Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	bishop_n	call_v	presbyter_n	3,889	5	10.6948	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13210	The falshood of the cheife grounds of the Romish religion Descried and convinced in a briefe answere to certaine motiues sent by a priest to a gentleman to induce him to turne papist. By W.S.; Seminary priest put to a non-plus	Sutton, William, 1561 or 2-1632.; Sutton, William, b. 1607 or 8.	1635 (1635)	STC 23508; ESTC S100149	32,996	132

a building as they would raise vpon it The most that can be inferred therevpon is a primacy of order which no man ever denied If that will content the Pope when a generall scrutinie of Bishops is called to haue his name set in the first place let him take it 2. After the Apostles had visibly receiued the Holy Ghost St Peter made the first Sermō thereof whereat 3000. persons were converted Act. 2.4 For Peter to haue his name placed first or to preach the first Sermon these are poore proofes for a Supremacy and it is but a poore Supremacy that can bee drawne from such proofes Why should it argue any Supremacy more in him that hee preached the first Sermon then in Mary Magdaalen that shee published the first newes of Christs resurrection to the Disciples even to Peter himselfe Mark 16.7 Ioh. 20.2 But how if Peter did not preach the first Sermon after the visible descent of the Holy Ghost Why then all that hee vrgeth is to little purpose Consider the text well Saint Peters sermon begins at the 14. Verse of the 2. Chap. of the Acts the effect thereof was the conversion of 3000. soules mentioned vers 41. It is plaine in the 4. Vers that all the Apostles had spoken publikely to the people before Peter stood vp to begin his Sermon The argument whereof they intreated was the same that Peter handled they declared vnto them Magnalia Dei the wonderfull works of God Vers 11. and Peter declared nothing else That preaching of theirs was not without good effect as well as S. Peters though we know not the iust number of the converts Nay it seemes that the conversion of those 3000. was the fruit of all their preaching at that time and not of Peters alone and so it is said vers 41. That vpon the same day were added vnto the Church about 3000 soules Hee doth not say that all this was the effect of Peters one sermon but that so many were converted vpon that day To the next proofe With his word and power hee killed Ananias and Saphira for their Sacriledge Act. 5. vers 5. It was for their lying to the Holy Ghost that Peter slew them and so he tells them vers 3.4 so not for sacriledge alone But let it be as hee would haue it I say it proues not that for which he brings it S. Paul by the like power smote Elimas the Sorcerer with blindnesse Act. 13. Now if at the same time Paul had slaine Elimas outright and in stead of taking his eye-sight from him had taken away his life as I thinke no man doubts but hee could haue done aske your friend whether he thinke that such an act would haue made Paul head of the Apostles Let him spit and speake out plainely His fourth proofe followeth with some more shew though of as little force as the former 4. St Peter called the first Councell of the Apostles holden at Ierusalem and first spake therein Act. 15. v. 7. Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 22. saith Petrus in concilio primus loquitur sententiam eius Jacobus omnesque alij sequuntur This is more then hee should haue said because it is more then he can proue but yet he durst not say as your friend doth that Peter called the Councell he knew it to bee vntrue and if you read the whole Chap. you shall not find one word to that purpose Peter spake first in the Councell so Bellarm. saith indeed and your friend speakes it vpon his credit But yet the Councell it selfe saies no. Act. 15. v. 7. When there had beene much disputing Peter rose vp and said Men and Brethren Therefore some other there spake of the matter before Peter And what if hee had beene the first speaker in that Councell would that proue his supremacy Iust as it was proued before by his making the first sermon Nay rather it is an argument that doth overthrow his supremacy altogether For it is well knowne that in such kinde of assemblies the inferiour doe commonly speake first and the President of the Councell hauing heard and gathered their opinions deliuereth his iudgement last of all according whereunto the decree commonly passeth So I haue heard that the Lord Chancelour doth in the Star-Chamber and the chiefe Iudges vpon other benches And in this very Councell of Ierusalem when Peter and Paul and Barnabas had spoken their minds concerning the matter in question Iames stands vp and vsing a speciall kinde of authority Men and brethren harken vnto me v. 13. he concludes the busines which shewes that he and none but hee was President in that Councell and so Chrysostome tearmes him calling his sentence the definitiue sentence according whereunto the decre of the councell was framed Chrysostom Hom. 33. in Act. Apostolorum It is affirmed by old writers and some moderne learned Protestants that S. Peter was 25. yeeres Bishop of Rome and by the auncient Ecclesiasticall writers that Saint Peter and S. Paul were both of them martyred together in Rome vnder the Emperour Nero. Origen apud Eusebium l. 3. c. 1. Euseb c. 24. l. 2. Hist Eccl. Tert. depraescrip c. 36. Aug. Tract 123 in Ioh. Chysostom Beda in hunc locum S. Ambr. Ser. 66.68 S. Maximus How Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome When Peter is called Bishop of Rome or Iames of Ierusalem or any other Apostle of any other particular City we must vnderstand that in those speeches the name of Bishop is taken in a larger extent then the strict Ecclesiasticke vse of the word will allow As when Presbiters are called Bishops Act. 20.28 And the Apostleship it selfe is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 12.25 Rom. 11.13 For as in propriety of speech a Deacon is inferiour to a Presbiter a Presbiter to a Bishop so is a Bishop vnto an Apostle by many degrees though the names be often vsed promiscuously the calling of the one is extraordinary and the whole world is within the compasse of his commission the other is a meere ordinary vocation and his Iurisdiction confined within the limits of one Diocesse But because the Apostles being sent by Christ to preach the Gospell to all nations made their chiefe abode in Citties of greatest resort as Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Rome hence it comes to passe that they are often called Bishops of those Citties not in that sense that in times succeeding the chiefe pastors of every Citty were knowne by that name of Bishops but after a more large or rather licentious vse of the words whosoever calls S. Peter Bishop of Rome in any other sense then so he speakes as wisely as if he should say the King of England were Constable of New-market because his Maiesty resides often in that place How long Saint Peter sate Bishop there You vnderstand by this that Saint Peter is called some-times Bishop of Rome your friend adds that hee sate Bishop there 25. reeres as old writers assirme and some moderne learned

did not Christ pray for them all it is evident that to touch Peter more deepely and to shew his fault to bee more grievous then any of the rest Christ turned his speech to him in particular in Math. Hom. 83. All this proues no greater Monarchy but rather a greater infirmity in Peter then in any of the rest and greater mercy in Christ towards him whose sinne did deserue à greater iudgement As S. Paul inferres the like of himsele 1. Tim. 1.16 I am sure the Pope will not bee thought to succeed Peter in the sinne of his deniall why then doth hee claime the benefit of Christs prayer Ego pro te oravi which was made purposely for Peter in regard of that sinne For as Peters deniall was his personall fault and is not derived per traducem to his Successors for then not only many Popes should Apostatare as Lyra in Math. 16. saith but all Popes should be Renegates which I beleeue not As therefore it was a personall sinne in Peter to deny Christ so the prayer of Christ for Peter was a personall favour bestowed vpon him and the Pope hath no more right to the one then the other besides let it bee considered that the faith which Saint Peter obtained by Christs prayer was not only fides notitiae such as Divels haue and tremble but it was fides fiduciae vera salvifica sides such a faith as worketh with charity and whosoever hath it shall vndoubtedly be saued and so Chrysostome vnderstands it Oraui proute ne deficeret fides tua hoc est ne in fine pereas Hom. 72. in Ioh. Now it is confessed by all Papists that all Popes are not furnished with this kinde of faith Pope Adrian 6. is said to haue doubted of the salvation of many of his predecessors and Bellarmine if the Seminary Priest bely him not hath passed a peremptory iudgement vpon Pope Sixtus Quintus Quia sine poenitentiâ vixit sine poenitentiâ mortuus est quantum sapio quantum capio descendit ad inferos Watson in his Quodlibets Now if this be true that Popes may bee damned it must needs follow that either Christs prayer did not prevaile with God which were impiety to thinke or that the Pope was never thought vpon by Christ when this prayer was a making Now to his third proofe 3. Our Saviour Christ asking Peter îf he loved him more then these said yea Lord thou knowst J loue thee wherevpon Christ said to him twice feed my Lambes and the third time feed my sheepe Ioh. 21. vers 16.17 Here is some mistaking of the Text againe for Christ did not say twice to Peter feed my Lambs once feede my sheep but twice feed my Sheepe and once feed my Lambs But let this passe for a peccadillo I say farther that in the words there is nothing spoken more to Peter then is elsewhere spoken to all the Apostles When they are commanded to goe and teach all Nations baptizing them Mat. 28.19.20 And if hee thinke that there lies any speciall mystery in these words because there is such distinct mention of lambs and sheepe both committed to Peters charge the like whereof we doe not find in the mission of the other Apostles Let him not be too hasty to say so till hee haue considered the words of their generall commission Mark 16.15 Goe into all the world Saint Peter could not haue a larger Dioces and preach the Gospell to every creature Therefore whether they be Lambes or sheepe they belong to the charge of euery other Apostle as well as to Saint Peters But they will say that Peter is commanded not only Pascere but regere and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more then a Pastorall duty even a kinde of Regall authority to bee given by Christ vnto him Bellarmine stands much vpon the word though there bee little cause Lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 15. I know that Kings are sometimes called Shepheards as Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay God himselfe cals Cyrus so Jsa 44.28 But I thinke it were harsh because Kings are sometimes called shepheards to infer that Shepheards therefore are Kings whether wee speake of rustike or Ecclesiastick Shepheards But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bee such a mysticall word and doth imply such a soveraigne authority what meant Saint Paul to vse that word speaking to the ordinary Presbyters of Ephesus whom he willed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Act. 20.28 You haue heard his three texts of Scriptures which if they be so cleere for the supremacy as hee would haue you thinke let him giue you some reason why Pope Zozimus Bonifacius Caelestinus did not alledge any of these Scriptures in the 6. Councell of Carthage when their supremacy lay a bleeding but only made their claime by the Councell of Nice it is not likely that ever such learned and wise Prelates as they would haue sought for humane proofes to iustify their cause if they had knowne how to doe it by divine authority which is to mee an vndoubted argument that these fore-alleadged places Mat. 16.18 Luk. 22.31 Ioh. 21.16 either were not thought on in those daies to imply any such Supremacie in Peter or that Peters supremacy whatsoever it bee was not thought to belong any whit to the Pope Else why did they not stand vpon the Scriptures Why did the Popes Legates vrge the Nicene Canon Or rather why did they forge it to serue their turnes for so it is certaine that they did and the forgery remaines vpon record in the Acts of the Councell And though Cardinall Baron Tom. 5. Annal haue strained his wits hard to salue the matter yet it will not be Haeret lateri lethalis arundo But as I was about to say if these Scriptures make any good proofe for the Popes Supremacy why were not they brought forth in that Councell of Carthage either by the Pope or his Legates rather then the Nicene Canon Saint Augustine was one of the Fathers present in that Carthagenian Councell when this cause was debated and is it likely that either the Pope would haue stood then vpon Canons if he had known any Canonicall scripture for it or that Saint Augustine and the rest would haue denied him any authority that was due to him by Gods word I conclude that either the Church in those daies did not vnderstand these places of Scripture or the Romish doth not vnderstand them now But see whether these proofes that follow doe helpe his cause any better 1. When all the holy Apostles are named S. Peter is the first Mat. 10.2 That is not so for Saint Andrew is named before him Ioh. 1.44 James is named before him Gal. 2.9 Paul and Apollos were both named before him 1. Cor. 3.22 Nay see 1. Cor. 9.5 and Mark 16.7 and you shall finde him named last of them all 2. If it were so that Peter were still first named yet what a weake foundation is that for so great