Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	4,616	5	7.4258	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56149	The altar dispute, or, A discovrse concerning the severall innovations of the altar wherein is discussed severall of the chiefe grounds and foundations whereon our altar champions have erected their buildings / by H. P.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1642 (1642)	Wing P393; ESTC R21276	49,491	88

the forme of a Table being utterly rejected a stone Altar was received into its place and an immolating Priest ordained Priest Altar Sacrifice are now growne the common termes and onely proper words and though the instant creeping in of this factious change be not knowne yet the change is now apparent it is now is plaine that these words are growne common as it is that they were not so from the beginning And for this cause our English Martyrs were necessitated to use these words conversing with Papists at that time when no other words were current and this is no proofe for the propriety thereof Frith Lambert c. mention their examination touching the Sacrament of the Altar and so must I now repeate the same name and so must any man in the same case but what this mention or repetition proves not our approbation thereof So that the Parliament 1. Ed. 6. use the name both in the act and in the writ granted thereby but what neither was the tide of language yet turned nor the reformation in any degree perfected and so in the first Liturgy the word Altar for the same reason is usually mentioned but in the second Liturgy we see the better judgement and more setled practise of the State by the utter rejection of the very names of Sacrifice and Altar But the Doctor replyes that the second Liturgy was introduced upon no other just consideration but onely to please the fond pragmaticall puritanicall humor of John Calvin King Edw. 6. comming to the Crowne 1547. found the enterprise of altering Religion very difficult and dangerous and not suddenly to be expedited Young he was and destitute of a competent number of trusty potent and learned Ministers and his Father had altered nothing but in discipline onely and his taske now was to extirpate a sensuall Religion of great antiquity and yet within sixe months he sets out his injunctions wherein he prescribes divers things tending to a reformation Some few months after in Parliament the Sacrament is commanded to be administrrd sub utraque specie and a Writ therefore awarded in both which Act and Writ the vulgar common name is not yet disused In 1548. Images are ejected and a new celebration of the Sacrament ordered The first Liturgy is now composed and Bucer sent for and as yet the word Altar is not quite relinquisht In 1549. the King having thus farre adventured to countenance Protestantisme he now adventures to strike at the heart of Popery by pulling downe the Masse but this hee does by Proclamation not daring to put it to votes in Parliament Upon this a great rebellion is raised in the West the French King also bidding defiance at the same instant and now Bucer first arrives In 1550. great troubles hapned about the Protector but the West being calmed and the French threatnings diverted Bishop Ridly is commanded to take downe Altars in his Diocese and in Pauls Church it selfe the Altar-wall was removed by the Kings letters also to Ridly it appeares that Altars had beene displaced in many other parts before and the Act is allowed by the King to be good and godly though our Doctors now terme it an horrible outrage and by this it seemes that Bucer and Calvin were not the first instigators thereof In 1551. we read of Bucers death and the arraignment commitment and execution of the Protector and now Hooper in his Sermon before the King preaches against the remainder of Altars yet standing as occasions of superstition In 1552. a Parliament establishes the second Liturgy in stead of the first and finally and generally demolishes Altars not using so much as the name of Sacrifice or Altar And by such limits and degrees did the Kings power increase and the reformation ripen but amongst these publike affaires we may take notice also that some other considerable passages did intervene Bucer about Autumne 1549. received advertisements from Calvin not to be mediis consilii● authorem vel approbatorem and to be instant with the Protector for the taking away of superstitious ceremonies The like counsell also Calvin had sent to the Protector to goe on in abrogating all superstitions without regard of correspondence abroad or peace at home such cautions being onely requisite in civill not divine affaires for in these the word of God is the strict rule and nothing is more distastfull to God then to alter or mitigate divine precepts according to worldly wisdome His advise also was further that the Protector would hasten the compounding of ceremony differences and to support Hooper a man zealous against Altars and ceremonies and one that had interest in the Duke of Northumberland In his letters also to Farellus 1551. it appeares that Calvin had written to the King and that his letters had beene gratiously accepted both by the King and his councell and that the Arch-Bishop had wished him to write more frequently and that the Arch-Bishop also had received letters from him and that the State had received the like advertisements from Bullinger also These pious indeavours of Calvin seconded by Bullinger c. so honourably entertained by the King and his Prelates and Counsellours of State nay and by the whole Parliament Doctor Heylin traduces as the busie offices of his tampering practising and unhappy medling and thus through Calvins sides our heavenly inspired Ancestors are wounded and through their sides our Religion 'T is true the first Liturgy had a Morall though not a Mathematicall perfection in it and so it was attestated by Fox c. But this concludes not that therfore it was altered only to please Calvin for though in the first Liturgy nothing was introduced but what was good and godly as might be well justified yet that was more good and godly which was afterward introduced in the second the one might bee as Nehemiahs Temple the other as Solomons both beautifull yet one more beautifull He that rightly considers the Acts of Edw. 6. and his short raigne will wonder to see so much not so little done in such a space of time especially since his Peeres was so factious his people so ignorant and his Clergy so Popish Had not Divines also beene so averse at home to reformation the consultation of forrain Doctors was necessary especially of such as had beene actors and spectators abroad in the like alterations but such Doctors were now pretious in the world the Harvest was farre too great for the Labourers and the age also too queasie to endure their rigor It is no wonder therefore if Bucer came not till two yeares after the beginning of the reformation and if Calvin Beza and Bullinger came not at all Tantae molis erat Romanam extinguere gentem Doctor Heylin supposes Calvin pragmaticall because he was not sent for into England though he proffered himselfe unsent for and was so forward to ingage himselfe by his avisoes but this is ill supposed for Calvin was knowne to be a rigorous man against ceremonies and the

testimony of their owne sinfulnesse Howsoever all such oblations whether expiatory or gratulatory were equally Sacrifices though not equally typicall for all expiatory Sacrifices were not bloody onely nor all gratulatory unbloody We read of Cain and Abel before the institution of Aarons Order that the one presented to God his homage in part of his flocke the other in part of his graine the one did sacrifice upon an Altar as well as the other and that Sacrifice which was unbloody was typicall and expiatory as well as that which was bloody and that which was bloody might be graulatory as well as that which was unbloody or at least nothing appeares to the contrary We read also of Noah that he had a distinct notice of cleane and uncleane creatures and did sacrifice accordingly so that the Religion and Priesthood before the Law was not so farre different from that under the Law though pompe and ceremonies and some other accidentall parts were wanting as from ours under the Gospel or at least in matters of Sacrifice it was little or not at all different All Sacrifices also under the Mosaicall Law were not bloody for Incense was offered to God as well as flesh and there was an Altar for Odours as well as for blood and all Sacrifices whatsoever received their value and acceptation from the Passion of Christ as that did purifie them not as they did typifie that for it seemes else that other divine services should not be so valuable and acceptable as Sacrifices not those Sacrifices which were lesse typicall as those which were more and that no Sacrifices at all had beene admitted of by God from such men as did not understand their typicall nature as few did either before or under the Law Besides it does not appeare that the Passion of Christ was a proper reall Sacrifice in fact and therefore it was necessary that it should be prefigured yet no necessity is that it should be prefigured by Sacrifice a parte ante or commemorated by Sacrifice a parte post The death of our Saviour was rather a pious Passion then a divine action or service done to God and though our Saviour did not resist or shunne such a martyrdome wickedly inforced by other yet he was not so active in it as to imbrue his owne hands in his owne blood So that if our Saviours Passion was a Sacrifice it was but a figurative improper mentall Sacrifice in as much as the meritorious sanctity thereof did not consist in the act done but in the innocence patience and excellence of the party suffering We cannot more properly call the death of Christ a Sacrifice then we may the Crosse the Altar or God the Priest and we cannot properly say that God did sacrifice to himselfe upon an Altar of that forme and matter It is a very lame inference therefore that Sacrifice must now be to commemorate Christs Passion past because it was prefigured by Sacrifice being yet to come and because it was it selfe a proper Sacrifice in the act Doctor Heylin sayes once that Christ did not deprive us of all manner of Sacrifices but onely those which had beene before which might if continued have beene a strong presumption of his not comming in the flesh This seemes a weake reason for if our Saviours Passion were a proper Sacrifice it was a bloody one and if there be the same reason of representing it past as there was future by Sacrifice then bloody Sacrifices are no lesse proper now to represent it then they were before and if so why were former Sacrifices abolished at all Surely the best reason why Jewish Sacrifices were abolished is because those services were but shadowes of that body which in our Sacrament is really presented and exhibited If we doe acknowledge that the body of our Saviour is otherwise present in our Sacrament then it was in the Jewish Types we must acknowledge that the shadowes of that body are the lesse needfull for gianting that Jewish Sacrifices and ours differ not in nature but in circumstance as their signifie a thing future ours past I doe not see but that our Sacrament is as meere a shadow as their Sacrifice was and that beasts now slaine might as well commemorate our Saviours death past as they did prefigure it to come The Doctor sayes that the Jewish Sacrifices were bloody ours not that the Jewish Priests were from Aaron ours from Melchisedeck and these he puts as substantiall differences tomake our Sacrament no Jewish Sacrifice But these differences are not sufficient for his purpose because we know that all Jewish Sacrifices were not bloody nor does the order of Melchisedeck hinder from bloody Sacrifices for if Melchisedeck did sacrifice as it is most probable that he did it is as probable that his Sacrifices were not all unbloody So then his other difference also is as fond when he sayes that our Altars are for Evangelicall not Mosaicall offerings in as much as betwixt Evangelicall and Mosaicall offerings he has not yet proved any other difference but nominall or circumstantiall onely of the like reason and weight are the rest of the Doctors inferences for as he has proved yet no true proper Sacrifice so much lesse has hee proved any necessity of either Priest or Altar in a downe-right sense We may grant Sacrifice yet deny both Priest and Altar for we read that the Passeover was called the Lords Sacrifice yet we know it was not killed only by Priests nor eaten upon an Altar though it was the most honourable of Jewish Sacrifices and most neerely relating to the Passion of Christ So also the Passion it selfe of Christ if it was a proper Sacrifice yet it was offered up upon a woodden Crosse not a stone Altar and the Sacrificer thereof was not a Priest wherefore we see plainely that all the Doctors allegations hitherto are frivolous and altogether insufficient We come now from the Old to the New Testament and here Doctor Pocklington and Master Meade lay hold of these words of our Saviour Leave thy gift at the Altar and g●e and reconcile thy selfe to thy brother c. These words were spoken by our Saviour whilst the Altar was in use and before the Communion was instituted and may more properly be interpreted of such an Altar as men did repaire to with gifts and offerings then to our Tables where we come rather to receive then give yet our Divines now cite them to patronise the word Altar It would little advance the reality of Altars that they had beene so named once by our Saviour but here so much as the name used is not cleerely proved Doctor Heylin for his next evidence cites 1 Cor. 11. Doe this in remembrance of me c. As often as yee eate this bread and drinke this cup yee shew forth the Lords death till be come Here is sayes Doctor Heylin a Sacrifice whose nature is commemorative here is in this Sacrifice an Hoe facite for Priests different from the Hoc edite