Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	apostle_n	peter_n	successor_n	3,530	5	9.4444	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56416	An answer to the most materiall parts of Dr. Hamond's booke of schisme: or a defence of the Church of England, against exceptions of the Romanists written in a letter from a Catholique gent. to his friend in England.	B. P.	1654 (1654)	Wing P5; ESTC R220298	14,092	28

saith we judg them and despise them as to the first I have often wondered and do now that men pretending to learning and reason should therein charge us with want of charity for if our Judgment be false it is error not malice and whether true or false we press it upon them out of love and kindness to keep them from the harm that according to our beleef may come unto them but since they deny they are scismaticks and offer to prove it we must not say it yet I think we ought until we have cause to beleeve them since our highest tribunal the Churches voice from which we have no appeal hath passed Judgment against them In the last Chapter he compiaineth of the Catholicks for reproaching them with the loss of their Church and arguing with their Disciples in this sort communion in some Church even externally is necessary but you cannot now communicate with your late Church for that hath no subsistence therefore you ought to return to the Church from whence you went out truly in this case I think they ought to pardon the Catholick who hath or undoubtedly is perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church and experience in the execution of that promise for 16 Ages in which none other can compare with him and sees another Church judged by one of the learnedst Heoker Ecle poll cha 5. most prudent persons confessedly that ever was amongst them to be a building likely to last but 80 years to be now torn up by the roots and this done by the same means by which it was setled I say if this Catholick beleeve his eyes he is at least to be excused and though I know the Doctor will reply his Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained yet let him remember how inconsequent this is to what he hath said before for ask him how doth it remain in being if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters amongst them for his defence against the Church of Rome is that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters from whence it wil follow that as they were set up by a secular authority so are they pulled down and un-bishoped by another secular Authority if it be said the Parliament which pulled them down had not the 3. bodies requisite to make a Parliament no more had that which set them up for the Lords Spirit was wanting both in Parlament and Convocation so that there was as much authority to pul them down as to set them up but it will be replyed that though they are pulled down yet are they stil Bishops viz the character remains with them Alas what is their characters if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished which follows their jurisdiction which jurisdiction the Doct makes subject to the secular authority so that whatsoever characters their Bishops Presbyters pretend to have they have according to his principles no power over the layity and so no character can be made of any Bishop as head and Pastor and of the people as bodie and flock and consequently their Church is gone and this he does out of a word in Rufinus which he supposeth to be taken in a special propriety of Law wheras indeed that Authors knowledg in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such beleef especially learned men saying the contrary But we account our selves Bishops and Priests not from an authority dependant upon Princes or inherited from Augustus or new but from Peter and Paul so shal stand and continue whatsoever Princes or secular powers decree when they according to their Doctrines and Arguments are not to wonder if they be thrown down by the same Authortly that set them up as the Synagogue was a Church to have an end so is this with theirs difference that the Synagogue was a true Church in reference to a better but this a counterfeit and tyrannical one to punish a better as concerning the Drs. prayer for Peace communion all good People wil joyn with him if he produce Fructus dignes penitentiae especially if he acknowledg the infallibility of the Church and supremacie of the Pope the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books the latter is expressed in the Councel of Florence in these words viz We desire that the Holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacie over all the World and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and head of the whole Church and the Father Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in St Peter from Christ a f●● power to feed direct ond govern the Catholick Church so far the Councel without obeying this the Dr is a Scismatick without consing the other an Heretick but lee him joyn with us in these all the rest will follow Thus Sir you have my sence of Dr Hammonds Book in all the Particulars which I think to the purpose my time nor the brevity fit for a Letter not permitting I should be more methodical and do rest Your Friend and humble Servant B. P. Bruxels the 30 March 1654. FINIS

Prosper that both Saint Peter and St Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome A second Evidence he bringeth from the donation of the Keyes Sect 20. which he sayeth were given equally to the Apostles Matt 28. yet confesseth the Keyes were especially promised to Saint Peter Matt 16. but performed only in common Matt the 28. which though they may be both true yet is absurdly said for who acknowledgeth a special promise should have found out a special performance which is done Joh 21. Again Sect 21. he would perswade the World that the Catholick Church holdeth none had the Keyes but Saint Peter calling it a peculiarity and inclosure of Saint Peter as if the other Apostles had them not which is calumnie I cannot pass without noting another old interpretation of Scripture in his 20 Sect out of Matthew the 19. speaking of the 12 Thrones at the day of Judgment he explicates to rule or preside in the Church his quibling about the Word is so light a thing as it is not worth consideration the sence being plain that upon Peter the Church was built specially though not with exclusion of others In the fifth Chapter Sect 1. first he lightly passeth over the two most considerable Texts of Scripture fit to be alledged for Saint Peters supremacy viz. Feed my Sheep and thou art Peter because they have no appearance and have been often answered Why no appearance because he and his Fellows say so and is if being as often repeated was not as likely to shew the answer was naught as the answering to impeach the Objector but who understands the principles of Catholick Faith knows that as well for other points of our Faith as for this of Saint Peters supremacy we relie not only upon such places of Scripture next he urgeth that if the succession to Saint Peter were the base of the Popes supremacie Sect 3. Antioch should be the chief See because St Peter sat there wherein to omit his first and second question whereof the first is untrue I answer to the third Negatively that the coustituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch before at Rome did confer no priviledg extraordinary on that Church and the reason is clearly deduced out of his second Quaere because it was before Rome for he could not give any such Authority but by devesting himself since there cannot be two heads to one body therefore this Authority and priuiledg of Saint Peter can rest Sect 4. be no where but where he dyed Then he tels you that the dignity or precedence of the Bishop of Rome is surely much more fitly deduced by the Councel of Calcedon from this that Rome was then the Imperial City or ordinary Residence of the Emperor a very wise Judgment that the quality upon which the unity that is the safety of the Church Universal relies should be planted upon a bottom fallible and subject to fail but the resolution was so shameful that the very Patriarch was ashamed imputed it to his ambitious Clergy who how tumultuary and untuly they were is to be seen in the Acts of the Councel Seventhly Sect 5. he cavilleth at the priviledg of Supream Magistracy calling it a method of security beyond all amulets then he tels us of Antiochs being equal to Rome and that Constantinople desired but the same priviledges against the very nature of the story for Constantinople being then a Patriarchy if that made it equal to Rome as this Doctor faineth what did it pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for seeing the Dr. assumes before that all Patriarchs were equal neither Rome it self and less Antioch had cause to complain As for the Canon of Ephesus Sect. 6. touching the Arch-Bishop of Cyprus it plainly sheweth that the Metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarchs seeing this case of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case the reason given doth shew that the superiority of Patriarchs was by custom received from their Ancestors contrary to that which the Dr before affirmed however it is still nothing to the purpose because the Authority which we say belongs to the Pope is neither Patriarchall nor derived from any institution or custom of the Church but from the institution of Christ Then he goes on with two examples Sect 7. in which he would perswade us that Justiniana prima and Carthage were made exempt Cities by the Emperor and seeth not that his own instance giveth the answer for as in the temporal donation he doth not exempt them from his own subjection so neither from the Popes in spiritual nay nor as much as giveth them the stile of Patriarchs though the Bishop of Constantinople in his own City ordinarily had it Sect 1. In his 6. Chapter he examineth another title peculiar to England viz that our Nation was converted by mission from Rome Sect 1. and this is totally beside the question for no man is so stupid as to pretend Saint Peter or the Church of Rome to have power over the Universal Church because his successors converted England But some pretend a special title of gratitude the violation of which aggravateth the sin of schismatizing from the Church of Rome in our Nation yet no man as far as I can understand thinks this latter Obligation of so high a nature as that for no occation or never so great cause it may not be dispensed with but only press it then when the benefit is slighted Sect 2. or by colourable arguments to the contrary unworthily avoided and yet this Doctor quite mistaking the question frameth an Argument as ful of words as emptie of matter affirming there cannot be two successive titles to possession of the same thing telling us that he who claimeth a Reward as of his own labour and travel must disclaim a donation c. if any passed before and that if a King have right by descent he cannot claim any thing by conquest by which you may see his understanding the Law is not much more then his understanding of our principles but to come to some matter His first Argument is that this Island was converted before Saint Augustines time Sect 4. surely he means by the name of Isleland the Land and Mountains and Trees for it he speak of the Men what hath the conversion of the former Islanders to do with the subjection and duty which the Saxons owe. His next Argument demandeth whether al that Saint Paul converted Sect 8. were obliged to be under him truly if it were to purpose I beleeve there might be proof that Saint Paul expected it but he doth not remember that he could us Saint Paul was Bishop of Rome and so it cometh to the same question but indeed he quite misseth the matter for no body stateth this for the Popes title but aggravation of the scism 3ly He said it was in the Emperors power to constitute Patriarchs whether that be so or not Sect 9. it will not be much