Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	word_n	world_n	year_n	479	4	4.3265	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55374	A dialogue between a popish priest, and an English Protestant. Wherein the principal points and arguments of both religions are truly proposed, and fully examined. / By Matthew Poole, author of Synopsis Criticorum.	Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679.	1667 (1667)	Wing P2828; ESTC R40270	104,315	254

which the Apostles had over all Churches was peculiar to them and died with them we see God did not think it necessary to leave a successour to Moses in his full and absolute Authority no more was it necessary to leave any after Peter and the Apostles and the reason is the same because the work of Law-giving was finish'd and those that came after were tyed to the execution of their Laws 2. Besides if Peter did leave a Successour what prudent man can believe that he would not have left some notice thereof to the world in one of his Epistles I find he saith I will endeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things in remembrance 2 Pet. 1. 15. How easie had it been to have added to that end I leave a Successour whom you must hear in all things I find Moses was very careful to leave a Successour and so was Elias and David and Christ as my Father sent me so send I you Was Peter the only careless person that would not be at the expence of a word to prevent all those Heresies Schisms and Contentions which were even then broached and most likely to increase after the death of the Apostles in the Christian world 3. If any did succeed St. Peter in his Head-ship one would think it should have been one of the surviving Apostles especially St. Iohn who lived above 20 years after him for who can believe that regards what he believes that Linus or Clemens who is said to be St. Peters successour should be superiour to St. Iohn yet the foundation of all your Religion is built upon this nonsensical opinion And if this priviledge did belong not only to Peter but some of his successours yet to say it belongs to all following Popes divers of which are acknowledged to be Apostatical and most wicked wretches and that such Monsters as were the true slaves of the Devil and brands of Hell should be the foundations of the Church by whom the Church was to be secured from the gates of Hell will not find belief with serious Men till East and West meet together and besides when our Divines say The Pope is Antichrist and the Man of sin you use to answer that these expressions the Antichrist and the Man of sin must needs point at a particular Man and not a whole Order of Men which if it be true the expression there used of this Rock especially being so particularly levell'd at Peter as you will needs have it cannot with any colour be thought to mean a succession of many hundreds of persons And sure I am whatever the Text speaks of Peter it speaks not one word of Peters Successours and therefore it is as easie for me to deny it as you to affirm it 3. Whatever this promise or priviledge is it belongs no more to the Church of Rome than to the Church of England the name of one is heer as clear as the other It is a general promise extending to the Church at all times and places signifying that God will have and maintain a Church to the end of the World And if this place concerns only those that are built upon St. Peter you grant the Church of England once was as the Church of Rome now is built upon him too when it was subject to the Pope And if their being built upon St. Peter did not secure them from Fallibility and Apostacy as you say it did not then consequently the building of the Church of Rome upon St. Peter did not make them infallible but they might as we say and prove they did fall away And certainly one of these two things must be granted either that every Church which did once adhere to Peter or the Pope are secured by this Text from falling away or else that notwithstanding this Promise every Church that now is subject to the Pope may fall away from him and so the Pope may be a head without a Body a Shepherd without so much as one sheep For if this Text did prove what they desire that all that do adhere to the Pope whilst they do so are Infallible yet it doth not prove that they all shall constantly adhere to him which is quite another thing 4. If this Promise and Priviledge did belong to any particular Church and to yours in a special manner yet it doth not prove your Infallibility This place concerns Doctrines no more than Manners and secures your Church no more against damnable Heresies than against damnable Practices since the gates of Hell prevail by one as well as by the other and since you acknowledge that Peters successours have lived and died in damnable sins they might as well die in damnable Heresies Besides if this Text did prove the Popes Supremacy yet here is not one word concerning his Infallibility which is quite another thing 5. If this Text did prove any Infallibility it doth not prove the Popes Infallibility which you alledge this Text for but the Infallibility of the Church which is built upon it Pop. But that Church is Infallible because they adhere to the Rock viz. the Pope who therefore must needs be more Infallible Prot. Then it seems the foundation of all your Infallibility is in the Pope as Peters Successour whom multitudes of your own Learned and approved Doctors acknowledge to be Fallible I have heard you all confess That your Popes may erre in Manners and Practice Is it so Pop. Yes Prot. Then whatsoever he thinks he may speak lyes and deceive the World in telling them he is Infallible and surely if a Man will deceive for any thing he will do it for such an Empire as the Pope holds but I have heard also your Popes may erre in matters of Fact Pop. That we do all agree in Prot. Then he may mistake and erre in these Questions whether Peter left a Successour and whether the Bishop of Rome be the person and whether there hath been that uninterrupted succession in the Papal Chair which you pretend to be necessary which must be Infallibly certain or else the Pope holds his Authority only upon courtesie so this place will not stand you in much stead Let me hear if you have any better Argument Pop. There is another place which if you were not an obstinate sort of Men would satisfie you all and that is 1 Tim. 3. 15. where the Church is called The pillar and ground of truth and therefore is Infallible Prot. Let me first ask you What Church is there spoken of which you say is Infallible Is it the Church of Rome Was Timothy Bishop of Rome or no Pop. No he was Bishop of Ephesus But why do you ask that Question Prot. This place apparently speaks of that Church in and over which Timothy was set so if it speak of any particular Church it must be that of Ephesus which you confess was Fallible not that of Rome or if it speak of the Universal Church that might be

in the species of Bread and Wine and the Bread and Wine are destroyed Prot. Call you this a destruction for one to remove from one place to another or to cease to be where he was before this is ridiculous and yet this fantastical and mock-destruction is all which you can bring instead of that real destruction which you confess necessary to the very essence of a Sacrifice And as for the Bread and Wine they were destroyed by Transubstantiation not by the Oblation or Sacrifice which comes after it And now having mentioned that let us discourse concerning your Doctrine of Transubstantiation And first tell me what is the Doctrine of your Church Pop. That the Council of Trent will inform you which declareth that by Consecration the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ Prot. How is it possible for the Bread to be converted into Christs Body which was made already before the Bread That Christ could turn Water into Wine was possible but that he should turn that Water into such Wine as was in being before that change this is impossible but let that go My next question is if a Christian did actually receive Christs Body and Blood tell me what profit hath he by it I cannot believe that God would work so many Miracles as you affirm he doth in this Sacrament to no purpose Scripture and Reason tells me and your Council of Trent confesseth that the Sacrament is a feast for my Soul and not for my Body Is it not so Now what is my Soul the better for eating the very Body of Christ When the woman cryed out to our Saviour Blessed is the womb that thee Christ replies Yea rather Blessed are they that hear Gods Words and do it nevertheless if you can solidly prove it I will receive it therefore bring forth your Principal Arguments for it Pop. I will do so and our Church proves this point especially from two places of Scripture John 6. and the words of Institution I begin with the sixth Chapter of John where our Saviour oft tells us that the Bread which he gives is his flesh c. Prot. I have heard that divers of your learned Doctors confess this Chapter speaks not of the Sacrament Is it so Pop. I will not dissemble with you That was the opinion of Biel Cardinal Cusanus Cajetan and Tapperus and divers others Prot. Certainly This Argument is not likely to convince a Protestant which could not satisfie your own ablest Schollars But I will not press that farther Tell me then do you judge that Christ speaks here of a bodily eating and drinking of his very Flesh and Blood Pop. We do so Prot. I confess some of the Antient were of your mind I mean the Jews But with submission I am rather of Christs Opinion who plainly destroys that gross and carnal sense telling them it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profits nothing vers 63. Again doth not Christ press this as a necessary and present duty upon all the Jews that then heard him Pop. That must be granted Prot. Then certainly Christ speaks not of the Sacrament which was not then instituted and therefore they could not partake of it I demand further is this Sacrament of such efficacy that all that receive it are saved and of such necessity that all that do not take it are damned Pop. No our Church utterly condemns both those Opinions Port But this eating of Christs Flesh is such that Christ saith all that eat it are saved v. 24. and all that do not eat it are damned v. 53. Therefore surely he speaks not of a Sacramental eating besides the whole Laity are utterly undone if your sense of this Chapter be true for I find that drinking of Christs Blood is no less necessary to life eternal than eating of his Flesh and therefore woe to them to whom you do not allow to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament I am told this objection is so considerable that it forced divers of your Doctors sore against their will to forsake this Argument and therefore this will not do your work but I presume you have better Arguments Pop. We have so I shall urge but one which is of its self sufficient from the plain words of Institution This is my Body Methinks the very hearing of them read should convince you if you would take the words in their plain and proper sense and not devise I know not what Figures and Tropes Prot. If it were true that Christ did turn the Bread into his Body by saying these words This is my Body yet how doth it follow that the Priest by reciting these words worketh the same effect any more than a Priest every time he reads those words Let there be light doth make light because God did make it by those words or than he raiseth a dead man every time he reads those words of Christ Lazarus come forth Moreover I have heard that divers of your most learned Doctors confess that this place doth not nor indeed any other place of Scripture prove Transubstantiation I have heard three Cardinals named viz. Cajetan and our Bishop of Rochester and Cameracensis and divers famous Schoolmen as Scotus and Biel of whom this is known and Durandus and Ocham and Melchior Canus and Vasquez and the great Cardinal Perron professeth that he believes Transubstantiation not by vertue of any necessary consequence or reason alledged by their Doctors but by the words of Christ as they are expounded by Tradition and Bellarmin himself confesseth This opinion is not improbable Methinks so many learned mens forsaking this Argument who doubtless would have been right glad if it had been solid and imployed all their wits to search out the strength of it is to me a convincing evidence of its weakness and vanity as also of the badness of your Cause that can find no better Argument yet I am willing to hear what you can say Pop. This then I say that these words This is my Body are to be taken in their proper and not in a figurative sense for surely Christ would speak plainly to the understanding of his Disciples especially when he was so near his Death and making his last Will and Testament and instituting the Sacrament in such cases men use to speek plainly Prot. I readily grant that Christ did speak plainly and intelligibly But tell me is not that plain enough when we take the words as they are commonly used in Scripture Pop. I must needs grant that but this is not the Present case Prot. But it is for we can give you scores of instances as you very well know where the word Is is so taken nor is any thing more frequent in Scripture the seven kine and so the seven ears of corn are seven years Gen. 4. 12 18. the Stars are the Angels