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	peter_n	successor_n	2,335	5	9.6117	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80756	The royal prerogative vindicated in the converted recusant convinced by Scripture, reasons, fathers, and councils, that the oath of abjuration (compared with those of allegiance, and supremacy) containeth nothing, but what may be lawfully taken by every pious Christian, and loyal subject; and that the known doctrine, and discipline of the Church of England, in opposition to Popery on the one hand, and all sects, and schisms on the other, is the safest way to peace and loyalty here, and salvation hereafter. To which is annexed The King's supremacy in all causes, ecclesiastical, and civil, asserted in a sermon preached at the assises at Monmouth before Sir Robert Hide, one of his Majestie's judges, March 30. 1661. / By John Cragge, M.A.	Cragge, John, M.A.	1661 (1661)	Wing C6790; Wing C6786; Thomason E2261_1; Thomason E2261_2; ESTC R210148	173,676	266

Sense supposito sed non dato what makes it for the Pope's Supremacy and Authority over the Catholick Church in general which is the Question Gent. It makes in this That Peter fixed his See at Rome and delegated his Plenipotentiary Power to the Bishops his Successours there that what Power he had he left it in Fee and hereditary to them Minist You speak much in little for this is (x) 2 Thess ii 7 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystery of that wicked one wherein is touched (y) Doctour Sclater upon Thessal pag. 94. First Temerarium a rash avouchment that Peter fixed his Episcopal See at Rome Secondly Erroneum a palpable mistake that he could delegate his Apostolick Power to Successours Thirdly Haereticum a notorious falsity little less then Fundamental that he actually invested the Bishop of Rome with his Apostolick Power derivative to all Posterity Gent. Will you deny that Peter fixed his Episcopal See at Rome when the Fathers so frequently call Rome the Seat of St. Peter Minist (z) Gildas pag. 2. Epist De excidio Britanniae So Gildas the Wise calls Britain St. Peter's Seat telling the British Priests Quod sedem Petri Apostoli inverecundis pedibus usurpassent that They had usurped the Apostle St. Peter 's Seat with unreverent Feet I hope you will not conclude hence that St. Peter fixed his Episcopal See in Britain which is as genuine Logick as the former That Peter was ever so much as at Rome you have neither Scripture Proof nor Presumption (a) Vellenus printed by Illyricus Vellenus with many others proves the contrary Consider but these Reasons impartially Whereas Peter is said to come to Rome the (b) Secundo anno Claudii Petrus Apostolus Romā venit qui annos aliquot anteà Antiochiae praedicaverat hic initium sumit Romana Ecclesia Carion Chronic. lib. 3. pag. 122. second year of Claudius and to reside there twenty five years which is till the last of Nero why doth St. Paul writing his Epistle to the Romans the last year of Claudius or first of Nero make no mention of Peter saying Rom. 1. 5 6. that They were called of Jesus by his Apostleship amongst all Nations Secondly In the last Chapter he greets and salutes near thirty eminent Saints at Rome with their Families and names not Peter which had been an irreverent oversight if he had been resident as Primate there Thirdly Claudius banished all Jews from Rome Peter was a (c) Galat. ii 7 8. Jew Fourthly (d) August in Epist ad Galat. cap. ii The Gospel of Circumcision that is to preach to the Jews wheresoever scattered was committed unto Peter but the Romans were Gentiles Vncircumcised Lastly The Antients that averr Peter's residence so many years at Rome contradict the Stories of the Acts of the Apostles and amongst themselves vary speaking the confused Language of Babel But admit Peter was at Rome will it follow he was fixed as Bishop there Gent. Doth not St. Augustine give a lineal Succession from Damasus who was Bishop at Rome in his time till St. Peter And Doctour Pocklington (e) Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath one of your own glories that he can derive his Pedigree from Augustine the Monk Bishop of Canterbury and from thence ascend the Scale of Primitive Succession till St. Peter Minist Not from Saint Peter as Bishop of Rome but as an Apostle who with his Collegues or Fellow-Apostles ordained Elders and Bishops of their times they succeeding Pastours and Teachers to the world's end Thus the Apostles divided the earth amongst them Saint Paul ordained Timothy at Ephesus Titus at Crete Saint John Polycarp at Smyrna and other Bishops of Asia Saint Bartholomew had his Successours in India Saint James in Spain yet Paul was no Bishop of Ephesus or Crete John of Asia Bartholomew of India or James of Spain The Apostleship was an Extraordinary Office which expired in the Twelve and was incommunicable to Posterity and would have been disparaged by Confinement to a particular Charge Thus Irenaeus (f) Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. Contra Haereses It is easie saith He for all men to see that will see the Truth the antient Traditions of the Apostles in the Church through the whole World and we can reckon those that were ordained Bishops of the Apostles themselves and their Successours also even until our selves Gent. (g) Confutation of the Apology of the Church of England Harding against Jewel page 95. Apostolick Power was twofold either extraordinary common to Saint Peter with the rest of the Apostles this expired in them and was incommunicable to Successours or ordinary which was Saint Peter's peculiar Privilege and this he bequeathed to his Successours Bishops of Rome Minist This is that Erroneum palpable Mistake maintained by Petrus de Palude who said (h) Nullus Apostolorum praeter Petrum factus est à Christo Episcopus alii Apostoli nullam potestatem jurisdictionis à Christo receperunt specialiter post Christi Ascensum fuit collata eis à Petro. Petrus de Palude De potestato Apostolorum Art 2. That None of all the Apostles save onely Peter was Bishop by Christ and that The rest of the Apostles received no Power of Jurisdiction at Christ 's hand but that specially after Christ 's Ascension it was given unto them by Peter Blasphemy worthy of tearing of Garments as highly prejudicial to Christ's Prerogative and contradictory to Scripture as Paul declares Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father Whereupon Saint Chrysostom (i) Paulus nihil opus habebat Petro nec illius egebat voce sed honore par erat illi nihil hic enim dicam ampliùs Chrysoft in Epist ad Galat. cap. 1. Comments thus Paul had no want of Peter nor had any need of his Suffrage or Allowance but in honour was his equal here I will say no more meaning he was in some Sense his Superiour And Saint Augustine (k) August in Epist ad Gal. cap. 2. makes Peter without any distinction Fellow and equal with the other Apostles avouching that Christus sine Personarum acceptione hoc dedit Paulo ut ministraret Gentibus quod etiam Petro dederat ut ministraret Judaeis Christ without any respect of Persons gave the same Authority to Paul to minister among the Gentiles that he gave to Peter to minister among the Jews Whence is gatherable that rather Saint Paul who writ to the Romans preached at Rome lived and dyed there should have had this ordinary Delegation if any then Saint Peter who was designed the Minister of Circumcision which he himself knew well when he said (l) Galat. ii 9. James Cephas that is Peter and John who seemed to be Pillars gave to me and Barnabas the right Hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Fellowship that is aequalitatis of equality saith the Gloss and further (m) Non didici

Prince of Orange In the year 1587. Sir Aribespinaeus the French Embassadour would have perswaded one Stafford a young Gentleman to take away the Queen's life Pope Sixtus Quintus sent Cardinal Allen into Flanders and renewed the Bull of Pius Quintus and Gregory the Thirteenth to encourage the Spanish Armado to invade England in Eighty eight Doctour Lopez the Queen's Physician was hired by the Romish Rabbies for fifteen thousand Crowns to poyson Her Whalpool a Jesuit in confession imposed upon Squire to poyson the Queen's Saddle which he attempted accordingly Tyrone by the instigation of the King of Spain and the Pope moved the Irish Subjects to Rebellion Watson and Clark two Romish Priests perswaded Lord Cobham Lord Grey Sir Walter Rawleigh and others by surprising of King James in the first year of His Reign to force him to a Toleration in Religion Father Creswell a Lieger Jesuit in Spain Don Pedro Frankesa Secretary of State and the Duke of Lerma did all negotiate with the Pope and his Cardinals for the advancement of the Powder-plot and all upon this ground (h) Solus Papa est Dominus Temporalium ita ut possit auferre ab alio quod alias suum est tenet factum ejus licèt peccet sed Praelati caeteri Principes non sunt Domini sed Tutores Procurator●● Dispensatores Johannes de Parisiis De potestate Regia Papali cap. 5. That Princes being Hereticks or excommunicated may be deposed their Subjects disobliged and all the sinews of Government disjointed if the Pope send out his Bull to bellow against them Gent. I utterly detest and abhor these and all such Machinations as pernicious and destructive to Church and State Minist You will not onely detest them but the very Ground and Basis upon which they are founded if you considerately and conscientiously weigh the next Article which is The Ninth Article And I do further swear That I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure their damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Rulers or Governours which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may by virtue of such Excommunication or Deprivation be killed murdered or deposed from their Rule or Government or any outrage or violence done unto them by the People that are under them or by any other whatsoever upon such pretense Gent. WHat differs this Article from the former what Acts or Objects in them are remarkably distinguished Minist The two former dismantled the Pope's power justly to arm either forein Princes or homebred Subjects against their Native Sovereign This abjures those Heretical Principles upon which this practical Doctrine is bottomed Gent. What are those Principles which sustain the Superstructure of all the Romish Hierarchy and Grandeur Minist Their name is Legion because they are many First That (a) Constituti sumus à Deo super gentes regna ut destruamus evellamus aedificemus plantemus Aventin lib. 6. pag. 636. The Pope is placed by God over Nations and Kingdoms that he may destroy and pluck up and build and plant Whence as Matthaeus Hieromonachus (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matthaeus Hieromonachus hath it The Consistorial Conclave gave in Decree and Commandment to all Lords and the Senate of the Empire That the Bishop of Rome and the Successour of St. Peter chief of the Apostles have authority and power in all the world more then that of the Empire is and That he be honoured and worshipped more then the Emperour and That he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats and That things appertaining to the right Faith be of him judged and determined Gent. Where do they lay the ground of the proof of this Doctrine whether upon Divine Oracles or Imperial Decrees and Constitutions Minist Some challenge it from Divine Revelation which you have heard refuted by Scripture Antients and Romists themselves The most father it upon the Donation of Constantine So expressly your own Champian Doctour Harding The first Christian Emperour Constantine the Great being fully instructed of the godly and learned Bishops of the time thought good by his Imperial Commandment and Decrees to confirm ratifie and for his own person to yield unto blessed Sylvester then Pope and to his Successours Bishops of Rome the same Authority and Superiority not onely over Bishops and Patriarchs but also Power and Honour higher and greater then that of Kings and Emperours Gent. What think you of this Donation or Charter of Constantine Johannes de Parisiis saith (c) Volunt aliqui quòd ratione hujus doni Papa est Imperator Dominus mundi quòd potest Reges instituere destituere sicut Imperator Johannes de Parisiis De potestate Papae Some are of opinion that by force and virtue thereof the Pope is the Emperour and Lord of the world and that hereby he hath power both to set up and also to put down Kings as an Emperour Minist Because my thoughts are not so authentick with you I will tell you what your own chief friends Schole-men Historians Canonists think Platina Cardinal Cusanus Marsilius Patavinus Laurentius Valla Antonius Florentinus Otho Frisingensis Hieronymus Paulus Catalinus Volaterranus Nauclerus Capnion Mallinaeus and others have discovered the forgery of it to the world as ashamed of such a fiction I will alledg one or two in place of many Cardinal Cusanus confesseth that (d) Donationem Constantini diligenter expendens reperi ex ipsamet scriptura manifesta argumenta confictionis faelsitatis Cusanus De concordantia Catholica lib. 3. cap. 2. while he advisedly weighed this Donation or Grant of Constantine whereby the Pope challengeth all his temporal power even in the penning thereof he found manifest tokens of false-hood and forgery And in Gratian the Pope's own Register it is found onely in the Palea and not in the Original allowed Text and in many old Books that have no Gloss it is not found and in the Gloss upon the same it is noted thus (e) Palea ista non legitur in Scholis in qua continetur Privilegiū quod Constantinus concessit Romanae Ecclesiae scilicet ut Primatum inter omnes Ecclesias obtineret Gratian Distinct 98. Glossa eodem loco This patch is not read in the Scholes wherein is contained the Priviledge that Constantine the Emperour granted to the Church of Rome that is that the said Church should have Sovereignty over all Churches Pope Pius the Second himself saith (f) Dicta Palea Constantinus falsa est Pius in Dialogo It is false which Felinus his Canonist further declares saying (g) Invehit contra miseros Legistas qui laborant in disputando an valuerit id quod nunquam fuit Felinus De Majorit Obedientia He inveighed earnestly against the poor Lawyers for that they take such pains to reason whether that thing may be good and available in Law which never was made And those Authours who own the truth of it