Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	apostle_n	sin_n	word_n	4,593	5	4.4164	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07472	A pill to purge out poperie: or, A catechisme for Romish Catholikes shewing that popery is contrarie to the grounds of the Catholike religion, and that therefore papists cannot be good Catholikes.	Mico, John.	1623 (1623)	STC 17858; ESTC S121915	31,742	49

how the Papists do place others in his roome Now shew me also why he is called Christ what that title signifieth M. Christ signifieth Anointed which title setteth forth his office namely that he is our only true Prophet Priest King C. Doe they teach any thing contrary hereunto M. They doe euen deny this Office of his and so consequently deny the fruits of his comming in the flesh 1. Iob. 4.3 C. Shew me wherein they deny his Office M. Christ is a Prophet to teach his Church and to reueale the will of God vnto vs to whom all are to hearken Mat. 17.5 Ioh. 10.27 Act. 3.22 23. And this hee hath perfectly done in the Scriptures They preferre their owne blinde traditions before the Scriptures they lay aside the Scriptures accounting and calling them dumbe Iudges A nose of Waxe The blacke Gospell Inken diuinitie c. Piggius Contr. 3. de Eccl. Hierarch lib. 3. cap. 3. A certaine popish Doctor reasoning with M. Tindal was not ashamed to say that we were better to be without Gods Law then the Popes They likewise set vp Images to be Lay-mens bookes and so in all this they deny by consequence his Propheticall office Christ is also a Priest and that for euer after the order of Melchsedech Heb. 7.24 And in this his office he hath none to succeede him The● acknowledge not this but maintaine still an outward an● corporall Priesthood to offer vp an outward sacrifice eue● Christ himselfe Rhem. on Heb. chap. 7.7 Sect. 7.8 C. If this were true why then the Priest were become a Mediator betweene God and Christ the which is most absurd to thinke that any creature should be such a one M. It is indeed most absurd and yet in the very Canon of the Masse they intimate thus much when they request God to accept their gifts and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the sacrifices of Abel and Noah And which is more absurd than this yea blasphemy for any to affirme they by their former doctrine doe make the Priest to be more worthy in some respect then Christ for the person that doth offer a sacrifice is of more worth honour then the thing which he offereth but the Priest as they say offereth vp Christ to God his Father therefore the Priest that offereth him is of more worth and honour then Christ whom he offereth As Christ is a Priest so he alone and that but once for all offered himselfe and by his one offering once offered hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for all our sinnes so that now there remaineth no more offering for sinnes Heb. 9.12 14 26 10 14 18. They teach that in the Masse there is dayly a sacrifice offered for the sinnes both of the quick and the dead and so they make Christs sacrifice not to bee the perfect and onely sacrifice of the New Testament but set vp another in stead thereof C. They say that their sacrifice is not a new sacrifice or another from Christs but that it is the same M. The Author to the Hebrewes teacheth that Christs sacrifice neither may nor ought to bee reiterated repeated for as it is but one so it was but once offered And this word Once he vseth fiue seuerall times Heb. 7.27 9 12 26 28 30. C. They say that Christ indeed was offered but once after a bloudy manner but he is often offered after an vnbloudy manner M. This distinction of theirs hath no warrant out of Gods Word nay rather it is directly against the Word for Heb. 9. ●2 it is said Almost all things are by the Law purged with bloud and without shedding of bloud is no remission From whence we may thus reason Without shedding of bloud is no remission but in the Masse is no shedding of bloud therefore no remission And therefore it is no sacrifice for sinne C. Though this their distinction bee not to bee found in the Scriptures yet it is in the writings of the Fathers M. The Fathers indeed make mention of vnbloudy Sacrifices but they hereby vnderstand not outward and bodily Sacrifices for sinne but the Spiritual Sacrifices of Christians and they so call them in comparing them with the bloudy sacrifices of the Law with Christs bloudy sacrifice C. The Papists doe not say that the sacrifice of the Masse is an expiatorie but an applicatorie sacrifice that is it serues not properly to make any satisfaction to God but rather to apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ already made M. Their doctrine is that it is a sacrifice propitiatory that is auaileable to obtaine ex opere operato by the very work wrought remission pardon of all their sinnes yea that it is auailable to obtaine all other benefits as peace health and such like Concil Trid. Sess 22. Can. 3. Bellar. lib. 1. de Miss cap. 25. lib. 2. cap. 3. But let it be as you say that they account it but an applicatory sacrifice yet this maketh nothing for them The Sacrifices of the Law did serue to apply the vertue of Christs Crosse and yet the Apostle excludeth them by this reason that where there is remission of sinnes there is no more Sacrifice Heb. 10.18 Wherefore if the Apostles reason be good it concludeth also against their Sacrifice applicatory Againe the Apostle teacheth that therefore the Sacrifices of the Law are abolished by the death of Christ because they were but shadowes of good things to come and could not make the offerers perfect c. Heb. 10.1 2 3. And therefore this kinde of applying sacrifice which they faine themselues hath ceased We need not now a Sacrifice for the application of Christs death for Christ to that end hath appointed the preaching of the Word and hath instituted Sacraments whereby his death with all the benefits thereof are most fruitfully applied vnto vs Gal. 3.1 1. Cor. 11.26 Againe this their applying sacrifice is against the nature of a Sacrament in which God giues Christ vnto vs whereas in a sacrifice God receiues from man and man giues something to God C. The ancient Fathers vsed to call the Supper of the Lord a Sacrifice it should seeme therefore that there is some sacrifice offered therein to God M. It is true that they called it so not that Christ is therein offered a Sacrifice to God but in other respects First because that therein there was an offering and giuing of almes bread wine c. which are a Spirituall Sacrifice Secondly they called the Sacrament a Sacrifice not properly but figuratiuely because there was therein a representation of that Sacrifice which was offered vpon the Crosse and because it is a commemoration of Christs body which he offered for vs and of his bloud which he shed for vs. Thirdly It is called a sacrifice because it is an application of the Sacrifice offered vpon the Crosse vnto our selues Fourthly It is so called because of the sacrifice of prayers thanksgiuings and because in the Lords

determined as a publike Law in the Councell of Constance about the yeere 1114. Perk. 2. Vol. 554.2 b. Secondly they reserue the Bread in boxes pixes other vessels of the Church for dayes weekes and moneths They shew it to the people the Priest lifting it ouer his head an● going with it in procession All this is contrary to the Sacrament for it is no Sacrament vnlesse there be a giuing receiuing eating and drinking M. Attersoll on the Sacraments 386 387. The reseruation of the Sacrament was not allowed of but rather found fault withall by the Fathers Perk. 2. vol. 557. Thirdly they adore fall downe and honour the Sacrament with diuine worship calling it their Lord and God A thing neuer heard of among the heathen Idolaters namely to worship a piece of bread or rather a thin Wafer The adoration in the Sacrament belongeth vnto Christ sitting in heauen and is an inward worship of the heart or lifting vp of the minde being stirred vp with the outward signes Pope Honorius the third in the yeere 1220. was the first that euer instituted the adoration of the Sacrament And after him Vrban the fourth ordained a feast in honour of the body of Christ Perk. 2. Vol. 564. Attersoll on the Sacraments 388 389. Fourthly they turne the Sacrament into a sacrifice for the quick the dead abolishing the fruit remembrance of the death of Christ disannulling his Priesthood giuing him to his Father whereas the Father hath giuen him to vs c. ibid. page 390. Fiftly they maintaine Transubstantiation These are their very words If any man shall say that there remaineth the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament after the words of consecration or shal deny that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is changed and conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ the formes and shewes onely of Bread and Wine remaining which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth Transubstantiation let him be accursed Con. Trid. Sess 13. Can. 2. This their doctrine of Transubstantiation is a very fable to mock fooles withall and it ouerturneth both the nature and vse of the Sacrament Attersoll on the Sacraments page 45. 46. page 365. to 369. If there were a miraculous conuersion as they say there is of the Bread and Wine it would appeare to the outward senses For al true miracles are wrought openly cleerely euidently to mens senses Ioh. 6.26 But the Bread and Wine by the iudgement of all the senses remaineth and appeareth to be the same in substance which it was before of the same quality quantitie colour taste handling smelling vertue and nourishment there is not any one sense or all the senses together that can iudge otherwise of it then it did before If a man should bee called in when the Bread and Wine is set on the Table and bidden to consider well what he there seeth smelleth tasteth and then is willed to goe forth and to come in againe after the Consecration is ended by the Priest and to do the like and then is asked what he thinketh of it he no doubt will answere vnlesse feare of persecution make him to conceale the truth I see feele smell and taste the same wafer-cake and wine that I did before I can perceiue no naturall and substantiall change therein And therefore it followeth that there is no miracle wrought and consequently no transubstantiation at all The difference that is is in the end vse onely Before consecration it was common bread and wine ordained for the nourishing of our bodies After consecration it becommeth holy Bread and Wine sanctified by the Lord not so much to feede the body as the soule C. Did not the ancient Fathers hold this doctrine of Transubstantiation M. They knew nothing hereof for at least 800. yeeres after Christ Afterwards begun the disputations of Transubstantiation but not approued as an Article of faith The Church for a whole thousand yeeres taught no other then spirituall receiuing of Christ In the yeere 1215. Transubstantiation was decreed and determined in the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocent the Third and made a maine matter of faith Perk. 2. vol. 558 559. C. What say you then of their Transubstantiated or consecrated host as it is called or the bread in the boxe carried in processi●n worshipped M. Surely it is nothing else but a wheaten or breaden god or rather an Idol nothing inferiour to Aarons Calfe or Ierohoams Calues or the Nehustan and piece of brasse that Ezechias brake in pieces nay as vile and detestable as an Idoll among the Heathen And for a conclusion of their doctrine of Transubstantiation I will heere set downe a wittie conceit which one shewed me not long since I haue kept the matter but changed the meeter to make it sound somewhat the sweeter The Priests doe make Christs body and bloud Hereof none must once doubt They eate they drinke they box him vp They beare him all about DIALOGVE 7. C. I am satisfied touching the first point namely that the Papists are not of sound faith but how doe you proue that they are not of good life seeing they doe so many good workes M. I proue it thus Where the Doctrine is corrupt the life cannot be good but their doctrine as you haue heard is most corrupt therefore their life cannot bee good A true faith is the ground of a good life and without which it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 yea whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14.23 A true faith they haue not and therefore their workes cannot be good and such as may please God That they haue not a true and sound faith hath bin shewed in many particulars and it further appeareth also in this that they do euen wilfully reiect the meanes whereby it is wrought namely the preaching hearing and reading the Word of God They haue not neither will they haue the Scriptures to be soundly preached read and heard in their owne tongue That they cannot abide to haue them in their owne language appeareth by this one example One Pauier a Towne-Clarke of London in the time of King Henry the Eighth hearing that the Scriptures should be put into English he spake to this effect and confirmed it with an oath viz. that if he knew that the Scriptures should bee put into English and that the King would haue them to be read in the Church rather then he would l●ue so long to see it he ●ould cut his owne throat But as Hall saith who heard him speake it he was not so good as his word for instead of cutting his throat he hanged himselfe C. What is the cause that they cannot abide to haue the Scriptures in their owne language M. S. John giues the reason For euery one that doth euill hateth the light neither cōmeth to it left his deeds should be reproued discouered Ioh. 3.20 If the Owle flieth abroad by day the birds by by discerne him