Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	case_n	great_a	king_n	2,323	5	3.6428	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15735	A defence of M. Perkins booke, called A reformed Catholike against the cauils of a popish writer, one D.B.P. or W.B. in his deformed Reformation. By Antony Wotton.	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.; Perkins, William, 1558-1602. Reformed Catholike.; Bishop, William, 1554?-1624. Reformation of a Catholike deformed: by M. W. Perkins.	1606 (1606)	STC 26004; ESTC S120330	512,905	582

nothing of it selfe but by grace receiued from the godhead though it also bee without measure Secondly Christs manhood is a creature and in that regarde bounde to doe whatsoeuer it doth Thirdly Christ as man cannot giue any thing to God but that which hee receiued from God therefore cannot the manhood properly by it selfe merit but onely as it is personally vnited vnto the godhead of the Sonne And if this be so then much lesse can any meere man or any angell merit yea it is a madnes to thinke that either our actions or persons should be capable of any merit whereby wee might attaine to life eternall speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins vvill neuerthelesse proue and that by sundry reasons that their doctrine is the truth it selfe and ours falshood First by a sorry short syllogisme containing more then one vvhole page It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious vvorke Which must be saith he foure First That the worke be done of our selues without the helpe of another Secondly That it be not othervvise due debte Thirdly That it be done to the benefit of another Fourthly That the worke and revvard be equall in proportion These proprieties he sets dovvne pithagorically vvithout any proofe But inferreth thereon as though he had proued them inuincibly that Christs man-hood seperated from the God-head cannot merit because vvhatsoeuer he doth he doth it by grace receiued and should be othervvise due He might in like manner as truly say that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither for he receiued his Godhead from his Father and vvhatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debte And so the good man if he vvere let alone vvould disappoint vs vvholy of all merits as vvell the imputed of Christs as of all ours done by vertue of his grace speaker A. W. The syllogisme that troubles you so with the length of it is this Euery worke that merits euerlasting life must be done of and by the worker himselfe not of debt to the profit of God with proportion to the reward No worke of man can be so done Therefore no worke of man can merit euerlasting life Is not this a perilous long syllogisme trow you to take vp more than a whole page If this great scholler that so often blames Master Perkins ignorance would for I wil not doubt but he could haue distinguished the syllogisme from the explication of the proposition he would not haue been so much offended with it Sure there was small cause hee should be if he say truly afterward that Master Perkins reason was nakedly proposed or trie whether himselfe can make it any shorter or compare it with his owne tedious answer containing three whole pages in quarto in a smaller letter But what if there be another syllogisme also implied in this reason as there is this If the manhood of Christ properly by it selfe could not merit then can no man merit But the manhood of Christ properly by it selfe could not merit Therefore no man can The consequence of the proposition is prooued because the manhood of Christ is more excellent euery way than all both men and Angels The assumption is made manifest because euery worke of Christs manhood considered apart from the Godhead would be defectiue in three points concerning merit To the two former you answer that whereas Master Perkins saith Christs manhood could not merit because he did nothing of himselfe but by grace receiued and that that he did was due that he might as truly say that his manhood could not merit vnited to the Godhead Your reason is for that he receiued his Godhead from his Father and whatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debt But your reason is false for Christ had his Sonship as I may speake of his Father for the propertie of the Godhead is to be of it selfe yet there is not any thing due from the Sonne to the Father more than from the Father to the Sonne if they be of equall nature and dignitie So that this latter point disproues the former because it inferres a superioritie of the Father ouer the Sonne and so an inequalitie which at no hand may be granted speaker D. B. P. Wherefore vve must a little ●ist his foure forged proprieties of merit and touching the first I say that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift merit and deserue much euen at his hands that gaue it For example the Father bestovves a farme vpon his Son freely Who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same deserue his further fauour Yea he may by the commodities reaped out of that farme buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale as vvell as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift Which is so common a case and so sensible that euery man of meane vvitte may casily reach vnto it euen so by good manuring the gifts vvhich God freely bestovveth vpon vs vve may both merit the increase of them and according to his ovvne order and promise purchase thereby the Kingdome of heauen vvhich is plainly proued in that parable Of the talents giuen by a King to his seruants the vvhich they imploying vvell and multiplying vvere therefore esteemed vvorthie of far greater and vvithall to be made partakers of their Lords ioyes M. Perkins then vvas not a little ouerseene to put for the first proprietie of merit that it must be done by a man and of a man himselfe speaker A. W. The first of the foure properties is that a man must doe it of himselfe and by himselfe You answere that one may merit by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift But not if the vse of it also be of him of whom he should merit The Sonne that receiues the farme receiues not withall continually from his Father the power to vse the farme in that sort and much lesse the will and the vse it selfe But a man that hath receiued grace from God hath continually from him both to will and to doe and therefore cannot properly merit of him The parable hath not one word of any merit onely it is said that the King commended his seruants for imploying their talents well and gaue them authoritie ouer much because they had been faithfull in a little and further receiued them into his ioy But that he dealt thus with them vpon due debt or that they did truly merit is your glosse besides the text speaker D. B. P. The second That a man must doe it of his ovvne free will and pleasure and not of due debt carrieth in shevv an opposition But indeed there is no contradiction in it for a man may and euery honest man doth of his ovvne free vvill and pleasure pay his due debt but let vs pardon the disorder of vvords his meaning being nothing else but that the payment of that vvhich

then admitting the purpel harlot to signifie the Roman state wee doe say that the state of Rome must bee taken as it was then when these words were spoken of it that is Pagan Idolatrous and a hot persecutor of Christians Such it had beene a little before vnder that bloodie Tyrant Nero and then was vnder Domitian which we confirme by the authoritie of them who expound this passage of the Roman state The commentary on the Apocalyps vnder Saint Ambrose name sayth the great where sometime doth signifie Rome specially vvhich at that time vvhen the Apostle vvrote this did persecute the Church of God but othervvise doth signifie the whole Citie of the Diuell And Saint Ierome who applieth the place to Rome affirmeth that she had before his dayes blotted out that blasphemie vvritten in her forhead because then the state was Christian which before had beene Heathen so that vnto the partie Pagan and not vnto the Church of God he ascribeth these works of the wicked Harlot which also the very text it selfe doth conuince for it hath That she vvas drunke vvith the blood of the Mart●rs of Iesus Now the Church of Rome hath not then by the confession of all men drawne any blood of Christs Saints but in testimonie of his trueth had powred out abundance of her best blood Wherefore it is most manifest that the harlot could not signifie the Church of Rome so pure and free from slaughter but the Romane Empire vvhich vvas then full gorged vvith that most innocent and holy blood Againe that vvhoore is expounded To be a Citie vvhich had kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth But the Church of Rome had then no kingdome ouer the earth or any temporall dominion at all but the Romane Emperours had such soueraigne commaundement ouer many Kings vvherefore it must be vnderstood of them and not of the Church Novv to take Kingdome not properly for temporall soueraignty but for spirituall I●…isdiction as some shifters doe is to she vvithout any vvarrant from the natiue signification of the vvord vnto phantasticall and voluntarie imagination And vvhereas M. Perkins saith that Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state princely dominion and cruelty against the Saints is all one vvith the heath●…sh Empire he both seeketh to deceiue and is greatly deceiued he vvould deceiue in that he doth applie vvords spoken of Rome aboue 1500. yeares agoe vnto Rome as it is at this day and yet if that were granted him he erreth fo●●e in euery one of his particulars For first touching princ●●e dominion the Romane Empire held then all Italy all Fraunce all Spayne all England a great part of Germanie of Asia and also of Afrike hauing their Proconsulles and other principall Officers in all those Countries drawing an hundred thousand millions in mony and many other commodities out of them Wherefore in princely dominion and magnificall state it surmounted Ecclesiasticall Rome which hath not temporall dominion ouer the one halfe of that one kingdome of Italy more then an hundred degrees And as for persecution the Empire slew and caused to be slaine more Saints of God in one yeare then the Church of Rome hath done of reprobates and obstinate heretikes in 1600. yeares Hauing thus proued that the whoore of Babilon signifieth the heathen state of Rome and not the Ecclesiasticall let vs now heare what you say against it Marry that the distinction of the Empire of Rome and Church of Rome is foolish and coyned of late to serue our turne which to be farre otherwise I proue out of those verie Authors who doe interpret that harlot to signifie Rome who are neither foolish nor of late daies you haue heard it before out of S. Ambrose commentaries And farther we gather it out of S. Hierome in the Epistle which you cite for he hauing resembled Rome vnto Babilon for the multitude of the wicked which yet remained in it pointeth out a more pure part saying There is in deede the holy Church there are the triumphant monuments of the Apostles and Martyrs there is the true confession of Christ there is the faith praised by the Apostle c. Be not there expressed two distinct parts of Rome Againe Tertullian who liued in the second hundred yeare vnder those persecuting Emperours saith in one place that Babilon is a figure of Rome in respect of her proud Empire and persecution of the Saints And in an other that Rome was most happie for her holy Church vnto vvhich the Apostles vvith their blood had poured forth their vvhole doctrine see a plaine distinction betweene the Heathen Empire and the holie Church of Rome Which finallie may be gathered out of the expresse word of God VVhere the Church in Babilon coelect is distinguished from the rest of that citie which was Pagan You say but without any authour that Babilon there doth not signifie Rome but either a citie in Aegypt or Assyria But Eusebins lib. 2. hist. c. 14. and S. Jerom. de Eccles. script vers Marcus with other Authors more worthie of credit doe expound it of Rome And you your selues take Babilon so Rome where you thinke that any hold may be taken against it as in the 17. of the Reuel but in S. Peters Epistle they will none of it because it would proue too plainely that S. Peter had been at Rome speaker A. W. Master Perkins hauing prooued that by Babylon Rome is signified proceedes to answere two obiections First that the citie of Rome stands not now vpon seuen hils But it did in S. Iohns daies as his reason lies and at this day popish Churches or Monasteries are situated vpon them vnder the Popes authoritie Secondly that by the whore the companie of the wicked vnder their head the diuell is vnderstood But this the text will not beare the whore being opposed to the Kings of the earth and ruling ouer them vpon this foundation Master Perkins thus builds his reason Either Rome Heathenish or Rome Christian is the whore of Babylon But Rome Heathenish is not Therefore Rome Christian is This is plainly his reason and not that which you gather The proposition is euident because the state of Rome was neuer but either Heathenish or Christian. The assumption Master Perkins proues But I must be faine to leaue his course and to follow this reformers steps The state of Rome must be taken as it is the seate of Antichrist but it was not the seate of Antichrist in S. Iohns daies for Antichrist according to your doctrine is not yet come Againe it was no mysterie for heathenish Rome to be an Idolatrous and bloody persecutor of the Christians Thirdly the state that S. Iohn calles the harlot continues till the finall destruction spoken of by him and S. Paul but the estate of heathenish Rome was decayed long since Your proofe is insufficient for you alleage but two of many that make Rome Babylon who as they deserue

very sufficiently though euery man cannot reade his disputation because it is latine but for the matter in hand concerning traditions it falls not into this question to be disputed what is scripture and what is not For it is presupposed that the Scriptures are the word of God and thereupon this doubt ariseth whether the word of God conteine all things necessarie to saluation or no. If that be doubted of it is idle and absurd to enquire whether there be besides that another word of God diuers from it though not contrarie which is not written but only as men haue now and then set downe some part of it in their writings so then leauing this point let vs come to those which follow speaker W. P. Obiect III. Some bookes of the canon of the Scripture are lost as the booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. The booke of the iust Iosu. 10. 13. the bookes of Chronicles of the Kinges of Israel and Iuda 1. King 14. 19. the bookes of certaine Prophets Nathan Gad Iddo Ahiah and Semiah and therfore the matter of these bookes must come to vs by tradition Answ. Though it be graunted that some bookes of Canonicall Scripture bee lost yet the Scripture still remaines sufficient because the matter of those bookes so farforth as it was necessarie to saluation is contained in these bookes of Scripture that are now extant speaker D. B. P. The two next arguments for Traditions be not well propounded by M. Perkins The third is to be framed thus Either all the bookes of holy Scripture conteine all needfull doctrine to saluation or some certaine of them without the rest not some of them without the rest for then the other should be superfluous which no man holdeth therfore all the bookes of holy Scripture put together do containe all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue been lo●t therefore some points of necessary doctrine contained in them are not extant in the written Word and consequently to be learned by Tradition M. Perkins answereth First supposing some of the bookes to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the Argument proposed were then those bookes superfluous Doth the holy Ghost set men to pen needlesse discourses which this answere supposeth speaker A. W. Because you thinke the reason makes for your aduantage as you haue framed it your selfe I will follow your steps and leaue his argument as you do That I may answere orderly I deny your assumption All things necessarie to saluation are conteined in some certaine bookes of the scripture so that although the rest were wanting we should haue sufficient to saluation for the matter To your reason I say farther that the consequence is naught if some certaine are sufficient to saluation the rest are superfluous for first it cannot be superfluous to haue any booke of Gods word kept for the vse of the Church though the matter of it be in some other Secondly if your consequence be good it is also superfluous to haue the same psalme or story recorded in two places of the scripture especially the later But to say so were to condemne the holy ghost of hauing taken superfluous paines to no purpose which were blasphemie I prooue it by these particulars for example Psal. 18. is in the booke of Psalmes and in the second booke of Samuell The history of Ezechiah is 2. Reg. 29. and so forward and Isai 36. 37. 38. The like I might bring out of the bookes of Kings and Chronicles Thirdly though the matter be all fully and perfectly in certaine bookes yet euery point is not so plaine in one booke as in another and therefore it is not superfluous to haue all these bookes though all matter necessarie to saluation be comprised in some few of them Fourthly the purpose of the holy ghost in penning the scriptures was not only to teach matters necessarie to saluation but to set forth the glorie of God in his prouidence iustice mercie wisdome and such like to afford vs examples of diuers kinds of vertues to exhort vs to faith and good works and in a word to prouide for Gods glorie by vs heere as well as for our glorifying by him in heauen to which there is no booke nor sentence of scripture but serues more or lesse and therefore no booke of it can be thought supersluous though the necessarie matters belonging to saluation be conteined in certaine of them very sufficiently speaker W. P. Againe I take it to bee a truth though some thinke otherwise that no part of the Canon is lost for Paul saith Whatsoeuer things were written aforetime were written for our learning that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures c. Rom. 15. 4. where he takes it for granted that the whole Canon of holie Scripture was then extant For if he had thought that some bookes of Scripture had beene lost hee would haue said whatsoeuer was written and is now extant was written for our learning and comfort For bookes that are lost serue neither for learning nor comfort Againe to hold that any bookes of Scripture should be lost calls into question Gods prouidence and the fidelitie of the Church who hath the bookes of God in keeping and is therfore called the pillar and ground of truth And touching the bookes before mentioned I answere thus The booke of the warres of God Num. 21. 14. might bee some short bill or narration of thinges done among the Israelites which in the daies of Moses went from hand to hand For sometime a booke in Scripture signifieth a roule or Catalogue as the first chapter of Matthew which containeth the genealogie of our Sauiour Christ is called the booke of the generation of Iesus Christ. Againe the booke of the iust and the books of Chronicles which are said to be lost were but as the Chronicles of England are with vs euen politicke records of the acts and euents of things in the kingdome of Iuda and Israel out of which the Prophets gathered things necessarie to be knowne and placed them in holy Scripture As for the bookes of Iddo Ahiah Semiah Gad and Nathan they are contained in the bookes of the Kinges and Chronicles and in the bookes of Samuel which were not written by him alone but by sundrie Prophets 1. Chro. 29. 29. as also was the booke of Iudges As for the bookes of Salomon which are lost they did not concerne religion and matters of saluation but were concerning matters of Philosophie and such like things speaker D. B. P. Therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrarie vnto the plaine Scriptures as S. Iohn Chrysostome proueth where he hath these expresse words That many of the Propheticall bookes are lost may be proued out of the historie of Paral●pomeneon which they translate Chronicles