Barrow - BX1805 .B3 1852

SIXTH ARGUMENT FOR THE PRIMACY OF ST PETER. 93 says that " the Lord, after his resurrection, delivered the special knowledge to James the Just, and to John, and to Peter ;"1 postpon- ing St Peter, as perhaps conceiving him to have less of the sublime revelations imparted to him. That order, therefore, is not so punc- tually constant. In the Apostolical Constitutions, St Paul and St Peter being in- duced [introduced] jointly prescribing orders, theybegin, " I Paul, and I Peter, do appoint;"' so little ambitious or curious [solicitous] of precedence are they represented. 2. But it being indeed so constant as not to seem casual, I farther say, that position of names does not argue difference of degree or superiority in power, any small advantage of age, standing, merit, or wealth serving to ground such precedence, as common experience shows. 3. We formerly assigned other sufficient and probable causes why St Peter had this place; so that this is no cogent reason. VI. Farther (and this indeed is their far most plausible argumen- tation), they allege the titles and eulogies given,to St Peter by the fathers, who call him é apxov, the prince; xopupaTv, the ringleader; xs,paMv, the head; rpósSpov, the president; &pxnyòv, the captain; rpoi- yopov, the prolocutor; rpwroór&rnv, the foreman; rpoe.r&rnv, thewarden; ix spires ráv &ro6róXwv, the choice or egregious apostle; majorem, the greater or grandee among them; primum, the first or prime apostle.' To these and the like allegations, I answer, - 1. If we should say that we are not accountable for every hyper- bolical flash or flourish occurring in the fathers (it being well known that they in their encomiastic speeches, as orators are wont, follow- ing the heat and gaiety of fancy, do sometimes overlash), we should have the pattern of their greatest controvertists to warrant us:' for Bellarmine puts off their testimonies by saying that they " some- times speak in way of excess, less properly, less warily, so as to need friendly exposition," &c.,5 as Bishop Andrews shows; and it is a com- mon shift of Cardinal Perron, whereof you may see divers instances alleged by M. Daillé." "IaxóiC1, rár Sozaiq sec; 'Iaaavvm zai r(impá tcs,rá sqv isvárravre ora íSmxv rev yvma" ó xúpeas.Euseb. list., ii. 1. 2 'Eye:,'s xai Éyd Ilk/vs Siaraee siz.Const. Apost. viii. 33. 8 Chrys. tom. v.Or. 59; Chrys. in Joh. xxi. ; Cypr. cont. Jul., ix. p. 325 ; Aug., Ep. xi. 19. 4 The truth is, the best arguments ofthe Papists inother questions are some flourishes of orators, speakinghyperbolically and heedlessly. 5 Per excessum loqui, Bell. de Miss., ii. 10; Minus proprie, iii. 4; Benigna expositions opus habere, de Amiss., Gr. iv. 12; Minus caute, de Purg., L 11. e Tort. Tort., p. 338; Daill. de Us. P., lib. i. cap. 6, p. 158, et p. 314. [The first re- ference here is to a work byBishop Andrews, entitled Tortura Torti, being a reply to a treatise by Bellarmine, who wrote, under the name of Matthcaus Tortes, against King James VI., on the subject ofthe oath of allegiance. The other reference is to thewell - known treatise by Daillé, " On theRight Use of the Fathers."En.]