Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	work_n	write_v	yield_v	23	3	6.7056	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19150	Epphata to F.T., or, The defence of the Right Reuerend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of Elie, Lord High-Almoner and Priuie Counsellour to the Kings Most Excellent Maiestie concerning his answer to Cardinall Bellarmines apologie, against the slaunderous cauills of a namelesse adioyner, entitling his booke in euery page of it, A discouerie of many fowle absurdities, falsities, lyes, &c. : wherein these things cheifely are discussed, (besides many other incident), 1. The popes false primacie, clayming by Peter, 2. Invocation of saints, with worship of creatures, and faith in them, 3. The supremacie of kings both in temporall and ecclesiasticall matters and causes, ouer all states and persons, &c. within their realmes and dominions / by Dr. Collins ...	Collins, Samuel, 1576-1651.; Bellarmino, Roberto Francesco Romolo, Saint, 1542-1621. Apologia.	1617 (1617)	STC 5561; ESTC S297	540,970	628

in the defect of Iudas And this was grex creditus which S. Peter so regarded not the Apostles his flocke as you would faine haue it as if he were their Tutor and they his pupills as you were wont to appoint our King his Tutor Nos tutores Regibus misimus right Romanes but the flocke which he regarded ioyntly with the Apostles was the Church in generall whose benefit he prouided for in calling the company together for the choice of an Apostle Iudas beeing remooued And S. Chrysost saies but so as your selfe English him How doth he euery where speake first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 2. c. 13. Not for any authoritie then but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his vertues sake And what order can you imagine where many meete vnlesse one speake first then why not Peter he and yet not superiour to the rest As for Peters power to chuse an Apostle of his owne head it is maruaile it should so be since Bellarmine giues him not power to chuse the Deacons much lesse then the Apostles without consent of the multitude holding it to be enough that they were not chosen against his will nor without his assent de Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 16. In the chusing of Matthias we finde no lesse then an hundred and twenty to haue come together Act. 1. 15. whereof some were women v. 14. of the same and not Peter but the lott settled it vpon Matthias v. 26. What then saies Chrysostome whome you quote that Peter might haue done this alone and of his owne authority You quote him lamely which you obiect to the Bishop about Cyrill and Austen but how falsly we haue shewed The next words in Chrysost confute you plainly if you had durst to alleadge them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And besides saies he he had not yet receiued the holy Ghost Doe you thinke then that Peter might haue chose the Apostle by authoritie giuen him from our Sauiour Christ to whome Christ had not yet giuen the gift of discerning or the holy Ghost to direct him where is your axiome that you can braue vs with elsewhere Qui dat formam dat omnia consequentia formam or where doe you finde God to allow the ende without meanes sufficient to atchieue that ende We are therefore to vnderstand that if Chrysost say as he saies but at vncertaine that Peter might haue made the Apostle himselfe he might vpon presumption of the multitudes good will who would not haue contested with him in such a case likely as honouring him for his vertue c. In which regard he commends to vs the meeknes of those times for our imitation and as he saies that Peter did nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he maruels that S. Iames would not interpose a word beeing at home as we would say and Bishop of Hierusalem where this assemblie was held Neither lastly doe I see how ius constituendi par omnibus habebat can so handsomly be drawne out of Chrysostomes text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the commoner reading in the greeke copies and denies it rather Thus much of Chrysostome § 7. About the place of S. Austen serm 1. 24. de Temp. I haue touched before in a word or two your notable ignorances with no lesse malice which you bewray in the misconstruing of the Bishops words Componit salutem medicorum filij Etsi omnes non ego You complaine in your 10. Chap. of the obscurenesse of the Bishops style and he seemes to you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at noone day I beleeue it verily your apprehension is so good Senecaes foole said the house was dark after her selfe was fallen blind And S. Paul afore his conuersion was dazeled with the exceeding lightsomnesse as S. Chrysostome notes most excellently but soone after hee saw cleerest vpon his eye-sights taking from him An image of the Papists specially our English that are offended with nothing more then the abundance of that light that shines in their country at this day whom a little of the old darknes perhaps would reduce to their right mindes as mad folks are tamed they say with withdrawing of the light from them But omitting complaints quae ne tum quidem gratae tùm necessariae what say you to the answers to S. Austens place Three exceptions did the Bishop take vnto it First that it was cited out of a doubtfull worke Secondly that it mentioned but a crazed head and therefore not to be brought for honesty sake to prooue Peters primacie which another would disprooue it by rather Thirdly that S. Austen not in asermon de Tempore but in a lawfull Synod cures this head by confining him to his bounds and restraining appeales from beyond the sea which you brooke not The first of these is confirmed diuers wayes One that the title of those Sermons is not sincere neither giuen by S. Austen at the first nor yet knowne by that name diuerse hundreds of yeares after his death And if S. Austen wrote no Sermones de tempore why should we yeeld as to S. Austens authoritie to that which is quoted by the name of de Tempore Yet you say they are taken out of other his works Let those workes then bee quoted by their owne names let euery witnesse appeare in his owne likenesse The Emperour would not trust the man that had dyed his owne beard hee suspected salshood by such small tokens And where the name is counterfeit what credit can there be either in the man or in his verdict Does not such an one rather professe that he meanes craft Innominatus habetur pro nullo is the axiome of the law And why not then peruersè nominatus much more Besides you haue so chopt the number of these Sermons yea the substance too now adding then diminishing sometime amplifying and then againe withdrawing in your diuers editions that no Euripus more vncertaine to build faith vpon And yet these you bring forsooth to confute his MAIESTIE and to disprooue his challenge For where you say they were so called and culled out from the rest for the ease and commoditie of the Readers I see not what more ease can be in giuing them a false name then a true or what commoditie can arise from hence to the Reader vnlesse to be abused and deceiued be a commoditie Yet such are the commodities Egraunt that you Iesuites deale in when you set forth Authors But lastly the Sermon it selfe bewrayes it selfe to be none of S. Austens As what thinke you of that clause in the latter ende of it Agnouit enim sibi vt homini peccati irrepsisse perniciem quod totum hactenus vt memini diuinitùs procuratum est Haue you so lost your smell as not to difcerne betweene this and the true S. Austen I say nothing of that which followes which no wise man but would abiure for S. Austens Videte quemadmodum exiguae culpae

it was exalted by consent to be a patriarchall Sea and not euery such neither but the second in order and setting that aside equall to Rome in all respects Else neither should this Canon haue suffered such opposition you may bee sure at the Bishop of Romes hands nor needed the Fathers to name this so distastfull equalitie with Rome in the bodie of the Canon if nothing but the ordaining of Bishops had been assigned him which other Patriarches exercise in their diocesse as well as the Bishop of Rome without his repining And yet lastly you may remember that the Canon of Nice describing the preheminence of the Bishop of Rome as a patterne of Patriarchship vtters it in those words of Ruffinus translation quòd Ecclesiarum suburbicariarum curam habeat that he hath care of the Churches that are abutting vpon the citie to which Canon of Nice spreading so the iurisdiction of the Church of Rome this Canon of Chalcedon may seeme to allude mentioning so many Churches as you here recite and all of them subiect to the Sea of Constantinople § 8. As for that you thrust in here vpon verie small occasion of Athanasius of Alexandria appealing to Iulius Bishoppe of Rome to shewe that Alexandria was subiect to Rome if you meane the subiection of order and ranke it is nothing to the matter and yet it followeth not by your leaue out of your example The subiection of authoritie is that which we contend about and yet that much lesse may be gathered from hence For neither did Athanasius flee to Iulius alone but with his companie of Bishops as his letters shew that he brought in his behalfe Omnibus vbique Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopis i. To all the Bishops of the Catholicke Church and againe Hac quidem ad omnes ad Iulium scripsere i. This they wrote to Iulius and to all And the Church that enioies more flourishing fortunes or whose arme God hath strengthened with temporall prosperitie may bee sought vnto of the distressed though not subiect to it by any dutie of obedience as one King sayes the Orator easily rescues and succors another though not referring to him by subiection no more then Mithridates did to Tigranes as also I doubt not but if Iulius had suffered wrong and Athanasius could haue holpe him neither would Iulius haue disdained to craue his assistance nor Athanasius haue refused him no more then the aforesaid Bishop of Patara did to sue for Syluerius and to sheild him all he could against the rage of Iustinian as euen now you told vs and yet he of Patara much inferiour to the other without question § 9. But to deale more liberally with the Bishop in this point put case say you that the Councell of Chalcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Sea of Rome which he affirmeth yet he should nothing gaine by it but rather it confirmes the primacie of Pope Leo whose onely authority was able to quash it How is that prooued First because the Canon tooke not place presently Which is no more then happens for the most part to any lawe to haue slower execution then it hath making But does it follow from hence that either the Bishop alleages a counterfeit Canon for by this reason you may cauill any Canon in the booke or that Leo's authority was of force to disanull it Let vs breifly looke into it as not much to our purpose For in truth what ende may we looke for of dispute if so pregnant allegations be reckoned for counterfeit By a few heads we may iudge of all the rest You obserue 4. things out of Gelasius his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania to disprooue the Canon § 10. One that Martian praysed Leo for not suffering the old Canons to be violated in that point and yet himselfe zealous for the aduancement of Constantinople The answer is most easie He might take Leo's excuse in good part as grounded vpon pretence of conscience not to crosse the Canons though it was so farre from beeing sound that both Leo might haue altered them as your selfe confesse positiue Canons and afterward it was altered euen by a generall Councell if that of Lateran at least was general as you acknowledge And I hope Sir I may praise Constancy euen in mine aduersary and in a wrong matter though I could wish his constancy were better imployed So might Martian with Leo and somewhat the rather to induce him by addoulcings for direct thwarting alienates rather Is this a good reason now why the Canon should be no Canon or this also scored among the Bishops forgeries § 11. You say secondly that Anatolius in fauour of whom the Canon was made beeing rebuked by Leo for his forwardnes to preferre it deriued the fault vpon the Clergy of Constantinople and said it was positum in ipsius potestate Leo might chuse whether he would grant it or no. Answer That the Clergie of Constantinople concurred to the making of it I hope good Sir derogates not from the Canon but rather fortifies it as likewise the consent of so many other Bishops and if Leo's shake bestriding his praye that is the honour of his seate the singularity rather affrighted Anatolius and startled lentum illum Heli as he calls him that timorous old man what is that to the antiquating of the Decree of a Synode and so populous a Synode as this was For I hope the Canon was not so in fauour of Anatolius whatsoeuer you prattle but that much rather of his Sea then of his person as both the reason shewes which the Canon contaynes drawne as you may remember from the Imperiall city and Martians loue was to the city not to the man Yea it rather tooke place you say after his death What then doe you tell vs of Anatolius § 12. Your third obseruation that Pope Simplicius was as loath to yeild to Leo the Emperour for the aduancement of Constantinople as Leo the Pope had beene to the Emperour Martian in the same cause prooues nothing against the Canon vnlesse it be graunted that the Pope hath a negatiue voice in the making of them which is the thing in question betweene you and vs therefore to be prooued not to be presumed But if you meane that it took not place so soone you haue your answer before it brake out at last like fire in the bones and that 's enough § 13. With like facility to your Quartum Notabile that Acacius obtained the censures of Pope Felix and executed them vpon the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch What then As if one Bishop may not craue aide of another to represse abuses when he cannot doe it himselfe euen as they in Peters boate beckened to the next to come and helpe them for your primacie is that Moses taken out of the waters by your owne description so here Acacius becken to Peter that is to the Pope himselfe as you dreame Neither

he is no member neither of these damned societies last named nor of those before which he is a meere stranger to and yet a head of his whole Realme I hope and of all the companies thereto belonging temporall at least and in temporalibus euen by your owne confession Therefore an insidell King may as well be head of the Church as a Christian King may be head ouer them with whome he participates not in their sinnes and vngodlinesse But now to come to Mr. Brightman as I said He makes Constantine to be that Angell that stands before the altar Apoc. 8. hauing the golden censer of perfumes in his hand and casting them vpon the prayers of the Saints and righteous which ascend vp before God Would this man thinke you disdaine that Princes should be interposers in Ecclesiasticall affaires or challenge the cheife conuzance and arbittement of them to thēselues But I will set downe his owne words because they are pregnant to this purpose Quid ni ille INPRIMIS imaginem SACERDOTIS praeferret in quo maximè lucebat effigies Regalis dignitatis Rectè ipse de se in coetu Episcoporum Et ego inquit tanquam vnus è vobis adsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nec enim negarim me vestrum conseruum esse quo nomine ego maxime gaudeo Socrates lib. primo cap. sep This he Where I subscribe not to Mr. Brightmans interpretation of the Apocalyps but I alleadge it to shew what it is like his opinion was of the Supremacie of Kings § 89. Now concerning other States and Kingdomes not enlarging the Supremacie so farre as we doe here in England viz. to giue Lyceuses Dispensations Commissions Faculties to consecrate Bishops to excommunicate to interdict suspend censure c. Let the Reader be carefull of reading these last words as they lie in the Adioynder with due punctation of them or els hee may chance to fall into the Adioynders pit-fold which will be his great pleasure to looke on and laugh For though it runne thus to giue Commissions to consecrate to excommunicate censure c. yet he meanes not I trust that our Kings do either excommunicate censure or suspend in their owne persons but giue Commissions to Bishops to consecrate other Bishops and so perhaps to execute the other ensuing acts of censure there recounted as excommunication suspension c. And yet this is not auouched out of any of our records but onely nakedly imputed to vs by the Adioynder which if it be true as I confesse I am not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so studied in the Lawes my profession beeing cleane another waies it is to be vnderstood of patronage and Princely protection that their acts may goe for currant and vncontemned of Christian people not but that in themselues they are of validitie before God out of the spirituall power which he hath entrusted his Priests and Ministers with though there be no confirmation of the secular arme § 90. Though it might be referred also to the commandements and iniunctions of Christian Kings whereby they vrge Clergy-men to doe their duties if happily they be stacke or vnwilling of themselues For which cause Mr. Sanders saies that Kings can command nothing which they may not execute De claue Dauid lib. 5. cap. 5. 6. That because we denie to Princes the execution of Priestly duties they may take away Gouernement too in causes and ouer persons Ecclesiasticall Yet we heard S. Cyrill speaking plainely a little before for Theodosius his commanding of Bishops c. altogether as Ezechias did the Leuites who yet might not execute a Leuites charge So Salomon sacrificed saies the Scripture that is the Priests at Salomons commaundement not as Oziah with his owne hands nay not as Vzzah so much as to handle a holy thing forbidden And because Mr. Sanders makes such a piece of worke hereof and saies there is no instance to be giuen in all the world of a person commannding that which hee may not execute sauing onely when there is disparagement in the doing of it as for a Captaine to descend to the meane offices of the Campe which Plato forbids but as for the Ministerie there is no disparagement in it no not to Kings themselues saith he which we are contēt to admit I will reckon therfore some few instances to choke him withal and to defend our distinction between Execution and Gouernement which is the maine thing to be heeded in the question of Supremacie How is it els that the Pope may command swords to be drawne in casu and yet himselfe may not handle the sword as Mr. Sanders confesseth in this booke Though it is next to a wonder to see a Temporall Prince in his own territorie at least who at no hand may handle a sword or strike a blow Yet they giue the Pope this authoritie to set other folks swords a worke not onely in his Territorie but throughout Christendome And I might haue set it yet somewhat higher How was the Iudge in the old Law to put to death malefactors by the appointment of the Priest as the Papists would haue it Deuter. 17. 9. who yet was not to strike for that was the Iudges office if no body may prescribe that which he may not execute Neither let M. Sanders say that to strike a blow or to slay a malefactour is disgrace or disparagement which is rather the sanctifying of a good subiects hands to kill a rebell yea and that somtimes vniudged if necessitie so require to omit that this conceit driues fast vpon Anabaptisme to thinke that carrying the sword is disparageable or disgracefull which the Scripture speakes of with all honour As for a Prince in his own Territorie and therefore bearing the sword to whō notwithstanding it is a disgrace to vse the sword it is a monster as I said and if he be ashamed of the one let him renounce the other as the poore woman said to King Philip Si non vacat andire nec regnare vacet So here Si percutere dedecori est principari magis But how much more will the Pope now thinke that disparageable to him to sweepe Churches to ring the Saints-bell to waite vpon the chalice yea to baptize to preach for this offends him more then any thing els and yet I trust hee may command all these things to others to his inferiour Clerkes and Leuites and demie-Clerkes Yea how may he exhort euerie member of the Common-wealth euery petty artisan to follow his trade which he may do for certaine if he may but preach for what more necessary argument then this for the pulpits May he therfore moyle himselfe in those dusty affaires tanne weaue make tents c And yet it is not disparageable for S. Paul and S. Peter as good men as he and better too by his leaue haue done it before him and that after their Apostleship which is his false