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	element_n	1,890	5	9.4049	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A14357	M. le Hucher minister of Amyens in France compelled to fly from the pure word of holy write; strucke dumme; and made to runne away Vppon the subiect of the B. Sacrament of the altar. By F. Francis Veron of the Society of Iesus, encountring him with the Bible of Geneua only. In the presence of the Duke de Longueuille. VVith a briefe and easie meanes, by which each Catholike may, in like manner, put to flight any minister or sectarie. Sent from Sieur de la Tour one of the sayd Dukes gentlemen, to Sieur de Rotois, gentleman of the Kings game.; Adrian Hucher ministre d'Amyens, mis à l'inquisition des passages de la Bible de Genève. English	Véron, François, 1575-1649.; Catcher, Edward, 1584?-1624?	1616 (1616)	STC 24675.5; ESTC S107356	29,473	96

the Scripture and that the Scripture saie of each proposition you interprete that it is so to be vnderstood that you only are the organe to pronounce the same otherwise you leaue your owne faith and forge an other to your owne liking of which I shall argue with you after in the like sorte besides that you breake your promise I should be esteemed of small iudgment if I forsake Councells Miracles Antiquity and the rest for your interpretation If the Minister pretend to warrant his interpretation by some other passage of the Scripture for example if he vrge that those words This is my body must not be taken properlie but figuratiuelie because these others I ame a vine haue such a signification You shall aske him 1. Before you passe to any interpretatiō if he haue any plaine text which abstracting from all interpretation doth condemne vs of errour for example in that point of the B. Sacrament in which we beleeue there is the true body of our Sauiour If he haue any lett him bring that which is cleare and plaine and leaue that which is obscure if he haue none make him to confesse distinctly that he hath no place out of the pure word by which without his interpretation he can conuince vs of errour and heere you must insist on this point till he haue confessed this After this Confession comming to the interpretation he giues you shall 2. Demaunde if the Scripture say that these words This is my Body are to be interpreted by these I am a vine or no. If it say so lett him shew the place If not then the Minister breaks his couenants doth not serue as an organe of the Scripture only And heere the Minister is in little ease neither can he without renouncing their Confession which professeth to allow of nothing to rule them but pure Scripture passe any farther Neither is it needfull to pursue the matter anie farther this being concluded for heere haue you the Minister in the stocks and perchaunce it will be better to keepe the Ministre in this traunce speechles then to passe farther Yet if you desire an other victory that he which encountreth the Caluinist be learned or expert in the Scripture he may after the confession of the two former 3. Harken to the interpretation the Ministre brings and aunsweare these proofes he alleageth for that interpretation But allwaies remember that the Caluinist by their Confession of faith is come to instruct vs consequently bound to prooue his interpretation for vs if it conuince not it sufficeth to deny without obligation to giue any reasons for our deniall for by those the Minister will finde meanes to slippe away and will not be so quicklie caught he will seek many by-waies therfore as much as may be stoppe his passage Behold how you are to proceede when the Minister vndertakes to shew our pretended errours by text of Scripture without consequences or illations When he will discouer our errours by some consequence which he deduceth out of the pure word of God for example we beleeue that the body of our Lord is in the B. Sacrament of the Altar he will prooue by consequence deduced out of the pure and sole Scripture that he is not there after this manner In the 3. of the Actes it is said that Heauen must conteine him vntill the Consummation of the world therfore he is not on the earth Behold his sillogisme That body which is in heauen is not on the earth the body of Iesus Christ is in heauen therfore it is not on the earth He must put his argument in this forme 1. Before you come to aunswere his argument you must aske the Minister if he haue any plaine text which without consequence doth condemne vs of errour in this point or no If he haue lett him bring it out who professeth to reforme vs by the pure word If he haue not make him confesse that he hath no plaine text by which his consequence sett a part we are conuinced of errour heere you must stay and exact this confession of the Minister before you passe farther Hauing made the Minister acknowledge this though you may content your self with this victory whereby you make him renounce the 5. article of their Confession of faith and haue ouerthrowen that piller which detaines most of the Sectaries who follow that part in their errours who imagine they haue on their side the pure word of God and that they builde vpon the Scripture only and peraduenture it wil be better to proceed no farther to the end to make it eccho oftener in the eares of these who are abused by them Neuerthelesse he that will continew the chace and hauing rowzed the deere from his lodge pursue him farther 2. Giuing the Minister leaue to deduce his consequence after the deduction thereof the Catholicque must not straight examine the truth of the same nor shew so quickly that it is false but first lay hold on him and make him shew that his consequence is deduced out of the only pure word of holy Scripture as he promissed to deduce the same and his 5. article doth oblige him You must therfore proceede in this fashion It is a thing vndoubted and knowen to all that euery consequence to be good must be inferred out of two propositions If then one of those two out of which the Minister deduceth his consequence be not in the Scripture as it happeneth ordinarily in the arguments of the aduersary against vs heere you must demurr and make it manifest that the aduersarie heere abandonnes his Confession of fayth and fayles of his promisse in not shewing our pretended errour by cōsequence deduced out of the pure and only Scripture For example in the syllogisme before sett downe That body which is in heauen is not on the earth the body of Iesus Christ is in heauen therfore it is not on the earth you shall examine the Minister whether the first proposition of this argument be in the pure word or no. If it be lett him shew it Cleere it is it is not there but it is a philosophicall proposition wherfore the Minister which deduceth his consequence out of that and the second adioyned which is in the 3. of the Actes doth not proue my errour by consequence deduced out of the pure word but by consequence deduced out of Philosophy and out of the word of God and maketh such articles of faith as are deduced out of Philosophy or Aristotle 2. You must declare that euery consequence must be deduced out of two propositions placed in the true forme of a syllogisme and that the consequence is inferred both from the propositions and from the forme of the syllogisme of which forme the Scripture speakes nothing nor prescribes any rules about that matter but only Aristotle and Philosophy Wherfore the Minister in proouing his consequence is not founded vpon the Scripture alone which treates not of formes of consequences And because

it belongs to Aristotle to iudge if the consequence be good or no the Minister building vpon consequence must admitt for his iudge in the controuersies of our fayth not the pure Scripture but Aristotle or els at least choose for vmpyre in this cause the word of God together with Aristotle 3. You must demaund of the Minister if the Scripture do teach that one must beleeue as an article of faith not only that which the Scripture saith but also that which by necessary consequence followeth therevpon or no if he say so make him shew the text which without doubt he cannot throughout the whole bible if no such be founde then doth the Minister build his articles of fayth vpon a proposition which is not in the pure word to witt vpon this That that which followeth out of Scripture by necessary consequence must be beleeued as an article of saith Howbeit the Scripture frames no such article but the Minister only and that not by the pure Scripture but by humane reason from which notwithstanding in his 5. Article he disclaimed wholy For he wold haue vs take at his handes for an article of faith that proposition which by consequence followeth out of the Scripture though the termes of that proposition deduced out of Scripture for an article of fayth be not there sett downe Hence is it that all the articles of the Confession of these sectaries which are founded vpon a consequence are not articles of fayth being that they haue not for them theyr only rule of truth the sole Scripture Heere againe you must hold him They will say perauenture that IESVS Christ and the Apostles proued many thinges by consequence I graunt it But in so doing they themselues made new Scriptures or holy write which priuiledge I thinke the Minister haue not But they neuer taught that the Scripture which they alledged was the singular and sole rule of all truth and that they spake not but by the mouth of the Scripture as these Pretenders professe and thyr poore flocke which thinke they are as good as theyr wordes persuade themselues 3. If he that buckle with the Minister be learned and will after he hath often driuen the deere from his fortresse of the pure worde course him alonge the plaine champion of humane and philosophicall reasons though according to my aduise it be ordinarily more expedient to content our selues with that before sett downe for to cure him if it be possible after the aboue said he may passe to the examen of the truth or falshod of his consequence whether the propositions from which it is deduced be they taken from philosophy or holy writt be true or false and whether the forme of the argument be according to the rules of Philosophy and so deny that which the Minister assumed falsly Still hauing in minde that the Minister is putt to the proofe not the Catholick who beares the personne of the party instructed be sure not to change that personne For the drift of all the Ministers fetches is to vnload himself of that obligation to prooue his consequence which he will bring to passe by this sleight if he can make him that defends the disputant For example In the argument proposed That body which is in heauen is not on the earth The body of Iesus Christ is in heauen Therfore it is not on the earth You shall deny the first proposition and lett the Minister prooue it If that his proofes come on to long he enter to farre into Philosophicall quiddities lett the Catholicke note that it is in his free choice to curbe the Minister short when he listeth demaunding him if all the propositions which he hath brought to prooue his consequence be in the Scripture or no. If they be lett him bring them forth Many of them questionles are drawne out of Philosophy or grounded vpon humane reasons If they be not the Minister which out of them inferres his consequence doth not deduce it out of the pure word or which is all one prooues not by consequence deduced out of the pure and only word that the Catholicke erreth which was that he vndertooke and moreouer denieth his Cōfession of faith for he drawes his cōsequence ioyntly out of the word of God and out of diuers propositions which are not in holie write Is not this to flinch from their worde and to renounce their articles of faith or rather do not the Minister his confession of faith abuse people in promising that which they neither do nor canne performe Behold a breefe and easy methode to encounter all Ministers and Sectaries Is it not obuious euen for those who are not students in deuinity to putt it in practise There needs no more but eyes to see and to vnderstande English to know if the pure word without additions interpretations or consequences of others do say such a thing or no. Do you not by this meanes euidently perceaue that all the Ministers are abusers and how the whole troope of Sectaries is misledde Yea I dare say double abusers For first the Minister abuseth men in that he promiseth by the pure word to shew them that which he would haue them beleeue next that he will by the pure word lay open their errours pretended and yett performeth neither the one nor the other Wherfore the Ministers promising in their 31. and 5. articles to performe them both and yet effecting neither as by the forsaid practise is made euident are impostours and double impostours as this methode which euery Catholick may vse doth apparently declare And so I haue fulfilled my promise which was to lay downe a short and easie methode by which all Catholiques may euidently shew that each Minister in all and euery point of his pretended religion is an abuser consequently that all their followers are abused This therfore is my aduice to all Sectaries to those especially which seeke sincerly theyr Saluation Your Confession promiseth you the pure word of God and you suppose that according to that promise there is nothing in your articles of fayth which is not in the pure word Practise this methode and you shall euidently and easily perceaue how you are abused Place on the one syde the Principall articles of your faith which I haue cited before That original sinne remaines after Baptisme as it is a fault That Iesus Christ is our only Aduocate That faith alone iustifieth and which is cheefe of all That the B. Sacrament is a figure of the body of our Sauiour which is eaten by faith Then ouer against each of these articles set downe the textes which are cited in the margent for eache of them doubtles if you had any plaine text of Scripture which taught that which is in that articles it wold haue been coated in the margent you shall cleerly see that the pure word setting aside interpretations and Ministeriall consequences hath not that which is in your article neither is there required ought

article that IESVS Christ only Aduocate Let vs come to the 20. Article These are the wordes Article 20. VVe beleeue that vve are made partakers of that iustice to witt Christian by faith alone Textes cited in the Margent of this Article Man is iustified by faith vvithout the vvorkes of the lavve Rom. 3. Vers 28. Man is not iustified by the vvorkes of the Lavve but only by the faith of IESVS Christ Galat. 2. Vers 16. Before faith came vve vvere kept vnder the lavv shut vp vnto that faith vvhich vvas to be reuealed Therfore the lavve vvas our Pedagogue in Christ that vve might be iustified by faith but vvhen that faith is come novv vve are not vnder a Pedagogue Galat. 3. Vers 23. Examen I reade not one word in all these textes of the workes of Christian faith of which alone and of no others we speake and hold necessary to iustification It is manifest that this pure word alledged speaketh of workes of the Iudaicall religion styled commonly by S. Paul by the name of the Lawe and not of the workes of Christian Religion These passages therfore say onlie that Christian faith without Circumcision and other ceremonies of the Iewes doth iustifie Who denieth this is this all one or as much as to say that Christian faith without the workes which proceed from the said faith in IESVS Christ as is penance doth iustifie Which is that the article teacheth Wherfore this pure worde seconds not that which the article sayeth I am amazed at the impudency or ignorance of the Ministers S. Paul discoursing so largely in fiue whole chapters of that epistle to the Galathians against those which would ioyne with Christian faith Circumcision and other workes of Iudaisme and the very titles of those chapters in the Geneua translation noting the same yet the aduersaries will alledge these against them who hold that Christian workes are necessarie to iustification Open but the epistle and thou wilt detest such abusers the whole epistle sheweth that which I say It shall suffise for proofe heereof to cite the words of the. 5. chapter 2. verse Behold I tell you that if you be circumcised Christ shall proffit you nothing and I testifie againe to euerie man circumciding himself that he is a debter to doe the whole law you are euacuated from Christ that are iustified in the law You are fallen from grace for we by faith exspect the hope of iustice In IESVS Christ neither circumcision auaileth ought uor prepuce but faith working by charity Do not you falsefye doth not S. Paul teach in these laste wordes the contrarie to your article The Apostle opposeth Christian Religion which is called faith in Christ vnto the Iudaicall religion which is named the lawe and teacheth that this later is not necessary to iustification but that the former suffiseth and doth not oppose Christian faith to Christian workes The last texte cited for the foresaid article hath as little energy as the precedents it is this of S. Iohn 3. Vers 15.16 As Moyses exalted the Serpent in the desert so must the sonne of man be exalted that euerie one vvhich beleeueth in him perish not but may haue life euerlasting For so God loued the vvorld that he gaue his only begotten sonne that euery one that beleeueth in him perish not but haue life euerlasting The word only of which only is our variance and which is in your article teaching that faith only iustifieth is not in this text wherefore this vnles you add thereto the word only makes nothing to your purpose and how often doth this speech to beleeue in IESVS Christ signifie to professe the Ghospell and liue according to the same for faith saith S. Iames in the 1. chapter 17. verse If it haue not workes is dead Doth not S. Paul Galat. 5. Vers 6. say that that which iustifieth is faith working by charitie Doth not our Sauiour pronounce this sentence if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements But I am not bound to prooue that faith alone without Christian workes doth not iustifie it is you that are engaged to prooue by the pure worde that that alone doth iustifie alone I say for of that alone doe we dispute In the 11. article it is said that Article 11. Originall sinne after Baptisme is still sinne as it is a fault hovvbeit the condemnation thereof is taken avvay in the children of God vvho of his mercifull goodnes doth not impute it vnto them In proofe of this is alledged one only place in the margent Rom. 7. Vers 7. Texte VVhat shall vve say then is the lavve sinne God forbid but sinne I did not knovv but by the lavve for concupiscence I knevv not vnles the lavv did say thou shalt not couet Examen Here is not in the text one word contained in the article wherefore this Confession promising to say nothing but by the pure word abuseth vs in this point Go on Let vs examine the 36. and 37. articles which speake of the B. Sacrament which since it is obscurely spoken of for more perspicuity I will borrow somewhat out of your Catechisme The 1. clause of the 36. article VVe testifie that the Supper is a testimonie of the vnitie vvhich vve haue vvith IESVS Christ vvhose body you say in your Catechisme in the 53. lesson or Sunday is not included vnder the bread nor his bloud vvithin the chalice that vve must not seeke him in these corruptible elementes For proofe you alleadge this texte Text. The cuppe of benediction vvhich vve do blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ and the bread vvhich vve do breake is it not the communion of the bodie of Christ for being manie vve are one only bread and one only body for vve all partake of one only bread 1. Corinth 10. Vers 16.17 Examen I reade not in this text testimony of the vnity with IESVS Christ the text therfore agrees not with the article But I reade communion of bloud communion of body which is a different matter from testimony of vnity with IESVS Christ and sheweth that the body of IESVS Christ may be founde in these corruptible elements vnder the accidents of bread and wine which this article denieth An other clause of the same article In the supper are Signss which testify that the body and bloud of IESVS Christ serueth no lesse for the soule to eate and drinke then bread and wine doth for the body These Articles say not in expresse termes that the body of IESVS Christ is not in the Eucharist to couer with obscurity theyr errour to disperse this darknes I must borrow some light from theyr Catechisme in the 53. lesson we must not sayth it vnderstand that the body is inclosed within the bread nor the bloud within the chalice but contrariwise to haue the verity of this sacrament we must lift vp our hartes on high to heauen where IESVS Christ is and not seeke him in these corruptible elements For this

clause you cite two textes 1. Texte I am the liuing bread that came dovvne from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread vvhich I vvill giue is my flesh vvhich I vvill giue for the life of the vvorld Iohn 6. Vers 51. Examen First I reade not in this text signes which testify but this expressely that Christ is the liuing bread not comon bread made of flowre and baked but which is his flesh which sayth he I will giue for the life of the world As also in the geuing of it he sayd Take This is my body which shal be giuen for you Was it a signe or figure of his body which was nayled one the crosse was it not his proper body This clause then is false 2. The ministers whoe haue promised to propose nothing but the pure Scripture how doe they thrust vppon vs this clause so weighty The body of IESVS Christ is not contained and included within the bread nor the blood c. Without any written word see theyr fraude and how well they keepe theyr word in a matter of greatest moment 2. Texte IESVS tooke bread and hauing giuen thankes brake it and said take eate This is my bodie vvhich is broken for you do this in commemoration of me In like manner after supper he tooke the cuppe saying this cuppe is the nevv testament in my blood this do ye as often as you shall drinke therof in remembrance of me 1. Corinth 11. Vers 24. Examen Who can finde out in this texte Signes which testify figure signe of the body of IESVS Christ which is not in the bread nor the bloud in the chalice all which the article teacheth The text then helpes them nothing nay how could the text more cleerly reiect the aduersaries beleefe which is that the body is not vnder the bread nor the bloud within the chalice Let the Caluinistes consider if they be abused or no The Ministers haue entred bondes to shew by the pure word That the supper is a signe which tesstifieth a figure of the body of our sauiour which is not vnder the bread and of the bloud which is not within the chalice and to cancell theyr obligations they bring for paiment this texte of Scripture in which being it is written downe if you reade it not eyther you want your sight or they deceaue you Rather see you not the contrary then say they are doubled iuglers An other clause of that Article After affirming that IESVS Christ doth nourish and quicken vs with the substance of his body and of his bloud that which the Catholickes beleeue also they add in which we disagree without aledging any texte for the same wherefore put vnderneath for proofe a cypher as before 1. VVe hold notvvithstanding that this is donne spiritually Proofe o. 2. The supper is a figure of the body or In the supper is figured the bodie of IESVS Christ Proofe o. 3. Because the misterie of this supper is celestiall it cannot be taken but by faith or to vse their vulgar phrase by the mouth of faith Those vvhich bring vvith them a pure faith as a vessell receaue trulie that vvhich the signes testifie commonlie they say That in the supper is eaten the bodie of IESVS Christ by the mouth of faith and in the 53. Sunday of their Catechisme it is said to haue the veritie of the Sacrament vve must lift vp our hartes to heauen vvhere it is Proofe o. Behold many articles and of greate consequence proued by a Cypher Behold how you are abused The Ministers make you beleeue all this not being able to shew for it any texte of Scripture The consequence will be that your supper is purely their owne inuention This by your principles I shew For you haue no pure textes which say that which you affirmatiuely beleeue of the supper of which you hold those three thinges aforesayd principally It is figure c. that by the mouthe of fayth the body eateh c. you should distinctly sett downe that which of our fayth you deny in this matter from that which therein you positiuely beleeue for how be it that we did erre of which I haue shewed the contrary and that your negatiue propositions IESVS Christ is not in the Eucharist and the like were true it followeth not that that which you affirmatiuely beleeue most needes be true and that you erre not therein Because one goeth wrong one way is he which takes an other certaine to goe right may not both be out of their way Examine therfore your assertions and you finde not any shew of textes that teache that the supper is a figure of the body c. nor which speake of the mouth of faith Consequently your whole supper is a humane inuention Which being so in my opinion in the eating a good capō or a cock you may more easely remember the death of the sonne of God for that therein is made mention of the crowing of a cock then in eating a bit of bread For which cause you shall do more prudently to make of them a figure memorie then of a peece of bread which is no more holie then that you eate commonlie at your table It may be that some Caluiniste thinking himselfe better skilled in the Scriptures then the Ministers which composed the Confession of faith and cited for proofe therof those sacred textes they iudged most fauourable will vrge to prooue the supper to be a figure that which our Sauiour said Iohn 6. Vers 63. It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh proffiteth nothing the words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life For awnswere 1. You must vnderstand that your Ministers are at variance whether in the 6. of S. Iohn anie thing be spoken of the supper Caluin in the fourth booke of his Instit cap. 17. § 33. Kemnicius and Zuinglius deny it How then will you establish this firme article of your faith vpon so weake a foundation doubted of by these of your owne faction How can you serue your selues of that passage against vs either for your figure or for your Spiritually 2. I reade not in this text figure and if anie one say that spiritt and figure is all one I may not beleeue him without his proofe and that by the pure Scripture And who perceaues not how ridiculous this deuise is the diuells are spirites are they figures the Angells and our soules are spirittes are they also figures God himself is he not a most pure spiritt is he a figure it belongs not to me to explicate this place I only shew that the pure word saith not that which the article conteineth consequently the Ministers mock vs. Yet by the way knowe that the sense of this texte is that our Sauiour would not giue vs to eate his flesh dead and in peeces as we eate of the ordinarie flesh as the Capharnaites imagined to eate of flesh in this manner proffitteth nothing