Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	aaron_n	bishop_n	moses_n	30	3	6.7531	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A02400	The Romish chaine. By Edmund Gurnay, parson of Harpley	Gurnay, Edmund, d. 1648.	1624 (1624)	STC 12530; ESTC S121205	26,705	112

Finally for as much as the Lord hath told vs that many shall come from the East and from the West and sit with Abraham Isaac and Iacob and the children of the Kingdome shall bee cast out as also that whosoeuer heareth his Word and keepeth it the same is his Brother and Sister and Mother and that it should not profit the Iewes for that they had Abraham to their Father Hee telling vs also in the Old Testament by his Prophet that an vngodly Sonne should fare neuer the better for his godly Father nor a godly Sonne any thing the worse for his vngodly Father the course also of the times declaring vnto vs how holy Kings had vnholy Sonns to succeede them and on the contrary as good King Iotham hauing a wicked Sonne Ahaz for his Successour and he a good Son Hezechia for his Successour and hee a wicked Son Manasses for his Successour and hee a good grand-child Iosiah for his Successour and hee a wicked Sonne Iehoahaz for his Successour It may sufficiently resolue a Christian mind how farre it is from the purpose of God that his gifts and graces should goe by succession For though often times a good and godly Father had a good and godly Son to succeed him yet was not that by vertue of Succession but by vertue of Gods grace immediately directing the Son as well as the Father euen as to day may be as faire a day as yesterday and yet not because it succeeds yesterday but because the Sunn shines as immediately vpon it as it did vpon yesterday Finally for a conclusion whosoeuer challengeth Supremacy in the Church by vertue of Succession does plead no lesse then flat contradiction For whosoeuer is Supreame Head of the Church must bee immediate vnto God himselfe But whosoeuer claimeth any thing by vertue of Succession does of necessity imply that there is a person betwixt him and the Lord namely his predecessor from whom his vertue is deriued The next Linke of the Chaine is this that Only the Bishops of Rome were the Successours of Peter in their times Whereunto we answer First that no diuine record does auouch so much or so much as mention any by the name of Bishop of Rome and therefore the knowledge of any rites concerning that Sea can not bee materiall vnto a point of faith Secondly as it is not certainely agreed vpon who that Bishop was which immediately Succeded Peter some affirming Liuius some Clemens and some Clitus to bee the man so can there be no cause shewne why som Bishop of Rome must needs be he For first if holinesse of life were sufficient to make a Successour so euery Christian might be Peters successor as wel as any Bishop of Rome Secondly if besides holinesse of life there must also concurre soundnesse of Doctrine yet so also any Pastor may as well be his successour Or if yet further such a quantitie of charge as Peter had bee requisite vnto the constitution of his Successour yet so also euery ordinary Diocesan is able to be his successor Or if yet further the foure fold qualifications Apostolicall namely Immediate calling Generalitie of commission Infallibility of Iudgement and Vniuersality of Languages must concurre to make such a Successour yet as the first Bishops of Rome are no where avouched to bee thus qualified more then others if so much especially if they knew no Language but the Latin and came to their places by Election which is no immediate Calling So neither will such quallification make a Successor vnto Peter more peculiar then vnto the rest of the Apostles vnto whom such foure-fold qualification was common wherein then shall consist the marrow and quiddity which makes the Roman Bishops the peculiar Successours of Peter For should it be supposed that some peculiar imposition of hands did passe from Peter vpon the first Bishop of Rome wherewith the Holy Ghost was giuen in the time of the Apostles or some portion of Peters spirit was giuen to that first Bishop as the spirit of Moses was vnto the Seauenty or that Peters garments were put vpon him as the garments of Aaron were vpon his Successours or some such like Rite of conueyance yet for as much as those kinde of ceremonies when they were vsed had no vertue in themselues but were diuised by the wisedome of God for the shaddowing and concealing his owne miraculous and immediate operations as our Sauiour and the Apostles vsed Spitle and Clay and Hemmes of garments Napkins Partlets Shaddowes the intitling any Bishop of Rome vnto Peters vertue spirit or priuiledge by means of any such outward passage which hath no diuine record to specifie it is no lesse presumptuous then superstitious and ridiculous Finally concerning their argumēt from Peters being the first Bishop of Rome their cardinall argument in this point that therfore only the Bishops of Rome are his Locall and so consequently his most proper Successours wee answer that neither is locall succession of force to attaine to the vertue of the predecessour there being no kinde of place whether natural ciuill or mysticall but which is capable euen of contrarieties euen the Soule of man the purest vessell and continent that is being a receptacle of Sinne as well as grace and the Temple of God being destinated for the Seate of Antichrist as well as for Iesus Christ Nor againe can the Bishops of Rome be proued at least in any peculiar manner so much as his Locall successours both for that other Bishops as namely of Ierusalem and Antioch had Peter for their Predecessour that euen by Scripture inference as also for that no diuine or approued writer does auouch either that Peter euer was the Bishop of Rome or that hee was personally present at Rome For whereas vpon Peters dating one of his Epistles from Babylon it is argued that he was then at Rome for that mystically hee might account that City Babylon yet considering how there were three Locall Babylons namely in Syria Caldea and Egypt which were farre more neerly situate vnto Peters Prouince then Rome was there coniecture that Peter meant Rome by Babylon in that Text hath three to one against it But if coniectures and good probabilities may be allowed to carry any sway in this businesse it is easie to produce them abundantly and that out of Scriptures that Peter neuer was but as euery Apostle was any Bishop of Rome For first it is apparant that Peter by the speciall appointment of the Spirit was confined vnto them of the Circumcision whereof Rome was no part Secondly it was well nigh twenty or thirty yeeres after our Sauiour gaue Peter the charge of feeding his Sheepe that Peter aboad about Ierusalem Antioch Ioppa and those quarters Thirdly Paul in his Epistle to the Romans does tell them that hee alwayes had a speciall care not to build on anothers foundation then the which Text what more faire argument can bee framed that Paul neuer esteemed the