Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	exceed_v	righteousness_n	scribe_n	2,764	5	11.0489	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10345	The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head and the faith of the Church. Wherein by the way are handled sundrie points, of the sufficiencie and right expounding of the Scriptures, the ministerie of the Church, the function of priesthood, the sacrifice of the masse, with other controuerises of religion: but chiefly and purposely the point of Church-gouernment ... Penned by Iohn Rainoldes, according to the notes set downe in writing by them both: perused by Iohn Hart, and (after things supplied, & altered, as he thought good) allowed for the faithfull report of that which past in conference betwene them. Whereunto is annexed a treatise intitled, Six conclusions touching the Holie Scripture and the Church, writen by Iohn Rainoldes. With a defence of such thinges as Thomas Stapleton and Gregorie Martin haue carped at therein.	Rainolds, John, 1549-1607.; Hart, John, d. 1586. aut; Rainolds, John, 1549-1607. Sex theses de Sacra Scriptura, et Ecclesia. English. aut	1584 (1584)	STC 20626; ESTC S115546	763,703	768

Pharises taught that the affection is no transgression of the law so that a man refraine from the action of dooing euill As for example it is saide in the law Thou shalt not kill This commaundement they tyed to the act of murther and glosed thus vpon it whosoeuer killeth shall be culpable of iudgement as though it bridled only the hand and not the heart In like sort they expounded Thou shalt not commit adulterie as if it were enough to kéepe the flesh chast the soule defiled with vncleannes But our Sauiour teacheth them an other lesson that howsoeuer they pretend antiquitie for their gloses yet wrath malice lust euen the very affections of murther and adulterie doo breake the commandements and not the outward déedes onely The rest of their peruerse expositions I passe ouer The last may serue for all Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe saith the law Wherein the worde neighbour doth signifie as you would say one that is ioyned to vs as all men are some more some lesse but all in a naturall bond of humanitie The very light of nature hath taught the heathens so much who saw that certaine dueties are due from all men each to other through this coniunction of mankind and so haue likewise vsed the name of neighbors generally for al other men as it is meant in this commaundement Thou shalt loue thy neighbour But the Scribes Pharises thinking that a neighbour doth signifie a freend who beareth vs good will and him wee ought to loue did thereupon gather and glose of the contrarie And thou shalt hate thine enimie Which interpretation of the law is lewd and sheweth that they were grossely blinde in expounding it Wherefore our Sauiour reprouing their corruptions in this and other of their doctrines doth say to his disciples Except your righteousnes exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises yee shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen Hart. Our Sauiour might speake these wordes of their liues and not of their doctrines because they were wont to say and not to doo As for the pointes which you say were gloses of the Scribes and Pharises some of the Fathers take them to bée the law of Moses it selfe corrected and supplied or rather perfited by Christ. So doth S. Chrysostome compare the one with the other as the olde law with the new and saith that the commaundements of Moses are easie refraine from murther and adulterie but the commaundements of Christ hard refraine from wrath and lust So doth S. Austin séeme to haue thought also Rainoldes They thought so I graunt good men and well meaning abused by the craft of the Scribes and Pharises who to winne the people thereby the more easily vnto their opinions did vtter them in Moses wordes though with an other sense then Moses As that which he meant of lawfull othes and vowes they turned it to vnlawfull of punishment by publike iudgement they turned it to priuate reuengement But this shift of theirs which Christ doth but allude vnto as notorious did cary S. Austin away with such a preiudice that he thought this also to be writen in the law because it cometh in as the rest Thou shalt hate thine enimie whereas the law commaundeth men to loue their enimies and to doo them good The lesse maruell is it if he were deceiued in the former pointes In the which yet afterward he saw his errour and corrected it For when the Manichees who condemned the God of the old Testament as contrarie to the new did reason out of this place that Christ reproueth sundry pointes in the law of Moses he answered that Christ reproueth not the law but them who mistooke it who thought that the forbidding of murther and adulterie did touch not the affections and lustes but actes onely And though it came not then into his mind neither that the law saith not Thou shalt hate thine enimie yet hee considered that it could not otherwise be meant in the old Testament then as in the new we must hate our enimies or rather Gods enimies hate their vices not their persons S. Chrysostome in this point slipped not so much For his wordes thereof be such that it séemeth not he thought it writen in the law If in the rest he did not retract as Austin did he had not the Manichees to sharpen him as Austin had Their folly would haue made him wiser At least what soeuer the Fathers thought therein it is certaine that Christ reproued not the law of God but the gloses of men vpon it Which the newer writers euen of your owne acknowledge yea the Catechisme of Trent too And one a Iewe by ofspring conuerted to the Christian faith doth note out of the writings of an auncient Iewe who liued about the time of Christ that the Iewes thought the outward deedes onely and not the motions of the mind to bee forbidden by the commaundements Wherefore in that you say that Christ when he taught that his disciples righteousnes ought to exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises might speake that of their liues and not of their doctrines you say well of the one side but not of the other For he meant it of both Which appéereth by this that he therein giueth a reason of his former spéech as the word for doth shew for I say vnto you except your righteousnes excede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heauen Now the former spéech was that who soeuer shall breake one of these least commaundements and teach men so he shall be called the least in the kingdome of heauen that is he shall be none in it The Scribes and Pharises therfore men famous for their righteousnes who counted these commaundements mentioned by Christ least that is they made no count of them as thinking wrath and malice and lust no transgressions are noted to haue offended not onely in breaking them but in teaching so too And how did they teach so but as Christ declareth by misexpounding the law Therfore in expounding the law they did erre Hart. They did erre after a sort yet marke withall how They taught that the actions of muther and adulterie are forbidden by the law but they taught not that the affections are forbidden This was in deede to teach lesse then the law but not to teach against the law Yea to hate their enimies was after a sort also commaunded in the law For when God sent the children of Israel into the land of Canaan he charged them to cast out all the inhabitants of that land Now those inhabitants were their enimies and of these enimies God saith Thou shalt vtterly destroy them thou shalt make no couenant with them nor haue compassion vpon them Behold they must destroy them Was this to hate them or no