Imágenes de páginas

that pontiff had collected together. In this address, the fathers of the council roundly declare, that they assembled in consequence of a requisition, addressed to them by the Apostolic See, through the medium of the Emperor, and they acknowledge the summons as addressed to members belonging to their head'.

Another fact of the same description is, that St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, presided in the third general council, held at Ephesus, in 431, as vicar of Pope Celestine; and the fathers of that council expressly declare, that they proceed with pain to the condemnation of Nestorius, by virtue of the canons and the injunctions contained in the letters of that pontiff?. These two events, which took place in a most flourishing period of Christianity, demand no comment ; they loudly proclaim the existence of that power, which, to the everlasting infamy of Britain, is so ignorantly, so in delicately, and so impiously blasphemed by persons of every description. These remarkable documents, which


be deemed sufficiently strong, are exceeded by the proceedings, which took place in the council of Chalcedòn, in 451. . That great assembly was convened principally for the purpose of condemn

See this remarkable document, Hist. Eccles. Theodoret, lib. 5, c. ix: -Και ημάς ως οικεία μέλη Προσεκαλέσασθε, &c.

See Evagr. Hist. Eccles. lib. 1, c. iv. edit. Vales. tom. ii. p. 259, 260.

[ocr errors]

ing the Eutychian heresy, and of punishing the flagrant and notorious crimes of Dioscorus, the wicked patriarch of Alexandria. At this great council presided St. Leo the Great, the pope at that period, in the persons of his three legates, Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybæum, Lucentius, bishop of Ascoli, and Boniface, a priest of Rome. Here, with the perfect acquiescence of the council, the Pope is styled the Bishop of Rome, the head of all churches ; his supremacy is unequivocally acknowledged by the whole proceedings of the synod; his legates bring forward the charges against Dioscorus ; and one head of accusation is, that he had presumed to call a council, without the authority of the Roman pontiff; which, it was alleged, never was done, and never can be done; Dioscorus, at the motion of the legates, is dismissed from the council as a judge, in order afterwards to appear by citation. The proceedings are then amply discussed, and a sentence of condemnation against Dioscorus is pronounced by the legates in the name of the pope and the council. After the recital of the crimes of the accused party, the sentence is closed in the following terms : “ Whence Leo, the most holy Archbishop of Great Rome, by us and by the present council, together with St. Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic church, and the pillar of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him

of his episcopal dignity, and of every sacerdotal ministry.” This sentence was adopted by the council, and received the subsequent sanction of the holy pontiff, at the request of the fathers, who tell him, that he had presided over them as the head over its members.” Here the catechist and his friends' may safely be challenged to produce any facts more appropriate to sustain any argument, or carrying more weight by their decisive evidence in the whole compass of history. I will only add, that all these councils are received by the Church of England'.

The language of every council ever held in the Catholic church is in perfect unison with these proceedings of the synod of Chalcedon. But not to tire the reader with superfluous evidence, I will content myself with supplying the declaration of the council of Florence on the subject. The decision of this council, held in 1439, will probably have more weight at this period of time, as it was framed on the reunion of the Greek and Latin churches. The decree is expressed in the following terms : “ We DEFINE that the holy Roman See, and the Roman Pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter,

See Conc. tom. iv. also Carranza, Act. i, ii, iii. fol. 140145; Cabassut. Notit. Eccles. Sæc. v. p. 214, et seq.; Flenry, b. 28; Mr. Butler, St. Leo's Life, April 11.

2 1 Eliz. c. i.

prince of the apostles, and true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole church, and the father and doctor of Christians; and that to him, in St. Peter, was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, a full power to feed, rule and govern the universal church, as appears from the proceedings of general councils and holy canons. Given at Florence, in a synodal public session, in the year 14391."

In addition to documents so clear and decisive on this subject, it would be easy to collect a volume of evidence no less convincing both from the Greek and Latin fathers, the legitimate and authorised witnesses of tradition. But to what purpose are we to trespass on the patience of the reader, when the centuriators of Magdeburg have kindly performed the work. Those rigid partisans of Protestantism, have, in their motley performance, undertaken to vent their rancour and spleen against both the Greek and Latin fathers, for constantly supporting the supremacy of the apostolic see. As this is a sure and unequivocal acknowledgment of the point under consideration, it becomes altogether unnecessary to search for further evidence from this source?.

Perhaps the English reader may wish to hear the opinion of a writer, whose name may be more familiar to him, than the centuriators of Magdeburg. Let Bucer therefore step forth with his tale, the man who was called over to England to assist Cranmer in forming the Anglican church.

* See Carranza, fol. 351. · See Cent. iii. col. 84, 85 ; Cent. iv. col. 125, 555, 556, 558; Cent. v. col. 774, 777, 778, 779, 781, 783.

“ We confess," says this writer, “ that in the opinion of the ancient fathers, the Roman church did hold the primacy, having the chair of Peter, and that her bishops have been accounted his successors?.This is a fair and candid acknowledgment, which, coming from such a man as Bucer, should have great weight in the Protestant world.

But as two witnesses of unexceptionable credit, usually establish a fact in a very satisfactory manner, let us hear the evidence of Blondel on the subject, a Protestant divine, who for skill in languages, and an intimate acquaintance with history, civil and ecclesiastical, stands unrivalled among his brethren. Rome,says he, “ being a

church, consecrated by the residence of St. Peter, whom antiquity acknowledged as the head of the Apostolic college, and honoured as the See of Peter, might easily have been considered by one of the most renowned councils, (that of Chalcedon) as head of the church?.” Such is the admission of Blondel, and such is the language of those Protestants, whose learning rendered familiar facts, which bigotry cannot disavow. Bucer, Prep. ad Conc. · Blondel on the Supremacy, p. 107.


« AnteriorContinuar »