C. E. It were a much better inference, therefore they were Co-founders with him; and had no Dependence upon him. As after all you have offered to the contrary, it must be confeffed they had not; they being no more built upon him, than he was upon them; which was

not at all.

R. C. The Humility of the Apoftles, and the much greater of their Prince, fhews the vanity of near one half of Dr. Barrow's Objections against 3. Peter's Supremacy: Who tells us, There was nothing of the Papal Stile in St. Peter's Epiftles, p. 33.

CE. Here to maintain S. Peter's fuppofed Supremacy, you ftick not to throw dirt upon his Succeffors the Popes, whom you acknowledge to have ufed a different and more Authoritative Stile than he. Which I leave you to anfwer to your own Party; only begging leave of you to take notice, that Dr. Barrow's Objections are no way invalidated by a vain furmife of S. Peter's having a Jurifdiction, which he never thought fit to make ufe of; and your refolving all into his Humility, is no better than a begging the Question, which you ought to have proved.

R. C. After what I have faid, p. 35, 36. I hope you will not infift, that S. Peter's Supremacy is a Dishonour to Chrift, the only Supreme Head of the whole Church, S. Peter as well as others. C. E. I do not love Differences where they can fairly be avoided. And I will therefore freely confefs to you, that I do not apprehend your Writers, to magnify the imaginary Supremacy of S. Peter, in oppofition to that of our Saviour, but as fubordinate to it. And fo we are both agreed in that Point; I wish we were as well in the other Difputes that are be

tween us.

7

R. C.

R. C. Mr. L. affures us, the Rock on which Chrift faid be would build his Church, was not S. Peter, but the Faith which Peter then confeffed, and cites divers of the Fathers to prove it. And his Vindicator adds others to them; which furely will be enough to degrade S. Peter, p. 37.

C. E. They are unquestionably enough to fhew, that the Reftater was grofly_mistaken (a) when he difallow'd of Mr. L's Fathers for the Proof of their teaching the Rock mention'd by Our Saviour to be S. Peter's Confeffion and not his Perfon; and defied him, and all his Party, to fhew any Paffage, of any Father, that excludes S. Peter. Which Challenge of his, the Vindicator undertook to answer, and you have not been able to make any tolerable Reply to him. Firft, having ob ferved, that Mr. L's Teftimonies ftand firm and unfhaken, next, he confiders thofe of the Re ftater, and fhews the weakness and infufficiency thereof, and then fubjoins fome other Authorities in confirmation of what Mr. L. had offered; which you would do well to confider of.

R. C. I know it very well, and have told you, Mr. L's Six Fathers, are taken out of a nameless and Shameless Pamphlet, call'd, Friendly and Seafonable Advice to the Roman Catholicks of England, -P. 379

C. E. Bona verba quafo; would a little civiler Language have done any harm? That Mr. L's Fathers are all in that learned Author, is news to me. But fuppofing they were, are they ever the worfe for that I hope that has not taken away the force of what they fay. You do not deny the Truth of it, and it is therefore ftill to be looked upon as good Evidence, till fome way or other difproved. But as to Mr. L. fup

(4) Cafe Reftated, p. 11.

P

pofing

pofing this Author and him, to have cited the fame Authors, and to the fame purpose, might not this be, without his having taken them from the other, Hand over bead, as you exprefs it? And again, This is indeed a Nameless Tract; but why muft it be a Shameless one too? It is foberly and learnedly written, and, as I thought, when I read it formerly, with very good Judgment. And I cannot think, why you fhould treat it in this fcurrilous manner; but only that it pinches a little too clofe, and has made you angry. But be that as it will; it is enough for my purpofe, that the Citations here produced, are fuch as you do not pretend to difprove, which is a juft reafon for every one to conclude you could not. Befides, to fortify this proof, fo well eftablifhed before, and fully to answer the Reftater's Challenge, the Vindicator produces feveral others against you.

R. C. I have already told you, he reckons S. Juftin, Theodoret and Theophylact; to which be adds Palladius, and a Saxon Homily quoted by

Bede.

"C. E. To whom, if you had pleafed, you might have fubjoined S. Cyril of Alexandria, and S. Auguftine, for their Teftimonies are as legible at leaft, as any of the other. To whom I add now alfo (a) Modeftus, Archbishop of Jerufalem. And pray what have you to fay to them all?

R. C. I make a jeft of it, and tell you ironically, Thefe furely will be enough to degrade St. Peter. C. E. It is well you have no better a Reply to make. You know many a true word is fpoken á in jeft; and yet never the lefs true for that.

(α) ΠέτςΘ ωνομάθη δια των ασάλεπν πίςιν ἂν εἶχεν izi xesiv Tlui TiTegr. Mod. Arch. Hierof. apud Phot. Bibl. Cod. 275.

R. C. A little after I nibble at three of your Authors, and tell you, they are but Ninth Rate Fathers, and fo will do but little Service, p. 38.

C. E. A notable piece of Wit I profefs: But it would have done well if there had been some Argument in it. Only the Cafe would not admit of it.

R. C. I do not take upon me to disprove your having the Fathers on your fide, as to the Interpretation of S. Peter's being the Rock, But then give me leave to acquaint you, that Their Oppofition can be of no great weight. For denying one particular Proof, is not denying the Conclufion, Ibid.

C. E. This is plain dealing, and a downright giving up the Caufe as to S, Matt. 16. 18. And now I have this reasonable Requeft to make to you; That not being able to maintain your Conftruction of this place, you will no more undertake to argue from it, as if you could...

R. C. I have fhewn already, that if any of the Ancients understood the Rock, either of Chrift, or of S. Peter's Faith, they must either have applied it to a Moral or Caufal Senfe, or mistaken the Literal. Ibid.

C. E. That is, you find they are manifeftly againft you, and therefore think it neceffary to declare them unacquainted with the true Meaning of the Text; and to defy all Mufters of them, how true, or how numerous foever, as you do in the next words. They either take the words, as I noted before, in you know not what Senfe, or else they don't understand them. Very well. But we know in what Senfe they take them, and are very well content with it, and challenge you to disprove it when you can. Which, fince you are fenfible you cannot do, it is not fo very fair to argue from a Perfonal Promife to S. Peter; as you do in reference to Abraham, and the Promife made to him; which was certainly a Per

fonal

fonal Promile, though it is granted his Faith was the Occafion of it.

R. C. You are as pofitive, as if you had carried your Cafe, and yet you cannot but fee, p. 40. &c. that I have a ftock of Fathers for you, that are exprefs for S. Peter's being the Rock Spoken of by our Lord.

C. E. However, I prefume, you will allow, that in those places, they are to be understood in fuch a Sense, as is confiftent with these other. Which can no way be fo well done, as by fuppofing the Church to be built upon S. Peter, only as he firft after ourLord laid the Foundation of it, by preaching firft among both Jews and Gentiles; as the Vindicator (a) urged before. It is matter of Fact; that this was S. Peter's Province, and this is what feemed to have been promised him, if any thing was promised to him, more than to the reft, in S. Matt. 16. 18. I do not obferve that any of them fpeak inconfiftently with this Notion, and fome of them, as well as fome others, declare themselves for it. Thus S. Bafil defcribes S.Peter to be, Τὸν διὰ πίςεως υπεροχών ἐφ' ἑαυτόν των οικοδομὴν τῆς Εκκλησίας δεξάμενον, him who, through the excellency of bis Faith, took upon him the Building of the Church. Before whom, Tertullian fays exprefly (b) In ipfo Ecclefia extructa eft, id eft, per ipfum, In, or upon, him was the Church built, that is by him. Than which nothing could be more clear for our Sense of this Promife of our Saviour. But to this you are pleafed to object, p. 29. that this was after he was fallen into Herefy.

R. C. And is not that a fufficient Answer to him?

1.

C. E. I conceive not, for two Reasons. Because most of his Writings being fuppofed, by

(a) Cafe truly flated, p. 19. (b) De Pudic. c. 21. learned