་་་

33 Way to the grand Point, that is, the Decree re lating to the Matter under Debate because that was a full Juftification of his Master St Paul.

G. But, My Lord, St James pronounced the De finitive Sentence. For he faid therefore my Sentence is.

L. Sr I anfwer first, this is an unfair Tranfla tion of the Greek, which is the Original Text. For xpivo in Greek is the fame as Judico in Latin, and fa it is render'd by St Jerom, which imports the fame as if St James had faid, this is my Judgment or Opinion. And fo I find it likewife in an old French Proteftant Tranflation of the Bible put forth anno 1540. where it is render'd thus, pour laquelle chofe je fuis d'avis &c. which is no more a definitive Sentence than what St Peter had pronounced before him in thefe Words. Wherefore why tempt ye God to put a Toke upon the Neck of the Difciples, which neither our Fathers, nor we were able to bear? "Act. 15. v. 10. for there he plainly deli ver'd his Opinion.

5: But fuppofe your Tranflation of the Text were exact, as it is not, how can you make St James's Saying, therefore my Sentence is, a Proof of his Prefi ding For furely you will not Question but every Bishop in a Council has a Definitive Vote, and may fay, this is my Sentence. Therefore fince every Apoftle or Bishop prefent at the Council of Jerusalem had an undoubted Right to give a Definitive Sentence, it can be no Proof of any one's Prefiding.

3:

G. My Lord, St James alfo difmifs'd the Council and put an End to it, which is an A& of Authority.

L. Tis more, Sr, than you can make out from the Acts. For after the End of his Speech St Luke writes thus. Then pleafed it the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to fend chofen Men of their own Company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas,.✔

Act. 13. V. 22. Whence it rather appears, that when the Business, upon which they had met was ended, they parted by mutual Confent: and there is not the lealt Hint given, that they were difmifs'd by St James, or indeed by any Single Perfon acting as Prefident of the Council.

G. However, My Lord, it feems very furprizing the Acts should be fo filent concerning St Peter's Supremacy, fince it is a Point of that importance.

L. Why fo, Sr Muft the Scriptures lay every Thing in every Place? Or is it fo Surprizing that an Hiftorian should omit Things foreign to his main Defign? St Peter's Supremacy is fufficiently establish'd in other Parts of Scripture, and it needs not be repeated in every Chapter. But pray, Sr, in what Chapter of the New Teftament is the fpiritual Supremacy of the fecular Prince mention'd? Let me tell you, Sr, this is an ugly Question, and fo I will not press it.

But if the negative Argument, you infift so much upon, be a Demonftration (as. you call it) against St Peter's Supremacy, then, Sr, all the following Articles, viz. the Validity of Infant- Baptifm against Anabaptifts, the Lawfulness of tranflating the Sabothday to Sunday against the Jews, the Divine Revelation of all the Canonical Books of Scripture against the Deifts, and several other Articles of great Importance have, according to your Way of Arguing, Demonrations against them: because the Scriptures are not only very barren, but wholly filent in the Deter mination of these Points. Nay Eating Blood will be, as criminal as Farnication: because both are equally prohibited by St James's definitive Sentence in the Council of Jerufalem: and there is not a Word on Record, by which this Prohibition was ever revo, ked.

The

41 The Truth of the whole Matter is this. The short Relation given by St Luke of the Council at Jerrfa lem affords no Argument of any Weight either for or against the Supremacy of St Peter. But you are willing to make the best of a bad Market, and play fmall Game rather than ftick out. The Current of Antiquity is against you; and fo are the two Texts of St Mathew and St John. This puts you under a Neceffity of Picking up fomething to counterbalance as well as you can the Evidence of thofe two Texts.

WL

Da

G.

8. 7.

Other Objections answer'd.

Y Lord, none of thofe Texts are fo ex- « as thofe I have quoted of St Paul. «

M prefs

pag. 6. «

L. Tis very ftrange then that fo many of the Ancient Fathers should alledge thofe two Texts for St Peter's Supremacy, and not one fingle Father should take Notice of thofe you have quoted for St Paul.

G. My Lord, if the Texts you boast of were « meant in that Extent, for which you have pro- « duced them, it is impoffible, but that muft ap- « pear in the Facts of St Peter, efpecially in the Part « he bore in the Council at Jerufalem, and Facts are e the fureft Explanation of Words. pag. 9. «

L. Then, Sr, the very first Fact of the Apostles related by St Luke Act. 1. I mean, the Election of St De Mathias decides the Queftion against you. For 'tis manifeft to any unbyafs'd Reader, that St Peter acted in that important Occafion as Head of the whole Affembly. Hear the Words of St Chryfoftom once more; they carry Weight, and cannot be repeated too often. See (fays he) how he acknowledges the Flock, F

and Kings, and Children of Ifrael. A&t. 11. v. 15. In a Word, St Peter and St Paul, and the other Apostles as well as they, had Jurifdiction over all Chriftian Churches, whether of converted Jews or Gentiles; tho their Labours were divided, according as Occafion required, or as they were directed by the Divine Spirit. All which is no Proof, that St Peter was not the Head of the Apostles.

» G. St Paul's bold Withstanding him to the Face » before the whole Church of Antioch in behalf of » the Gentiles, whom he had mifled, fearing them who » were of the Circumcifion, shews the Care St Paul took »of thofe, who were more particularly his Charge, » and feems a Behaviour not very fuitable to the » fupreme Head of the Church both Jews and Gentiles, if St Paul had known any Thing of St Pe »ter's being fo conftituted by Chrift. pag. 6.

L. Sr, his bold Withstanding is a Mark indeed of his Zeal; but neither of his Superiority, nor Equa lity to St Peter in the College of the Apoftles. Is not the Council bound to withstand the King, if he propofes any Thing contrary to Law, or the natural Liberties and Properties of the Subject? And will you infer from thence, that the King has no Superiority or Authority over his Council? Suppofe the Bif hop of Canterbury should preach or write any Thing to the Prejudice of the Church of England, would a private Doctor think it a Prefumption to withstand his Superiour, and write boldly against him ?

But let St Austin answer for me. St Peter (lays he) in whom the Primacy of the Apostles appear'd with fe Surpaffing a Grace, was reprehended by a latter Apoftle. L. 2. de Bap. C. 1. And tho St Paul's Zeal is to be admired, St Peter's Humility in this Occafion is far more extoll'd by fome of the Fathers. St Gregory's Words are remarkable. He became (fays St Greg.)

the

the Follower of one leß than himself, that even here he might go before him: to the End, that he, who was first in the highest Dignity of the Apostleship, might also be the first in humility. In Latin thus. Atque in eadem re factus eft fequens MINORÍS SUI, etiam ut in hoc prairety Quatenus qui PRIMUS erat in Apoftolarus culmine, effet & primus in Humilitate. Hom. 18. in Ezek. tom. 2. pag. 1180. This puts it beyond Difpute, what these two Fathers thought of St Peter's Supremacy, and makes it plain that a Superiour may be reprehended by an Inferiour without Prejudice to his Authority.

G. Methinks, My Lord, it did not become the « other Apofttes to fend their Soveraign upon Bufi. « nefs, as they sent Peter to Samaria. Act. 8. ¥. 14. « pág. 6, c

L. Indeed, Sr, your Stock of Arguments grows very low, when this muft ferye for one. Is it fuch an unusual Thing for the whole Body to depute their Superiour upon Business, wherein the common Caufe is concern'd? A Bishop may be deputed by his Diocef, a Chancellor by the Univerfuy, and even a Prince by the Senate. As the Jews fent their high Priest If mael with other Emballadors to Nero. Jof. L. 20. Ant. C. 7.

G. If it be true, as fome fay, that St Peter was « Bishop of the Jewish Convert's at Rome, and St Paulu of the Gentiles there, St Paul would have had a « much greater Flock than St Peter, and the Succef- « fors of St Paul and not of St Peter, muft have been « Bishops there; because the Church of Rome is now, and has long been all of the Gentiles. pag. 7. «

L. All of the Gentiles, Sr? How do yow know that But let that be as it will, tho the perfonal Application, or immediate Infpection of the two Apostles was perhaps divided, whilft they were together, their Jurifdiction was not: And it is nothing

E