Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A53499
|
An answer to the challenge of Mr. Henry Jennings (Protestant Arch-Deacon of Dromore) which evidently makes-out the present Church of Romes doctrine to have been maintain'd in the first five ages, & the adversarys principles to be only a heap of heresies lawfully condemn'd by the primitive Church. To which is annexed An answer to one Whealy. Set forth by James O Shiell reader of Divinity.
|
O'Sheill, James.
|
1699
(1699)
|
Wing O530A; ESTC R214539
|
82,791
|
345
|
is false as is manifest by that of the Acts c. 15. v 7 where we find the followiÌ„g words when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said to them men bretheren ye know that a good while agoe God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should he are the word of the Gospel and believe c. as for that which Whealy adds that Peter writ his Epistles from Babylon and not to Rome c. it proves his ignorance and coÌ„firms what he would faine deny for in Peter first Epist c. 5. v 1â— by the word Babylon Rome is meant as Papias the Apostles Disciple cited by Eusebius in his 2. book of History c. 15. St. Hierome in his book de Viris Illustribus in Marco Eunomius Venerable Bedâ— and all the Fathers that ever writ a commentary on that Epist do unanimously declare and it is evident out of the 17. c. of revelations where John sayes that Babylon was builded on seaven hills and that i'ts Impire did extend over the Kings of the earth which notwithstandig should fall down and be destroy'd all which has beeÌ„ verify'd of the City of Rome and of no other City in the whole world for it was foâ—erly and is at present builded on seaven hills and it's Impire only did then reach all parts of the world yet what John fore see came to pass for the Roman Impire was reduc'd almost to nothing the City wholly run'd by the Goths Wandals Hunns Longobards but what occasion'd people in them times to call Rome Babylon was a certain similitude that was between the City of Rome and that of Babylon when in the time of NabuchodoÌ„oâ—or BabyloÌ„ was an Imperial City whose King Nabuchodonoâ—or crully persecuted the people of God duriÌ„g their captivity there eveÌ„ so in the time of the Apostles Rome was an Jmperial City whose Improur was Nero who persecuted most cruelly the people of God during his reign it 's therefore the City of Rome was call'd another Babylon Whealy's fifth reason is grounded on the audieÌ„ce given to Paul in the Apostles assembly Acts c. 15. v. 12. by which it seems that Peter till then was wholly a stranger to the wonders Paul told them he had perform'd amoÌ„g the Gentiles this consequeÌ„ce is false for tho' General Ginkle related in a Council of war before the Prince of Orange how he behav'd himself at the breach of Agherim against the Irish it cannot be infer'd that the Prince of Orange himself was till then wholly a straÌ„ger to the Irish affairs and that he never fought at the breach of the Boyne or elswhere against them tho' Peter gave audience to Paul telling the Miracles wonders which God had wrought among the Gentiles by him and Barnabas it does not follow that Peter never preach'd the Gospel to any of the Gentiles before that time as for Whealy's 6th reason that it was after Pauls said relation that the Apostles and Elders sent Barsabas and Silos with him to Antioch to assist in the ministry I allow that to be true but what Whealy would infer out of it is false for it does not at all follow out of this that the Gospel was never preach'd before in any of those Countryes but what might be lawfully infer'd is that Barsabas Silos were not commaÌ„ded to go with Paul to Antioch till after the said relatioÌ„ but before this time beiÌ„g the 18. year after our Saviours PassioÌ„ the Gospel was preach'd not only in Antioch but also in Rome by Peter as I will shew hereafter as for Whealy's new commeÌ„tary on the words of our Saviour Mathew c. 16. v. 18. 19. John c. 21. v. 15. 16 17. I believe no man of sense will prefer it before the exposiâ—ion of all the holy Fathers and Doctors which is coÌ„trary to that of Whealy's as may be seeÌ„ in my Anâ—wer to Mr. JeÌ„niÌ„gs 4 poiÌ„t as for that word only which our Saviour would have added if he meant Peter in particular as Whealy pretends I would willingly know by what reason can he or any other shew that the word only would be requisite here to prove Peter's supremacy and not in that of John c 6. v. 50. where he the present Church of England do wrest the words of Christ to a figurative sence without the lest meÌ„tioÌ„ of the word only or siguratively by which it appears how incoherently Whealy argues aâ—d pretends to expouÌ„d the worâ—s of Christ in the said tâ—xts ' its apparent that it would be superfluous for Christ to express the word oÌ„ly in either of these texts viz Matt c. 16. John c. 21 it was enough that he spoake to Peter personaly in the singular number in these words Blessed art tâ—ou Simon Bâ—rjona for flesh blood have not reveal'd it uÌ„to thee but my Father who is in heaven I say also unto thee that thou art Peter upon this râ—ck I will build my Church the gates of Hell shall not prevaile agaiÌ„st it I will give unto thee the Keyes of the KiÌ„gdom of HeaveÌ„ what soever thou shall biÌ„d on earth shall he bouÌ„d in heaveÌ„ whatsoever thou shall loose on earâ—h shall be loos'd in heaveÌ„ Mat. c. 16 v. 1718. 19 so wheÌ„ they had diÌ„ed Jesus said to Simon Peter Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me more than these he said unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee he saith unto him feede my lambes he saith unto him again the second time Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me he saith unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee he saith unto him feede my sheepe he said unto him the third time Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time lovest thou me and he said unto him Lord thou knowest that I love thee Iesus said unto him feede my sheep John c 21. v. 15. 16 17. which words do plainly prove that our Saviour then meant Peter and none else of the Apostles for he excluded them by the words Simon Peter sonne of Jonas levest thou me which as the reader may observe our Saviour thrice coÌ„sequeÌ„tly repeated and after Peter answer'd each time he gave him in charge his lambes and sheepe commanding him to feede them which he would not have done if he had then meant equally all the rest of the Apostles as Whealy falsly alleages but would speake to them Generally in the plural number as he did in that of Matt. c. 18. v. 19 when he commanded them to go and teach all nations as for that new explication which Whealy gives saying that our Saviour speake particularly to Peter more than to the other Apostles because they were not in the danger that Peter was of swearing cuâ—sing denying his blessed Master as Peter afterwards did Matt c. 26. v. 7â— therefâ—re wanted not the consolation which the Saviour of the world judg'd nâ—edfull for the support of a faâ—linâ—