Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

and says they were tanquam Eeclefiarum omnium principes fa&ti dispensatione cælefti, made as Princes of all the Churches by a heavenly Dispensation ; Cand of St. Paul alone it is said, that he was Cbris fiani nominis princeps futurus, to be Prince of the Chriftian Name. And in the 4th Homily upon these Saints he affirms of both, that they were (a) Ecclefiarum columnæ the Pillars of the Churches. All which places I produce only to shew, that he puts no difference between them, but attributes the same Titles equally to them both ; which was not to have been expected, if he had look'd upon the one of them as the Sovereign, and the other as his Subje&. But in his b) 5th Homily upon these Apostles, which I take thé Liberty to call his, rather than either St. Ambrose's or St Ava gustin's, because Mr. Du Pin (c) affirms of this and divers ochers of them, that they are visibly this Bishop's ; in this Homily, I say, he teaches that Peter and Paul have a Pre-heminence amongst all the Apostles, and excel them by a certain peculiar Prerogative; and in such a manner that it is not certain whether of them has a right to the Preference. Petrus & Paulus eminent inter uni. verlos Apostolos eu peculiari quadam prærogative preo čellunt. Verum inter ipfos quis cui præponatur incertum eft. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem terms them the (d) Promo volts or Presidents of the Church, riregs xj 11õua..

xxandles mescles. And thus Dr. Barrow tells us (e) that both the Popes Agatho and Adrian call them equally the Ringleading Apostles

. Kogupãrior dTesoma ; and Nicholas I. and Gregory VII, the Princes of the Apostles. Whence it is natural to collect, how little Supremacy these, or the like Expres

[ocr errors]

(a) P.2314 (b) Ibid. (c) Nouv. Bibl. Tom. 3. part 2. p. 178. (d) Catech. 6. p. 88. Edit. Oxon. ie)' of the Pope's Supremacy, p. 75

signs fions attribute to St. Peter above St. Paul, or indeed above the other Apostles: And you have been already told (a) that St. Augustine was exprefly ftild summus Christ i Pontifex, Christ's supreme or chief High-Priest, as St. Germain of Paris was also by Venantius Fortunatus; and that St. Bafil not only tells St. Athanafius that he took care of all the Churches, in like manner aş of his own, but exprefly affirms, that they fled to him, dane eri moguplul Tây őrwy, as to the Head of the whole and again, that she Title of the suppoficitiqus E pistle of Clement runs thus, Clement to our Lord James, Bishop of Bishops, President over the Holy Catholick Church at Jerusalem, and such etbers as are any aubere settled by God's

. Providence, &c. which Title though supposititious, is however some Intimati on of what was the Opinion of those Times concerning these sorts of Appellations. And all these Testimonies do abundantly confute that Atrange extravagant Prerogative those of your Party would build upon them, in behalf of your Sovereign Lord the Pope. C.R.C. St. Augustine in several places owns St. Peter's Supremacy, calling him the first and chief of the Apor Atles, Ibid. in.C. E. This is no more than those you laft named have said of him, and what might be very well allow'd him, without your pretended Supremacy. The Senior Fellow of a Colledge, or the uppermost Boy in a School, is the first and chief of his Companions, as is also the eldest a. mongit divers Sons ; but what Supremacy you can draw from hence is past my Conception, and I dare say your own too. He does indeed attri. bute a Primacy to this Apostle, which you are pleas’d (for what reason you best know) *o in. terpret a Supremacy. But I am yet to learn how (a) Case truly stated, P: 53.

this

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

this implies any more concerning him, than what the same Father meant of him at another time, when he faid that he was the first of the Apostles, (a) primus Apoftolus : which by the Instances now mention d appears to be very far from proving a Supremacy, or any fott' of Jurisdiction over the other Apostles. But any thing must ferve for Proof, where that which is to the purpofe cannot be had.

R. C. St. Leo in the 5th Century says, Out of all the World Peter alone is chosen and prefer'd before all the Apostles, that though in God's People there be many Priests, and many Pastors, yet Peter should rule all properly whom Christ rules principally. And again, that the Apostles bad (in respect of one another) a different Power, p. 24.

M. C. If by thefe Words of your own Insertion, in respect of one another, you do not mean over one another, this latter Clause seems not at all to your purpose, nor will prove any thing for St. Peter's Authority over the other Apofties. But if you do mean so, I must beg leave to assure the Reader, that the Saying is your own, not Pope Leo's. His Words, as you have rightly quoted them are these, Quoniam do inter beatissimos Apostolos, in fimilitudine honoris, fuit quedam discretio potestatis ; because even amongit the Blessed ApoAtles, after the manner of Honour, there was fome Distinction of Power ; which might very well have been with respect to their Charge, and the extent of their Care towards those committed to them, without supposing any of them to be fer over the rest. But fuppofing that Leo had faid as you would have him here, and that he meant as he says in the former Passage, that Peter alone was prefer'd before all the Apostles, and was to rule all those wborn Christ rules; this is the (a) In Joan. Tra&t. 56.

less

Jefs to be relied upon, as not being spoken till the fifth Century; and besides considering it is not only the saying of a Pope, and so a Judgmenė in his own Favour, but even of such a Pope, as seems to be intent upon magnifying his See to the utmost; one that writes himself not only Bishop of Rome, but (a) of Rome and the Universal and Catholick Church, calls his own (6) the Apoftolical See, as if none others had been lo, professes (c) to have a principal Care committed to bini over all the Churches, and would have the Bishops (d) Tubmit the Care of the whole Church to the one Seat of Peter, takes upon him to determine (e) the Case of Eutyches à Presbyter condemn'd ac Constantinople, tells the French Bishops that his Letters are enforc'd (f) by the Authority and Merit of his most blelled Lord Peter the Apostle, reproves Anatolius of Conftantinople (g) for not obeying his Legats, and dif-annuls all Determinations of Bishops made contrary to the Canons of the Nicene Council (6) by the Authority of St. Peter the Apostle ; with a great deal more to the same Effea, which I need not repeat. Now if such a Pope as this endeavours to magnify St. Peter's Authority, and thereby to advance and improve his own, this is but making himself a Judge in his own Cause; which no one not grosly under the Power of Prejudice can think reasonable. Befides, it is farther to be noted that (i) this Pope Leo speaks both of St. Peter and St. Paul in such a manner, as cannot well consist with a Supremacy in the one, and Subjection in the other. He says the Favour of God bad rais'd them to such a beight (a) Epist. 54, &97.

(6) Paffim. (C) Epift. 84.c. 1 (d) Per quos ad unam Pctri sedem universalis Ecclesiæ cura conflucret. c. 12.

(e) Epift. 8 U) Epift. 52. (8) Epift. 53 (b) Epift. 55 6) Serm, s, in Nat. A poft. Pet. dr Paul; c. 7.

among

amongst all the Members of the Church, as to make

them as a pair of Eyes, in that Body whereof Christ is · the Head. De quorum meritis atque virtutibus, &c.

as he proceeds, of whole Merits and Virtues, which seite Pass all power of Expression, nothing is to be thought different, nothing distinguishing; because their Election made them co-ordinate, their Labour alike, and their End equal. The natural Consequence of which several Considerations in relation to this Pope is, that very little regard is to be had to what he says in behalf of the pretended Supremacy of St. Peter.

R. C. Gelasius I. says, The first See confirms every General Council" by its Authority, and is their perpetual Guardian, by reason of its Supremacy, (which the Apostle St. Peter receiv'd from the Mouth of Christ) which the Church too bath seconded, and which that See bas both always held, and does hold at present. Ibid. · C. E. However, this is only the Saying of a Pope, and a Pope no less zealous for the extent of his own Dominion than his Predeceffor Leo'; and whose Authority therefore, in a Case of this Nature, can signify no more than his. And it is other sort of Testimony we want, not hat of Popes in their own behalf. Besides that the Visa dicator has shewn that what' this Pope afleres (a) is false in Fact. And you do not pretend in any wise to disprove his Evidence.

* R. C. S. Bernard speaks also to the fame purpose, p. 25.

C. E. But St. Bernard is somewhat of the latest to be produc'd as a Witness here : He liv'd in the j2th Century; and it will be hard to prove either the Faith or Practice of the Primicive Church, from one who was at so great a distance from it. So that nothing bue want of good fuffiçient Evidence, could tempe you to look so far back for it, since you were sure before hand, that (a) Cafe truly stated, p. 47. H

wha:

« AnteriorContinuar »