Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
saint_n	bishop_n	church_n	ephesus_n	1,251	5	11.4920	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61804	A discourse of the Pope's supremacy. Part I in answer to a treatise intitled, St. Peter's supremacy faithfully discuss'd ... : and to A sermon of S. Peter, preached ... by Thomas Godden ...	Stratford, Nicholas, 1633-1707.	1688 (1688)	Wing S5932; ESTC R33810	93,478	130

in the hands of his Steward A twofold difference at least must be grantend one in the Quality the other in the extent of the Power denoted by them 1. In the Quality The Keys in the Master's Hands denote an Original Absolute Supreme Power in the Steward's a Power delegated and subordinate to that of the Master Thus the Keys in Christ's Hands signify Supreme Power but if when given to Peter they denote the same Supremacy then there must be two Supreme Powers over the same Family which is a plain Contradiction Yea since as I have proved the same Keys were afterwards promised to and conferred upon all the Apostles if they ever denote Supremacy of Power there must be as many Supremes as there were Apostles 2. In the Extent of the Power the Master's Keys extend to the whole Family be it never so large the Stewards to that part of the Family only over which he is set Thus for instance the Lord high Steward of the King's Houshold his Power is limited he hath no Authority over the Officers of his Majesty's Chappel of his Chamber of his Stable c. Now the whole Church in Heaven and Earth is Christ's Family that part of it in Heaven the Discussor I think will not affirm that it is subjected to St. Peter but to Christ immediately That part on Earth is subdivided into particular Churches as so many lesser Families over which Christ hath appointed there shall be so many Stewards one Steward over one part another over another As therefore we find not in Scripture any one Steward set over the whole so we read of many Stewards with respect to the parts St. Paul and all the rest of the Apostles were Stewards in this Family as well as Peter or else St. Paul was out in his reckoning when he said to the Corinthians Let a Man so account of us as of the Ministers of CHRIST and STEWARDS of the Mysteries of God † 1 Corinth 4. 1. Yea the same St. Paul supposes every Bishop to be a Steward of God ‖ Tit. 1. 7. But I need not insist longer upon such little Arguments CHAP. IV. THE next Chapter I may be allow'd to pass over for it no way tends to St. Peter's Glory that Christ said to him Get thee behind me Satan I know not who those several are that object as if by calling him so Christ had evacuated what he promised him before * Pag. 172. And he might well have spared the Pains he put himself to in proving the contrary Nor was the Denial of his Master a Ray of Claritude but by the Gentleman 's own Confession an Eclipse It was says he a short Eclipse a Trip rather than a Fall a verbal rather than a real a labial rather than a mental Abnegation † Pag. 174. O his excellent Faculty at ringing Changes upon Words Of those several Reasons the Fathers alledge why God permitted him to fall into this Offence in the fourth viz. because Christ designing him to be the SVPREME Ruler of the Church that he might be compassionate and favourable to poor penitent Sinners in absolving them c. ‖ Pag. 173. I desire him to leave out the Word supreme because it is not found in any of those Fathers he quotes for the proof of it 'T is true as Peter denied him so the rest fled for it † Mark. 14. 50. But why should he cite Theophilact for this I am apt to think St. Mark 's Authority might have been as good Nor do I deny but it will lessen his Fault If we consider the Dirity of that dreadful time when he denied his Master it was says he when the Power of Darkness ruled with his black Scepter it was when the Sun was obtenebrated the World shak'd with unusual Tremors and obdurate Rocks cleft asunder * Pag. 175. Though by the Discussor's leave it was not when but after he had denied Christ that the Sun was darkn'd the Earth quak'd and the Rocks rent I shall not enquire the reason why he passed over St. Peter's other Faults especially considering that he found an Answer prepared to his hand by Bellarmine but shall proceed to Chapter 5. We are now come to those Words Feed my Sheep which the Discussor finds to be strongly urged by Catholick Writers as he calls them in Defence of Peter 's supreme Pastoral Jurisdiction and impugned by Protestant Authors with all their Force c. I never before heard of any Protestant that impugn'd the Words but only that Sense the Papists would wrest them to which is so absurd that a very little Force will serve not only to impugn but quite to overthrow it as will appear by a view of the Particulars 1. We shall not much differ about the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says signifies to rule and govern as well as to feed This he sets himself to prove both by Reason and Authority By Authority both Christian and Heathen He first cites St. Austin St. Ambrose and Theophylact and then interposing a Reason he proceeds to Suetonius Dion Plato Homer Hesiod Cyril Xenophon St. Basil Methink St. Cyril and St. Basil come in a little odly among his Heathen Fathers But why doth he again prodigally expend his Oil and Pains in proving that which no Man questions Consult all the Protestant Commentators and see if any of them denies that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule as well as to feed To what purpose then is all this waste I must acknowledg my want of Augury to divine unless it be to let the World see what a Man of reading he is And yet after all let the word signify what it will it can import no more than what belong'd not only to the other Apostles but to all the Bishops in common with them for Saint Paul exhorts the Elders of Ephesus to feed the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 † Acts 20. 28. the very same word our Saviour here used to Saint Peter And Saint Peter himself uses the same word in his Exhortation to the Jewish Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Feed the Flock of God which is among you ‖ 1 Pet. 5. 2. Yea the Council of Trent which to a Papist is of as great Authority as the Holy Scripture after it hath shewed what is the Duty of all those who have the charge of Souls admonishes and exhorts them all That being mindful of the Divine Commands and an Ensample to the Flock they would in Judgment and Truth FEED and RVLE them * Sacrosancta Synodus eos admonet exhortatur ut Divinorum Praeceptorum memores factique forma gregis in judicio veritate pascant regant Sess 23. de Reformat c. 1. How vain then is Cardinal Bellarmin when he says That from this word it is easy to demonstrate That supreme Ecclesiastical Power is given to Peter † De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c.

‖ Supplement de Scriptor p. 100. But it matters not whether since what he says is nothing to our present purpose For suppose none of the Apostles but Peter had the title of Pastor from our Saviour will this give him any preeminence if they all had the Office and Authority signified by this Title The truth is the Title it self is no where given by our Saviour to Peter he commands him indeed to feed his Flock but if this be to give him the Title of Pastor the same Title is given not only by St. Paul * Acts 20. 28. but by St. Peter too † 1 Pet. 5. 3. to every Bishop And what will the Pope get by this 2. As none of them say the whole Flock so those of them which say the Flock was commended to him meant no more to include the other Apostles than they did Peter himself they taking them all for Shepherds as much as they did him Though this hath been sufficiently clear'd already in that they thought there was nothing contained in those Words feed my Sheep that was peculiar to St. Peter but what was applicable in common not only to all the Apostles but to all Bishops that succeeded them yet I shall plainly prove it from the Context of two of those very places which the Discussor hath alledged for the Proof of the contrary viz. the one that of St. Ambrose the other that of St. Basil 1. Within less than three lines after those Words produced from St. Ambrose for Peter's Pastorship over the Apostles follow those words I have put in the margin ‖ Beatus ille servus qui potest dicere lac vobis potum dedi non escam nondum enim poteratis Novit enim quos quemadmodum pascat Quis nostrum hoc facere potest Quis nostrum potest vere dicere factus sum infirmis infirmus ut infirmos lucrifaciam Et tamen ille tantus ad curam gregis electus a Christo qui sanaret infirmos curaret invalidos Haereticum a commisso sibi ovili post unam correptionem repellit ne unius erraticae ovis scabies serpenti ulcere totum gregrem contaminet Proaem ad 5. l. de fide Edit Paris an 1614. in which he says of St. Paul all the same things he had before said of St Peter As 1. That he was also that blessed Servant 2. That he was chosen by Christ to take care of the Flock 3. That the Sheepfold not part of the Sheepfold was committed to him Let the Discussor read the whole passage and then tell me whether it be more clear from the Words relating to Peter that Paul was infolded in the Flock intrusted to him than it is from the Words concerning Paul that Peter was infolded in the Flock committed to his care yea whether the Advantage doth not lie rather on Paul's side For in saying he rejects an Heretick lest the Scab of one wandering Sheep should infect the WHOLE FLOCK he seems to imply that St. Paul had the whole Flock under his care which is more than he says of S. Peter But if the Flock must still comprehend the Apostles it unavoidably follows that the Apostles were committed to Paul's shepherdly Government and to Peter's too and Peter governed Paul and Paul governed Peter and they were both of them at once both Subject and Sovereign 2. St. Basil after the Words cited by the Discussor viz. That Christ constituted Peter Shepherd after himself adds giving an equal Power afterward to all Pastors and Teachers * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constitut Monast c. 22. And if to all Pastors and Teachers then certainly to the Apostles who were the prime Pastors and Teachers and if all the Apostles had equal Power with Peter then Peter had no Power over them and by consequence they were not under his Shepherdly Government What follows next is a high Encomium of St. Peter from whose personal Excellencies I have no Inclination to detract though I see no reason to advance him to the debasing of all the rest Let him be if he please the most resplendent amongst the Apostles the most refulgent of the holy Dozen yet to say that therefore he was culled out of that illustrious Society by the discerning Eye of Christ as the fittest Person among them to be his Vicar as if he made him alone his Vicar betrays such unacquaintance not only with the holy Scriptures but with the Writings of the Ancients as one would not expect from so great a Pretender to Antiquity Christ made all the Apostles his Vicars when he gave them that Commission John 20. 21 22 23. And St. Paul reckoned himself and the other Apostles his Vicars when he said We are Ambassadors for Christ We beseech you in CHRIST'S STEAD † 2 Corinth 5. 20. And that this Title was anciently given to all Bishops Mons Launoy hath amply proved by the Testimonies of Fathers Councils School-men and other learned Divines of the Church of Rome Yea that the Bishops of Rome were so far from taking it to be their peculiar that scarce any one of them till a thousand Years or more after Christ called himself by this name but was content with the more humble Title of the Vicar of Saint Peter ‖ Launoy Epp. parte 3. Ep. Michaeli Marollio He says Jerom observes on Mark 16. that the whole Flock was recommended to Peter ut sit una Fides sub uno Pastore Bellarmine Labbe and Sixtus Senensis will acquaint him that the Comment on the Gospel of Saint Mark that passes under Saint Jerom's name is none of his * Bell. de Script Eccl. p. 137. Edit Lugd. 1675. Labb Dissert Hist de Script Eccl. tom 1. p. 440. Sixt. Senens Bibl. S. l. 4. p. 247. But having consulted three Editions of St. Jerom I can find no such words nor any like them in the Comment upon that Chapter Chrysostom he tells us affirms that our Saviour was pleased at his departure out of this World to entrust the care of his Sheep to Peter as a faithful and vigilant Guardian and not only to him but to his SUCCESSORS AFTER HIM But by his Successors he cannot mean the Bishops of Rome only for as he says nothing of them in the words before or after so he includes himself in the number of these Successors though he was yet no Bishop but a Priest only And if the reason why Christ intrusted his Sheep to Peter was because he found him a faithful and vigilant Guardian as he had the same reason to intrust them to the other Apostles so for the contrary reason few Popes have been found for a thousand years to whom he would have intrusted them I have now examined the Texts of Holy Scripture and the Greek and Latin Fathers alledged by the Discussor for the proof of St. Peter's Supremacy And upon a review of the whole I think every unbiass'd Reader will conclude with me 1. That his Proofs from