Reasons yet now I will aduenture to turne his owne weapon vpon him First thus 17 If the Reseruation which he defendeth be not to be piously and lawfully vsed in matters of faith then was it an impietie in him to ground the truth of that doctrin vpō sentences of Scripture which concerne the doctrine of faith Secondly thus 18 If I should passe through all the Articles of our Creed to search such kind of Reseruations as M. Parsons did in the spceches of Christ as namely thus first I meaning I a man not a woman 2. Beleeue meaning truly and not fainedly 3. in God meaning the God of Christians not the Idoll of the Pagans 4. the Father meaning by adoption and not by naturall generation 5. Almighty meaning that can doe whatsoeuer he will not that will doe whatsoeuer he can 6. maker of heauen and earth meaning with his word not with any hands so might I passe throughout euery Article of our Christian Creed to collect from euery ioynt word therof all such like vnexpressed meanings as M. Parsons did from the speeches of Christ. 19 Here I may argue thus If all such sentences which according to the custome and vse imply meanings which are not expressed do exemplifie and proue the Romish Mentall Equiuocation then is there a Mentall Reseruation in euery Article of our Faith and so it is vnp ossible but to Equiuocate mentally in the Confession of our Faith But if these implied sences do differ from the Romish reserued sence then was it both wicked absurd to seeke to draw that exorbitant and inapprehensible doctrine of Equiuocating from such sentences of Scripture which are no more Equiuocall then be the doctrines of our Faith 20 The second Case is in the examination concerning their Priesthood where the Priest being asked Whether he be a Priest is licensed to answer according to their daily practize saying I am no Priest with this Reseruation as purposing to tell it you Now then knowing that they hold ordination of Priesthood to be a Sacrament which impresseth in the soule an indelible Character which herein as they say excelleth al other Sacraments in that it aduanceth a Priest a degree aboue all other Christians the end whereof they make a reall Offering vp of Christ as a Sacrifice for the quicke and the dead I tooke vpon me to argue in effect thus Seeing euery Christian will hold it to be an impietie to Equioucate in denying his Baptisme therefore may hee iudge it likewise a wickednes for a Priest to Equiuocate in denying his Priest-dome Vnto which I expected an Answer of M. Parsons but only expected it From Cases we passe to Effects The Impious Effects of the new kind of Romish Mentall Equiuocation The first effect 21 The first is because if this kind of Equiuocating be admitted mans mouth is stopped for giuing either man or deuill the lye because still they may answer that they did not lye for that they conceiued a secret vnsearchable Clause of Reseruation in their minde as when he said vnto Eue Gen. 3. Though you eat you shall not die reseruing secretly that we may suppose thus much dye Martyrs or die Eating or dye In your beds or what not M. Parsons perceiuing the cōsequence returned an Answer M. PARSONS his Mitigation This is childish And is not this goodly stuffe fil for a booke fit for print are these suffered to passe without controlement in England If the Deuill be the Father of lyes and consequently of them that doe lye of what kinde will he proue to be to this Minister that hath beene taken now with so many notorious lyes c. The Reuiew 22 Thus he runneth on with a personall and vnconscionable Inuectiue against me euen vnto the end of the Paragraph not yeelding one Syllable in Answer to the point of Argument It may be he would haue said something if he had not run himselfe out of breath or else Aquila non capit muscas he held it to be too Childish and vnworthy his Answering I am rather perswaded that he perceiued the full force thereof which must be this viz. That if this new maner of Mentall Equiuocation may be once got by hart of people and serue to make a speech true no man shall haue any neede of a lye for couert of any guilt because this Mentall euasion will be both as easie and as secure as any lye consequently he shall be accounted the lyar that shall giue any other the lye I suppose my Reader will hold this to be an Argument yea and peraduenture so forcible that the prouerbe may be inuerted against M. Parsons as thus Musca non capit Aquilas and therefore made he a shift to controle that which he could not confute Which will be apparant by the next point The second Effect 23 Periury being generally held to be a lye in an Oath it must follow that the same Clause of secret Reseruation which freeth a man from lying may deliuer him also from the brand of Periury and so shall neuer any who is experienced in this maner of Equioucating be possibly condemned of periurie whatsoeuer the words be that he vttereth with his mouth And so the witnesses which were suborned against true Naboth and against chast Susanna and against the Iust one yea and against very Iustice it selfe our Lord Christ supposing that they knew the tricke of Equiuocation could not be absolutely condemned of Periurie And so all Tribunals must cancell and extinguish the Title of Periury in their proceeding against vniust witnesses This also I held to haue in it some pith of an Argument but M. Parsons would not so much as mention it It may be he contemned it The third Effect 24 Againe Iesuits and other Priests are not all soule as we may guesse by their doctrine of Equiuocating which they professe for the safety security of their owne bodies one branch of which doctrine is this When any is put vpon the racke saith their Cardinall sometime Iesuit among his general instructions which he giueth vnto Priests and doth reueale the crime of an other although he be not examined iustly and according to law yet herein he doth not sinne because none is bound vpon so great bodily harme to himselfe to preserue the good name of an other Therefore said I when as you make all Protestant Magistrates Incompetent with whom you thinke it lawfull to Equiuocate in your speeches oathes when you are questioned about other men you doe in effect teach your Aduersaries to vse that 〈◊〉 with you as though the onely competent Examiner of you must be the Rack This Argument M.