Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	apostle_n	church_n	word_n	1,489	5	3.9514	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33943	A modest enquiry, whether St. Peter were ever at Rome, and bishop of that church? wherein, I. the arguments of Cardinall Bellarmine and others, for the affirmative are considered, II. some considerations taken notice of that render the negative highly probable.	Care, Henry, 1646-1688.	1687 (1687)	Wing C529; ESTC R7012	75,600	120

Imprimatur April 6. 1687. GVIL. NEEDHAM A MODEST ENQUIRY WHETHER St. PETER WERE EVER AT ROME AND Bishop of that CHURCH WHEREIN I. The Arguments of Cardinal Bellarmine and others for the Affirmative are Considered II. Some Considerations taken notice of that render the Negative highly Probable LONDON Printed for Randall Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. A MODEST ENQUIRY WHETHER St PETER were Bishop of Rome Or ever there c. CHAP. I. The Occasion of this Disquisition is Administred by the Romanists It does not much concern Protestants But of the highest Importance to the Church of Rome as being made an Article of Faith and her loftiest Pretensions bottom'd thereon To overthrow which 't is enough if we shew That their Arguments are not Cogent THERE is no man I think can desire more heartily than thy self the accomplishment of that Prophecy When Swords shall be turn'd into Plow-shares and Spears into Pruning-hooks All the Weapons of Contention changed into Instruments for cultivating the Lords Vineyard That our Controversies ended no strife might remain amongst any that profess the Christian Name but an happy Emulation who should most glorifie God and adorn the Gospel by a meek Holy Conversation That all our Tongues and Pens freed from the unwelcome Toil of Polemics might be jointly employ'd in Eucharistics celebrating the Praises of the Divine Majesty and exciting each other to the practice of Virtue and Piety But since the All-wise Soveraign Disposer of things has not thought fit to allot that happiness to our Times but that Religion of it self the highest and most Sacred Bond of Love and Unity is by the Ignorance the Prejudices the Passions and secular Interests of men made one of the greatest occasions of Difference or a common Subject of Debate since there are a sort of People in the World who neglecting the humble Simplicity of the Gospel and dreaming of nothing less than Infallibility Vniversal Soveraignty and such like Grandezzu's not only assume to themselves the highest Priviledges on the weakest Pretensions but would impose their Dictates no less groundless than Imperious as necessary to Salvation and Damn all that cannot see with such Spectacles as they please to put upon their Noses I cannot but think every one seriously studious of his future State obliged to use all the just means he can for satisfaction in things that are said to concern his everlasting Peace and Happiness Amongst the several Questions agitated between us and the Church of Rome some are purely Theological the discussion of which most properly belongs to Divines others however advanced or made use of to boulster up lofty Pretensions are no more than Historical as relating to a meer and indifferent matter of Fact And the subject of these Papers being of the latter kind I thought a Lay-man without incurring the censure of Presumption might be allowed fairly to sum up the Evidence produc'd on either side leaving the Impartial and Judicious Reader to give the Verdict in the Cause as he shall think fit Especially since I undertook not this Enquiry out of any Pragmatic Humour of contending or vain-glorious Itch of arguing an unnecessary Problem But as invited or rather if I may be allowed to say so provoked thereunto by divers Books and Pamphlets very lately as well as heretofore publish'd amongst us by the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion wherein it has been asserted as a notorious Truth or rather taken for granted as a thing out of Dispute That St. Peter not only Preached the Gospel at Rome but by Gods command fixed his Chair there that is became the proper Bishop of that City and therefore the Popes are his Successors c. The Pope or Bishop of Rome says the Author of the late Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented ch 18. is the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock and who hath been followed now by a visible Succession of above 250 Bishops The famous French Prelate now of Meaux formerly of Condom in his Exposition not long since publish'd in English Sect 21. has these words The Son of God being desirous his Church should be one and solidly built upon Vnity hath establish'd and instituted the Primacy of Peter to maintain and cement it upon which account we acknowledge this Primacy in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for this CAUSE we owe Obedience and Submission And again The Primacy of St. Peter 's Chair is the common Centre of all Catholic Vnity The Author of two Questions Why are you a Catholick And why are you a Protestant p. 41. tells us of the Bishop of Rome's being Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ Nay so confident they seem of our Credulity That an Almanack called Calendarium Catholicum for the last Year 1686. commonly cry'd about the Streets and dispersed throughout the Nation sets it down as an unquestionable piece of Chronology thus Since the removal of St. Peter 's Chair from Antioch to Rome Anno 43. where he remained 24 Years and was afterwards Crucified with his Heels upwards under Nero then Emperour 1647. Years Now though this brisk assurance wherewith they deliver themselves suits well enough with those that shall abandon their own understandings to make room for an Implicite Faith in Humane Guides as being resolved to receive their Priests Dictates blindfold and may perhaps make Impressions on spirits that are ready to entertain every warm Asseveration as an Oracle rather than be at the trouble to examine its verity yet in me who have long since learnt of the great St. Augustine to defer that Honour to the Sacred Scriptures alone of commanding my Beleif it had a quite contrary effect and so much the more awakened my Curiosity to inquire what substantial Proofs they had for what they alledg'd so peremptorily 'T is true indeed That it does not much concern Protestants Whether ever St. Peter were or were not at Rome For even to grant That he was the first Bishop of the Church there will nothing prejudice our Cause with considering men who before they can admit the modern Roman Claims will besides That expect some solid proof 1. That Peter was constituted by Christ Prince of the Apostles or sole Supreme Governour on Earth of the Universal Church 2. That this Empire of his was not only Personal but Successive and to be continued to the end of the World in some other Persons in the quality and upon the account of being his Successors 3. Why this supposed right devolved to his Successors in the Bishoprick of Rome rather than to those of Antioch which they say was his first Episcopal See Or that St. Peter's removal from thence to Rome was by Gods special Command to make That the Seat of Ecclesiastical Empire and that accordingly he did actually bequeath his Authority to the latter rather than to the former for his being put to

it been true we may say a kind of necessity to have mentioned it I confess were it pretended that Peter had been Bishop of Jerusalem it might seem somewhat probable for as he is stiled the Apostle of the Circumcision so 't is apparent from Scripture that he took much pains and spent seveal years in Preaching there and in the neighbouring Territories and if he were the chief or most notable of the Apostles and they were all to have several and respective Bishopricks since that of Jerusalem was the first and Mother Church from whence the Gospel was spread abroad into all the Earth other Churches being but as so many Colonies derived from thence 't was reasonable he should have the conduct thereof and be Bishop of the first that was planted in the World but there appears nothing so much colour of Reason to call him Bishop either of Antioch or Rome For as the Gospel was first Preached at Antioch by some of the scattered Believers from Jerusalem and further advanc'd by Barnabas and afterwards more fully Establisht there by Paul who both labour'd there for one whole year and with Eminent success insomuch that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch Acts 11. It might thence seem reasonable to Intitle one of them to that Bishoprick but to assign Peter thereto is to make him build on other mens foundations and to reap where he had not sown especially since we find no Intimation of his ever being there save once mentioned by the by and then so far from acting as Bishop there that he seems not throughly to have understood the state and usages of that Church but was withstood and rebuked by St. Paul Gal. 2. 11. When Barnabas and Paul had planted so flourishing a Church at Antioch would Peter meerly to shew his power thrust himself in to be Bishop there Or if he did why would he leave it and go to Rome Was it because the latter was the Richer the larger and the more Honourable So indeed Platina as you heard seems to intimate saying that it was because that Imperial City was more suitable to his pontificial Dignity But certainly Peter who heard Christ telling him amongst the other Disciples when they began to vye for superiority that it should not be so amongst them and who himself charges the Ministers of the Gospel not to carry it as Lords over the Flock committed to their charge could not so quickly forget both and abandon that Humility so much recommended by his Master and himself to seek out a splendid place to be Bishop of that thereby he and his Successors might seem great in the World Suppose Peter once Bishop of Antioch how could he Translate his See from thence to Rome unless he were removed by some Order or Mission of the rest of the Apostles or else that he himself had some special Vision or Revelation so to do But neither of these are as yet proved nor so much as attempted Osius Bishop of Corduba one of no small account amongst the 318 Fathers of the first Council of Nice in the Council at Sardis held about the year 340 did Declare That it was not Lawful for a Bishop to leave his City and undertake another for thereby it would appear that he was inflam'd with Covetousness or a slave to Ambition that he might domineer which was Synodically by the word Placet agreed unto by all the Fathers This was likewise the sense of several other Councils and that all the Acts of such a Bishop at the second place should be accounted Null and Void and he Remanded back to his former Church These being the sentiments of those Ancient Fathers certainly if Peter had removed his See from Antioch to Rome they would out of Reverence to the Prince of the Apostles have suspended their Opinions in the Case If Councils are Infallible in their Decrees then it appears Peter being once Bishop of Antioch did an ill act in Translating himself to Rome if Peter did well in Translating his See from Antioch to Rome as being the much greater and Imperial City then these Councils were Rash and did Err in such their General Condemnations of the like Removes so that either way the Authority of Peter or that of Councils must be Impaired Bellarmin indeed tells us That Peters Remove from Antioch to Rome was Jubente Domino by the Lords Command but offers no kind of proof of that Command when yet all the strength of his Argument to Confirm the Supremacy of the Roman Chair must depend thereon Let them but shew that Divine Command for Peters fixing his Episcopal Chair at Rome and it will put an end not only to this but divers other Controversies we will then readily obey our blessed Lords Command and the Popes too but they cannot produce any such Command nay confess that there is none Nullum Christi ea de re Decretum Extat no Decree of Christ is extant about that matter says Cornelius a Lapide in Apoc. 17. v. 17. If it be alledged That the Fact of the Apostle does argue Gods command as its precedent Cause and they shall urge That Peter did remove to Rome But Peter was Inspired by the Holy Ghost Therefore we ought to believe that this Translation of his seat was by the special Dictates or Guidance of the spirit I answer 1. This Argument has no place nor force until such time as they have substantially proved the fact it self that is That Peter did remove from Antioch to Rome and with an intent to establish at the latter place the seat of Ecclesiastick Empire but this cannot at all be proved or at least as yet is not 2. Cardinal Bellarmin of all men ought not however be allow'd to plead this for in his Treatise De Verbo Dei L. 4. C. 4. he sticks not to deny That Peter Paul or other of the sacred Penmen wrote the Holy Scriptures by Gods special command And will the same man without any proof obtrude on us a Command of God for placing Peter's Chair at Rome Justly may we retort his own words Mutatis mutandis in the place last cited If it had been the purposse of Christ and Peter to place the seat of Christian Empire or visible Headship of the whole Church at Rome undoubtedly it being a thing of such moment Christ would have commanded it and Peter would somewhere have witnessed That he by the Lords command fixed his seat there But this we no where read no not so much as one word that he ever was at Rome or had any thing to do there Therefore we are not bound to believe it Eusebius's Chronicon is commonly cited to prove Peter was Bishop of Antioch seven years and of Rome Twenty five years Now Eusebius does there indeed say That Peter founded the Church of Antioch which yet is plainly contrary to Scripture but so far is he from saying That he was Seven years Bishop there That he