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	call_v	time_n	45	3	2.8996	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01325	A retentiue, to stay good Christians, in true faith and religion, against the motiues of Richard Bristow Also a discouerie of the daungerous rocke of the popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander D. of Diuinitie. Done by VVilliam Fulke Doctor of diuinitie, and Maister of Pembroke hall in Cambridge.	Fulke, William, 1538-1589.	1580 (1580)	STC 11449; ESTC S102732	222,726	326

gouerne all the faythful by helpe of many inferiour officers As thoughe the Church had not inferior officers in the Apostles time If S. Peter then was not able to rule w c had such greate giftes muchlesse the Pope which is nothing comparable with him in gifts is often a wicked man an here tike is able to gouerne all the Church for he hath not so great an helpe of the conuersion of the worlde as he hath a want of Peters gracious giftes meete for such a gouernment Secondly he would haue vs mark the peculiar names of a Rock of a pastor of a confirmer of his brethren which are giuē by Christ to S. Peter alone which argue that Peters supremacy must necessarily continue for euer But who will graunt to M. S. that Christe gaue these peculier names to Peter alone indeed that which is mēt by the names is ordinary and perpetual in the Church Peter was a Rock not his person but his doctrine that remaineth stil in the Church he was a shephearde and confirmer of his brethren and there bee nowe many shepheards and confirmers of their brethren Thirdly he sayth the Church neuer wanted a visible rock on the earth beside the eternall Rock Christ who in this life might bee so strongly fastened in the Faith of Christe the great Rocke that he though not for his owne sake yet for the Churches sake might be able to stay vppe all other small stones which ioyned vnto him vntill Christ came in the fleshe who likewise appoynted Saincte Peter and his successors to be this ordinary rock as Adam Enos Henoch Noe Abraham Isaac Iacob Moyses Aaron and his successors who sate in the chaire of Moyses vntill the comming of Christ. Against this I say that the church militant on earth hath her foundation in heauen and not on earth therfore the churche hath not a visible rocke in earth Againe it is not true that some one hath alwayes bene this visible rocke on earth For who was greater Abraham or Melchisedech out of all controuersie Melchisedech then was not Abraham the onely rocke After the death of Iacob and the twelue Patriarkes who was the visible rocke vntill Moyses was called And yet had God a church among the Iewes all that time Thirdly who is so impudent to say that all the successors of Aaron were so strongly fastened in the faith that they were able to stay all the small stones that leaned vpon them Was not Vrias the high Priest an idolater 2. Reg. 16. What were Iason Menclaus Lysimachus by the reporte of the booke of Machabes Was not Caiphas Annas Sadducees by the testimonie of S. Luke Act. 5. and of Iosephus Where is then the visible rocke whose faith neuer failed c we see there was none suche before Christ therefore there neede to be none suche after him His fourth reason is of the name of a pastor which signifieth an ordinarie office for as the sheepe continue after S. Peters death so must there be also a shepheard as Peter was But how proueth he that Peter was an only shepheard forsooth Chrysostom sayth lib. 2. de sacerdotio Christus sanguinem c. Christ hath shedde his bloode to purchase those sheepe the care of whom he did commit both to Peter to Peters successors But whom doth Chrysostom take for Peters successors the Bishops of Rome only No verily but all true pastors of the church as his wordes going before doe manifestly declare Neque enim tum volebat testatum esse quantum à Petro amaretur siquidem id multis nobis argument is constabat Verum hoc ille sum agebat vt Petrum caeteros nos edoceres quanta beneuolentia ac charitate ergasuam ipse ecclesiam afficeretur vt hac ratione nos quoque eiusdem ecclesiae studium curamque toto animo susciperemus For his purpose was not then to testifie vnto vs howe muche he was beloued of Peter for that was euident vnto vs by many arguments But this thing then he intended that he might teache both Peter and all vs what beneuolence and loue he beareth towarde his church that by this reason we also might take vpon vs with all our hart the loue charge of the same church This sentence sheweth that Chrysostome accounted him selfe euery true pastor of the church a successor of Peter and not the Bishop of Rome alone As for Leo a Bishop of Rome I haue often protested that he was more addicted to the dignitie of his see then the Scripture would beare him and therefore was ouerruled and resisted in the generall councel of Chalcedon His fift argument is a rule of lawe where the same reason is the same right ought to be The reason of Peters confession and power is such as agreeth to any ordinary office of the church therefore the office of Peter being a rock of strengthening his brethren and feeding Christes sheepe is an ordinarie office But I say that Peters confession made him not a rock but declared him so to be being appoynted of Christ for one of the twelue foundations of the churche the office of strengthening and feeding as it was not singular in Peter so it is not ordinarie that it should be singular in any man His sixt reason Irenaeus Optatus and Augustine did recken vp such successors of Peter as had liued till eu●rie of their ages or times Therefore Peter had successors in his pastorall office It is not denyed but he had them and other Bishoppes also successors in his pastorall office at least the Bishoppes of Antioche whereby your owne cofession he was Bishoppe before he came to Rome Therefore his succession was not singular to the Bishoppes of one see His seuenth reason no man may preache to them to whom he is not sent therefore there must be a generall pastor to sende other to preache to them that are not conuerted to plant newe Bishoprikes to controll them that are negligent to supplie the thinges that lacke to excommunicate such as liue in no diocesse c. For sending he quoteth Rom. 10. where mention is onely of the sending of God and of the sending by men But all his questions and doubtes may be aunswered Either the whole church in generall councells or euerie particular church in their synodes as they shall see most expedient may sende preachers as the Apostles and Elders sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria order all such matters as he imagineth must be done onely by the Pope But he asketh who shall summon all other Bishoppes to generall or prouinciall councells And I aske him who summoned the foure great principall generall councells and so many prouinciall councels but the Emperours and Princes in whose dominion they were gathered So that here is no necessary affaires of the church that doth require one generall pastor or Pope of Rome when all thinges may and haue bene done best of all without him As for placing of Bishoppes in sees

Bishop in euery diocese For he writeth against fiue Elders or Priestes which had chosen one Felicissimus a schismatike to be Bishop in Carthage against him But what other malicious ignorance or shameles impudence is this that he peruerteth the saying of Christ of him selfe to the Pope There shall be one sheepefold one shepheard Ioan. 10 Yet see his reason A flocke of shepe is one by force of one pastor therefore if the Pastor on earth be not one the flocke is not one on earth If this argument be good howe is the flocke one vpon earth when there is no Pope For the see hath bene voyde diuerse times many dayes many monethes somtime many yeares Howe was the flocke one when there were two or three Popes at once and that so often and so long together Therefore the flocke on earth is one by that one onely shepheard Iesus Christ whose diuine voice all the shepe heare though in his humanity he be ascended into heauen and not by any one mortal man to whom they can not be gathered nether being so farre abroad dispersed can heare his voyce And the whole order of the church on earth tendeth to an vnitie in Christ not in one man whatsoeuer as one generall pastor For if that one shoulde be an heretike and all the church tend to vnity in him the whole church should be wrapped in heresie with him That diuerse Popes haue bene heretiks as Libe●ius Anastasi●s Vigil●us Honorius Ihon the 23. in knowne condemned heresies it is too manifest by recordes of antiquitie that it shoulde be denyed wherefore Christ instituted no such ordinary auctoritie to be limited in one successiō that it should haue preheminēce imisdiction ouer all the churche Seeing vnity is best mainteyned in doctrine by his word in gouernment by the discipline by him appoynted And vnity in truth can not be had at the handes of a man which is a lyer experience sheweth that the iurisdiction which the Bishoppe of Rome hath claimed hath bene occasion of most and greatest schismes and dissentions that haue bene in particular churches whē no man would obey his ordinary pastors and Bishops without the appealing to the see of Rome beside so many schismes as haue bene in the same see which haue set all the Christian world together by the cares while they were deuided in factiōs some holding with one Pope and some with an other and some with the third and some with none of them all The 15. Chapter THat the Bishop of Rome is that one ordinarie pastor who succeedeth in S. Peters chaire and is aboue all Bishoppes according to the meaning of Gods worde VVhy S. Peter dyed at Rome S. Augustines minde touching the supremacy of the Pope of Rome THe first reason is that although Peter at the first was rather high Bishoppe of the circumcision thē of the Gentiles yet because he did at length settle him selfe at Rome by Gods appointment and left a successor there he sayeth he may well affirme that the Bishop of Romes primacy is warranted by Gods word A straūge kind of warantise for to omit that the primacy ouer the Gentils by Gods worde is giuen to another namely to Paule from whom he can neuer proue that it was taken afterward Where hath he any worde of God to proue that by his appointment Peter setled him self at Rome and appoynted there a successor He quoteth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who reporteth that Linus the first Bishop of Rome was ordayned not by Peter onely but by Peter Paule the Apostles who founded the Church there euen as Polycarpus by the Apostles in Asia was made bishop in Smyrna which Church with the Church of Ephesus founded by Paule and continued by Iohn the Apostles he citeth as witnesses alike with the Church of Rome of the tradition of the Apostles against Valentinus and Marcion which being voyd of Scriptures bragged of the tradition of the Apostles But of Peters primacie or his successors ouer all Bishops Irenaeus sayth not a word No more doth Tertullian whom likewise he quoteth de praescrip but euen as Ireneus would haue the tradition of the Apostles against those heretikes that boasted of it to be tryed by the cōfession of those Churches that were founded by the Apostles His second reason is vpon a false supposition that he hath already proued Peter alone to be the rocke to haue chiefe authoritie in feeding c. all which thinges are vntrue That Peter came to Rome he is not content that it be testified by all auncient Ecclesiasticall writers But he sayth it is witnessed by the expresse word of God 1. Pet. 5. The Church which is gathered together in Babylon saluteth you Although the history of Peters comming to Rome and sitting there 25. yeares testified by so many writers is proued false in many circumstances by the playne worde of God yet I am content to admitte that he came thither towarde the later ende of Ne roes raigne But that in his Epistle he sent salutations from Rome I can not admitte seeing that in such manner of salutations men vse not to write allegorically albeit that in the reuelation of Saint Iohn Rome the sea of Antichrist is mystically called Babylō But Babylon from whence S. Peter did write is more probably to be taken for a citye of that name in Egypt where Marke was with him whō the consent of antiquitie affirmeth to haue bene Bishop of Alexandria a citie of Egypt also who coulde not haue bene with him at Rome Seeing it is manifest by the first and seconde of the Epistle to the Galathians and by diuerse of Saint Paules Epistles that if euer Peter was at Rome it was but a short tyme in the later ende of Nero his Empire Whereas Marke dyed in the eyght yeare of his raigne before Peter coulde be at Rome For in the tenth yeare Paule was brought prisoner to Rome Saint Luke accompanying him who would not haue omitted to shewe that Peter was there to haue mette him as the rest of the brethren did if he had then bene at Rome Agayne Paule in so many Epistles as he writeth from Rome sending salutations from meane personages would not haue omitted mention of Peter if he had bene there Saint Luke then affirming that he taryed two yeares in prison at Rome which must be vntil the twelfe yeare of Nero it followeth that if Peter came he came very late to Rome within two yeare before his death at which tyme it was not possible that Marke which was dead foure yeares before could be at Rome with him wherefore Babylon in that text can not be taken for Rome Another reason of the Popes supremacy he maketh that Peter not onely came thither but also dyed there A simple reason why the city of Rome should haue that prerogatiue because she murthered y e Apostles Rather might Ierusalē clayme it in which Christ the head of all dyed After this he telleth the fable