« AnteriorContinuar »
C. E. It were a much better inference, therefore they were Co-founders with him; and had no Dependence upon him. As after all you have offered to the contrary, it must be confessed they had not ; they being no more built upon him, than he was upon them; which was not at all.
R. C. The Humility of the Apostles, and the much greater of their Prince, hews the vanity of near one balf of Dr. Barrow's Obje&tions against 3. Peter's Supremacy: Who tells us, There was nothing of the Papal Stile in St. Peter's Epistles, p. 33.
C. E. Here to maintain S. Peter's supposed Supremacy, you stick not to throw dirt upon his Successors the Popes, whom you acknowledge to have used a different and more Authoritative Stile than he. Which I leave you to answer to your own Party ; only begging leave of you to take notice, that Dr. Barrow's Objetions are no way invalidated by a vain surmise of S. Peter's having a Jurisdiction, which he never thought fit to make use of; and your resolving all into his Humility, is no better than a begging the Question, which you ought to have proved.
R. C. After what I have said, p. 35, 36. I hope you will not infift, that S. Peter's Supremacy is a Dishonour to Christ, the only Supreme Head of the whole Church, S. Peter as well as others.
C. E. I do not love Differences where they can fairly be avoided. And I will therefore freely confess to you, that I do not apprehend your Writers, to magnify the imaginary Supremacy of S. Peter, in opposition to that of our Saviour, but as subordinate to it. And so we are both agreed in that Point; I wish we were as well in the other Disputes that are be
R.C. Mr. L. assures us, the Rock on which Christ Said he would build his Church, was not S. Peter, but the Faith which Peter then confeffed, and cites divers of the Fathers to prove it. And his Vindicator adds others to them; which surely will be epough to degrade S. Peter, p. 37.
C. E. They are unquestionably enough to shew, that the Reftater was grofly mistaken (6) when he disallow'd of Mr. L's Fathers for the Proof of their teaching the Rock mention'd by our Saviour to be S. Peter's Confession and not his Person; and defied bim, and all his Party, to hew any Pelage, of any Father, that excludes S. Peter. Which Challenge of his, the Vindicator undertook to answer, and you have not been able to mako any tolerable Reply to him. First, having obi served, that Mr. L's Testimonies ftand firm and unshaken, next, he confiders those of the Rę ftater, and shews the weakness and insufficiency thereof, and then fübjoins some other Authorities in confirmacion of what Mr. L. had offered; which you would do well to consider of.
R. C. I know it very well, and have told you, Mr. L's Six Fathers, are taken out of a nameless and Shameless Pamphlet, call'd, Friendly and Seasonable Advice to the Roman Catholicks of England, p. 374
C. E. Bona verba quæfo ; would a little civiler Language have done any harm ? That Mr. L's Fathers are all in that learned Author, is news to me. But supposing they were, are they ever the worse for that. I hope that has not taken away the force of what they say. You do not deny the Truth of it, and it is therefore ftill to be looked upon as good Evidence, till some way or other disproved." But as to Mr. L. fup
(F) Case Reftated, p. 11.
posing posing this Author and him, to have cited the fame Authors, and to the fame' purpose, might not this be,' without his having taken them from the other, Hand over bead, as you express it And again, This is indeed a Nameless Tract; but why must it be a Shameless one too? It is fóberly and learnedly written, and, as I thought, when I read it formerly, with very good Judgment. And I cannot think, why you should treat it in this scurrilous manner ; but only that it.pinches a little too close, and has made you angry. But be that as it will'; it is enough for my purpose, that the Citations here produced, are such as you do not pretend to disprove, which is a just reason for every one to conclude you could not. Besides, to fortify this proof, so well estabļished before, and fully to answer the Reflater's Challenge, the Vindicator produces several others a
R. C. I have already told you, he reckons S. Justin, Theodoret and Theophylact; to which be adds Palladius, and a Saxon Homily quoted by Bede. "C. E. To whom, if you had pleased, you might have subjoined S. Cyril of Alexandria, and S. Auguftine, for their Testimonies are as legible at least, as any of the other. To whom I add now also (a) Modestus, Archbishop of Jerusalem." And pray what have you to say to them all?
R. C. I make a jeft of it, and tell you ironically, These surély will be enough to degrade St. Peter.
C. E. It is well you have no bercer a Reply to make. You know many å true word is spoken in jest; and yet never the less true for that.
(α) Πίτες ωνομάθ» δια τίω ασέλλον πίςιν ήν έχεν ini kesdy tlu itegvi Mod. Arch. Hierof. apud Phot. Bibl.
R.C. A little after I nibble at three of your Authors, and tell you, they are bur Ninth Rate Fathers, and so will do but little Service, p. 38.;
C. E. A notable piece of Wit I profess: But it would have done well if there had been some Argument in it. Only the Case would not admit of it.
R. C. I do not take upon me to disprove your having the Fathers on your side, as to the Interpretation of S. Peter's being the Rock, Bat then give me leave to acquaint you, that Their Oppofsa rion can be of no great weight. For denying one particular Proof, is not denying the Conclusion, ibid. C. E. This is plain
dealing, and a downright giving up the Cause as to S. Matt. 16. 18. And now I have this reasonable Request to make so you; That not being able to maintain your Construction of this place, you will no more undertake, to argue from it, as if you could. .
R. C. I have fewn already, that if any of the Ancients understood the Rock, either of Christ, ortof S. Peter's Faith, they must either bave applied it to a Moral or Causal Sense, or mistaken the Literal. Ibid.
C. E. That is, you find they are manifestly against you, and therefore think it necessary to declare them unacquainted with the true Meaning of the Text; and to defy all Musters of them, how true, or how numerous foever ; as you do in the next words. They either take the words, as I noted before, in you know not what Sense, or else they don't understand them. Very well. But we know in what Sense they take them, and are very well content with it, and challenge you to disprove it when you can. Which, since you are sensible you cannot do, it is not so very fair to argue from a Personal Promise to S. Peter; as you do in reference to Abraham, and the Promise made to him ; which was certainly a Perfonal Promile, though it is granted bis Faith was ibe Occasion of it.
fonal R. C. And is not that a sufficient Answer to him?
R. C. You are as positive, as if you had cacried your Cafe, and yet you cannot but see, P. 40. &c. that I have a stock of Fathers for you, that are express for $. Peter's being the Rock spoken of by our Lord.
C. E. However, I presume, you will allow, that in those places, they are to be understood in such a Sense, as is confiftent with these other. Which can no way be so well done, as by supposing the Church to be built upon S. Peter, only as he first after ourLord laid the Foundation of it;by preaching firft among both Jews and Gentiles, as the Vindicator ( a ) urged before. It is matter of fact, that this was S. Peter's Province, and this is what feemed to have been promised him, if any thing was promised to him, more than to the rest, in S. Matt. 16. 18. I do not observe that any of them speak inconfiftently with this Notion, and some of them, as well as some others, declare themselves for it. Thus S. Bafil describes S. Peter to be, Tag : siston vs4 xu đỏ sao? Tui xac vuay vi bixanoias de Eduerov, him who, through the excellenty of bis Faith, took upon him the Building of the Church. Before whom, 'Tertullian says exprelly (b) In ipso Ecclesia extructa eft, id eft, per ipsum, In, or uponi, him was the Church built, that is by him. Than which nothing could be more clear for our Sense of this Promise of our Saviour. But to this you are pleased to object, P. 29. that this was after he was fallen into Heresy.
C. E. I conceive not, for two Reasons. Because most of his Writings being supposed, by
(a) Case truly fiated, p. 19.
(6) De Pudic. ci 21.