« PreviousContinue »
these, must be their, and not S. Peter's Successors; as“.you cannot but be sensible. What then can S. Peter's supposed regard to these placés signify, towards making their Bishops his Successors · This is a Discovery, not only new in itself; but
besides, which is above my comprehension, and what you will never be able to maintain. But this is not all I have to offer against you here. For thus our Author proceeds, though you have not thought fit to take notice of it, and so the Vindicator told you, Let any one read the Writings of the Popes, Gregory, Gelafius, and Leo, and be will find they all acknowledge all good Bishops to be S. Peter's Successors. And was this likewise out of a supposed regard for the places where they prefided ? I dare say you will not pretend it. And yet farther, Tho' sometimes they have not failed to discover ambitious Inclinations, and a desire of subječting other Bijheps to them, yet not as Heads of the Cburcb, and yet lifs by virtue of any Text of Scripture. Neither is it to be observed for the first five centuries, that any ever had the face to alledge one single Palage in tbe Sacred Writings, for establishing the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Here are three different Popes cited against you, and in such express terms against your pretended Supremacy, that you had no better way to defend your self against them, but by passing them over in a profound silence, as if the Vindicator had never faid a word about them. This perhaps may be thought fair dealing on your side ; but if the Vindicator had done it, he must have expected co hear of it with both Ears.
R. C. Objection IV. p. 44. In former times BiShops called the Pope Collegue, Brocher, Fellow. Minifter, &c. p. 106.
C. E. This you cannot possibly deny.
R, C. You see I do not. But then I desire you to observe, that S. Paul calls the Corinthians
bis Brothers, yet exercised a Jurisdi&tion over them, And S. Peter ftiles himself ouurger Búriegv, a Fela. low. Elder.
c. E. I see you are sadly put to it, that you , can find no better an Answer than this. For the Question is nor what either S. Peter, or S. Paul, or any other Superior stiles himself, but whether his Inferiors and Subjects think it becoming them, i to use the same freedom with him. The Pope Itiles himself Servus Servorum Dei, A Servant of the Servants of God. But I dare answer for you, that if you were to write a Letter to him, you would not allow yourself to send it so superfcribed. And I challenge you to produce one Instance of his being applied co by any Bishop, or other of the Clergy, under the Title of Brather, or Collegue, or any other like familiar Appellation, since his Claim to an Universal Supre. macy has been set on foot. Till you can do this, you must own, the Case is very much altered now from what it was formerly; and that this Intimacy and Familiarity with the ancient Popes, is a good Evidence, that they were not then so elevated above the rest of their Brethren, and Fellow. Bishops, as they now take upon them to be.
R. C. Objection V. p. 47. If the Popes were Supreme Governors of the Church, the Vindicator urges, they would have bad the Right of convening General Coun: cils, which, says he, it is certain they had not. ; And . yet it is certain tbey bad, p. 107.
C. E. So you affirm; but you do not undertake to prove it. The Fact, that the Emperors convened the ancient Councils, you do not dispute, nor can you, after all the Evidence he has brought for it. But as you have an excellenc Talent at supposing, where you cannot prove, so here you suppose the Popes to have had a Right,
of doing it eicher alone, or together with the Emperors. That is, you would have it believed, without any manner of Proof, that the Popes had a Right of convening Councils, of some sort or other, though you know nut'what. But the Vindicator must be excreamly condescending, if he will take this for an Answer to all the Evidence he has brought to the contrary. Next, you admit the Fact, that this was executed by the Emperor's Letters ; but plead, that get the Lawfulness of it might arise, from the Defire of the Bishap's themselves, and chiefly of the first see! Which is a strange fort of arguing, and thews your Cafe to be very bad. First you say, It might arise from the Defire of the Bishops themselves, &c. Where you ought to have remembred, that a posle ad esse non valet consequentia; what only may be, may as well not be, and so you have in effect said nothing for your Cause. Next, If it only arose from the desire of the Bishops themselves, and ej pecially the Pope, it is a plain acknowledgment that the Power was not then looked upon to be solely in the Pope, as you would have it; for so ič would have been an Affront to his Holiness, for the other Bishops to interpose in what was his peculiar priviledge. And lastly, If ic arose from the Defire of the Pope, and other Bishops petitioning the Emperor, it evidently follows, that the Power of Convening was then acknowledged, by the Pope, as well as the other Bishops, to be in the Emperor, and not in the See of Rome. And so instead of afferring this Right to the Pope, you have been pleased to own it to have been none of his. Far. ther, you tell us, the Bishops at Constantinople, Anno 382, writing to Pope Damasas, thanked him for calling them to a Council' by the Emperor's Letters. And it is very kindly done of you, to bring such an instance against yourself. For if the Pope could
not summon them, but by the Emperor's Letters, I may safely refer it to yourself, where the Power of summoning them was' owned by all at that time to lye. Your next Citation from Rufinus is parallel to this, That the Emperor called it, Ex sacerdotum sentencia, by tbe Advice of the Bishops. Where one would be tempted to think you were wria ting booty; for if the Emperor were the Convener, by whatsoeyer Advice it were, then not the Pope. You ask farther, Wby bad not Bishops as much Right of convening by their own Authority in the Fourıb Century, as they had in the First, Second, and Third? And now I would beg leave in my turn to ask another Question, and leave it with you; which is, Whether this be pleading for the Pope's Supreme Power, or for the Bishops against it? Hereunto you subjoin two Cautions of Hofius and S. Ambrose to the Emperors Conftantius and Valentinian, against meddling to promote the Arian Interest. Which can never prove the Pope's Right to convene Councils, to which they have no more relation, than to the Constitution Uni. ġenitus, or Prince Eugene's passing the Danube.
R. C. Objection VI. p. 47. The Pope did not preside in the first general Councils, p. 109.
C. E.' So the Vindicator told you. And not only told you so, but referred you (a) to Richerius; Labbe and Cossartius, Sozomen, Evagrius, Phoe tius, and Du Pin, for the proof of it. And it was to be hoped you would take effectual care to confute all these, and let the Reader see they are quite in the wrong. Whereas on the contrary you pass over them all, as if nothing had been said of them. And so all of them ftill bear witness against you.
R. C. However, I have brought counterEvidence, and that is as well. («) Base truly hated, p. 47.
C. E. You
C. E. - You ought first to have cleared the. way by removing the Vindicator's Testimonies, before you undertook to assert the contrary. Buc this I find is not your way. And if you are refolved to write to no purpose, who can help it? This may cut out work for an Answerer, but can be for no one's Satisfaction, unless it be by letting the World see, you could not answer them. However, though nothing is said to there, let 'us hear, if you please, what you have to say berides.
R¢. (a) As to the Fifth Council, Anno 553. Eutychius, Bishop of Constantinople
, desired of Vigilius ic might be held, Præsidente nobis veftrà beatitudine, Your Holiness presiding over us. lbid.
C. E. I need not tell you, that Vigilius did not preside in it. Nor could he possibly, since he would not be prevailed with to appear there, (b) He consented to the Council by Letter, but would not fit amongst them; and so cannot so much as be pretended to have presided over them.
R. C. As to the Sixth Action of the Council of Chalcedon, Pafchafinus, the Pope's Legate, subscribed the Definition of Faith, in this manner ; Presiding over the Council, I have approved it, consented to it, and subscribed it. Ibid.
C. E And what if the Pope be supposed to have presided in that Council ? The Vindicator did not say, that he' might nog at any time do it, as well as any other Bishop, when called to
(4)P. Maimbourgb,in his Prerugatives of the Church of Rome, and her Bishops, p. 54. acknowledges the Pope not to bave presided in the First Council of Conftantinople, which perhaps neither did he call; and that it is most probable he did not call the Fifth, nor presided in it, though he was at Constantinople, where that Council was beld.
(6) Βιγίλιο μεν έν εγγράφως συνθέμενς συνεδριν óx finele. Evagr. 'Hift. Ecc. 1. 4. c. 38. See allo Du Pin Nouv. Bibl. To. 5. p. 197, 198. in Quarto.