Page images
PDF
EPUB

it, but only, that he did not do it. conftantly, and in all of them. And every one knows presiding in one, is not presiding in all, and so is neither any contradiction to his Affertion, nor any proof of a Right of Presidency in the Pope, more than in other Bishops ; And yet I cannot suffer my self to yield this one Council to you, because not only Du Pin observes, that Dioscorus of Alexandria presided in it; but moreover, I find, that this Diofcorus had the (a) Emperor's Commiffon for it.

R. C. Of the General Council at Ephesus, Anno 431, Mennas, Bishop of Constantinople, Jaid; Pope Celestin is known to have presided in it by his Deputies, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, Arcadius and Projectus Bishops, and Philip, who was a Priest. lbid.

C. E. Whether Mennas faid these words is more than I know. But I know they are in Baronius's Transcript 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 Subscription occurs in the Acts of that Council, wherein (b) Juvenalis, Bishop of Jerusalem, stands first, and then Arcadius and Projectus, two of the Pope's Legates, which would hardly have been, if they had presided there ; but besides, S. Cyril Subscribed at the End, as (c) Bishop of Alexapdria, and so in his own Right, not in the Popes; and Evagrius plainly tells us (d) that he presided there, without the least hint of any Substitution from Rome.

(α) Τω αυθενίαν και τα πραλία τη ση θεοσεβεία παρέgley. Conc. To: 4 p. 109 (b) Anno 553: 51.

(c) Conc. To. 3. p. 659 (4) ΚύριλλG επίσκοπο Αλεξανδρείας υπέγραψα αποφη: ναμενΘ- άμα τη αγία συνόδω. .

(e) Oις ηγήσατο και εν αγίοις Κύριλλα, και των 'Αλεξαν. odgéwu auidio. Hift. Eccl. 1. 2. c. iS.

R. C. What

R. C. What we call the Second General Council, Anno 381, gr.382, if confidered in itself, was only an Asembly of Oriental Bishops, as Theodoret observes, Lib. s. Hift. Cap. 7. Ibid.

C. E. Whatsoever fort of Assembly it was, you do hot deny that Nettarius presided in it

. Which is all that is incumbent to me to prove. And yet, whatsoever your private Opinion may be, you cannot but own, that not only the rest of the World, but even those of your own Party, such as Labbé and collartius, Binlus, Caballutius, Longus a Coriolano, &c. have owned it as a General Council. And so your Exception to it comes too late,

the Council at Nice, Arino writes thus ; 'Tis not certainly known, who prefided in sbis Council; but it is very probable that it was Hofius, who beld the chief Place there in bis own Name, &c. lbid.

C. E. So it is generally acknowledged ; which is enough to shew 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 sure of that, Sir; for Gelafous Cizicenus Says, Hosius was one of the Legates of Pope Silvester. Hincınar, 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 Reason against them, that Hofius's Name stands in the Head of the Subscripcions, as the Vindicator has told you (a) 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 Subscriptions of the Council. Ibid. (1) Cafe truly fated, p. 47.

H

C E. Whac

(6) Ibid.

[ocr errors]

C. E. What is this to Hofius, who was a Spawith Bishop, and no Orientalist Their coming after, the Legates will never prove that he was not before them as you must necessarily confefs.

R. C. Hosius could not preside by ang Right of his See, which was Corduba, & private Bishoprick in Spain, under Seville as its Metropolis. Ibid.

C. E. lt answers our purpose, chat he sate there not as the Pope's Legace. Nor was it ever precended, 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 chosen to ic by the Bishops, upon the account of his personal Merit, or however it came to pass; this is a sufficient proof, chat to preside there, was not looked upon as a peculiar Right of the Roman See; and by consequence, that the Pope was not then believed to have the Supremacy since contended for. Which was all the Vindicator aimed at in this Instance; and wherein he does not yet at all appear to have been mistaken.

R. c. The VIIth and VIIIch Objections are, That Appeals from all places bave not constantly 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 these Affertions you do in the least deny : And so there needs no farther proof of either of them.

R. C. The Vindicator adds, p. 53. That S., Augustin was filed by S. Paulinus, Summus Christi Pontifex, Christ's chief High-Priest. But this is not inucb.

C. Ē. If it had been spoken of the Pope, it, vould have had its weight; but because said of another Bishop, it is not much. Yet it is so much, as to fhew, that such Expressions as these, when $ ,

applied

[ocr errors]

applied to the Pope,

be will not prove such a $u- premacy iw him, as those of yourbwh Pertation care detirous to suppore by them if they knew

but how. Some other Taftaneesid to the like effectes are brought also by the vindicator in the fame Poiged But because you found they were against you, you thought it your wifest way to pals them over in filence." And fo cheytand yet as Witnesses againit you.

R. C. He tells us also, p. 54. that in the Sixth Century, Avitus, Bishop of Vienna, writing to the Bish. p of Jerusalem Says, bis God. exercises

granted him by and studies to let the World fee, that he possesses the chief place in the Univerfat Church, p. 112. obras

C. E. Tlie Vindicator proceeds, thoirgh you have not thought fic to take notice of it, as If

this had been said of the Bishop of Rome, how I would you have pleafed yourselves with it? Ic

would have done you more Service, than what you have collected, from either Prosper or Leq, · which shews how little stress is to be laid upon

either of their Affertions' To this latter part you say nothing at all; and to the former you only plead, That he was Bishop of Jerúfalem, where Cbrift lived and shed bi blood In which respect, it was duubtlufs the chief place in the Universe ? Yer this

gave the Bishop Supremacy, nor a Primacy of Order. He was not so much as a Metropolitan, in the Flurb (intury; and bad never a higher Rank afterwards, than that of the leaft of the Patriarcbs. So that, by your own confeflion, these Tort of Ti, tles, and Expressions, do not import any fort of Supremacy, to those io whom they are attributed. And yet how great a pare of your Evidences, for the Popish Supremacy, is made up of chem.

() Cafe truly stated, p. 54. 02'3 bre Wifi 300 915 uti

n yritetty Thore

neither gave

up of them. The

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

ST

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

1

2 Db

[ocr errors]

The Case farther statedo baiq 399 host.of the matter is, that in your way of arguving, when fpoken of the Pope, they are plain Proofs for his Universal furisdiction ; vbut when Taid of any one else; they prove no7 Suprematy, nor perhaps so much as a Primacy of Order' which

all the Worldwould think a very odd procedure en nyopher Cafe, a and must accordingly be so in this.

(3() { ?>" 275 / 5

0 %
dixi yi ki te
sds of 1966

SEGT. VII. .***3 aglige fout in

RC THat i , ginag na Co E, Allchat farther remains, according to my first Proposal, is to take notice of, and answer some few other Reflections, tha here and there occue against the Vindicator, as I meet with them, together with some others, that occur in the Preface co your first Party and fo to conclude the whole. Siin

R. Ç. Will you, please to let us have your Thoughts of them, as briefly as conveniently you can.

C. E. I will be sure to do it, for I want to be at liberty.

R. f. Vind. p. 44. S. Cyprian said to his Bia shops present, in the Council of Cartbage, None

of us makes himself Bishop of Bishops, or com* pels his Collegues, by a cyrannical Powers to a necessity of obeying ; seeing every Bishop is at his own disposal, according to the extent of his Liberty and Power ; and can no more be judged by another; than he can judge anobenets P122: 19, C. E.

E. And what have you to object to this?

qui Iwo Things. The first is, Thacis. Audi guftin Luppoles ke meant Questions of this kind, which are not juftly and throughly discuffed, c. p. 123. 5. Excellently well answered. You do

[ocr errors]

1

[ocr errors]

Q2

not

.

« PreviousContinue »