Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	apostle_n	church_n	successor_n	2,614	5	9.1249	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30396	Observations on the first and second of the canons, commonly ascribed to the holy apostles wherein an account of the primitive constitution and government of churches, is contained : drawn from ancient and acknowledged writings.	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1673 (1673)	Wing B5840; ESTC R233638	56,913	130

and had conversed with him in his youth and had often heard him teach And as it were great uncharitableness to suspect the truth of his narration in a matter of fact so we cannot think he could have been mistaken in a matter of that importance But whatever jealousie may fix upon Irenaeus there is no shadow of ground for suspecting either the veracity or good information of the Church of Smyrna who giving an account of his Martyrdom in an Epistle inserted by Euseb. in his History lib. 4. cap. 14. call him Bishop of the Catholick Church of Smyrna All that can be alledged against this is that in their stile Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same thing But the contrary of this is clear from Iranaeus who speaks always of Bishops as distinct from Presbyters and tho he sometimes call Bishops Presbyters yet he never calls Presbyters Bishops which is also the stile of these few Writers of that age who sometimes call Bishops Presbyters Eusebius tells from the testimony of the Church of Lions how he was first a Presbyter in Lions under Pothinus after whose Martyrdom he succeeded him in the Chair and died Bishop there And if we will hear himself lib. 3. cap. 3. when he is reckoning up the tradition of the Faith from the Apostles he deduceth it by all the Bishops who did sit in Rome from the Apostolick times whence two things will follow one that he judged there had been still Bishops in that Church The other that he looked on the Bishop as the chief depositary of the faith Further Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. sets down his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome wherein he chides him for excommunicating the Eastern Bishops and there he lays the whole blame upon Victor without sharing it among the Presbyters and also commends the former Bishops of Rome for their greater gentleness whereby it plainly appears that he judged that the power of discipline lay chiefly in the Bishops hands Polycrates also apud Euseb. lib. 5. hist. cap. 23. vindicates the practice of their Church about the day of Easter not only from the example of the Apostles among them but of the seven Bishops who preceded him in his See From which we may not only infer that there was but one Bishop in a City from the days of the Apostles but that his authority was great since what they did passed for a precedent to their Successors And indeed the difference of Bishop and Presbyter is so evpress in Irenaeus that the most learned assertors of parity confess the change was begun before his time which was in the end of the second Century Now how this change could have been introduced when there was neither Council nor secular Prince to establish it when Churchmen were so pure Polycarp an Apostolical Man having died but about thirty years before besides many other Apostolical men who had long survived when the Church was in the fire of persecution and so less dross could be among them when there was no secular interest to bait them to it for on the contrary this subjected them to the first fury of the persecution seems strange And it is not easie to be imagined or believed how this could have been so suddenly received through all the Churches both Eastern and Western and that there was none to witness against it and that neither the sincerity of some Presbyters nor the pride of others should have moved them to appear for their priviledges against this Usurpation And how neither Heretick nor Schismatick save one and that about two hundred years after should have charged the Church with this on the contrary all of them having their own Bishops and how this Government continued in so peaceable possession through the succession of so many ages till of late that even fundamentals are brought under debate if this Superiority were either so criminal as some hold it to be or had not been introduced at least by some Apostolical men if not by the Apostles themselves will not be easily cleared In the next Century we have Tertullian speaking clearly of the difference of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons lib. de bapt Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos qui Episcopus dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae bonum Idem de praescript advers haer cap. 32. Caeterum si quae praescriptiones se audent inserere aetati Apostolicae ut ita videantur ab Apostolis traditae Edant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum Apostolis perseverarent habuerit authorem antecessorem hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrneorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum à Ioanne collocatum refert sicut Romanorum à Petro Clementem ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatu constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant confingant tale aliquid baeretici He also lib. 4. cont Marcionem cap. 5. saith Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem By which we see that he both judged Bishops to be of an Apostolical origene and that he counted them different from Presbyters A little after him was Clemens Alex. who 6. Strom. p. 667. speaking of the Constitution of the Christian Churches saith there were among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he thinks was taken from the Angelick glory and from their Oeconomy and administration We shall also find through all Cyprian his Epistles this disparity so clear that it cannot be denied that yet we find him as condescending as any Epist. 6. writing to his Clergy he saith Solus rescribere nihil potui quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis meae pivata gerere sententia But even this looks like a yielding to a diminution of that plenitude of power to which he might have pretended Epist. 65. writing to Rogatian who had advised with him concerning a Deacon that had carried insolently toward him he writes Pro Episcopatûs vigore Cathedrae authoritate haberes potestatem qua posses de illo statim vindicari and about the end Haec sunt enim initia baereticorum ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesiâ receditur sic altare profanum foris collocatur sic contra pacem CHRISTI ordinationem atque unitatem DEI rebellatur Likewise we find Epist. 31. written to Cyprian by the Clerus Romanus the Seat being then vacant what sense they had of the Bishop's power when they say Post excessum nobilissimae memoriae Fabiani nondum est Episcopus propter rerum temporum difficultates constitutus qui