« AnteriorContinuar »
the Apostles, or because of his free Confession of
C. E. I hope no more than St. Cyprian's, and then we are safe enough.
R. C. He only says St. Paul knew himself to be equal in the Assurance of his Election ; that is, cholen by Christ as infallibly to the Apostleship as any of the Twelve,
*C. E. This is great News to me, for I thought Sciens so non imparem, had denoted St. Paul's full Affurance that he was truly equal to St. Peter, and Gonsequently was inuefed with an equality of Power. And if so, pray where is the Falsification you
fo much complain of? L2
R. C. Do you make nothing chen of these words, Fiducid electionis fuæ, in affucande of his Ele&ion?
C: E. I see you make a great deal of them, or else you would not complain fo of Mif-translation ; but I doubt you will not get much by them. For all I can understand by them is that St Paul in the assurance of his Election to the Apostolace, that is to fay, being fully affured thar he was elected to be an Apostle, as certainly as any of the reft, hereby knew that he was not inferiour to St. Peter: This I take to be the Deacon's undoubted Mean, ing, and you' may try either to prove it is not, or to fhew it does not directly make againilt you.
R. C. Dr. Barrow it feems is against you, for he renders the Words thus, Who dard refiftPeter the first Apoftle; to whom our Lord, did give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but such an one, who in assurance of bis Eletion knowing Dimfely not to be unequal to him, might constantly disprove what he had unad viledly done?
C. E. Though I cannot but think the Doctor would render improbaret, disapprove, rather than disprove; yet the rest of the Translation I am ready to take upon Content; for I cannot find it in the 78th Page of my Edition And now let us fee what you will get by it. There is no dif ference fo much as pretended between ehe Dr, and the Vindicator, in any part of the Sentence, save only in these words. Qui fiducid Ele&tionis fuæ sciens (e non imparem, which you take to mean no more than thar St. Paul knew him elft to be chosen by Cbriff as infallibly to the Apoftteship, as any of the twelve. But does Dr. Barrów Pay fo too? By no means. He only says of that Apoftle, who in assurance of bis Ele&tion, knowing himself to be not snegual to him, &c. as much as co say, who being
fally affur'd of his Ele&ion to the Apostolate, knew himself to be not unequal to St. Peter. This I look upon'as the properest meaning of the Doctor's Words, as it is also of the Vindicator's; and I cannot possibly see therefore wherein the Fallificacion lies, unless on your own side; or why the Vindicator does noc still entirely recain his right to the Title of Philalerbes,
R. C. Mr. L. says, it little became the other Apositles; 'to send their Sovereign upon Business, as they fent Peter to Samaria, A&t. 8. 14. whereas in publiek Concerns it is not an unusual thing, for the whole Body to depute their Superior, p. 49.
C. E. Supposing the Superior offer himself to go
and intercede for them, or any way to treat in their behalf, it is not co be fuppos'd his Inferiors should refuse to accept of his Kindness, and publickly to testify their concurrence with him. But this is not properly to send him. And this I take to be all that was in the Case of Ishmael's and his Companions Expedition to Nero in behalf of the Jews, as Fafephus relates it, Antig. l.20. c. 7. And yet I dare undertake you cannot give an instance of a Pope's being ever thus sent by those under his Charge. And is it not exceeding ftrange then, that St. Peter from whom the Popes profefs to derive all their Power, fhould have been fene in such a manner by his known Inferiors and Subjects? Nothing can be said for it, bụt only that you and your Friends are resolved it shall be To...
· R. C. Mr. L. argues; do you think one could write tbe History of King Charles the Ild, and neither call bim King, nor tell of any regal A&t be ever did; and then tells us, in the History which we have of she Acts of the Apostles," there is no evident instance of St. Peter's Supremacy, p. 49.
C. E. Upon this you take occasion to enlarge for three or four Pages together ; where yet you offer nothing but what is easily answer'd, but there being nothing in them that relates to the Vindicator, I pass them over as not to my present purpose, nor suiting with my intended Brevity.
Rec. Mr. L. puts us next in mind of the Coun. cil ar Jerusalem related, Ait. is, where he says boil of them were present, and there is not a tittle of any Superiority of St. Peter over St. Paul, adding moreover very confidently, that St. James
, che Bishop there, did, as President, resume what had been said by, St. Peter and others, and gave his definitive Sentence upon the wholes and the Decree was drawn up in bis Words, p. 53:
C. E. From hence you seek to impose upon the Reader, with an imaginary Precence of the Jewville Chriftians accusing St. Paul as a Deceiver, who taught falso Do&rine at Ansjoch, and an Agreement hereupon on both sides to refer the Cafe co the Church of Ferwsalem, not to a Synod of the Apostles, and not as Judges impower'd by our Saviour to illue out Orders in Cales of this na, ture, but only as Arbitrators chosen by the Perfons concern'd, and who refer'd their Cause to them; which I call an inaginary Pretence, because we find nothing of it in St. Luke's Rela, tion of this Synod. Nor could the Reftater pick any thing out of it; for (a) he readily owns it to have been an Apoftolical Council, and pleads ghough to little purpose, (as the Vindicator (b) has plainly shewn, and you have not attempred to answer him, ) that St. Peter presided in it. The Vindicator has added befides, a Question which you will not quickly answer. () What Promise
(a) Cafe Reftated, p. 18, 19. (6) Case truly Aated, p. 36. 37, 38, 39, 40 () 40, 41
bave you, that whosoever should prefide in sha Council, should be supream Paftor of bewbole Churcb? Or what other Title to this Supremacy can you plead, from what was said or a&ted iberein? It is matter of Fait, thar you will not allow St. James such a fuperemiwent Jurisdiétim, though' says he, I bave prov'd bine to have prefided there. And it is too much to expect
be yielded to St. Peter, whom I bave proud to have been, and need there, only as as Fellows Apostle. This he said in answer to the Reftater, who would 'needs have this Council prove the Supremacy of St. Peter, againft which he argu'd as in the Words but now cited. neither own him to have been mistaken, though by youf manner' of proceeding you must be of Opinion that he was fo; nor do you undertake to support his Plea. But to make amends for this Defea, you have brought a heavy Charge against the Vindicator.
R. C. The Vindicator bere in one Sentence gives ws a double Caft of this Art, p. 59.
C. E. Then you have discover'd him to be grown a notable Man at Trick and Artifice, chat he should give you one Breach; and no doubt in some matter of mighty Consequence, because otherwise it were not worth his while to run the Hazard of expofing himself fo shamefully.
R. C. 11, instead of he (meaning James the Bishop of Ferufalem be puts this Apoftle, ibid.
C. E. A wonderful Caft of his ArtBeing " the very same thing that St. Paul, I hope without any Caft of Art, says, Gal. 1. 19. in these words, other of the Apostles raw 1 none, Jade James she Lord's Brother, i humbly conceive St. Paul may have the favour of being excused for calling St. James an Apoftle; but for the poor Vindicator, ic was certainly a Cast of his Art, and not to be forgiven. Now quod difimilis res eft, fed quod qui