Church, which did not belong to the Bishop of Conftantinople, nor was indeed chalenged by him. And zdly, because it feem'd to import that he was the only Bishop, or, at least, that all other Bishops were his Deputies, A Dignity belonging to Chrift alone. 'Tis manifeft at leaft that St Gregory understood it fo; as appears from his own Writings, and particularly his Words to the Emprefs Conftantina, to whom he complains thus. 'Tis a lamentable Thing (fays he) to be forced to bear, that my Brother and Fellow-Bishop John defpifing all others, endeavours to be call'd the only Biskop. L.s. Ep. 21.

Now then let us confider the Words, you pretend to quote from him. viz. If the Church should come to depend upon one, it must fuddenly fall. But, Sr, his true Words are thefe. Univerfa ergo Ecclefia, quod abfit, a ftatu fuo corruit, quando is qui vocatur Univerfalis cadit; which I think ought to be english'd thus. Wherefore the Universal Church (which God forbid) falls from it's State, when he, who is call'd Univerfal, falls. L. 5. Epift. 20. laft Paris-Edition. Now tho this Paffage may be faid to have fome Refem-blance with the Words you have quoted the Senfe of it is very different, and true enough as St Gregory understood the Title affumed by John of Conftantinople. For if there were but one Bishop in the Church, and he fell into Herefy, the whole Epifcopal Order and Prelatick Church would fall with him. But what is this to the Pope? For tho the whole Church be govern'd by him, and by Confequence depends on him in that Senfe, how can it be true, that if he should fall, the whole Church would fall with him? We may as well fay that if he dies, the whole Church muft die with him.

G. But what do you say to these Words of St Gregory, L. 6. Epift. c. ad Imperat. I boldly afiraz

that whosoever calls himself universal Bishop, or defires to be call'd fo by others, shews himself by fuch bu Haughineß to be a Forerunner of Antichrift, in as much as he proudly advances himself above all others.

L. I anfwer, that the Title of Univerfal Bishop as St Gregory understood it, was a Title of Pride and Blafphemy. And if John of Conftantinople had affumed it in that Senfe, he might have been properly call'd a Forerunner of Antichrift. For all Hereticks are call'd Antichrifts by St John. 1. Joh. 2. v. 18. And St Jerom Epift. 57. gives the fame Title to all, that wilfully separate themselves from St Peter's Chair; which would have been the Cafe of John of Conftantinople.

The Truth of the whole Matter is, St Gregory was a very humble Man, and the Title of Univerfal Bifhop or Patriarch feem'd to him too pompous and haughty to be affumed by any Man. It was certainly capable of a double Meaning, and he took it in the worst, and in that Senfe oppofed it with all his Zeal: And, to fet others a Pattern of Humility, he chofe to ftile himself the Servant of the Servants of God. But did that hinder him from Afferting the Supremacy either of St Peter, or of his own See, which is the Point, we have now under Examination? He was fo far from it, that he maintain'd both the one and the other with the greatest Vigour.

First, as to the Supremacy of St Peter, in the very Time of his Difpute with John of Conftantinople he wrote thus. It is evident to all, that know the Gospel, that the Care of the whole Church was by our Lord's Voice committed to the Apostle St Peter Prince of the Apoftles. For to him it is faid, Peter loveft thou me, feed my Sheep. To him it is faid, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Behold the Care and Primacy of the whole Church is committed

8.9. to him, and yet he is not call'd the Universal Apoftle. And my holy Brother and Fellow Bishop John endeavours to be call'd univerfal Bishop. Lib. 5. Epift. 20. p. 748. ult. Edit. This I think is a plain Decifion of what St Gregory thought of St Peter's Supremacy.

At to the Supremacy of his own See, let us alfo hear this great Man fpeak for himself. First, (Lib. 11. Epift. 56. Vet. Edit.) he writes thus concerning a Bishop, who pretended to be exempt from the Jurifdiction of his Metropolitan. If it be pretended that the Bishop has neither a Metropolitan, nor Patriarch, I anfwer, that then his Caufe is to be heard and decided by the See Apoftolick, which is the Head of all Churches. This furely is plain and decifive.

But 2dly, he writes thus to the Bishop of Syracu fa. As to what they write of the Church of Conftantinople who doubts but that it is fubject to the See Apoftolick? Lib. 9. Epift. 19. p. 976. Now Conftantinople was neither under the Roman Bishop at it's Metropolitan, nor as it's Patriarch: Since therefore St Gregory thought it fubject to him, he must neceffarily fuppofe his See had a Spiritual Supremacy over the whole Church.

Lastly, if this had not been his Judgment, how could he pretend to give to St Austin the first Bishop of Canterbury that Jurisdiction, which the See of. Canterbury still chalenges over all the British Bifhops? This one Action fpeaks his Thoughts more clearly, than any Words whatsoever. And I hope you will not accuse him of Tyranny and Ufurpation, fince Dr Barrow, your great Champion against the Supremacy, ftiles him a Prudent, Meek, and Humble Man, pag. 18. And is it not then a moft furprizing Discovery, that fuch a zealous Advocate for the Supremacy is at length found out to be an Enemy to it! Or rather do's it not plainly shew, how deftitute you are of Friends amongst the Fathers, when the

very Perfon, whom you pretend to bring in as a chief Evidence for you has profefs'd himself both by Words and Actions to be a most zealous Defender of the Caufe, you oppofe!

But pray take Notice, Sr, that the Queftion now between us is not, what Weight St Gregory's Autho rity has with you, or any other Proteftant; But what his Opinion was concerning the Supremacy; for you pretend he is on the Proteftant Side. 'Tis therefore impertinent to answer (as a certain Friend of your's do's) that a Pope fpeaks here for himself. For whether St Gregory was Pope, or no Pope is nothing to the Purpose: But if it be plain Matter of Fact, that he maintain'd the Supremacy both of St Peter and his Succeffors, the Question is fully decided against you. So you may proceed now if you please to what you were going to fay concerning St Cyprian.

G.

§. 10.

St Cyprian's Judgment relating to the Subject under

Debate.

T Cyprian faid that Chrift therefore made the «

fall, or turn Heretical the rest might interpofe for the « Saving of the Flock. «

L. Well, what then?

G. He alfo fays, there is but one Flock, and one se Epifcopat, of which every Bishop has the whole in Part- « nership with the reft. Epifcopatus unus eft, cujus à « fingulis in folidum. Pars tenetur. This was the Frame < of the Church in his Days, and before from the « Apofties. This was the very State of the Apostles « themselves, who thus shared the Apoftolar, the whole « of which was given to each in Partnership or in « Common with the reft, pag. 13. ".

Sa 10 L. Sr, 'tis certain, there is but one Epifcopacy; that is, but one Epifcopal Order or Character, which is common to all. For one Bishop is as truly Bifhop as another, tho their Jurifdictions be divided, and many Times fubordinate to one another, and all under one Head.

And this was truly the Frame of the Church in St Cyprian's Days, and even from the Time of the Apoftles; who, tho they were equal to St Peter in the Apoftolate (as all Bishops are in their Epifcopal Character to the Pope) yet were nor left like Independents without a Head. And fo it is beyond my Comprehenfion, how St Cyprian's Words can do you any

Manner of Service.

G. St Cyprian faid to his Bishops present in the Council of Carthage. None of us makes himself Bifhop of Bishops, or compels his Collegues by a Tyrannical Power to a Neceffity of Obeying. Seeing every Bishop is at his own Difpofal upon the Account of his Liberty and Power, and can no more be Judged by another, than he can Judge another.

L. Surely, Sr, you don't imagine it was St Cyprian's Opinion, that there is no Subordination of any one Bishop to another, of Diocefans, for Example, to their Metropolitan or Primate? And if that be not his Meaning, to what Purpofe have you produced his Words? But let St Austin give the direct Anfwer. I fuppofe (fays he) he meant in Questions of this kind, which are not fully and throughly difcus d. For he knew how perplex'd a Controverfy it was, which the Church was then Difputing, and Canvaffing on all Sides. And he gave free Liberty of Seeking, that by the Enquiry Truth might be difcover'd. L. 3. de Bap. C. 3.

Now the Queftion, St Austin speaks of, was concerning the Rebaptization of thofe, who had been baptiz'd by Hereticks, which had been very warmly difputed