The History of the Popes: From the Foundation of the See of Rome, to the Present Time, 3rd Ed. Vol. 1Bower, Archibald
History
The History of the Popes: From the Foundation of the See of Rome, to the Present Time, 3rd Ed. Vol. 1
Bower, Archibald
Catholic Church -- History; Papacy -- History; Popes -- Biography
St. _Peter_, either alone, or jointly with St. _Paul_, as we read in
_Irenæus_, and in the Apostolical Constitutions[64], appointed other
Bishops of _Rome_. Now, when he appointed others, did he resign his
Episcopacy, or retain it? If he resigned it, he did not die Bishop of
_Rome_; which shakes the very Foundation of the Pope’s Claim to
Supremacy: if he retained it, there were Two Bishops on the same See at
one time; which Pope _Innocent_ I. in his Epistle to the Clergy and
People of _Constantinople_, condemned as an Irregularity never known
till his Time[65]: he did not, it seems, recollect that it had been
practised by his Predecessor Pope _Peter_. _Theodoret_ tells us, in his
Ecclesiastical History, that when the Emperor _Constantius_ would have
had _Felix_ to sit in the See of _Rome_, together with _Liberius_, upon
the Return of the latter from Banishment, the People of _Rome_ would not
content to it, crying out, _One God, one Christ, one Bishop_. _Felix_
died soon after, and upon his Death _Theodoret_ makes the following
Remark: _It was_, says he, _a special Providence, that_ Peter_’s Throne
might not suffer Infamy, being held by Two Prelates_[66]. He did not
consider, or rather did not believe, that it had been held by St.
_Peter_ and St. _Paul_, by St. _Pater_ and by _Linus_.
[Sidenote: _St._ Peter _Bishop at_ Rome, _not of_ Rome.]
To conclude, St. _Peter_ was perhaps Bishop at _Rome_, not of
_Rome_[N2]. He was Bishop at _Rome_, if he ever was there, being, in
virtue of his Apostleship, impowered to discharge, at _Rome_, and
every-where else, all Episcopal Functions; but was not specially Bishop
of _Rome_, or any other Place; that is, he did not take upon him the
Charge of any particular Bishop, the Administration of any particular
Bishoprick, that being inconsistent both with the Dignity and Office of
an Apostle, or universal Bishop.
-----
Footnote N2:
'Tis a Distinction made by a Pope, _King in_ Etruria, _not of_
Etruria.
-----
Footnote 10:
Arnob. l. 2. in Gent.
Footnote 11:
Cyril. catech. 6.
Footnote 12:
Euseb. l. 2. c. 14.
Footnote 13:
Iren. l. 2. c. 20.
Footnote 14:
Tert. de anim. c. 24.
Footnote 15:
Hier. de vir. illustr. c. 2.
Footnote 16:
Justin. apol. 2.
Footnote 17:
Cyr. cat. 17.
Footnote 18:
Hier. in Isai. xi. 14.
Footnote 19:
Athan. ad Drac.
Footnote 20:
Chrys. ad Hebr. præf.
Footnote 21:
Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 17.
Footnote 22:
Greg. in Joh. xxiii. 22.
Footnote 23:
Concil. tom. 2. p. 1245.
Footnote 24:
Act. xi. 2. xv. 7. Gal. i. 18. ii. 9. Gal. ii. 11. 1 Pet. v. 13. 1
Cor. i. 12.
Footnote 25:
1 Pet. v. 13.
Footnote 26:
Euseb. l. 2. c. 15.
Footnote 27:
Hier. vir. illust. c. 8.
Footnote 28:
Bed. tom. 5. p. 713.
Footnote 29:
Oecu. p. 526.
Footnote 30:
Grot. synops. in Pet.
Footnote 31:
Vide Grot. ib. p. 1541.
Footnote 32:
Pears. oper. posth. p. 56, & seq.
Footnote 33:
Coloss. iv. 11.
Footnote 34:
2 Tim. iv. 6.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account