صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

it, but only, that he did not do it conftantly, and in all of them. And every one knows prefiding in one, is not prefiding in all; and fo is neither any contradiction to his Affertion, nor any proof of a Right of Prefidency in the Pope, more than in other Bishops; And yet I cannot fuffer my felf to yield this one Council to you, becaufe not only Du Pin obferves, that Diofcorus of Alexandria prefided in it; but moreover, I find, that this Diofcorus had the (a) Emperor's Commiffion for it.

R. C. Of the General Council at Ephefus, Anno 431, Mennas, Bishop of Conftantinople, faid; Pope Celeftin is known to have prefided in it by his Deputies, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, Arcadius and Projectus Bishops, and Philip, who was a Prieft. lbid.

C. E. Whether Mennas faid thefe words is more than I know. But I know they are in Baronius's Tranfcript of (a) Vigilius's Conftitutum. And yet I have this to object to them, which you will not easily get over; that not only a Subfcription occurs in the Acts of that Council, wherein (b) Juvenalis, Bishop of Ferufalem, ftands first, and then Arcadius and Projectus, two of the Pope's Legates, which would hardly have been, if they had prefided there; but befides, S. Cyril Subfcribed at the End, as (c) Bishop of Alexandria, and fo in his own Right, not in the Popes; and Evagrius plainly tells us (d) that he prefided there, without the leaft hint of any Subftitution

from Rome.

(α) Τα αυθενίαν καὶ τὰ πρατεῖα τῇ σῇ θεοσεβείᾳ παρέ2. Conc. To. 4 p. 109 (b) Anno 553. 51.

(c) Conc. To. 3. p. 659. (α) Κύριλλο ἐπίσκοπο Αλεξανδρείας ὑπέγραψα άποφη νάμενΘ ἅμα τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ.


(e) τοις ήγήσατο ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις ΚύριλλΘ, ὁ τῶν ̓Αλεξαν· ♪géwn aviso. Hift. Eccl. 1. 2. c. 18.

R. C. What


R. C. What we call the Second General Council, Anno 381, or 382, if confidered in itself, was only an Alfembly of Oriental Bishops,as Theodoret obferves, Lib. 5. Hift. Cap. 7. Ibid.

C. E. Whatfoever fort of Affembly it was, you do not deny that Nectarius prefided in it. Which is all that is incumbent to me to prove. And yet, whatfoever your private Opinion may be, you cannot but own, that not only the reft of the World, but even thofe of your own Party, fuch as Labbé and Coffartius, Binius, Cabalutius, Longus a Coriolano, &c. have owned it as a General Council. And fo your Exception to it comes too late.



R. C. Of the Council at Nice, Anno 325, Du Pin writes thus, 'Tis not certainly known, who prefided in this Council; but it is very probable that it was Hofius, who held the chief Place there in his own Name, &c. Ibid.

C. E. So it is generally acknowledged; which is enough to fhew it was not the Pope. This the Vindicator had urged (a) before, and you have not known how to contradict him.

R. C. Be not too fure of that, Sir; for Gelafius Cizicenus fays, Hofius was one of the Legates of Pope Silvefter. Hincmmar, Archbishop of Reims, was of this Opinion, p. 110.

C. E. It is not enough, that they were of his Opinion, unless they would give their Reasons for it. It is a very good Reafon against them, that Hofius's Name ftands in the Head of the Subfcriptions, as the Vindicator has told you (4) already, and Victor and Vincentius, the Pope's Legates next after him.

R. C. Socrates reckons the Pope's Legates beforë the Oriental Patriarchs, and so they stand in the Subfcriptions of the Council. Ibid.


(a) Cafe truly fated, p. 47.

(b) Ibid.

.CE. What

[ocr errors]

C. E. What is this to Hofius, who was a Spanifh Bishop, and no Orientalift? Their coming after the Legates will never prove that he was not before them; as you muft neceffarily confefs.


R. C. Hofius could not prefide by any Right of his See, which was Corduba, a private Bishoprick in Spain, under Seville as its Metropolis. Ibid.

C. E. It anfwers our purpofe, that he fate there not as the Pope's Legate.. Nor was it ever pretended, that I know of, that it was upon the account of his See. But whether it were that he was appointed by the Emperor, or chofen to ic by the Bishops, upon the account of his perfonal Merit, or however it came to pafs; this is a fufficient proof, that to prefide there, was not looked upon as a peculiar Right of the Roman See; and by confequence, that the Pope was not then believed to have the Supremacy fince contended for. Which was all the Vindicator aimed at in this Inftance; and wherein he does not yet at all appear to have been mistaken.

R. C. The VIIth and VIIIth Objections are, That Appeals from all places have not conftantly been held to belong of Right to the Pope: and not the Popes, but the Emperors confirmed the Decrees of Councils, p. 110 and 112.

C. E. Neither of thefe Affertions you do in the leaft deny And fo there needs no farther proof of either of them.

R. C. The Vindicator adds, p. 53. That S. Auguftin was filed by S. Paulinus, Summus Chrifti Pontifex, Chrift's chief Higb-Prieft. But this is not much.

C. E. If it had been spoken of the Pope, it would have had its weight; but because said of. another Bishop, it is not much. Yet it is fo much, as to fhew, that fuch Expreffions as these, when


will not


applied to the Pope, not prove fuch a Supremacy in him, as chofe of your own Pertation are defirous to fupport by thems if they knew but how. Some other Inftaneesid to the like effect, are brought alfo by the indicator, in the fame Page But becaufes you found they were against you, you thought it your wifelt way to pals them over in filence. And fo they ftand yet as Witneffes against you.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

R. C. He tells us He tells us alfo, P. 54. that in the Sixth Century, Avitus, Bifhep of Vienna, writing to the Bihp of Jerufalem fays, bis Apoftlefhip exercifes the Primacy granted him by God; and ftudies to let the World fee, that he poffeffes the chief place in the Univerfal Church, p. 112. B016709

C. E. Tlie Vindicator proceeds, though you have not thought fit to take notice of it, (a) If this had been faid of the Bishop of Rome, how would you have pleafed yourfelves with it? It would have done you more Service, than what you have collected, from either Profper or Lea, which fhews how little ftrefs is to be laid upon either of their Affertions'. To this latter part you fay nothing at all; and to the former you only plead, That he was Bifhep of Jerufalem, where Chrift lived and fhed bi Blood In which respect, it was doubtless the chief place in the Universe: Yet this neither gave the Bishop Supremacy, nor a Primacy of Order. He was not fo much as a Metropolitan, in the Fourth Century; and bad never a higher Rank afterwards, than that of the leaft of the Patriarchs. So that, by your own confeffion, thefe fort of Titles, and Expreffions, do not import any fort of Supremacy, to thofe to whom they are attributed. And yet how great a part of your Evidences, for the Popish Supremacy, is made up of them. The


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

The Cafe farther fated bigg99

- dom 70XI nor!


90 m

of matter is, that in your way of arguing, when fpoken of the Pope they are plain Proofs for his Univerfal Jurifdiction; but when faid of of any one elfe, they prove no Supremacy, nor perhaps fo much as a Primacy of Order! Which all the World would think a very odd procedure in any other Cafe and must accordingly be fo in this. gow finienk aanwes




1957 10 % SEGT. VIDOVA JOS prod

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]




have you farther to fay?

here and

siderad Cohen E. All that farther remains, ac-
cording to my firft Propofal, is to take notice of,
and anfwer fome few other Reflections, that
there occur againit the indicator, as I
meet with them, together with fome others, that
occur in the Preface to your first Party and fo to
conclude, the whole.
201 4800 synd kiusa
R. G. Will you, please to let us have your
Thoughts of them, as briefly as conveniently you


10 : dis

[ocr errors]

can. and


CE. I will be fure to do it, for I want to be at liberty.

Be gal

( I w



R. C. Vind. p. 44. S. Cyprian faid to his Bifhops prefent, in the Council of Carthage, None of us makes himself Bishop of Bishops, or com pels his Collegues, by a tyrannical Power, to a neceffity of obeying; feeing every Bishop is at his own difpofal, according to the extent of his Liberty and Power; and can no more be judged by another, than he can judge another 22



961 13

C. E. And what have you to object to this? 1. R. C. Two Things. The first is, That S. Au gustin Juppoles he meant Questions of this kind, which are not justly and throughly difcuffed, c. p. 122, Cn. Excellently well anfwered. You do Q 2


[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »