Selected quad for the lemma: rest_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
rest_n	apostle_n	bishop_n	peter_n	2,802	5	7.9482	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71330	A preservative against popery. [Parts 1-2.] being some plain directions to unlearned Protestants, how to dispute with Romish priests, the first part / by Will. Sherlock ...	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1688 (1688)	Wing S3326; Wing S3342; ESTC R14776	130,980	192

other World but signifies the removal of the visible and sensible punishments of sin in restoring the sick person to health again That though such sickness was inflicted on him for his sins and possibly were the effects of Church-censures which in those days were confirmed and ratified by bodily punishments yet upon his reconciliation to the Church and the Prayers of the Elders and the ceremony of Anointing he should be restored to health again which was an external and visible remission of his sins and should be a plenary pardon if he brought forth the true and genuine fruits of repentance This is very natural and very agreeable to the scope and design of the Text and differs as much from the Popish Extream Unction as their greatest Adversaries could wish Such kind of Proofs as these are meerly the work of fancy and imagination and can impose upon no man who will but attend to the different use and signification of words 2. Another grand fault our Roman Adversaries are guilty of is that their Scripture-Proofs are always very lame and imperfect that is that they never prove their whole Doctrine from Scripture but only some little part of it They draw very fine and artificial Schemes and if they can find some little appearance in Scripture to countenance any one part of it they take that for a Proof of the whole As for instance Thus they tell us that Christ made Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the Universal Church his own Vicar upon Earth and that the Bishops of Rome who are St. Peter's Successors succeed not only to his Chair but to all the Rights and Prerogatives of St. Peter and therefore the Bishop of Rome also is the Head of the Church the Oecumenical Pastor who neither wants St. Peter's Keys nor Sword. This is a very notable point if it were well proved but as I observed before this being a matter of pure institution which depends wholly upon the Will of God it can be proved only by Scripture How much then of this do they pretend to prove from Scripture Why they will prove by Scripture that St. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles because Christ said unto him Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church and I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and seed my Sheep which indeed are lamentable Proofs for the same Power was given to all the Apostles 20 John 21 22 23. Then said Jesus unto them Peace be unto you as my Father sent me even so send I you all of you and therefore not one in subjection to another but all with equal Power and when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained Accordingly on the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost fell on them all they were all endowed with the Gift of Tongues and Miracles and Prophesie they all had the same Infallible Spirit and therefore needed no superiour Head over them They were to be separated into all parts of the World where they could have no Communication with each other and therefore could have no Universal Head. The History of the Acts of the Apostles gives not the least intimation of any such Superiority which either St. Peter challenged or the other Apostles paid him which are strong Presumptions against such a Supremacy of St. Peter and I suppose they themselves will grant that all the rest of the Apostles were as Infallible as he But suppose we should grant them that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles and had a kind of Primacy not of Government but Order how do they prove from Scripture that the Bishop of Rome succeeds in all the Rights and Prerogatives of St. Peter for unless this be proved whatever Prerogative St. Peter had it signifies nothing to them and yet this cannot be proved but by institution for though Christ had bestowed a Primacy on S. Peter yet unless he expresly grant it to his Successors too nay to his Successors in the See of Rome his Pramacy as being a Personal Prerogative must die with his Person As a Prince may grant a Priority to Persons in the same Office and Power may make a first Colonel or a first Captain but if these men to whom the Precedency is given die or are removed those who succeed in their Office and power to the same Regiment or Company do not therefore succeed to their Priority too for this did not belong to their Office but to their Persons and the King may give the Priority again to whom he pleases or appoint them to succeed in course according to their admission into such Offices And by the same reason the Primacy of the Roman Bishops who are St. Peter's Successors does not follow from the Primacy of St. Peter unless they can shew that Christ has given them the Primacy also as well as St. Peter and this must be proved from Scripture because it is matter of Institution and no Arguments in the World can prove any thing which depends solely upon an Institution without proving the Institution But this the Roman Doctors never pretend to for they know that there is not one word in Scripture about it and nothing but the Authority of Scripture can prove a Divine Institution So that could they prove the Primacy of St. Peter from Scripture they prove but half their point and that the most inconsiderable half too for it does them no good And therefore when they make a great noise about St. Peter's Primacy and Prerogatives never trouble your selves to dispute that point with them which is nothing to the purpose but require them to prove from Scripture that the Bishop of Rome as St. Peter's Successor is appointed by Christ to be the Supreme Oecumenical Bishop and the Prince of all Bishops And if you stick here as in reason you ought there is an end of that Controversie Thus there is nothing the Church of Rome makes a greater noise about than Infallibility though they are not agreed where to place this Infallibility whether in the Pope or a General Council But let it be where it will this being a matter of Institution must be proved by Scripture how then in the first place do they prove the Pope to be Infallible That they think is very plain because Christ says Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it But how does this prove that the Bishop of Rome is Infallible For here is not one word of the Bishop of Rome Yes this proves St. Peter to be infallible who was afterwards Bishop of Rome and therefore all his Successors are infallible too Now that St. Peter was infallible as all the other Apostles were we readily grant though I think this Text does not prove it But

does this prove the Bishop of Rome's Infallibility Just as St. Peter's Primacy proves the Pope to be the Oecumenical Primate They themselves must grant that an infallible Apostle may have a fallible Bishop for his Successor or else they must either deny that the rest of the Apostles as well as St. Peter were infallible or they must grant that all the Apostles Successors that is all the Bishops who succeeded any of the Apostles in their Sees must be as infallible as the Bishops of Rome who succeeded St. Peter and then there will be so much Infallibility that it will be worth nothing If then there be not a natural and necessary entail of Infallibility upon the Successors of infallible Apostles they must shew us an express Institution which makes the Successors of Peter at Rome infallible And let our Protestant demand this before he owns the Infallibility of the Pope of Rome and then I believe they will not think him worth Converting Thus as for those who place Infallibility in a General Council demand a Scripture-proof of it that they would produce the General Council's Charter for Infallibility This they can't do but they say the Church is infallible and the General Council is the Church Representative and therefore a General Council must be infallible too So that here are several things for them to prove and to prove by Scripture too for there is no other way of proving them before they can prove the Infallibility of General Councils As 1. That the Church is infallible 2. That a General Council is the Church Representative 3. That the Church Representative is that Church to which the promise of Infallibility is made And then they might conclude that a General Council as being the Church Representative is infallible Now instead of proving every particular of this by Scripture as they must do if they will prove by Scripture that General Councils are infallible they pretend to prove no more than the first of the three that the Church is infallible and that very lamely too as may appear more hereafter and then they take all the rest for granted without any proof which is just as if a man who in order to prove his Title to an Estate is required to prove that this Estate did anciently belong to his Family that it was entailed upon the Heir Male that this entail was never cut off nor the Estate legally alienated and that he alone is the true surviving Heir should think it enough to prove onely the first of these that the Estate did anciently belong to his Family which it might have done and yet not belong to it now or if it did still belong to it he may not be the true Heir Thus if we consider what it is they teach about Purgatory we shall quickly perceive how little it is they pretend to prove of it they tell us that there is a Purgatory-fire after this life where men undergo the punishment of their Sins when the fault is pardoned that the Church has power out of her stock of Merits which consists of the supererogating Works of great and eminent Saints to grant Pardons and Indulgencies to men while they live to deliver them from several thousand Years punishment which is due to their Sins in Purgatory that the Souls in Purgatory may be released out of it by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living which is the very life and soul of this Doctrine of Purgatory Now of all this they pretend to prove no more from Scripture but that there is a Purgatory-fire after this Life and how they prove it you have already heard But that either Penances or Pilgrimages and other extraordinary Acts of Devotion while we live or the Pope's Pardons and Indulgencies can either remit or shorten the pains of Purgatory or that the Prayers and Alms of our living Friends or Masses said for us by mercenary Priests can deliver us out of Purgatory which we are principally concerned to know and without which Purgatory will not enrich the Priests nor the Church this they never attempt that I know of to prove by Scripture whether there be a Purgatory or not in it self considered is a meer speculative point and of no value But could they prove that the Pope has the Keys of Purgatory and that Alms and Masses will deliver out of Purgatory this were worth knowing and is as well worth proving as any Doctrine of the Church of Rome for there is nothing they get more by But if you will not believe this till they produce a Scripture-proof of it you may let them dispute on about the place of Purgatory and keep your Money in your Pocket Thus it is in most other cases if you take their whole Doctrine together and demand a Proof of every part of it and not take a Proof of some little branch of it for a Proof of the whole you will quickly find that they will not be so fond of disputing as some of them now are 3. Another way our Roman Adversaries have of proving their Doctrines from Scripture is instead of plain and positive proofs to produce some very remote and inevident consequences from Scripture and if they can but hale a Text of Scripture into the premises whatever the conclusion be they call it a Scripture-proof There are infinite instances of this but I can only name some few Thus they prove the perpetual Infallibility of the Church because Christ promises his Disciples to be with them to the end of the world 28. Matth. 20. which promise cannot be confined to their persons for they were to die long before the end of the World and therefore must extend to their Successors Suppose that and does Christ's being with them necessarily signifie that he will make them Infallible Is not Christ with every particular Church with every particular Bishop nay with every particular good Christian and must they all be Infallible then Thus Christ promises that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church Ergo the Church is Infallible for if Error and Heresie prevails against the Church the Gates of Hell prevail against it And I add if Sin and Wickedness prevail against the Church the Gates of Hell prevail against it Ergo the Church is Impeccable and cannot Sin which is to the full as good a consequence as the other And therefore the Gates of Hell prevailing can neither signifie the meer prevalency of Errors or Sin in the Church but such a prevalency as destroys the Church and this shall never be because Christ has promised it shall never be and it may never be though the Church be not Infallible and therefore this does not prove Infallibility Thus they prove there is such a place as Purgatory where Sins are forgiven and expiated because our Saviour says That the sin against the Holy Ghost shall neither be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come Matt. 12. 32. and therefore there are some