TWO APOSTLES COULD NOT BE BISHOPS IN ONE CITY. 113 dares to say," argues he, " that St Peter, the prince of the apostles, did not act well when he changed his see from Antioch to Rome? "' But I think it more advisable to excuse St Peter from being author of a practice judged so irregular, by denying the matter of fact laid to his charge; [i.e., denying that he changed his see.] 11. It was anciently deemed a very irregular thing; "contrary," says St Cyprian, " to the ecclesiastical disposition, contrary to the evangelical law, contrary to the unity of catholic institution;"9 " a symbol," says another ancient writer, " of dissension, and disagree- able to ecclesiastical law;"' which therefore was condemned by the synod of Nice, by Pope Cornelius, by Pope Innocent I., and others, that two bishops should preside together in one city.' This was condemned with good reason: for this on the church's part would be a kind of spiritual polygamy; this would render a church a monster with two heads; this would destroy the end of epis- copacy, which is unity and " prevention of schisms."' But if St Peter was bishop of Rome, this irregularitywas com- mitted ; for the same authority upon which St Peter's episcopacy of Rome is built also reckons St Paul bishop of the same; the same writers do make both founders and planters of the Roman church, and the same call both bishops of it. Wherefore, if episcopacy be taken in a strict and proper sense, agreeable to this controversy, that rule must needs be infringed thereby.* Irenæus says, that " the Roman church was founded and consti- tuted by the two most glorious apostles, Peter andPaul;"' Dionysius of Corinth calls it " the plantation of Peter and Paul; "' Epiphanius says, "that Peter and Paul were first at Rome both apostles and bishops; "8 so Eusebius implies, saying that Pope Alexander " de- rived a succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul. "9 Wherefore both of themwere Roman bishops, or neither of them. In reason and rule neither of them may be called so in a strict and Quis enimunquam audet dicere S. Petrum apostolorum principem non bene egisse, quandomutavit sedem de Antiochia in Romani ? "-Pelag. IL, Ep. i. 2 Contra ecclesiasticam dispositionem, contra evangelicam legem, contra institutionis catholicte unitatem, íßc.Cppr., Ep. 44 (ut et Ep. 46, 52, 55, 58). 8 'O órovoias etiato),í iarr xai izzAzOraarrxoU Sla(La; leXlirprov.Soz., iv. 15. 4 Syn. Ric., can. viii.; Corn. ap. Eus., vi. 43; Cypr., Ep. xlvi; P. lnnoc ap. Sozom. viii. 26 ; Opt. I. Cathedra una. a In remedium schismatis.Hier. Most certainly, two apostles could not be both bishops of the same church, in the sense inwhich Romanists hold Peter to have been bishop of Rome. En. e a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romer fundata et constituta ecclesia.fren. iii. 3, iii. 1. 7 Tñv ¿,,, nir?ov zai nav'T.ou (pursiav, &c.Dionys. Corinth., apudEuseb. ii. 26. 8 'Ev'F4 , ysyávee xp;ro nirros xai naj%ag I<vráara:lor ela,ì xai ioriaxaorar.F,piph., Hoer. xxvii. 9 Uh eoerev ásrn' nirpov xai nari).av xaráv" óra8ox . Euseb. iv. L VOL. I. 8
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=