صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

C. E. You cannot take this for a Proof, that he had no hyperbolical Expreffions in it. And yet unless it were, it is not at all to the purpofe. But let me tell you farther; the Vindicator not only puts you in mind, that this is a Panegyrical Ora tion; (a) but moreover that in this fame Dif course Leo fpeaks of fuch a Parity between St. Peter and St. Paul, as cannot well confift with a Supremacy in the one, and Subjection in the other; and again, that Cardinal Cufanus affirms of this fame Leo, that he has freely own'd all good Bifhops to be the Succeffors of St. Peter; and by Confequence, that this Succeffion, either conveys no Supremacy, and fo the Pope has not a Title to it upon this account, or elfe con. veys too much, and fo all good Bishops must bave it. Either of which Suppofitions quite overthrows your Hypothefis, and at length concludes, Were I to give you up this Pope, as an avow'd Advocate for the univerfl Supremacy, the Sum of all were only this; that by the fifth Century you have found one Chriftian Wri ter, a Roman Bishop, and fo Speaking for himself, who in a Rhetorical Oration, declared for the Supremacy of St. Peter's Seat, and the Glory of Rome upon that accounts To all which you give not one word of answer.

R. C. The fame Saint writing to Anaftafius, Bishop of Theffalonica, whom he had made bis Deputy, to help the Care, fays he, which we owe to all Churches principally by Chiff's Juftitution; he obferves that among the Apoftles, tho' there was a like Honour, there was a certain difference in their power. That accordingly there is à Distinction of Bishops; and that it was very well ordain'd, that the Bishops of greater Cities,fhould have a more extenfive Charge, by whom the Care of the whole Church might flow to the See of (a) Cafe truly fated, p. 52.

Peter

Peter only, fo that no part should disagree from its Head, p. 90. 91.

C. E. Yet after all I fee nothing here that may not be anfwer'd from what has already been faid in the third Section, p. 31, &c. and thither therefore I refer the Reader.

C. I Pro

SECT. VI.

R. C. Proceed next to confider fome Objections of the Vindicator, and to fhew how weak and incompetent they are, as to the purpose they were brought for.

C. E. Be pleas'd then to let us have them, and to fee how effectually you will be able to demolish them.

R. C. His firft Objection, p. 7. (which is alfo Dr. Barrow's) is, that the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 28. gives Conftantinople and Rome equal Privileges, raisa #großña, because they are both Imperial Cities, p. 104.

C. E. And a material Objection it is in my Opinion. He gives you alfo the Senfe (a) of Nilus of Theffalonica as to this Point, namely, that we learn from hence, that the Pope bad his Primacy above other Churches given bim, not by the Apostles, but by the Fathers. And that it was becaufe Rome was the Imperial City. He advifes his Reader alfo to confult Barlaam to the fame purpofe, and Sozomen. And it is to be prefumed you take particular care to confute thefe,

R. C. I take no notice of any of them; but I tell you, which may ferve as well, that the Canon can affect only the Patriarchal Privileges of Rome over thofe Provinces, which had a Special Dependence upon it; but this without the help of a Petitio (a) Cafe truly fated, p .

Principii

Principii (that is without fuppofing the Question, and taking that for granted which is the whole subject of the Difpute) will not burt the Supremacy.

C. E. This is very ftrange. For if what Privileges it has were given it by the Fathers, and only in Confideration of its being the Imperial City, this utterly overthrows your Pretence of an univerfal Supremacy deriv'd to it from St. Peter.

R. C. Though St. Peter's Succeffor had neither beèn a Patriarch, nor even a Metropolitan, he would have bad that Supremacy, that was given to Saint Peter before he was either of them, Ibid.

C. E. This is a Petitio Principii with a witness where because you have not been able to prove the Supremacy you pretend to, you courageoufly fuppofe it, and then fet your own groundless fuppofal in Oppofition to an unanfwerable Argument against it. And if this be your way of anfwering Objections, you may_foon get rid of them all with a wet Finger. The Canon gives not the leaft Intimation of any Privileges more than Patriarchal belonging to Rome, and had the Pope then fancied to himself fuch a fupream Jurifdiction, as you now fancy for him, he would never have been contented with the Council's comparing his Privileges with thofe of his Subjects. Nor is it reasonable to fuppofe the Council would ever have enacted a Canon so much to his Detriment, as this would have been, but that they were well affur'd he had no other Privileges above other Bishops, but what belong'd to him as a Patriarch and Metropolitan, and these given him too becaufe of the Glory of the City wherein he prefided. So that in your own Words I may return this Anfwer: You can never get any thing by your own anfwer to this Objection, unless you fuppofe the Bishop of Rome had a Jurifdiction beyond bis Patriarchate; that is, unless you suppose that which is the only thing in

[ocr errors]

Que

[ocr errors]

Queftion. I add, and whereof the Fathers affem"bled at Chalcedon fhew themfelves to have had no Notion.

R. C. The Vindicator objects 2dly p. 42. That it is a great Abfurdity, that after St. Peter's Death, Linus or Clemens, who at most were only Difciples, Should have Jurifdiction over St. John the Evangelift. But if we must believe nothing that is ftrange, (though a Confequence either of Scripture or of Apoftolical Tradition) we must bid adieu to Chriftian Religion, p. 105. C. E. Here you proceed again upon a meer fuppofal, without any Proof, of Scripture and Apoftolical Tradition being for this Supremacy. Whereas nothing of this yet appears, and the Abfurdity here objected is a confiderable Argument against it, being fuch as is not eafy to be believ'd without fome better Evidence for the Truth of the Fact than we have yet met with. Nor will your Inftances at all anfwer the Objection. That the bleffed Virgin fhould be fubject to the Apostles in matters Spiritual and Ecclefiaftical, which was the proper matter of their Office, is not at all ftrange to me, how unaccountable foever you may apprehend it to be. And that our Bleffed Lord himself fhould condefcend during his Minority, to be fubject to his Mother, was but what became him who was (a) to fulfil all Righteouf nefs; and what therefore you need not be exceedingly furpriz'd at, confidering the manner and defign of this Incarnation, and to how much lower a Degree he was graciously pleas'd to humble himself for our Redemption. Nor will his unparallelled Goodness in fo debafing himself for our Sakes, ever prove it reasonable to fuppofe an Apoftle fubjected to the Dominion of one who was only a Bifhop, though it were him of the See of Rome.

(a) Matt. 3. 15.

R. C.

R. C. Objection III. p. 42. Is the Authority of a Difcourfe printed at Cologne, Anno 1681. called Moiens fûres, &c. whofe Author was of the Vindicator's Religion; fo that the Cafe truly ftated may be objected as well as Moiens fûres, p. 105, 106.

C. E. We have been told, as I have noted before, that this Treatife had the Approbation of the Archbishop of Tholoufe, which I fhould think to be at least, a competent proof of it's being written by one of your felves. And what Evidence do you produce to the contrary? Truly none at all. You flatly deny it; but it is too much to expect, that you should undertake to give your Reafons for denying it. Only he does not picafe you, and is therefore to bear Rigaltius company, and be given up for a Proteftant in Masquerade.

R. C. He fays Cardinal Cufanus confirms what S. Gregory bad told us before, that the Three firft Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and all the Bijhops that were under them, fate in S. Peter's Chair. Now the Truth is; S. Peter, befides his own See at Rome, was fuppofed to have a special regard to Antioch, where he once fate; and to Alexandria, where bis Difciple, S. Mark, planted the Gospel. So that all the Bishops, and all the Parish-Priests, within thofe Precincts, fucceeded to fome part of S. Peter's Charge- But as only the Bishops of Rome were abfolutely and frictly esteemed his Succeffors; fo they only inherited the full Extent of his Jurifdiction.

C. E. Here you tell us, S. Peter was supposed to have a special regard to Antioch and Alexandria; which you muft own is but meer fuppofal, on which nothing can be built. And if it were mahifeftly true, how could his regard to thofe places, when he was fettled, as you hold, at Rome, make the Bishops there his Succeffors? They had their proper Patriarchs as well as Rome; and whofoever therefore came into thofe Sees after N

thefe

« السابقةمتابعة »