Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
heaven_n body_n earth_n spirit_n 6,743 5 5.1226 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
A14463 A Christian instruction, conteyning the law and the Gospell Also a summarie of the principall poyntes of the Christian fayth and religion, and of the abuses and errors contrary to the same. Done in certayne dialogues in french, by M. Peter Viret, sometime minister of the Word of God at Nymes in Prouince. Translated by I.S. Seene and allowed according to the Queenes Maiesties iniunctions.; Instruction chrestienne en la doctrine de la loy et de l'Evangile. English. Selections Viret, Pierre, 1511-1571.; Viret, Pierre, 1511-1571. Instruction chrestienne et somme generale de la doctrine comprinse ès sainctes Escritures. aut; Shute, John, fl. 1562-1573. 1573 (1573) STC 24778; ESTC S119199 214,871 552

There are 7 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

sée not howe they will agrée their opinion with the articles of oure faythe by whiche wée doe confesse not only that Iesus Christe is gone vp into heauen but also that he is there sette at the ryght hande of the Father and that from thence hée shall come in Iudgemente by a visyble and corporall presence euen as he went vp visibly corporally according to the verie testimonie of the Angels and also of Sainte Peter who hath sayd that the Heauen muste néedes receyue hym vntill the tyme of the restoring of all thyngs wherof God hath spoken by the mouthe of all his Prophetes since the beginning The eightenth Dialogue is of the presence of Iesus Christe in heauen and in the supper and in his Church VVhether the ascention of Iesus Christe be a true ascention or no or else if he made himselfe only inuisible MATHEVV IT séemeth to me that all that whiche thou hast spoken of the ascētion of Iesus Christ is nothing against the opiniō of those against whom thou hast so long disputed for they denie not that Iesus Christe is gone vp into Heauē neyther that he shall come visiblie and bodily to iudge the liuing and the dead euen as thou hast said P. How do they then agrée their doctrine with this confession M. They alleadge two things vppon this pointe The firste is that the heauen and the right hand of God where Iesus Christe is do stretche ouer all The other is that the comming of Iesus Christ which is made by the sacrament the Supper is inuisible wherfore albeit that he bée there bodily in the propre substance of his bodie bloud yet is he not there visibly but inuisibly P. If they make no space betwéene the earth and the heauen and that they will stretche out the heauen euen to the earth in suche sort that Chryst hath not absented him from the earth as touchyng his bodie and that he didde retire himselfe when he went vp into heauen it may not then be sayde that he is ascended as the Scripture witnesseth but that he hathe alwayes remayned vppon earthe without departing from thence agaynst that whiche he himselfe did prophecie to his disciples It muste also be sayde that hée should then haue made hym selfe inuisible to them and that he were stil yet on earth not visible but inuisible Hovve that the presence corporall of Iesus Christ in the Supper may haue no place excepte he haue an infinite bodie or manye M. I Know not what to say to thée herein For if it were so then shoulde there be no true ascētion of Iesus Christ into heauen P. Albeit that it were so yet must it néedes be that he haue a body infinite to be in so many places at ones or else that he haue an infinite number of bodies to be in so many places at once as they wold haue him M. I vnderstand well that if Iesus Chryste had suche a bodie that his humane nature wer infinite as is his diuine it could be no more an humane nature nether could there be any differēce betwene the one the other Of the inuisible comming of the body of Iesus Christe P. AS cōcerning that which thou hast sayde of the inuisible comming of Iesus Chryste where is it in the holie Scriptures that they fynde suche a comming in the which Iesus Chryst cōmeth from heauen inuisibly in the proper substance of his bodie M. I can not tell for as thou haste alredy decelard in the articles of faith we speake but of two corporall commings of Iesus Chryst Of the spirituall comming of Iesus Christ P. I Wil grant them that there is an inuisible cōming of Iesus Christ by the whiche hée commeth dayely inuisibly to all But that is not in the proper and naturall substaunce of hys natural bodie but by his diuyne vertue whereby notwithstandyng hée maketh vs in deede partakers of his bodie and of his bloud and doth nourish vs as he doth testify the same vnto vs in his holy Supper doth the same by the vertue of his holy spirite the whiche ioyneth vs vnto him without being néedefull that Iesus Christe descend or ascend in his owne body to make vs partakers M. But howe may this be done forsomuche as the body of Iesus Chryste is in heauen and that wée be on the earth and that ther is so great distāce betwene the one and the other P. Seing that this coniunction is not naturall nor carnall but supernaturall and spiritual it is not at all harde for the holy Ghosts in such sort to ioyn the earth and the heauen together and to drawe vp our hearts into heauen euen to Iesus Christe M. I know well that there is nothyng harde nor impossible to God. P. In lyke manner is it not harde for Iesus Chryste to make the vertue and efficacie of his bodie the sacrifice of the same which he hath offered for vs to come euen to vs without being néedefull that he descende bodily from heauen to come to vs. M. I graunte to thée all that Hovve that the corporall presence of Iesus Christ in the supper is contrary to the diuine vertue that is in him to communicate his gifts and graces to his Church P. IT must necessarily be that it be so for if he coulde haue no communion with vs and communicate himselfe to vs without comming downe from heauē bodily and without that he were with vs corporally presente his vertue shuld not be so great as it is nor should it be so wel set foorth nor in so great effect M. Is that the cause why he saide to his disciples it is expedient that I go for if I go not the comforter which is the holy Ghost will not come P. It is certaine that by these words he would giue his disciples to vnderstand two things M. Which be they P. The first is that his corporal presence did holde them still fixed in the earth and did hinder them by the meane of their infirmitie rudenes to cōprehend vnderstand that his kingdome was spiritual not carnall as they thought it to bée M. Which is yet the other pointe P. It is that he was not come vppon earth there to raigne by a corporall presence but to retire his body into heauen that he would raigne by his holy spirit by his spirituall diuine vertue among his according to the promise which he made them whē he said when you shall be gathered together two or thrée in my name I am in the middest of you And againe I am with you euen to the consummation of the worlde Of the spirituall and diuine presence of Iesus Christ in his Church and of the vertue of the same M. THou vnderstandest then these passages of the spiritual diuine presence of Iesus Christ in his Churche P. No man may otherwise take them And therfore Iesus Christ hath said to shewe that great power which he had Al power is giuē me
both in heauē and in earth S. Paule in like fort hath written that he is ascended aboue all the heauens to the ende he mought fill al things that he mought fulfill all in the same M. Doest thou vnderstand that he doth accomplishe and fill all things not by his corporall presence but by his spirituall diuine presēce and vertue P. We may not otherwise vnderstand it if we do beleue that Iesus christ hath a very natural body that he be in déede gone vp into the heauens For as we haue alredy said as ther is no reason to giue him many bodies to be in manye places at a time euē so is it ouer strange to giue hym a bodye which may fill the heauen and the earth Hovve that the corporall presence of the body and of the bloude of Iesus Christ is contrary to the true communion of them in the Supper M. I Doe now remember that thou hast alredy said that the body the bloud of Iesus Christ could not be separated frō his spirit frō whence I do conclude that the body and bloud of christ Iesus cānot be receiued but to the saluation of them which doe receiue it P. None may doubt thereof M. It followeth then further that infidells cannot receiue them forsomuch as they cannot receiue them except they receiue their saluation the whyche they cannot obtaine without faith wherof they are void P. This which thou sayest dothe yet confirme more and more all that whiche we haue handled heretofore concerning the corporall presence of Iesus Christ in the Supper M. It is also the cause why I did againe set foorth thys matter For if the body and the bloude of Iesus Christ be corporally in the supper in suche sorte that whosoeuer receiueth bodily the bread and the wine therein receiueth also the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ corporally there shall follow thereof many things which séeme to me very contrary as well to the office of Iesus christ as to the nature of this Sacrament of the Supper P. Thou sayest very truthe and I am very glad to here of thée that which thou thinkest M. For the firste we shall be constrayned to confesse that a man maye in the Supper receiue the body and the bloude of Iesus Christe without faith and without his spirite for the vnfaithfull whiche shall receiue the bread and the wine shall no lesse receiue the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe than the faithfull P. Beholde there a very straunge consequencie M. Moreouer if a man may receyue them without faithe they whiche shall receiue them in such sorte shal receiue thē either to their saluation or condemnation if they receiue thē to their saluation it must néedes followe that a man maye obtaine saluation without faith if they do receiue thē to their condemnation it must then followe that the body and the bloude of Iesus Christe do bring in this Sacramente against their nature deathe in stéede of life whiche is also against the nature of the Sacramente for it was not ordeyned to bring death to man but life VVhether a man maye conclude of the vvords of Sainct Paule that a man may receyue the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ in the supper to condemnation P. THou concludest very well but they which houlde the opinion againste the whiche we dispute at this presente make no difference to affirme that the infidels receiue in the supper the body the blud of Iesus Christ that they receyue thē to their condēpnation For they build themselues vpō that which s Paule hath saide That who so eateth in the supper the bread drincketh the wine of the lorde vnworthily doth eate and drinke his condempnation M. I know well that those mē affirme that which thou saist But I cannot well agrée their opinion with the matters the which we haue alredy handled And as touching that which they alledge of S. Paule he sayth not who so shall eate the body and drincke the bloud vnworthily shal receiue his condempnation but he saith he that shall eate of this bread shall drinke of this cup. P. Thou hast also to note beside this that there is difference betwene receiuing the supper vnworthily to receiue it without faith and as touching the word of condempnation it may be also taken in diuers maners but wée will now no longer dwell vpon these two pointes It is sufficient for vs to knowe that the bodye and the bloud of Iesus Christ cannot bée truely receyued but by the faythfull Of the principall difference that maye be betvveene the transsubstanciation of the bread and of the vvine into the bodie and the bloud of Iesus christ and the bodily coniunction of them together M. I Do well vnderstand by all the reasons testimonies which thou hast brought out of the holy scriptures that we may seke no corporal nor carnall presēce of Iesus christ neither in the supper nor yet in all thys visible worlde but only a spirituall and diuine presence Wherfore whē I haue well considered the whole I finde no great difference betwene them that affirme that the bread and the wine be conuerted transubstanciated into the bodie blud of Iesus christ in the supper by the vertue of the sacramentall wordes those which affirme that albeit that the bread the wine remayne still in their owne substāce yet notwithstāding the body blud of Iesus christ be there also present with thē in their proper and natural substāce not only spiritually but also corporally substancially as are the bread the wine P. There is no great difference but in that that the one sort thinking to auoid the absurdities which follow the opinion of the others do fall into other absurdities which are nothing lesse of the which we will no more speake here bycause the matter woulde be to long whereof we haue alredy sufficiently spoken Of the vnion that is betvvene Iesus Christ and his members signified by the breade and the vvine in the Supper M. I Am very well contented for thys time with that which thou hast said and therefore shewe me now what properties the bread and the wine haue yet which are agreable to this Sacramente of the Supper beside that whiche thou hast already said P. I haue already sayd that those signs were agreable to this sacrament bycause they be apte to represent the spirituall nouriture by the bodily M. I doe very well remember thys pointe P. Thou hast also to note vppon the same that as one lofe and one vessell of wine are made of many graines gathered togither euen so doe they in the Supper represente vnto vs how that al the children of God which are dispersed are gathered broughte togither in one and vnited with Iesus Christ their head by his deathe as Saincte Iohn doth witnesse M. Thou wilte then saye that that vniō which is made of many graines in one lofe or in one wine
regeneration to the ende that he may make it pure cleane withoute spotte or wrinkle and a holy and glorious Churche M. I did neuer yet so well vnderstande these two pointes nor yet the diuersitie and difference that thou hast made betwene the benefites of Iesus Christe and the Baptisme and the Supper whiche are Sacramentes as now I do vnderstande all these things In vvhat sorte the faithfull in baptisme do put on Iesus Christ and are vvashed vvith his bloud P. WHen I tell thée that the baptisme declareth vnto vs howe that Iesus Christe is set foorthe vnto vs in baptisme for a robe of innocencie Iustice holynes and that we cloth our selfe with him by meane of the same I do not thinke thée to be of so grosse an vnderstanding to thinke that the faithfull do put on Iesus Christ naturally and corporally as a man putteth on a garment or a cloke M. I should be very grosse if I so vnderstoode it P. How doest thou then vnderstand it M. That euen as a garmente or a cloke do serue to couer the body euen so do the innocencie iustice and holynesse of Iesus Christe serue vs to couer our sinnes at the iudgemente of God to the ende that there appere no one spotte of them in his sighte P. And touching the bloude of Iesus Christe doest thou thinke that oure soules and consciences be washed and made cleane in Baptisme as one would with water wash a body in a bath or ryuer or else shéetes in a bucke Mathevv Thou makest here with me goodly discourses I thinke there is none so beastly whiche doth not well knowe that the bloud of Iesus Christe is called the washing of soules and of consciences not as though they must be washed and dipped in the bloud of Iesus Christe as one woulde wash and dippe a body that he woulde washe and make cleane or some other suche like thing but that the holy Ghost speaketh so to giue vs to vnderstande that whiche thou hast sayde to witte what the water of baptisme signifieth concerning the washing and purification of our soules and consciences in the bloud of Iesus Christ VVhat greater reason there is to communicate corporally of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper than in Baptisme P. THow doest aunswere me verye well but if thou find it strange that a man shuld say that they which are baptised haue put on Iesus Christ bodily as a garmente and are washed with hys bloud as with a materiall bath why shouldest thou not finde it as straunge or more straunge that a man should say that the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe are naturally and bodily eaten and drunken in the Supper as are the bread the wine which are the signes M. Thou makest me to consider somewhat more déepely of this matter than heretofore I did P. It is a matter well to be thoughte on For if that in Baptisme we haue no carnall communication with the body and bloud of Iesus Christ but only a spiritual I sée not what greter reason there is to haue rather in the Supper a carnal communication with him than in Baptisme considering that the supper dependeth of baptisme and that it is as a more ample confirmation of the possession of the benefites of Iesus Christe into the whiche wée beginne to enter by Baptisme and doe continue by the Supper M. I finde thy reasons very good P. Thou shalte finde them yet better if thou do consider how muche that grosse and carnall opinion doth disagrée as wel with the nature of the body of the bloud of Iesus Chryste as wyth the faith that we oughte to haue in his ascention into heauen and of his seate at the right hand of God and of his spirituall and diuine presence and vertue by the whiche he is euer present in his church and doth guide and gouerne it eternally Hovve the corporall and carnall presence of the bodie and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper greeth not with the true nature of them M. EXpounde this same vnto me somewhat more at large P. For the first to what purpose is it to thinke that the bodie of Iesus Chryst is chewed and eaten and sent into the stomacke and frō thence downe into the bellie as is the bread whiche signifieth it in the Supper and that his bloud is also drunken as is the wyne which is the signe For bée it that thou vnderstand that the breade and the wyne be conuerted into the substance of the bodie and bloud or else that the bodie be eaten with the bread and the bloud drunken with the wine yet is there still greate absurditie cleane contrary to the nature of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste M. What contrarietie fyndest thou therin P. Séeing that Iesus Christ hath a very true naturall bodie in euery respecte lyke vnto oures as touchyng the corporall substaunce sinne excepte it is certaine and true that hée is not bodily and naturally not only in the heauen and in the earthe at one tyme but also neyther in infinite places For he hathe not a bodie whiche filleth the heauen and the earth as dothe his diuinitie but hathe a bodie whyche can not be a true and verie bodie if hée be not in some certayne place agreeable to his nature to his glorie and celestiall maiestie Hovve the glorifying of the bodie of Iesus Chryst doth not chaunge at all the substantiall nature propre substaunce of the same M. THou speakest of the bodie of Iesus Chryste as though he were in euery respecte like vnto oures and that he were not glorified at all as ours shall be also after the Resurrection of our bodies P. Albéeit that the bodie of Iesus be glorifyed by his Resurrection and Ascention into heauen yet followeth it not for all that that he hath lost the proprieties of his humane nature and that his corporall substance is chaunged in suche sorte that it is conuerted into diuine nature or that he is in suche sort transfourmed that he is infinite to be in euerye place or that he is so multiplied that for one bodie he hath many or an infinite number as necessarily it must be if the errour wherof wée nowe speake shoulde haue place Of the contrarietie that is betvvene the corporall presence of Iesus Chryst in the Supper and his ascention into heauen M. BVt they which maynteyn thye opinion say that these things maye not be considered naturally but supernaturally and that they do surpasse the capacitie of all mans vnderstanding P. I graunte them all that But why is it then that they forge vs a corporall and naturall presence of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste in the stéede of a supernaturall and spiritual presence M. They say that the same corporall and naturall presence doth not at all hinder the supernaturall and spirituall Pet. Albeit that they saye it it doth not therfore followe that it is so And on the other syde I
sorte as wée eate the breade and drinke the wine which represent them vnto vs P. If there were none other reason but that which may be gathered of that which I haue euē now spoken it mought suffice vs to discharge our heads of all such imaginations M. I doe not well vnderstand yet what thou meanest herein P. Seing that Iesus Christe hath ordeyned one seuerall signe to signifie his body and an other seuerall signe to signifie his bloud and that it hath pleased him so to discerne them the one from the other the better to represent to vs how his bloud was separated from his body for vs in such sorte as his life and soule was separated likewise it should also followe that his body must be eatē a parte as we there eate the breade and there drink the bloud a parte as we there drinke the wine M. If it were so we shoulde not haue in the Supper the liuing body of Christ but dead and other thā he is raigning in heauen where his bloud is not separated frō his body P. Thou sayest truth But thou hast yet to note that if the body and bloud of Iesus Christ were giuen vs to nourish and mainteyne vs in this corporall life as is bread and wine we shoulde then also eate the body and drinke the bloude of Christe corporally as we doe eate and drinke the corporall breade and wine But forsomuche as they are giuen vs for spirituall nouriture we must eate and drinke them spiritually M. What doest thou call to eate and drinke spiritually Peter To speake properly to eate and drinke is vnderstoode of the body and of the bodily meate and drinke but when we speake of spirituall thinges we take those wordes for a figure by the whiche we declare the spirituall thinges by the bodily thinges bycause of the similitude and agremente that they haue togither M. Why is that done P. To the ende that by the similitude and comparison of corporall thinges we moughte the better vnderstande the spirituall things Of the true spirituall eating and drinking M. DEclare this to me yet somewhat more plainely Peter Thou mayest well vnderstande that the soule and the Spirite do neyther eate nor drinke corporally and materially as dothe the bodye Mathevve I doe well vnderstande at the leaste that they haue neither mouth nor téeth nor stomackes nor bellies corporall whereby they may do the same P. And therefore it must néeds be that if the soule and the spirite do eate and drinke they eate and drinke in an other sorte than doth the body the whiche is proper and agreable to their nature M. There is reason in that whiche thou sayest P. And on the other side thou mayest well knowe also that the flesh of Iesus Christ is neyther eaten nor chawed neyther is swalowed downe into the stomacke and bellie neyther is it digested as is the corporall and materiall meate M. For what cause is it then that Iesus Christ hath vsed that manner of spéeche saying he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life P. It is to giue vs the better to vnderstande the communion and coniunction whiche we haue with him and how that his flesh and his bloud do the very same towarde the soule and also toward the body touching the spirituall life being receiued with a true and liuing faith as do the bread and wine towards the body touching the bodily life whē they are bodily eaten dronken The sixtenth Dialogue is of the transubstātiation cōsubstantiation and of the true presence of Iesus Christ in the Supper Of the error of transubstantiation and hovv the Supper cannot be a Sacramente if the bread and the vvine do not there remayne in their proper substance MATHEVV HOw is it that men do eate the flesh of Iesus Christ and do drinke his bloud as thou hast euen nowe saide It is to bée vnderstoode that the breade and the wine be transubstantiate and conuerted into them or else that they be ioyned and vnited with the bread and the wine P. For the firste there is no reason eyther to thinke or saye that the breade and the wine be conuerted or chaunged into the body and bloud of Iesus Christe M. For what cause P. Bycause that if the bread the wine did not remayne still in the supper bread and wine in their proper substance they shoulde not be the signes of the body of the bloud of Iesus Christe but if they were conuerted into the same they shoulde be the selfe same thing the which they oughte to signifie and represente vnto vs. M. What inconueniente should there be in that P. There shoulde be this inconuenient in it that the supper should be a Sacramente withoute signe and so shoulde it haue no Sacramentall signe without the which the Sacramēts may not be Sacraments Of things vvithout the vvhich the sacraments cannot be sacramēts M. HOwe vnderstandest thou that P. Thou must note that a Sacramente cannot be a Sacramente excepte it haue at the leaste thrée things whiche are of the proper substance of all Sacramens M. Whiche are these thrée things P. The firste is the worde of God which is the foundation of all the Sacraments M. And the seconde P. The visible and materiall signes such as God hath ordeyned by that very word M. And the third P. The thinges signified aswell by that word as by the signes Of things vvhich are to be considered in the vvord of God in all Sacraments and in the signification of the same M. DEclare vnto me that whiche thou sayest by some similitude P. Séeing that we be vppon the matter of the Supper thou hast firste the worde of Iesus Christ in the which thou hast to note two pointes M. Whiche be they P. The first is the commandement which Iesus Christe there giueth to take and to eate the bread to drinke the wine which are giuen in the same M. Which is the secōd P. The promise whereby he declareth what it is that this bread and wine do signifie and for what cause he hath ordeyned and commaunded to receiue them and what frute we must looke for of them Math. Wherevpon takest thou thys promise Pe. Vppon that whiche is saide of the breade This same is my bodye whiche is broken for you and in like sorte vppon that whiche is spoken of the wyne Thys cuppe is my bloude or the newe Testamente in my bloude whiche is shedde for you doe this in remembraunce of mée Math. Muste wée vnderstande the lyke of all the other Sacramentes to witte that they haue commandemēt and promisse from God Peter There is no doubte thereof Ma. What is there more yet to cōsider cōcernyng the worde of GOD P. There is nothing more to be consydered concerning that same exteriour worde whyche is pronounced by the mouth of the mynisters Math. What resteth there yet more Peter That which is signified by the woorde the whiche doth also declare the signification
the least haue made no professiō of the christiā doctrine P. Yes vntill that they be recōciled to the church and receiued into the same in such sort as we haue heretofore saide and as it is behouefull to be done in suche a case M. I woulde aske thée also for what cause children are not to be as well admitted to the supper as to Baptisme by meanes of the aliance made with their parentes in the whiche they are comprehended but I knowe that thou wilte aunswere me in such sorte as thou hast hertofore done cōcerning the proof which is more specially required in the supper than in Baptisme P. Thou séest wel that the reason is therin sufficiently apparant M. Now seing it is so required that euery one proue himselfe before he come to the Supper and not that other men proue them may not the ministers committe it to the cōsciēce of euery one which present themselues to them to receiue this sacramente without making any other profe or inquisition P. Albeit that it be required that euery one particularly do proue himselfe yet notwithstanding that particular examination doth not let the examination and the proofe whiche the ministers and pastors oughte to make of their flocks to knowe not only which be shéepe and which not but also what is the condition and estate of euery one of their shéepe For if they know them not what accoumpt shal they yeld M. That is a good apparāt reason P. On the other parte if there be doggs and swine which will thorough their rashnes put forth themselues to the greate contempt of God and of his church to thrust in their poluted and filthy snoutes vppon the lords table to infect it with the same shall the minister be without blame if he permitte it and do not at the least his endeuoure to shut out suche doggs swyne frō the table of the Lorde M. There may be also many which although they do not deserue to be accoumpted dogs swyne but only for poore ignorāt and séely ones whiche mought notwithstanding go and thrust in with the rest either of custome or else thinking to do well and yet should go to their owne condemnatiō P. I wold also adde herevnto this point and in such a case the ministers shuld not be without blame of the faulte whiche those shoulde committe and of the perdition of them if that they had not firste done their indeuoure towardes them accordingly as they are bound Of confessiō of brotherly recōciliatiō M. I Would gladly vnderstande of thée if that after that a man haue proued himselfe in such sorte as thou hast alredy declared he haue no néede to cōfesse himselfe yet to some minister of the Church P. If he be confessed to God as he ought and be reconciled to such as he may haue offendid and with whome he may be at strife and enmitie he néedeth none other confession M. The proofe whereof thou hast spoken doth it conteyne all that P. Thou maist iudge by that whiche thou hast heard for the true repentaunce and faith and charitie cannot be without true confession and reconciliation towardes God and our neyghboure The. 23. Dialogue is of Supplication of Christian praier Of prayer and hovv it belongeth to none but to the faithfull and may not be addressed but to God. MATHEVV I Haue no more now to propone to thée concerning the pointes which we haue alredy handled There resteth nothyng now but that thou tell me yet that which thou hast to say touching prayer P. For somuche as prayer is a frute of faithe whereby the faithfull do homage to god and make request vnto him for all things which are necessarie as well for their body as for their soule men yeld thanks vnto him for all the good things which they haue alredy receyued of him it followeth then well that it is an honoure which belongeth not but only to God and cannot be yelded vnto him but by the faithfull M. It followeth then of that which thou saist that it is not lawfull to call vppon or pray to any other than to God. P. No at all if we will not giue the honoure which belongeth to him to creatures and his glory to others against his expressed cōmaundement M. Is it then Idolatrie to call vppon and to pray to any other than to God P. It is neither more nor lesse than to worship an other than he only Hovv that our prayers cannot be agreable vnto god vvithout a mediator and by vvhat mediator it behoueth vs to present them M. BVt seing we are all faultie before his maiestie may we haue accesse vnto hym withoute mediator or aduocate P. In no wise M. Why shall it not be lawfull for vs then to take one amōg the Saincts whiche raigne with God P. Forsomuche as we cannot haue accesse vnto him without a mediator aduocate it is not for vs to chose him at our pleasure but for him to giue such an one as he himselfe hath chosen and appointed M. He may very well know better than we what mediator and aduocate we néede and whiche is most agreable to him and most méete for vs. P. And therefore it is very reasonable that therin we be gouerned by him Now thou hast alredy vnderstood heretofore how he hath giuē vs his owne sonne to do that office in whome only we must repose if we wil not fully deny god and prouoke him to anger against vs in stead of appeasing him and reiecte Iesus christ his sōne the which he hath giuē vs. Hovv that none other aduocate nor mediator may be ioyned to Iesus christ vvithout greatly dishonoring of him M. BVt what inconuenient is it if that we take Iesus Christ for the principall mediator and aduocate by whome we are made at one with the Father and that then we take either mā saint or womā saint which raigne alredy in Heauen with him concerning their soules and spirites to be also our mediators and aduocates with him or else towards himselfe bycause of our vnworthinesse Pet. The same cannot be done without taking frō him the office whiche belongeth onely to him M. Why so P. Forsomuch as either he is sufficient for the office which the father hath appointed him or else he is not sufficient if he be sufficient then néedeth it not to appointe him a fellowe if he be not sufficiente he is not then the true annoynted of the Lord and the office which is appointed vnto hym belongeth not to him at all Mat. This were an horrible blasphemie not onely to speake suche wordes but to thinke them P. And therfore if we had none other reason but that that we haue not in all the holy Scriptures neyther commaundement nor example which doth commaund and teache vs we ought to take any other mediator and aduocate than Iesus Christ towarde the father but it is forbidden vs expressedly to take any other that same shoulde suffise vs seing that there is
to the children or people of Israel as though he gaue his lawe but to them onely the whiche notwithstanding euen as it hath bene sayde heretofore doth no lesse belōg to vs than to that people Wherfore I would gladly vnderstād the meaning of it and the causes and reasons for the which God did so set it forth wherein it belongeth to vs. D. You doe know well that when Kinges Princes make any Lawes and doe cause any statutes or ordinaunces to be published in their name they doe accustome to put some preface to it cōtayning their name and the titles wherby they declare what their Maiestie Lordship power is Seing then that God whiche is the chiefe King Prince of al creatures would publishe his Lawe was it not then méete that he shoulde declare that he was the Lawmaker and what was his maiestie power And therefore did he say I am the lorde thy God whiche haue brought thee out of the lande of Egipte from the house of bondage Then is it requisite before all other things to knowe in this lawe who is the true God and by what meanes he may be knowen and discerned and seperated from false Goddes that this knowledge goe before all the cōmandements folowing For who shall call vpon God who shall feare him who shall loue him who shal put his truste in him if that first he do not know him and not in such sorte as the heathen doe who although they had a certayne opinion that there was a God vpon whome it behoued them to call to feare to loue and to honour yet for all that they did not know who he was nor where to finde him And for so much as wée can not sée him nor discerne him with eyes nor with any other corporal sense yet notwithstanding wée must beholde him embrase him and speake vnto him from the harte and frō the spirite Of the name Eternal vvhich is Jehoua in Hebrevve giuen to God. T. WHerefore dothe he first call him selfe the Eternal D. He dothe declare in the Hebrewe tongue in the which Moyses hath writtē these things by the woorde of Iehoua the which we do so translate what is his beyng his nature that he is the Creatour of al creatures the first the last without beginning and without end and hath his being of none other but of him self of him all things haue their beyng are come from him and doe returne into him It is he by whom we liue moue are Thē may he lawfully say I am the whiche none els may iustly say Wherefore seyng that he is our Creatour so by consequent our guide gouerner that we haue of him our soule body and goodes is it not méete that we doe acknowledge him to be our King Prince Lord render to him the homage of soule of body goodes of all things els that we haue receyued of him to yelde vnto him perfect obedience For this cause the holy Scripture putteth vs in minde oftētimes of these things giueth to God the title of maker of heauen and earth Wherfore it must néedes be graūted that none other be our God but onely he vnto whom this name and title belongeth which is that Eternall essence that can doe all things and is the beginning the conseruation the end of all things In vvhat sorte God is generally called the God of all men and chiefely the God of his chosen people T. WHerefore doth he also say beside that Thy God D. Bicause that this first benefite is cōmon to all men to al creatures according to their nature in as much as he is creatour of thē all he addeth vnto it also this title to make him more amiable and fauourable vnto vs to the end that by that meane he may make his doctrine more acceptable vnto vs that he may make vs the more willing to receyue it as the doctrine of our father who by the same procureth nothing but onely our cōmoditie and saluation And therefore he doth not onely say God but thy God which is a maner of speach that according to the phrase of the holy Scripture carieth with it fauour grace For first the name of God the which Moyses here doth vse doth signifie in Hebrewe force forces to declare vnto vs that he hath the power to aide and helpe vs and that he is not onely God for him selfe to witte that he will kéepe in him selfe the good things that in him are and not to bestow distribute them but that his very office is to bestow thē vpō men to shewe him self gratious fauourable towardes thē When he doth the contrary being prouoked thereunto by their frowardnesse wickednesse he doth by his prophets call that worke a straūge worke Wherefore when he calleth him selfe the God of any people he declareth therby that he is not only their God as he is generally the God of all creatures as Creatour of them but that he is their God not seuere rigorous as a iudge toward euill doers but curteous louing fauourable merciful as a good father to his childrē When then he sayeth Thy God he doth then put thē in minde of that which he spake before that he had chosen this people as his own enheritance as a precious Iewell among all the rest And therefore it is not without cause sayd by the Prophete he hath done so to none other nation And therefore he sayth by Esaie And now saith the Lord thus which hath created thée Iacob who hath fashioned thée Israell feare not for I haue bought thée I haue named thy name Thou art mine When thou shalt passe by water I will be with thee the floudes shall not swallow thée vp When thou shalt passe through the fire thou shalt not be burnt For I am the Lord thy God the holy one of Israell thy Sauiour c. T. There is a goodly declaration of that which thou hast now spoken and a very apparant testimonie D. It is euen so For thou séest that after that he calleth him self the God the maker fashioner of Israell the Eternall he addeth vnto it immediatly Thy Sauiour whiche haue redéemed thée For vvhat cause God doth make expresse mention in the preface of his Lavve of the deliuerance of Israell out of Egipte T. ANd why doeth he adde yet which haue brought thée out of the lande of Egipt D. To put thē in minde of the great benefite the which not long before they had receiued of him and whereby he had plainely declared vnto them that he was their God and that he esteemed them for his people in an other sorte than he did the Egiptians wherefore they had good occasion to thinke that so good a God and so louing a father would not set forth vnto thē any doctrine but such as should be greatly for
the glory of God to be preferred to all creatures And if that al the creatures should perish wherefore should we thinke it straunge if god were glorified in their perdition and that it did so please him T. No man ought to finde that straunge excepte he do more estéeme the creature than the Creator D. Therefore it is playne that this offence whiche many giue vnto themselues in the matter of reprobation of the reprobates procedeth not but from a maruellous greate pride and arrogancie of the flesh whiche estemeth itselfe more than it ought to do for if it had so small an estimation of it selfe as the worthynesse therof requireth and did estéeme God his glory so muche as it ought to do he should not onely not finde it straunge to knowe that god hath ordeyned to be glorified in the damnation of some no although it should be done with his owne person he shoulde glorifie God in his iust iudgement he would not murmure against him to wage the lawe with him and to play the lawyer and to pleade againste him to mainteyne the cause of the reprobates accusing hym as though he should do them wrong but rather he would desire himselfe to be damned as Saincte Paule desired for his bretherne the Israelites if it were possible that it moughte be done and that God mought be the more magnified and glorified therein From whēce then come these cōtrary thoughts but only of the horrible pride that is in our corrupted nature for what are we from whence came we what wrong may God do vnto vs wherin are we able to accuse him or attribute vnto him the faulte of our offences and of oure damnation and to set him in the place of the Deuill author of sinne considering that what determination so euer he haue made of vs we cānot complaine that we haue any other force violence constrainte to do euill but onely of oure owne wicked concupiscence vnlesse that happily we would complayne in that that he hath not made vs suche as coulde not sinne or else hauing sinned that he dothe not bestow vppon all like grace and that he dothe not saue all forsomuche as he moughte if that he woulde otherwise he shoulde not be God nor almightie but it hath pleased him that not without good and iust cause the whiche is continually such albeit that we cannot vnderstand it Therefore we must continually say with the Prophete that oure damnation is of our selues and our saluation of God only and say with S. Paule But o thou mā what arte thou that pleadest against god shall the thing that is fashioned say vnto him that fashioned it why hast thou shaped and made me thus The potter hathe he not power of the clay to make of one very lumpe one vessel to honoure and an other to dishonor And what if God wold to shewe his wrath and to make his power knowne suffer with great pacience the vessells of wrath prepared to perdition and to shewe the riches of his glory vppon the vessells of his mercie which he hath prepared to glorye and agayne O the déepenesse of the riches of the wisedome and knowledge of God his iudgementes are not to be searched out and his wayes are impossible to be found For who is he that hath knowne the Lordes intente or who hath bin his counsellor or who is he that gaue to him firste and he shal be recompenced Hovve that the vvill of man cannot by any meanes be constrayned no not by the deuill himselfe but only of his ovvne vvickednes T. FOr my parte I graunte to all that which thou hast sayde but yet canst thou not denye but that mā is yet oftentimes constrained to sinne by meane of the temptacion and soliciting of the deuill D. This constraint wherof thou speakest is cōstraint without cōstraint for it is not in the power of al the deuils nor of al the creatures that are to constraine the will of one mā Wherfore what temptatiō or solicitatiō so euer happē vnto him if he did not willingly consent therevnto he could not be induced to do any kinde of thyng against his will. But it fareth with hym as it doth with a harlot for if she be solicited by bawdes and whoremasters she will giue ouer hir selfe vnto them which thing an honest woman will not do but will resist all suche temptations and procurements wil ouercome them Therfore albeit that the harlot may impute some parte of the cause of the offēce that she hath committed to those that did entise hir and procure hir therevnto yet notwithstanding she may not say that she hath bin constrayned so to do nor may by that meane excuse hir selfe for if she had not agréed therevnto of hir owne will she had not at all playde the harlot but bycause that she was already naturally thervnto enclyned these procuremēts did serue hir as it were matches oyle wood throwne into the fire which would kindle nor slame neuer the sooner nor the more if it were not naturally enclyned and prompte therevnto In like sorte is man broughte to euill thorough his owne concupiscence the which being wakened and sturred vp by the diuell dothe the more declare it selfe and sheweth more plainely what his nature is wherfore thou séest here howe that man dothe continually sinne of his owne will and if he will saye that he hath bin constrayned to do any kind of worke the which he knoweth manifestly to be against the will of God it must be considered wherein he hath bin enforced and cōstrayned if he haue in any wise bin enforced by the force of others so that he could not be in any wise master of his members although he did resist it by all the meanes that he coulde and dyd declare by his wordes and actes that hys harte and will did in no wise consente thervnto he may be excused as an honest womā may that hath bin takē of force the which notwithstanding hath cried and resisted by all meanes possible against the whoremaster and hath bin as willing to lose hir life as hir chastitie but if thou doest an euill worke either to please men or else for feare that thou shouldest fall into their displeasure or indignation and receyue any dishonor or wordly hindrance thou maist in suche a case alledge none other constrainte but only that of thy wicked wil no more than Pilate might whē he condemned Iesus Christe enforced by the constrainte of the Iewes For if thou didst loue God with al thy harte and better than thy selfe and didst more estéeme his glory than thine owne and thy soule than thy body and the heauen more than thou doest the earth thou moughtest be frée from losing that whiche thou fearest to lose and shouldest not lose it at all but shouldest gaine it double For as Iesus Christ saith he that shall loose his life for my sake the same shall finde it and he that feareth