Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	appear_v	life_n	sin_n	4,010	5	4.7063	4	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

his former mariage condemned by such a world of witnesses so grounding their iudgements vpon the blessed word of God as was sufficient to settle any mans conscience proceeded the 14. of Nouember in the 24. yeere of his reigne to marrie the Lady Anne Bullen who the seuenth of September following brought forth the Ladie ELIZABETH the Ioy of England the Starre of Europe and the Phoenix of the world a Glasse of Gods prouidence and the Mirrour of his mercie When the Royall infant was yet in her mothers wombe Pope Clement the seuenth the base borne sonne of Iulianus Medices the Florentine fauouring the Lady Katharine Dowager sought by all meanes to dissolue the lawfull mariage of Queene Anne and to make her issue vncapable of the crowne For which purpose being inraged like a Dragon hee disgorged his poyson and spit fiery flames against the king the Queene the Realme the blessed babe before she was borne But death closed vp his eyes with darkenesse while the yong Lady beganne to behold the light of heauen arysing like a luckie starre in the middest of a storme shining to the Church of God with tokens of ioy and deliuerance but to the Pope and his adherents like a blazing or fatall Comet portending the ouerthrow of Antichrist Which in part came to passe about a yeere after that the yong Lady was borne For whereas the Bishop of Rome like the daw in Aesop had decked and adorned himselfe with the faire feathers of other birds and ietted vp and downe with pride and disdaine tyrannizing ouer all the foules that flie in the midle of heauen King Henry the eight the Eagle of England plucked his owne feather out of the Popes wing and resumed to himselfe the rich plume of the Princes supremacy that is the lawful authoritie which God had giuen him Then Paul the third flashed out his excomunications like lightnings and interdicted the kingdome hoping thereby to reduce it to his obedience or at least to disable the yong Lady for the succession of the crowne Yet after a while the angrie old man withered away but the yong Lady did grow vp like the lilly and flourished like the Rose plant of Prouince Now though for extirpating the Popes iurisdiction this renowned King had the honour before and aboue all Christian Princes yet the glorie of abolishing Popish religion was by diuine prouidence reserued to his blessed children Edward and Elizabeth They pulled vp superstition by the very roots whereas their father for God reuealed his truth by degrees did onely hew at a few branches Hitherto of the Popes expulsion NOw for as much as Archbishop Cranmer was a principall meanes thereof the Papists did hate him worse then a scorpion heaping vpon him whatsoeuer wit sharpened with malice could possibly deuise Hee resorted sometimes to the Dolphin in Cambridge where hee placed his wife the mistresse of the house being her cousin therupon they blazed abroad that he was an Hostler and vnlearned He kept his wife secret for feare of the law they reported that she was caried vp and downe in a Chest and that at Graues end the wrong end of the Chest was set vpward And surely King Henry did foresee that one day if they might preuaile they would haue his blood and burne him at a stake Therefore whereas hee gaue the three Cranes the ancient armes of his house the King caused him to change them into three Pelicanes presaging that he should feed the flock of Christ with his deerest blood and dye a Martyr which came to passe in the dayes of Queene Mary when they disgorged all their poisoned malice vpon him They disrobed him of his Episcopall ornaments and put him into a lay mans gowne they cited him to appeare at Rome within eightie dayes and put him to death before twentie of them were expired They caused Alphonso the Spanish Fryer to draw him to a recantation by sweet promises of life yet they had a setled purpose to put him to death They had no intention by Alphonso to do him good but sought a colour by his recantation to iustifie themselues so they clapped their hands and reioyced at his fall But as hee sinned and denyed his Master with Peter so God gaue him grace to repent with Peter And as he lamented all his sinnes so especially he bewailed his subscribing to Popery with his vnworthy right hand Wherefore when he came to the fire for a godly reuenge hee thrust it like another Scaeuola into the flame and did not so much as draw backe his arme till it was wholly consumed thus lifting vp his eyes to heauen in the middest of the furious flames hee said Lord Iesus receiue my spirit and so gaue vp the Ghost When his bodie and the wood were consumed to ashes behold his heart was found whole and perfect as hauing escaped the force of the fire concerning which these verses were written by a learned man Ecce inuicta fides cor inuiolabile seruat Nec medijs flammis corda perire sinit Cranmer amid the fiery flames thy heart vnscorcht was found For why behold vndaunted faith preseru'd it safe and sound CHAP. VIII Whether to renounce the Pope be Schisme and Heresie PHIL. WEll though you and your crew commend Cranmer yet I will proue in spite of all Hereticks that when he reuolted from the Pope both he and all his consorts became notorious Schismaticks ORTHOD. Then you will proue in spite of all Hereticks that Stephen Gardener was a Schismaticke Edmund Bonner a schismatick Cutbert Tunstall a schismaticke Nicholas Heath a schismaticke Iohn Stokesly a schismaticke and in a word that all the Bishops of your Catholicke Church which were in England after the banishing of the Pope till the end of the raigne of King Henry by the space of 12. yeeres were notorious schismatickes For they all reuolted from the Pope Iohn Fisher Bishop of Rochester onely excepted who was then lately made Cardinall but lost his head before his Hat came ouer What will you proue that there were so many schismaticks at once in your Catholicke Church PHIL. They were not then of the Catholicke Church for that worthy Bishop of Winchester Stephen Gardener affirmed That when K Henry did first take vpon him to be head of the Church it was then no Church at all And Doct. Sanders saith That Bishops were made in Schismate Henriciano extra vel potiùs contra Ecclesiam 1. in the schisme of Henry the 8. without the Church or rather against it ORTHOD. Pope Nicholas defineth the Catholicke Church to be a congregation of Catholicks PHIL. When they renounced the Pope they were no Catholicks ORTHOD. They were Masse-priests and professed that faith which you call Catholicke Why then should you deny them the name of Catholicks PHIL. Because they did not professe it vnder the Bishop of Rome from whose communion whosoeuer renteth himselfe is a schismaticke

is no remission of sinne properly except onely by grace but to giue grace proceedeth from an infinite power whereof man is not capable and therefore no man can forgiue sins properly And if you be not yet perswaded how generally this is receiued I will let you see it by the words of Suarez the Iesuite Fuit grauium doctorum opinio per ●anc potestatem non posse remitti peccatorum culpas sed solum declarari remissas remitti paenas in hoc vltimo est quaedam diuer sitas Nam quidam dixerunt hanc potestatem solùm esse ad ●●●●ttendam paenam temporalem alij vero ad aeternam i. It was the opinion of graue Doctours that by this power the sinners offences are not remitted but onely declared to be remitted and that the punishments are remitted and in this last point there is some diuersitie for some said that this power is onely for the remission of temporall punishment others for eternall And he saith that the former opinion is maintained by the master Altisiodorensis Alex. de Hales Bonauenture Gabriel Maior Thomas de Argent Occam Abulensis and others MOreouer Bonauenture writing of the miracles which were done by the intercession of Saint Francis after his death telleth of a certaine woman which when she was ready to be put into the graue was by vertue of his prayers restored from death to life to that end shee might reueale in confession a certaine sinne which she neuer had confessed before Which Bellarmine relateth as an argument to prooue that auricular confession is approued by God himselfe If you beleeue this lying Legend that the woman was shriuen after her death then you may like wise beleeue that the Priest absolued her For by what reason could he denie her absolution if God raised her by miracle to make confession Now I would demaund whether this woman dyed in the state of damnation or saluation if in state of damnation then the priest could neither iustifie her nor declare her to be iustified because they which die in their sinnes shall perish in their sinnes but if she dyed in the state of saluation and yet was raised by miracle to confesse some sinne for the clearing of others or for some other reason we know not then the Priest did not properly forgiue her sinnes but onely pronounce that they were forgiuen I will close vp this point with a memorable saying of Ferus vpon these wordes Whose sinnes you forgiue c. Non quod homo propriè remittit peccatum sed quod ostendat ac certificet a deo remissum neque enim aliud est absolutio quam ab homine accipis quam si dicat En fi lt certifico te tibi remissa esse peccata annuncio tibi te habere propitium deum quaecunque Christus in Baptismo Euangelio nobis promisit tibi nunc per me annunciat promittit i. Not that man doth properly forgiue sinne but that he sheweth and certifieth that it is forgiuen of God for the absolution which thou receiuest from man is nothing else then if hee should say Behold my son I certifie thee that thy sins are forgiuen I declare vnto thee that thou hast God fauourable and what thing soeuer Christ hath promised vs in baptisme and in the Gospel he now declareth and promiseth to thee by me WHerefore seing we haue in our ordination these words receiue the holy Ghost and take them in the true sence according to the Scripture the consciences of our aduersaries bearing vs witnesse we conclude that the Church of England hath such an absolution as Christ hath left vnto his spouse consisting in the publike and priuate vse of the word and Sacraments CHAP. X. An answere to the arguments of Bellarmine by which he goeth about to prooue absolution to be iudiciall and not declaratory PHIL. THat Christ gaue vnto his Church a true iudiciall power to absolue with authority and consequently that Priests are not onely as heraulds to proclaime and declare but also as iudges in the Court of conscience truely and really to forgiue sinnes Cardinall Bellarmine hath proued by seuen arguments fiue wherof are collected out of the Scripture the sixt is drawne from the authoritie of the Fathers and the seuenth from reason all which I will prosecute in order The first is collected from the Metaphor of the keyes of which it is said I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen For a key vseth not to be made or giuen to signifie that the doore is open or shut but to open and shut it indeed Now that which was promised by the keyes was performed in that place of Iohn and therefore here he gaue them power not onely to declare vnto men that their sinnes are forgiuen but also to forgiue them indeed ORTHOD. As Adam for his sinne was shut out of Paradise so all his posterity proceeding from him by carnall generation considered in their naturall corruption are shut and locked out of heauen into which no vncleane thing can enter For as the Prophet saith Your iniquities haue made a separation betweene you and your God Neither is there any hope of saluation vnlesse the kingdome of heauen bee vnlocked againe But what is the key to open this locke There is a threefold key the first of authoritie the second of excellency and the third of Ministery The key of authoritie belongeth onely to God For seeing euery sinne is a transgression of Diuine law he only hath soueraigne authoritie to remit it against whom it is committed and when he doth remit it then he setteth open the gates of heauen The key of excellency belongeth onely to Christ God and man who by his most soueraigne sacrifice hath made satis faction to God the Father purchased an eternall redemption for vs and meritoriously opened the kingdome of heauen to all beleeuers The key of Ministery was giuen to the Apostles aud their successours to whom was committed the Ministery of reconciliation Which is well expressed by S. Ambrose saying Homines in remissionem peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent non ius alicuius potestatis exercent neque enim in suo sed in patris filij spiritus sanctinomine peccata dimittunt isti rogant diuinitas donat humanum enim obsequium sed munificentia supernae est potestatis i. Men doe performe a seruice or Ministery for the forgiuenesse of sinnes but they doe not exercise the authoritie of any power for they doe not forgiue sins in their owne name but in the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost They make request the dietie bestoweth the gift An office or seruice is performed by man but the bountiful gift is from supernal power This supernall power is the key of authoritie this humane office is the key of Ministery For as a key is made and giuen to open the doore indeed So God gaue the key

Salomon may rightly be called Prophets PHIL. I say that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as a king but as a Prophet and executer of diuine iustice ORTHOD. As though the King as a King were not an executer of diuine iustice yes Philodox it is the King as King which beareth not the sword in vaine it is the king as king which is The minister of God and a r●uenger of wrath to him that doth euill therefore the King as King is the executer of diuine iustice And so when you say not as a king but as an executer of diuine iustice you put those things asunder which the Lord hath put together againe when you say that hee did it As a Prophet and an executer of diuine iustice you put those things together which the Lord hath put a sunder for a Prophet as a Prophet is the mouth of the Lord the executer of diuine iustice is not the mouth but the hand of the Lord the hand and the mouth must be distinguished PHIL. I will proue that Salomon did it as a Prophet For in the same place it is sayd that Salomon put out Abiathar that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo ORTHOD. Doe you thinke that such like speeches import the finall cause and the intents of the Agents The souldiours seeing the coate of Christ to be without seame wouen from the top throughout said one to another Let vs not diuide it but cast lots for it whose it shal be that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which saith they parted my garments among them and on my coate did they cast lots doe you imagine that the soldiours had any intent hereby to fulfill the Scripture Euen iust as much as Iudas had when hee sold his master for thirty peeces of siluer or Herod when hee slue the infants or the Iewes when they gaue him vineger to drinke They had no purpose in so doing to fulfill the Scripture yet God so disposed that by their action the Scripture was fulfilled Likewise your owne Bishop Tostatus may teach you that in this place the particle vt doth not signifie the finall cause but the consecution But what if Salomon had done it to that very end and purpose that the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli might be fulfilled would this prooue that he did it as a Prophet Iehu when he had slaine Iehoram said to Bidkar a Captaine Take him and cast him in some place of the field of Naboth the Iezrelite for I remember that when ● and thou rode together after Ahab his father the Lord laide this burthen vpon him surely I haue seene yesterday the bloud of Naboth and the bloud of his sonnes sayd the Lord and I will render it thee in this field saith the Lord now therefore take and cast him into the field according to the word of the Lord The casting of him into the field was not onely a fulfilling of the prophesie but it was also commaunded to bee done euen directly to that end that the prophesie might bee fulfilled yet I thinke you will not say that Iehu was a Prophet so farre are you from prouing that Salomon did it as a Prophet PHIL. Either as a King or as a Prophet not as a King and therefore as a Prophet ORTHOD. NOt as a King why so the Lord had promised that Salomon should sit vpon the Throne of Dauid his father so Salomon was heire apparant to the crowne by Gods owne appointment yet for all this Adonias exalted himselfe and sayd I wil be king and Ioab and Abiathar helped him forward they said God saue King Adonias Whereupon all three were guilty of high treason against the king and all three were punished by the king PHIL. True by the king but not by kingly power ORTHO Yes by kingly power the king did it as a king And to beginne with Adonias the king granted him a conditionall pardon that If hee shewed himselfe a worthy man there should not a haire of him fall to the earth but if wickednesse were found in him hee should die and therefore when hee desired Abisha to wife the wisdome of the King reaching into the profoundnesse of the policie did interpret it as a meanes of aspiring to the kingdome So King Salomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada and hee smote him that hee died Who did this the spirit of God saith that King Salomon did it so it is ascribed to the King yea it is cleare that the King did it as a King for who could pardon treason but a King as a King Or who should draw the sword of iustice against malefactors but he that beareth not the sword in vaine that is the King by the power and authoritie of a King Concerning Ioab it was tolde Salomon that he was fled to the Tabernacle of the Lord and Benaiah sayd thus saith the King come out and hee sayd nay but I will die here and Benaiah brought the King word againe and the King said doe as hee hath said and smite him in all which there was nothing but the execution of iustice which belongeth to a King as a King Now to come to Abiathar his offence against the King was the same and the Scripture ascribeth the punishment in the same tenour of wordes vnto the king Then the King said vnto Abiathar the Priest euen the king who in the former verse commaunded Adonias to bee slaine that is the King as a King which may appeare further by that which hee said Goe to Anathoth to thy owne fields in which words hee confineth him which is the action of a King And againe thou art worthy of death but I will not this day kill thee because thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before Dauid my Father and because thou hast suffered in all things wherein my Father hath beene afflicted In which wordes hee granteth life to one that had deserued death and who could doe this but a King So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being high Priest vnto the Lord Where wee see death changed into depriuation All which doe argue the power of a King yea it is said that the King put Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada in the roume of Ioab ouer the hoast which vndoubtedly belonged vnto the King as hee was King and it followeth immediately in the same verse and the King set Sadok the Priest in the roume of Abiathar Thus you see that the whole course of Scripture ascribeth it to the King as a King and why should you thinke otherwise PHIL. BEcause in the old Testament the Leuites were free by the law of God from the power of secular Princes For in the third of Numbers God doth not once but often repeate that the Leuites are properly his owne and that he hath chosen them

Christian Princes that they should be nursing fathers of the Church therfore it must bee a part of their Princely care to prouide such nurses as shall feede it with the milke of the Gospel Thirdly in the new Testament Concerning the election of pastours we find neither precept nor any such example as can bee vrged for an euerlasting and vnchangeable rule And if wee look into the practise of the Church it will appeare that it hath bene disposed of in diuers ages in diuers maners according to diuers customes and positiue lawes of Princes growing out of the diuersitie of circumstances and occasions Wherefore it seemeth that the Lord hath left it as a thing indifferent to the discretion of the Church whereof the Christian Prince is not onely a part but Supreame gouernour vnder Christ in which respect though hee were not Patron he hath a transcendent and supereminent power so that the Soueraigne direction and moderation of the matter belongeth vnto him Which was acknowledged to be the kings right euen in the time of Popery as may appeare by the practise for after the death of any incumbent of any Church with cure if the Patron presented not within sixe monethes the Bishop of that Diocesse might bestow it to the end the cure should not bee destitute of a pastour if he neglected the time appointed the Metropolitane of that Diocesse might aduāce one to that Church if he also should leaue the Church destitute by the space limitted vnto him then it belonged to the king and not to the Bishop of Rome to prouide a competent pastour for that Church Thus it is euident that though Churches had Patrons to prouide Pastours for them according to the kings Lawes and Bishops and Archbishops to see it sufficiently done yet in case of neglect the care of it was deuolued to the King as being Supreme gouernour euen in these cases within his own Dominiōs If you say that this was by the grant of the Pope the contrary is manifest because in the 25. of Edward the 3. in the noble statute of prouisours the Bishop of Rome is said to vsurpe the Seignories of such possessions and benefices Wherefore the Lawes of the land and the ancient custome of the Kingdome concurring with the generall practise of Princes receiued with the applause of the whole Christian world doe sufficiently proclaime the right of our Princes in this behalfe especially seeing as K William Rufus truly said The king of England hath all the liberties in his Kingdome which the Emperour challenged in the Empire Hitherto of the right of Princes as they are Princes Now of their right as they are Patrons IN Patronages we may consider two things The causes and the effects The causes originally inducing the Church of God to approoue them were three First because Princes and Lords of the soile out of their deuotion and charitable bounty gaue some of their owne ground for the situation of Churches and the habitation of Ministers resigning their owne right into the hands of the Bishop of the Diocesse and so dedicating it euerlastingly to the Lord. Secondly because vpon that ground they built Churches for holy meetings and dwelling places for the messengers of the Lord. Thirdly because they allowed maintenance both for the Church and the Minister as is expressed in this verse Patronum faciunt dos edificatio fundus The effects of Patronage are three Honos Onus and Vtilitas The first is Honos honour of nominating and presenting a fit Clerke the honour of precedency in sitting in his owne Church and in some places to great personages the honour of Procession For example to the Duke of Venice in the Church of S. Marke The second is Onus a burden for in being a Patron hee vndertaketh the Protection of that Church The third is Vtilitas profit for if he or his children fall into pouerty they must be releeued out of the reuenues of the same Church An example whereof happened in a noble citizen of Perusia These prerogatiues of Patrons were all anciently approoued both by Ciuill and Canon Law But to passe ouer the rest I will onely single out the prerogatiue of presenting In the 9. Councell of Toledo holden in the yeere 655. it was decreed as followeth As long as the founders of Churches remaine aliue they shall bee suffered to haue the chiefe care in those places and they shall offer fit Rectours vnto the Bishop to be ordained in the same Churches And if the Bishop while the Founder liueth shall despise them and presume to ordaine Rectours in the same place Let him know that his Ordination shall be voide and to his shame others shall be ordained whom the Founders shall chuse And before that in the yeere 541. Iustinian made this Constitution That if any man will build an house of prayer and hee or his heires will haue Clerkes to be promoted therein if they allow maintenance for those Clerkes and name such as are worthy let those which are named be ordained Now to apply this to our present purpose It is a cleare case that all the Bishopricks in England were founded by the Kings Ancestours And therefore the Aduousons of them all belong to the King And it is cleare by the Lawes of the land That our Kings haue had and ought to haue the custodie of the same in the Vacancy and the presentments and collations of those Prelacies as Lords and Aduowes of all the lands and possessions that belong either to Cathedrall Churches or Bishops Vpon all these premises this conclusion followeth that this right we speake of belongeth to our Princes as Patrons by Ciuil Canon and the common Lawes of the land To these two former respects we may adde a third drawne from this consideration that our Bishops by the fauour of Princes are Spiritual Lords and Barons in Parliament and therefore it were very hard if men of so great power and place should be obtruded vpon the Prince without his consent Hitherto of the lawfull right of Princes ANd as they haue the collation of Bishopricks most lawfully so they conferre them most fitly most freely and most safely Most fitly because they haue largest scope to choose best meanes to discerne greatest power to procure and assist such as are most eminent for learning and vertue Most freely because they are farther from suspition of corruption then either people or Prelate For to vse the words of a reuerend Bishop Howsoeuer ambitious heads and couetous hands may lincke together vnder colour of commendation to deceiue and abuse Princes eares yet reason and duetie bindeth mee and all others to thinke and say that Princes persons are of all others farthest from taking money for any such respects In meaner persons more iustly may corruption be feared then in Princes who of all others haue least need and so least cause to set Churches to sale Their abundance their magnificence their

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

not onely required to remission of sinnes the Preaching of the Gospell but also baptisme and penance As it is written Doe penance and be euery one of you baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes ORTHOD. When wee say that the Minister forgiueth sinnes by preaching wee doe not exclude the Sacraments but include them As when wee referre a pardon to the Kings letters patents wee doe not exclude the seale but meane the letters patents with the seale annexed For as the Apostle saith to vs is committed the ministerie of reconciliation Which is not a ministerie of the word onely but without all controuersie of the Sacraments also Therefore Christ in giuing vs authoritie to forgiue sinnes hath withall giuen vs authoritie to vse the meanes thereof that is the ministery of the word and Sacraments and because wee apply these meanes whereby God forgiueth sinnes therefore we are said to forgiue sinnes This is well expressed by Ferus one of your own Fryers saying Quamuis Dei propriū opus sit remittere peccata dicuntur tamen etiam Apostoli remittere non simpliciter sed quia adhibent media per quae Deus remittit peccata haec autem media sunt verbum Dei Sacramenta i. although it be the proper worke of God to forgiue sinnes yet notwithstanding the Apostles are saide to forgiue sinnes not simply but because they vse the meanes by the which God doth forgiue sinnes and these meanes are the word of God and the Sacraments Moreouer it is a cleare case that to this remission there is required faith and repentance after which followeth ministeriall absolution by preaching and applying publickly and priuately the sweete promises of grace to the penitent beleeuer and sealing them by the Sacraments to the soule and conscience This absolution in the court of conscience is agreeable to the Scripture and is not onely practised in the Church of England by Sermons and Sacraments but also solemnly proclaimed in our liturgy and applied both publickly in open penance and priuately in the visitation of the sicke as also to particular penitents whose wounded consciences require the same PHIL. The Councell of Trent pronounceth a curse vpon such as wrest the words of Christ to the authoritie of preaching the Gospell ORTHOD. To apply them to preaching in such sence as hath beene declared is no wresting but the true meaning of the Scripture as you heard out of Saint Paul and therefore in cursing vs they curse Saint Paul wherefore I will say with the Prophet they doe curse but thou o Lord doest blesse But for your better satisfaction in this point you shal heare the iudgement of sundry principall men in your owne Church expounding this absolution in court of conscience as wee doe The maister of the sentences hauing long sifted this point to and fro at last groweth to this resolution In hac tanta varietate quid ●●nendum hoc san● c. In this great varietie what should we hold truely 〈◊〉 may say and thinke this That God onely forgiueth and retaineth sinnes and yet he hath giuen the power of binding and loosing vnto the Church but he bindeth and loo●●th one way the Church another For he forgiueth sin by himselfe alone who both cleanseth the soule from inward blot and looseth it from th● debt of eternall death but he hath not granted this vnto the Priest to whom notwithstanding he hath giuen potestatem soluendi ligandi i. Ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos i. the power of binding and loosing that is of declaring men to be bound or loosed Wherupon the Lord did first by himselfe restore health vnto the leper and then he sent him to the Priestes quorum iudicio ostenderetur mundatus i. by whose iudgement he might be declared to be cleansed so likewise when he had restored Lazarus to life againe he offered him to his Disciples that they might vnbind him And this he prooueth by a place of Ierome which he onely pointeth at but we will set it downe more largely In Leuitico c In the booke of Leuiticus we read of the lepers where they are commanded to shew themselues to the Priests and if they shall haue the leprosie that then they shall bee made vncleane by the Priestes not that the Priestes should make them lepers and vncleane but that they should haue the knowledge of the leprous and not leprous and that they may discerne who is cleane or vncleane Therefore as there the Priests doe make the lepers cleane or vncleane so here the Bishop or Priest doth bind and loose c. Hitherto Saint Ierome Now the master hauing said that in remitting or retaining sins the Euangelicall Priests haue that authoritie and office which in olde times the legall Priests had vnder the law in curing of lepers addeth these words Hi ergo peccata dimittunt vel retinent dum dimissa a Deo vel retenta indicant ostendunt i. therfore these doe forgiue sinnes or retaine them whiles they shew and declare that they are forgiuen or retained of God Hunc modum ligandi soluendi Hieron supra notauit i. this way of binding and loosing Ierom hath obserued aboue Thus farre the master who is followed verbatim by Petrus Parisius as is to be seene in Sixtus Senensis And Occam saith I answere according to the master that Priests bind and loose because they declare men to be bound or loosed Alexander Hales Nunquam sacerdos absolueret quenquam de quo non presumeret quod esset absolutus à deo i the Priest would neuer absolue any man of whom he did not presume that he were already absolued of God If the Priest absolue none but whom God hath first absolued thē what can his absolution be else but a certificate that the party is already absolued of God And againe Item Augustinus Hugo de sancto victore c. Moreouer Austin and Hugo de sancto victore say that in the raising of Lazarus was signified the raising againe of a sinner But Lazarus was raised of the Lord before he was deliuered to the Disciples to bee loosed ergo absolutio sacerdotis nihil valet antequam homo sit iustificatus per gratiam suscitatus a morte culpae 1. Therefore the absolution of the Priest is of no value before a man be iustified by grace raised from the death of sinne And this he proueth by strong reasons as followeth 1. It is a matter of equall power to baptize inwardly and to absolue from deadly sinne but it was not requisite that God should communicate to any man the power of baptizing inwardly least our hope should be reposed in man therfore by the same reason it was not fit that God should communicate to any man the power of absoluing from actuall sinne And againe Nulla fit remissio culpae nisi per gratiam sed gratiam dare est potentiae infinitae i. There

the parties offended and the whole Church of God and after the performance of all these things there may follow a ministeriall absolution pronounced by the Embassadors of God but this is only declaratorie as may appeare by Gregory himselfe in the same homilie in the places before alleadged PHIL. THe seuenth argument is drawne from reasons and first if the Priest absolue not as a iudge but onely by way of declaration then no man should perish for want of a Priest to reconcile him because if he beleeue his sinnes are already forgiuen although there be none to declare it But Austin writeth plainely that some desiring to be reconciled and therefore beleeuing in Christ do perish euerlastingly because they die before they could be absolued by a Priest An non cogitamus c. i. Do we not consider when men are come to the extremitie of such dangers and haue no meanes to fly from them what a running together there vseth to be in the Church of both sexes of all ages some carnestly desiring Baptisme others reconciliation others the action of penaunce it selfe all desiring comfort and the making and deliuering of the Sacraments where if Ministers bee wanting how great destruction doth follow them which depart out of this world either not regenerate or bound And moreouer how great mourning there is of their faithfull friends which shall not haue them with them in the rest of life eternall And Leo writeth the like to Theodorus Out of which places we vnderstand that sacramentall reconciliation hath power to iustifie and is not onely a declaration of iustification alreadie receiued or hereafter to be receiued ORTHOD. Austin doth not say that some desiring to be reconciled and therefore beleeuing in Christ doe perish euerlastingly For he knew very well that this is contrary to the Scripture which saith He that beleeueth shall neuer perish but haue life euerlasting Therefore it is most certaine that the true beleeuer cannot perish for want of a Priest If you ground vpon these words some desiring Baptisme others reconciliation they are not referred to the parties themselues which were in danger of death being as yet vnbaptised vnreconciled but to their friends which flocked together in respect of their danger therefore it doth not appeare that Austin speaketh of such as desired reconciliation but rather the contrary for ligati are such as stand bound with the chaines of their sinnes You will say how doe they perish for want of a Priest I answere that if one were present which by commission from Christ might display the riches of Gods mercy vnto them who can tell whether their hearts might be opened to beleeue and repent vnto saluation and so their chaines might be loosed but when there is none present that can minister a word of comfort vnto them they being knowen to be notorious sinners may be thought to perish for want of a Priest not for want of a Popish but for want of a preaching Priest Which may yet appeare more plainely by the other branch of the vnbaptised For these wordes desiring Baptisme must be either referred to the parties or to their friends If the parties desire Baptisme then they doe not perish for want of Baptisme for the Baptisme of the spirit doth supplie the want of the Baptisme of water Bellarmine himselfe saith Sine dubio credendum est veram conuersionē supplere baptismum aquae cum non ex contemptu sed ex necessitate sine baptismo aquae aliqui decedunt i. Wee must beleeue without doubt that true conuersion doth supply the Baptisme of water when as any depart this life without the Baptisme of water not of contempt but by reason of necessity And this he prooueth first by the Prophet Ezekiel saying If the wicked repent him of his sinnes I will remember his iniquitie no more Secondly by S. Ambrose who saith of Valentinian the Emperour Quem eram regeneraturus amisi sed ille gratiam quam sperauerat non amisit i. I haue lost him whom I was about to regenerate by Baptisme but he hath not lost the grace which hee hoped for Moreouer by Austin Bernard Pope Innocent the third yea by the Councell of Trent which expoundeth the necessitie of baptisme to bee inre or in voto i. either in acte or in desire And Lorinus the Iesuite doth likewise proue out of S. Austin that the inuisible sanctification is to some both present and profitable without the visible Sacraments Wherefore if the parties desire Baptisme they cannot perish for want of a Priest And if you referre this desire of baptisme not to the parties but to their friends then you must likewise referre the desire of reconciliation so you confirme my former speach cōfute your owne thus much for answere to your first reason let vs heare the second PHIL. Secondly if the Priest did forgiue sinnes onely by declaration then it is vaine and ridiculous to absolue those that are deafe and voide of sences But in the old Church not onely the deafe but such also as by reason of sickenesse were beside themselues were sometimes reconciled as appeares by Austin Leo the fourth Councell of Carthage and the Councell of Orenge ORTHOD. They reconciled not all that were deafe and dumbe and bereft of sences but onely those that either before by their words and deeds or then presently by their signes did testifie their repentance as may appeare by the places alleadged For Austin saith Si desperati intra se penitentes iacuerint nec pro se respondere potuerint baptizandos puto i. If they shall lie without all hope of recouering their bodily health hauing repentance within themselues and not able to answere for thēselues in my opinion they ought to be baptised And a little after Quae autem baptismatis eadem reconciliationis est causa i. that cause which moueth vs to confer baptisme may moue vs to giue recōciliatiō And Leo saith if by any force of sicknes they shall be so oppressed that they are not able to signifie in the presence of the Priest that thing which a little before they desired the testimonies of the faithfull which are about them shouldbe profitable vnto them that they may obtaine the benefit both of penitence and of reconciliation And the 4. Councel of Carthage saith He that desireth penitence in his sicknes if by chance while the Priest cōmeth vnto him he shall become dumbe or fall into a frenzy let those which heard him giue testimony and let him receiue penitēce And the Councel of Orenge saith he which is sodenly dumb may be baptised and receiue penitence if he haue testimony of others that hee was formerly willing or do manifest his present will by his signes Now to reconcile men in these cases is neither vaine nor ridiculous although it be done only by way of declaratiō For if they vnderstād what is done

it bringeth vnto thē a singular comfort if they be past sence yet if God shal restore them whē they heare what was done it will reioyce them and if they doe not recouer yet it shall bring this benefit to all that shall heare it that Gods messenger vpon due examination hath pronounced that they dyed in faith and repentance PHIL. If absolution be only declaratory then this declaration is either absolute or conditionall If it be absolute then it is either rash or superfluous For if the Priest know not whether the party hath faith and repentance and yet pronounce absolutely that his sinnes are forgiuen then hee cannot bee excused from rashnesse and if hee know it in some sort yet because the party knoweth it better then hee his declaration shall be superfluous And if the declaration be onely conditionall then it cannot comfort the conscience and consequently it is to no end and therefore both rash and superfluous ORTHOD. The declaration is conditionall For though vpon due and speciall consideration wee may say priuately and particularly to this or that man i pronounce that thy sinnes are forgiuen thee yet this is alwayes to be vnderstood with a secret condition and the condition is this If thou beleeue and repent Neither may wee pronounce it otherwise then vpon a charitable perswasion proceeding vpon probable grounds that this condition is fulfilled PHIL. But how can it comfort the conscience seeing the condition is vncertaine ORTHOD. It is certaine to the conscience of the party himselfe PHIL. What need is there then of the Ministers absolution ORTHOD. Yes for the party knowing in his owne soule that he made a sincere confession is comforted by the messenger of the Lord of Hostes declaring ex officio the sweet promises of the Gospel according to Christs appointment PHIL. If it be onely declaratory then it may be performed by a Lay-man by a woman a childe an infidel yea by the diuell himselfe yea by a Parret if he be taught to speake as well as by a Priest ORTHOD. Who taught this Parret thus to speake let wise men iudge But to the point A man may be said to pronounce and declare remission of sinnes two wayes First by a narratiue and historicall rehearsall out of the generall duetie of charitie and so may euery Christian. Secondly by a Ministeriall power giuen by a speciall commission from God adorned and established with a speciall promise and so may euery lawfull Minister The commission is giuen vs in our Ordination Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen The promise was made in these words Behold I am with you vntill the end of the world Both are expressed in these words of Iob If there be an Angel with him that is with the man whose soule draweth neere vnto the graue or an interpreter one of a thousand to declare vnto man his righteousnes then will hee haue mercy vpon him and will say deliuer him that he goe not downe into the pit for I haue receiued a reconciliation Here are two persons to be considered First a man lying at the point of death distressed and groning vnder the burthen of his sinnes Secondly the man of God appointed to comfort those that mourne in Sion The latter is described foure wayes by his Titles Office Commission and Gods promise vnto him His Titles are an Angel or interpreter his Office to declare vnto man his righteousnes that is the righteousnes of Iesus Christ imputed to all beleeuers according to the couenant of grace his Commission Deliuer him that he goe not downe into the pit The promise Then will God haue mercie vpon him and say I haue receiued a reconciliation Such Titles such Office by such speciall Commission and promise are not giuen to any Lay man in the Booke of God Wherefore though they are bound by their generall calling to edifie and comfort one another yet this belongeth to the Minister in a speciall maner Neither is there any doubt but God will giue a speciall blessing to his owne Ordinance Thus haue we examined all Bellarmines arguments and find them to be nothing els but smoke He hath sowne the winde and reaped the whirlewinde Hitherto of Absolution as it belongeth to the Minister Now the parts of penance which you require in the penitent as Contrition Confession and Satisfaction may bee passed ouer because wee speake of the Priest and not of the penitent Yet giue me leaue to tell you that Auricular confession as it is vsed in the Church of Rome is a pollicie to diue into the secrets of men not so much to apply salues vnto their sores or to yeeld true comfort to the wounded conscience as to worke for your owne aduantage and to turne all things to your owne pleasure and profit If you say that this may be the fault of some particular men and not of the Church yet to vrge it as you doe as a thing necessary to saluation by Law diuine is the fault of your Church Surely this doctrine was not knowne to S. Austine when he said Quid mihi cum hominibus vt audiant confessiones meas quasi ipsi sanaturi sint omnes languores meos i. What haue I to doe with men that they should heare my Confessions as though they should heale all my diseases Nor to Chrysostome who saith Art thou ashamed to confesse thy sinnes rehearse them dayly in thy prayers for I doe not say that thou shouldest disclose them to thy fellow seruant who may mocke thee but to God who healeth them And as for your Popish Satisfaction it is a most blasphemous derogation from the all sufficient Satisfaction of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. For you doe not meane thereby a satisfaction to the party offended nor Canonicall satisfaction to the Congregation for the taking away of publique scandall both which we willingly embrace but you teach that after the Priest hath forgiuen the penitent his sinnes there still remaineth the very same punishment which the sinner should haue suffered in hell fire excepting onely eternitie for which you enioyne him to make satisfaction to God by workes of Popish penance Moreouer you teach workes of supererogation and that many holy men haue suffered more for God and righteousnes sake then the guilt of their temporall punishments to which they were subiect by reason of their sinnes required and that this superfluitie remaineth as a treasure in the Church to be dispensed by the Prelates in their indulgences especially by the Pope in the yeere of Iubile which shamelesse practise what is it else but a deuise to get money Thus you haue turned repentance into a Sacrament of penance and penance into Mines of siluer and gold Hitherto of our Presbyters Now let vs come to the Deacons CHAP. XI Of the third controuersie concerning Deacons PHIL. THere are no Deacons in the Church of England and therefore you cannot be lawfull Presbyters ORTHOD. Bellarmine confesseth that the