« AnteriorContinuar »
facit. The Egregiousness of this Artifice may be learnt also from Clemens Alexandrinus in the 6th and 7th Books of his Hypotypoleis, or more readily from Eufebius, H. Eccle. 1. 2. C. I. Buc enough of this, if not too much for an Objeion no better founded, and of no more consequence to the matter in Hand.
R. C. 2dly, He translates jegyáan greater, which every School Boy knows 10 be wrong, Ibid.
C. E. It is true, every School-Boy knows mézóan is not hoitav, and so this is not a literal rendring of the Word. But I suppose the Vindicator did not think himself oblig'd any more than others, to keep always to the Letter of his Author, lo he - but took care to keep to his Sense. And this I think he has truly done, buc if you can shew he has not, you have my free Consent to chastise him as severely as you please.
R. C. The Vindicator (a) cites Hefychius of Ferufalem saying, in relation to the Council that we have been disputing about, Isteys dimungoga, en* Pla'xmlos vouo Solas doc. Peter Speeches it, but Si James determines, and bis Determination was not to be set afide, nor bis Sentence to be fighted.
c. E. But you have a more answer for him, and full of Contempt. For the Declamation of. (b) Hesychiuso--it is not worib taking notice of, p. 60. No besure, since ic is directly againit you, it is but fit co throw it aside, as of no Consideration ; which is a very expeditious way of answering,
(a) Case truly stated, p. 40. (b) of Hesychius you say, whom some place in the fifth Century: Mr. Du Pin in the 6tb and 7th. By which I cannot tell what you mean, unless
you would have it thought, that he was of too late a ftanding to have any regard paid to his Authority. And yet I cannot tell how to believe this, when you make no difficulty of quoting others as late; and even St. Bernard, · who liv'd twice as long after our Saviour as Hefychius is thought by foine to have done.
and muft necessarily be exceedingly satisfactory to an inquisitive Reader. But it is only to fatisfy him, that you have nothing to reply to so pac and clear an Evidence on our side. But if Hesychius though a Patriarch be below your Novice, why muft the great St. Chryfoftom be fo too? The Vina dicator had appeald to St. Chryfoftom as well as Hefychius for the proof of St. James's presiding in the Council at Jerusalem, and they having both declared it fo plainly, that you knew not what Reply to make to them, the Testimony of one you call a Declamation, and Nightingly say it is not worth taking notice of, and the other you take no notice at all of, as if the Vindicator had hever mention'd him. And this perhaps you may call answering. But had the Vindicator been guilty of such unfair Dealing, it is easy to guess what you would have said of him.
R. C. Mr. L. Says, In this Council there is not à tittle of any Superiority of St. Peter over Saint Paul. Then 'tis likely St. Peter came not to give his Vote; which yet the Vindicator is pleas'd to allow him, p. 62.
C. E. So far as I can trace out the Vindicator's Mind, I ain not at all sensible that he had the least thought of your Dream about St. Paul's Tryal at Jerusalem, with which you have made such a pother; but only that being conciliarily assembled; they issued forth a Determination, as to what Observations the Gentiles were oblig'd to submit to; namely, that they should abstain from Meats offer’d to Idols
, from Blood, from things strangled, and from Fornication, Act. 15. 29. Which was the proper business of a Council, and shews they met for the Instrudion of the Church committed to their Charge, and neither as Judges of St. Paul, nor Arbitrators betwixe him and the Jews at Ana tioch, as you would have it thought, but without any reason for it.
R. C. The Vindicator bas found out a new Ammo Swer, p. 45. The Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon, an. 451. say, The Patriarchal Privileges were given to Rome by the Fathers, because it was the Imperial City, p. 85.
C. E. And are they not the very Words of the Canon ?
R. C. St. Leo would never approve this Canon, Ibid.
C. E. If by approving, you mean he would not confirm it, as I suspect you do; the Vindicator (a) has told you from Eusebius, Sozomen, and Mr.Juftell, that he had no such Power of Confirmation. And so there was no need of it. But why would he not approve this Canon?
R. C. Because it was repugnant to the more ancient Council of Nice, in making, Conftantinople a Patriarchal See, and giving it ibe Preference before Alexandria and Antioch, Ibid.
C. E. Will you please then to prove that an Oecumenical Council had not a Power to erect a Patriarchate, where they should see it proper; or to aslign its Place and Order ? Otherwise you can never defend Pope Leo's refusal in this respect. And yet could this have been done, what were it to the Point we are upon, of Romes having a Pri. macy, or Precedence of all other Patriarchates granted it, because of its being the Imperial City, Για το βασιλν τω πόλιν έκαναν ?
R C. But the Pope's Patriarchal Dignicy is not bis Supremacy, Ibid.
c. E. But it is all the Dignity the Council attributed to him ; who knew nothing of your imaginary Supremacy.
R. C. In the fixth Century the Emperor Justinian Says, We decree according to the Decisions of the four holy Councils, that the most holy Pope of (4) Cafe truly fated, p. 47.
Old Rome, take place of all other Bishops ; and the most blessed Arch-bishop of Conftantinople, the New Rome, hold the second Rank, and be preferid before all others, Ibid.
C. E. And is not this a farther Confirmation of the Bishop of Rome's having his Precedence given him, not by virtue of a suppos'd Supremacy, but out of regard to the Imperial City ?
R. C. I have not pretended to deny that: But only I take notice that the Vindicator says, Which Constitutions I take to explain that of Irenæus, and that propter potenciorem principalitatem, figa nifies the peculiar Power and Privileges of Rome, given it by Councils and Emperors, Ibid.
C. E. This is personal, and affects the Vindicator. himself, more than the Cause we are upon. And if he has not expressid himself as he ought to have done, I hope that without Offence I may take the liberty to put his Argument in a better Light, thus; which Conftitutions I take to explain Irenæus's Potentiorem Principalitatem, since it is upon the fame reason, that the peculiar Power and Privileges of Rome, bave been fince given it by Councils and Emperors. The Vindicator's Design was only to fhew that the Respect paid to the See of Rome in Irenæus's Time, and the Privileges confer'd upon it since by Councils and Emperors, were upon the account of that Cities being the Head of the Empire, and the Seat of the Emperor. And this being once clear'd, it matters not much, as to the Cause we are upon, whether the Vindicator had express’d himself so cautiously as he ought to have done or not. So thac upon the whole, for ought I can fee, the Proof of St. Peter's Supremacy lies yet upon your hands, and is as far from being made out, as when you first began.
R. C. S. Prosper's Testimony the Vindicator excepts to, because ic is a Poem, so are the Psalms,
c. E. But the Vindicator tells you farther, (a) that Poets and Panegyrifts being wont frequently to give a loose to their Fancies, you cannot build much upon a particular Phrase or Expression in them., And accordingly their unusual Flights are never to be reckon'd upon, as of equal autbority with the plain Expressions of graver and more instructive Writers. Then he pro ceeds to a more particular Consideration of the Words of Prosper, to shew they do not bear what you would have infer'd from them. And to this you say nothing, except that the Psalms are a Poem ; though I hope all Poems are not to be compar'd with these, and that Prosper's was a Doga matical Poem, and which Mr. Du Pin professes to be the most considerable Piece, which S, Prosper composed about Grace. Which is no answer at all to the Vindicator's Allertions, chac Poetical Flights are often times to have an allowance made for them; and that besides the Words confider'd in themselves do not answer your Expectation.
R. C. Wbat Prosper said in Verse, St. Leo deliver'd from the Pulpit, Ibid. C. E. And what says the Vindicator here?
R. C. The Vindicator cries out it is a Panegyrick, p. 90.
C. E. And is it not ?
R. C. But it is not a Panegyrick upon the City of Rome, Ibid.
C. E. Does a Panegyrist then, never lanch out upon any other matter, but that which is the principal subject of his Oration:
R. C. Besides this, it is looked upon with a great deal of Reason, as one of the beß Sermons of St. Leo, Ibid.
(a) Cafe truly ftated, p. 50. 51.