« 上一页继续 »
facit. The Egregiousness of this Artifice may be learnt also from Clemens Alexandrinus in the 6th and 7th Books of his Hypoty poleis, or more readily from Eufebius, H. Eccle. 1. 2. c. 1. Buc enough of this, if not too much for an Obje&ion no better founded, and of no more conlequence to the matter in Hand.
R. C. 2dly, He translates usydan greater, which every School Boy knows 10 be wrong, Ibid. . C. E. It is true, every School-Boy knows péyáan is 'not row, 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, co keep always to the Letter of his Author, so he - but took care to keep to his Sense. And this I think he has, truly done, but 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 Fé
rusalem saying, in relation to the Council that "we have been disputing about, Istiges Shungyopás, ára* planculos roue de los doc. Pecer Speeches it, but Sr.James determines, and bis Determination was not to be set afide, nor bis Sentence to be slighted. ; ; C. E. But you have a short answer for him, and full of Contempt. For the Declamation of (b) Hesychius--- it is not worth taking notice of, p. 60. No besure, since it is directly against you, it is but fic to throw it aside, as of no Consideration; which is a very expeditious: way of answering,
Iv ftated. p. 20. 76) Of Hesychius you say, whom fome place in the fifth Century; Mr. Du Pin
in the 6tb and 7th. By which I cannot tell what you mean, · unlefs you would have it thought, that he was of too late . a standing 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 liy'd twice as long after our Savigar as Hefychius is thought by some to have donc.
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 Norice, why muft the great St. Chrysostom be fo too? The Vina
fychius for the proof of St. James's presiding in the Council at Jerusalem, and they having both declared ic fo plainly, that you knew not what Reply to make to them, the Testimony of one you call a Declamation, and lightingly 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 fuch 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 'ä сittle of any Superiority of St. Peter over Saint : Paul. Then 'tis likely St. Peter carne 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 Ferufalemn, with which you have made such a pothiers but only that being conciliarily assembled; they issued förth 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; frořn things strangled, and from Fornication, Act. 15. 29. Which was the proper business of a Council, and shews they met
for the Instruction of the Church committed to : their Charge; and neither as Judges of St. Paul,
nor Arbitrators betwixt him and the Jews at Anar
tioch, as you would have it thought, but without * any reason for it. : M
R. C. The Vindicator bas found out a new Ama Iwer, 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.Fufteli, 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 Constantinople a Patriarchal See, and giving it the Preference before Alex
andria 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 allign its Place and Order ? Ocherwise you can never defend Pope Leo's refusal in this respect. And yer could this have been done, what were it to the point we are upon, of Romes having a Primacy, or Precedence of all other Patriarchates granted it, because of its being the Imperial City, δια το βασιλών τίω πόλιν εκείνην ?
R. C. But the Pope's Patriarchal Dignicy is not bis Supremacy, Ibid.
C. E. But it is all the Dignity the Council actributed to him ; who knew nothing of your imaginary Supremacy.
R. C. In the sixth Century the Emperor Justinian Jays, We decree according to the Decisions of the four holy Councils, that the moft holy Pope of (a) 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 Cicy?
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 tbe peculiar Power and Privileges of Rome, bave been fince given it by Councils and Emperors. The Vindicator's Design was only to shew that the Respect paid to the See of Rome in Irenæus's Time, and the Privileges confer'd upon it fince by Councils and Emperors, were upon the account of that Cicies 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. M 2
R. C. S. Prosper's Testimony the Vindicator ex: cepts to, because ic is a Poem, jo are the Psalms, p. 89.
c. E. But the Vindicator tells you farther, (a) that Poets and Panegyrists 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, co shew chey do not bear what you would have infer'd from them. And to this you say nothing, except thac the Psalms are a Poem ; though I hope all Poems are not to be compar'd with these, and that Prosper's was a Dogo matical Poem, and which Mr. Du Pin professes to be the most confiderable Piece, which S, Profper come poled about Grace. Which is no answer at all to the Vindicator's Atfertions, thac Poetical Flights are often times to have an allowance made for them; and that besides the Words consider'd in themselves do not answer your Expectacion. | R. C. Wbat Prosper said in Verse, s liver'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. Befides this, it is looked upon with a great deal of Reasor, as one of the beß Sermons of St. Leo, Ibid.
(a) Cafe truly ftated, p. 50. 51.