Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	bind_v	earth_n	loose_v	17,667	5	10.9453	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45460	A reply to the Catholick gentlemans answer to the most materiall parts of the booke Of schisme whereto is annexed, an account of H.T. his appendix to his Manual of controversies, concerning the Abbot of Bangors answer to Augustine / by H. Hammond.	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1654 (1654)	Wing H598; ESTC R9274	139,505	188

this brief review of what is there said It is this The power of the Keyes is promised S. Peter Mat. 16. but to him that from hence i. e. from the promising it to him singly in that place pretends this donative and consequent power as a peculiarity and inclosure of Peter's two considerations are there offered and thought sufficient to supersede any such conclusion Num. 4 Here certainly a bare supposition will not be the accusing or consequently accusing falsly i. e. calumniating of any If no man say this besides my losing my pains in superseding such a but possible conclusion there is no other harm done Onely I shall demand Is that promise of the Keyes to Saint Peter Mat. 16. made use of by a Romanist to prove Christ's promise of some special power to S. Peter which was not promised to the other Apostles If this Gentleman answer No then 1. I must inferre that this Gentleman is no Romanist because in this very page he mentions the first words of this text Tues Petrus as one of the two most considerable texts of Scripture fit to be alledged for S. Peter's supremacy 2. I shall conclude from this his present supposed negation together with his own words in the last Paragraph that the words of Christ Ioh. 21. Feed my sheep c. were not the instating of any power on S. Peter which was not common also to the rest of the Apostles for those words Ioh. 21. were saith he a special performance answerable to that promise of the Keyes to Peter Mat. 16. as a special promise and consequently if there were nothing in that promise peculiar to S. Peter there was nothing in that performance peculiar to him And so neither he nor any Romanist must henceforth conclude any thing for S. Peter from either of those particular addresses of Christ to him Mat. 16. or Ioh. 21. which they will not equally yeild from thence to all the other Apostles And then that will more compendiously perform what I by a greater circuit of considerations indevoured to doe i. e. supersede all the Romanists conclusions from one or both these places for certainly if they pretend not to inferre somewhat for S. Peter which is not by them equally granted to all the rest of the Apostles all that those texts will be able to doe is to confute the Presbyterie not to establish the Papacie no more being from hence deducible for the Bishop of Rome the successor of one Apostle than for the severall other Bishops successours of the other Apostles Num. 5 But if upon the sight of these consequences he shall now say that in this of Mat. 16. 19. there is any thing be it never so little so as to be capable of the phrase a special promise ensured upon S. Peter which was not elsewhere promised also to the other Apostles I shall then conclude that it seems I have not calumniated him or the Church which he defends in saying that they make this power a peculiarity and inclosure of Saint Peter for so it must be if it belong to him and not to others Num. 6 And 't is not sufficient to say that the power of the Keyes was common to him with the other Apostles but yet some other special power was there reserved to S. Peter For of that specialty whatsoever it is my present Dilemma proceeds and desires to be informed whether any Romanist conclude it from that text of Mat. 16. and if he doe not then the inconveniences will presse him which I have here mentioned If he doe then I shall now conclude anew not that the Catholick Church but that this Catholick Gentleman holds that which he will not be able to prove because there is not the least minute portion of power promised to him in that 16 Chap which is not elsewhere promised to all the Apostles Peter is called a stone on which the Church shall be built and to Peter the Keyes are promised and the twelve Apostles are in like manner and all equally twelve foundation-stones of the same building and the Keyes are equally promised to all them And this being there proved at large § 21. and the probations extended not onely to the power of the Keyes but after to the compellation of Tues Petrus and they will be extensible to all the most diminutive imaginary fractions of either of those powers I shall farther conclude that whatsoever he shall now return to this Dilemma will equally secure me from having calumniated either him or the Church maintained by him Sect. X. Sitting on twelve Thrones Mat. 19. Num. 1 HIs third Exception to this Chap is to another interpretation of mine which it seems hath not the luck to approve it self to him Thus Num. 2 I cannot passe without noting another odde interpretation of Scripture in his 20 Sect. out of Mat. 19. speaking of the twelve Thrones at the day of Judgment he explicates to rule or preside in the Church Num. 3 I doe acknowledge to understand the twelve Thrones Mat. 19. of the Apostles ruling and presiding in the Church and S. Augustine long before so understood it and if Christ's sitting on the throne of his glory may be the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be rendred in the regeneration or in the resurrection meaning thereby Christ's resurrection and ascension to the throne of his glory there will then be no difficulty so to understand it that when Christ was gone to heaven these should succeed him in the government of his Church on earth and so as the Phylarchae ruled and judged the severall tribes of Israel exercise judicature binde and loose excommunicate and absolve in the Church no one having the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any more than of order among them Num. 4 But this Gentleman gives no reason for preferring any other interpretation onely calls mine an odde one And when I have replied first that this place comes in ex abundanti onely as it is being thus interpreted in concord with that other of Mat. 16. 18. and therefore secondly it is not an odde one and thirdly the cause in hand will stand as firm though this interpretation should be found to have no truth in it fourthly that my interpretation is reconcileable with his and therefore his if granted will not be exclusive of mine they that shall judge the world hereafter may for some time have presided in the Church and so also judged here fifthly that this place and the grounds of this interpretation are elsewhere insisted on at large I shall need adde no more to this single dislike of his in this place Sect. XI The equivalence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twelve foundation-stones Num. 1 HE concludes with some shew of dislike of what I had said to the vulgar place of Tues Petrus Thus Num. 2 His quibling about the word is so light a thing as it is not worth consideration the sense being plain that