« AnteriorContinuar »
Communion of their National Church, and to heal the Breach made by that Excess of the Pope's Supremacy, which no sober Man on this Side the Alps will own. It is strange to Own it in Fact, and yet deny it in Words. Whoever own this Bull of Pius V. for breaking Communion in England, must also own the full Extent of the Bulla in Cæna, which has his Authority, in a particular Manner, as well as of all the Popes since. And it Damns almost all the pro pists, as well as all who are not Papifts.
(27.) L. We desire not to be called Paco pists, we think it a Word of Contempt, as if we were only Partisans for the Pope, and of that Party or Faction of Christians who would Raise his Power above the Church and every thing. else.
G. I am glad Your Lordship thinks fo, and indeed the Church of France (where you were Bred) are not Papists in this Sense. They are got free, in a good Measure from the Servitude of the Pope. But they are still Roman Catholicks.
L. We do not delight in that Word neither, as if our Catholicism were tyed only to Rome; we term our selves Catholicks in General, as Members of the Catbolick or Universal Church
G. We call our selves fo too, and in the fame Sense, and Pray every Day for the Catholick Church in our Liturgy. Therefore, we call Aot you Catholicks, because it would not Distin.
guilh you from us. But Roman Catholicks is calling a Part the Whole.
L. You know the Meaning, not that the Particular Church of Rome is all the Churches in the World, but she is called Catholick, as being the Head and Principle of Unity and Communiön to all other Churches. : G. If this be the Frame of the Catholick Church, it must have been so always.
L. Yes surely, for ther was always a Catholick Church, that is, some particular Church, so called, in the same Sense as Rome is now.
G. Pray then, My Lord, tell me what Particular Churcb was so called, in this Sense, before there was a Christian in Rome? And how came that Church to lose it? And how was it transferred to Rome?
Every Bishop, every Church, and every Mema ber of it, may be called Catholick, and were so. called, as being included in the General Notion of the Catholick Church; but in the Sense you have Mentioned, as Head and Principle of Unity to all Churches, no Bishop or Church ever had it, till taken up in the latter times by the Bishop and Church of Rome.
(28.) L. But how came the Bishop of Rome to that great Sway he has long obtained in the Church?
G. It is very Obvious, because Rome was the Metropolis of the Empire: And consequently her Bishop must be more Conspicuous than any other, have more Respect pay’d him, and more:
Applications made to him, especially after the Emperors became Christian. And for the same Reason, when the seat of the Empire was tran. flated to Constantinople, the Bishop of that Church took upon him, and Aspired further to an Universal Supremacy, but was opposed by Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome. Ther was no other consideration then for the Superiority of one Bishop or Church, but the Secular Dignity of the Place; for which Reason the Patriarch of Jerusalem (which was Uncontestably the Mother Church of all) was postpo: ned, and made the Lowest of all the Patrie archs. But for Divine Right, and Christ having Named any one Bishop or Cburch as Head and Superior to all others, there is not a Word. And it could not be Rome before Ronse was Christian; and Christ never Named her : upon any Occasion whatsoever, or gave the least Hint towards her, or that possibly can be applyed to her. Strange and Unaccountable ! If he meant to Build the whole Christian Faith upon her, and to make her the Catholick Church, as Including all other Churches of ChriJians, and in all ages throughout the whole World !
But, My Lord, Falt (as I said before) is the surest way to give us a true Light of Things. And the Frame or Government of the Church is a Fact, which must be Determined by Histories and Records, not Criticising upon Words that afford no Certainty, Let us look there fore into the frame of the Church from the
Begioning. I hope I have made it Plain from the History of the Acts of the Apostles, that ther was none of them Appointed as Sovereign over the others, whatever Words may be strained in favour of St. Peter; for if he was called à Rock or Foundation, so were all
the others, they are called Rev. xxi. 14. the Thelve Foundations of the
Church. Which is said to be Eph. ii. 20.
Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Corner Stone. And not any
particular Prophet or Apostle. Mattb. xvi. 19.
And if the Keys of Heaven were promised to Peter, this was fulfilled in
giving them to him Jointly Joh. xx. 23.
with all the others, without any Mark of Superiority in him. As in
the Commission to Teach all Matth. xxviii. 19.
Nations, it was Equal to them all. And we find in Faet that it was Exercised by them all with equal Authority.
And all the Regimen of the Church which the Apostles appointed was tbat of Bishops in their several Districts, without any Head or Sovereign Bishop over them all, as Supreme Judge of Controversy: Of which ther is nor the least Title to be found in any of the Histories or Writings of those Ages next after the Apostles ; though ther were many Controversies even in Faith among them, which an Appeal to this Judge had speedily
ended; but no such thing appears, which