Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	blood_n	offer_v	sacrifice_n	4,224	5	7.7177	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48285	Erastus Senior scholastically demonstrating this conclusion that (admitting their Lambeth records for true) those called bishops here in England are no bishops, either in order or jurisdiction, or so much as legal : wherein is answered to all that hath been said in vindication of them by Mr. Mason in his Vindiciæ ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, Doctor Heylin in his Ecclesiæ restaurata, or Doctor Bramhall ... in his last book intituled, The consecration and succession of Protestant bishops justified : with an appendix containing extracts out of ancient rituals, Greek and Latine, for the form of ordaining bishops, and copies of the acts of Parliament quoted in the third part.	Lewgar, John, 1602-1665.	1662 (1662)	Wing L1832; ESTC R3064	39,391	122

Erastus Senior Scholastically Demonstrating this Conclusion that admitting their Lambeth Records for true those called BISHOPS here in England are no Bishops either in Order or Jurisdiction or so much as Legal Wherein is answered to all that hath been said in Vindication of them by Mr. MASON in his Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Doctor HEYLIN in his Ecclesia Restaurata or Doctor BRAMHALL then called Bishop of DERRY now Primate of ARMAGH in his last Book Intituled The Consecration and Succession of Protestant Bishops Justified With an Appendix containing Extracts out of ancient Rituals Greek and Latine for the Form of Ordaining Bishops And Copies of the Acts of Parliament quoted in the third Part. Printed in the Year 1662. To the Reader THe intent of this Treatise is onely of my Charity to my Friends and Countreymen of the Protestant Profession to shew them this great Defect in their Church the want of Bishops thereby to invite them into ours which even by the confession of her adversaries wants them not And the intent of this Preface is onely to note to them the greatness of this defect in their Church from the hideous Consequences of it For if theirs be no Bishops either in Order or Jurisdiction as this discourse undertakes to demonstrate this will follow First that theirs being no Bishops Ordine they cannot validly Ordain either Bishop Priest or Deacon and so they have none of these Orders in their Church nor have had since the death of those that were Ordained by our Bishops Secondly that theirs being no Bishops Jurisdictione or Pastors of Cathedral Churches they cannot validly Institute a Pastor to any Parochial Church for none but a Pastor can Institute a Pastor and so they have no Pastors in their Church nor have had since the outing of the Catholique Bishops Parsons and Vicars in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign Thirdly that theirs is no true Church or Member of the Catholique for want of Pastors it being an essential part of the Catholique Church Fourthly that Salvation cannot be had in their Church because no Member of the Catholique out of which no Salvation Fifthly that the beleif they have of the Scriptures Trinity Incarnation Death and Merits of Christ and other Mysteries of Christian Religion is no Divine or Supernatural but Moral or Humane Faith onely which cannot avail to eternal Salvation because they believe them finally or in the last resolution of their Faith into the witness or proponent of Gods Word to them upon the testimony of preachers having no mission from God Sixthly that the hope they have of remission of Sins of obtaining Eternal Beatitude by the merits of Christ and of other Evangelical promises is no Divine but Moral or Natural Hope onely which hath no efficacy to an eternal recompence because it cannot be Diviner then the Faith is upon which it is and must be grounded and theirs is but Humane Faith Seventhly that their Ministers having no power because no Priests to remit Sins every time they receive the Communion since they committed Mortal Sin they eat and drink it unworthily and consequently 1 Cor. 11.29 to their owne Damnation because they presume to eat and drink of that which they believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ Catechism in the Book of Common-Prayer which is verily and truly received of the faithful with a Soul foul and abominable to God with Mortal Sin as it must needs be because since Christ Instituted the Word of Priestly Absolution for the ordinary means of giving that grace viz. when he said to his Apostles S. John 20.22 whose Sins you remit they are remitted no Mortal Sin committed after Baptism can be remitted but by that means at least in voto which cannot be supposed in a wilful Protestant which means theirs being no Priests they cannot have in their Church And for the same reason at their Death they go away with all the Sins upon their Soul that ever they committed Eighthly that their Ministers having no power because no Priests to Consecrate Christs Body and Blood they live and dye without ever once offering to God that Sacrifice which is the principal and most necessary Act of Divine Worship under the New Testament the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ in remembrance of his death and without ever once partaking of that Flesh and Blood of his S. John 6.54 of which he said Except ye eat and drink of it ye shall have no life in you Lastly that every time any of their Bishops presume to Ordain Confirm Excommunicate Institute a Parson or Vicar or exercise other Act of the Episcopal Office or any of their Ministers to Preach Baptize Celebrate publick Divine Service Consecrate the Eucharist take Confessions give Absolution or exercise other Act of Priestly Function so often do they commit the hainous Sin of Sacriledge in which the people are involved with them so often as they do communicate with them in or cooperate to those Sacrilegious Presumptions The Contents Chap. 1. PRoving the first part of the Conclusion the Protestant Bishops are no Bishops ORDINE and urging the first Reason the invalidity of the Form whereby they were Ordained page 1 Chap. 2. Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answer 5 Chap. 3. Answering Doctor Bramhall's Allegations for their Form and in this Chapter his first Allegation from Christs example 9 Chap. 4. Answering his second Argument from the Romane Form 10 Chap. 5. Answering his third Argument from Cardinal Pool's Dispensation 13 Chap. 6. Vrging the second Reason invalidity of the Minister 21 Chap. 7. Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answers 24 Chap. 8. Proving the second part of the Conclusion that they are no Bishops OFFICIO viz. For want of Jurisdiction in the Consecrators and urging the first Reason want of the Patriarch's consent 30 Chap. 9. Vrging the second reason their having no Jurisdicton but from the King and bringing the first proof of it from their own acts and confessions 34 Chap. 10. Bringing the second Proof from other publick Acts. 38 Chap. 11. Bringing the third Proof from the Consecration of Matthew Parker 39 Chap. 12. Replying to Doctor Heylins Answer 45 Chap. 13. Proving the third part of the Conclusion that they are no legal Bishops and urging the first Reason because the Act of H. 8. for the Roman Form is still in force 49 Chap. 14. Vrging the second Reason because the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination being repealed by Queen Mary is not yet revived and proving the first part of the reason that it was not revived afore 8. Eliz. 50 Chap. 15. Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answer 52 Chap. 16. Noting Doctor Heylin's varying from himself and falsifying the Act of 8. Eliz. 58 Chap. 17. Confirming the Argument by the proceedings in Bonners Case and urging the first inference for the opinion of the Judges 60 Chap. 18. Refuting the shifts used by Mr. Mason and Doctor Heylin to evade this inference 63

other because they are eternally valid or invalid in all alike as well Hereticks or Schismaticks as Catholicks 5. That he promises to receive them prout multi jam recepti fuerunt meaning those who had sued out their Dispensations as many had But not one can be named who had been Ordained Bishop Priest or Deacon by the new Form and upon his return to Catholique Religion was received in that Order And I am the more confident of it because besides the reasons given supra after this Parliament heretical Bishops Priests and Deacons if they had been Ordained ritu Romano were degraded as such but if by the new Form not but onely in that Order which they had received ritu Romano As namely John Bradford Mr. Fox par 2. fol. 1464. Ordained a Minister by the new Form was not degraded at all but proceeded with as a meer lay-man And Doctor Hooper Id. ib. fol. 1289. made Priest by the Roman Form Bishop by the new was degraded as a Priest onely And by this time I hope the Reader sees how little cause Doctor Bramhal had to vaunt as he did of this Argument as unanswerable And this shall serve for my first Reason The sixth Chapter Vrging the second Reason invalidity of the Minister BUt grant their Form were valid yet they would be no Bishops Ordine for another reason invalidity of the Minister For the essential Minister of this Sacrament the Consecrating of a Bishop is at least according to their own doctrine one Bishop Ordine Now none of them are Bishops Ordine because no Priests as Priest is the proper name of a holy Order betwixt Bishop and Deacon That none can be a Bishop but he that is a Priest is a received axiome amongst all Divines and granted by themselves Mr. Mason Ep. ded ad Episc Paris Cum Episcopus esse nequeat qui non fuerit Presbyter si nos Presbyteros non esse probatum dederit actum erit de Ministerio Anglicano And that their Ministers are no Priests is manifest because this word Priest as it is the name of a holy Order signifies one set apart or impower'd to offer to God the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ This is evident from all the Forms now extant of Ordaining Priests Vid. ap Morin de Ordin sacr par 2. either ancient or modern either of the Greek or Latin Church and from the use of this word in all approved Christian Authours from the Apostles times to this day Now themselves disclaim to Priesthood in this sense and claim to it onely as it signifies in a new sense of their own devising a Minister of the Gospel having power to dispence the Word and Sacraments Sacrificium propriè dictum ad Ministros Evangelicos spectare non agnoscimus (a) Mr. Mason pag. 545. Si Sacerdotis vocabulo nihil aliud significasses quam Ministrum Evangelii cui verbi Sacramentorum commissa est dispensatio nos Sacerdotes esse (b) id l. 5. c. 1. n. 3. profiteremur If they will say as otherwhiles they do and even the same Authour (c) l. 5. c. 1. n. 3. c. 5. n. 11. that the Eucharist is a mystical Sacrifice offered to God in commemoration or representation of Christs death which is as much as we believe of it and that they have power to offer it as such this is manifestly false because in all their essential Form there is not this word Priest nor any word equivalent nor any word signifying or necessarily including power to offer any Sacrifice Nay should we admit this word Priest in their own sense for one set apart to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ in way of Sacrament onely yet they would be no Priests because the words of their Form signifie no such power For these are the words of it Take the Holy Ghost whose sins thou forgivest they are forgiven whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments In which you see is no power given as to this or any other Sacrament but onely to dispense them Now to dispense this Sacrament is not to Consecrate it for it must first be Consecrated afore it can be dispensed and in some cases as if one at point of death should desire his viaticum and no Priest or Deacon could be had to give it him it may be dispensed by a Deacon yea by a Lay-man but cannot be Consecrated but by a Priest and in a Priest the Consecrating it belongs to his power of Order the Dispensing it to power of Jurisdiction onely The seventh Chapter Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answers pag. 226. 1. Ans I Deny that in all Forms of Priestly Ordination the word Priest is set down either expresly or equivalently It is set down expresly in the Eastern Church in the Western not Reply In the Western Church 1. it is set down equivalently For these words at the delivery of the paten with an hoast and of the chalice with wine in it Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo c. are equivalent to these Take the power of Priesthood or be thou a Priest But 2. it is also set down expresly viz. in the prayer joyned with the Imposition of hands anciently called Benedictio Presbyteri and which alone as I noted afore was the ancient Form for Ordaining a Priest Exaudi nos Domine Deus noster super kos famulos tuos Bene ✚ dictionem Sancti Spiritus gratiae SACERDOTALIS infunde virtutem And in the Prayer anciently called Consecratio Presbyteri which followeth soon after the other Dain hos famulos tuos PRESBYTERII dignitatem c. ut panem vinum in corpus sanguinem filii tui immaculatâ benedictione transforment c. both which Prayers still are used in our Form 2. Ans If the words of our Form be as determinate and express as the example and prescription of Christ it is sufficient The form of Baptism is I BAPTIZE THEE IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER c. Not I BAPTIZE THEE TO REGENERATION OR REMISSION OF SINS There are many other kindes of Baptisms or washings besides this Sacramental Baptisme yet this form is as large as the Institution of Christ and these general words are efficacious both to regeneration and remission of sins as well as if they had been expresly mentioned In this form of Baptism there is enough antecedent to direct and regulate both the actions and intention of the Minister So there is likewise in our Form of Ordination Rep. Had Christ instituted those words of their Form Take the Holy Ghost c. for giving the grace of Priestly Order as he did those I Baptize thee c. for giving the grace of regeneration we neither could nor should have excepted against it because then it would have signified it as the Form of Baptism doth regeneration ex instituto Christi But