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

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B06703	The guide in controversies, or, A rational account of the doctrine of Roman-Catholicks concerning the ecclesiastical guide in controversies of religion reflecting on the later writings of Protestants, particularly of Archbishop Lawd and Dr. Stillingfleet on this subject. / By R.H.	R. H., 1609-1678.	1667 (1667)	Wing W3447A; ESTC R186847	357,072	413

sanguinem Christi mutare Sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam Omnipotentiam in Eucharistiâ exerceat non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum The third is Calvins Confession of faith ‖ Lib. Epist p. 5702. written two years before his death and directed to the Emperor and Princes of Germany Porrò saith he qui nos accusant quod Dei potentiae derogetur à nobis valde sunt in nos injurii Non enim hîc quaeritur quid Deus possit sed quid verbo suo velit extra quod nihil nobis qaaerendum ut hoc aut illud divinemus Quare illam quaestionem omittemus an Deus possit facere ut Christi Corpus sit ubique sed cum omni modestiā intra istos Scripturae fines consistimus qu● perhibet Christum induisse corpus nostro corpori per omnia simile Interea extollimus Dei potentiam magis quam illi qui nos istiusmodi probris infamant Fatemur enim ipsamillam Christi à nobis secundum humanam naturam distantiam non impedire quò minùs in seipso nos vivificet habitet in nobis nosque adeo participes reddat ipsiusmet substantiae corporis sui sanguinis virtute incomprehensibili sancti sui Spiritus Ex quo apparet merè calumniosum esse quod nobis imponitur quasi nempe figeremus suos terminos Dei potentiae explacitis Philosophorum atqui omnis nostra Philosophia una est simpliciter admittere quod Scriptura nos docet And de vera Christianae pacificationis ratione c. 11. speaking of the Eucharist ' Quasi vero saith he hic de Christi potentia disputetur Rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse à Christo nos quoque fatemur This then I hope may be said with the approbation of Protestants that the interposings of sence though indeed in the Eucharist there is no error in our sences all that being really there which they perceive there but in our reason only arguing from the position of the accidents to the position of the subject or the interposing of Reason and Philosophy are not to be hearkned to in this matter till first it be cleared what is the divine Revelation concerning it which divine Revelation so often as it appears to have declared any thing contrary to them we may with modesty enough use that expression of F. Cressies causlesly censured ‖ Tillots p. 276. That we have learnt not to answer such Arguments but to despise them § 64 2ly All thus acknowledging their submission to divine Revelation This hath bin produced out of the Scriptures 2. For a corporal presence of Christs Body and a Conversion of the consecrated Elements into it Many texts urged if taken in their most literal proper and natural sence very express for it as Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 Luke 22.19 Jo. who speaking of it here omits it in the History of the Passion 6.51 53 54. 1 Cor. 11.24 27 29. 10.16 It being very observable here 1st That the words of Institution are still repeated punctually by four several sacred Writers Matthew Mark Luke and Paul without any variation or Exposition of any impropriety whereas it is not usuall so constantly to retain without Explication a tropical or figurative speech especially in a matter where the truth is so necessary to be known 2 Again that the fourth of these Writers cautiously as it were useth not his own stile in this matter as in others but chuseth to deliver our Lords commands punctually in his own words what I have received that I deliver c. And 3 That our Saviour also in these words seconds his first expression Hoc est Corpus meum without changing afterward any impropriety in them with the like words following Hic est sanguis and then confirmeth both these with a quod tradetur and qui effundetur i on the Cross to shew he was real in these words and meant no Figure Notwithstanding this the true sence of these Scriptures was called in question by a party not now only but eight hundred years ago contending that they were not properly but figuratively to be understood And upon this the usual remedy for the right understanding of Scriptures controverted was then repaired to and the same supreme Ecclesiastical Judge consulted for deciding and declaring the true and traditive sence of these Scriptures in this important controversie concerning the real substantial corporeal presence of our Lords Body as was formerly for declaring the traditive sence of the Scriptures controverted concerning the Divinity of Christ A General Council i.e. the most general that the times would permit was assembled in the West in our Forefathers days nay of these more than one as hath bin shewed ‖ §. 57 c. a substantial Conversion of the Elements and a corporal Presence declared to be the traditive sence of these Scriptures and a reverence suitable required in this great mystery not one Bishop in these Councils for any thing we know in the whole Church of God at that time dissenting and those of the Eastern Churches absent consenting in the same judgment ‖ See Disc 3. §. 158. what more can be done Ought not sence reason philosophy here to be silenced and ought not such a Decree to be if not assented to yet even in the judgment of those learned Protestant Divines before quoted ‖ § 56. n. 2. 59. acquiesced in so far as not to be by any contradicted § 65 But 3 ly what now if many of those contradictions and absurdities which are urged against the corporeal presence of the Catholicks 3. do as much overthrow that real presence that is maintained by Protestants I mean the Calvinists and so many in the Church of England as have not deserted their Forefathers and to flie the father from the Church of Rome are gone quite over into the Camp of Zuinglius changing a real into meerly a spiritual presence or a presence only of Christs Spirit uniting the worthy Communicant here on earth to his Body in Heaven But heretofore at least it hath bin the common Tenent of the English Divines to affirm not only a spiritual presence or a presence only by effect operation or grace but a substantial presence in the Eucharist and that is here on earth not to the Elements indeed but to the worthy Receiver of the very same Body of Christ that suffered on the Cross and that is now at the same time as here also in heaven § 66 To which purpose thus Calvin in 1 Cor. 11.24 Neque enim mortis suae keneficium nobis offert Christus sed Corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit And Institut l 4. c. 17. § 7. Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum Communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt nos spiritus modò participes faciunt praeteritâ carnis sanguinis mentione Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dictaforent

carnem ejus verè esse cibum non habere vitam nisi qui carnemallam manducaverit c. § 9. Quae omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin totus Christus spiritu corpore nobis adhaereat So Dr. Tailor Real Presence p. 288. pronounceth Anathema to those who do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which flesh suffered for us And p. 5. expounds spiritual Presence put in the Title of his Book only to exclude the Corporal and natural manner not spiritual therefore so as to exclude Corpus Domini but only the corporal or natural manner of that body now by excluding the natural manner is not meant surely the exclusion of Nature or the thing it self For then to say a thing is there not after a natural manner were as much as to say the thing is not there but the exclusion of those Properties which usually accompany Nature or the thing And p. 12. he saith When the word Real Presence is denied by some Protestants it is taken for Natural Presence which Natural Presence he well knows the Roman Church also denies and not for Presence in rei veritate And thus Mr. Hooker l. 5. § 67. p. 357. Wherefore should the world contìnue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no controversie saving only about the Subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within man only or else his Body and Bloud be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves And p. 359. His Body and his Bloud saith he are in that very subject whereunto they minister life not only by effect and operation even as the Influence c. See also Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. Nobis vobiscum de objecto convenit de m●do lis omnis est c. Praesentiam inquam credimus nec minus quam vos veram De modo Praesentiae nil temerè definimus non magis quam in Christi incarnatione c. § 67 Would not one think here that touching the Substantial and may not I say corporal so it be understood with Dr. Tailor not after the natural manner of bodies Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist all were agreed And the question only as Hooker whether it be to and within the Receiver only or also externally seated in the consecrated Elements And then though not the deceptions of sence concerning the Bread yet which is much harder the many contradictions about the same Body or Entity if you will its being at once in diverse places its being deprived of its dimensions c. do not they press in to disturb the Protestant's belief in this matter as well as the Catholick's Surely some such thing was considered by the English Synod in Queen Elizabeth's days 1562. when they both cast out of the 28th of the former Articles of Religion made in the end of King Edward's Reign these words following Cum humanae Naturae veritas requirat ut unius ejusdemque hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit sed in uno aliquo definito loco esse oporteat idcirco Christi Corpus in multis diversis locis eodem tempore praesens esse non potest Et quoniam ut tradunt Sacrae Literae Christus in Coelum fuit sublatus ibi usque ad finem saeculi est permansurus non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus sanguinis realem praesentiam in Eucharistiâ vel credere vel profiteri And also cast out a Rubrick or Declaration to the same purpose inserted in King Edward's 2d. Common-Prayer-Book which gives this Reason why no Adoration ought to be done to any real and essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Bloud in the Eucharist because the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not there it being against the truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one though I believe to the great grief and dislike of many of the true Sons of this Church the same Rubrick hath gotten in again into the late English Liturgy But the other clause is not hitherto readmitted into the Article § 68 And if there were not also some seeming Absurdities and Contradictions in these Protestant's stating of the Real Presence why call they the manner ineffable full of Miracles and not apprehensible by reason Ego hoc Mysterium saith Calvin ‖ Instit l. 4. c. 17.24 minime rationis humanae modo metior vel naturae legibus sub jicio Humanae rationi minime placebit that which he affirmes penetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit alimentum Dicimus Christum tam externo Symbolo quam Spiritu suo ad nos descenderd ut verè substantia carnis suae animas nostras vivificet In his paucis verbis qui non sentit multa subesse miracula plusquam stupidus est quando nihil magis incredibile quam res toto coeli terrea spatio dissitas ac remotas in tanta locorum distantiâ non tantùm conjungi sed uniri ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi And § 32. Porrò de m●do si quis me interroget fateri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quàm ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat And § 25. Captivas tenemus mentes nostras ne verbulo duntaxat obstreper ac humiliamus ne insurgere audeant And in his Confession of Faith ‖ Lib. Epl p. 572. Not fatemur omnino rationem quâ cum Christo communicanus ad miraculum referendam esse Therefore as these Protestants charge the Roman Transubstantiation with contradictions absurdities impossibilities so do the Zuinglians Remonstrants Socinians as freely charge their Real Presence See the Remonstrant's Apology c. 23. who thus dispute against them Quomodo enim non credibile sed possibile esse imo quomodo non impossibile adeoque absurdum videri ' debet Corpus Christi quod est manet in Coelis non alibi vere communicari nobis qui in terrâ sumus non alibi ita ut nobis cedat in cibum And afterward p. 251. they'say Omnia ista non modò obscura incomprehensibilia esse sed manifestè etiam inse continere tum vanitatem tum absurditatem Et ineffabilia illa mysteria humanam seu curiositatem seu superstitionem in hoc tam simplici tam plano a nullo non ingenio facile perceptibili ritu finxisse potius quàm reperisse qui postquam a simplici Scripturae phrasi semel discesserunt admirationibus inexhaustis se pascere malunt quàm clarâ veritatis scientiâ And the Socinians accuse this Opinion of the Calvinists and English Church ‖ Volkel l ● c. 22 Eam cum sanae mentis ratione pugnare quae dictat fieri