Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
kingdom_n bind_v church_n key_n 2,078 5 10.0076 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A42568 An answer to the compiler of the Nubes testium wherein is shewn that antiquity (in relation to the points of controversie set down by him) did not for the first five hundred years believe, teach, or practice as the Church of Rome doth at present believe, teach, and practice : together with a vindication of the Veteres vindicati from the late weak and disingenuous attempts of the author of Transubstantiation defended / by the author of the Answer to Mr. Sclater of Putney. Gee, Edward, 1657-1730. 1688 (1688) Wing G453; ESTC R21951 96,934 107

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Conclusion of it though our Compiler is so sly in the translating of it as if the Canon meant onely that the Bishop of Rome should govern the Vniversal Church according to the Acts of General Councils and to the Holy Canons whereas it is plain this Canon speaks not of the Exercise but of the Original of the Pope's Power and of the Testimonies for it in the Acts and Canons of the General Councils but F. Alexandre himself taught our Compiler to translate thus n Dissertatio quarta Par. prima Sec. prim p. 398. and truly I think he ought to have the Reputation of first finding the Gallican Liberties in this Definition of the Council of Florence which Council was not usually thought to have been such a friend to the Gallican Liberties witness what the Cardinal of Lorrain is said to have spoken of it in just such another Council at Trent but the Men of this age are strangely set upon making new discoveries this age found out that the Libri Carolini nor the Council of Frankfort were not against the Image-council of Nice that Bertram was as true a man for Transubstantiation as Paschasius Radbertus that first in all probability forged it and our Nat. Alexandre must come in for his share for discovering that greatest thing the French Clergy are so earnest upon in this Definition of the Council of Florence SECT II. The places of Scripture that are urged by the Church of Rome to prove the Divine Institution of the Pope's Supremacy are very few that of St. Matthew with another from St. John Nat. Alexandre our Compiler's Guide doth insist upon them for the proof of the Pope's Supremacy One would expect that they should be very clear and very full Texts that are brought to confirm such a Portentous Authority as the Papal Supremacy appears to be St. Matthew doth relate o Matth. 16.18 19. that upon St. Peter's having confessed our Saviour to be the Son of the living God our Saviour should say unto him Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. Here they tell us that our Saviour built his Church upon St. Peter who is the Rock mentioned here and that he was thereupon invested with all Church power the power of the Keyes which power and government was by him deposited with his Successours the Bishops of Rome In answer to this we say that there is nothing extraordinary or particular for St. Peter here because He is not the Rock mentioned here nor had the power of the Keyes committed to him any otherwise than in common with the rest of his fellow-Apostles as our Saviour put the Question to all the Apostles so St. Peter answering it in the name of them all had the promise of or received this power of the Keyes in behalf of them all and for their common use of them Since then this place of Scripture is not sufficiently evident or clear for the purpose both parties claiming an interest in it for their contrary senses and we avouching that it is absolutely against St. Peter's being either Rock or having any particular extraordinary power if it be considered with its relation to the context before and to the rest of the Gospels and Epistles either this passage of St. Matthew as obscure must be set aside as useless towards the proof of a Supremacy or They of the Church of Rome must convince us that the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers did always interpret this place of Scripture in favour of St. Peter's Supremacy This thing one would think they were very able to doe since they are so ready to say they can and to assert that the Fathers did unanimously interpret the Rock mentioned in this passage to be the Person of St. Peter Thus our Compiler p Nubes Test p. 22. very gravely tells us that the Fathers teach that Christ built his Church upon Peter and this F. Alexandre had taught him to say who certainly had considered the thing very well when he q Dissert 4. P. 1. Sec. 1. p. 274. tells us that the Fathers did with a Nemine contradicente r Quocirca Sancti Patres Communi suffragio c. Ibid. p. 274. interpret the Rock to be meant of St. Peter Ignorance among all people is allowed to alleviate a crime and a blind-fold implicit transcribing of a Writer's sense must be allowed to be very near allyed unto it or else our Compiler ought to be treated as a person guilty of very disingenuous and unjust behaviour towards the memory of the Fathers F. Alexandre however who taught our Compiler to publish so gross an untruth is by no means excusable for should we allow him to be ignorant in the Fathers own writings and to have transcribed this bold untruth out of Bellarmine Å¿ Accedat speaking of Peter 's being the Rock consensus Ecclesiae totius Graecorum ac Latinorum Patrum c. Bellarm. de Romano Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. or some other of their Writers yet He cannot be ignorant I am sure how fully his learned Countrey-man the famous Monsieur Launoy hath examined the sense of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers upon this Text of St. Matthew how distinctly he hath put down the four different Interpretations of the Rock in this Text the first of which makes it to be the Person of St. Peter the second makes it to be all the Apostles with their Successours the third teaches that it is the Faith confessed by St. Peter and the last that the Rock here is the Person of Christ himself t Launoii Epist ad Guil. Voellum apud Part. 5. Epistolarum p. 4 11 18 38. Natalis Alexandre cannot but know how invincibly this most learned Sorbonist hath shewn that the Generality of Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers are for the third Interpretation which makes the Faith confessed by St. Peter and not St. Peter himself to be the Rock on which Christ's Church was built that a great many are for the fourth Interpretation that says the Rock was Christ himself This last Interpretation falling in with the third for Christ or the Faith confessed concerning Christ come to the same thing may be with most reason called the unanimous Consent of the Church-Interpreters that the rock here is not Peter whenas there are but a few of those Fathers for the first Interpretation and most of their expressions capable of the second and not inconsistent with the third Interpretation So that if the Interpretations of above fifty Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we muster no fewer than eleven Popes and two Synods are to be admitted against that of three or four Fathers We are sufficiently secured that the Interpretation of the Rock in this Text its being the Faith confessed by St.