Barrow - BX1805 .B3 1852

156 FACTS IRRECONCILABLE WITH PAPAL SUPREMACY. mon quarrel, as Cyril; divers of them lived in places and times wherein he had got much sway, as all the western bishops; that he had then improved his authority much beyond the old limits ;that all the bishops of the western or Latin churches had a peculiar dependenceonhim, especially after that, by the advantageof his station, by favour of the court, by colour of the Sardican canons, by voluntary deferences and submissions, by several tricks, he had wound [insinuated] himself to meddle in most of their chief affairs;' that hence various bishops were tempted to admire, to court, to flatter him; that various aspiring popes were apt to encourage the commenders of their authority, which they themselves were apt to magnify and inculcate ;considering, I say, such things, it is a won- der that, in so many voluminous discourses, so little should be said favouring this pretence, so nothing that proves it, so much that crosses it, so much, indeed, as I hope to show, that quite over- throws it! If it be asked, how we can prove this? I answer, besides [not to mention that] who [ever] carefully peruses those old books will easily see it, that we are beholden to our adversaries for proving it to us when they least intended us such a favour: for that no clear and cogent passages for proof of this pretence can be thence fetched is sufficiently evident from the very allegations which, after their most diligent raking in old books, they produce; the which are so few, and fall so very short of their purpose, that without much stretching they signify nothing. 28. It is monstrous [most strange] that, in thecode of the catholic church, consisting of the decrees of so many synods, concerning eccle- siastical order and discipline, there should not be one canon directly declaring his authority, nor any mention niade of him except thrice accidentally,once upon occasion of declaring the authority of the Alexandrine bishop, the others upon occasion of assigning to the bishop of Constantinople the second place ofhonour and equal pri- vileges with him.' If it be objected that these discourses [arguments] are negative, and therefore of small force, I answer, that therefore they are most proper to assert such a negative proposition; for how canwe other- wise better show a thing not to be, than by showing it to have no footstep where it is supposed to stand? 'How can we more clearly argue a matter of right to want proof, than by declaring it not to be extant in the laws grounding such right, not taught by themasters ' Tqç 'Pruptaiorn ivrirwovr-4; Sf. o' ç sit 'AX, ,l?irn srspa sñf ¡y,,í,5; [ai levaoseiav min áxai ap,vxtUen;.Socr. vii. 11. "The bishopric of Rome is like to that of Alex- andria, having now long ago arrived to that height of power above and beyond the priesthood." I Conc. Nie., can. vi.; Conc. Const., can. ii.; Conc. Chale., can. xxviii.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=