Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	apostle_n	heaven_n	loose_v	2,492	5	10.3143	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08329	The pseudo-scripturist. Or A treatise wherein is proued, that the wrytten Word of God (though most sacred, reuerend, and diuine) is not the sole iudge of controuersies, in fayth and religion Agaynst the prime sectaries of these tymes, who contend to maintayne the contrary. Written by N.S. Priest, and Doctour of Diuinity. Deuided into two parts. And dedicated to the right honorable, and reuerned iudges of England, and the other graue sages of the law.	S. N. (Sylvester Norris), 1572-1630.	1623 (1623)	STC 18660; ESTC S120360	119,132	166

(h) Ibidem c. 11. all which seuerall descriptions thereof being taken literally as they expound them do precisely make vp three yeares and a halfe and consequently cannot be applyed to the Pope And therfore our Aduersaries in answere to the sayd places are glad to say that in all those textes an vncertaine tyme is figuratiuely to be vnderstood though it be expressed diuersly by one and the same continuance of tyme. To proue that the Pope is Antichrist they commonly vrge that of the Apocalyps (i) cap. 17. where it is sayd that the whore of Babylon doth sit vpon that Citty which hath seauen hils meaning Rome Which wordes do not directly touch Antichrist but only by their supposed inference that by the whore of Babylon is meant Antichrist which they are neuer able to proue since therby is vnderstood Rome in the tyme of the heathen Emperours who then worshiped Idols and was drunke with the bloud of Gods Saintes In confirmation of the Reall Presence we vrge the sentence of our Sauiour recorded by all the Euangelistes to wit This is my body c. Which text being literally taken doth containe expresly the very conclusion maintayned by vs not by circuitions or ambages but directly plainly immediatly So as it cannot be conceaued how our Sauiour could speake more perspicuously in this poynt 6. Now against the Reall presence our Sacramentaries do chiefly obiect that saying of Christ (k) Ioan. 6. It is the spirit which quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing Which wordes do not fall directly vpon the question of Christ his Reall Presence in the Sacrament Neyther is so much as Christ his flesh vnderstood hereby as they would seeme to inferre since then it would follow that his Incarnation and death auayled vs nothing but only the carnall conceite of the Iewes is cheked hereby who thought that Christ would deliuer his body to be eaten fleshly corporally and carnally as other common meates are eaten 7. To the same end they o●●●ct those words of Christ Do this in remembrance of me which place by no necessary or probable illation can include the true absence of himselfe which is the poynt in question since they haue a referēce only to a circumstance of himselfe to wit of his death passion which as being past is absent in remembrance wherof he commandeth vs in the former wordes to receaue his sacred body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist conformably to that speach of S. Paul (l) 1. Cor. 11. mortem Domini annunciabitis do nec veniat You shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come the Apostle so interpreting Christs former words 8. To proue that Priests in the Sacrament of Pennance where by putting God in remembrance of our sinnes he soonest forgetteth them and in acknowledging our selues to be sinners we cease to be sinners haue power to remit or retaine sinnes we alledge the playne wordes of our Sauiour to them (m) Math. 18. whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth shal be loosed in heauen as also those words recorded by S. Iohn (n) 20. Whose sins you forgine they are forgiuen them and whose sinnes you retaine they are retained Both which places in plaine direct immediate construction containe in themselues the very touch and poynt of this controuersy without any inference or circuition at all since they giue a direct and streight proofe of the conclusion it selfe to wit that Priestes haue power to remit or retaine sinnes For denyall of Priests authority in remitting or retayning of sinnes our Sectaties are accustomed to produce that text of the Psalmist (2) Psalm 50. Tibi soli peccauimus we haue sinned only against thee inferring herby that because we sinne only against God therfore only God can remit sinne which inference if it were true then should it by the same reason take away the vertue of Baptisme for remitting of Originall sin They likewise obiect certaine places of (3) Psalm 18. 37. Scripture which shew that we are not able to number all our sinnes and consequently not able to confesse them to the Priest which illatiō is most weake since it maketh as must against the Confession of ous sins to God as to the Priest 9. For confirming the Doctrine of Freewil the Catholikes do alledge among other authorities these following In arbitrio (p) Num. 30. viri erit siue faciat siue non faciat that is It is in the choice or will of a man whether he will do or not doe As also Optio (q) Iosue 24. vobis datur eligite hodie quod vobis places Choice is giuen to you chuse that to day which pleaseth you And againe Quoties (r) Math. 23. volui congregare c. How often would I gather togeather thy children as the hen gathereth her chickens and thou wouldst not All which places directly and flatly teach that we haue frewill to do and not to do Now our Aduersaries for denyall of this Doctrine are accustomed to alledge chiefly such places where it is sayd that all things are done according to the will and counsell of God As for example that of Christ as if the eternall Word of the Father came downe to destroy that former wrytten word of God Vnus passer (s) Math. 9. c. Not one sparrow shall fall vpon the ground without your Fathers will And againe Qui (t) Ephes 8. operatur omnia c. Who worketh all thinges according to the Counsell of his will Both which texts besides diuers others of the same nature conclude nothing except first they be able to proue that the Will Counsell and Foreknowledge of God cannot stand with mans freewill The contrary wherof is most cleare as appeareth by the example of Adam who by our Aduersaries (u) Caluin 1. l. Instit c. 15. §. 8. Luther in comment in Gen. acknowledgment had freewill to stand or fall and yet his fall was neyther meerely contrary to Gods will since he permitted the same nor to his foreknowledge and prouidence since he foreseeth all things 10. Concerning Iustification by works the Catholikes Conclusion and Position is found literally and euē in those words wherin they vsually expresse this theyr Doctrine since we read in S. (x) c. 2. Iames That ex operibus iustificatur homo c. A man is iustifyed by workes and not by fayth only In like sort where our Aduersaries doe obiect any place against vs the very distinction sometymes such is their scarsity and dearth of pertinent texts which the Catholikes do vse to auoyde their argument is literally expresly set downe in the words of those texts Thus we fynd that they vrge to this end those words of the Apostle Arbitramur (y) Rom. 3. hominem c. we account a man to be iustified by fayth without the workes of the law as also that other vz. Scientes (z) Galat. 2. c. Knowing that man is not iustifyed

alledge those words of the Apostle (p) 1. Cor. c. 11. Qui manducat bibit indignè c. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgment to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord Out of which words we gather that some are here reprehended in that they receiue the body of Christ vnworthily but these do not receaue it in spirit and fayth for in so doing they should receaue it with profit and worthily therfore they receaue his body only in body and not in spirit and consequently his body is there really and truly present And in this sort is this text expounded by the fathers vz. Ambrose (q) In c. 11. prioris ad ad Corinth Theodor Ierome (r) In c. 1. Malach. Chrysostome (s) Hom. 24. in prior ad Corinth hom 83 in Matth. Origen (t) Hom. 2. in psal 37. Basil (u) l. 2. de baptisae 3. others which exposition of the fathers being true depriueth our Aduersaries of all sufficient answere to the said text 10. That those three places which the Catholiks do commonly vrge for proofe of Priests authority in remitting sinnes vz. Math. 16. To thee I will giue the keyes of heauē and whatsoeuer thou shalt bynd vpon earth shal be bound in heauen c. Math. 18. What things you shall bynd vpon earth shal be boūd in heauen and what things you shall loose c. Lastly Iohn 20. Whose sins you shall remit are remitted vnto thē and whose sinnes you shall retaine are retained That these places I say doe proue that Priests haue authority giuen them truly and really to remit sins in the Sacrament of Pennance not only by declaring and pronouncing their sinnes to be remitted as our Sectaries do teach it appeareth out of the fathers expositions of the foresaid places who expounding them literally with the Catbolikes do proue therby the true authority of the Priests therin S. Gregory (x) Hom. 26. in Euang expounding the words Whose sinnes you shall remit thus sayth Principatum superni iudicij c. The Apostles do obtaine a principality of supreme iudgment that in the place of God they may retayne the sinnes of some and loose the sinnes of others S. Chrysostome (y) l. 3. de sacerd the scope of which booke is to proue this point expounding the former texts and comparing the authority of the Priests of the old law ouer the leprous persōs with the Priests of the new law thus concludeth At nostris Sacerdotibus non corporis lepram c. It is granted to our Priests I say not to try them which are purged but absolutely to purge and cure not the leper of the body but the filth and foulnes of the soule See also S. Austin (z) l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei expoūding those words of the Apoc. Et vidi sedes sedentes c. Ierome (a) Ep. ad Heliodorū de vita solitaria Ambrose (b) l. 1. de poenit c. 2 sequent Gregory (c) Oratione ad ciues timore perculsos Naziazene all which do interpret the former texts literally and ackknowledge from thence the sayd authority in Priests for remitting of sinnes which the Catholikes at this day do teach 11. That place of S. Iohn (d) c. 3. vz. Except a man be borne againe of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God doth proue that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth ex opere operato conferre grace and iustify a man which perspicuous and cleare testimony to peruert our Aduersaries are forced to say that the wordes are not spoken of the Sacrament of Baptisme but only of regeneration caused by the holy Ghost whose property is to wash the soule as the water doth wash the body And yet against this phantasticall exposition we are able to produce the fathers who do literally vnderstand the former words as spoken of the Sacrament of Baptisme which exposition of theirs granted as true doth necessarily force the Catholike Doctrine therin See Cyrill Austin Chrysostome and Origen all interpreting this place as also Ambrose (l) l. 3. de spirit sāct c. 11. Cyprian (m) l. 3. ad Quirinum Ierome (n) In c. 16. Ezech. and the rest 12. In proofe of Freewill mong other places we alledge those words of God spoken to Cain Nonne (o) Genes 4. si bene egeris recipies c. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted and if thou dost not well sinne lyeth at thy doore Sub te erit appetitus eius tu dominaberis illius that is And vnto thee it desire vz. of sinne shal be subiect and thou shalt rule ouer it vz. ouer sinne 13. Now our Aduersaries in answere hereto do say that the words Sub te erit appetitus eius tu dominaberis illius ought to haue reference to Abel meaning hereby that Abel should be subiect to Cain and that as being the elder he should rule ouer Abel Which construction being most forced indirect is generally impugned by the Fathers who in the exposition of the former words do in both places vnderstand sinne and not Abel Thus we find that S. Austin (p) l. 15. de Ciuit. Dei c. 7. saith of this place as interpreting it Quiesce ad te enim conuersio eius tu dominaberis illius numquid fratris absit cuius igitur nisi peccati that this Content thy selfe Cain for it shall turne it selfe to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it ouer what ouer thy brother God forbid ouer what then but ouer sinne S. Ierome in like sort wryteth thus (q) Inquaestion Hebraicis Quia liberi arbitrij es mone● vt non tibi peccatum sed tu peccato domineris alluding to the words in Genes Because thou art of freewill I do counsell thee that sinne may not rule ouer thee but thou ouer sin See also Ambrose (r) lib. 2. de Cain c. 7. Gregory (s) lib. 4. moral cap. 22. and Prosper (t) l. 2. de vocat gē●ium c. 13. expounding those former words of sinne and not of Abel all which fathers do euen deriue the Doctrine of frewil from their foresaid exposition therof 14. For maintenance of Iustification by workes for we allow that saying of the Historiographer Fayth that is seene is better then faith that is heard we do vrge that place of Iames (u) cap. 2. aboue touched Do you see because of workes a man is iustified and not of faythonly which text is so plaine direct for Iustification by workes as that S. Austin (x) lib. de side operibus c. 14. is not afraid to say that the very scope and drift of this Epistle of S. Iames as also that of Peter Iohn and Iude was chiefly to represse the heresy then begun about Iustification by fayth only so great an impugner was this auncient Father of our Aduersaries sole and melancholy fayth for so I

controu 2. quaest 4. pag. 223. thus wryteth It is manifest that euen after Christ his Ascension and the holy Ghosts descending vpon the Apostles not only the common sort but euen the Apostles themselues erred in the vocation of the gentils c. Yea Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremoniall law c. and this was a matter of fayth c. he furthermore erred in manners and these were great errours 19. Answerably hereto Brentius (e) In Apolog Cōfess c. de Concilijs p. 900. an eminent Protestant wryteth that S. Peter chiefe of the Apostles and Barnabas after the holy Ghost receaued together with the Church of Hierusalem erred D. Fulke (f) Against the Rhemish Testam in Galat. 2. speaking vpon the said point sayth Peter erred in ignorance against the Gospell Iewill (g) In his defence of the Apology pag. 361. affirmeth that S. Marke did erroneously alledge Abiather for abimelech and S. Mathew with the like ouersight did write Ieremy for Zachary Conradus (h) In Theolog. Calumist l. 2. fol. 40. Schlusselburg a famous Protestant chargeth Caluin to maintaine that the Apostles alledged the Prophetes in other sense then was meant Zuinglius (i) Tom. 2. Elench cōtra Anabap f. 10. most wonderfully abaseth the wrytings of the Apostles and the Euangelists in these words This is your ignorance that you thinke the Commentaries of the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles to haue bene then in authority when Paul did write these thinges as though Paul did attribute then so much to his Epistles that whatsoeuer was contained in them was sacred c. which thing he sayth were to impute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostle 20. D. Bancroft (k) In his suruey of the pretended discipline pag. 373. alledgeth out of Zanchius his Epistles that one of Caluins Schollars sayd If Paul should come to Geneua and preach the same houre that Caluin did I would leaue Paul and heare Caluin Caluin (l) In his Cōmentar in omnes Pauli Epistol p. 510. himselfe chargeth S. Peter with errour to the Schisme as he sayth of the Church to the endangering of Christian liberty and the ouerthrow of the grace of Christ The Century wryters (m) Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 10. ●ol 580. thus reprehend S. Paul Paul doth turne to Iames the Apostle and a Synod of the Presbiters being called together he is persuaded by Iames and the rest that for the offended Iewes he should purify himselfe in the Tēple wherunto Paul yieldeth which certainly is no small sliding of so great a doctour In which one testimony we see that not only Paul but the rest of the Apostles are charged by the Centurists with errour in fayth And to close this poynt with that incestuous and reuolted monke I meane Luther we read that besides the seuerall bookes of the new Testament as it aboue shewed denyed by him as also besides the reprehending of Peter of whome he thus sayth Peter (n) In epist ad Galat. c. 1. after the English transl fol. 33. 34. Tom. 5. VVittemberg of anno 1554. fol. 290. the chiefe of the Apostles did liue and teach extra verbum Dei besides the word of God he thus inueigheth most scurrilously against Moyses himselfe Moyses (o) Luther tom 3. VVittenberg in psal 45. f. 423. tom 3. german f. 40. 41. in colloq mensalib german f. 152. 153. had his lips vnpleasant stopped angry c. do you collect all the wisedome of Moyses and of the heathen Philosophers and you shall find them to be before God eyther Idolatry or Hypocryticall wisedome or if it be Politicke the wisedome of wrath c. Moyses had his lippes full of gaul and anger c. away therfore with Moyses 21. And thus farre of this poynt from whence we conclude that the Protestants in charging the Euangelistes and the Apostles with errours of fayth in their words and actions do withall labour to take away the infallible authority due to their wrytings and books for grant they erred in the first way how can we be secured they erred not in the second seing their pens had no greater priuiledge from God of not erring then their tongues and other their actions had and consequently they cannot alledge their wrytings as being subiect to errour by necessary inferences drawne from their owne grounds for the finall decyding and determining of all doubts arysing in matters of fayth and religion That the Protestantes allow not the Originall Hebrew of the old Testament now extant for authenticall and vncorrupted CHAP. II. ALTHOVGTH our Aduersaries do giue it out in their wrytings and sermons that the Hebrew Originall which now they haue and as it is at this present poynted with pricks is pure and free from all corruption and therfore that we ought in any text of the old Testament to recurre to the Hebrew as to the touch stone of truth and to a cleare and vntroubled fountaine Yet that this is but a meere glosse and false vaunt of them inuented only to quit themselues from that reading of the text altogether fauouring the Catholike Doctrine wherunto both the Greeke and Latin Fathers and the whole Church of God for so many ages haue bene accustomed it is most euidēt For it is most certaine that in diuers places themselues do forsake the present Hebrew and do read as the Septuagint or as the Latin Interpretour doth read both who differ much from the present Hebrew Some few texts for example I will heere set downe 2. First then that prophesy of Dauid (a) Psal 8. concerning the Apostles the Septuagint S. Paul (b) Rom. 10. and the Protestants themselues do read thus In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum Their sound went out through all the earth and yet the present Hebrew hath insteed of these words sonus eorum linea or perpendiculum eorum so insutable with the other words as that it is hard to collect any good and perfect sense therof 3. The Psalme 22. affoards a most notorious prophesy of the particular manner of our Sauiours death in these words They haue peirced my handes and feet for so the Septuagint the Catholikes and the Protestantes in their Translations doe read and yet the present Hebrew so much magnified by thē hath insteed therof these words as a Lyon my handes and my feet frustrating thereby so remarkable a prophesy of our Sauiours particular suffring death 4. The Hebrew sayth in one (c) Reg. 24. place Zedechias his brother meaning thereby the brother of Ioachim and yet the English Bible translated anno 1579. readeth thus Zedechias his fathers brother according to the Greeke and Latin translation therin 5. Likewise in another place (d) Par●lip 2. the present Hebrew sayth Achaz King of Israel and yet our Aduersaries reiect this reading and translate Achaz King of Iuda following therein the Septuagingts translation and the Latin interpretour 6. I let passe the

1. de resurrect and of Ambrose (p) In c. 4. ad Ephes all which Fathers do vnderstand by those wordes of Matthew in corde terrae Hell 22. We also alledge for proofe of the same article that saying of the Apostles Qui ascendit ipse est c. He that ascendeth is the same which descended into the lower parts of the earth where the Latin words inferiores partes terrae do not signify the graue as our Aduersaries do interprete but hel and thus we fynd this place expounded by S. Ierome (q) Omnes hi in hunc locum Ambrose Chrysostome and Theophilact they prouing Christ his descending into hell out of this and the former alledged text 23. For confirmation of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead besides that place of the Machabees which is so plaine as that it needeth no illustration of the Fathers we alledge that place of Matthew (*) c. 12. where it is said that there are some sins which neyther are remitted in this world nor in the world to come Wherby we Catholikes the Fathers afore vs do gather that some sinnes are remitted in the world to come by prayers and suffrages of the Church and this Illation is deduced from this text by S. Austin (r) l. 21. de Ciuit. Dei c. 24. l. 6. in Iulian. cap. 5. S. Ierome (s) lib. 4. dialog c. 39. Bede (t) In c. ● Marci and others 24. Another authority for proofe of Purgatory is vsually alledged out of S. Matthew (u) Math. 5. Lu● 12. and S. Luke where it is sayd Esto consentiens aduersario tuo c. Be at agreement with thy aduersary betymes whiles thou art in the way with him least perhaps thy aduersary deliuer thee to the iudge and the iudge deliuer thee to the officer and thou be cast into prison verily I say to thee thou shalt not go from thence till thou repay the last farthing Now by the last farthing is here mistically and figuratiuely vnderstood small sinnes which shal be payed for that is shal be punished in the fire of Purgatory and thus is this place expounded by Tertullian (x) l. de anima c. 17. Cyprian (y) lib. 4. epist 2. Origen (z) Hom. 35. in Luc. Ambrose (a) In c. 12. Luc. and Ierome (b) In c. 5. Math. who thus plainly interpreteth the former words Hoc est quod dicit non egredieris de carcere donec minuta peccata persoluas that is This he saith Thou shalt not get out of prison till thou hast discharged euen thy little sinnes 25. Touching Prayer to Saintes And first that Saintes do intercede and pray for vs we proue out of Ieremy (*) cap. 15. where it is sayd Dixit Dominus ad me si steterint Moyses Samuelcoram me non est anima mea ad populum istum that is If Moyses and Samuel stood afore me my mind is not to this people Meaning that if Moyses and Samuel should thē pray to God for the people of the Iewes yet God would not heare thē out of which place we gather that Moyses and Samuel thē being dead were accustomed at other tymes to pray to God for thē since otherwise this speach of God had bene indirect and to no purpose Now wheras our Aduersaries to auoyd this argument do say that the meaning of this place it not that if Moyses and Samuel in their owne persons but if any other godly men such as Moyses Samuel were should pray to God he would not heare them Yet notwithstanding we find this place expounded literally personally and truly and so consequently against our Aduersaries their answere of Moyses and Samuel by Chrysostome (c) Hom. 1. in epist 1. ad Thes sal Ierome (d) In hūe locum Gregory (e) l 9. moral c. 12. 26. To the same end we produce out of the Machabees (f) 2. Mac. cap. vlt. how Iudas did see in a vision Onias the Priest and Ieremy the Prophet both which were then dead praying for the Iewes Now seing that this booke of the Machabees is accounted true and vndoubted Scripture by S. Austin (g) l. 18. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 36. Cypryan (h) l 1. ep 3. ad Cornelium Ambrose (i) l. 2. de Iacob c. 10. 11. 12. Gregroy (k) Inorat de Mach. Nazianzen and others it therfore followeth that these Fathers acknowledging the Machabees for Scripture and neuer making any other construction of this vision then literall such as the words import do also acknowledge that this place doth infallibly proue that the Saintes do pray for vs. 27 Now more particularly that Saintes are to be prayed vnto we proue by the words in Iob (l) Iob. c. 5. where it is sayd Voca si quis est qui tibi respondeat ad aliquem Sanctorum conuertere That is Call if any there be which may answere thee and turne thy selfe to any of the Saints Where by the name of the Saintes are vnderstood the Angells according to the exposition of S. Austin (m) In annot in Iob. But if Angells do pray for vs then do Saintes the like since there is one and the same reason of both 28. Now to make an end of this Chapter I will finally rest in bringing a place or two out of the Scripture to proue that the Eucharist is a true and proper though vnbloudly Sacrifice contrary to our Aduersaries wicked Doctrine herein And first we are accustomed to alledge in proofe hereof the priesthood of Melchisedech of whome it is thus said Melchisedech (n) Genes 14. rex Salem protuli● c. that is Melchisedech being King of Salem did offer bread and wyne for he was a priest of the high God Now not only Dauid (o) Psalm 109. but also S. Paul (p) Hebr. 7. do so referre this place to Christ as that S. Paul doth plainly say that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech not according to the order of Aarō Now if Christ be a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech then the reason hereof is in that Christ is to institute an vnbloudy sacrifice vnder the forme of bread and wyne and so we Catholikes do hould that this he did when he first instituted the blessed Eucharist And answerably hereto the Fathers do interprete those words of the Psalmist (q) l. 4. stormat Thou art a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech and the like words of S. Paul to wit that Christ is therfore properly and truly called a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech because he instituted at his last supper a Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wyne Thus are those former places expounded by Clemens (r) lib. 5. demonstr Euāg c. 3. Alexandrinus Eusebius (s) l. ● ep 3. ad Caecil Caesariensis Cyprian (t) Haeres ●9 Epiphanius (u) lib. 5. de Sacram. c.