9I EXTRAVAGANT EULOGIES OF THE FATHERS. Which observation is especially applicable to this case : for elo- quent men never more exceed in their indulgence to fancy than in the demonstrative kind, in panegyrics, in their commendations of persons; and I hope they will embrace this way of reckoning for those egpressions of Pope Leo, sounding so exorbitantly, that St Peter was by our Lord " assumed into consortship of his individual unity," and that "nothingpasses to any from God, the fountain of good things, without the participation of Peter."' 2. We may observe, that such turgid eulogies of St Peter are not found in the more ancient Fathers; for Clemens Romanus, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmi]ian, when they mention St Peter, speak more temperately and simply, accord- ing to the current notions and traditionsof thechurch in their time, using, indeed, fair terms of respect, but not such high strains of court- ship, about him. But they are found in the later Fathers, who being men of wit and eloquence, and affecting in their discourses to vent those faculties, spoke more out of their own invention and fancy. Whence, according to a prudent estimation of things in such a case, the silence or sparingness of the first sort is of more considera- tion on the one hand than the speech, how free soever, of the latter is on the other hand; and we may rather suppose those titles do not belong to St Peter, because the first donot give them, than that they do, because the other are so liberal in doing it. Indeed, if we consult the testimonies of this kind alleged by the Romanists, who, with their utmost diligence have raked all ancient writings for them, it is strange that theycannot find anyveryancient ones; that they can find so fewplausible ones; that they are fain (to make up the number) to produce so many which evidently have no force or pertinency, being only commendationsof his apostolical office or of his personal merits, without relation to [his power over] others. 3. We say that all those terms or titles which they urge are ambiguous, and applicable to any sort of primacy or pre-eminency, to that which we admit no less than to that which we refuse, as by instances from good authors, and from common use, might easily be demonstrated; so that from them nothing can be inferred advan- tageous to their cause. Cicero calls Socrates " Prince of the philosophers," and Sulpitius " Prince of all lawyers:"a would it not be ridiculous thence to infer that Socrates was a sovereign governor of the philosophers, or Sul- pitius of the lawyers? The same great speaker calls Pompey " Prince Nun° enim in consortium individual) unitatis assumptum id quod ipseerat voluit nominasi. P. Leo L, Ep. lxxxix. Nihil a bonorum fonte Deo in quenquam sine Petri participatione transire. P. Leo de Assumpt. sure. Sean., iii. 2 Cic. de Nat. Nor., lib. ii. ; Cic, de Clar. Orat.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=