صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

because it is not to the point in hand, I forbear to fay any more of it.

R. C. It is objected, St. Peter was the Apostle of the Jews, and they were his peculiar Charge. And yet it must be own'd, that neither bis Jurifdiction was confin'd to the Jews, nor St. Paul's to the Gentiles, P. 45, 46.





C. E. However, fince the Gospel of the Circumcifion was committed to him, as that of the Uncircumcifion was to St. Paul, Gal. 2. 7, 8, 9. it is a natural Inference that Rome being a Heathen City, St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles fhould have the greatest Intereft there, and that if St. Peter had had fuch a Supremacy as you contend for, he fhould not have fettled it at Rome, but either at his firft See Antioch, or rather at Ferufalem, where were moft 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 fometimes to the Gentiles, as St. Paul did alfo 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 anfwer to what is objected about St. Paul's withstanding St. Peter to the Face, Gal. 2. II. I have noted that till Superiors are impeccable, it will always be lawful for Subjects to reprehend them even in Publick, with the Zeal and Charity of St. Paul, p. 46.

C. E. Here the Vindicator (a) profefs'd himself perfuaded, fuch an open Oppofition would not be allow'd of, as a fuitable Carriage towards your Sovereign Lord the Pope. And you do not pretend to affirm it would nor can you, I am fatisfied, give any one inftance wherein it has been practiced, and not discountenanc'd and feverely condemn'd.

(a) Cafe truly ftated, p. 26.

R. C.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


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 bimfelf, as if he had a Superiority over the reft. 2dly, That Hilary the Deacon, in Gal. 2. 11. fays, Saint Paul knew himself invefted with an Equality of Power, P. 47.

C. E. And does not this fhew that neither of thefe Fathers look'd upon St. Peter to be invefted in fuch a fupream Authority, as those of your Party afcribe to him?

R. C. They are both falfly tranflated, Ibid. * C. E. This is a harfh Accufation, and I hope you have confider'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 felf, and you must bear the Shame of


R. C. St. Cyprian does not fay, St. Peter did not carry himself infolently, as if he had the Superiority over the reft, which would plainly fignify that be bad none; but lo as to say that he had the Primacy, which is quite different, Ibid.

C. E. Quite different you fay; but will you be fo kind as to fhew me wherein the mighty Difference lies. Does not St. Cyprian exprefly affirm (a) that St. Peter did not infolently claim, or arrogantly affume any thing to himself? This you cannot deny to be a ftricter and more unexceptionable Tranflation of the Words, than what you fay, that he did not carry himfelf infolently. But it feems 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 reft, and that he ought to be obeyed by the recenteft and latter Apo

Nec Petrus-Vindicavit fibi aliquid infolenter, aut arroganter affumpfit, ut diceret fe primatum tenere, & obtemperari à novellis & posteris fibi debere..



ftles; whereas fay you it fhould have been, fo as to Jay that be bad the Primacy, by which you prefently after declare your felf to mean the Supremacy; and what advantage you propofe to your felf by this pretended Emendation is a Myftery to me. For does not St. Cyprian's Denial of St. Peter's infolently and arrogantly claiming or affuming any thing to himfelf, fo as to Jay that he had the Primacy, and ought to be obey'd by the recenteft and latter Apoftles; does not his Denial of this concerning the Apoftle neceffarily imply, that to take upon him to fay this, would have been Infolence and Arrogance? And why do you leave out the following Words, infolently and arrogantly, and ought to be obey'd by the recenteft and latter Apofles, but becaufe you found them directly againft you? The impartial Reader may easily fee from hence, how unhappy you have been in attempting to correct the Vindicator's Tranflation 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 fays it would have been Pride in him to have mention'd it in that Circumftance, as it really would.

C. E. I had not forgot this doughty Argument, nor was it for your Intereft 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 dif

cover it there, nor I am fure can you, how quick fighted foever you may be. St. Cyprian fays not one Word of a new Sin of Pride, unless you mean in his Saying St. Peter did not infolently and arrogantly take upon him to fay that he had the Primacy, and ought to be obey'd, &c. which is exactly, though not the fame Words, what the Vindicator had told

you; and for which you are offended at him.

R. C.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

R. C. Nay, St. Cyprian, if we will do bim Juftice, in that very place pofitively owns the Supremacy of St. Peter; for thus are bis Words to be render'd. Neither did Peter whom the Lord chose to be the chief, and on whom he built bis Church, when Paul difputed with him about Circumcifion (that is about the Jews) infolently claim, or arrogantly alfume any thing to himself, so as to say, that he had the Primacy (or Superiority above the reft) and that he ought to be obey'd by the recentest and last Apostles. If Primum were an Adverb, it would Signify that St. Peter was a more ancient Disciple than St. Andrew, contrary to St. John 1. v. 40. 41, 42. It must then be an Adjective, and denote that he was chosen to be the chief, or chofen to be the first .p. 48.



C. R. Here it is of no great Confequence as to the Business we are upon, that you fay about Circumcifion, that is about the Jews; though it is certain there is no reason for this Note of yours. For Circumcifion; here is meant to fignify, what it most properly does in other places, together with the other Rites and Ufages of the Law. In which St. Peter had at Antioch been too compliant to the Jews there, not out of any hyprocritical Design of recommending himself to their good Opinion; but leaft the contrary Practice fhould have had an ill Influence upon them, and prejudiced them against Chriftianity, by their obferving a greater Freedom ufed there amongst the Gentiles, than was cuftomary at Jerusalem amongit the Jews. The whole Difpute was not about the People of the Jews, but their Ceremonies and Customs, and manner of living, v. 14. and therefore why Circumcifion in this place muft fignify the Jews, is what I cannot comprehend; this I take to be very plain. Nevertheless, being



[ocr errors]

as I faid of little or no Importance as to our prefen: Bufinefs, I choose rather to proceed to what is of more immediate concern to us. Which is that you affirm, that our Lord chofe Peter to be the chief [amongst his Apoftles ;] and you give this reafon for it, that to fuppofe Primum to be an Adverb, and intimate only that he was firft call'd is contrary to St. John 1. 40, 41, 42. Now I muft freely own that I am very averfe from any wife contradicting the Holy Scripture; but then I mult beg of you to help me out, as to the proof of this Affertions being contradictory to the Do"Arine of St. John, for I cannot fee that it is fo. For though from hence it appears that St. Andrew was firft call'd to be a Difciple, yet that St. Peter was firft conftituted an Apoftle, I take to be plain from St. Mat. 10. 2. and St. Luke 6. 14. and I would as unwillingly contradict either of these Evangelifts as St. John. But F fee no occafion for contradicting 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 Difciple; but withal, that he was not invefted firft in the Apoftolate, but his Brother (a) St. Peter, as thefe Evangelifts teach in the places I mention'd, and the Difficulty is presently over. And yet farther,if I fhould 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 (b) as eldeft of



(a) Hence he is filed 'Anagnosina, the firft Fruits of the Apoftles, by Modeftus Arch-bishop of Jerufalem; apud Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 275. And Theophyla&, fpeaking of him and his Brother St. Andrew, fays, · τίθησι δὲ Πέτρον καὶ ̓Ανδρέαν διότι καὶ πρω]όκλητοι,he gives the Preference to Peter and Andrew, because they were firft called, in loc. (b) Atari delatum eft, quia Petrus fenior erat. B. Hierom. c. Fovin. 1. r. c. 14. Primum decuit refpondere, ut idem effet ordo refponfionis, qui erat honoris, & ipfe antecedere confeffione, qui antecedebat ætate,Caffian. 'de Incarn. Dom. l. 3. c. 12.


« السابقةمتابعة »