Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	church_n	heaven_n	peter_n	4,199	5	7.9041	4	true

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

punishment properly so call'd to be inflicted by God for them wholly and onely to the blood merits and satisfaction of Christ our Saviour and Redeemer who is highly dishonour'd by these pretended Pardous Saint Paul not without some indignation asketh the Corinthians Was Paul crucified for you 1 Cor. 1.13 If the sufferings of St. Paul and other Saints satisfie at least in part for mens sins or which is all one for the temporal punishment due to them why may it not be truly said that Paul as well as Christ was crucifi'd or suffer'd death for us Indeed I cannot but wonder at the strange perverseness of our Adversaries who will by no means grant that the merits righteousness and obedience especially active of Christ are or can be through saith imputed unto us for our justification and remission of our sins and yet earnestly contend that by the Papal Indulgence the merits fastings and prayers of Saints Monks and Fryars may be imputed or made over to any that will be at the cost to purchase it Nor the Popes Supremacy Seventhly As to the Popes Supremacy over all Christians and Churches altho a great noise is made with Thou art Peter c. and to thee will I give the Keys c. Certainly Card. Cusanus concordant lib. 3. cap. 13. Marsilius defens part 2. cap. 18. Licèt fortè non sit de jure divino Rom. Pontif. ut talem Petro succedere c. Bellar. de P.R. l. 1. c. 12. Matth. 22.26 as some of their own Writers confess it hath no ground in Scripture yea it is contrary thereunto For that our Saviour altho his Apostles were often disputing who should be chief amongst them never declar'd Peter to be his Viceroy or Vicar which would have put a final end to all this contention about Supremacy Yea he makes them all alike equal even after he had said Thou art Peter c. Secondly V. Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 1. de primatu Jacobi Hic primus Episcopalem cethedram cepit cum ante caeteros omnes suum ei in terris thronum Dominus tradidisset Epiphan adv Haeres lib. 3. Tom. 2. pag. 1039. Jacobus Apostolorum princeps Ruffinus Hist lib. 2. cap. 1. Saint John was the Disciple whom Jesus loved in an especial manner above the rest of the Apostles for no doubt he had a love for every one of them Saint James his Brother or Cousin was made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and succeeded our Saviour in his Throne as Epiphanius saith Why might not either of these plead a right of Supremacy as well as Peter Thirdly Saint Paul altho he was Novissimus Apostolorum the last Apostle call'd after all the rest 2 Cor. 12.11 yet he saith he thought he came not behind even the chiefest Apostles yea 1 Cor. 15.10 that he labour'd more than they all and had on him the care of all the Churches 2 Cor. 11.28 Can we think he would have presum'd to have written of himself in such an high manner if he had thought that Christ his Lord had appointed St. Yet Stapleton durst write Petro data est potestas mandativa atque regiminis Apostolis potestas executiva tantùm est gubernationis Doctrin Princip lib. 6. c. 7. Peter as his Vice-gerent to be the Head Sovereign Prince and supreme Governour of all the Apostles Churches and Christians Nay farther it is clear from Gal. 1.12 17.18 That St. Paul neither receiv'd instruction nor Authority to preach the Gospel from St. Peter but immediately from Christ himself Cypr. Epist 71. Nec Petrus super quem Dominus aedificavit Ecclesiam cùm secum Paulus disceptaret vendicavit se primatum tenere obtemperari sibi oportere Petrus Paulus ambo principes Card. Cusanus Epist 2. de usu Commun Gal. 2.11 Erat Paulus Princeps Apostolorum honore par Petro ne quid dicam amplius Chrysostom in Galat. c. 2. Petrus universalis Episcopus non vocatur Greg. lib 4. Epist 32. Paulus ascendit Hierosolymam Petri cognoscendi causa ex Ofsicio Jure scil ejusdem fidei praedicationis Tertul. de Praescr non subjectionis Matth. 16. V. Cyprian Epist unit Eccl. in locum h … It 's St. Chrysostoms observation Sermon de Pentecoste Hom. 55. in Matth. Add Hilary lib. 2. de Trinit 16. Ambrose in Eph. cap. 2. Pope Gregory the Great in Psal 102. v. 25. Cyril de Trinit lib. 4. Aug. de Verb. Domini Ser. 13. Beda in cap. 21. Joan. Lib. 1. in Jovnian Compare Origen in Matth. 16. Ephes 2.20 and executed his Apostolick Office three years before he ever saw St. Peter's face Which is furthermore evident and undeniable from Gal. 2.9 That James is plac'd before Cephas or Peter and Cephas and John gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship as to one equal in Authority with themselves and in ver 11. we find Paul withstanding Peter to his face not seemingly as St. Hierom thought opposed therein by Saint Augustine but really and in earnest for Peter was indeed as the Text saith to be blamed All which particulars laid together evince I think to any ingenuous man that St. Peter was not supreme over all the Apostles for where there is an Equality there can be no Supremacy But St. Paul doth assert and prove himself equal not inferiour to St. Peter Therefore St. Peter was not Supreme at least St. Paul did not think him to be so Now if S. Peter had not Supreme Power over all Christians how can the Pope pretend to it as succeeding St. Peter in his Authority Can he have more Power than St. Peter had As for those words Thou art Peter c. it is to be observ'd that our Saviour saith not Thou art Peter and on thee but on this Rock i. e. this faith thou hast professed that I am the Son of God will I build my Church and so many of the Fathers expound it as I shall shew afterward 'T is true Our Lord promised to give unto Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and accordingly after his Resurrection he gave him them but our Saviour gave them him and the rest of the Apostles all together at the same time and in the same manner And as the Christian Church was in some sense built on Peter i. e. in respect of the faith he taught so it was equally pari modo ex aequo as St. Hierom saith on the rest of the Apostles agreeable to that of St. Paul being built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himself not Peter being the Chief Corner-stone It is not therefore true that some affirm Potestatem Apostoli receperunt immediate à Christo Francis de victoria Relect. 2. qu. 2. Conclus 3. 4. John 20.22 Matth. 16.16 John 21.17 Non Petrus sed Christus Graecis Paulum praefecit Chrysost Hom. in 2. cap. ad Galatas Matth. 28.18 19. Cùm dicitur Petro pasce oves meas ad

I grant also adds he that sometimes the Church is obscured as S. Austin saith with multitude of Scandals and therefore it is not alwaies alike famous and illustrious especially so as to shine actually through the whole World. I will add the Words of another learned Jesuite Greg. de Valentiâ When we say the Church is alway conspicuous this must not be taken as if we thought it might at all times be discerned alike easily For we know that sometimes it i.e. the Church the Mountain Isai 2.2 is so tossed with the waves of Errors Schisms and Persecutions that to such as are unskilful as the far greater part of Christians ever are and do not discreetly enough weigh circumstances of times and things it shall be very hard to be known which then especially fell out when the falshood of Arrians bare rule almost over all the World. Therefore we deny not but that it will be harder to discern the Church at some time than at other some yet this we avouch that it alway might be discerned by such as could wisely esteem things So he And is this all they would infer from Mat. 5.14 15. Ye are the light of the world A City that is set on an hill cannot be hid c. Is a Light or City on a hill only discernable by a few discreet quick-sighted persons Is this the Visibility they so much contend for Well it 's here granted us that the Church is not alway easily visible or discernable to all but only to a few discreet Persons If this will satisfie them we shall readily grant that the Protestant Church under the Persecution and Errors of the Papacy was not easily discernable yea was or is hardly visible to such as are unskilful and do not wisely enough weigh circumstances of times viz. of Oppression and Persecution Yet this we say that it might have been discern'd even in the next Ages before Luther not only in the Waldenses Wicklevists Albigenses and Bohemians how odious and contemptible soever they are render'd to the ignorant and unskilful by their Adversaries but many other eminent Professors and Writers of their own Church by such as can discreetly judg of things and times What great matter then can these men make of the Visibility of the Church they so much boast of But is all this Contention about nothing truly it is no easie thing to resolve what it is our Adversaries would have more than is already granted by us I will give the best account I can find out of their own Writings what it is they aim at Bellarmin stateth not the question Ecclesia est ●●tus hominum ●●a visibilis palpabilis ut est coetus populi Romani vel regnum Galliae Bellarmin de Eccles Milit. lib 3. cap. 2. Ecclesia visibilis est i. e. sic in luce hominum conspectu posita ut quovis seculo evidenter internosci quasi digito monstrari queat congregatio illa quam esse veram Ecclesiam determinatè oredere possis ac debeas Haec autem Ecclesiae proprietas universos Haereticos pessimè habet Anal. Fidei lib. 6. pag. 30. but somewhere saith that The true Church is a Company of men as visible and palpable as the Kingdom of France Spain or the State of Venice Gregory de Valentiâ above-mentioned affirms that the Church is Visible i.e. is so placed in the light and sight of men that in any Age that Congregation or Company may be evidently distinguished and as it were pointed at with the finger which you may and ought determinately or particularly believe to be the true Church This property of the Church saith he exceedingly troubleth all Hereticks But it would exceedingly trouble him were he alive or any man else to reconcile this with his former concession For if the true Church be so placed in the light and sight of men that in any Age it may be evidently discerned and pointed at by the finger how is it that as he is forced to grant in times of Persecution and over-spreading Error as under the Heathen Emperors and in the prevalency of the Arian Heresie it is very hard to many to see where the true Church is yea none do discern it but such as prudently weigh circumstances of times and things which the far greater part of men neither do nor can Who of our Adversaries if he had lived in the days of Hilary would not have taken the Arians for the true Church Did not all or the far greater part of Bellarmin's Notes of the true Church belong to them only as Multitude Succession temporal Prosperity external Glory efficacy of Doctrine converting Ad ann 358. or rather perverting almost as Baronius grants the whole World Would they have taken those few for the true Catholick Church who separated themselves from their heretical but supposed infallible Head and Guide of the universal Church Pope Liberius Ad ann 357. v. Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 9. Liberius post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus atque ita restitutus est Ecclesiae Epist ad Solit. vitam agentes Hieron in Catal. In Fortunatiano Subscripsit Haeresi Arianorum Et in Chronico ait Liberium taedio victum exilii in Haereticam pravitatem subscripsisse Liberius is declared to be a Heretick by the Sixth Seventh and Eighth General Council and Pope Agatho and Pope Leo the Second Patet ex lib. de Romanis Pontificibus multos Clericos Romae à Constantio necatos esse qui noluerunt cum Liberio communicare Baron ad ann 357. parag 49. Baronius the Cardinal acknowledges that he communicated with the Arians and in his own Letters still extant he professeth that in all things he agreed with them Yea farther S. Hilary Athanasius and S. Hierome write that he subscribed to the Heresie of the Arians and yet Bellarmine and other of their Writers make it an essential qualification of a Catholick or Member of the true Church to hold Communion with the Bishop of Rome and to live under his Government who instead of being an infallible Guide to others may fall into damnable Heresie himself I would gladly know which Company was at that time the true Church whether they that joyned with Liberius or such as separated from him Here I cannot but observe which Cardinal Baronius takes notice of that when by the favour of the Emperour Constantius and the intercession of the Arian Bishops Liberius was upon his subscription restored to his Bishoprick many Clergy-men chose rather to suffer death than to joyn in Communion with him whom they themselves account Martyrs or at least dare not condemn as damnable Hereticks and Schismaticks the appellations they bestow upon Protestants for their not communicating with the Roman Bishop But I have not yet done with Valentia Non usque adeò ipsi volumus Ecclesiam esse conspicuam ut censeamus aut oculis cerni aut evidenti

under the subtle Usurpation and tyranny of Popery The answer given by the Proctors of the Romish Court to this Canon as that of Chalcedon Hunc Canonem Ecclesia Romana non recipit Coriolanus p. 285. Ad An. 381. l. 38. or any other that opposeth their Dominion is The most holy Church of Rome approveth or receiveth not that Council or Canon for all Councils saith their great Cardinal Baronius have more or less Authority as they are approved or not allowed by the Roman Church or Pope An Answer which scarcely deserves a reply and sheweth what esteem our Romanists have of even General Councils if they cross their ambitious designs I cannot omit that famous Synodical Epistle sent by the Bishops of Africa of whom St. Austin was one to the Bishop of Rome Pope Celestine which is an invincible Bulwark or Sea-wall against the inundation of Papal Supremacy It would be tedious to transcribe the whole Letter which is still extant and written directly against this new Article of Codic Canon Ecclesiae Africanae in fine not Catholick but Roman Faith. They first desire the Pope not easily to give Audience to such as appealed from them to him Ab aliis excommunicati ab aliis ad commumonem ne recipiantur sine synodo provinciali Concil Nicaen Can. 5. or to receive into his Communion such as they had as Apiarius a most scandalous Presbyter amongst others deservedly excommunicated Which was say they contrary to the Nicene Canons which respect Bishops as well as inferiour Clericks They tell him that the Canons of the Church had prudently provided that all Controversies should be determined in the places where they arose where the Grace of the Holy Ghost would not be wanting to direct unless any one can believe that God will inspire any one man the Pope with Justice i. e. just or right judgment and deny it to multitudes of Priests met in Council The African Bishops thought no Christian man could believe this but there are Roman Catholicks who have made it an unquestionable truth that though all Councils may err yet the Pope being infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost cannot The Afri●●n Fathers go on How can a transmarine Sentence at Rome be firm and good V. Cyprian Epist 55. to which the necessary presence of Witnesses either in regard of Sex or infirmity of Age and many other impediments cannot be had That any should be sent from your side as Legates suppose à Latere we do not find in any Council of Fathers nor in the authentick Canons of the Nicene Do not send upon any ones request your Clericks as inforcers to wit of your Sentence upon Appeals lest we seem to bring the smoaky Pride of the World into the Church So these holy Bishops I had almost said Prophets without fear or flattery wrote of old to Christ's Universal Vicar at Rome As for the condemning Appeals to the Pope therein they trod in their steps and use almost the very words of Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and his Colleagues to Cornelius Bishop of Rome ● Epist 55. vel ●ab 10. Epist 3. ad ●ornelium to whom he wrote in this manner Cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis c. Whereas it is decreed by all of us in some National Council of Africa and is both just and fit that every cause Ecclesiastical should be there heard where the fault was committed and to all Pastors a part portio gregis of the flock of Christ not all the flock to one is entrusted which every one ought to rule as he that must give an account to God not the Bishop of Rome Cornelius it becometh not those whom we are over to run about to other Churches aiming particularly at the Roman and by their subtle and fallacious rashness to divide the Concord of Bishops and dissolve the Unity of the Church but there to plead their cause where Witnesses and Accusers may be produced against them Epist 68. The same St. Cyprian in another Epistle adviseth and encourageth the People of Spain not to receive Basilides again as their Bishop although he had been at Rome with Pope Stephen by whom he was he saith unjustly and as he supposed in a surreptitious manner restored for he had been deposed to his Bishoprick Can any one now believe that Saint Cyprian held the supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome over all Bishops and Churches to be his lawful right or which is more incredible an Article of the antient Primitive and Apostolick Faith as Pope Pius hath declared it Surely he must then be a Person of very Catholick i. e. Universal Faith to believe any thing Hen. 1. Hen. 2. apud Matth. Parisien And what did Henry VIII as other Kings of England before him worse than Saint Austin and the whole African Church in forbidding Appeals and forbidding his Legates in their own Kingdom Why might not England do this as well as Africa Well however our Adversaries will relish it Can. 22. the Council of Milevis another African Council forbad all Appeals to transmarine Churches aiming no doubt especially at Rome under pain of Excommunication out of all the Churches of Africa and another at Carthage Concil Carthag 3. Can. 26. decreed that no Bishop whosoever no not the Roman should be called the Prince of Bishops but onely the Bishop of the first Seat or See. Gratian the Roman Canonist according to his excellent faculty of translating giveth us the meaning of the Canon thus That no Bishop is to be called the Prince of Bishops but the Bishop of the first Seat i. e. the Pope Glossa quae corrumpit textum I will onely add the Testimonies of two Bishops of Rome The former is Pelagius the 2d Gregor lib. 4. Epist 36. 38. who writing to his Rival for the Supremacy the Bishop of Constantinople saith Nullus Patriarcharum c. none of the Patriarchs and so neither the Roman may use or assume the Title of Universal Bishop for hereby the name of Patriarch is indeed taken from all the rest which saith he far be it from the thought of any faithful Christian This is upon Record in the Popes Canon Law. But his Successor Pope Gregory the Great Dist 99. Cap. Nullus Patriarcharum Lib. 4. Epist 34. speaketh out more plainly who writing to the Empress against John Bishop of Constantinople his Rival saith In this his Pride in affecting the Title of Universal Bishop appeareth the approach of Antichrist Wherefore I beseech you by the Almighty God give not any consent to this perverse Title In like manner Epist 32. to the Emperor Peter himself is not called the Universal Apostle Feed my sheep it seems proveth it not None of the Roman Bishops ever assumed though offer'd to them Lib. 4. Epist 38. ad Joann Constantin In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere Greg. M. ad Sabinian lib. 4. Indict