Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	aaron_n	blood_n	body_n	30	3	3.9052	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07192	Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford.	Mason, Francis, 1566?-1621.	1613 (1613)	STC 17597; ESTC S114294	344,300	282

yet saide is nothing because to the very being of a Bishop the order of Priesthood is essentially required which is not to be found in the Church of England For there are two principall functions of Priesthood the first is the power of Sacrificing the second of Absolution but you haue neither as I will prooue in order to beginne with the first it is giuen in holy Church by these wordes Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium deo missasque celebrare tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini that is Receiue power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masse as well for the quicke as for the dead in the name of the Lord. But you vse neither these wordes nor any aequiualent in your ordination of Priestes as may appeare by the Booke therefore you want the principall function of Priesthood ORTHOD. If you meane no more by Priest then the holy Ghost doeth by Presbyter that is a Minister of the new Testament then we professe and are ready to prooue that we are Priestes as we are called in the booke of common prayers and the forme of ordering because we receiue in our ordination authoritie to Preach the word of God and to minister his holy Sacraments Secondly by Priestes you meane Sacrificing Priestes and would expound your selues of spirituall Sacrifices then as this name belongeth to all Christians so it may bee applied by an excellencie to the Ministers of the Gospell Thirdly although in this name you haue a relation to bodily Sacrifices yet euen so we may bee called Priestes by way of allusion For as Deacons are not of the tribe of Leui yet the ancient fathers doe cōmonly call them Leuites alluding to their office because they come in place of Leuites so the ministers of the new Testament may be called Sacrificers because they suceed the sons of Aaron and come in place of Leuites so the Ministers of the new Testament may be called sacrificers because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron and come in place of sacrificers Fourthly for as much as we haue authoritie to minister the Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist which is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a mystery and to sacrifice him by way of commemoration Is not this sufficient if it be not what other sacrificing is required PHIL. THere is required sacrificing properly so called which is an externall oblation made onely to God by a lawfull Minister wherby some sensible and permanent thing is Consecrated and changed with Mysticall rite for the acknowledgement of humane infirmitie and for the profession of the Diuine Maiestie ORTHOD. What is the sensible and permanent thing you offer PHIL. It is the very body and blood of Christ. ORTHOD. The Church of England teacheth thus according to the Scripture The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall and there is no other satisfaction for sinne but that alone and consequently it condemneth your masses for the quicke and the dead as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits PHIL. But the Councell of Trent teacheth that in the masse there is offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and curseth all those that thinke otherwise ORTHOD. HOw doe you prooue that the Sacrificing Priesthood which offereth as you say the very body and blood of Christ is the true Ministery of the Gospel PHIL. That Ministery which was typed in the old Testament foretold by the Prophets instituted by Christ and practised by the Apostles is the true Ministery of the Gospel But our sacrificing Priesthood which offereth the very body and blood of Christ is such therefore it is the true Ministery of the Gospel The proposition of it self is plaine euident the parts of the assumption shall be prooued in order ORTHOD. Then first let vs heare where your Priesthood was typed CHAP. II. Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec PHIL. THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper with his owne hands shal offer by the hands of the Priests vntil the end of the world For the vnderstanding wherof we must consider that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in a more excellent maner then Aaron insomuch that Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron For betweene these two Priesthoods there are two differences the first consisteth in the externall forme of the Sacrifice For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloodie and represented the death of Christ vnder the forme of liuing things that were s●aine The sacrifice of Melchisedec was vnbloody and did figure the body and blood of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and Wine From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument If Melchisedec did offer an vnbloody sacrifice vnder the forme of Bread and Wine then seeing Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec he also must offer an vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes and shapes of Bread and Wine but the Sacrifice of the Crosse was bloody therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Crosse and what can this be but the Sacrifice of the Supper But he commaded his Apostles and in them vs to doe as hee did saying doe this in remembrance of me therfore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an vnbloody manner in the formes of Bread and Wine consequently the Ministers of the Gospel are Sacrificers by Christs owne institution ORTH. We graunt first that Melchisedec was a type of Christ because the Scripture saith he was likened to the sonne of God Secondly that Christ was a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec because God hath not only said it but sworne it The Lord hath sworne and will not repent thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec but wee deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine for a Sacrifice to God wee deny that Christ euer offered any such or euer gaue any such commission to his Apostles Therefore this is so farre from prouing your pretended Priesthood that it will quite ouerthrowe it PHIL. THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine is plaine in Genesis ORTHOD. In Genesis Why there is no such thing the wordes are these And Melchisedec king of Salem brought foorth Bread and Wine and he was a Priest of the most high God Where your owne vulgar translation readeth proferens not offerens hee brought forth Bread and Wine and not hee offered it PHIL. True he brought it forth but the end why he brought it foorth was to Sacrifice vnto God ORTHOD. That is more then you can gather out of the text Iosephus sayth

authenticall Edition of Sixtus quintus and Clemens octauus the Soph pasuk you vrge is expressed onely by a comma and in some of the Vulgar there is not so much as a comma Wherefore this doeth rather argue a relation to that which followeth then to that which went before and consequently these words He was a Priest of the most High God cannot be referred to the bringing foorth of the bread and wine but rather to the blessing And that it is so may appeare by the Epistle to the Hebrewes where the Type of Melchisedec is vnfolded and yet there is no mention at all of sacrificing but only of blessing But if we should suppose that it were to be translated by the causall for and that these words For he was a Priest of the most High God had relation to that which went before concerning the bringing out of bread and wine what should you gaine by it PHIL. The very point in question For the latter part shall yeeld a reason of the former Did Melchisedec bring foorth bread and wine to Abraham What moued him so to doe The reason is rendered because he was a Priest of the most High God Therefore this was a Priestly action ORTHOD. He gaue entertainment to Abraham and was thereunto moued by consideration of his owne Office euen because hee was not onely a professour of the true Religion but also a Priest for as it becommeth all that imbrace Religion to loue one another and reioyce at their good so this duetie especially belongeth to the Priest And your learned Iesuite Andradius hence obserueth the great lincke of Religion saying Who would not wonder that a man tyed by no lincks of acquaintance with Abraham but to those whom Abraham conquered tyed by the lincke of neighbour-hood and peraduenture of alliance also for I hold it very probable that Melchisedec was a Canaanite should prosecute Abraham with presents and other kind offices and for the victory gotten ouer his owne country men should congratulate Abraham not without procuring to himselfe great enuie from his neighbours but seeing there are no lincks to bee compared with the linkes of religion Moyses saith that he performed these offices to Abraham because he was a Priest of the most high God that all men might vnderstand that hee was coupled with greater lincks of loue with Abraham who excelled for singular commendation of Pietie and religion then with them to whom he was tied by the Law of nature and country therefore there is no necessity to say that he sacrificed bread and wine for the text euen read and pointed as you would haue it may in the iudgement of some of your learned Diuines admit an excellent sence without any sacrifice BVt let vs imagine that hee did sacrifice bread and wine what is this to the purpose PHIL. Yes it proueth our Priest hood directly and strongly For must not the truth answere to the Type ORTHOD. You make the type consist in this that Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine but stay a little did Christ sacrifice bread and wine where find you that PHIL. A Type consisteth in representation and representation dependeth rather vpon the outward accidents then the inward substance therfore whereas Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine the truth of that Type must consist in the outward accidents that is in the formes of bread wine and the Type was fulfilled in that Christ offered himselfe in the formes of bread and wine ORTH. Was the sacrifice of Melchisedec bread and wine in substance or was it the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine if you say the first then our communion doth better answere to the sacrifice of Melchisedec then your Masse and consequently our ministery doth better resemble his then your Priesthood but if you say that he offered the very bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine that would fit your turne well for then Melchisedec should be a Masse Priest but it is so absurde that you dare not auouch it For then the very bodie and blood of Christ should haue beene actually and substantially existent before it was conceiued in the wombe of the Virgin Mary Thus say what you can you are quite ouerthrowne PHIL. If Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine then surely hee offred an vnbloody sacrifice and seeing Christ being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must needs haue the essentiall properties of that Order therefore Christ offered also an vnbloody sacrifice ORTHOD. Or rather thus seeing Christ is a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec hee must haue all the essentiall properties belonging to that Order but his sacrifice was bloodie and not vnbloody for With his owne blood hath he entred into the most Holy and hath purchased an eternall redemption for vs therefore to offer an vnbloody sacrifice is no essential propertie of the Order of Melchisedec wherfore if he did so it followeth not that Christ should do so PHIL. It was both bloody and vnbloodie bloody vpon the Crosse vnbloodie in the Eucharist ORTHOD. Doe you not teach that Christ offered his owne body and blood in the Eucharist if hee sacrificed his owne blood how can that sacrifice be vnbloodie PHIL. His blood was shed and sacrificed in the Eucharist in an vnbloudie manner that is in the forme of bread and wine ORTHO The Scripture saith that Christ was Once offered and that with once offering he hath Consecrated for euer them that are sanctified and this offering is called the blood of the Crosse not the blood of the Eucharist but the blood of the Crosse. PHIL. Will you deny the blood and sacrifice of the Eucharist ORTHOD. Christ saith Doe this in remembrance of mee therefore in the Eucharist there is a memoriall of Christ euen of his bodie and blood which were sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse once for all as hath been alreadie prooued Therefore the blood was shed and sacrificed vpon the Crosse properly and substantially in the Eucharist improperly and in a mystery by way of commemoration an representation as shall appeare more amply when we come to the point PHIL. ANother difference betweene Aaron and Melchisedec is thus set down by Bellarmine Estetiā alia differentia inter Sacerdotium Melchisedechi Aaronis quòd illud fuit vnius tantū hominis qui non successit alteri cui non successit alter istud autem fuit multorum qui per mortem sibi inuicem succedebant i. There is an other difference betweene the Priesthood of Melchisedec and of Aaron that the former was onely of one man who succeeded not an other and to whom no man succeeded but the latter was of many men which succeeded one another by death where we may obserue two properties of the Priesthood of Melchisedec vnity and eternity ORTH. The first propertie belongeth most aptly to Christ who alone hath offered himselfe a sweete smelling sacrifice to God for vs but to

vpon the silence of the Apostle onely but of the silence of all the Apostles and Prophets There is not a word in the whole Bible to declare that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in offering such an vnbloodie Sacrifice in the formes of Bread and Wine and this very silence is like the voice of a Trumpet proclaiming vnto the world that Popery is the meer inuention of man shall wither in the root from whence it sprung For euery plant which our heauenly father hath not planted shall be rooted out PHIL. Doe not the Fathers make this a type of the Eucharist And wherein can it consist but in an oblation or sacrifice ORTHOD. First some of the Fathers say not that Melchisedec offered this Bread and wine to God but to Abraham Secondly those which say it was offered vnto God as a Sacrifice may meane an Eucharisticall Sacrifice and not a propitiatorie Thirdly if any of the Fathers say that hee offered a propitiatorie Sacrifice yet it followeth not that because they make the oblation of Melchisedec a Type of the Eucharist that therefore in the Eucharist there is a propitiatorie Sacrifice for those which hold so must make a double oblation of this Bread and Wine by Melchisedec the first to God by way of Sacrifice the second to Abraham and the armie in the manner of a banquet the first might haue relation to Christ vpon the Crosse the second to the Eucharist Fourthly your Popish massing Sacrifice presupposeth transubstantiation which is contrary to Christs institutiō of the Eucharist as in due place shall be declared Wherefore those fathers which vnderstand the Eucharist according to Christs institution cannot referre the type of Melchisedec to any transubstantiate Sacrifice CHAP. III. Of their argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe PHIL. THe Sacrifice of the Masse and consequently the office of the Priest or Sacrificer is proued by an argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe And first it is cleare by the Scripture that the Paschal Lambe was a Sacrifice For we read in Exodus Take you for euery of your houshoulds a lambe and immolate the Passeouer And againe You shall slay it it is the Victime or Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer And in the 9. of Numbers Certaine men were defiled by a dead man that they might not keepe the Passeouer the same day and they came before Moses and before Aaron the same day And those men said vnto him we are defiled by a dead man Wherfore are we kept back that we may not offer an offring vnto the Lord in the time therunto appointed And againe But the man that is cleane and is not in a iourney and is negligent to keepe the Passeouer the same person shall be cut off from his people because he brought not the Sacrifice of the Lord in his due season And in the Gospel of S. Mark The first day of the Azyms when they sacrificed the Passeouer And S. Paul saith Our Passeouer Christ is immolated ORTHOD. Admit it were a Sacrifice what can you conclude PHIL. The celebration of the Paschall Lambe was an expresse figure of the celebration of the Eucharist Therefore if the Paschal Lambe were a Sacrifice the Eucharist likewise must be a Sacrifice that there may be a correspondency betwene the figure and the thing figured ORTHOD. As other ceremonies of the Law so the Paschall Lambe was most euidently and expresly a figure of Christ and therefore was fulfilled in the passion of Christ. PHIL. The ceremonie of the Paschal Lambe was more immediately and more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion as may appeare by foure circumstances First the Paschal Lambe was to be eaten the fourteenth day of the moneth at euen and at the same time Christ instituted the Eucharist but the passion was deferred vntill the day following ORTHOD. Because the Eucharist was to succeed the passeouer therefore the wisedome of God so disposed that it should be instituted at the celebration of the passeouer But this doth not proue that the Passeouer was more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion for what saith the Scripture Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world How doth he take away the sinnes of the world Is it not by his death and passion as it is written wee haue redemption through his blood euen the forgiuenes of our sinnes according to his rich grace And againe He is the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world therefore the substance of the Type consisted in this that hee was slaine which was not in the Eucharist but vpon the Crosse. Which is most euidently set downe by the Euangelist Saint Iohn who rendreth this reason why his legges were not broken because it is written there shall not a bone of him be broken PHIL. Secondly The Lambe was offered in remembrance of the Lords passing ouer and the deliuerance of the people and the Eucharist is celebrated in memory of the Lords passing out of this world to his father by his passion and of our deliuerance from the power of Satan by the death of Christ. ORTHOD. If both bee memorialls of our deliuerance by Christ then one is not the body of the other but the substance of both is Christ. PHIL. Thirdly the Lambe was offered that it might be eaten and so is the Eucharist but Christ was not crucified that he might be eaten neither was there any then which ate him after hee was so Sacrificed ORTHOD. If the Lambe were properly offered then it was more truely a Type of Christ then of the Eucharist For the Scripture witnesseth that Christ was offered vpon the Crosse but it witnesseth no such thing concerning the Eucharist onely Christ sayth doe this in remembrance of me Whereby we learne that the Eucharist is not an oblation but a memoriall of Christs oblation Now whereas you say that Christ was not crucified that hee might be eaten Christ himselfe saith Verely verely I say vnto you except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day For my flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And a little before The bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world PHIL. That may be meant of his flesh in the Eucharist ORTHO Saint Austin sheweth the contrary in these words De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium res verò ipsa cutus sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit i. Some receiue the sacrament from the Lords Table vnto life some vnto destruction but