Selected quad for the lemma: head_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
head_n	body_n	member_n	mystical_a	10,421	5	11.0632	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00908	A defence of the Catholyke cause contayning a treatise in confutation of sundry vntruthes and slanders, published by the heretykes, as wel in infamous lybels as otherwyse, against all english Catholyks in general, & some in particular, not only concerning matter of state, but also matter of religion: by occasion whereof diuers poynts of the Catholyke faith now in controuersy, are debated and discussed. VVritten by T.F. With an apology, or defence, of his innocency in a fayned conspiracy against her Maiesties person, for the which one Edward Squyre was wrongfully condemned and executed in Nouember ... 1598. wherewith the author and other Catholykes were also falsly charged. Written by him the yeare folowing, and not published vntil now, for the reasons declared in the preface of this treatyse.	Fitzherbert, Thomas, 1552-1640.	1602 (1602)	STC 11016; ESTC S102241	183,394	262

might haue continually a visible head no lesse now in the new law thē heretofore in the old which was a figure of the new and had a continual succession of Bishops from Aaron therfore I say all the ancient fathers worthely acknowledged this our sauiours institution and this autority of an vniuersal Pastor not only in S. Peter but also in his successors where vpon S. Chrisostome saith that Christ committed the care of his sheep tum Pe●ro tum Petri successorebus both to Peeter and to Peeters successors and Petrus Bishop of Rauena in his epistle to Eutyches blessed Peeter sayth he liues gouerns stil in his owne seat and Leo magnus affirmeth that Peeter continueth and liueth in his successors and therfore the great councel of Chalcedon abouesayd hauing heard the epistle of the sayd Leo condemning the heresy of Eutyches sayd Petrus per Leonem locutus est Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. In this respect also the blessed martyr S. Cyprian who as I sayd before wrote soone after the conuersion of K. Lucius cauleth the Roman Church Cathedrā Petri ecclesiam principalē vnde vnuas sacerdotaelis exorta est the chayre of Peeter the principal or cheef Churche from whence springeth all Priestly vnity signifieng therby that as the vnity of the natural body consisteth in that dyuers members being combyned vnder one head do all receiue from the same the influence of one lyfe so also the vnity of the mistical body of Christ consisteth in that diuers Churches being conioyned vnder one head which is the Roman Churche or chayre of Peter do all receiue from the same the influence of one spirit and doctrin which he declareth playnly in his book of the vnity of the Churche where he sayth euē as there are many beames of the Sunne and one light many bowes of one tree and yet one strength founded in one root many brookes flowing from one fountayne a vnity therof conserued in the spring euen so the Churche of our Lord casting foorth her light euery where stretcheth her beames through out the world yet the light is one shee extends her bowes ouer the whole earth spreads her flowing riuers farre neare and yet there is one head one beginning and one fruitful and plentiful mother Thus far this famous martyr who speaking also other where of Peters chayre declareth the miserable state of those that are deuided seperated from the same which I wish our aduersaryes diligently to note there is sayth he one God one Christ one Churche one chayre founded vpon Peeter by our Lords woords an other Altar cānot be erected nor a new priesthood ordayned whosoeuer gathereth any where els scattreth it is counterfeyt wicked and sacrilegious whatsoeuer humain fury doth institute ordayne to violate the ordenance of God and agayne to the same purpose he which holdeth not sayth he this vnity of the Churche doth he beleeue that he holds the fayth of the churche he which forsakes the chayre of Peeter where vpon the churche was foūded can he hope to be in the churche Finally this blessed martyr writting to S. Cornelius the Pope calleth the Roman Church Marricem radicem catholicae Ecclesiae the mother root of the Catholyke Churche which he wisheth all men to acknowledge and hold most firmly and transferring the same presently after to the person of Cornelius he sayth that he would haue all his collegues retayne hold stedfastly his communion that is as much to say sayth he as to hold the vnity charity of the Catholyke church geuing to vnderstand that he which doth not communicate with the bishop of Rome the chayre of Peter the fountayne of vnity the root and mother of the Catholyke Churche he is not a member of the same nor gathereth with Christ but scattreth The very same in substāce the famous Doctor S. Hierom teacheth as wel of S. Peeter as of his chayre and successors of S. Peeter he sayth that he was therfore chosen of our sauiour one only amongst twelue that a head being appoynted all occasions of schisme diuision might be taken away and of his chayre and successors he sayth to S. Damasus the Pope qui cathedrae Petri iungitur meus est he which is ioyned to the chayre of Peter he is myne and agayne to him in an other Epistle I sayth he following no cheef but Christ am lincked in communiō with thy beatitude that is to say with the chayre of Peter vpon that rock the Churche was buylt whosoeuer eateth the lambe out of this house is profane if any man be not in the arke of Noe he shal perish in the flud and a litle after I know not Vitalis I refuse Meletius I know not Paulinus whosoeuer doth not gather with thee scattreth he which is not of Christ is of Antichrist thus far S. Hierome of the supremacy of Peeters chayre and particularly of Pope Damasus of whome S. Ambrose in the same tyme acknowledged no lesse saying Ecclesia domus De● dicitur cuius rector hod●e est Damasus the Churche is cauled the house of God the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus with these all other Doctors of the Churche Greekes and Latins agree concerning the supremacy of the bishops of Rome as Epiphanius Athanasius Basilius Gregorius Nazianzenus Chrysostomus Cyrillus Theodoretus Sozomenus Optatus Ambrosius Augustinus Prosper Victor Vticensis Vincentius Lirinensis and Cassiodorus all which did wryte aboue 1000. yeres ago and playnly acknowledged the supremacy of the bishop of Rome as appeareth in the places aleaged in the margent wherto I remit our aduersaries to auoyd prolixitie concluding with the great councel of Chalcedon abouesayd wherein Pope Leo was cauled vniuersal Bishop dyuers tymes besyds that in an epistle written to him by the whole councel it is playnly signified that the Vineyard of our Lord that is to say the Churche was committed to his charge and custody To returne therfore to S. Ireneus in the tyme of King Lucius thou seest good reader how true is that which he sayth of the necessitie and obligation that all faythful people haue to agree with the Roman Churche propter potentiorē principalitatem for the mightier or more powerful principalitie therof that is to say for the supreme dignity it hath ouer all other churches as the mother ouer her children the head ouer the body and the spring and root of vnity THAT THE BISHOPS OF Rome exercysed supreme authoritie and iurisdiction in the tyme of king Lucius CHAP. X. NOW then let vs consider how the byshops of Rome did exercyse this theyr authority before and in the tyme of K. Lucius and neare vnto the same the which may appeare partly by the appellatiōs out of all parts to the sea Apostolyke and the restitution or deposition of bishops by the

other Bishops making general edicts condemning heretykes deposing and restoring Bishops cauling counsels and excommunicating whole prouinces and countryes I appeale to thee gentle reader whether he was not then generally held for supreme head of the Church whether it is lykly that when Eleutherius the Pope made King Lucius a Christian he made him a protestāt that is to say an enemy to the sea Apostolyk a persecuter of Priests and of all such as defend the dignity and autoritie of saynt Peeter his predecessor from whome he claymed and held the supremacy of the Churche which now all protestants deny to his successors And agayne seeing I haue proued that the authority of the sea Apostolyke is not grounded vpon any humain tradition but vpon the institution of our sauiour himselfe who left his flock and sheep to saynt Peeter to be fed and buylt his Churche vpon him as vpon a sure rock promising that hel gates should not preuayle against it ordayning for the auoyding of Schisme diuision one head from the which the dyuers and manyfold members of his Churche might receiue the influence of one doctrin and spirit what shal wee say of them that are not of this fold that do not communicat with this head that are not planted vpō this root of vnity nor buylt vpon this rock that agaynst the chayre of Peeter set vp a chayre of pestilēce can they be the sheep of Christ or members of his mistical body or receiue the influence of his spirit it is no maruel yf they be caryed away with euery blast of new doctrin torne and rent with euery schisme and cast at length vpon the rockes of heresy or atheisme haue wee not then sufficient reason to giue lands lyues or what honour pleasure or comodity soeuer the world yeildeth rather then to be driuen from this safe harbor of truth and ancor of vnity into the seas of schisme and heresy to the assured shipwrack of our soules and when wee spend our blood for this cause do we not dy for religion yea for a most important point of religion though it be made treason wherof wee may truly saye with the blessed martyr Sir Thomas More thet it is a treason without sinne for the which a mā may be hanged and haue no harme dy and liue for euer seeme to some a traytor and be a glorious martyr THE MATTER OF HOLY Images is debated and the vse therof proued to haue ben in the Churche of God euer since our Sauiours tyme. CHAP. XI BVT let vs examine a poynt or two more of religion wherein our aduersaries dissent from vs that wee may see wheather K. Lucius were more lyke to learne their doctrin concerning the same or ours and for that they think they haue a maruelous aduātage of vs in the matter of Images and relykes of saints wherein they charge vs with flat Idolatrie and breach of the commaundment of God I wil say somwhat therof And fyrst I cannot but maruel at their grosnesse that cannot distinguish betwiyt an Idol and an Image whereof they may learne the difference in Origen and Theodoretus expoūding these words of the cōmaundmēt non facies tibi Idolū thou shalt not make to thy self any ●dol for the septuaginta whose translation they follow for sculptile haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say an Idol wherevpon they say that an Idol is a fals similitude representing a thing which is not that a similitude or Image is a representation of ae thing which truly is to which purpose also S. Paule sayth Idolum nihil est in mundo an Idol is nothing in the world for that Idols represent no truth but mere fictions vanityes and lyes and therfore ar cauled in the Hebrew text of the holy scriptures Elilun and Au●nim wheron it followeth that all Images or other creatures held or adored for Gods wh●ch they neither are nor yet possibly can bee are truly and properly Idols wheras other Images that represent a truth can not so bee cauled and this difference is euident in the holy scriptures which neuer atribute the name of Idol to the true Image of any thing but to the fals gods of the gentils and vseth the name of Image for the similitud of that which is truly the thing that it is thought to be or hath the true proprietyes that by the Image are represented so Christ is cauled the Image of his father and Salomon is sayd to haue made in the temple Images of Lions Oxen Flowers yea and of the Cherubins who though they were Angels and Spirits were neuerthelesse pourtrayed lyke men to expresse the forme wherein they appeared to Moyses on the mountayne and with wings to shew the celerity of their motion so that the representation made therby was true as of a true apparition and a true propriety in the Angelical nature Herevpon it foloweth that Images which are not honored for Gods but ordayned for the honor of Christ and his saynts who are truly that which they are represented to be are no Idols and therfore our aduersaries are eyther very ignorant or malicious when they confound these woords in such sort as to cal Images Idols and to translate Idolum in the scripture an Image as they commonly do very absurdly and sometymes ridiculously as in S. Paule where he speaketh of couetousnes saying it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say Idolatry or the seruice of Idols and in an other place that the couetous man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idolater or a woorshipper of Idols meaning therby that couetous men make theyr money and their riches their Gods they translate it couetousnes is the seruice of Images and the couetous man is a woorshipper of Images as though there were no other Idolatry but that which may be dōne to Images or that Image and Idole were all one or that it could be sayd with any propriety or reason that a couetous man makes his money an Image as it may be properly sayd that he makes it an Idol because he makes yt his God which yt neither is nor can be in which respect it may wel be cauled an Idol Furdermore they bewray in themselues either great simplicity or peruers malice in that they permit no honour nor reuerence to be donne to the Image of Christ his saynts for doth not reason and common experience teach vs that the honour or reuerence donne to the Image passeth from thence to the Prototipon that is to say to the thing or person it representeth he which crowneth sayth S. Ambrose the image of the emperour crowneth the Emperour and he which contemnes his image seemeth to do iniury to his person when the people of Antiochia cast downe the image of the Empresle wyfe to Theodosius the Emperour he took it for so great an affront to her and him selfe that he had lyke to haue destroyed the whole citty in

wil geue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and Origen addeth further that there was no smalle differēce betwyxt the Apostles commission to bynd and loose and the commission of S. Peter which he affirmeth to be more ample because sayth he non erant in tanta perfectione sicut Petrus they were not in such perfection as Peter and therfore S. Leo sayth that the authority or power to bynd and loose was geuen Petro prae caeteris to Peter aboue the rest of the Apostles and the reason is for that he being their head and they subordinat to him he receiued the same for him selfe and them and they held it as from him vnder him though they had it also by Christs commissiō as wel as hee which S. Augustin teacheth clearly when he sayth that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were geuen to S. Peter because he represented the whole church of which representatiō he yeildeth the reason adding immediatly Propter apostolatus sui primatum or as he sayth in an other place propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit by reason of the supremacy he had ouer the rest of the Apostles geuing to vnderstand therby that the keyes being geuen to S. Peter as head of the Apostles and consequently as head of the Church they were geuen also to the Apostles and to the whole Church for what is geuen to the king as king the same is geuen to the common wealth and from him or by him as head therof is communicated imparted to the whole body For this cause S. Chrisostome treating of the promis that our sauiour made to S. Peter to buyld his Churche vpō him and to geue him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen affirmeth that he made him head or gouuernour of the whole world Thus much for the second proof The third and last shal be the commission and charge that our sauiour gaue particularly to S. Peter to feed his sheep wherby he made him general Pastor ouer his whole flock whereof Eusebius Emissenus sayth thus first Christ comitted vnto him his lambs then his sheepe because he made him not only a pastor or shepherd but also the pastor of Pastors Therefore Peter feedeth the lambes he feedeth the sheepe he feedeth the young ones their dammes he gouerneth the subiects their prelats so that he is Pastor of all for besydes lambes sheepe there is nothing in the Church This is more euident in the Greeke wherein the gospel of S. Ihon was written then in our latin translation for where as we haue 3. tymes pasce that is to say feed the greeke hath in the second place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not only signify to feed but also to gouerne and rule wherby the Euangelist signifyed that Christ gaue to S. Peter commission not only to feed his flock with preaching and teaching but also to exercyse all pastoral authority ouer them that is to say to rule and gouern them in which sence the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often vsed in the holy Scriptures as in S. Mathew and Micheas the Prophet where it is sayd of Bethlem there shal come foorth of thee a caeptayne that shal gouern my people Israel and in the Apocalipse he shal rule them in an yron rod and againe in the Psalm thow shalt gouerne or rule theym in a rod of yron in which places as also in dyuers others of the scripture to lyke purpose the greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the same sence our lord saith in the Prophet that the great Monark Cirus should be his Pastor because he should gouern and rule his people and Homer oftentymes cauleth king Agamemnon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the king or Pastor of this people for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both and therfore S. Augustin expounding those words feede my sheep sayth that Christ recommended his sheepe to S. Peter pascendas id est docendas regendasque to be fed that is to say to be taught and gouerned Theophilactus also vpō the same place witnesseth that Christ gaue to S. Peter praesecturam ouium totius mundi the gouernment of the sheepe of the whole world and S. Chrisostome treating of those words of our sauiour sayth that he would haue S. Peter to be endewed with authority and farre to excel the other Apostles and agayne expounding the same words otherwhere he sayth that Christ spake vnto him only because he was the mouth head of the Apostles and committed vnto him curam fratrum suorum the charge of his brethren and a litle after that Christ gaue him the charge of the whole world which he also affirmeth in an other place of the vniuersal Churche saying that the supremacy and gouernment of the Churche throughout the whole world was geuen him by Christ. I wil conclude with S. Leo whereas saith he the power of bynding and loosing was geuen to Peter aboue the rest of the Apostles the care charge of feeding the sheepe of Christ was more specially committed to him to whome whosoeuer shal thinck the principality or supremacy is to be denied he cannot by any meanes diminish his dignity but being puft vp with the spirit of his owne pryde he casts him selfe head-long to hel Thus thow seest good reader that our doctrin of the supremacy of S. Peter is no nouelty of our inuention but the vniform and constant opinion of the most learned and anciēt Fathers of the Churche grounded vpon the scriptures in which respect we fynd in all the sayd auncient Docctors most eminent and excellent tytles of superioritie and praerogatiue attributed to S. Peter who in S. Hilary is cauled the blessed porter of heauen in S. Augustin the first or cheef of the Apostles in Eusebius the greatest of the Apostles and maister of the warfare of God in Epiphanius the captayn of the Disciples in S. Ciril Prince and head of the Apostles in S. Ambrose the Vicar that Christ left vs of his loue and to omit others for breuityes sake in S. Chrysostome the toppe or head of the congregation of the Apostles an vnconsumable rock the vnmoueable top of the buylding and lastly the pastor and head of the Churche THAT THE SVCCESSORS OF S. Peeter to wit the Bishops of Rome succeed him in the supremacy of the Churche CHAP. IX AND for as much as it is euident that our sauiour Christ gaue not this authority to S. Peeter for his owne particular benefit but for the general good of his Churche nor for his owne dayes only but during the tyme of the Churche militāt to the end that so long as their should be any sheep in his fold so long ther should be an vniuersal Pastor to feed and gouerne them and that his Churche which is a visible body

with matter of state CHAP. XXII IN the third page yow appeale Sir Pamphleter to the knowledge of your frend in Padua for the distinction moderation of the proceeding in England in ecclesiastical causes with what lenitie and gentlenes it hath beene caryed except where it was mixed with matter of state for such are your owne wordes Hereto I answere that by your restriction exception of state matters yow ouerthrow your general proposition of clemency and proue that ther is no moderation lenitie nor gentlenes vsed at all for where is not matter of state mixed with religion now a dayes in England are not so many essential poynts of Catholyke religion made treason as no man can do the duetie of a Catholyke but he is ipso facto a traytour seing no man can be so much as absolued of his sinnes nor receyue any Sacrament of Gods Churche by the only true ministers thereof I meane Priestes but he committeth treason besydes the other captious lawes about the Supremacie the exacting of the oth and the vrging of Catholykes to come to haeretical seruice communion vnder colour of temporal obediēce to the Prince is not in all this state mixt with religion yea and to no other end then to persecute vs vnder co●our of treason and matter of state while ye persecute religion and for religion Was not this the very practise of Iulian the Apostata who to couer his persecution of Christians sometymes caused his picture to be set with Iupiter or other fais Gods and sometymes made himselfe to be paynted with their enseignes and resemblance therby to make such mixture of religion and matter of state that those which should refuse to commit Idololatry might be punished vnder colour of contempt of his emperial person Hereof sayth Sozomenus Nam sic cogitabat c. for so Iulian thought that if he persuaded thē to that he should more easely bring them to his wil in other points of religion also and if they resisted in this he might punish them without mercie as offenders against both the common wealth and the Empyre It not this now practised in England in effect for what other thing is it to annex the keyes of Peter with the Princes crowne the deuine power with the humain the supremacy spiritual with the gouernment temporal dignities no lesse distinct in nature then incompatible in lay persons and especially in women sexe what other thing is it I say then to ioyne Iulian with Iupiter and to paynt the Prince with the enseignes and resemblance of deitie and to what other end then vnder colour of treason matter of state to make away all those that shal refuse to acknowledge this pretended ecclesiastical supremacy Such then is your mixture of religion with matter of state as whiles yow pretend to punish none for Catholyke religion yow persecute cruelly all Catholykes for no other true canse then religion yea and as the pharises did yow persecute and crucifie Christ agayne in his members as an enemy to Caesar and for the same reason of state that they did cry to Pilate si dimittis hune non es amicus Caesaris if yow let him scape yow are not Caesars frend for that his fault is not religion but matter of state against Caesar and agayne si dimitiunus hunc venient Romani c. yf we dismisse this man the Romans togither with Spaniards wil come and take from vs both our place and people and wil conquer spoyle destroy vs for which respect yow haue already killed some hundreths of Catholykes vpon lyke suspitions and ealumniations by vertue of your new statutes besydes many murdred for fayned conspiracies and fals imputed crymes and an exceeding multitude of others consumed and wasted with imprisonment others pyned a way in banishment others empouerished ruined with taxes impositions and penalties and an infinite number dayly languishing in captiuity penurie and miserie for that they wil not yeeld as yow cal it temporal obedience in comming to your seruice and communion yet forsooth yow trouble none for religion But yf it please yow and your frend in Padua that knoweth as yow say this matter so wel to consider it a litle better yow wil easely see that the distinction that yow and your fellowes make is confusion your moderation persecution your lenity seueritie your shew and talk of mercy nothing els but a mere mockerie and playne cosinage of the simple reader for to preache one thing and practise an other is I trow the highest point of cosinage that may be But what maruaile is it if yow draw our religion to matter of state seing your owne religion hath no other rule nor ground but reason of state for albeit the substance of religion which now yow professe different from ours be patcht vp of old and new heresies especially of these last of Luther Zwinglius and Caluin yet that which is properly yours and the key and stay of all the rest and maketh yow a bodie and part different from other Sectes of Lutheranes Zwinglians and Caluenists Puritanes Brownists Anabaptists and the lyke is the obedience that yow acknowledge in ecclesiastical causes to a lay head which although it was first introduced into England by King Henry the S. only vpon animositie against the sea Apostolyke because thesaid sea would not allow his deuorce from Queene Catherine which King in all other poynts detested your religion yet being abolished by Queene Marie her Ma ties syster and last praedecessour it was returned agayne in the beginning of her Ma ties raigne that now is only vpon reason of state as all the world knoweth and so hath hyherto byn continued For those polityke statistes of ours that had the vse of her Ma ties eares in the beginning considering that the Queene of Scotland being then maried vnto the French King pretended title vnto the crowne of England and fearing that the sea Apostolyk would fauour her pretence in respect of the mariage of her Ma ties mother yea and that the people would also incline that way if they remayned stil in the obedience of the said sea they hadrecourse to Hieroboams pollicy and abusing the facilitie of her Ma ties good nature and yong yeares persuaded her to change the religion then publikly professed and not only to banish the authority of the Pope but also to follow her father and brothers example in taking the title of ecclesiastical supremacy vpō her self a thing absurd ridiculous vnnatural impossible therefore worthely reiected impugned and derided by Luther and Caluyn themselues and by their folowers and the Puritaines at this day in England and all other sectaries abroad as a matter without all praesident or example in any Christian common wealth or colour of Scripture except of some few texts that treat of obedience to Princes in general no lesse to Heathen Kings then Christian and therfore can not with any shew of reason be vnderstood