صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

not difpute the Truth of the Citation, but both you and S. Auguftin acknowledge and confirm it, only you bring in S. Auguftin teftifying what Caufes he thought S. Cyprian meant the Bishops were to judge of. v. Which is perfectly befides the Queftion S. Cyprian speaks of the Perfons that were to be the Judges, and the Relation they flood in to each other grand you cite S. Auguftin fpeaking of the nature of the Causes to be judged by them; as if we were at crofs Questions.





R. C. But this is only my first Exceptions I note farther, that what the Vindicator renders aça cording to the Extent of his Liberty and Power, is in S. Cyprian, Pro licentia libertatis & poteftatis fuæs which Dr. Barrow rightly tranflates, Upon the ac count of his Liberty and Power. Ibid.s to var D


C. E. ham not convinced that the Vindicator's Translation of the word Licentia, in this place, is not at least as proper, as that of Dr. Barrow. But if this please you better, pray take it, and make your best of it. S. Cyprian indeicher Cafe is sel qually against you. The Vindicator immediately added another Authority, which you thought beft to be buried in filence, namely, S. Auguftin Seems to have apprehended no fuch difference between the forenamed Stephen and S. Cyprian, when the fays, They were two Bishops of moft eminent Churches, the Roman and the Carthaginian.And in truth, it would feem very ftrange, if any one of your Communion, having occafion to fpeak of the Bishop of Rome, and of Reims, or Toledo, fhould make no more difference between them than to fay, They were two Bishops of most eminent Churches. But it feems this was no im propriety in S. Cyprian's time, how much foever it be fo now, Danled O juf stl to 7269 SR.G.The Vindicator proceeds, po 46S5 Cypris an, Lib. de unit. Eccl. pofitively afferts, that what S. Peter


[ocr errors][ocr errors]





S.. Peter was, the James also were the other Apoftless
endued with a like Bartnership of Honour and Power,
pad233nivlifies witluguts i no load wa
eqCE And does not S. Cyprian fay fo
ARCYes, molti certainly. Wherefore my
Charge against the indicator, in this place, is not
for any thing he fays, but for what he does not
fay. Why did not the Vindicator deal so fairly with
his Reader, as to let him know the very next words of
S. Cyprian? It is not impoffible to guefs. For
the words immediately following are thefe, in the Oxford
Edition, But the Beginning (prings from an Unity, that
the Church may be fhewed to be que Here Philales
thes is penned in on all fides. For the words immediate
by foregoing were thefe; Yer Chrift to fhew the
Unity of the Church, ordered, by his own Au
thority, that one should be the Original of that
very Unity, p. 124.
SC. E. He is fadly penn'd in indeed! But
wherein lies his Fault. He was treating about
the Equality of the Apoftles, and cites S. Cyprian
to teftify it, as he does it very plainly; and you
quarrel with him, for not leaving the Subject he
was then upon, to relate what S. Cyprian lays ar
the fame time, concerning the Unity of the
Church That is to fay, you know not how to
forgive him, only because he would keep to the
Argument he was engaged in, and not imperti-
nently run off to another. But others, it is to be
hoped, will not condemn him for sticking to the
Business he was upon, though you are pleased to
do it Yet had the Vindicator been as faulty
here as you would have him thought to have
beenga it would very ill have become you to
charge him with it as you do; who in the first
Part of the True Church (hewn, &c. p. 27. giving
an account of Beringarius's Recantation, in the
Year 1995, have thefe words, That Bread and
1999 20


[ocr errors]

Wine, when they are confecrated upon the Allansare 2 truly and effentially changed into the Body and blood of -our-f.ord; but take care to conceal the very ext words, wherein the Recantor profeffes them, o be truly handled by the rifts, and broken, and chewed by the Teeth of the Faithful. Sed in vetime 26 manibus Sacerdotum tractari, & fidelium dentibus Catteri, Baron. Annal 105, n. 13. Which being much more to the purpofe we were here treating of, than what you charge as an Omiffion in the Vindicator was to his, I hope I may fairly be sexcufed, if I take the liberty of faying in your own words, why this was done, It is not impossible to guess.



ved that bind R. C. But what can you fay to what follows in the next Paragraph. This Authority over the other Apostles, you fay, Chrift promifed, S. Matt. xvi. 16. 18. But he did not give it the first day of bis Refurrection, S. John xx. 21. When be laid, As my Father hath fent me, fo do I fend you; I Re ceive ye the Holy Ghoft, &c. For the Power, which he gave his Apostles by these words, aras equat But in the last Apparition, defcribed by S. John, Chep xxi. 15, 16, 17. he fulfilled his Promife, P. 124814

C. E.There is nothing in thefe words, but has been fufficiently confider'd already, and fhewn to be far from anfwering your high Pre tences, which are much better prefumed, than proved from thefe, or any other words in Scrip ture, or from S. Cyprian, or any other of the Primitive Fathers. This Authority over the other Apostles, you Jay, Chrift promifed S. Matt. xvi 18. But I have told you, I can find no fuch Promife in the words. Our Saviour promises there that S. Peter, (fuppofing him, and not rather his Faith or Confeffion, or our Lord Chrift, whom he thus confeffed, to be the Rock here fpoken of; though you have feen, that many




[ocr errors]


the Fathers had not this Notion of our Saviour's toPromife; upon this Suppofition, I fay, our Saxviour may juftly be concluded to promife there, tabat St Peter) fhould be hrft employed in laying S. the Foundation of his Church amongft both fews sand Gentiles, as he certainly did. And you have amot yet made, nor will ever be able really to gmake more of this Promife. And yet till you scan do it, it is but vain to depend upon this as a full proof of what it does not prove at all. In the next place, you freely own our Saviour's Commiffion given to his Apoftles, was equal to ethem all, when be fent them forth, even as his Father bad fent him. But then you would needs have a Supremacy conferred upon this Apoftle in our Saviour's Command to him, to feed his Lambs and bis Sheep. Yet how far these words are from conveying any fuch Authority to him, I have already fhewn, and fhall not trouble the Reader, with a needlefs Repitition. Only, before I proceed, I beg liberty to obferve one turn of your Pen, in p. 123. An Inftance of the like nature we had before, where you are pleafed to interprot Originem by Center. And fo here again, when SU Cyprian affirms, that Exordium ab unitate profi

fentur, the Beginning fprings from an Unity, as you English it; this does not fatisfy you, but that he might feem to fpeak to your purpose: here in like manner, Exordium, which every School Boy knows to fignify a Beginning, muft, against the ufe of the word in all Authors, be mifinterpreted Center; that fo you may make S. Peter what this Father does not, The Center of Unity to the other Apostles. I will not tell you, this is a Caft of your Art; but but I am very fure, if fuch a liberty be allowed in interpreting of Au thors, it will be impoffible for any one to know) To yasin 183) 201 me their


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

their meaning, that cannot read them in their own Language.

R. C. The Vindicator tells us, p. 46. that S. Ferom fays, Let a Bishop be a Bishop of what Town you pleasebe is of the fame Merit and Priesthood,

P. 126.

C. E. S. Ferom certainly fays it; and if you have any objection against it, you may try it out with S. Ferom; but the Vindicator has faid no more than he can make good.

R. C. But firft, if there was a Difference among the Apostles themselves; may there not be fome among the Bishops? p. 127.

C. E. That there might be a Primacy, or Precedence, amongst the Apostles, is not denied. But that there was a Difference of Authority, or Jurifdiction, over the rest of them, is what can never be made out ; and is therefore juftly denied, as being afferted without ground.,

R. C. Had all Bishops, in S. Jerom's time, an equal Jurifdiction? Were there no Metropolitans ?. no Primates? Ibid.


C. E. I do not fay that. But I must infift upon it, that according to our Saviour's Commiffion, they are all equal, as the Apoftles were. Though this hinders not, but that accidental Differences might arife by Human Inftitution, fetting one of them above another, where it fhall appear to be for the good of the Church, and of Religion. Whence came in Metropolitans and Primates, and fome of them most probably (a)

(a) Hence S. Ignatius ftiles himself iwloxorov Zvelas. Ep. ad Roman. And it is faid of S John himself, Tus Eperio alinaußávilas Murrows. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 254 · Ὡς καὶ τίτος τῶν ἐπὶ Κρήτης ἐκκλησιῶν Eufeb. Η. Ε. 1. 3. • 4. Τῆς Κρήτης μεγίσης ἴσης τῆς ὑπ' αὐὸν ἐπισκόπες χειροJornoa. Theodoret. in Arg Ep ad Tit. E uas veóλιμῶ ἐκ αν αὐτῷ τῷ νῆσον ὁλόκληρον ἐπέτρεψεν, ἐκ αν τοσέτων ἐπισκόπων κρίσιν ἐπέτρεψεν. B. Chryfoft. Hom. 1. in Ep. ad Tit.


« السابقةمتابعة »