« 上一页继续 »
Luke:xxiv.47. And till after the Vifion of the Sheet to St. Peter, Acts x. No Gentile was admitted, as it is said, Aets xi. 19. They tra-* pelled Preacbing the word to none but unto ibe Jews only.r So that the Jewish: Christian Church was the only Church for some time, and she it was who Converted the Gentile Nai tions, and therefore was the Mother Church to them all. I
: Ian - And Rome was not the first Gentile Church, for the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch, Ads xi. 26. And the Greek Church was before the Latin ; the New Testament was wrote in Greek for their Use, therefore the Greek Church could not be the Daughter of the Latin Church, which was born after her. .::;? : ;;
(2.), L. But St. Peter having been Bishop of Rome, and Christ having Constituted him to be the Head ofţhe Catholick Church throughout the whole World, the fanje must descend to his Successors the Bishops of Rome.
G. This will not make her the Mother Church, You may call her Supreme, Abfolute, Universal, or what you please, any thing but the Mother Church, to which it is impossible the should have any Ticle. i grecii ' - In the Conversion of the Gentiles to Cbriftia anity one Man and one Nation, must receive the Faith before another, they were not all Converted on a Day, And as when one Mani Converts another, so it is of Churches and
Nations, it gives the one no Superiority over the other, except that of Gratitude and Ésteem, but nothing of Authority.
But whatever the Privilege of the Mother Church may be, if it can be Translated from the Mother to the Daughter, from one Church to another, froin Jerusalem to Antioch, and thence to Rome, as you must be obliged to say, then it may be Translated from Rome also to fome other Church, unless some positive Command of Christ can be produced, first to fix it at Rome, and then a Promise that it shall never thence be removed. But the Church of Rome is not once named in all the New Testament, unless she is meant by the Church at Babylon,
1 Pet. V. 13. Nor is there any Promise what· soever made to her, or any the least Intimation
of her being the Head of the Churches, the Standard and Center of Unity to them all. Strange! if that be the Summa rei Chriftianæ, as Bellarmin calls it (in the Preface to his Book de Romano Pontifice) the Summn and Founda. tion of the Christian Religion.
i And as silent are the Scriptures concerning the supposed Universal Supremacy of St. Peter, or that he ever was at Rome, or Bishop of Rome. Some after Writers have mentioned it ; but that is far from such an Universal Trao dition as is sufficient for the mighty Superftructure which is raised upon it. But let it be granted it signifies nothing, because all is founded upon fome Words faid to St. Peter, fuch as, Thou pro Peter-Feed thing Sbeeper
&c. Which cannot be strained to such an Universal Supremacy as the Popes have claimed. nor were founderstood in the Primitive Church. For which I refer your Lordship to a Book I know you value, and favoured me with the Perufal of it, the Learned Monsieur du Pin his Traité de la Puisance Ecclefiaftique & Temporelle. Printed at Paris, 1707. where p. 495. to P. 501. and p. 754. to p. 765. you will find all these Texts urged for the Supremacy of St. Peter, answered in the fame manner as is done by the Protestant Writers, and it is shewed how very Foreign they are from the Purpose inten
And that the Rock upon which Matth. xvi. 18. Cbrist said he would build His . .. Church was not Peter, but the Faith which Peter then Confessed, your Lordship may fee the current Sense of the Fathers, and consult at your leisure St. Augustine, de Verb. Dom. Ser: 13, Nazianzen de Ver. Teftam. St. Cyril, de Trin, lib. 4. St. Chryfofton, Hom. 55. in Matth. St. Ambrose, Com. in Ephes. 2. Hilary, de Trin, lib. 2. cap, 6, And there are ipany others. ::
But nothing that was said of St. Peter is so express for an Universal Supremacy as what St. Paul said of himself, 2 Cor. xi. 28. That the Care of all the Churches lay upon him. And again, I Cor.vii. 17. Sp Ordain l in all Churcbes. If such a Decretal could be produced of St. Peter's, I doubt not it would have heen made use of towards proving his Universal Supremacy. 19 ghe Ąžts of the Apostles it is told that St.
Poul was at Rome Preaching the Gospel for two whole Years together, Aits xxviii. 30, 31. But not a word of St. Pater's being there. And as St. PAUL planted the Gospel at Rome, so he wrote to the Church there as his particular Charge, for says he, Rom. xi. 13: I speak to you Gentiles, in as much as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine Office: Bút St. Peter was the Apostle of the Jews, they were his particular Charge, and he himself allowed that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision was committed to Paul, as the Gospel of the Circumcifion was to bimself, Gal. ij. 7, 8, 9. And accordingly he directed his Epistle to the few's of the Disperfion who were Strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Aha and Bithynia. But he wrote not to the Gentiles, particularly not to Rome, which would seem itrange if he had been Bishop of Rome, and that had been his Chief and Principal Chárgè. And St. Paul's both withstanding bim to the Face before the whole Church of Antioch, in behalf of the Gentiles whom he had milled, fearing them wbówere of the Circumcifion, thews the Care St. Parel took of those who were more" particularly his Charge; and seeins a Behaviour not very suitable to the Supreme Head of the Church both Fews and Gentiles, if St. Paul had known any thing of St. Peter's being fo Constituted by Chrift. . And as little had it become the other Apostles to fend their Soveraign upon Business, as they fent Peter to Samaria, Acīs. viii. 14.*?.. stre .
But if, as some fay, St. Peter was Bishop of : the Jewish Converts at Rome, and St. Paul of the Gentiles there, St. Paul would have had a much greater Flock than St. Peter, and the Successors of St. Paul, and not of St. Peters must have been Bishops there, because the Church of Rome is now, and has long been all of the
But the surest way to find out the Truth is by Fad, and not straining Expressions, which may have several Meanings. The Ea stern - Monarchs have used to give themselves imighty Titles, as Son of the Sun, and Bros ther of the Stars, and King of all the Kings of the Earth, &c. But will any believe that any of them was the Universal Monarch for all this, contrary to plain Fact? ! · Pray, My Lord, let me ask you, do you think one could Write the History of a King, fuppose of King Charles the ad, and in all the History neither call him King, mention his Rey storation, Coronation, or tell of one Regal Act ever he did, as calling a Parliament, or Preas siding in it, Sending or Receiving an Ambasa fador, or Granting a Commission, &c. And fol of a Pope, could his History be wrote without calling him Pope, or telling of one Papal Act of his ?
L. No, it is impossible. For fuch ati History could not be called the History of a King, or of a Pope..!
G. Now, my Lord, let me apply this. We have the History of the Acts of the Apo..