Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n bishop_n church_n jurisdiction_n 5,357 5 9.3309 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A67103 Truth will out, or, A discovery of some untruths smoothly, told by Dr. Ieremy Taylor in his Disswasive from popery with an answer to such arguments as deserve answer / by his friendly adversary E. Worsley. E. W. (Edward Worsley), 1605-1676. 1665 (1665) Wing W3618; ESTC R39189 128,350 226

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

St. Cyprian and St. Hierom now cited Hoc erant utique saith the first caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti That is equal in this fellowship and office of being Apostles Sed Primatus Petro datur But the Primacy is given to Peter Where you see that Cyprian clearly grants an equality common to the whole Colledge of Apostles and withal establisheth a Superiority proper to St. Peter only either the words of this Saint are senceless or the distinction of equality in many and Supremacy in one must stand And In this sence St. Hieroms Doctrine is most significant without gloss or wresting one syllable Ex aequo super eos c. The strength of the Church was equally built upon the Apostles viz. as Masters as Doctors and Teachers illuminated by the Holy Ghost yet therefore among twelve One was chosen that a Head or Governer being constituted all occasion of schism might be prevented Here is certainly more then that Dimunitive orderly Precedency our Doctor allows good St. Peter Ut schismatis tollatur occasio are significant words and point at what is most essential to the Church The Unity of it See the absolute necessity of this Head in order to Unity most solidly laid out by S. G. and remember well what I was to shew that St. Hierom acknowledgeth an equality amongst many and a Supremacy in One. Once more I repeat it equality relates to their Apostolical dignity Supremacy to the Head and Governour 2. I draw this distinction of Apostles-ship in All and Head-ship in One from St. Gregory the Great lib. 2. Epist 38. indictione 13. so it is with me in his works printed at Antwerp anno 1572. though others cite lib. 4. Certe saith the Saint Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae Universalis Ecclesiae est Paulus Ioannes Andreas quid aliud quam singularium sant capita tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae St. Peter is the first Member of the Universal Church the other Apostles not so nor in like manner Universal Yet with this Supremacy in Peter our Opponent must acknowledge an equality of their Apostle-ship I will add one word more and tell you though the Doctor should alledge out of some Fathers that St. Paul may be rightly stiled the Head of Nations and be said to have had a Principality over the Church yet the difference between him and St. Peter is most remarkable St. Paul and the other Apostles had this Principality as Legats by extraordinary concession St. Peter had it over the whole Church in solidum yes over the Apostles themselves as Pastor Ordinary I say Over the Apostles themselves so Anacletus Scholler to St. Prter cited by Remumdus Rufus in Molinaeum pag. 86. Inter beatos Apostolos saith he fuit quaedam discretio licet omnes essent Apostoli Petro tamen a Domino est consessum ipsi inter se voluerunt id ipsum ut reliquis praeesset Apostolis Cephas id est caput principium teneret Apostolatus There was a difference a distinction among the Blessed Apostles and although all were Apostles yet our Lord gave to Peter and the other Apostles among themselves will'd the same thing that Peter should be Superiour to the rest and Cephas that is Head and chief of Apostleship See this Authority more largely in the Cannon Law Decreti prima par distinct 22. cap. 2. and never leave● of to wonder at the bold assertion of our Doctor pag. 65. viz. That by the Law of Christ one Bishop is not Superiour to another Christ gave the Power to all alike he made no Head of the Bishops he gave to none a Supremacy of Power c. So the Doctor In the same pag. 65. he fills his Margent with a cluster of Authors but to what purpose God only knows if they be to prove that Apostolical power is and shall be ever in the Church We grant it to the Pope of Rome If to prove that Bishops succeed the Apostles in all priviledges and ample power they had in the Church not one Father in the Doctors Margent asserts it though in a real sence Bishops that have a true mission may be called the Apostles successors by reason of their duty which is to uphold the Doctrine of Christ taught by the Apostles by reason of their spiritual power and Princely and Priestly Dignity and this is all St. Irenaeus saith in the place cited by the Doctor lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Praesbiteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis Wherefore we ought to obey those who are Priests in the Church those who have succession from the Apostles Thus St. Irenaeus and the other Fathers say no more I see not to what purpose the Doctor cites those words of St. Paul We are Embassadors or Legats for Christ unless it be to prove what I asserted above that the other Apostles though Princes of the Church were not Pastors Ordinary as St. Peter was Less do I know why the Preface of the Mass Quos operis tui vicarios c. is brought in Pastors they were but all subordinate to St. Peter as I have shewed In his pag. 66. he jerks the Jesuits Monks and Cajetane for defending the Popes Authority over Bishops But frivolous stories are but weak Arguments yet the best the Doctor hath at hand Next he cites Pope Elutherius saying That Christ committed the Universal Church to Bishops How good Doctor That every Bishop hath jurisdiction over the Universal Church T is very strange the Bishop of Down and Connor will not pretend to such a power Christ indeed committed the Universal Church to Bishops by parts or portions whereof the whole Church is made yet ever with subordination to one head which prevents schism and conserves Unity Page 67. he cites the famous words of St. Cyprian The Church of Christ is one through the whole world divided by him into many members and the Bishoprick is but one c. No hurt in this which makes against the Doctor for if the whole Church of Christ be rightly called one Bishoprick there must be certainly one Head over so Vast a Bishoprick no other can be but the Pope who Governs in Ecclesiastical affaires Other Bishops have only a portion in the Flock He next cites you Pope Symmachus his words apud Baronium Tomo 6. anno D. 499. num 36. but falsly for Symmachus writing to Eonius speaks thus Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar cujus una est atque individua potestas unum sit per diversos Antistites sacerdotium As in the Blessed Trinity whose Power is one and individual so their is one Priest-hood our Doctor reads one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and thus he reads after he had thrust in a Parenthesis of his own head not in Symmachus his Letter But the worst is the inference he draws from Symmachus his words They being spoken saith he
quoque magnopere advertendum est Romanum Pontificem Petro succedere non esse per se quidem in sacris literis revelatum sed aliunde constare exeo scilicet quod gravissimae historiae prodidere Petrum Apostolum suam Cathedram Romae demum collocasse ibique cum esset Episcopum fuisse defunctum 'T is much to be reflected on That the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter is not indeed by its self reveal'd in Scripture but is manifested by other means to wit by most grave History that hath left on Record that Blessed St. Peter placed his Chair at Rome and when he was there dyed Bishop of that place For this Canus cites you eighteen or nineteen of the most Ancient Fathers that lived in the Church as St. Denis Clemens Anacletus Tertullian St. Hierom St. Austin c. and finally concludes Will the Doctor stand to this Bishops Judgment what thinks he of this determination of the Question Tam vero multis incorruptis testibus qui non credit is aut stultum aut haereticumse esse demonstrat He who gives not credit to so many and sincere witnesses either shews himself a Fool or an Heretick Now mark the disingenious dealing of our Doctor with Canus who to make his words sound loud for the Protestants purpose fraudulently omits these particulars non esse per se quidem which abates much and turns them out of that furious sence the Doctor gives There is no Scripture saith he no Revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter Canus speaks thus and moderately That the Bishop of Rome does succeed Peter is not by it self precisely or in express terms revealed in Scripture which hath Truth in it for the Bishop of Rome per se or in formal express terms is not named in Scripture Yet neither Canus nor any can doubt but that this succession of the Roman Bishop is evidently deduced out of Scripture though not per se revelatum Were the Doctor versed in School Divinity or knew how precisely School-men speak when they inquire what is per se by it self immediately or in formal terms revealed I could tell him that Canus his words deserved more then totally to be omitted by him Put case it were revealed per se that a man is animal rationale a reasonable creature it follows by evident discourse he is also risibilis risib●le Yet I know many Divines and Canus may be one who say that the man is risiblle is not per se revealed why because this is not per se or in express terms affirmed by the Revelation though drawn from thence by good consequence But enough of these subtilties they are not for the Doctor After Canus he cites Cardinal Cusanus and Soto affirming as he says that This succession was not addicted to any particular Church c. Answ First Nicolaus de Cusa or Cardinal Cusanus writ that Treatise de Concordantiâ Catholicâ when he was a young man about the beginning of the Council of Basil and as Bellar. observes to exalt the Authority of the Council too much depressed the See Apostolick but afterwards seeing his error and how the Schisms grew on he opposed it and stood earnestly for the See Apostolick as you may see in that Epistle writ to Rodericus Trevinus you have it in Cusanus his works printed at Basil page 825. anno 1442. 20. May the Letter was dated 2. Cusanus speaks not so absolutely as the Doctor makes him for although he said Siper possibile Trevirensis Archiepiscopus per Ecclesiam congregatam c. If possible the Arch-bishop of Trevers were by the Church assembled chosen for Head and Governor he would be more the successor of Peter then the Roman Bishop Yet he adds this mitigation Licet credendum sit Romanum Pontificem sicut locum Petri ita principatum nunquam perditurum Although it is to be believed that the Roman Bishop as he will never lose the place of Peter so he will never lose his Principality This the Doctor thought fit to conceal Dominicus Soto in the place cited by the Doctor § Sed forsan stifly defends the Succession of the Roman Bishop to St. Peter Verba ipsa saith he tu es Petrus super hunc c. pasce oves meas palam demonstrant illa ratione Ecclesiam usque ad postremum diem orbis duraturam fundasse ut Petri successores perinde ac Petrus ipse vice Christi fungerentur atque adeo unusquisque eorum summum in Ecclesia fastigium teneret Those words Thou art Peter and feed my Sheep evidently demonstrate the Church founded in such a manner to the end of the World that the Successors of Peter as well as Peter himself be in the place of Christ and every one of them hold Supreme Authority in the Church of Christ It is true § Duo ergo he saith rem esse impendio decentissimam ut Romana sedes Petri sanguine decorata sit sedes successorum Petri. It is most decent that the Roman See honoured with the blood of Peter be the place of all the Successors of Peter And then adds Hac non obstante veritate nulla profecto ex Evangelio prohibitio plane colligitur quo minus posset Ecclesiae constitutione fieri ut Episcopus sedem suam ab urbe demutaret Imo ut nullam sibi particularem applicaret cujus diceretur Antistes sed esset Universalis mundi Episcopus cui omnes particulares subjicerentur Notwithstanding this Truth there is no clear Prohibition in the Gospel forbidding if the Church appoint so that the Bishop of Rome change his Seat yes and apply no other particular one to himself of which he may be called Bishop and yet he would be the Universal Bishop of the World to whom all particulars ought to be subject See now how little the Doctor hath got out of these two Authors Cusanus saith that if by any possibility the Bishop of Trevers were by the Votes of the Church Head of it he would have Universal jurisdiction over the Church as the Pope hath now for Cusanus ever defended this ample Authority of the Pope Soto saith that it is not plane fully clearly forbid in the Gospel that the Bishop of Rome change his See yet if he did so he would be still the Universal Bishop of the World to whom all were subject even the Bishop of Down and Connor Now here is that which vexeth our Doctor viz. that one man have such an ample command and Authority over all Put case Per impossibile say I that the Bishop of Trevers were elected Pope qua Trevirensis with the same ample Power and jurisdiction that the Pope ever had and that the Roman Bishop were laid aside our good Doctor would even then storm as much against Trevers Pope as he now doth against the Roman It is not God knows the place or person that he so furiously opposeth but the Power and Dignity annexed to what See soever This gives him