Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	bishop_n	duke_n	earl_n	11,616	5	7.3012	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53946	The antiquity of the Protestant religion with an answer to Mr. Sclater's reasons, and the collections made by the author of the pamphlet entitled Nubes Testium : in a letter to a person of quality : the first part.	Pelling, Edward, d. 1718.	1687 (1687)	Wing P1072; ESTC R1036	27,540	74

because he was the first Founder of the Church he was very fitly called a Rock But doth all this import that he was above all the other Apostles in Power Or that he had Supream Authority and Jurisdiction over them S. Paul speaks twice of the very chiefest Apostles and what if S. Peter was the chiefest of all Doth it follow that he was the chiefest in Authority No S. Paul's power was as great as His and therefore he saith in one place I was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 11. 15. and in another place in nothing am I behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. So the Ancients allow'd S. Peter a preheminence of Honor but not a Supremacy of Power as 't is clear from that single passage which our Author cites out of S. Jerome and I wonder he did not better consider it As Plato was Prince of the Philosophers Pag. 34. so was Peter of the Apostles Had Plato any Authority or Jurisdiction over the Rest No all that is meant is that Plato was the most Eminent and Renowned Philosopher S. Gregory call'd Peter the chief Greg lib. 4. Ep. 38. Member of the Holy and Vniversal Church and saith he Paul Andrew and John What were They but the Heads of particular Churches If the word Head always imports Authority then had those three Apostles as much Authority over Peter as Peter had over Them. But the Truth is the Ancients ever thought all the Apostles had authority alike And so St. Cyprian for instance tells us that what Peter was that were the rest of the Apostles too endued with an equal Partnership Hoc erant utique ceteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis S. Cyprian de Vnit Eccles Ep. ad Quintum in Honour and Power And elsewhere he saith plainly that Peter whom the Lord chose first and on whom he built his Church in his dispute with Paul about Circumcision did not insolently claim or arrogantly assume any thing to himself as if he held the Primacy or ought to be obeyed rather then those Disciples who were called after him Whence it is clear that though some of the Ancients styled him the Prince and Head of the Apostles yet they did not ascribe to him any Superiour Authority or Power but onely an Honorary Precedency like that which is given to the Chair-man of a Committee who is above the rest in Eminence but in Power the same with the rest that are equally and jointly in Commission with him And thus all our Authors Collections touching St. Peter's great Characters are answer'd in short 2. Other of his Authorities are concerning those Honourable Titles which some of the Ancients gave to the Church and Bishops of Rome as that There was the most potent Principality or the Imperial Seat of the Emperor that the First Chair and the principal Church was There that it was the Head Church that the Bishop of it was a Great Pastour and the Head to whom Antiquity had Given a Preheminence of Priesthood or the Precedency before all other Bishops And what is all this and Ten times more to the Popes pretended Authority over all Churches and all Bishops and that by Divine Right too Antiquity bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome a Preheminence saith our Author out Pag. 45. of the Emperor Valentinian's Letter and who doubts it But it was nothing but a Civil Respect and an Honourable yet voluntary Deference to him because he was Bishop of the Chief City and was near the Emperor and was capable of doing the Catholick Church by his Interest in the Emperor more good Offices then other Bishops could do therefore they were willing to Complement him with great Titles and to give him the upper hand and the precedency for Order and Peace-sake To the Episcopal Chair at Old Rome because it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Calced Can. 8. the Imperial City the Fathers very fitly gave an Honourable preheminence as those 630 Fathers profest at the Council of Chalcedon But this was a Frank-gift a voluntary Act and Courtesie of the Catholick Church and from these Respectful compellations and Honorary Grants of Precedency to argue that the Bishop and See of Rome had Authority over the rest is the same thing as if you should say that because among our Magistrates the Mayor of London hath the Title of Lord therefore all other Majors and Headboroughs are under his Command Or because among our Cities London is the Chief and Head-city therefore all other Cities and Corporations are under its Jurisdiction Or because among our Peer's there is a Primier Duke or a First Earl therefore all other Peers are in subjection to him Or because amongst our Bishopricks that of Durham hath some singular Favours granted to it therefore the Prelate of that Diocess is in his Episcopal Power and Authority Superior to all the rest The Ancients did not begrudge that fair Preheminence which upon the New moduling of the Roman Empire they found it necessary for them to give to some Patriarch or other and for some special Reasons thought it best and most proper for them to give to the Patriarch of Rome but they did not give away their own Authority or that Power they had at home in respect whereof all Bishops were his Equals No saith St. Cyprian The Episcopal Authority is one and the same Episcopatus unus est cujus a Singulis in solidum pars tenetur S. Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae whereof all particular Bishops are equal and joint-possessors like joint-Heirs in Fee. And St. Austin whom our Author cites saith clearly against him that though the Bishop Pag. 41. of Rome had the Preheminence yet the Episcopal power was common to all that were of that Function and therefore Optatus call'd Pope Siricius his Fellow Socius is the word which our Author hath very ignorantly or very disingenuously rendred Contemporary but the plain meaning is our Fellow or Equal The Ancients distinguisht between Priority in point of Honour and Supremacy or Primacy in point of Jurisdiction The former they denyed not the Bishop of Rome but when once he went about to take advantage by their free concessions to incroach upon their due priviledges they resolutely opposed his Vsurpations though at the same time they gave him an Honourable deference This was the ground of that Controversie whereof I have given you a short account and for your further satisfaction you may consult the vehement Epistles of St. Cyprian to the Bishops of Rome and particularly that to Cornelius where he stoutly defends the priviledges of foreign Churches and their Right of judging matters at home against all Appeals to the Roman See and if anything be needful to be added it shall be onely what St. Cyprian said afterwards at Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcop●… se Episcoporum constituit aut Tyrannico terrore ad

for his reprehension I referr him to that excellent Writer I shall not need to detain you with a long answer to what he saith concerning Paul Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Pag. 30. of Ancyra and the rest who were ejected as Athanasius was For their case was the same with his and several Bishops and the Bishop of Rome among others were pitcht upon by the Consent of all Parties to re handle it and impowered as Petrus de Marca doth confess to send for them to Rome for the Ibid. § 2. re-examination thereof and all this doth amount to no more than a friendly and neighbourly Reference I shall onely note that the Eastern Bishops were so far from owning any Authority in the Pope to decide the Controversie himselfe that because he presumed so much as to receive Athanasius and the rest into his Communion before the Cause had been determin'd in a Synod of Western and Eastern Bishops too they fell out with him horribly and grew out ragious as you may see in their Synodical Epistle in Binius Much like to this was the Case of St. Chrysostome which our Author doth instance in too as if St. Chrysostome being unjustly depos'd by Theophilus of A●exandria had Appealed to the Bishop of Rome as the supream Judge But the vanity of all this is sufficiently proved by the ingenuous Petrus de Marca who bestowes a whole Chapter upon this case onely where he shews that St. Chrysostome De concord Lib. 7. Cap. 9. appeal'd not to the Pope but to a general Council that he wrote indeed to the Pope but not to him onely but also to the Bishops of Milan and Aquilea that the end of his writing was that the Italian Bishops would consent to the calling of a Council and would help to perswade the Emperors to call one and that nothing can be drawn from St. Chrysostome's case to prove the Popes Supremacy And the Truth is St. Chrysostome disown'd the Jurisdiction of a foreign Bishop as you may easily see by his Epistle to Pope Innocent Therefore our Author falsifies the sense of St. Chrysostome Chrys Epist ad Innocent Tom 7. pag. 154. Ed. Savil. for towards the end of that Epistle he speaks not to Innocent onely but to other Bishops of Italy too calling them his most honoured and Religious Lords and that which he desires of them all is that they would write to Theophilus and the rest to convince them and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let them know that such irregular proceedings as had been carried on by a Party against Chrysostom when he was absent and did not decline a fair Tryal ought to be lookt upon as null and void as indeed they were in their own nature and that such men ought to suffer according to the Ecclesiastical Laws To which he adds a further request that Innocent and the rest of his brother-Bishops would own him for a Brother that he might receive communicatory Letters from them and have their love and the love of all others as formerly he had And what is all this to the supream and sole Jurisdiction of the Pope over all other Bishops Suppose some eminent Divine of a Protestant Church abroad in Denmark or elsewhere should now be in St. Chrysostome's hard case and should send to my Lord of Canterbury and the rest of the English Bishops to declare their minds against the uncanonical Actions of his enemies and to tell them that such proceedings were not binding and that they would be pleased till his cause was duely tryed to let him continue in their good esteem and to look upon him as a Brother and vouchsafe him their love and communion would this argue that our Arch-bishop and his Suffragons are the supream Heads of the Catholick Church 4. By all this you may see that those Applications which were upon occasion made to the Bishop of Rome by foreign Bishops are no good argument to prove that his unlimitted power over all Churches which is now contended for Let us now consider the last point whether any such thing can be concluded from those Acts which did sometimes follow after such Applications For the Author of Nubes Testium doth Appropriate divers acts to the Bishop of Rome for which his Collections cannot bear him out As 1. The sole power of deposing other Prelates that which was anciently the proper business of Synods as Petrus de Marca abundantly shews and which he confesses was not obtained by the Pope till about Eight hundred years ago As for Nestorius whom this Author doth instance De Concord l. 7. Cap. 1 § 7. in he was Deposed by the Ephesine Council nor was the Pope concern'd in it more than any other Bishop Because he was such a notorious and obstinate Heretick all the Bishops of the Catholick Church were engaged in a common cause against him St. Cyril of Alexandria would have Excommunicated him before as he signified in his Epistle to Pope Caelestine who in his Answer to Cyril concurr'd with him and consented to it as any other Bishop might have done He did not delegate any power which St. Cyril had not of himself so making him his Substitute as this Author is please to Romance but onely went hand in hand with him joining the Authority of the Roman See with his And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. Caelestine ad Cyril when the Ephesine Council deposed Nestorius it was the Authority of the Church-Canons they went upon and tho' they took notice of Pope Caelestine's Letter to them it was only in commendation of him that they might extol him for his Readiness in that matter as they said in their Synodical Epistle to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian Nay tho' Caelestine had censur'd Nestorius before that Council met yet he did it in a Synod at Rome with the consent and joint-concurrence of a great many Bishops more so that in all that affair the Pope used no more Authority than other Bishops did 2. Besides this our Author appropriates to the Pope the power of restoring Bishops that had been outed of their Bishopricks and so he pretends that he restored Eustathius Athanasius and the rest But as for Eustathius he was restored by the Synod at Tyana and that at the instance not of the Pope onely but a great many other Bishops in Italy France Africk Sicily and Illyricum nay at the instance of the Emperor himself for he went to that Synod with Letters from all these as 't is acknowledged 'T is true the Western Bishops concurr'd and gave occasion to the rest to do so too for which St. Basil blames them But if the Pope had the sole power in his hand why did Eustathius go to any other What need had he to give himself so much trouble having once made a friend of the Pope And as for Athanasius and the other Eastern Bishops who our Author saith Pag. 30 31. were restored to their Sees by Pope