Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	catholic_a	church_n	spread_v	1,934	5	10.0390	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15061	An answere to a certeine booke, written by Maister William Rainolds student of diuinitie in the English colledge at Rhemes, and entituled, A refutation of sundrie reprehensions, cauils, etc. by William Whitaker ...	Whitaker, William, 1548-1595.	1585 (1585)	STC 25364A; ESTC S4474	210,264	485

world denied or who could euer otherwise imagine but that men whosoeuer they be are visible and maie be discerned This therfore required not so manie proofes as you haue brought being liberall where no neede is neither in this respect do we meane that there is an inuisible Church by which we vnderstand the elect the faithfull the members of Christes mysticall bodie who although they maie be seene outwardlie in that they are men yet their election their faith their spirituall adoption and coniunction with Christ in which respect they are truelie his Church can not by outward sense be perceiued The number of professors is visible but the number of the elect is not visible that is can not by sight and sense be tried discerned and separated from all others This is the meaning of that distinction which you ought to haue knowen before you laboured to disprooue it But if taking vpon you to refute a thing whereof you are ignorant you faile shamefullie and make your selfe verie ridiculous to your reader it is no maruell and you can blame no other then your owne selfe For what conceite was this that you haue nourished in your braine Pag. 64. and vttered in this booke that we should make the Church of Christ to be inuisible in such sorte as you maintaine the bodie of Christ to be inuisiblie in the Sacrament and hereupon note a wonderfull contradiction in our doctrine I maie truelie saie your case is lamentable and so is theirs that depend vpon you to be thus absurdlie and wilfullie blinded in matters of faith and as it were to grope for light at noone daie which sheweth in you indeede a notable reprobation of vnderstanding as a iust punishment of your Apostasie The Church is not inuisible because the men of whom the Church consisteth are inuisible for the faithfull and elect in that they are men are no lesse visible then the rest but because the elect of God can not be perceaued and acknowledged by outwarde sight of our eies Of Christes bodie you teach most falslie that his verie true naturall humane bodie is in the Sacrament yet that no sense can perceaue it to be there which is to denie and ouerthrow the trueth of his humanitie Therfore you see if anie facultie of seeing remaine in you that betweene this doctrine The Church of Christ is inuisible that is not able by our eies to be discerned and this The bodie of Christ if it were present in the Sacrament bodelie as you teach should be visible that is seene with our eies is not so much as a shadow or fancie of anie contradiction After all this Master Rainolds maketh a long discourse of Dauid George and Sebastian Castalion pag. 66. of whome or for whome I haue for my parte noe neede to answere Dauid George was a damnable heretike and his heresies were by Protestantes not Papistes descried and refuted Castalion you slaunder moste shameleslie in saying he denied Christ to be the Messias as hereafter also in your booke you haue done His preface which he writ to King Edwarde before his translation of the Bible conteineth no such argument and leadeth whollie to another end if you had either witt to see it or good will to acknowledge it Therein he disputeth that some part of those promisses that are contained in the Prophets and namelie concerning the great knowledge that should be vnder Christ is not yet accomplished his opinion of which matters I leaue to himselfe but you haue not done well to charge him vntruelie with so foule a blasphemie pag. 70. As for the great straightes into which Caluine and Luther disputing with the Iewes haue beene driuen by reason of this supposition concerning the Churches fall I know not anie seing they neuer imagined anie such fall as you doe No the heauens shall sooner fall then the Church and therefore you mistake the matter whollie and like an ignorant sophister make impertinent discourses The promises of almightie God concerning the largenes and beautie of his Church vnder Christ haue beene accomplished The Gospell hath beene preached throughout the world the Church hath spread it selfe ouer all nations and neuer since hath it beene shut vp within the limites of one countrie and people as the Synagogue was But as the Prophets foretolde that the Church should be thus mightelie increased and multiplied so the Apostles haue prophecied that in the Church should be a defection that Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God and that the Princes and people of the earth should be drunken with the cuppe of his spirituall fornication and abhominations As we confesse those Prophecies to be fulfilled soe must we likewise acknowledge the truth of these and thereby we are hable to stop the mouthes not onelie of Iewes and Turkes but of all papists also in this controuersie of the churches outward increase and decaie Your monstrous railing in the next section I pretermit beseeching God to open the eies of all Christians and to giue them vnderstanding hartes that they maie discerne Antichrist from Christ falshood from trueth and heresie from pure religion But where you saie that there be many worse Antichristes then the Pope pag. 73. and compare certaine of your late Popes with some of our English Superintendents as you call them in respect of their behauiour and conuersation of life you still misconstrue the matter and speake beside the purpose Your Popes might haue vsed greater shew of honestie and godlines then they haue done yet be neuer the further of from their kingdome of Antichrist which although it be much furthered and maintained by their pride cruelty couetousnes and such other moste monstrous and outragious demeanour as they haue vsed these manie hundred yeares yet it consisteth principallie in that doctrine of Antichristianitie which they holde and by all possible meanes defend most contrarie to the holie and Catholike religion of Christ And yet if your comparison were admitted and the liues of those Antichrists throughlie examined it would appeere that there haue not liued euer in anie state from the beginning of the worlde more wicked vile and abominable men then haue bene the Popes of Rome for diuers hundred yeares together by testimonie of their owne histories They haue in tyrannie exceeded Nero in pride Nebuchadnezer or Alexander the great in other common vices them that for the same haue bene moste infamouslie renowmed in the world wherein if anie professour of the gospell should resemble them or come neare vnto them it were a iust shame vnto their person but yet no disproofe of their religion Now Master Rainolds proceedeth to another pointe pag. 75. namelie the want of religion and conscience which he saith I haue shewed in this answere A greauous accusation in matters of Religion to want religion where greatest conscience is required to haue no conscience at all But if you examine his proofe then shall you easilie perceiue the cauilling spirit of this accuser wherof

of the Church For outwarde succession is no more certaine in that Church then in others and it hath bene diuerse times broken of and discontinued by vacations and schismes for manie yeares together If then the Church had bene builded vpon this tottering rocke of externall succession at Rome it had oftentimes bene dashed and ouerthrowen but thankes be to God the Church is builded vpon a surer rocke then is the personall succession of your Popes or els of anie estate of men in the worlde and therefore whatsoeuer becommeth of your Pope or of his chaire and succession the Church falleth not but abideth and remaineth for euer Your stories written in time of Antichristes tyrannie what cause is there whie we should anie whit regarde them the authors thereof being infected with the errors of the Pope and daring not write for the moste parte otherwise then might well stand with his humor And to all histories that since the defection haue commended the faith of that Church we oppose the worde of God which plainelie conuinceth it of manifold and damnable heresies besides we could alledge sundrie writers in all ages that openlie haue reprooued the same The former distinction concerning the Romane Church pag. 25. here Master Rainolds taketh in hand to disprooue and to shewe that my paradox as he calleth it is impossible First he saith I graunted the Church of Rome to haue bene pure godlie Christian for sixe hundred yeares after Christ which forsooth I neuer graunted as he meaneth that simply and absolutelie no manner of corruption in anie parte of doctrine had taken place therin but onelie according to the state of those times and comparison of that general apostasie which afterward ensued So your conceit M. R. that this alteration should whollie be wrought within the space often or twelue years is so vaine childish that nothing can be deuised more foolish and farther of from the purpose No M. Rainolds notwithstanding Antichrist was not openlie aduanced in the Romane Church before Bonifacius the third yet was there in it no small preparation for entertayning of him before that time through corruption of doctrine and manners in that Church though it was in manie things corrupted before yet had it also great sinceritie which by little and little decaied more and more till Antichrist came and was reuealed and after Antichrist was seated there yet was not therefore all puritie lost by and by but in continuance of time it fainted and languished hauing receiued deadlie poison and no remedie being prouided Wherefore this roye of yours was indeed a vanitie of vanities fitte for such a vaine sophister as you are But now because Doctor Saunders and M. Rainolds boldelie affirme that by testimonies of stories no heresie was brought into the Romane Church or anie chaunge of doctrine euer made in the same let me put them in minde briefelie Sigisb●rt Gemblacensis in Chronico Ann. 1088. that Sigisberius the moncke an Historiographer mentioned by them both expresselie chargeh Gregorie the seauenth and his successours for maintaining and practizing not onely an error but an heresie also in taking vpon them authoritie to excommunicate the Emperour and other ciuill Princes This heresie hath euer since continued in that See and is at this daie by the Pope and his Popelings auouched and therefore by confession of their owne Historiographers Pag. 55. some heresie hath taken place in the Church of Rome contrarie to Doctor Saunders and Master Rainolds proude assertion That the Romane Church of later time hath not chaunged the faith which the auncient Romane Church professed Master Rainolds promiseth now to prooue by such testimonies as I must needes alowe for vpright and sufficient My selfe is the first then Caluine Luther Martyr Illyricus none of which euer dreamed of such a matter as he taketh in hand to prooue by their confession That I haue said the first Romane Church helde the purity of faith nothing concerneth the later Church in what sense I haue so saide is before declared not thereby to iustifie that Church in euerie particular doctrine custome or ceremonie but onelie that the principall and substantiall articles of Christian religion were in it maintained against the heretikes of those times Then that Caluine Lu●●● c. do graunt that the primitiue Romane Church maintained and beleeued the Popes supremacie the sacrifice of the Masse reall presence and Priesthoode is moste vntrue as further in discourse of this booke shall appeere And therefore the conclusion that of these premises should ensue is like the vntimelie fruite that ere it be ripe falleth downe to the ground And as for the common place that followeth concerning the continuance of Christs vniuersall Church pag. 57. to what purpose doth it serue or what argument maie it afforde you we beleeue and confesse to the comforte of our soules that Christs Church hath continued and neuer shall faile so long as the worlde endureth and we account it a profane heresie to teach that Christs Catholike vniuersal Church hath perished from the earth at anie time For this assertion as you truelie prooue shaketh the foundations of all faith and religion But as you haue effectuallie and inuinciblie by manifolde scriptures euinced that Christs Church can neuer be rooted out and no man in the world can open his mouth against you herein so if you had also proued by like euidence of scripture that the Catholike vniuersall Church of Christ is nothing els but the outwarde succession of the Romane see then had you prooued your matters soundlie and confuted our opinion truelie and proceeded orderlie But hauing spoken much concerning the perpetuitie of Christs Church which no Christian can denie or doubt of you bring vs no text not reason to shew that Christs Church either is the Popes succession or els dependeth vpon the same For as touching externall shew and succession of Churches the scriptures haue foretolde that Antichrist shall seduce great and small Apoc. 12.61 13.16 rich and poore free and bonde and that the Church shall flie into the wildernes and there remaine of al which no word could be true if the Catholike Church were tied to the Popes Chaire and the Popes Chaire were the rocke that can not be remooued And yet notwithstanding this generall dispersion and flight of the Church vnder Antichrist the Catholike Church shall for all that continue although not in that outwarde strength and glorie in which sometimes it hath appeered and florished Now this long discourse following is visible Pag. 59. c. and the Testimonies of Melancthon Oecolampadius Caluine and Illyricus at large rehearsed to that purpose all this argueth nothing els but pitifull and grosse ignorance in this man who not knowing what he auoucheth or what he refelleth yet laieth on such loade as though with euerie blow he felled his aduersarie to the ground The militant Church of Christ to be a visihle companie who hath from the beginning of the

of his flesh is absent from vs. Which though it be contrary to your Reall presence yet you say you beleeue as your Creede your beliefe perhaps is according to some new Creede for of this beliefe one parte cannot stand in the same Creede with another First the true auncient and Catholike creede teacheth that Christ is ascended into heauen touching his humanitie whereunto Cyril agreeablie writeth The true Catholike Creed is contraie to the Popish Creed that he is absent in flesh your new-fangled Popish Creede would haue vs beleeue that Christ touching the presence of his flesh is in the sacrament If his flesh be in the sacrament then is not his flesh absent but the scriptures and fathers and al Catholicke Creeds doe set it downe as a ground of faith that Christs flesh is onelie in heauen and there remaineth vntill he come againe in carnall presence to iudge the world What haue you to answere now forsooth now must you fal into your former contradiction that Christs flesh is visible in heauen and inuisible in the sacrament which doctrine is repugnant to diuinitie to reason to sense to all principles of truth as you haue hearde already or els must you say that Christ hath two bodies one visible and an other inuisible which though it be heretical yet is it lesse absurde and vnreasonable then the other But answere what you list this is sufficient to ouerthrow your reall presence before God and all his saints that Christs flesh is absent from vs the sacrament is with vs and therefore Christs flesh is not in the sacrament Your assertions are to grosse your answeres are absurd your Reall presence is a reall contradiction Cyrill you say was no sacramentarie No verely for your sacramentary heresie was vnhathced in Cyrills time But did Cyrill euer teach your reall presence a place you bring that maketh nothing to this purpose Cyrill speaketh not a word of the sacrament Cyrill in Ioh. lib. 4. c. 13. but generally that Christ giueth vs his flesh which is true of those also that neuer receiued the sacrament Wherefore Cyrill meant not any reall presence as you full ignorantly alledge him He onely disputeth against the infidelity or curiosity of such as enquire A popish ignorant argument Christ geueth vs his fleshe to eate Ergo we eate Christs flesh Really in the sacrament How it is possible that Christ should giue vs his flesh to eate we know that Christ can giue and doth giue his flesh to all faithfull and make no doubt nor question thereof But thinke you all meanes of eating his flesh is remooued if reall presence be denied Consider this point a litle better M. Rainolds and I doubt not but you shall easilie espie your owne ouersight That you bring out of Peter Martyr is idle That which he saith if Cyril should auouch it were not to be graunted your selues will not maintaine namelie that Christ doth dwell in vs corporallie and mingleth his flesh with our flesh Then to what vse serueth your reall presence tell vs if you can but prooue by scripture that which you tell els we shall not greatly regard what you tell vs. Damascen you are content to handle as lightly Damas●le orthod fide lib. 3. cap. 3. He teacheth against your reall presence that the nature of Christs bodie remaineth circumscript and visible as it was So your fantasie of Christs body being present in the sacrament reallie but incircumscriptly and inuisiblie is prooued to be vainer then any dreame Al you alledge at large for the reall presence out of him in an other place Lib. 4. c. 14. may shortlie be dispatched That Christ can make the bread his body we graunt For Christ being god can doe whatsoeuer he wil. Onelie shew that Christ wil make of real bread his real flesh and then this controuersie is brought to an ende The Catholike faith teacheth that Christs body was made of the virgine once the Popish faith that it is made of bread daily Christ indeede maketh the breade his body not really but sacramentallie For Christ hath not a body made of bread his body was made once of the pure substance of his blessed mother and other body then this or oftner made then once hath he none Whereof all doctrine that teacheth Christs bodie is made of bread is impious and hereticall the popish doctrine of Reall presence teacheth that Christs body in the sacrament is made of breade by changing the bread into his bodie through force of consecration wherefore we may boldlie and trulie conclude that the popish doctrine of Reall presence which Master Rainolds holdeth but miserablie defendeth is both wicked and hereticall CHAP. 9. Of certeine places of S. Chrysostome touching the Reall presence Two places out of S Chrysostome were alledged by M. Martin pag. 20● c. to prooue thereall presence The first out of his second homilie to the people of Antioch Chryst hom 2. ad pop Antio wherein by an excellent and fit allegorie he compareth our sauiour Christ to the Prophet Elias For as Elias ascending bodelie into heauen left his cloake with Elizeus his scholler so Christ the sonne of God as●ending vp left his flesh with vs. S. Chrysostomes meaning to anie that readeth the place is euident ynough M. R. though he multiplie wordes after his simple manner yet my former answere he cannot disprooue That Christ left vnto vs his flesh in the holie sacrament who euer doubted that therein we receiue his true and natural flesh we beleeue we teach and alwaies did But the Real presence of his flesh such as you maintaine S. Chrysostome neuer knew and we vtterlie denie Christ left vs his flesh therefore he left it Really A false popish argument For can you reason thus and reason trulie that if Christ left vs his flesh he left it in reall presence this is the point this prooue if you can els you talke to no purpose Christ left his flesh that is a sacrament of his flesh wherein is most truelie and effectuallie but spiritually offered vnto vs and of vs receiued the very flesh of Christ Hauing spent manie vnprofitable and superfluous speaches at length you force the comparison and shew a threefold difference betweene Elias leauing his mantel and Christ leauing his flesh And are you indeed in your right vnderstanding who I praie you M. R. denieth this you migh alledge not three onley but three and three points of difference betweene Elias and Christs leauing the one his mantel the other his flesh This then being wholy graunted what is your argument will you reason thus There is great difference between Elias leauing his cloake Christ leauing his flesh Straunge arguments that M.R. hath learned of late to make therefore Christ left his flesh vnto vs reallie If this be not your argument frame an other your selfe as you can The first difference is that Elias left his cloake Christ his flesh Flesh indeed differeth