« AnteriorContinuar »
learned Men, to have been written after he in-
ifa) In festo Cathedra Sti Petri. Serm, 2,
R. C. What say you to the Vindicator's Inference ( a ) from that passage of $. Ferom. Thas bere bis Fellow. Apostles boud also the same Name, because they were the Lights of the World ? This I have nored, p. 41. 10. be an Inference chat foarce can be parallelled.
C. E. If this were apparent of it felf, there would not have needed any art ca disguise the matter, but you might have given us the Father's whole Period, and the Vindicator's own words. Which fince you was not pleased to do, I hope you will pardon me, if I do it for you : The Father's words are these, Sicut ipse lumen Apo! folis
. donavit, Bos As he gave light to the Apostles, that they might be called the Light
of the World: and they received other Appel"lations from him: So also to Simon, who be
lieved in Christ the Rock, he gave the Name • of Peter. And according to the Metaphor of a
Rock, it is rightly said to him, I will build my Church upon Thee. Agreeably wbereto the Vindicator argues thus; Here the words you • refer to denote S. Peter, not his Faith or Profellion, to be the Rock on which the Church
was to be built. But withal you fee, that it Swas: only in common with his Fellow Apo
ftles, to whom the Lord gave the Priviledge of being Lights to the World, whereby to con
duct them to his Church and Religion.”. As much as to say, As our Lord gave the other Apostles the Name of Lights, because they were to enlighten the World with their Doctrine; fo, that is, in like manger, or for the same reason, he called Peter a Rock, and declared, thạt upon him the Church ihould be built, namely, because he was to be the first amongst them, that
(4) Cafe truly fated, p. 151
should thus enlighten" both Jews and Gentiles
. And if you can discover any false Argumentation in this, you may please to quarrel with S. Ferom for it, rather than the Vindicator, who only acquaints us with the whole passage of the Father, and his Design and Intent in it. Which you found it not for your purpose to do.10!?
·S EĆ T: V. R. C. N the next Sedioni it is observed, that
the Vindicator, p. 49. objects, Scotus, Cordubensis, Cajetan, and Bannez. But fince he did not think tweit words worth bis quoting; I do not think them worth my answering: p. 43:
C. E. You may please to remember, that the Vindicator referred you for the sense of these Authors, tò a learned Author of your own, who, whatever he is in French, is, you know, a Catholick in English, Mr. Du Pin; in his Discourse de Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. Dillert. 4. p. 334. Who chete tells us, the Doctrine of these Men was, that • The Episcopate of the City and the World met ' in one only by accident, not by any Divine
Right, or Command of Christ'; so as that the Bishop of Rome is not by a Divine Right S. Peter's Succeffor ; but the Bishop of Paris,
or any other, might be chosen Successor of - S. Peter". And it is worth your while to try, if you can shew they have not faid it, because, till thac be done, they stand as. Witnesses on our Side.
R. C. But what fay you to S. Cyprian?
C. E. From p. 49. you skip back to p. 13. and fay, he shufflles off an Authority of S. Cy
prian, with the Exposicion of Rigaltius, an eminent Commentator, he says, of our Commu
inion'. And tell me, I pray, what shuffing is there in this ? Does he not quote him right? : R. C. I do not deny that. But I say Since
he likes Rigaltius so well, he may take him.' "For he writes like an eminent Calvinist in mas
C. E. This is only because he does not concur with you. But we have not his Opinion only, but of two of the Sorbon Doctors, 4. de Breda, and M. Grandin, who both testify their approbation of his Observations and Notes on S. Cyprian, as also did the fame De Breda, and Mr. Flavigny, another Brother of the Sorbon, for his Notes upon Tertullian. And no reason at all appears, why these may not be as good, or indeed better Judges of the Do&trines of your Church, than Mr. H. or any other such private Author. But it may be you will give all these up too, as well as Rigaltius, for Calvinifts in mailquerade, since they have ventured to recommend á Commentator that is not to your liking.
R. C. Mr. L. says, Nothing that was faid of • S. Peter, is so express for an universal Suprema
cy, as what S. Paul said of himself, 2 Cor. xi. 28. Sand i Cor. vii. 17. p. 44'. but this I have told you, any one might have said as well as. S. Paul; namely, that The Care of all the Churches lies upon me, and so ordain I in all churches.
C. E. But Mr. L's Enquiry was not whether any other of the Apostles might have said this, but whether it was not more express for a Supremacy, than any thing that had been said of St. Peter; and this you do not any way disprove. You say indeed it is fitting, that as every one of the Apoft les bad Jurisdiction over all Christians, excepting bis Fellow Apoiler, so one of them should have. Furisdiction over the reft ; which I utterly deny, and you do not offer at the least Proof of it. So thai
there was no need for St. Paul to say, or the Scripture, for bim, that he was the Man, since you only pre
do one to . Y add, that had this been said of. St. Peter, it mi he have prov'd bis Apostleship, but not his "Supremacy. However, it does not follow from hence that it would not have prov'd his Supremacy, as well as either Upon this Rock,&c.or Feed my Sheep. And both (a) Mr. L. and (b) the Vindicator have urg'd, that had any thing of this nature been said of St. Peter, it would bave been made use of towards proving his universal Supremacy, and even more than the whole New Testament besides ; which is so undeniable, that you do not pretend to make any Reply to it. You make an Excursion indeed, about the Sovereign Power of Princes, in which were you suppos'd for the present to be in the right, you would be never the nearer proving St. Peter to have had a Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles, which was the point to have been maintain'd, had
you known how to do it.
R. C. Tbe Vindicator and Dr. Barrow before him, cry out amain that God's Order is inverted, if St. John after St. Peter's Death was subject to a Disciple, p. 45.
C. E. And how do you disprove either of them ?
R. C. I do not go about it, but only tell them by way of Reproach, if both St. John, and all the other Apostles must truckle (in the Government of the Church) to a Sheep of their own Flock (meaning as Christian Prince] there is no Disorder in the Cafe.
C. E. Then it seems you make no Difference betwixt the Obedience due to a Christian Prince, and that unlimited Subjection which the Roman Pontiff requires. "What Obedience our Church teaches to Princes, I have shewn at the beginning of this Tract; and for that Reason, as well as (A) Cafe ftared, p. g. (6) Cafe truly fated, p. 30.