Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A53499
|
An answer to the challenge of Mr. Henry Jennings (Protestant Arch-Deacon of Dromore) which evidently makes-out the present Church of Romes doctrine to have been maintain'd in the first five ages, & the adversarys principles to be only a heap of heresies lawfully condemn'd by the primitive Church. To which is annexed An answer to one Whealy. Set forth by James O Shiell reader of Divinity.
|
O'Sheill, James.
|
1699
(1699)
|
Wing O530A; ESTC R214539
|
82,791
|
345
|
is false as is manifest by that of the Acts c. 15. v 7 where we find the followiÌ„g words when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said to them men bretheren ye know that a good while agoe God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should he are the word of the Gospel and believe c. as for that which Whealy adds that Peter writ his Epistles from Babylon and not to Rome c. it proves his ignorance and coÌ„firms what he would faine deny for in Peter first Epist c. 5. v 1â— by the word Babylon Rome is meant as Papias the Apostles Disciple cited by Eusebius in his 2. book of History c. 15. St. Hierome in his book de Viris Illustribus in Marco Eunomius Venerable Bedâ— and all the Fathers that ever writ a commentary on that Epist do unanimously declare and it is evident out of the 17. c. of revelations where John sayes that Babylon was builded on seaven hills and that i'ts Impire did extend over the Kings of the earth which notwithstandig should fall down and be destroy'd all which has beeÌ„ verify'd of the City of Rome and of no other City in the whole world for it was foâ—erly and is at present builded on seaven hills and it's Impire only did then reach all parts of the world yet what John fore see came to pass for the Roman Impire was reduc'd almost to nothing the City wholly run'd by the Goths Wandals Hunns Longobards but what occasion'd people in them times to call Rome Babylon was a certain similitude that was between the City of Rome and that of Babylon when in the time of NabuchodoÌ„oâ—or BabyloÌ„ was an Imperial City whose King Nabuchodonoâ—or crully persecuted the people of God duriÌ„g their captivity there eveÌ„ so in the time of the Apostles Rome was an Jmperial City whose Improur was Nero who persecuted most cruelly the people of God during his reign it 's therefore the City of Rome was call'd another Babylon Whealy's fifth reason is grounded on the audieÌ„ce given to Paul in the Apostles assembly Acts c. 15. v. 12. by which it seems that Peter till then was wholly a stranger to the wonders Paul told them he had perform'd amoÌ„g the Gentiles this consequeÌ„ce is false for tho' General Ginkle related in a Council of war before the Prince of Orange how he behav'd himself at the breach of Agherim against the Irish it cannot be infer'd that the Prince of Orange himself was till then wholly a straÌ„ger to the Irish affairs and that he never fought at the breach of the Boyne or elswhere against them tho' Peter gave audience to Paul telling the Miracles wonders which God had wrought among the Gentiles by him and Barnabas it does not follow that Peter never preach'd the Gospel to any of the Gentiles before that time as for Whealy's 6th reason that it was after Pauls said relation that the Apostles and Elders sent Barsabas and Silos with him to Antioch to assist in the ministry I allow that to be true but what Whealy would infer out of it is false for it does not at all follow out of this that the Gospel was never preach'd before in any of those Countryes but what might be lawfully infer'd is that Barsabas Silos were not commaÌ„ded to go with Paul to Antioch till after the said relatioÌ„ but before this time beiÌ„g the 18. year after our Saviours PassioÌ„ the Gospel was preach'd not only in Antioch but also in Rome by Peter as I will shew hereafter as for Whealy's new commeÌ„tary on the words of our Saviour Mathew c. 16. v. 18. 19. John c. 21. v. 15. 16 17. I believe no man of sense will prefer it before the exposiâ—ion of all the holy Fathers and Doctors which is coÌ„trary to that of Whealy's as may be seeÌ„ in my Anâ—wer to Mr. JeÌ„niÌ„gs 4 poiÌ„t as for that word only which our Saviour would have added if he meant Peter in particular as Whealy pretends I would willingly know by what reason can he or any other shew that the word only would be requisite here to prove Peter's supremacy and not in that of John c 6. v. 50. where he the present Church of England do wrest the words of Christ to a figurative sence without the lest meÌ„tioÌ„ of the word only or siguratively by which it appears how incoherently Whealy argues aâ—d pretends to expouÌ„d the worâ—s of Christ in the said tâ—xts ' its apparent that it would be superfluous for Christ to express the word oÌ„ly in either of these texts viz Matt c. 16. John c. 21 it was enough that he spoake to Peter personaly in the singular number in these words Blessed art tâ—ou Simon Bâ—rjona for flesh blood have not reveal'd it uÌ„to thee but my Father who is in heaven I say also unto thee that thou art Peter upon this râ—ck I will build my Church the gates of Hell shall not prevaile agaiÌ„st it I will give unto thee the Keyes of the KiÌ„gdom of HeaveÌ„ what soever thou shall biÌ„d on earth shall he bouÌ„d in heaveÌ„ whatsoever thou shall loose on earâ—h shall be loos'd in heaveÌ„ Mat. c. 16 v. 1718. 19 so wheÌ„ they had diÌ„ed Jesus said to Simon Peter Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me more than these he said unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee he saith unto him feede my lambes he saith unto him again the second time Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me he saith unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee he saith unto him feede my sheepe he said unto him the third time Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time lovest thou me and he said unto him Lord thou knowest that I love thee Iesus said unto him feede my sheep John c 21. v. 15. 16 17. which words do plainly prove that our Saviour then meant Peter and none else of the Apostles for he excluded them by the words Simon Peter sonne of Jonas levest thou me which as the reader may observe our Saviour thrice coÌ„sequeÌ„tly repeated and after Peter answer'd each time he gave him in charge his lambes and sheepe commanding him to feede them which he would not have done if he had then meant equally all the rest of the Apostles as Whealy falsly alleages but would speake to them Generally in the plural number as he did in that of Matt. c. 18. v. 19 when he commanded them to go and teach all nations as for that new explication which Whealy gives saying that our Saviour speake particularly to Peter more than to the other Apostles because they were not in the danger that Peter was of swearing cuâ—sing denying his blessed Master as Peter afterwards did Matt c. 26. v. 7â— therefâ—re wanted not the consolation which the Saviour of the world judg'd nâ—edfull for the support of a faâ—linâ—
the said points if they had not understood and firmly believ'd that they taught false and erronious Doctrines neither wou'd all the aforesaid Councils of the Primitive Church which my adversary in his challenge acknowledges to have then retain'd the true faith of Jesus Christ condemn their Doctrines if they were not also Hethrodox contrary to the true faith which they and their forefathers receiv'd from Jesus Christ his Disciples therfore whosoever desires to find embrace a Church wherein the old incorrupted principles of Christianity are â—aught and such Doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient pâ—râ— Church even of Roâ—e for up-wards of 500 years after Christ let him embrace the present Church of Rome wherein the said principles are duely professâ—d the old and the present Church of Rome being still the same in priÌ„ciples whereas the Doctrines of those who now call themselves reformers the Church of EnglaÌ„d PresbyteriaÌ„s Quakers c. wherein the said convinâ—icles do now diâ—â—er from the preseÌ„t Church of Rome 〈◊〉 never maintain'd by the ancient Church of Rome but 〈◊〉 â—â—piously brought in by a serâ—es of Hereticks who for these very Doctrines were from time to 〈◊〉 condemn'd by many 〈◊〉 national Provincial Councils â— also by the most eminent 〈◊〉 and Doctors of the primitive Church as the premisses do evidently make-out so that the reader may take noâ—â—ce of my adversarys ignorance and presumption for censuring contradicting a religion so ancieÌ„t which lawfull mission acknowledgment of antiquity holy Fathers several Councils divine miracles the word of God do plainly demoÌ„strate to be the only true and Apostolical line which leads Souls to the true way of everlasting glory happiness therefore reader if you have been heretofore of my adversarys opinion I beseech you for the love of Jesus Christ to compare seriously his principles and those of the Church of Rome togeather and then to consider â—ttentively the state and circumstances wherein you are out of â—he holy Catholick Church out of which there is no salvation to be expected as the following holy Fathers do openly declare St. Cyâ—rian in his book de vnitate Ecclesiae speaking of those who are out of the Church sayes thus do they thinke Christ is amongst them â—â—â— tho' they were drawn to torments â—xecution for the confession of the name of Christ yet this pollutioÌ„ is not wash'd away noâ— not with blood this inexpiable and inexcusable crime of schisâ—â— is not purg'd away even by death itself St. Chrysostome in his 11. hoâ— on St. Pauls Epist to the EphesiaÌ„s â—ayes also thus there is nothing so provokes the wrâ—th of God aâ— the division of the Church iâ— so â—uch that tho' we shu'd have perform'd all other sort of good thiâ—gs yâ—t we â—hall inâ—urr apâ—â—isâ—ment â—â— lâ—ss crâ—â—â— for dividing the vnity of the Church than those who have doâ—â— who 〈◊〉 and divided Christs 〈◊〉 St. Augustin in his 4. book of â—ymbole Cap 10. sayes â—â—e following words If any man be soâ—â—â— sâ—parâ—ted from her he shaâ—l be 〈◊〉 from â—he number of the childâ—â—n â—â—ither shall â—e have God for his Father 〈◊〉 wouâ—d not have the Church for 〈◊〉 â—â—ther â—nd it will nothing 〈◊〉 him to have rightly beliâ—v'd oâ— to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so many good workes withâ—â—t the â—â—â—clusion of the soâ—eraign good 〈◊〉 sâ—pâ—r gâ—â—â—a Emar he sayâ— also the following â—ords out of the Church aâ— heretick â—ay have all things but salvation â—â— may have the sacraments he may â—ave faith and preach it only salvaâ—ion he cannot havâ— which may be â—urther confirm'd by the words of â—t James c. 2. v. 10. sayiÌ„g thus whoâ—iâ—ver shall keep the whole law and â—â—t offends in one point he is guilty of â—ll therefore being the salvation â—f your soul doth wholly depend â—f the true belief and intire obâ—ervation of all those points of â—ith which the holy Catholick Church sufficiently proposes â—â—iversaly teaches I do earnestly â—eseech you to open the eyes of â—our understanding for I know â—hat you have no invincible ignorance whereby yoâ— might be excus'd to embrace the principles and Doctrines of that pure ancâ—ent Church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail Matt. c. 16. v. 1â— assure your self that I do not invite you to any old heresie as my adversary does noâ— the Lord forbid but to the religion preach'd and taught by Jesus Christ and his Disciples to that I say where with your foreâ— fathers and anteceslors have been still contented since eveâ— they left Paganism untill in the 16. age they were deceiv'd by the erronious Doctrines of those false prophets Luther and Calvin hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast hard from me in faith and live which is in Christ Jesus 2. Timothy c. 1 v. 13 neither give heed to fables and endless genelogies which minister questions rather than Godly â—â—ifying in the faith from which some having sweru'd have turn'd aside unto vain jaâ—gling desiring to be teachers if the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm 1. Timothy c. 1. v. 4. 6. 7. let not villfull or gross ignorance the temporal riches and vanity of this transitory world or complyâ—nce to the request of your frieÌ„ds deceive mislead you but consider seriously the very words of your Saviour and redeemer Jesus Christ Matt c. 16. v. 26. saying thus for what is a man profited if he â—hall gain the whole world loose his own soulâ— or what shall a man give in exchangâ— for his own soul what will it then a â—â—il you after this life to be now for few years or dayes in great honour favour request in this deceitfull world afterward to be perpetually tormented in pain grief miseryes with out any hopes of mercy or redemption where neither frieds pompe nor riches can prevail in order to give you the lest dram of consolation from which punishment the Lord Jesus Christ of his infinite mercy defend both you me all Christians Amen FINIS An Answer to what oâ—e Wâ—ealy â—lleages in his Almanack against St. Peters Supremacy AFter having compos'd this little work Wheaâ—y's Almanack for the year 1â—99 came accidentally into my haÌ„ds wherein he or some other malicious person in his name labours to infect the whole Kingdom with false pernicious Doctrine which he pretends to ground on some nonâ—ensical arguments that he forms against St. Peter the Pope of Rome's Supremacy and tho' 't is hardly worth any mans while to coÌ„fute them yet because it concerns what I have said in my Answer to mr lennings fourth poit â— thiÌ„ke it fit to let him know his own ignorance and the errors of his pretended Doctrine First he offers to infer by a new invented consequence of his own that Peter was neither Bishop of Antioch or Rome because as he falsly alleages the Papists have not as yet agreed amoÌ„g themselves about the time he first remov'd from