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
A01006	The ouerthrovv of the Protestants pulpit-Babels conuincing their preachers of lying & rayling, to make the Church of Rome seeme mysticall Babell. Particularly confuting VV. Crashawes Sermon at the Crosse, printed as the patterne to iustify the rest. VVith a preface to the gentlemen of the Innes of Court, shewing what vse may be made of this treatise. Togeather with a discouery of M. Crashawes spirit: and an answere to his Iesuites ghospell. By I.R. student in diuinity.	Floyd, John, 1572-1649.; Jenison, Robert, 1584?-1652, attributed name.; Rhodes, John, minister of Enborne.	1612 (1612)	STC 11111; ESTC S102371	261,823	332

deposed as his owne Canon law (t) Decret dist 40. c. 6. si Papa doth prescribe so that this is another and a remarkable fraudulent trick of this Bachelour 11. The fourth falsification is in the reason which he maketh the Pope yield that a Bishop may not be iudged by secular authority Impudent dealing to wit because he is God auouching that this is good Catholicke Diuinity which standeth still not in one word altered in the Popes law That the Pope is God and therefore may not be iudged of men and that the Pope makes this argument in the Canon law God may not be iudged by men but I am God and therefore may not be iudged by man All which are manifest vntruthes both in the Conclusion and the reason therof For the conclusion is not that the Pope or Bishop may not be iudged of men but not by secular men or Princes and the reason giuen by the Pope is not because Bishops are tearmed Gods which reason would proue that Bishops might not be iudged by their Archbishops nor Archbishops by their Patriarch because they are in the place of God The Popes argument then is because Constantine the first Christian Prince who had as much or rather more power and authority then any other succeding temporall Christiā Prince can iustly challeng did call Bishops Gods that is did acknowledg them to be his Superiours in the place of God to rule and direct him in matters of his soule and that therefore he had no authority to iudg them but was to be iudged by them as Ruffinus (u) Potestatem dedit vobis Deus de nobis quoque iudicādi vos autem non potestis ab hominibus iudicari quia à Deo nobis dati estis Dij conueniens non est vt homo iudicet Deos l 1. Histor c. 2. writeth of him which doctrine all ancient Fathers teach namely S. Hierome vpon the first verse of the 81. psalme God stood in the Synagogue of Gods and in the midest iudgeth the Gods Here the holy Ghost saith (x) Psal 81. v. 1. Deos appellat praesides Ecclesiarū quos Deus deorū non per alios sed per semetipsū dijudicat Hieron in psal 81. Adoardus Gualanaꝰ Episcopus Caesenas de morali ciuili facultate l. 14. c. 3. S. Hierome calleth Bishops and Prelates of Churches Gods whom the God of Gods doth iudge not by others but immediately by himselfe Thus you see the Bachelour hath made foure grosse corruptions in this only litle peece of the Canon law changing the scope of the place the wordes of the text the conclusion of the argument and reason thereof 12. But let vs examine if he haue vsed greater fidelity in the third Author whom he makes an auoucher of the Popes God-head to wit Bishop Gualandus What doe we say to this doctrine of which he makes Gualandus Author From the Pope as from the head there doe flow into the whole body of the Church that is into the whole Christian world spirits or spirituall life yielding the feeling and fruit of heauenly graces effectuall motions to eternall happynes I answere that this sentence though it may haue some true sense to wit that iurisdiction commeth from the Pope without which Priests cannot administer the Sacraments which infuse grace yet properly and in rigour of speach the same is false and condemned both by (z) l. r. de Rom. pont c. 9. §. At inquiunt Solus Christus est caput principale perpetuū totiꝰ Ecclesiae nec Ecclesia est corpus Petrivel Papae sed Christi c. §. Praeterea Christꝰ in corpore Ecclesiae omnia in omnibus operatur per oculum videt per doctorem docet c. quod in nullum hominem cōuenit Bellarmine and the translators of the Rhemes Testament in expresse termes who in their annotation vpon the 22. verse of the first chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians where it is said christ was made head ouer all the Church teach that Christ is the head of the Church and the only head from whome doth issue life motion spirit grace vnto the mysticall body of the Church and the members of the same as from the head to the naturall body in which sort not any Pope nor Prelate nor man can be head but Christ nor the Church be body to any but to Christ Thus the Rhemists write Neither doth Gualandus teach the contrary whose wordes are not à Papa tamquam à capite as the Bachelour doth cite them from the Pope as from the head but à quo tamquam à capite from whom as from the head not meaning the Pope but Christ as appeareth by his wordes that goe immediately before which are these That the Pope out of modesty calleth himself Seruant of the Seruants of God cùm tamen eius Vicarius sit omnium primus minister being the Vicar and supreme Minister of him à quo tamquam à capite from whome as from the head spirituall life and heauenly grace floweth into the body of the Church Thus Gualandus maketh not the Pope the supreme fountaine head from which grace floweth but an head vnder Christ to rule the Church by examples and good lawes as he there declareth 13. Now the Bachelours cauill and rayling at the last words of Gualandus his sentence that the Pope is honoured adored tamquam quidam Deus as a certaine God vpon earth deserueth not an answere For he doth not call the Pope God but only tamquam Deum like vnto God whose office and person he doth represent which other Princes also do from whom their power is deriued therfore are be to worshipped and adored * Adorare doth signify in latin no more then to honour and Kings and Princes are in the phrase of Scripture to be adored as Iudith did Holofernes Bersabe King Dauid to omit other examples not with diuine worship but with inferiour honour as representing Gods person as his substitutes and certaine Gods vpon earth By which you see that the Bachelour hath not bene able to bring one Catholike Author that so much as calleth the Pope God but to make their sentences sound to his purpose hath slaundered falsifyed and corrupted all the Authors by him cyted and insteed of wounding the Roman Church made deep and deadly wounds in his owne conscience and in the Church of England her credit which as by this Patterne appeareth doth maintaine such grosse and palpable lying 14. Now vpon this fundamental falshood he buildeth diuers other Babels and impudent slaunders First he maketh this proclamation shew me the Pope or name that VVriter Doctour Inquisitour Bishop or any other who by commaundement or authority or but with approbation of the Pope haue confuted or so much as reproued this blasphemy to wit that the Pope is our Lord God equall with the true God Many heapes of vntruths This is his challenge then which a more shamlesse could

Virgins (z) Zachar 9. v. 17. To the height or rather depth of which drinking Hierarchy Luther attayned who as his schollars write as a great wonder could drinke deeper into a pot then any other new Ghospeller the Creed the Pater noster and Decalogue at a draught But if the maiesty and glory of a Christian doth consist in the reall receyuing of the pretious bloud of Christ the Laity is not depriued of this dignity and honour by our doctrine who teach that they doe no lesse truly and really then Priests receaue euery drop of Christs bloud togeather with the body vnder the forme of bread And if we haue nothing in our heades as indeed we should not but the height of the celestiall Hierarchy and the maiesty of Gods blessed Kingdome to this we may no lesse certaynly attayne by eating the body of Christ togeather with his bloud vnder the forme of bread only then by eating and drinking the same in both kindes seeing Christ saith I lyue by my Father Ioan. 6. and he that eateth me shall lyue by me He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Finally speaking of outward pomp I see not why our Hierarchy might not seeme as high and our Monarchy as full of Maiesty though we gaue the Sacramēt in both kinds vnto Laymen did not other reasons vrge to this order besids pomp and Maiesty though the Bachelour very charitably without feare of rash iudgment saith we haue nothing els in our heades Which reasons he that desireth to be further satisfyed in this point may see alleadged by Bellarmine (b) lib. 4. de Euchar. cap. 28. and Becanus (c) tom 2. de cōmun sub vtráque specie c. 8. and so discouer the vanity and falshood of the Bachelour that doth measure the emptines of others heads by his owne The thirteenth wound about Sanctuaryes as impudent accusing the Church of Rome as guilty of all the bloudshed vpon earth 18. THE thirteenth wound and the first dish of his second table for the Bachelour parteth his feast of falshoods and banket of slaunders into two tables is that we allow sanctuaries for wilfull murder whence he inferreth that ours is a bloudy Church defender of bloud and murther weltring and wallowing and bathing herselfe in bloud hauing made her selfe accessary by this doctrine and practice to all the murders bloudshed vpon the earth for to maintaine saith he so many refuges and defenses for a sinne is to maintaine the sinne it selfe Thus he Where to omit weltring wallowing and bathing in bloud phrases which might better become a Butcher then a Bachelour I wonder what Protestants thinke lying and rayling is if this wound of M. Crashaw be not rayling the vanity and falsity wherof is such as the very ground or principle wheron it is built to wit that to maintaine many Sanctuaries is to maintaine the sinne it selfe containeth blasphemy against God who in the old Testament did allow Sanctuaryes for some offenders namely in the case of manslaughter when in casuall frayes they should chaunce to kill their enemies (d) Qui nō est insidiatꝰ sed Deus tradidit illū in manus eius constituam ei locum ad quem fugere debeat Exod. 21. v. 13. Parcit illi lex qui iusto dolore prouocatus inimicum occurrentē occidit Hieron Oleaster in illum locū and yet none without blasphemy can affirme God to haue bene a maintayner of that sinne or that he did welter and wallow and bath himselfe in bloud And this priuiledge to protect offenders that fled vnto them Christian Churches haue enioyed euer since Constantines dayes that is from that tyme that Christians had publikely Churches in the world The Councell of Orleans aboue a 1100 yeares agoe speaketh largely of this immunity and defineth in this sort Concerning murderers adulterers and theeues that take sanctuary in the Church that shal be obserued which the Ecclesiasticall Canons haue decreed and Roman lawes appointed to wit that it is not lawfull to pluck away offenders eyther from the Court of the Church or house of the Bishop Before which Coūcell S. Augustine (e) Epist 187. ad Bonifac Orosius writeth of Masceril punished by Gods speciall prouidēce for violating this immunity of Churches l. 7. c. 36. maketh mention of this immunity reprehending the Earle Bonifacius for presuming to take by force a malefactour out of a Church And who doth not know how generally receaued the custome was in S. Chrysostomes dayes (f) In the yeare 399. when the Eunuch Eutropius a wicked man as great an enemy of the Church as a fauorite of the Emperour Arcadius (g) Socrates l. 6. c. 5. Sedulò dedit operam vt lex ab Imperatoribus promulgaretur ne quisquam ad Ecclesiā tamquā ad asylum profugeret sed vt ij qui eò profugerant inde abriperentur Simulatque promulgata fuit Eutropius in offensionem Imperatoris incurrens confugit ad Ecclesiam Socrates vbi supra hauing caused the sayd Emperour to make a law against the immunity of Churches to defend malefactors that fled vnto them few dayes after the promulgation of that impious law was forced being accused of treason against the Emperour to fly take Sanctuary therin himselfe whom the Emperour following stayed at the Church doore notwithstanding his law Altare reueritus as S. Chrysostome saith bearing such reuerence and respect vnto the Altar on which he knew the body and bloud of Christ was offered (h) Chrysost tom 3. homil in Eutrop. That the coate or the flesh it selfe of Christ Iesus had not this priuilegde to be a sanctuary vnto offenders pag. 128. 19. By which you may gather the prophanesse of this Bachelour who dareth auouch that the running euen vnto Christ in person and touching his garment ought to be no defence for a malefactor shewing that in such a case he would be ready to kill such guilty persons euen at the feet of Christ sprinkling their bloud vpon his garments or the most respect he would beare him were to draw such a malefactour by violence without his leaue from his feet to kill him more barbarous then the Barbarians themselues who in the Sack of Rome spared all that fled vnto Christian Churches as S. Augustine writeth (i) August l. 1. de ciuit c. 6. which respect and reuerence vnto Christ is the cause that some (k) Hostiensis in c. Eccles de Immunit Ecclesiarū Nauar. in manu c. 25. Suarez l. 3. de relig c. 9. in fine say that a malefactour flying vnto a Priest carrying the most diuine Sacrament in the streets ought to haue sanctuary by Christs person present in that sacred host which the Bachelour rageth against calling that most diuine Sacrament blasphemously our Breaden God not knowing what we belieue that it is not bread but the body of Christ as the ancient Church did with greater reason he might obiect a breadē God vnto his Father Luther who ioyneth bread with