« AnteriorContinuar »
because it is not to the point in hand, I forbear to say any more of it.
R. c. It is obje&ed, St. Peter was the Apostle of the Jews, and they were his peculiar Charge. And yet it must be own'd, that neither bis Jurisdiction was confir'd to the Jews, nor St. Paul's to the Gentiles, P. 45, 46.
C. E. However, since the Gospel of the Circun. cision was committed to him, as that of the Uncircumcision was to St. Paul, Gal. 2, 7, 8, 9. it is a natural Inference that Rome being á Heathen City, St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles should have the
greatest Interest there, and that if St. Peter had had such a Supremacy as you contend for, he Thould not have settled it at Rome, but either at his first See Antioch, or rather at Jerusalem, where were most of the People committed to his Care. And all you offer here to the contrary, is only that he baptiz'd Cornelius, and preach'd sometimes to the Gentiles, as St. Paul did also upon occafion to the Jews ; which might very well be, and yet either the Antiochians or the Jews have the best Right to his See.
R. C. In answer to what is objected about Șt. Paul's withstanding St. Peter to the Face, Gal. 2. 11. I have noted that till Superiors are impeccable, it will always be lawful for Subje&ts to reprehend shem even in Publick, with the Zeal and Charity of St. Paul, p. 46.
C. E. Here the Vindicator (a) profess'd himself persuaded, such an open Opposition would not be allow'd of, as a suitable Carriage' towards your Sovereign Lord the Pope. And you do not prea tend to affirm it would nor can you, I am fatisfied, give any one instance wherein it has been practiced, and not discountenanc'd and severely condemn'd.
(a) Case truly stated, p. 26.
R. C. Here the Vindicator tells us, ift, That according to St. Cyprian, Epift. 71. St. Peter did not infolently claim, or arrogantly affume any thing to himself, as if he bad a Superiority over the reft. 2dly, That Hilary the Deacon, in Gal: 2. 11. says, Saint Paul knew himself invefted with an Equality of Powia er, P. 47
c. E. And does not this fhew that neither of these Fathers look'd upon St. Peter to be invested in such a fupream Authority, as those of your Party afcribe to him?
R. C. They are both fallly translated, Ibid. :**
C, E. This is a harsh Accusation, and I hope you have consider'd it well, before you undertook to fix it upon the Vindicator ; because if you cannot clearly make it out, it will recoil upon your self, and you must bear the Shame of it.
R. C. St. Cyprian does not say, St. Peter did not carry himself insolently, as if be bad the Superiority over the reft, which would plainly signifi that be bad none; but lo as to say that he had the Primacy, which is quite
different, Ibid. C. E. Quite different you say; but will you be so kind as co fhew me wherein the mighty Difference lies. Does not St. Cyprian exprefly affirm (a) that St. Peter did not infolently claim, ot arrogantly asume any thing to himself? This you cannot deny to be a stricter and more unexceptionable Translation of the Words, than what you say, that he did not carry himself insolently. But it seems the Vind cator has not kept much more nicely to the following Words, than you have done to these. He adds, as if he had a Superiority over the rest, and that be ought to be obeyed by the recenteft and latter Apos
Nec Petrus----Vindicavit fibi aliquid infolenter, aut arroganter affumpfit, ut diceret fe primatum tenere, & obtemperari a novellis & pofteris Gibi deberc..
stles; whereas say you it should have been, lo as to say that he had the Primacy, by which you prefently after declare your self to mean the Supremacy; and what advantage you propose to your self by this pretended Emendation is a Mystery
For does not St. Cyprian's Denial of Sc. Peter's insolently and arrogantly claiming or assuming any thing to himself
, so as to Jay that he had the Primacy, and ought to be obey'd by the recentest and Latter Apostles ; does not his. Denial of this concerning the Apostle necessarily imply, that to take upon him to say this, would have been InSolence and Arrogance? And why do you leave out the following Words, insolently and arrogantly, and ought to be obey'd by the recenteft, and latter Apoo fles, but because you found them dire&ly against you. The impartial Reader may easily see from hence, how, unhappy you have been in attempting to corre& the Vindicator's Translation of Saint Cyprian, and how little you have got by it.
R. C. You do not attend to what follows, 'Tis evident that St. Cyprian does not deny the Primacy but only says it would bave been Pride in bim to have mentim'd it in that Circumstance, as it really would.
C. E. I had not forgot this doughty Argument, nor was it for your Interest to remind me of it if I had. For I appeal to your own Eyes, whether you can find any thing like this in St. Cyprian. Lynceus himself would not have been able to difcover it there, nor I am sure can you, how quick fighted soever you may be. St. Cyprian says not one Word of a new Sin of Pride, unless you mean in his Saying St. Peter did not insolently and arrogantly take upon him to say that he had the Primacy, and ought to be obey'd, &c. which is exa&ly, though not the same Words, what the Vindicator had told you; and for which you are offended at him.
R. C. Nay, St. Cyprian, if we will do bim Justice, in that very place pofatively
, owns the Supremacy of St. Peter ; for ibus are bis Words te be render'd. Neither did Peter whom the Lord chose to be the chief, and on whom be built bis Church, when Paul disputed with him about Circumcision fthac is about the Jews) insolently claim, or arrogantly alume any thing to himselfs so as to say, that he had the Primacy. (or Superiority above the relt)
and that be ought to be obey'd by the recenteft and lajte Apostles. If Primum were an adverb, it would fignify thas St. Pecer was a more ancient Disciple than St. Andrew, contrary to St. John 1. V. 40. 41, 42. It muft then be an Adjective, and denote shut he was chosen to be the chief, or, chosen to be the forft
C. R. Here it is of no great Consequence as to the Business we are upon, that you say about Circumcision, that is about the Jews ; though it is certain there is no reason for this Nore of yours. For Circumcifion here is meant to signify, what it most properly does in other places, cogether with the other Rites and Usages of the Law. In which St. Peter had at Antioch been too conipliant co che Jews there, not out of any hyprocritical Design of recommending himself to their good Opinion; but leaft the contrary Practice Thould have had an ill Influence upon them, and prejudiced them against Christianity, by their obferving a greater Freedom ufed there amongst the Gentiles, chan was cuttomary ac Jerusalem amongst the Feries. The whole Dispute was not about the People of the Jews, but their Ceremonies and Customs, and manner of living, v. 14. and chereførę why Circumcision in chis place must siga - nify the Jews, is what I cannot comprehend ; this I take to be very plain. Neverthelefs, being
as I said of little or no Importance as to our prefen: Business, I choose rather to proceed to what is of more immediate concern to us. Which is that you affirm, that our Lord cbofe Peter to be the chief (amongst his Apostles ;] 'and you give this reaton for it, thar to suppose Primum to be an Adverb, and intimate only that he was first call'd is contrary to St. Jobn 1. 40, 41, 42. Now I must freely own that I am very averse from any wise contradiding the Holy Scripture ; but then I must beg of you to help me our, as to the proof of this Assertions being contradiátory to the Doctrine of St. John, for I cannot see that it is so. For though from hence it appears that St. Andrew was first call to be a Disciple, yet that St. Peter was first constituted an Apostle, I take to be plain from St. Mat. 10. 2. and St. Luke 6. 14. and I would as unwillingly contradict esther of these Evangelists as St. Fobn. But I see no occasion for contradiding either; for do but admit, which I think cannot with any reason be denied, that St. Andrew firft met with our Lord and was admitted a Disciple ; but withal, that he was not invested first in the Apostolate, but his Brother (a) St. Peter, as these Evangelists teach in the places I mention'd, and the Difficulty is presently over. And yet farther, if I should admit Primum to be an Adjective as you would have it, though you can never prove it so, you could never make more of it than that St. Peter, whether (6) as eldest of
(a) Hence he is ftiled 'A mapxin em a mosów, the forf Fruits of the Apostles, by Modeftus Arch-bishop of Ferufa: lem ; apud Phot, Biblioth. Cod. 275. And Theophyla&t, speaking of him and his Brother - St. Andrew, fays, sego Thonor de neteov rý 'Aydpíar sión vej opatóximos, be gives the Prejerence to Peter and Andrew, because they were firft called, in loc.
(6) Atari delatum eft, quia Petrus senior crat. B. Hierom. c. Fovin. 1. 1. c. 14. Primum decuit refpondere, ut idem eflet ordo refponfionis, qui erat honoris, & ipse antecedere confessione, qui antecedebat ætate,Caffian, de Incarn, Dom. I. 3. c, 12.