Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	jesus_n	lord_n	see_v	7,565	5	3.6443	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

about the Pope to whom or time when this regality was first graunted Marke good reader him selfe before affirmed that King Pipin gaue vp the gouernement pag. 12. 13. of Italie into Pope Steeuens hands and that this truth is apparant by the testemony of many renowmed Bel denieth vvhat him selfe saieth cannot be denied Onuphr in chron Nauclerus general 25. An. 750. Claudius Parad. des alliances Genealogiques Ado Regino Sigebert in chron Blond Dec. 1 l. 10. Mag deburgens cent 8. c. 10. Leo Ostien lib. 1. chron c. 9. Onuph sup Cronographes and can not be denied and now in the next page denieth both the fact and contestation of historiographers What wil he not deny who denieth that which him selfe saith can not be denied 15. The truth is that Pipin gaue not the exarchate to Greg. 3 who died in the yeare 741 or as other write 740 fourteene yeares before Pipins entrance into Italie neither was Pipin then a King but made afterward by Zachary successor to Gregory as Bel testifieth page 19. but to Pope Steeuen 2. as is apparant to vse Bels words by the testimony of many renowmed Cronographers though some cal him Steeuen 3. because they reckon his predecessour whom others omit because he liued but foure daies likewise al writers agree that Lewes pius confirmed the donation of his grandfather Pipin Apud Gratian dist 63. can ego Ludouicus Leo Ostien lib. 3. chron c. 48. vnto Paschal 1. and his name is in the donation as also that Countesse Maud gaue Liguria and Tuscia vnto Gregory the seauenth 16. And Bels prouing the historiographers Bel pag. 13. to disagree because Blondus and Platina saith he write that Pipin gaue the exarchate to Gregory the third Regino referreth it to Steeuen and Sigebert saith Pipin had Italy in his owne possession in the yeare 801. is like the rest of his proceedings For that of Platina is a manifest vntruth for he saith Platina in Stephan 2. Naucler general 26. Palmerius in chronic Claud. Paradi in Pepin paragr 6. 7. 8. 9. Pipin gaue the exarchate in Pope Steeuen the second his time and Sigebert meaneth not of King Pipin the giuer of the exarchate who died 768 but of his grandchild sonne to Carolus Magnus and how his possession of Italy doth not preiudicate the Pope is before explicated Regino saith that which is truth for best authors agree that Pipin gaue the exarchate in the yeare 755. at What time Steeuen 2. al. 3. was Pope 17. But suppose writers did not agree about the Pope to whome and time when Pipin made his guift of the exarchate must we therefore needs deny the guift in which they al agree So wee might deny that Christ Was borne because writers agree not about the time is it not vsual for historiographers to agree in the substance of the narration and yet differ in some circumstance of the person or time 18. Last of al least we should thinke the Grecian Emperors acknowledged Charles made by the Pope to be true Emperour Bel pag. 14. Sigebert An. 805. he telleth vs out of Sigebert that they had indignation against Charles and therefore he with often Embassages procured their friendshipes yea Blandus and Platina saith he affirme constantlie that Charles agreed with Irene and afterward with Niccphoras that with their fauors the might rule ouer the west Behould the drift of Bel to make vs thinke that Charles became Emperour not by creation of the Pope but by graunt of Grecian Emperors so loath he is to confesse the Pope had so great authority aboue 800. years agoe Wherein the silly foole ouerthroweth what he before said For if the Pope did not translate the Empire then was it no steppe to his tiranny as he imagineth 19. But let vs heare how he proueth that the Grecian Emperours did not achnowledge Charles the great for true Emperour first forsooth because Sigebert saith they had indignation against Charles what then are neuer Emperours offended for any thing lawfullie done especiallie if they thinke it preiudice their estate dignity and albeit Sigebert affirme that some Grecian Emperours who them selues came vnlawfullie and by tiranny to the Empire and that after Charles was crowned Emperour had indignation against Charles yet none write that Irene who was the only lawful Empresse at that time when Charles was created was offended with his creation but rather content as may be gathered by hir purpose which as Zonoras and Cedrenus write she had to marry him Yea Nauclerus saith she was deposed for Naucler general 28. the fauor she bore to Charles besides the indignation of those Emperours vz. Nicephorus Michael and Leo was not so much for the Imperial dignity taken by Charles as because as writeth Eginhart Charles Eginhart in vita Caroli his secretary they greatlie suspected least he should take the Empire from them which they might iustlie feare because by tirany and deposition of their predecessors they had gotten it and yet notwithstanding their indignation of their owne accord they sent Embassadours to Charles and made league and friendshippe with him as the same Eginhart Ado and others testifie Yea the Magdeburgians adde that the Grecians in a manner consented to Charles his Empire 20. His other proofe out of Platina containeth an vntruth for Platina writeth that Platina in Ieone 3. Charles being made Emperour Irene sent Embassadours to make peace and league with him to deuide Italie betwixt them which league Nicephorus renued but he hath no word of Charles his ruling the west with their fouours more then of their ruling the East with his And the like saith Blondus Blond Dec. 2. l. 1. Bel pag. 14. 21. The seauenth steppe saith Bel was the constitution of the seauen Princes electors of the future Emperour by Pope Gregory 5. by the fauour and free graunt af Otho then Emperour But this was rather an act of superiority in the Pope ouer Emperours then a steppe vntil it And seing this constitution hath euer since bene inuiolablie obserued and the Emperours so elected accompted as true Emperours throughout al Christendome a signe it is that Christians thinke the Pope hath authority to appoint Electors who may choose what Emperour they please by the authority giuen them from the Pope Wherfore I would Bel answered me this dilemma The seauen Electors haue authority to choose an Emperour or not If they haue then the Pope who gaue them that authority had the same because none can giue what he hath not him selfe if not Bel deposeth at once more Emperours and Princes then al Popes haue done 22. The eight and highest steppe of this ladder Bel pag. 15. saith Bel d●d reach vp euen to the highest heauen and to the verie throne of our lord Iesus here is a great cry now let vs see quid dignum tanto fert hic promissor hiat● because sai●h he Extrauag Bonif. 8. vtiam sanctam de maioritate obedientia vntruth

to make your selfe iudge aboue the highest And if you wil try Gods word by what wil you try the old testament Surely by tradition or by nothing Thus we haue heard Bel twise plainly cōfessing some tradition to be necessary now the third tyme supposing it For magna est vis veritatis praeualet 13. Yet because his stomacke could not pag 135 al. 117. disgest any one tradition at al he flyeth to a Fift solution commonly giuen by Protestants vz. That Canonical Scripture may be discerned Psalm 119. v. 105. 1. Pēt 1. v. 19. 2. Cor. 5. v. 3. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 27. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. 1. Reg. 3. from not Canonical by themselues as light is from darknes This he proueth because Gods worde is called a light and a lantherne sayd to shyne to men spiritual men sayd to iudge al things the vnction to teach al things and Christs sheepe sayd to heare and know his voyce But this is easely refelled First because though Samuel were a faithful holy man and God spake thrise to him yet he tooke his worde for mans worde vntil Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods worde 1. Reg. 3. Gedeon was faithful and yet knew not at first that it was God that spake vnto him by an Iudic. 6. Angel and therfore demanded a miracle in confirmation of it Iudic. 6. The like may be said of Manues wife Iud. 13. and perhaps of Manue him selfe For though in his prayer he professe that God had sent the Angel whom he tooke to be a man yet doth he not professe that God had sent him especially and perticulerly to do that message and seeing he knew not that it was an Angel vntil he ascended in the flame of the sacrifice yea seemed to doubt whether his words would proue true when he sayd If thy speech be fulfilled likely it is that he was not certaine that it was Gods worde before he was certaine that it was his Angel Likewise S. Peter was faithful and yet at Act. 12. first he knew not that it was an Angel that spake and deliuered him act 12. 14. Secondly the true sense and meaning of Gods worde is not so euident to the faithful for to discerne it from the false sense as light is discerned from darknes Ergo nether Gods true worde is so euidently discerned by them from the false worde The consequence I proue because Gods worde consisteth more in his meaning then in letters Let vs not thincke saith S. Hierom S. Hierom. in Calat 1. dialog con Lucif that the Ghospel is in the words of Scripturs but in the sence Againe Scripturs consist not in reading but in vnderstāding And therfore if it be discerned by it selfe it is rather discerned by the sense then by the letters or words The antecedent I shal proue hereafter and it is euident by the example of the Apostles who though they were faithful oftentymes vnderstood not Christs meaning especially when he spake in parables or of his passion by the example of the faithful Eunuch and by the testimony of S. Peter 2. Pet. 3. v. 16. 15. Thirdly the distinction of Scripturs from not Scriptures is not so euident as the distinction of light from darknes is Ergo they are not so easely discerned The consequence is euident The Antecedent I proue because then no man could erre in it as none can erre in the distinction of light from darknes Bel saith That only faithful can discerne Scriptures But this conuinceth that their distinction is not so euident as that of light from darknes for this al men yea beasts of sight can discerne Nether can Faith can not discerne any thing clearly faith be needful to discerne light or any thing which is so euident because as S. Paul saith Hebr. 11. v. 1. It is an argument of things not appearing and it breadeth certainty not euidency in the beleeuer 16. Beside if faithful could as clearly discerne Scriptures as they can light they should no sooner here a sentence of Scripture then they should discerne it to be Scripture as they no sooner see light then they discerne it from darknes which experience teacheth to be false yea Luther a faithful man in Bels opinion could not discerne yea could not beleeue S. Iames epistle Luther edit Iennen Surius Ann. 1522. to be canonical but called it absolutly a strawish thing as his books first printed and diuers others testify and Whitaker VVhitaker lib. 1. contr Duraeum p. 22. dare not deny yea confesseth that he calleth it strawish in respect of other epistles which is more then to deny it to be Gods worde Wherfore let Bel make his choyse whether Luther was not faithful or S. Iames epistle not so euidently discerned by the faithful to be Gods worde as light is Finally Protestants admit one Tradition as necessary to discerne Scriptures or Bel lyeth pag. 135. Ergo Scriptures are not so euidently discerned by them selues as light is For what neede is there of an other thing to discerne light or any thing so euident 17. Nether haue Bels arguments any difficulty to answer For Gods worde is called a lantherne or light not because it is so euident as light is but because being once beleeued to be Gods worde it sheweth vs the way to heauen as light doth to earthly places and thereupon it is called of the Psalmist a lantherne to our feete And for the Psalm 118. same cause faith is called light though it be an obscure knowledge Hebr. 11. v. 1. and by it we see God only in aenigmate 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. and not clearly And in like sort S. Paul 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. where Bel citeth 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. amisse c. 5. saith the Ghospel shineth not because it is euident and cleare but because it expelleth the ignorance of infidelity which metaphorically is called darknes That of the spiritual man 1. Corinth 2. v. 15. is nothing to the purpose both because al faithful are not spiritual but some carnal 1. Corinth 3. v. 1. 2. 3. and Galath 6. v. 1. and therfore may we better infer that the Ghospel is not euident to al faithful As also because S. Paul explicateth not by what means the spiritual man iudgeth al things whether by the euidency of the things as Bel wold haue him to iudge Scripture or by some outward testimony Moreouer S. Ihon saith the vnction teacheth 3. Ioan. 2. v. 27. vs al things which we deny not but no where that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church which is that we deny Bel should proue Finally Christs sheep heare and know his voice Ioan. 10. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. v. 3 4 which no man doubteth of but the question is whether they heare it of him selfe alone or of the Church and whether they know it by it selfe or by testimony of the Church to which purpose