Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	aaron_n	authority_n	moses_n	26	3	6.1721	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A18305	The second part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholicke VVherein the religion established in our Church of England (for the points here handled) is apparently iustified by authoritie of Scripture, and testimonie of the auncient Church, against the vaine cauillations collected by Doctor Bishop seminary priest, as out of other popish writers, so especially out of Bellarmine, and published vnder the name of The marrow and pith of many large volumes, for the oppugning thereof. By Robert Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.; Defence of the Reformed Catholicke of M. W. Perkins. Part 2	Abbot, Robert, 1560-1618.	1607 (1607)	STC 49; ESTC S100532	1,359,700	1,255

hos duos testes duos vn o● esse ante aduentum Christi coelum in nubibus ascendisse Quomodo autem potuerunt habitantes terram de duorum nece gaudere ●um in vna ciuitate marerentur munera inuicē mittere si tres dies sunt quo antequā gaudeant de nece contristentur de resurrectione their conceipt is wholy excluded who thinke that those two witnesses shall be two certaine men and that they bee ascended to heauen in the clouds before the comming of Christ For how saith he should the inhabitants of the earth reioyce of the death of two when as they should dye in one citie and how should they send gifts one to another if there be but three dayes that before they can reioyce of their death they shall haue sorow againe of their resurrection He gathereth out of the very text it selfe that the place cannot be meant of two particular men because the inhabitants through the world can haue no such reioycing of two men put to death in one place who within three dayes must rise againe and therefore necessarily we must admit another construction thereof That is briefly this as more at large might be shewed if occasion so required that the seruants of God for the word of their testimonie the doctrine of Iesus Christ witnessed by the old and new testament should be murthered and slaine in the streets and cities of the Romane Empire and their bodies dishonorably cast forth and left to the foules and beasts whom yet notwithstanding God after a time certainly determined would chalenge from that despite and reproach and make their name glorious so that they should seeme euen to rise from death to life and as it were from hell to be raised vp to heauen which came afterwards to passe when God by Constantine freed his Church from the persecution of that time W. BISHOP Now let vs come to the ancient and learned men whom you cite in fauour of your exposition The first is S. Bernard who saith that they are the ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist Of whom speaketh that good religious Father forsooth of some officers of the court of Rome Good who were as he saith the ministers of Christ because they were lawfully called by the Pope to their places but serued Antichrist for that they behaued themselues corruptly in their callings And so this maketh more against you then for you approuing the lawfull officers of Rome to be Christs ministers The second place is alledged out of him yet more impertinently your selfe confessing presently that those words were not spoken of the Pope but of his enemie The reason yet there set downe pleaseth you exceedingly which you vouch so clearely that it seemeth to beare flat against you for you inferre that that Pope and all others since that time be vsurpers out of this reason of S. Bernard Because forsooth that the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the King of Almaine Fraunce England c. and their whole cleargie and people For if Innocentius were an Antichrist and vsurper because he was elected by so many Kings and people then belike he that had no such election but is chosen by the Cardinals of Rome onely is true Pope This your words declare but your meaning as I take it is quite contrarie But of this matter and manner of election shall be treated hereafter if need require It sufficeth for this present that you find no reliefe at all in S. Bernard touching the maine point that either the Pope or Church of Rome is Antichrist And all the world might maruell if out of so sweet a Doctor and so obedient vnto the Pope any such poyson might be sucked specially weighing well what he hath written vnto one of them Lib. 2. de Cons ad Eugen. to whom he speaketh thus Go to let vs yet enquire more diligently who thou art and what person thou bearest in the Church of God during the time Who art thou A great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles and in dignitie Aaron in authoritie Moses in Power Peter thou art he to whom the Keyes were deliuered to whom the sheepe were committed There are indeed also other Porters of Heauen and Pastors of flockes but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them they haue their flockes allotted to them to each man one but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one man thou art not onely Pastor of the sheepe but of all other Pastors thou alone art the Pastor And much more to this purpose which being his cleare opinion of the Pope how absurd is it out of certaine blind places and broken sentences of his to gather that he thought the Pope of Rome to be neither sheepe nor Pastor of Christs Church but verie Antichrist himselfe There is a grosse fault also in the Canon of Pope Nicholas as he citeth it that the Pope was to bee created by the Cardinals Bishops of Rome As though there were some thirtie or fortie Bishops of Rome at once but of the matter of election else where R. ABBOT I confesse the places of S. Bernard do not serue directly to that purpose to which they are brought In naming Antichrist he did not intend thereby that we should vnderstand the Pope yet M. Bishop without cause taketh aduantage of his first words because the Pope being Antichrist indeed nothing hindreth but that they who by office and calling and dutie are the ministers and seruants of Christ may in action and practise perfidiously and trecherously yeeld their seruice to the Pope Antichrist shall a 2. Thes 2.4 sit in the temple of God and therefore the officers of the temple of God shall be subiect vnto him That which by institution is the house of God shall by his occupation become a den of theeues they who by dutie are subiects shall in following him be rebels and traitors pastors shall become beasts watchmen shall be blind men and they who haue places for one vse shall turne them to another Thus S. Bernard saith of the Cleargie of Rome b Bernard in Cant. ser 32. Ministri Christi sunt seruiunt Antichristo They are the ministers of Christ and they serue Antichrist the true vse of their places is the seruice of Christ but they abuse the same to the helping forward of the kingdome of Antichrist He describeth at large in that place the horrible corruption of the Church of Rome c Ibid serpit hodie putidatabes per omne corpus ecclesiae et quo la t●u● eo desperatit● coque perititiosius quo inter●tis A filthie contagion saith he is creeping through the whole bodie of the Church by how much the more generally so much the more desperatly and so much the more dangerously by how much the more inwardly He sheweth how the Pastours of Churches Deanes Archdeacons Bishops

no fained imagination but a cleare truth as hath bene before shewed The contrarietie and opposition that he conceiueth therin is his owne fond dreame no doctrine of ours We do not say that Christes merits are really in vs neither did Master Perkins giue him any word whereof to imagine it but onely that by imputation they are made really ours because they were vndertaken and done for vs euen as Christ the doer thereof is become really ours euen h Ierem. 23 6. the Lord our righteousnesse Whereas he saith that to say that Christ onely is the person in whome God is well pleased is to giue the lye to many texts of Scripture which testifie that God hath bene pleased towards Abraham Moses c. we suppose he doth not well vnderstand himselfe It is said of many that God was pleased with them or they pleased God but the question is in whome for whose sake by whose mediation God was well pleased towards them and that was onely in Christ onely for Christs sake accordingly as the Apostle Saint Paule saith of all the elect i Eph. 1.6 He hath made vs accepted in his beloued and Saint Peter that our k 1. Pet. 2.5 spirituall sacrifices are acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And this prerogatiue the voyce of the Father giueth him from heauen l Mat. 3.17 This is my beloued Sonne in whom I am well pleased namely towards Abraham Isaac Iacob Moses Dauid and all towards whom he is well pleased Which seeing it was the plaine meaning of M. Perkins and M. Bishop acknowledgeth it to be true that Christ is he for whose sake God is pleased in all others what is it but childish and idle cauilling to make a question there where by his owne confession none is to be made Now where we say that we haue no righteousnesse to iustifie vs before God but only the righteousnesse of Christ nor any merit whereby to presume of heauen but onely the merit of Christ all our owne works being blemished and stained with sinne he biddeth vs tremble at that which thereupon necessarily followeth And what is that Marry that as we haue no righteousnesse but by imputation so we must looke for no heauen but by imputation But why should we not thinke that the merit of Christs obedience and righteousnesse is of sufficient value and estimation to purchase for vs the kingdome of heauen and euerlasting glorie Is it sufficient to purchase grace for vs to merit heauen for our selues and is it not sufficient it selfe to merit heauen for vs And if we haue no merit of our owne what should hinder but that we may say with Saint Bernard m Bernard in Cant. Ser. 61. Ego fidenter quicquid ex me mihi deest vsurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini quoniam misericordia effluunt c. Meritum proinde meum miserationes Domini Non planè sum maritiinops quamdiuille miserationum non fuerit Quòd si misericordiae Domini multa multus nihilo minus ego in meritis sum Whatsoeuer is wanting to me of my selfe I boldly take it vnto me out of the bowels of the Lord for they flow out with mercy My merit is the Lords mercy I am not poore in merit so long as he is not poore in mercy and if he be rich in mercie then am I also rich in merits Yea Bellarmine M. Bishops maister after that he hath swet and trauelled mightily to auouch the righteousnesse and merit of workes in the end being quite spent is content to retire into our port and draweth to this conclusion that n Bellar. de iust lib. 5. cap. 7. Propter incertitudinē propriae iustitiae periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia benig nitate reponere because of the vncertaintie of our owne righteousnesse and the perill of vaine glory the safest way is to repose our whole trust in the onely mercy and goodnesse of God Now if there be no saluation no heauen without merits and a man haue no merits of his owne by what merits shall the mercy of God saue him but onely by the imputation of the merits of Christ And will M. Bishop say of him that as he hath no merits but by imputation so he shall haue no heauen but by imputation Shall this be all the comfort of that which Bellarmine commendeth for the safest course to flie to the sole and onely mercie and goodnesse of God Yea saith M. Bishop for God as a most vpright iudge will in the end repay euery man according to his woorth What and do you M. Bishop expect that God in the end should repay heauen to you according to your woorth Go foole go leaue off this talke of merit and woorth learne to know God learne to know thy selfe learne to say with Chrysostome o Chrysost in Coloss hom 2. Nemo talem vitae conuersatio nem ostendit vt regno dignus esse possit sed totum donum est ipsius D● No man sheweth such conuersation of life as that he may be worthy of the kingdome but it is wholy the gift of God Was not p Mar. 1.7 Iohn Baptist worthie to loose the latchet of Christs shoe and dost thou thinke to be worthie to raigne with Christ But I leaue him here to be whipped with his own rod his owne conscience wil one day sting him sufficiently with the remembrance of these assertions As for the Protestants let him take no care for their worthinesse We beleeue that there is for vs in Christ a reall worthinesse for which we shall receiue a reall heauen But let him take heed lest whilest he feedeth himselfe with a conceipt of woorth where there is none he be deluded with a conceipt of heauen in his end and indeed find none nor euer attain to that which is prepared for them that maintaine the truth of the Scripture and glorie of God to their owne comfort But of worthinesse there will be further occasion to speake hereafter As for the place of Austine which he alledgeth as good to stand for him it was written by him when he was newly conuerted from the heresie of the Manichees in such words and phrases as seeme plausible to humane vnderstanding and iudgement which comparing one man with another expresseth to it selfe the difference by termes of worthie and vnworthie deseruing and hot deseruing howsoeuer to the sight and iudgement of God woorth desert are farre from all The purpose of S. Austine in that place is to shew the ordinarie course that God taketh that he will first haue vs to trauell in his seruice before we receiue the reward thereof as the Apostle declareth in saying q 2. Tim. 2.6 The husbandman must labour before he receiue the fruites But that S. Austine in maturitie and ripenesse of iudgement was very farre from M. Bishops fancie of merit may sufficiently appeare by one sentence of his where he saith

which the Apostle gaue for the direction of Christian life 18. W. BISHOP The next place is * Pro. 30.8 Giue me neither riches nor pouerty Answer The Prayer is good and fitteth the persons of honest men who liue in the world and was of some perfection too in the state of Moses law in which it was made as disswading from couetousnesse of great riches but it commeth too short of the perfection of the Gospell wherein we are counselled to esteeme as dung all worldly riches R. ABBOT He blamed M. Perkins answer in the former Section as deuoid of natural wit and sence but I pray thee gentle Reader if thou light vpon him to aske him where his wits were when he gaue this answer To the one part he answereth a Pro. 30.8 Giue me not riches but to the other part Giue me not pouerty which is the thing vrged against him he answereth nothing We are counselled in the Gospel he saith to esteem as dung all worldly riches True therfore we say Giue me not riches But yet in the Gospell we are taught to pray for that that is conuenient according to our place and condition when we say Giue vs this day our daily bread and therefore we say Giue me not pouertie whereupon it is added Feede me with foode conuenient for me The praier saith he fitteth the persons of honest men that liue in the world Hypocrite who taught thee this distinction of praiers Hath the spirit of God set it down as a praier of the wisest man and is it now come to be posted ouer to I know not what honest men It was of some perfection he saith in the state of Moses law but commeth too short of the perfection of the Gospell Hypocrite the Apostle hath taught vs that b Rom. 15.4 whatsoeuer things were written before time were written for our learning and must we vpon the word of an idle Sophister be perswaded that that praier is too base for vs to learn And what were not men taught in the state of Moses law to esteeme as dung all worldly riches Did not Dauid say c Psal 62.10 If riches increase set not your heart vpon them Did not Solomon say of riches d Prou. 23.5 Wilt thou cast thine eies vpon that that is nothing Did not Esay say e Esa 40.6 All flesh is grasse and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field Were they not as fully taught to despise the world and to ioy in God as we are But the man so dreameth of perfection perfection as that we may very well thinke that there is some very great imperfection in his head In a word therefore God hath taught a man to say Giue me not pouerty but they teach a man to say I will vow pouerty and what do they then but teach a man to contrary that which God hath taught 19. W. BISHOP M. Perkins his third reason is taken out of Deut. 28.22 where pouerty is numbred among the curses of the law none of which are to be vowed Answer It is one thing to be punished with pouerty for transgressing of Gods law and another I trow for the loue of God to giue away all we haue to the poore The former was a curse in the law of Moses the latter is a blessing and the first blessing in the Gospell * Luc. 6. Blessed are the poore for theirs is the kingdome of heauen Which sentence albeit it may be applied very well vnto humility yet more literally signifieth voluntary pouerty as by the sentence opposed against it is manifest * Ver. 23. Woe be to you rich men c. R. ABBOT The words of Moses are a Deut. 28.44 The stranger shall lend to thee and thou shalt not haue to lend to him b Ver. 48. Thou shalt serue thine enemies in hunger and thirst and in nakednes and in need of all things Christ hath taught vs before that it is a blessing to haue wherof to giue and Moses teacheth vs that it is a curse to be in want not to haue wherof to lend what is then the vow of pouerty but the renouncing of a blessing and the voluntary vndergoing of a curse M. Bishop answereth that it is one thing to be punished with pouerty for trāsgressing the law of God another for the loue of God to giue all to the poore But then is it done for the loue of God when God calleth vs to the doing of it otherwise it is no matter of the loue of God but of humane presumption and selfwil Therfore his answer here is al one as if he shold say It is one thing for a man to be accursed of God another thing voluntarily to lay Gods curse vpon himself and how wel that serueth his turne let himselfe iudge Yet he will proue that it is a blessing yea the first blessing in the Gospel And how forsooth because Christ saith c Luke 6.20 Blessed are the poore for theirs is the kingdom of heauē We may see the poore man was driuē to poore shifts when he was faine to vse this text for the making good of his vow of pouerty If his leisure had serued him he would haue turned to the fift of Mathew and there haue seen our Sauior expounding himself d Mat. 5.2 Blessed are the poore in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heauen Now a man would think that M. Bishops learning should haue taught him long before this that a man may be rich in worldly goods and yet poore in spirit and that vndoubtedly Abraham the father of all beleeuers was such a one Yea saith he it may wel be applied to humilitie yet more literally it signifieth voluntary pouerty And how may that appeare forsooth by the sentence opposed against it it is manifest Wo be to you rich men But I maruel what strings M. Bishop hath to tie this argument together Christ saith Wo be to you rich men therfore that which he saith before Blessed are ye poore must necessarily be vnderstood of volūtary pouerty What doth Christ absolutely meane wo to all that be rich When he expoundeth the poore to be poore in spirit doth he not teach vs proportionably to vnderstand the rich This childish collection is reproued by our Sauior Christ whē his disciples being astonished at that which he said e Mark 10.23 How hardly do they that haue riches enter into the kingdome of God he answereth f Ver. 24. Children therby reprouing their weaknes of vnderstanding how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God The wo then is not to all that are rich but to such as trust in riches but there are men who g 1. Tim. 6.17 are rich in this world who yet are not high minded and trust not in vncertaine riches but in the liuing God Christ hauing shewed the end of the man that trusted in riches addeth

idoll Howsoeuer therefore the words originally are in meaning the same yet because the custome of the Church hath appropriated the one to speciall signification we accordingly distinguish them in such sort notwithstanding as that where the name of Image implieth that for which an Image is called an Idoll as in this question of Images it doth there we take an image and an idoll to be the same and no difference betwixt them But the truth of this matter will appeare in examining the particulars which here M. Bishop hath set downe for the iustifying of their Idols The difference that he maketh betwixt an Idoll and an Image is this that an Image representeth a thing that is an Idoll representeth a thing supposed to be but is not Where I pray thee gentle Reader to marke wel how handsomly they deale in the contriuing of this matter An Idol forsooth is a representation onely of such things as haue no being and the second commandement forbiddeth onely idols it therefore must be vnderstood to condemne only representations of such things as haue no being Which being so we maruell what those words import which are added in the commaundement The likenes of any thing that is in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the waters vnder the earth or what Moses meant speaking yet more particularly a Take heed that ye make not the representation of any figure the likenesse of man or woman the likenesse of any beast that is vpon the earth the likenesse of any feathered fowle the likenesse of any creeping thing c. We would know of M. Bishop what it is that Moses here condemneth whether Images or Idols If he say Images then Idols onely are not forbidden by this commandement If he say Idols then Idols are not onely representations of those things that are not because all the things here mentioned haue their reall existence and being in the world But we can vse no better meanes to circumuent him then by the authorities which he himselfe alledgeth where following the example of his master Bellarmine he referreth his Reader to the places but setteth not downe the words because he well knoweth that they fully make against him First Origen hauing set downe that b Origē in Exod. hom 8. Longè aliud sunt Idola aliud dij rursū differentiae idolorum et similitudinū Aliud est ergo facere idolū aliud similitudinem Siquis in quolibet metallo auri vel argents vel ligni vel lapidis faciat spec●em quadrupedis alicutus vel serpentis vel auis statuat illam adorandam non idolum sed simelitudinem fecit vel etiam sipicturam ad hoc ipsum statuat c. Idolū verò facit ille qui secundū Apostolum dicētem quia idolum nihil est facit quod non est Quid est autem quod non est Species quam non vidit oculus sed ipse sibi animus fingit Vt siquis humanis membris caput can●● aut artetis forniet vel rursū in vno hominis habitu duas facies fingat aut humano pectori postremas partes equi aut piscu ad●●●ngat Haec ijs similia qui facit non similitudinem sed idolum facit Facit enim quod nō est nec habet aliquid simile su● c. Quae sermo Dei vniuersacomplectens simul abiurat abijcït non solùm idolum fieri verat sed similitudinem omnium quae in te●ris sunt in aquis in coel● Gods and Idols differ much and againe that there is difference of Idols and resemblances or images he prosecuteth the latter in this sort It is one thing to make an Idoll another thing to make a similitude or image If in any mettal of gold or siluer or wood or stone a man make the forme of any foure-footed beast or serpent or bird and set vp the same to be worshipped he hath not made an Idol but an image or similitude or if he set vp a picture for that purpose he is to be said to haue made a similitude but he maketh an Idoll who according to the Apostle saying that an idoll is nothing maketh that that is not And what is that that is not It is a shape which the eye hath not seene but the mind fancieth to it selfe As for example if to the body of a man one frame the head of a dog or of a ram or to one shape of a man make two faces to a mans likenes so farre as the brest do adde the hinder parts of a horse or of a fish He that maketh these or such like maketh not a similitude but an idoll For he maketh that that is not nor hath any thing like vnto it All these the word of God comprising together condemneth and reiecteth and doth not onely forbid an idoll to be made but also the similitude of all things that are in the earth and in the waters in heauen Theodoret imitating Origen speaketh to the very same effect c Theod. in Exod. quaest 38 Quî differunt idolum similitudo Idolum nihil representat quod su●sistat similitudo verò est abcui●● imago effigies Cum ergo Graeci quidā forma● minimè subsistentes effingunt veluti Sphingas Trit●nas Centauros Aegyptij verò homines canina facie babalovè capite tales rerū non subsistentiū fictiones idola vocat similitudines autem rerū subsistentium imagines veluti Solis Lunae stellarum hominū beluarū rep●iliū his similium quae omnia verat adorare aut animo colere How differ an Idoll and a similitude or likenesse An idoll representeth nothing that hath being but a similitude is the image or shape of some thing being Whē then some of the Greeks do fancie shapes that are not as Sphinxes Tritons Centaures and the Aegyptians men with dogs faces or heads of oxen such fictions of things that are not he calleth idols but similitudes he calleth the images of things that are as of the Sunne the Moone the starres of men of beasts of creeping things and such like all which he forbiddeth to worship either outwardly by gesture or inwardly by mind Thus these authors the latter of them taking occasion by the former apply the name of Idols onely to such imagined formes and shapes which haue nothing answerable to them in the creatures of the world as Sphynx bearing in the face the shape of a maide with wings and all the rest of the bodie like a Lion Triton or Dagon being the forepart of a man and the hinder part of a fish the Centaures being in one part men and the other horses Anubis hauing an oxe-head to the bodie of a man and sundry other such like Now what a trouble would it be to M. Bishop if the honest man with whom he questioned d Chap. 3. sect 2 before should come to him saying Good sir you asked me a question a while since I pray let me make bold now to