Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	apostle_n	power_n	remit_v	3,967	5	10.6590	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42386	A brief examination of the present Roman Catholick faith contained in Pope Pius his new creed, by the Scriptures, antient fathers and their own modern writers, in answer to a letter desiring satisfaction concerning the visibility of the protestant church and religion in all ages, especially before Luther's time.	Gardiner, Samuel, 1619 or 20-1686.	1689 (1689)	Wing G244; ESTC R29489	119,057	129

have Rome Where first observe that he with Irenaeus ascribeth the same Authority to Corinth Philippi c. which he doth to Rome Secondly He speaketh not of Jurisdiction but matter of Faith and Apostolick Doctrine Thirdly It 's conditional if you be near Italy you have Rome Tertullian never thought that all Christian Churches were subject to Rome either as to Doctrine or Government or were bound to appeal and sub mit unto her Again Chap. 20. The Apostles having first preached the Gospel in Judea promulged the same doctrine of Faith to the Nations In regard of this doctrine they are accounted Apostolical Wherefore so many and great Churches are that one first Church from the Apostles of which all are So all are first omnes primae and all Apostolical whilst all prove one Unity Now if all are first all Apostolical how can the Roman Church claim any Primacy or Principality over all even Apostolical Churches Origen in Matth. Petra est omnis Christi imitator 16. Every Disciple of Christ is that Rock If you think the Church to be built on Peter onely what will become of John and the rest of the Apostles What was spoken to Peter was spoken to all the Apostles and Christians All are Peter and the Rock The Keys were not onely given to Peter This now at Rome is no less than Heresie Epist 45.47.49 Let us hearken to Saint Cyprian who usually wrote to Pope Cornelius as to his Brother Colleague and Fellow-Bishop not as his Prince and Sovereign or Universal Bishop especially in his 72. Epistle directed to him ' In which matter we force no man we give Law to no man seeing every Bishop hath the free liberty of his own will in the administration or Government of his Church being to give account of his actions not to the Bishop of Rome but to God. In his Preface before the Council of Carthage he hath these words None of us maketh himself Bishop of Bishops i. e. Supreme Universal Bishop or compelleth his Colleagues by tyrannical terrour to obedience c. where he seemeth to reflect on Pope Stephen Compare those words of Tertullian de Pudicit c. 10. The High Priest the Bishop of Bishops meaning the Bishop of Rome saith I absolve Adulterers Ejus errorem denotabis qui Haereticorum causam defendit Baronius ad Ann. 258. N. 47. A Canonized Saint Menolog Graec. in Octob. 28. ☞ Epist 75. which no doubt he spake ironically and by way of irrision In his Epistle 74. he writeth against Pope Stephen charging him with Errour and pleading the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God. Can any man believe Cyprian took Pope Stephen for his Supream Governour and infallible Head of all Churches But Firmilian the famous Bishop of Cappadocia highly commended by Baronius ad ann 258. num 45. was not afraid to accuse the same Pope Stephen of open and manifest folly who saith he glorying de Episcopatûs sui loco of his Episcopal Seat or Sea and that he is Successour of Saint Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were laid maketh many Rocks and buildeth new Churches He addeth also Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus abservare quae sunt ab origine tradita De Vnitate Eccles Paci consoretio praedicti honoris potestatis Although he said before of Peter tibi dabo c. super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas that the Roman Church was guilty of violating the Antient Canons and that Pope Stephen by Excommunicating so many Christian Churches Excommunicated himself I will add that noted passage of St. Cyprian Idem caeteri quod Petrus c. The rest of the Apostles were the same with Peter endowed with an equal fellowship or copartnership of Honour and Power They are all Pastors but the Flock is but one which is to be fed by all not Peter onely or his Successours by vertue of feed my sheep by unanimous consent not by deputation by or subjection to Peter and such as succeed him at Rome A little before he saith Although Christ granted to all the Apostles after his Resurrection parem potestatem equal power breathing on them the Holy Ghost and saying whose sins ye remit c. Yet to manifest Unity he appointed one Chair He speaketh to Peter and to thee will I give c. singularly Why not that Peter had a greater Power or Authority which he expresly denied before than the rest of the Apostles but saith Saint Cyprian to commend to us Unity that the Church ought to be one without Schism to the end of the World which is the intent of all that Discourse Now if Saint Peter had no Supremacy over all the Apostles and Churches the Pope as deriving it from him can have just right to none Let me add Saint Cyprian's 67. Epistle where he adviseth them what to do concerning the Heretical French Bishop whom he would not have the People to own though he had surreptitiously obtained Pope Stephens confirmation He addeth as a reason V. Epist 68. We are many Pastors but we feed one Flock and we ought to gather and succour all the Sheep yea if any of our Society è collegio nostro i. e. any Bishop Si haeresin facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentaverit subveniant caeteri Epist 67. should fall into Heresie and rent the Church the rest ought to help where he exempteth not any Bishop no not the Pope from possibility of erring even Heretically as to be sure Pope Liberius and Honorius did In Arnobius and Lactantius I find nothing to our present purpose I pass to Saint Hilary De Trinit l 2. Lib. 6. n. 674. Haec fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum pag. 174. This is the one immoveable foundation this is the Rock of Faith confessed by Saint Peter Thou art Christ the Son of God. Again On this Rock of Confession the Church is built This Faith is the foundation of the Church In the same manner Saint Chrysostome often expounds the Rock In locum Hom. 55. Christus ipse est Petra Greg. M. in Psalm Poenitent 5. Augustin in Joann Epist 1. Tract 10. Matth. 16. of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confession of the Deity of Christ made by Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles Add Theophylact See Liberius his Epistle to Achanasius Opera Athan. Tom. 1. lib. 1. in Jovinian c. 14. Saint Basil of Seleucia with others Basil the Great Epist 8● ad Athanasium termeth Athanasius in the name of the Greeks their Head the leader and Prince of Ecclesiastical affairs to whom they did fly for advice Surely Saint Athanasius rather than the Arian Heretick Pope Liberius was like a Rock unshaken in those days Saint Hierome saith the Church is built on the Apostles ex aequo In 1. Epist Joan. Tract 10. equally not on Peter principally or onely much

omnes dicitur Aug. de agone Christi c. 30. 1 Pet. 5.2 Acts 20.28 Gal. 2. Chrysost at least in 18 places calls St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Casaubon Exercit. 16. Paulus Apostolorum maximus Origen Hom. 3. in Numer Quamvis Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem Christus tribuat c. Cypr. de unitate Ecclesiae Paulus erat Petro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nec opus habuit Petro Chrysost in Gal. c. 2. that our Lord gave the Keys first to Peter to be communicated by him ●o the rest of the Apostles No. The Scripture plainly saith Christ breathed on them all at once together and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. Here the Keys promis'd to Peter are given not onely to him or first to him to be given to the rest of the Apostles by him but to all of them together in one and the same breath without preferring one before another Neither doth that other place feed my Lambs feed my sheep prove in the least that Christ committed his whole Church to Peter onely as Universal Pastour and Head of it for to feed Christ's sheep is to teach them with the word of life and this is charg'd immediately and equally on all the Apostles who had their Mission and Commission not from Peter but from Christ himself saying All power is committed to me c. Go ye therefore teach all Nations c. Yea this duty of Feeding as also Ruling implied as some think in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Duty incumbent on all inferiour Pastors and Bishops as St. Peter himself acknowledgeth Feed the flock of God taking the care thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I might add that St. Paul had a greater part by far of Christs flock under his Pastoral care than St. Peter for he was the Apostle of the Uncircumcision or Gentiles preaching to them Peter of the Circumcision or Jewish Nation From all which it is evident that the Pope supposing him which is not at all granted to succeed Peter in his whole Apostolick Power in plenitudinem potestatis it no way follows that he is or can be Supreme Head of the Universal Church Other Apostles in their Apostolick Churches planted by them being as to Ecclesiastical Power not at all inferiour but equal to him and the Roman Church As for a priority of Place or Order in regard Rome was at first before Constantine's days the Seat of the Emperour we deny it not but this Preheminency as the General Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon declare was given by the Ancient Fathers and Bishops they say not by any appointment of Christ in regard it was the Imperial City of which more hereafter But to put an end to this Controversie we will appeal to an infallible Judge such as the Pope himself shall not refuse even Saint Peter himself whose words are these 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves c. whether to the King as supreme c. If St. Peter acknowledge not himself but the King to be Supream methinks it should ill become his Successours to deny Kings to be supream over them But possibly it will be said St. Peter meant this supremacy onely in matters Civil not Ecclesiastical Well we take what is granted Carerius de Potestate Pontificis lib. 2. cap. 23. Cajetan in Aquin. 2. qu. 99. art 3. See the R R. Bishop of Lincoln his observation on the Pope's Bull against Q Elizabeth How is it then consonant to Apostolical doctrine for St. Peter's Successors to exempt and that in civil matters all Clergy-men from the jurisdiction and commands of the King as if they were not his Subjects as well as others Yea farther to absolve the Laity also from all obedience to their natural Princes cursing all such as obey them stirring them up when they think fit to fight against depose and murther them Is this to acknowledge the King supream Peter did but draw his sword to rescue Christ the Son of God from the hands of Murtherers and he is commanded to put it up And may Popes as they often have done command Subjects to draw it against their lawful Sovereigns But the King here spoken of was an Heathen even Nero. True. However all Christians according to Apostolical doctrine must be subject to their King tho an Heathen and ought they not much rather then to be subject to him being a Christian St. Paul's Precept is general Let every soul be subject to the higher powers which Powers were at that time Heathens yet every soul i.e. a Synecdoche every Person tho an Apostle or Evangelist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in locum As also Theodoret. Theophylact. and Oecumenius in locum Add Bernard Epist 64. ad Senonensem Archiepisc Qui scipsum excipit seipsum decipit as St. Chrysostom comments on that Text much more the Pope ought to be subject Possibly some will reply That the Church and St. Peter the Head of it had no Auhority over Heathens which are without but that they had a supremacy over all Christians and consequently over Kings as Christians If this exception be of any weight it unavoidably follows that whilst Nero was an Heathen St. Peter was his Subject and he Sovereign but if he had become a Christian S. Peter was his Sovereign and had the supremacy over him Was not this an excellent reason to persuade Nero to become a Christian whereby he must deprive himself of the Sovereignty The truth is Christ came not tollere jura sed peccata mundi to take away the sins not the rights of the meanest Subjects much less of Kings or in the least to diminish their just Authority 1 Tim. 6.1 2 The Apostles expresly charge Children to be obedient to their Parents Servants to their Masters tho they were Heathens and themselves Christians Dominion is not founded in Grace neither is Christ's Kingdom as he himself professed of this World for then would my Servants fight He that gives Kings converted a Crown of Glory deprives not them of their Earthly one or any due right belonging to it Obedience therefore in all things either active or passive is necessarily to be yielded unto them as supream Governours Nor the Sacrifice in the Mass Eighthly Concerning a real and proper Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass or Holy Eucharist it is expresly contradicted in the Scripture especially by St. Paul Heb. 7.27.9 25 26 27 28. 10.10 In which places the blessed Apostle distinguisheth Christ's Sacrifice from and prefers it before the Levitical ones in regard they were reiterated and often repeated not so this but by once offering of himself once offered up by himself Heb. 9.27 28. and once for all he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified As then men properly can die no more than once so Christ can be properly sacrific'd no more but once 'T is St. Paul's own argument In

can be assur'd of cleaving to what is uncertain Certa ratione nescimus an Sancti nestra vota cognoscant quamvis piè hoc credamus Cajetan in 22. qu. 88. Art. 5. 1 John 2.2 1 Tim. 2.5 and neglecting what is undoubtedly lawful i.e. to pray to God through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and man the only Advocate with the Father who is alone the Propitiation for our sins who so loved us as to die for us which neither the blessed Virgin nor any Saint ever did In a word Prayer or Invocation is as all grant Latria an act of divine Worship and therefore must by no means upon any pretence be given in any degree to fellow-servants but reserv'd to God our Sovereign only See thou do it not as the Angel said to St. John who would have worshiped him not as God but as the subordinate revealer of those glorious mysteries to him I am thy fellow-servant worship God. Rev. 22.9 Vtinam velletis ipsos colere facile abipsis disceretis non ●●los celere Audite Angelum doctorem c. August in Psalm 96. V. Psalterium B. Virginis apud Chemnitium in Exam Concilii Trident. See Bishop Andrews his Posthuma against Cardinal Perren Doctor Brevint c. They who are for worshiping Angels Why do they not as St. Augustin saith hearken to the Angel saying See thou do it not As for their usual evasion That they do not pray to them but only desire them to pray for them it 's vain and impertinent for they not only pray or desire them to pray for them but they directly pray to them using the very words and Prayers which David and other holy men of God have us'd to God himself yea they beg of them such things as none but God can bestow as forgiveness of sins increase of Grace and Eternal Glory No man that has read their Breviaries and Prayer-Books can be ignorant of the truth of this Fifthly the Scripture no where commends to us or commands worshiping of any Images Nor the worshiping of Images Inter traditiones est Imaginum veneratio Aquinas par 3. q. 25. art 3 This Law is not ceremonial but natural or moral as Irenaeus Tertul. Cyprian Auslin affirm See Bellarmin lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 7. The 2. Nicene Council say it was ceremonial who yet ground worship of Images not on Scripture but Ecclesiastical Tradition V. Concil Nic. 2. act 7. apud Coriol Abulensis in loc qu. 5. Aquinas part 3. qu. 25. art 3. Durandus lib. 3. dist 9. qu 2. ait fatuum esse imagines ad repraesentandum Deum facere Vasquez lib. 2. de Adorat disp 4. c. 2. who quoteth others Exod. 32.5 Lactant. Instit lib. 2. Exod. 32.1 In Exod. 32 6. 1 Cor. 10.7 Par. 3. qu. 25. art 3. 4. Azor. Instit lib. 9. c. 6. Suarez Tom. 1. disput 54. sect 4. Vasques de adoratione lib. 2. c. 4. Valentia Costerus but exp esly forbids it No Precept nor Example can be found of any Prophet or Apostle that requir'd or practis'd it The second Commandment most suspiciously if not consciously thrust up into the first by Popish Catechisms is clearly against it Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor which is more comprehensive the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth c. thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them c. Now what things are in Heaven God the Father Son and holy Ghost Angels and glorifi'd Saints We may not therefore make to worship them the Images or likenesses of any of these All are forbidden Surely if any Image were to be made and worshiped certainly that of God might But God himself expresly forbids it Deut. 4.15 16. for saith he When I came down from Mount Sinai ye saw no manner of similitude c. take heed therefore lest you corrupt your selves by making any graven or molten Image and likeness c. Hence some even of the Roman Church condemn the making of any image of God. How highly was God incens'd against the Jews for making and worshiping the golden Calf which yet was tho not a formal Image an Emblem or memorial of the true God Hence the Feast was proclaim'd to be kept at least ultimately and intentionally as Papists use to distinguish Johovae to the honour of Jehovah Could the Jews be such Sots themselves as to imagine that the Calf made a day or two before brought them out of Egypt several months before it was made They call'd it therefore their God only as a representative or Hieroglyphical memorial of him they had a mind to see as Heathen Idolaters ever had going before them in Effigie Make us Gods or a God to go before us Yet St. Paul expresly condemns this Feast and Worship as plain Idolatry Neither be ye Idolaters as were some of them as it is written The people sat down to eat and drink c. And Idolatry is summus seculi reatus as Tertullian hath it no less than high Treason against the Majesty of God in giving his honour upon any pretence or in any respect to what is not God but a Creature as every Image whether materially or formally consider'd is Now it 's the known doctrine of Aquinas Azorius and the Jesuits that the very same honor latria which belongs to God or Christ is to be given to their Images for their sakes whom they represent as if out of reverence to the King I should honour his Judges Officers or Favourites with the very same outward expressions of reverence homage and Allegiance I yield to himself Would any wise Prince take this well In a word Let it be only remember'd that God especially in this particular of worshiping Images hath declar'd himself to be a jealous God visiting the iniquity Exod. 20. signally the Idolatry of Fathers upon their Children 2 Chron. 5.3.24 of which good King Josiah the Son of Manasseh was a remarkable instance Nor Indulgences Sixthly Concerning Indulgences i. e. a Power in the Pope for Money to grant out of the common Treasury of Christ and the Saints merits amassed together as much as he pleaseth to any person for the freeing of him from the temporal punishment due here or in Purgatory for his sins as if Christ alone were not abundantly sufficient is a doctrine which hath no real ground not the least in holy Scripture We read indeed of St. Paul's remitting to the penitent incestuous Corinthian part of that Ecclesiastical Penance which was imposed on him but of making over to him V. Cassand consult art 12. in fine 2 Cor. 2.10 or any one else the merits of any Saints we find not the least intimation Cardinal Cajetan Durand Roffensis and others grant that Indulgences have no ground in Scripture as we shall shew hereafter yea they are contrary to it which every where ascribes all remission of all sorts of sins and consequently of all