Thirdly. But the whole will be more easily reconciled by considering James not as an apostle, but as pastor or bishop of Jerusalem by the appointment of the apostles. So Eusebius would seem to decide when he says, "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat of Jerusalem was committed by the apostles."* And again, "James being the first that received the dignity of the episcopate at Jerusalem, from our Saviour himself, as the sacred Scriptures show that he was generally called the brother of Christ." To the same purpose is the declaration of Epiphanius: "James, the brother of our Lord, was the first bishop, because our blessed Lord intrusted and resigned to him his own throne on earth, before all others." Hence the ancients frequently call James bishop of bishops, the prince of bishops, &c., because he was the first bishop of the first see, the mother church; the apostles being excluded from the number of bishops.

For the foregoing reasons we conclude Peter was not bishop of Rome in the strict sense, as it is understood in this controversy.

22. The popes themselves frequently introduce Peter and Paul as their predecessors. So Pius III., in his decree for convening the Council of Trent, says, "By the authority of Peter and Paul, the holy apostles, which we also enjoy on the earth." The effigies too of the two apostles are frequently placed so that the right hand is given sometimes to Paul, and sometimes to Peter. These would intimate, that at a former time the equality of the apostles was a current sentiment at Rome, the language or expressions declaring it to be retained as an ancient tradition or rather testimony of the thing, while the sentiment is discarded by the introduction of new terms, giving the supremacy to Peter.

+ Euseb. Ecc. Hist. ii, 23, p. 75.

+ Idem. vii, 19, p. 289.

- Πγωτος δυτος ειληθε την καθέδραν, &c. Epiphan. Hæres. 78. Auctoritate Beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, quâ nos in Terris fungimur.

2

:

CHAPTER VIII.

SUPREMACY-CONTINUED.

The popes do not possess the supremacy by God's appointment.-I. THEir ArguMENTS DO NOT SUPPORT IT. 1. Their argument from the occupancy of Peter's throne: 2. From Michael, the archangel: 3. From the high priest: 4. The councils: 5. The fathers 6. That the supremacy is necessary to preserve unity and pure doctrine: 7. Whether by divine right, ecclesiastical right, or usurpation.-II. THEIR CLAIM IS UNCERTAIN AND FALSE. 1. The principles of it are uncertain: 2. The pope may not have it, though Peter had: 3, Such was the opinion of the fathers: 4. They call other bishops successors of the apostles: 5. Instance in the church of Jerusalem. 6. And Antioch: 7. Election of the whole church necessary to create a pope: 8. There have been vacancies in the popedom. Ten cases of this.-III. THE SUPREMACY IS DESTITUTE OF ANY GOOD WARRANT FROM SCRIPTURE. 1. There is a want of God's declared will for it., Specimens of their interpretations from Greg. VII. Antoninus: 2. Is unnoticed in the New Testament: 3. No obedience to it required in the Scriptures: 4. They mention the civil authorities: 5. Peter especially does this: 6. Paul does not mention it.-IV. IT IS WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF HISTORY. 1. Even tradition is defective: 2. History is silent: 3. Not mentioned in ancient creeds: 4. Is mentioned by no expositor of the creeds: 5. Nor asserted by ancient synods: 6. Those who disclaimed it were not counted heretics: 7. The pagan writers do not say any thing concerning it: 8. No account of it in the apostolic canons and the Constitutions of Clement 9. Nor in Dionysius the Areopagite: 10. Nor the apostolic fathers: 11. Nor in the letters to and from popes: 12. Nor in the early disputes against heretics: 13. It is strange all the ancient writers should overlook it, as Origen, Hilary, Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, &c. 14. There is no canon in the code of the ancient church declaring it.-V. THE SUPREMACY IS CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE. 1. It assigns to another the peculiar prerogatives and titles of Christ: 2. It transforins the church from a spiritual to a worldly or political institution: 3. It destroys the equality of pastors: 4. It infringes on the rights of the church and pastors: 5. And of the laity: 6. It interferes with civil government.-VI. SUCH AN AUTHORITY CANNOT BE EXERCISED WITHOUT INJURY TO RELIGION AND THE WELFARE OF MANKIND. 1. The church is too unwieldy for the government of one man or one place: 2. It reduces the church to a state of bondage: 3. It depraves Christian doctrines: 4. It stands in the way of refor mation 5. It induces a general depravation of manners: 6. It spoils the pope: 7. It disturbs civil society and destroys governments: 8. It does not secure the ends it proposes. Does not maintain truth, nor determine controversies, nor promote peace and unity. VII. IT IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE CHARACTER ASCRIBED TO BISHOPS OR CHIEF PASTORS, IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 1. The fathers supposed no orders in the church above bishops or chief pastors: 2. Each bishop had independent authority: 3. And all were of equal authority: 4. This independence and equality were defended in reference to the bishop of Rome: 5. The style of address shows this. Many instances of this.-VIII. THE SUPREMACY IS OVERTURNED FROM THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IT IS ASSUMED. 1. The ground not divine right: 2. But the size, dignity, wealth, &c., of the city of Rome: 3. Other bishops obtained a precedency.

THE bishops of Rome have not a universal supremacy over the whole church according to God's appointment.

In support of this proposition the following things are to be considered.

I. The arguments by which the Romanists support their doctrine that the bishops of Rome have the supremacy, and derive it from Peter, do not establish this point.

1. They say, "The pope occupied the chair of Peter, and therefore succeeded him in the government of the church." We have already shown that Peter never possessed the supremacy which they ascribe to him; and therefore the popes never could obtain from Peter their authority. How easily may power accumulate in the hands of a

successor, or a series of successions, which had no model or existence in the first of the line! This is a truism forced on us by a thousand examples.

66

Besides, the line of succession, on which so much dependance is placed, is itself involved in the greatest uncertainty. Du Pin, a liberal Roman Catholic, gives the following as the amount of what the earliest and best accounts furnish on this point: According to the common received opinion, to St. Peter succeeded St. Linus, to St. Linus Anacletus or Cletus, and to him St. Clement. This order is observed by St. Irenæus, Eusebius, and St. Jerome, and in the ancient catalogues of the popes; but Optatus, Ruffinus, and St. Augustine, and some other Latin authors, substitute St. Clement immediately to St. Linus, and place Anacletus in the third rank. Some distinguish Cletus from Anacletus. The author of the Apostolical Constitutions says, that St. Linus was ordained by St. Paul, and St. Clement by St. Peter. St. Epiphanius conjectures, that St. Peter at first ordained St. Clement, but he refusing to accept his pontificate, and going out of the way, that St. Linus and St. Cletus did successively govern the church of Rome; and that after the death of St. Peter, St. Clement succeeded to St. Cletus. The best way is to hold the most common and most ancient opinion."

Nothing is certainly known of the matter, which is a strong proof that the knowledge of it is of little use for the comfort or edification of Christians. It is of no use to have reference to authors who lived hundreds of years posterior to the events which they record, for they could know no more of these things than we do.

2. They argue in favour of a pope, from the consideration that Michael, the archangel, was a monarch or commander in heaven. Michael and his angels fought. Rev. xii, 7. Therefore it ought to be so on earth. This is gravely insisted on by Bellarmine, who is the great champion of Romanism. We shall leave this to the good sense of the reader, who will perceive that it is as good an argument for the supremacy as that which proved it from the text, "God made two great lights," or, "Thou hast put all things under his feet." And these two texts are gravely quoted by popes and divines to prove their point.

3. It is argued, that "the church of the Old Testament was a figure of that under the New; but they had a high priest over the rest, therefore there ought to be a pope." Bellarm., as above.

We grant the high priest was a figure, not of Peter or the pope, but of Christ; for in two things he resembled Christ, viz., in offering sacrifice, and entering into the sanctuary to make atonement. Heb. vii, 27. So Christ is entered into the heavens to intercede for us. Heb. ix, 24. Besides, if Peter and his successors are priests after the order of Aaron, how can they be also after the order of Melchisedek, as some of them maintain. They cannot be after the order of Aaron and Melchisedek at the same time. The apostle reasoneth thus: "Where there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of the law," Heb. vii, 12. Consequently, where the law is changed, the priesthood must likewise be changed. How then can the priesthood of Aaron be a pattern of the priesthood under the gospel, the law being changed?

* De Rom. Pontif., lib. i, c. 9.

Neither doth it follow, though there was a high priest in one country, there ought to be one over the churches in all countries. For if so, there ought also to be one supreme emperor over all countries; or because one field or farm is committed to one husbandman to cultivate it, the whole world may also be given him.

4. They say that the councils ascribe the supremacy to the bishop of Rome. To this we reply, that we have the decisions of the eight first general councils against the supremacy of the bishop of Rome.

The first Council of Nice, held A. D. 325, canon sixth, ascribes to the other metropolitan churches the same authority which Rome had over the churches of its province.

In the second general council held at Constantinople, in 381, canon second, the sixth canon of Nice is ratified.

In the Council of Ephesus, held in 431, canon eighth, it was decreed that Cyprus should be exempt from the jurisdiction of Antioch, or any other see, and should choose their own metropolitan. Therefore Cyprus could not be under the jurisdiction of Rome.

In the Council of Chalcedon, or fourth general, held in 451, action sixteenth, they determine the bishop of Constantinople to be worthy of the same primacy of honour which the bishop of Rome hath. Out of the acts of this council three things may be gathered:

First. That equal privileges were granted to the see of Constantinople and that of Rome.

Secondly. That Rome, on account of its antiquity, had the first place. Thirdly. These two patriarchal sees had these privileges because of their imperial dignity.

Constantinople II., action first, declares, "The synod giveth the like honours to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria.”

The three succeeding councils decide to the same effect on this point.*

The decisions of the Councils of Florence and of Trent, though in favour of the supremacy, are of no weight; because they are contrary to the decisions of the ancient councils, and are not supported by the authority of Scripture or the ancient church of Christ.

Indeed, previous to the Council of Nice, or for three hundred years after Christ, every church was governed by its own clergy. It was decreed by the Council of Nice, and followed by other councils, that the whole church should be divided into four provinces or great divisions, over which were placed four patriarchs. The first was the bishop of Rome; the second was the bishop of Antioch; the third was the bishop of Alexandria; the fourth the bishop of Jerusalem; and not long after the bishop of Constantinople came in the place of the bishop of Antioch. All these had equal authority in their provinces, and one was not to interfere with another's charge.

5. They allege certain sayings of the fathers to prove the supremacy of the popes of Rome.

Cyprian is quoted, where he says, "That Cornelius was made bishop, when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the office of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant." On this it is sufficient to * See Constantinople III., can. 36; Constantinople IV., can. 21. + Factus est Cornelius Episcopus

cum Fabiani locus, ed est, cum locus Petri et gradus cathedræ sacerdotalis vacaret.--Cyprian., ep. 52, tom i, p. 120.

remark: 1. That the Roman see was called the seat of Peter, in conformity with the current, unexamined, and vague tradition of the times; just as other sees were named after other apostles, without examination or much attention to the propriety of such designation. But this proves nothing for supremacy; for the see of Rome is frequently called the seat of the apostles and the seat of Peter and Paul. 2. Cyprian frequently addresses the bishops of Rome, his cotemporaries, as his colleagues, ascribing to them no more authority than to other bishops. This he does in the very same epistle quoted above.

Optatus* is quoted, who traces up the succession of bishops from his own time to that of Peter. To this we answer, that the successions of bishops in other sees can be as well traced up as that of Rome; but this does not prove that they are all to have the supremacy attached to them. Indeed, the supremacy was unknown in the time of Optatus.

Many passages of fathers are introduced to show that Peter possessed the supremacy. But these prove no such thing, as they can only prove that the see of Rome obtained great authority in the fourth and succeeding centuries; for the primitive polity of the church is directly opposed to the principles of the supremacy.

6. It is argued, that "the supremacy is necessary to preserve unity of faith and integrity of discipline." In the place of accomplishing this, the following facts show the contrary: 1. The Church of Rome is more corrupt than any other in the world, both in doctrine and discipline. 2. Several other churches, without this supremacy, are more sound in both doctrine and discipline. These are facts, sustained by history, and the present state of the various Christian churches.

7. They affirm that the popes have their supremacy by divine right. In proof they allege that it is by divine right, by ecclesiastical right, or by usurpation: but the latter two cannot be admitted, therefore it is by divine right.†

That it is of divine right cannot be allowed, because the passages of Scripture alleged in its favour do not confer it. Indeed, it has been shown that the supremacy originated partly by the concession of the church, and partly by usurpation of the popes and the Roman Church. There have always been individuals and bodies of men who have protested against the supremacy. And the annals of history furnish clear proofs, both of the ecclesiastical concessions on this head, and the usurpations. This will be amply shown in the prosecution of the present delineation of Roman Catholicism. The times, places, and persons can generally be designated. And if some dates cannot be precisely given, in which the novelties of Rome took their origin, the precise times can be given in which their innovations did not exist, and also the times when they were indisputably established.

II. Various considerations, showing that their claim is both uncertain and false.

1. Their doctrine partakes of the uncertainty of the premises. It any of the foregoing suppositions of theirs be uncertain or false, their conclusion must also be uncertain or false. If Peter was not monarch over the apostles; if his privileges were not successive; if he were

Optatus, lib. ii, n. 3; tom i, p. 24. † Bailly, de Eccles., c. 14, tom ii, p. 474.