Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	bind_v	key_n	loose_v	3,794	5	10.2737	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92925	Schism dispach't or A rejoynder to the replies of Dr. Hammond and the Ld of Derry.	Sergeant, John, 1622-1707.	1657 (1657)	Wing S2590; Thomason E1555_1; ESTC R203538	464,677	720

S. Peter after a particularizing way the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner The antecedent I prove thus those words were spoken to S. Peter after a manner not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles therefore they were spoken to S. Peter after a particularizing way The consequence is most evident since particular is expresly the same with not common or not competible to the rest The Antecedent is proved no lesse evidently from the whole Series of the Text where we have first a particular Blessing of S. Peter sprung from a particular act of his to wit his Confession of Christ's Divinity Blessed art thou his particular name and to avoyd all equivocation which might communicate that name designing whose sonne he was Simon Bar-Iona my heavenly father hath revealed it vnto th●e in particular Next follows Christ's applying his words in particular here upon And I say vnto thee then alluding to his particular name given him by Christ himself with an emphasis and energy Thou ar● Peter or a Rock and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. And after all these particular designations follows the promise in the same tenour copulatively And I will give vnto thee still with the same speciality the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven Now hence Iargue The Confession of Christ to be the Son of God the Blessing there-upon The name Simon Bar-Iona The designed allusion to that name are not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles therefore the promise-expressing words concomitant were spoken to S. Peter in a way not common or competible to the rest of the Apostles But to returne whence wee came these words are a promise of the Keyes and their power therefore a promise of the Keyes and their power was made to S. Peter after a manner not common that is particular and that upon occasions originally springing from and constantly relating and alluding to S. Peter's particular person and particular name And thus much for the promise Next as for the performance of this particular promise wee argue thus It is worthy our Saviour not onely to perform his promise but also to perform it after the manner and tenour he promised But he promised the power of the Keyes to S. Peter after a particular manner as hath been shown ●●erefore he perfo●med his promise and gave it to S. Peter after a particular manner and consequently which is the position wee vltimately aym at S. Peter had the power of the Keyes after a more particular manner then the other Apostles The Major is evident because no man living would think himself reasonably dealt with if a promise were not performed to him after the manner it was made nay reason would think himself deluded to have his expectation raised as in prudence it would by such a particular manner of promising to something extraordinary and more then common and when it comes to the point to have his hopes defeated by a common and meerly equall performance The Minor is already proved in the foregoing paragraph The conclusion is the position in controversy Reason therefore informs us supposing once that the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner that it should be performed to him after the same manner nor need 's it any other proof from Testimonies if we once grant as none will deny that our B. Saviour did what was most reasonable and fitting Yet some of our Drs arguing ad hominem against the Protestāt make choice particularly of that place of Iohn 21. v. 15. 16. 17. to infer such a performance I proceed therefore in the way I begun and endeavour to show two things first that reason gives it secondly that the Scripture favours it that this place signifies a particularity of performance to S. Peter or a performance to him after a particular manner The first I prove ad hominem thus the promise being made to S. Peter after a particular manner and register'd in Scripture as hath been shown it is fitting that the correspōdent performance so worthy our Saviour should be exprest there likewise especially in the Protestant Grounds who grant a kind of self-perfectnes and sole-sufficiency to Scripture But there is no other place in Scripture so apt to signify a particular performance as this for the other places cited by Dr. H. Receive yee the Holy Ghost ●s my father sent me so send I you expresse onely a common performance therefore in all reason wee should think that the particular performance is exprest there The second I show thus the particular promise had preceeded apt in it's own Nature to breed some greater expectation in S. Peter These words were apt to satisfy that expectation they signify'd therefore a particular performance Again the thrice particularizing him by his name and relation Simon sonne of Ionas denotes the speaking of the following words to him particularly But the following words pasce oves ineas were apt and sufficient to instate him in the Office and give him the Authority of a Pastor It was therefore given him in a particular manner to be a Pastour in these words The Major is e●ident the Minor is proved For should any Master of a family bid one of his servants in the same words feed his sheep that servant would think him self sufficiently Authorized to perform that duty Thirdly the word amas me plus his Dost thow love me more than these manifestly put both a particularity and a superiority in S. Peter above the other Apostles in the interrogatory Therefore the inference there-upon feed my Sheep in ordinary reason should signify after the same manner and sounds as if it were put thus Dost thow love me more then these to which S. Peter assenting our Saviour may be imagin'd by the naturall sence of the words to reply If it be so that thou lovest me more then these then feed my Sheep more then these or have thou a Commission to feed my Sheep more then these sence he is more likely to perform his duty better and so more capable and worthy of a higher charge who bears a greater affection to his Master This paraphrase the words them selves seem to ground For otherwise to what purpose was it to make an interrogation concerning a greater degree of love or to what end was that particularizing and perferring words more then these put there if they had no correspondent influence nor connexion with the inference which ensves upon it Fourthly the verb pasce being exprest imperatively and spoken by a lord to his servant ought in all reason to signi●y a Command unles the concomitant words in the Text force another sence upon it which cannot be alledged here Since then every command of a lawfull Superiour gives a Commission to do that which he commands and that the words

the Dr. it is evident they are equally such The like argument he hath made heretofore for the equality of Apostles pillars foundation-stones c. because all of each sort were named by one plurall name Pardon me then Reader if I have given such a harsh character to this monstrous peece of Logick I professe I know not what better name to call it by truly and besides other considerations I cannot but resent it in the behalf of man's nature Which is Reason and am angry with Dr. H. in his owne behalf that he hath by his passion and interest so totally defaced it in him self as to produce that for an evidence which is so far from the least degree of probability that it is the greatest impossibility imaginable But especially when I see that the same person who acknowledges Schism greater then sacriledge or idolat●y would persuade rationall Souls into it by such putid non-sence I confesse I cannot contain my expressions from taking such liberties as truth and Iustice make lawfull but the concernement of my cause necessary Solution 3. Each single Apostle had this power as distinctly promised to him as S. Peter is pretended to have and the words of Scripture Math. 18. v. 18. are most clear for that purpose Of Schism p. 88. Reply there is not a word there expressing any distinction in order to any other Apostle much lesse singularizing each of them distinctly as you here pretend but a common and plurall donation onely whatsoever you shall binde c. and as for your Syllogism by which you would evade the shamelesnes of this assertion Answ p. 66. by saying that you mean't onely the Apostles were each of them singly to have and exercise the power of the Keyes and not all together in common or joyn'd together in Communion first neither agrees with your other words for it is one thing to say each could distinctly use that power another thing to say as you of Schism p. 8● l. 13. 14. this power was distinctly promised to each of them and then quoting Math. 18. v. 18. as most clear for that purpose where nothing is found but a cōmon expression whatsoever yee shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. without any distinction at all exprest Nor can such a pretended meaning stand with common sense unles the Dr. will confesse him self to have calumniated our tenet which imputation he hath before taken such pains to avoid for either it is put in opposition to us or not if not what does it there or to what end are all those testimonies brought of Schism p. 89 to second it If it be put in opposition to us and yet mean onely as Dr. H. says here that it was promised to all the Apostles as to twelve single persons each singly to have and exercise it and not all together in common then our tenet must necessarily be supposed and pretended by him to be that no single Apostle could bind or loose but all of them together in common onely which is so manifest a calumny that himself dares not openly own it though he slily impose it as he did the other about the Keyes being S. Peter's inclosure Yet it is as necessarily his as the excuse given is his which if he disclame he acknowledges the objected fault Solution 4. The addressing the speech to S. Peter in the singular is a token onely that Peter as a single person should have power but not either that no others should have it too observe Reader how the calumny he formerly would have acquitted himself of still sticks to him or that the manner in which S. Peter should have it should be singular to him and so as it was not to each of them Answ p. 64. 65 Reply this is onely your own saying show us out of the words themselves that this is more probable as I show'd the contrary and then I shall acknowledge that you have animated the dead letter more artificially then I otherwise you have done nothing for the question is not whether you can say so or no but whether the words oblige you to say so Solution 5. The particularity gives him particularly the power but excludes not others from the same power and the same degree of power Answ p. 65. Reply This is onely said again not shown that the words gave occasion to say it which was onely to be done He quotes indeed drily the places of Scripture yet puts down no words as his custome is but talks before and after the barren and unapply'd citations what he pleases Wee take the words of the Text debate them minutely and particularly and bring them home to the point to show that our tenet of a more particular powre is more probable out of their native force Let him do the like and show by the same method his explication more connaturall then mine and I shall grant he won the field in this probability-skirmish Himself will not deny that S. Peter had as much promis'd him as the rest when it was promis'd in common Math. 18. v. 18. The having then over and above this common promise at another distinct time and with most particularizing and distinguishing circumstances a promise of he same Keyes most manifestly is a priviledge peculiar to S. Peter and that on which wee ground the probability of having them promis'd in a particular manner and consequently performed in the same sort which wee make accoūt wee find with the like particularities Io. 21. Let the Reader then observe what countenance the words Grammatically prudentially scann'd give to our explications and deductions and expect what other explication so well circumstanc'd Dr. H. can deduce of the same words taken in their own native force and energy not what he will say upon his owne head Solution 7. The speciall energy of the applying the words particularly to S. Peter concludes that the Ecclesiasticall power of aeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house belongs to single persons such as S. Peter was and not onely to Consistories or Assemblies Of Schism p. 87. Reply This is still your own saying without ever endeavoring to show from the words and their circūstances they persuade that this is the sense of them But let it be so that you have evinc't against the Presbyterians from this place that a community must not govern but a Bishop that is one who is Superiour to that community who sees not how much better and more probably it follows hence that S. Peter was Superior to the consistory of the Apostles they being present when those particularizing words were spoken whence Dr. H. proves the Episcopall Authority over the consistory then it will follow that in succeeding times and distinct circumstances some one should be chief and over the Assembly Again the words not being expresse for his position he can onely make a parallell deduction thence after this sort if he will argue from the words that the same should be observed in a