CTbc University of Chicago
Ulibrarics

DURRETT COLLECTION

THE ,

CHURCH OP ROME,

IN HER PRIMITIVE PURITY,

WITH -V " _. " 1 ;

THE CHURQE QF ROME,

-- - . o '> o ." . -.:>*

.. a '> 'i at ' ; ' J

.-.',' ., :

: ATT THE RECENT DA^ ; ..I /

.- ' o i - * o o'' o o . c" 'o .' o

c . : e D r, ^ ., o ;

BEING A CANDID EXAMINATION OJT HEB.

CLAIMS TO UNIVERSAL. DOMINION.

ADDRESSED, IN THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIAN KINDNE^,

TO THE

ROMAN HIERARCHY.

BY JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D. D.

i \

Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of Vermont.

Cur prefers in medium, qnod Fetrus et Paulus edero noluornnt? Usqne ad hune
diem sine ista doctrina mundus Christianus fuit. Illam senex tene'bu fidem, in qua
puer natus sum, Hieron. ad Pam. et Ocean. Op. Om. Tom. 2. p. 131.

BURLINGTON:

VERNON HARRINGTON.

1837.

t
<

,

'

' *

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1837, by

VERNON HARRINGTON,
in theCJlerlc's office of the District Court, for the District of Vermont.

HIRAM JOHNSON & Co

P'RINTERS, COLLEGE -ST.

TO THE CAUSE OF

CATHOLIC UNITY,
<# '

AS IT EXISTED IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH,

AND AS IT STILL EXISTS
IN THE HEARTS AND HOPES OF CHHISTIANS,

v

T H I S V O L U M E ,

AN HUMBLE OFFERING

TO THE GOD OF TRUTH AND PEACE,

IS DEDICATED BY

THE AUTHOR.

PREFACE .

THE author of the ensuing work, in undertaking a formal dis-
cussion of Roman-Catholic claims, has desired to confine
himself, rigidly, to those authorities and to that kind of argu-
ment, which he '.bought best calculated for the candid consi-
deration of his Roman brethren, and most becoming in every,
man, who seeks to contend for the principles of Christian
truth, without forfeiting the blessings of a Christian spirit. It
will be immediately obvious, to those who are at all familiar
with the controversy, that he has not followed any beaten
track ; nor taken his model from any of the justly celebrated
writers who have gone before him. With those writers, he in-
stitutes no comparison he holds no competition. A sincere
admirer of their learning and their genius, he would not, if he
could, detract one word from the well-earned praise accorded
to them. But still it seemed to him, that there was abundant
room for a more simple, and; possibly, effective method of ex-
hibiting the evidence of antiquity, upon the points in question.
The track which his own mind had pursued, in examining
the subject,, appeared to him the most satisfactory : and
in presenting the result to the lovers of primitive Christianity,
he trusts they will not have reason to think that he has labored
in vain.

For the plan and special motives of the work, the author
refers to the opening chapters of- the book itself. One slight
change, however, he has made; since^the second chapter was
printed. Instead of the Preelections- of ; Tournely, and Dr.
Challoner's Catholic Christian, which he intended to hars cited
A*'

VI PREFACE*

as mentioned on page 15, he thought it would be mote accepta-
ble to substitute Mr. Butler's Letters to Dr. Southey, chiefly
because this latter work is more generally known among us,
and possesses, in some respects, a peculiar kind of authority.
It was not the author's design to discuss, at present, any topics
except those which belong to the pope's supremacy, and the
dominion claimed over the whole Christian world by the
Church of Rome. The other points of the controversy, how-
rver, have been equally the subjects of his study, for many
years; and the materials are collected for a similar discussion
of them all, should it please Providence to favor the underta-
king.

The author is sensible that some apology is due to his dis-
tant friends for the length of time which has elapsed since
the first announcement of this volume. Those who are near
do not need to be reminded, that the pressure of many other
toils and cares rendered this delay inevitable.

BURLINGTON, VT. )
July 1st, 1837. {

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. The author's motives for the work qualifications plan*
Why addressed to the Roman Hierarchy. The principle pursued is
that which the Canon law allows, and the appeal is made in every
instance, to their own acknowledged authorities. .From these it
will be demonstrated, that the system of the present Church of
Rome could not have been the system of that Church, in the primi-
tive day. ' 1 10

CHAPTER II. The canon law set forth, recognizing the Scriptures aa
the fountain of truth; next to them, General Councils, and then the
writings of the fathers. Eighteen of the fathers specified by name
in the canon law. Others specified by character, as approved by
Jerome. Jerome's account of them extracted accordingly. The oth-
er works designed to be quoted for the present doctrine of the
Church of Rome. 1116

CHAPTER III. The present doctrine of the Church of Rome, concern-
ing the definition of the Holy Catholic Church, and the pope's su-
premacy, set forth at large in the words of the Doway Catechism
and the canon law. 17 21

CHAPTER IV. Examination of the Scripture texts, appealed to in
support of the pope's supremacy, as given in the Doway version.
The latin vulgate. The modern versions. The other evidence of
Scripture. The apostolic Council. Testimony of St> Paul. He,
and not Peter, designated in Scripture as the founder of the Church
of Rome. 2233

CHAPTER V, Testimony of the Apostolical Canons, inconsistent with
the doctrine of the pope's supremacy. 39 43

Vlll CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VI. Testimony of the Apostolical ConstitutionSj irreconci-
lable with the doctrine of the pope's supremacy. 43" 48

CHAPTER VII. The Decretal Epistles strongly in favor of the pope's
supremacy, but shewn to be a forgery. Candid acknowledgment of
the Roman critics. The fact of a forged document in suppoit of any
claim, becomes evidence against it. 49 52

CHAPTER VIIL Testimony of Clement of Rome inconsistent with
papal supremacy. 53 57

CHAPTER IX. Testimony of Irenaeus set forth at large, and shewn
to be adverse to the doctrine of papal supremacy. The narrative
of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, to-
tally irreconcilable with the claims of the papacy. 58 71

'CHAPTER X. Probable origin of the doctrine of supremacy.

was the mistress-city of the worldj and the Church established
there must needs have had a superiority of influence, derived from
the secular advantages of its location. Various reasons concurring
to favor the establishment of this secular dominion. Not necessary.
to attribute the doctrine of papal supremacy to evil motives in its
origin. It was probably intended fopthe peace and unity of Christ-
endom ; but it gave no warrant-for the change by which it became
a spiritual yoke, invested with the : ' attributes of a divine right, and
entitled to exact an universal homage at the peril of salvation.

72^-80

CHAPTER. XI. Testimony of Tertullian adverse to-the papal supre-
macy. 81' 94

CHAPTER XII. Testimony of Clement of Alexandria, though negative
and indirect, inconsistent with papal supremacy. 95 101'

CHAPTER XIII, Testimony of Origen,. set forth very fully. Totally
irreconcilable with -the papal supremacy. His character impeach-
ed of heresy. Defended by the learned Huet, and by St.. Jerome.

102115

CHAPTER XIV. Testimony of Cyprian. Some passages look favor-
able to the papal claiin;-but w-hen compared with others, it is plain.
that Rome was not then invested with any supremacy. The con-

CONTENTS. IX.

troversy between Stephen the pope and Cyprian seems conclusive
on that point. Testimony of Firmilian. Testimony of the bishops
of Africa. The whole of this is inconsistent with the canon law.

116131

CHAPTER XV. Testimony of Lactantius, though negative, is unfavor-
able to the Roman doctrine. Testimony of Eusebius at large. His
commentary on the psalms affords a passage which gives St. Paul
the first place among the apostles. In his Evangelic Demonstration
there is testimony of the same character. But in his Ecclesiastical
history there is abundant evidence circumstantially disproving the
papal claims. Testimony of the emperor Constantine. Canon of
the Council of Aries. 132165

CHAPTER XVI. The doctrine of the canon law on general Councils
set forth at large. Four chief points in this doctrine which are con-
tradicted by the testimony of the first general Councils, and the
fathers. 166 174

CHAPTER XVII. The person who summoned the Council of Nice,
according to the canon law, should have been the bishop of Rome;
but in point of fact, it was the emperor Constantine. The emperor's
oration cited on this topic, with the answer of Eustathius, bishop of
Antioch. Both strong against the pope's supremacy. The admission
of the canonistGibert,that not only the Nicene Council butmany oth-
er General Councils were convened by the emperors. The second re-
quisite to the holding a general Council, according to the canon law,
is that the pope should preside in it. But he did not preside in the
Council of Nice, nor in many other of the general Councils. The
subscriptions to the Nicene Council as stated by Gelasius, compared
with the more ancient copy. 175 193

CHAPTER XVIII. The canons of the Connr.il of Nice which bear up-
on the point of Roman supremacy, altogether inconsistent with the
doctrine. No infallibility claimed for the decrees of the Council.
Many, of its canons not observed by the Church of Rome .at this
day. 194206

CHAPTER XIX. Testimony of Athanasius, irreconcilable with the
doctrine of the infallibility of general Councils. 207212

CHAPTER XX. Testimony of Athanasius, against the doctrine of pa-
pal supremacy. 213 218

X CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XXI. Some other matters in the writings of Athauasius
Frauds committed under his name, in favor of papal supremacy

219220

CHAITER XXII. The testimony of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, oppo
sed to the doctrine of supremacy, and the present definition of the
Holy Catholic Church, by necessary inference. Fraud on Cyril ac
Icnowledged by Touttee. . 227242

CHAPTER XXIII. The testimony of Hilary of Poictiers irreconcilable
with the doctrine of supremacy and with the infallibility attributec
to General Councils. 243 25(

CHAPTER XXIV. The, testimony of Basil the great. The liturgy at
tributed to him. His language concerning the Council of Nice
The whole together is decidedly hostile to the doctrines of the ea
non law upon the points in question. 257 ; 27(

CHAPTER XXV. The testimony of Gregory Nazianzen. The equal
ity of the apostles. The mother-church of Nazianzen, and of Ni
copolis. The Catholic Church. Its distracted condition owing tc
there being no chief ruler in Israel. His opinion against Councils
Tin: whole strongly opposed to Roman supremacy and infallibility

271 28C

\

CHAPTER XXVI. The testimony of Ambrose, bishop of Milan. Faitl
is the foundation of the Church. All believers are foundations o
the Church. What is said to Peter is said to all. The Church o
Rome charged with error. The Council of Aquileia. The whol<
irreconcilable with the doctrine of the canon law. 281 29<

CHAPTER XXVII. The testimon}^ of Jerome. His epistle to popt
Damasus. His epistle to Evagrius. The Church built on all tin
apostles. The rock is Christ. Bishops and presbyters originally
equal. Rome is Babylon. The traditions and customs' of Rome no
more to be obeyed than those of other provinces. Jerome's enu
meration of Origen's errors. The whole compared together, anc
shewn to be hostile to Roman supremacy. 295 31(

CHAPTER XXVIII. The testimony of Augustin. His explanation o
1 Thou art Peter,' &c. directly opposed to the Roman doctrine. Pow
(M- of the keys explained in like manner. St. Peter represented tin

CONTENTS. XI

Church, and St. John also. What was committed to Peter was
committed to all the apostles. Augustin describes the Catholic
Church without any allusion to the papacy.. The customs of Rome
not binding. List of 88 heresies. Augustin, on the whole, irre-
concilable with the Roman doctrine. 317 330

CHAPTER XXIX. The testimony of Chrysostom. He interprets the
proof-texts of the Doway Catechism in a manner which cannot con-
sist with the Roman claim. 331 335

CHAPTER XXX. The testimony of Isidore of Pelusrum. Peter's con-
fession was the foundation of the Church. The testimony of Pros-
per of Aquitain concerning the Catholic Church. The testimony
of Vincent of Lerins. His famous standard for trying heresy
altogether decisive against the present doctrine of the Church of
Rome. 336341

CHAPTER XXXI. Recapitulation of the witnesses. Their writings con-
fessed to be still interpolated and impure. Yet even as they s^and,
the evidence is conclusive. 342 345

CHAPTER XXXII. The rise of the doctrine of supremacy, from the
secular preponderance of ancient Rome. The imperial laws aided
in establishing it. Also., the Councils. The change which took
place acknowledged and deplored by the candid Roman-Catholics.
Extracts in proof from Fleury. 346 356

CHAPTER XXXIII. The creed of pope Pius IV. quoted from Mr. Butler.
Admitted to be the universally received summary of the present sys-
tem. Statement of the various opinions professed concerning the
extent of the papal powers among Roman-Catholics themselves.
The Transalpine doctrine. The Cisalpine doctrine. The canon of
the Council of Florence. 357364

[CHAPTER XXXIV. These doctrines irreconcilable. No definition
agreed on. The declaration of the French clergy in 1G82. Disap-
probation of the pope. The difficulty passed over by his successor.
The oath established for the British Roman-Catholics in 1791. The
five universities consulted by Mr. Pitt. The Cisalpine doctrine
professed without any authority, and in the face of the declared sys-
tem and practice of Rome for centuries. Cisalpine divines admit
the facts. Their argument examined and shewn to be inconclusive.
The Transalpine doctrine which accords the right of dethroning he-

Xll CONTENTS.

retioal sovereigns &c. to the pope, is the only authoritative doctrine
of the present day, 365 381

Cii AFTER XXXV. The change of primitive practice in the mode of
electing the pope ceremonies of his installation adoration pla-
cing him on the altar triple crown, &c. 382 386

CHAPTER XXXVI. Points of agreement. Reformed Christians are
Catholics in al! that is primitive, but Protestants in all that has
been changed. Questions of practical importance. 1. Why the
unity of the Holy Catholic Church should be confined to the com-
munion of the Church of Rome, instead of being, as at first, co-ex-
tensive with the creed of the Church universal. 2. Why a vow of
true obedience to the pope should be added to the creed, and made
a part of faith, necessary to salvation. 3. Why the same creed ob-
liges the professor to say that he holds all apostolic traditions and
observances of the holy Catholic Church, when so many of these
traditions and observances are done away. 4. Why the same creed
exacts the promise to understand the Scriptures no otherwise than
as the fathers unanimously interpret thern,when their interpretations
are so directly opposed to the present system. 5, Why all the canons
of the Councils are professed to be holden, when so many of them
are obsolete; and especially, why the anathemas of the Council of
Trent, should be considered binding on the conscience of every in-
dividual. Remarks on the curses which the Roman-Catholic is thus
compelled to denounce on all out of his own pale. Lastly, Why the
. phantom of infallibility should be retained, when the professed doc-
trines of the Court of Rome have confessedly undergone such a
change, and when, to this day, there are several inconsistent theo-
ries concerning the papacy afloat, without any acknowledged mode
of deciding between them. 387 393

CONCLUSION. Attempts made in the 17th century, to unite the reform-
ed Churches with the Gallican Church of Rome. Circumstances
existing at present more favorable to such an enterprise. The Church
of Rome chiefly concerned to improve the opportunity. A disposi-
tion to return to primitive principles, a discussion of those principles
for the sake of truth and peace, with the encouraging aid of those
governments which have an established religion, would probabl)"i
under God, soon settle every difficulty. The peril of the distracted
etatc of Christendom. The responsibility of the present generation.
The author's prayer for peace.

CHAPTER I.

BRETHREN IN CHRIST,

AN address to an ecclesiastical body so numerous, so
powerful, so august, as the Hierarchy of the Church of
Rome, from an individual of humble name and small repu-
tation, may well seem, if not to others, at least to you, in
need of an apology. Let me state, therefore, in all simpli-
city, the motives which have incited me to the present un-
dertaking.

I belong to the communion of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, descended from the Church of England, which
you call heretical and schismatic. Unworthy, as I freely
acknowledge myself, of such a distinction, it has pleased
Divine Providence to place me in the office of bishop in
that Church, the least among my brethren. On the ground
then, in the first place, of official duty, I ask the privilege
of reasoning with you on the authority by which you deny
us a place in the Catholic Church, and condemn us as ha-
ving neither part nor lot in the heritage of the faithful.

But besides this official right, I confess, even at the
hazard of being accused of egotism that I have a personal
feeling of more than usual depth and earnestness upon the
subject of your claims. Although a constant inhabitant of
the United States for almost forty years, yet I cannot forget
that ray first breath was drawn in that ill-fated, island, which

2 REASONS FOtt THE UNDERTAKING. ' [CHAPTER f .,

has felt the evils of religious discord so bitterly, and so long*
True, the associations of my childhood have all been bro-
ken, and their faded relics are like the dim memory of a
dream : but I never expect to see the day when I shall
contemplate the religious distractions of Ireland without a
lively emotion ; nor can I shake off the strong conviction,
that tranquillity will never be restored to that unhappy coun-
try, until the exclusive spirit of bigotry lies prostrate before
the gospel of peace. May I not be allowed, therefore, to say
that I possess a sort of birthright in the discussion of your
claims, which should obtain for me a patient and indulgent
hearing ?

There is a third ground, however, on which I should de-
fend my work, derived from the fact, that the controversy
between our respective Churches deserves to be considered
the most exciting and important religious topic of the age.
In comparison with this, all other controversies sink into
insignificance. Your assertion that the Church of Rome is
the mother and mistress of all the Churches-, ancj that out of
her pale there is no salvation your numbers, which are
stated to exceed all the other branches of the Christian
Church together, by a proportion nf nearly two to one
your vast and well disciplined influence over the education
of the civilized world your hosts of devoted laity, men
and women whose property, and time, and talents, are
consecrated to your service -the imposing magnificence of
your ritual, so well adapted to captivate the imagination and
the feelings of your votaries your deep and various learn-
ing, so skilfully displayed in the defence of your system,
the venerable air of antiquity which invests your peculiar
doctrines with a special charm and the aspect of unbroken
unity with which you stand before the divided and jarring
ranks of your opponents, all this does assuredly confer an

CHAPTER 1.] - QUALIFICATIONS. 3

importance on the subject of your elsk&s, which can bardlj

be too highly estimated ; and watch fcrr^s, of itself, a justi-
fication of ever/ attempt to ascertain the strength of the

* A

evidence on which they are sustained,

Nor do I think it the least important part of ihe case, that
the temper of the times in which we lire calls Br a peculiar
effort to investigate the merits of this coDtrovf-rsv, Your

-* W

enemies, particularly in this country, are numerous, deter*-
mined, and unsparing. The most unparalleled assaults of
violence have been directed against jcrj. and a community
distinguished for its liberality and refinement bare refused

O w

you any adequate redress. The press has teeraed with ibe
darkest and roost shameless accusations against your insti-
tutions, and no calumny of which you are declared to be the
object seems too gross for the public ear. The gaze of un-
kind suspicion is every where upon you: the very kenneb
of history are industriously raked for evidence against you :
the bitterest intolerance thinks itsslf justified in alarming
the communitv by terrific statements of voux alleged eaor-

J (rf CJ

mities ; and the veil of your monastic seclusion and jour
vo-ws of celibacy are currently represented 3 as the contri-
vance of systematic guilt, and the covering of sensual abomi-

w O * O

nation. It is surely, then, required, by the voice of chari-
ty and truth, that some one should examine the questions
at issue between us. upon their real merits, without the ar-
tificial and fallacious coloring in which a wild and intolerant
zeal has depicted them: and it is equally required by the
precept which commands u?to judge as we would be judged,
that your motives and your character should be kindly re-
garded, even when your doctrines are condemned.

But you will naturally ask ? what qualifications I possess
for my undertaking ; on what principle I design to proseeuts
it ; and why I choose to address it to the Hierarchy, ih*

4 QUALIFICATIONS. [CHAPTER 1.

Clergy of your Church, rather than to the people, or the
public at large.

To the first question, I frankly answer, that my qualifica-
tions for this or any other good work are far below those of
very many amongst my brethren. But it is nearly twelve
years since my attention was first directed to the merits of
this controversy ; and my best faculties, such as they are,
have been long occupied in ascertaining the truth from every
accessible source of information.^ Your own books have
been my study, your own editions of the fathers and the
councils. Not only your canon law, but the decretal epis-
tles, and many of those apocryphal writings under the name
of Clement and others, which the learned of your own
Church condemn, have been industriously examined during
this period, in order that I might be capable of a fair judg-
ment on the real evidence of antiquity. I had read the
leading works on both sides, and saw that both parties ap-
pealed to the same Bible, the same fathers, and the same
councils, while yet the conclusions which they drew were
not to be reconciled. It was obvious, therefore, that the
labor of perusing these authorities in their own connexion,
was the only perfect method of arriving at the whole truth
a labor that few men, perhaps, in our day, are willing to
undergo. But for myself, I can say, that I found it not
only a work of toil, but a work of the deepest interest and
gratification. And the results of these studies, which I de-
sire, in part, to offer you however humble the claims of
my work may otherwise appear, are at least the fruits of
sincere and honest investigation. (

Next to the qualification derived from a patient and labo-
rious examination of your authorities, permit me ito say,
that my personal and local circumstances are calculated to
preserve me from any bias. Whatever influence the inter-

CHAPTER 1.] THE PRINCIPLE ADOPTED. 5

est of a powerful religious establishment may be supposed
to exert over the minds of my British brethren, the Church
in this country has neither honors nor wealth to tempt our
integrity in the pursuit of truth. Whatever prejudice the
unhappy collisions of Europe, or the morbid fears of the
United States may excite, to warp the judgment by the force
of the passions, my lot has been so cast, in the mercy of
Providence, as to be altogether exempt from them. On the
contrary, the little intercourse which I have had with you,
has been the intercourse of kindness and courtesy ; and it
has been my fortune to know several of your people, whose
virtues would have done honor to any creed. Hence, so
far as the qualifications of circumstances and feeling are
concerned, 1 think that I am under no inducement to do
you the slightest injustice : and greatly am I mistaken if
you shall be able to detect, in the following pages, a single
instance of asperity, of irony, of bitterness, or any other
unseemly exhibition, on which a Christian disputant could
look back with sorrow at his dying hour.

In reply to the second question, I have to say, that the
principle on which I shall proceed will be your own prind^
pie, and no other. I am perfectly willing that the Church
of Rome should be the standard of Primitive Christianity,
provided the Church of Rome be taken AT THE PRIMITIVE
DAT. But if the Church of Rome has varied from her-
self, and this can be demonstrably proved by her own ac-
knowledged authorities, then, surely, it will be admitted,
that the older pattern must be the Apostolic pattern, and
that the present Church of Rome SHOULD RETURN TO HEK
ORIGINAL. SELF, before she accuses us of innovation. In
the evidence which I shall adduce to establish this change,
I shall have recourse to your own witnesses. The Scriptures,
b your own version, the fathers, the liturgies, the councils,

t> WHY ADDRESSED [CHAPTER 1.

the canon law, and the accredited declaration of your clergy
in France, will furnish my principal vouchers : and in every
instance the original shall be quoted in full, that you may
judge, without the trouhle of a search, whether I have given
a lair translation. You will surely grant that the principle
here stated is just and true ; and I trust that you will find it
faithfully maintained throughout these pages.

To the third question, namely : Why I choose to address
you, the Clergy or Hierarchy of the Church of Rome, rather
than your people, or the public at large, I beg leave to offer
the following reply.

If the object of my humble work were to cater for the
public appetite, to excite the public odium, or to inform the
public intellect, I should have no desire to be its author.
The' public that is, the community at large take small
interest in religious truth, even when dressed in that poor
invention of sentimental pietism, the religions novel. Those
of the public whom my subject would attract, are ' few and
far between ;' and therefore, I address them not. Religious
controversy, lam well aware, has often been made interest-
ing to the public, when it was strongly seasoned with gross
abuse, slanderous mis-statements, personal invective, amu-
sing or romantic narrative, wit, sarcasm, highly wrought elo-
quence, or other attractions which the public taste admires.
But religious argument composed with sobriety and put forth
in the spirii of truth and peace, has no right to expect popiir
/#; favor.

As to your people, I address ihem not, because, for the
most part) they have neither tte liberty nor the inclination
to read what any Protestant would set before them. The
laity are not qualified, in general, to understand or to relish
such discussions. True, there are many honorable excep-
tions to this remark; but not enough to justify writers, far

CHAPTER 1.] TO THE PRIESTHOOD. 7

more attractive than I pretend to be, in addressing them. But
the laity of the Church of Rome, especially, are altogether
unlikely to read any thing which their Clergy would not
sanction. Your rules of confession, and your strict superin-
tendance over your flocks, confine their religious studies
within an approved circle ; and, therefore, controversy must
reach them through you, if it reaches them at all.

I have, then, concluded to address you, on this occasion,
as being, on the whole, the proper body. I do it, because
I take for granted that ' you are bound, above all men, to
examine the foundation of your system, and to be thorough-
ly'' satisfied that it is justified by the truth of God. You are
the absolute guides of millions of your fellow beings, who
look up to you with the most implicit faith, the most un-
doubting confidence; not pretending to judge for themselves
in any religious matter, but trusting all their immortal hopes
to your presumed infallibility. Many there are very ma-
ny in the Protestant ranks, who think you dishonest, prof-
ligate, hypocritical dissemblers preaching what you do not
yourselves believe, for the sake of your priestly influence
over the bodies and souls of men. God forbid that I should
think so ! I judge you, as I would desire to be judged. I
have no right to question your sincerity and truth. I pro-
ceed on the presumption that you estimate aright the tre-
mendous responsibility of your office tremendous in all
cases, but emphatically so in yours, since your power over
your people, and their confidence in your guidance, are so
far beyond the ordinary standard throughout the rest of
Christendom. And therefore I address you in the steadfast
hope, that you will look at the authorities and arguments
here presented, with candid minds, as men who feel their
accountability to Christ, the great Shepherd, and who know
that there is but a step between them and death. Yours

8 THE RESULT. [CHAPTER 1.

is not the common case of a Church, confessing themselves
to be only a portion of the Lord's kingdom, and doing their
work according to their ability, without any exclusive pre-
rogative beyond their brethren. You CLAIM THE WHOLE.
You identify the Church of Rome with the Church Catho*-
lie or Universal. You call the Bishop of Rome the vicar
of Christ. Out of your communion you deny that any one
can be saved. Your doctrines are all placed on an equality
with the Word of God, for in them all, you claim the same
infallibility. You hold in your hands the peace of nations*
You assert your empire over the unseen world, promising
to deliver the disembodied soul from purgatorial pains, and
deciding the title of departed saints to the mansions of glory,
O brethren ! if you have indeed a right to claim all this
if the almighty Redeemer has indeed invested you with such
powers far be it from me to desire the invasion of your
prerogatives. But if not if these claims are not the ori-
ginal characteristics of the Church of Rome, but are the
accumulated changes which time and opportunity brought
in upon the Apostolic system look to it, I beseech you, for
they are fearful assumptions if they be not warranted by
the King of kings. Before Him, you and I shall meet in
judgment. To Him, you must justify your claims, and I,
my feeble attempt to question them. May His truth, which
is ONE, be, found our defence in that day ; for the prejudice
of education, the pride of place, the ignorance which we
might have overcome, or the glory of this world's dominion,,
will yield us no apology for error, before the throne of God.
I shall only add a few words on the results expected from
my present labor, lest you might suppose that I attach an
importance to it, which it cannot justly claim. Let me, then,
observe, that the question of results has not entered into
my circle of calculations. In the mind of the politician,

CHAPTER 1.] THE RESULT. . 9

the mechanist, the man of science, the man of trade, or any
of the numerous classes which spend their intellectual en-
ergies on the things of time and sense, the expected result
of their operations must occupy the first place, since it fur-
nishes the only efficient motive for their exertions. But
the defender of religious truth acts in obedience to the prin-
ciple of duty, and leaves the result with God. The men
who are by office, the especial standard bearers in the army
of Christ, are bound to ' contend earnestly for the faith
once delivered to the saints,' whether their efforts are likely
to be accounted the greatest or the least, in the annals of
human achievement. For me, therefore, it is enough to
know, that the servant who had but a single talent of his
Lord's money committed to his trust, was punished because
he employed it not according to his Master's will. In the
cause of the divine Gospel in the service of the Church
of God in the defence of its primitive and Apostolic truth
and order, I hold myself bound to strive with all men not
in the spirit of bitterness, nor in the bigotry of intolerance,
nor in the pride of self-opinion, but in charity and kindness
and good will according to the small measure of ability
which it has pleased heaven to bestow. And thus proceeds
ing, the question of results gives me no concern. I may be
vilified, because I condemn the coarse vituperation with
which so many good men, in their mistaken zeal, have
thought fit to assail you. I may bear the doom so often ex-
perienced by those, who, in times of high and strong excite-
ment, presume to follow the sober track of justice and of
candor. Or, worse than all, my humble work may possi-
bly be like an arrow shot into the air, which strikes no mark,
creates no noise, leaves no track behind it, and is discover-
ed, after a little space, lying idly on the ground. But what
have these fears to do with the course of duty ? And how

IO CONCLUSION. [CHAPTER 1.

precious a consolation is afforded to the servant of Christ,
when he is able, in the language and the faith of the great
Apostle, to say, l It is a small thing with me that I be judg-
ed of you or of man's judgment He that judgeth me is
the Lord.'

In his name, then, brethren in the service of his truth,
and as the advocate of his ecclesiastical polity, I address
you. I desire no better standard of my faith and practice
than your own Church displayed, in the early ages of her
first love ; I ask no better evidence of what she then was,
than your own witnesses have set belore me : and my de-
sign is to exhibit the testimony of these witnesses in its own
simplicity and power, and to shew how you have changed
your original system, not as some suppose, by the willing
adoption of any principle of evil, but BY AN EXCESSIVE

OVERSTRAINING OF WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE GOOD, ON
MISTAKEN VIEWS OF EXPEDIENCY.

The motives to my undertaking its principle its gene*
ral plan are now before you. For the result I ask no oth-
er security than the Redeemer's blessing, nor do I covet
any other praise for my reward.

CHAPTER II.

BRETHREN IN CHRIST,

I have said that the principle on which this address should
proceed, is your own principle, that I should make my
appeal in every case to the authorities sanctioned by youi
own Canon law. Let me premise the list of those on which
I rest, because the witnesses which I wish to cite, must be
above all exception. ' Proofs,' as your favorite Aristotle has
well said, ' are the only skill ; all the rest are but additions.'*

From the well known work of your famous Canon-
ist Gibert, entitled an Exposition of the Canon law, I quote
the following passages.

' Holy Scripture is the fountain of the Canon law, as re-
spects faith and manners, and also as it respects the neces-
sity, the utility, and the form of Councils.' (1)

' Next to the Holy Scripture, the principal fountain of
the Canon law at the present day are General Councils.'(2)

* ui yaQ Triffrsig erTe%rov can iiovov TO 3' a/J.a nqoa^i]xai. Ariitot.
Rhet. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. v. 3.

(1) ' Scriptura Sacra, juris est fons quoad fidem et mores, et quoad
necessitatem, utilitatem, et formam Conciliorum ;' (Corpus Jur. Can-
Joan. Gib. Tom. 1. Pars, 2. Tit. 4. Ed. Colon. A. D. 1732. p. 11.)

.(2) *' Post Scripturam Sacram, praecipuus hodierni juris canonici
fons eunt Concilia Gcncralia ;' ib.

12 LIST OP AUTHORITIES. [CHAPTER 2.

1 The Canon law expressly approves the writings of
eral doctors : viz. 1. Those of the blessed Cyprian, Martyr
and bishop of Carthage : 2. those of the blessed Athana-
sius, bishop of Alexandria : 3. those of the blessed Greg-
ory, bishop of Nazianzen : 4. those of the blessed Basil,
bishop of Cappadocia : 5. those of the blessed John Chry-
sostom, bishop of Constantinople : 6. those of the blessed
Hilary, bishop of Poietiers : 7. those of the blessed Augus-
tin, bishop of Hippo : 8. those of the blessed Ambrose,
bishop of Milan : 9. those of the blessed Jerome, Presby-
ter : 10. those of Prosper, a most religious man : 11. the
epistle of the blessed Leo to Flavian, the bishop of Con-
stantinople, whose text, even to a tittle, if any laic or illite-
rate person disputes, and does not receive it with reverence
in all things, let him be accursed : 12. those writings of
Ruffinus and of Origen, which the blessed Jerome does
not reject: 13. those of Orosius, a very learned man :
14. those of the venerable Sedulius : 15. those of Vincent :

16. those of Eusebius of Cesarea, with some restriction :

17. those of the blessed Cyril which are received by the
fifth General Council : 18. those of blessed Isidore.' (3)

(3) ' Non paucorum Scripta Doctorum Canon expresse approbat.'
'Non aliorum Scripta expresse probat Canon, quam istorum,

1. Beati Cypriani martyris et Carthaginiensis Episcopi. 2. Beati
Athanasii Alexandria! Episcopi. 3. Beati Gregorii Nazianzeni Epis-
copi. 4. Beati Basilii Cappadocise Episcopi. 5. Beati Joannis Con-
Btantinopplitani Episcopi. 6. Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi. 7. Beati
Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi. 8. Beati Hieronyini Presbyteri. 10.
Prosperi viri religiosissimi. 11. Epistolara Beati Leonis ad Flavianum
Constantinopolitamim Episcopum destinatarn, cujus textum aut unum
iota, siquisquam hliola disputaverit, et non earn in omnibus vcnera-
biliter acceperit, Anathema sit. 12. Rufini et Origenis quee beatus
Hierbnymus non rcpudiat. 13. Orosii viri eruditissimi. 14. Venerabi-
lis viri Sedulii. 15. Vincentii. 16. Eusebii Cfflsariensis cum quadam

CHAPTER 2.] LIST OF AUTHORITIES. 13

Besides these fathers whom your canon law thus express-
ly names, it pronounces a general approbation of all the or-
thodox fathers, and of all that Jerome approves, although
in some respects he may have seen cause to blame them.
Indeed the judgment of Jerome- is cardinal with you. He
is called, in your ,-cfanon law, most blessed, while the other
fathers are called blessed only, and in Origen, Ruffinus and
others, his censure is taken as the index to that which should
be condemned, by the plain sentence of Pope Gelasius, who
flourished in the fifth century. From the catalogue, there-
fore, which Jerome himself furnishes, I take my authority
for some others* of the fathers, which I shall have occasion
to cite, and I mention them now, in order that the ground-
work may be firmly settled before I proceed.- They are as
follows ; viz :

Irenseus, mentioned by Jerome, with great commenda-
tion, the bishop of Lyons, whose books were published
about A. D. 170. (6)

Clement of Alexandria, the master of the famous Cate-
chetical school after Pantaenus, whose books Jerome calls
' admirable volumes full of erudition and eloquence, taken
both from the Holy Scriptures,and fromeecular literature.' (7)

restrictione. 17. Beati Cyrilli opera a quinto Concilio G&nerali re-
cepta. 18. Sancti Isidori.' ib. Tit. 5. p. 12.

(6) ' Irenseus Pothini Episcopi, qui Lugdunensem in Gallia rege-
bat ecclesiam presbyter, am artyribus ejusdem loci ob quasdam eecle-
siae qusestiones legatus Romam missus, honorificas super nomine suo
ad Eleutherium Episcopum perfert literas. P,ostea jam Pothino prope
nonagenario, ob Christum martyrio coronato, in locum ejus substitui-
tur. Scripsit quinque adversus haereses libros.' &c. Sanct. Hieron-
op. om. Ed. 1684. Tom. 1. p. 180. B.

(7) Clemens Alexandriae Ecclesiae presbyter, Panteani auditor, post
ejus mortem Alexandriae ecclesiasticam scholam tenuit, et xatiz >t attor
magiater fuit. Feruntur ejus insignia volumina,plenaque eruditionis et.
eloquentiae, tarn de Scripturis divinis, quam de aecularis literatures in-
strumento. E quibue ilia sunt, guy((mr$ libri octo,' &c. ib. 181. B.

14 LIST OP AUTHORITIES. [CHAPTERS.

Tertullian, the profound and learned presbyter of Car-
thage, who flourished about A. D. 200. and whose works
were the favorite study of St. Cyprian. Jerome records the
fact that Cyprian never passed a day without reading this
author, and frequently calledhim 'the master.' He fell,
however, towards the close of his life, into the error of
Montanus, whom he followed as being an incarnation of the
Holy Spirit, and Jerome attributes his lapse to the envy and
reproaches of the Roman Clergy. Hence there are some
parts of his works that you receive with approbation, name-
ly those which were written previous to his adoption of the
error of Montanus ; but those which were written afterwards
you reject. In quoting from this writer, I shall not forget
this distinction : nevertheless, there are some things even in
his rejected pages worthy of attention. (8)

Lactantius is another ecclesiastical writer, mentioned by
Jerome with approbation, and celebrated, as you know, for
the remarkable beauty of his style, from whom I shall draw
some testimony, on the points to be discussed. (9) The

(8) ' Tertullianus presbyter provincise Africae, civitatis Carthagi-
nensis, patre Centurione proconsular!. Hie acris et vehementis inge-
nii, multa scripsit volumina, quae quia nota sunt pluribus, praetermit-
timus. Vidi ego quendam Paul urn Concordise, quod oppidum Italiae
est, senem, qui se beati Cypriani jam grandis aetatis notarium, cum
ipse admodum esset adolescens, Romse vidisse diceret, referreque sibi
aolitum, nunquam Cyprianum absque Tertulliani lectione unam diem
praetermisisse, ac sibi crebro dicere : Da magistrum : Tertullianum
videlicet significans. Hie cum usque ad mediam setatem presbyter ec-
clesiae permansisset, invidia poetea et contumeliis clericorum Roma-
nae ecclesiae, ad Montani dogma delapsus, in multis libris novae pro-
phetiae meminit, specialiter autem adversum ecclesiam texuit volumi-
n De Pudicitia, De Persecutione, De jejuniis, De monogamia, De
ectasi libros sex, et septimum quern adversum Apollonium composuit.
Ferturque yixisse usque ad decrepitam aetatem, et multa quae non ex-
tant opusculacondidisse.' ib. p. 183.

(9) ' Firminianus, qui et tactantius, Arnobii discipulus. :Ni-

CHAPTER 2.] LIST OF AUTHORITIES. 15

editions of the Councils which I shall use, are your admirable
collections by Hardouin and Mansi. When I have occasion
to speak of your rites and ceremonies, I shall cite your
Picard, and I shall quote largely from the celebrated decla-
ration of the Clergy of France, put forth by the powerful
and masterly genius of your famous Bossuet, the illustrious
bishop of Meaux.

There are three books more, to which I shall have re-
course for your doctrine. The first is the very superior
Body oi Divinity, consisting of the Prelections; of Tour-
nely, arranged by Collet, one of your best standards ; the
Venetian edition of A. D. 1751. The second is Dr. Chal-
loner's Catholic Christian, and the third is the well known
abridgment commonly called the Doway Catechism, com-
posed originally in i'649 by the Rev. Henry Tuberville of
your college at Doway, generally used by the Roman
Catholics of the British empire, and lately recommended by
the Right Rev. Benedict, Bishop of Boston. The Ameri-
can stereotype edition of 1833, is the copy before me. The
edition of the holy Scriptures from which my quotations
shall, for the most part, be made, is your own version, put
forth by the same college at Doway, first stereotype from
the fifth Dublin edition, published in 1824, with notes and
comments.

Besides the above, however, I shall consider myself
bound to notice some other relics of antiquity, viz. the wri-
tings of the Apostolic fathers, the Apostolic Canons, and the
Apostolical Constitutions. I shall also comment occasion-

comedise Rhetoricam docuit. : Habemus ejus symposium, quod

adolescentulus scripsit, (iSonto\]ixov de Aphrica ad Nicomediam, hex-
ametris scriptum versibus, et alium librum qui inscribitur Grammati-
cus, et pulcherrimum de ira Dei, et institutionum divinarum adver-
sumgenteslibrosseptem,' &c. ib. p. 189.

16 LIST OF AUTHORITIES. [CHAPTERS.

ally on those unquestionable frauds, such as the Decretal
epistles and others, which will unavoidably present them-
selves in the path which lies before me ; and in all such
cases, I shall cite the opinion of your most distinguished
scholars, as a justification of my own. That the plan of
my work will call for many repetitions, will be pardoned,
I trust, from the nature of my undertaking. But I can,
at least, promise that nothing shall be taken at second
hand nothing shall be presented out of its true connexion ;
and if I cannot shew from these, your own authorities, that
the Church of Rome has changed her original polity, and
that the Primitive Church of Rome would have corres-
ponded far more closely with ourselves, I will forthwith
conform to your standard, and publicly confess my error. -

CHAPTER III.

BRETHREN IN CHRIST,

The change of your Primitive doctrine, to the examina-
tion of which this volume is chiefly devoted, is in your de-
finition of ' The Holy Catholic Church,' which you make
inseparably dependent upon the Church of Rome, although
it anciently signified, and still in truth signifies, The Church
General, or Universal, without regard to any particular dio-
cese or city.

Your claims on this head consist in the allegation, that
our great Redeemer constituted St. Peter the prince of the
Apostles, and gave him a right of government and authority
over the rest, which right he bequeathed to his successor,
the bishop or Pope of Rome, who thereby became the VI-
CAR or CHRIST, and the head of the whole Christian
Church throughout the world. (10)

This position you undertake to establish, first, from the
twenty-first chapter of St. John's gospel, where Christ,
as you state in your Doway Catechism, (p. 20.) ' gave St.
Peter absolute power to feed and govern his whole flock,
saying, Feed my lambs, feed my sheep : therefore the rest

(10) Thus the Doway Catechism, p. 20, declares that The Church
is the Congregation of all the faithful under Jesus Christ, their invir
sible head, and his vicar upon earth, the Pope.'
2*

18 iGttts OF

of the Apostles were his sheep, and he their head or pas-
tor.'

if'

'Secondly/ according to this Catechism, 'out of St. Matt.
xvi. 18. when Christ saith, Thou art Peter, and upon this
Rock will I build my Church. Therefore the rest of the
apostles were built on him.*

Thirdly, 'Because,' as saith the same Catechism^ (p. 25)
' since the translation of St. Peter's chair from Antioch to
Rome, the particular Roman Church has been head of all
the Churches, and to her the primacy has been affixed.'

Hence, in defining the essential parts of the Church $
(p. 20) the same Catechism declares that the Church con-
sists of ' A Pope or supreme .head, bishops, pastors and lai-
ty,' and in full consistency with this, we read in the next page
that 'he who is not in due connexion and subordination to the
Pope and General Councils, must needs be dead, and can*
not be accounted a member of the Church) since FROM the
Pope and general councils, under Christ, we hate our Spir-
itual lije and motion, as Christians !'

I attach importance to this Catechism, not ^because of its
intrinsic dignity, but because it is the text book from which,
throughout great Britain and the United States, you instruct
your flocks. Besides which, it gives the latest statement of
your doctrine ; and therefore, it is to be presumed, the most
moderate and least offensive in your own opinion . Let me
next proceed, however, to make some stronger extracts from
vour Canon law.

V

'The Pope,' says your Canon, 'by the Lord's appointment,
is the successor of the blessed Apostle Peter, and holds the
place of the Redeemer himself upon the earth.' (11)

(II) Bead Petri Apostoli, disponente Domino, Papa est successor, et
ipflius Redemptoris locum in terris tenet.' Corp. Jur. Can. Joan t Gib
Tom. 2. p. 6.

C'HAPTER i3.j ACCORDING TO THE CA&ON LAW. 1$

' Thfc Roman Church, by the appointment of our Lord }
is the mother and mistress of all the faithful.' (12)

( The Roman Pontiff bears the authority not of a mere
man, but of the true God upon the earth.' (13)

' The Pope holds tfie place of God in the earth, so that
he can confer ecclesiastical 'benefices without diminu-
tion.? (14)

* Christ, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, gave to
the Roman Pontiff, in the person of Peter, the plenitude of
power.' (15)

' To the Holy Roman Church, as to the mother and
headj all the greater causes of the Church may recur, and
receive their decision according to her sentence ; nor ought
any thing to be decreed in these without the Roman Pon-
tiff.' (16)

' The greater causes of the Church, especially those which
concern the articles of faith, are to be referred to the seat
of Peter.' (17)

' The translation-, the deposition or resignation of a bishop,

(12) ' Romana Ecclesia, disponente Domino, cunctorum fidelium
IVIater est et Magistra.' ib. p. 8.

(13) { Romanus Pontifex non puri hominis ; sed veri Dei vicem ge-
rit in terris.' ib. p. 9.

(14) ' Papa locum Dei tenet in terris, ut Ecclesiastica Benefioia sina
diminutione conferat.' ib.

(15) ' Plenitudinem potestatis Cbristus Rex regum et Dominus
dominantium Romano Pontifici in persona Petri concessit.' ib. p. 10.

(16.) ' Ad sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam, quasi ad matrem, atque api-
oem, omnes majores Ecclesiee causse recurrant, et juxta ejus sententi-
am terminum sumant ; nee extra Romanum quidquam ex his debeat
uecerni^Pontificem.' ib, p. 12.

(17) ' Majores Ecclesiaj causas. pra;sortira artieuloa fidei contingen-
tes, ad Petri sedeni referendas'. ib. p. 12.

20 RIGHTS OF THE POPE, [CHAPTER 3.

is reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone, not so much by any
canonical constitution, as by the divine institution.' (18) .

' As the translation, the deposition, and resignation of
bishops, so likewise the confirmation of those who are elected,
after their election, is reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone,
by reason of the spiritual bond.' (19) .

c Although miracles may have been performed by anyone^
yet it is not lawful to venerate him as a saint, without the
authority of the Roman Church.' (20)

' Whenever there is any question concerning the privile-
ges of the Apostolic chair, they are not to be judged by others.
'The Pope alone knows how to determine doubts concern- 1
ing the privileges of the chief Apostolic seat,' (21)

' To make one episcopal seat subject to another, or to
place one before another^ or to unite two dioceses into one,
or divide one into two, are things reserved to the Primacy,
(i. e., the Chief Pontiff,) alone.' (22)

' It was becoming, since the Chief Pontiff represents the
person of Christ, that as during "Christ's earthly ministry
the Apostles stood round him, so the assembly of the Cardi-

(18) Translatio, depositio, aut r-essio Episcopi, non tarn constitu-
tione canonica, quara institutions divitta, soli sunt Romano Pontifici
reservata.' ib. p. 13.

(19) { Sicut Episcoporum translatio, flepositio, et cessio, sic et elec-
torum post electionem eonfirmatio, spiritualis ratione conjugii, soli est
Romano Pontifici reservata.' il>. p. 13.

(20) ' Etiamsi per aliquem rairacula fierent, non lioeret ipsuin pro
sancto. absque autoritate Ecclesiffi Romans, venerarii" ib.

(21.) ' Cum super privilegiis sedis Apostolics causse vertitur ; de
ipsis per alios non judicatur. ' Solus Papa cognosc.it de dubiis privv-
legioriMn sedis Apostolicae summae.' ib. p. 13.

(22.) Sunt tantum suramo Pontifici reservata : unam Episcopalem
Ecclesiam subjicere alteri, et illam praeficere isti 5 concesso sibi priri-
legio Primatias, tque duos Episcopatus unire, vel unurn dividere.'
ib. p. 13.

CHAPTER 3.] ACCORDING TO THE CANON LAW. 21

nals representing the Apostolic college, should stand before
the Pope ; but the rest of the bishops, scattered abroad
every where, represent the apostles sent forth to preach the
gospel.' (23)

These extracts may suffice for the present, to prove the
nature and effect of the prerogatives with which you invest
die Church and the Pontiff of Rome. His powers in re-
ference to Councils, will be reserved for a future chapter.
Let me now proceed to prove that you have changed your
primitive doctrine, by shewing what the Scriptures, the
ancient fathers, and the first General Council, declare upon
the matter. And, here, brethren, I must bespeak your patient
attention. The witnesses are numerous, and the examina-
tion must be thorough, if we would hope to be rewarded
by the discovery of truth. When this preliminary labor
is accomplished, I shall examine the two conflicting theo-
ries concerning the limits of Papal power, which have ex-
cited so much serious controversy amongst yourselves ; and
shall shew, as it seems to me, that the claims of your canon
law on that point have never been relinquished ; but con-
tinue to represent your doctrine fairly, to this day. A few
practical considerations for your sober reflection, will then
bring us to the conclusion.

(23) ' Decuit, cum summus Pontifex Christ! repraesentet peraonam,
ut quemadmodum Christo conversant! in terris assistebant Apostoli,
ita etiam Cardinalium coetus Apostolicum repraesentans, coram Papa
asaisteret; reliqui vero Episcopi, ubique diffusi, Apoatolos repraesen-
tant ad praedicandum per orbem missos.' ib p. 19.

CHAPTER IV.

BRETHREN IN CHRIST,

According to the principle allowed by your own Canon
law which appeals to Scripture as its fountain, I shall first
examine your alleged primacy of the Apostle Peter, as it
appears in this infallible oracle of truth.

You deduce your doctrine on the subject from the pas-
sage of St. Matthew, (xvi. 18) where Peter, declaring that
the Redeemer was Christ, the Son of the living God, re-
ceived from our Lord the gracious answer: ' Blessed ait
thou, Simon Bar-Jona ; because flesh and blood hath not re-
vealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I
say to thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the king-
dom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall also be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt
loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 5

Next, you cite the passage in St. John's Gospel, (xxi.
16 &c.) where the Saviour saith to Peter : f Simon, son
of John, lovest thou me more than these ? He saith to him,
Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him,
Feed my lambs.* He saith to him again : Simon, son of

*The word lambs, here, ought to be sheep \ see your own Montanus,
and the margin of your vulgate. I quote it, hoiverer, as it stands in
your Doway version, as I am pledged to do.

CHAPTER 4.] EXAMINATION OF SCRJPTCTBE. 23

John, lovest thou me ? He saith to him : Tea Lord, thou
knowest that 1 lore thee. He saith to him : Feed my lainhs.
He saith to him the third time : Simon, son of John., lovest
thou me ? Peter was grieved, because he said to him the
third time, lovest thou me ? 'And he said to him : Lord
thou knowest all things : thou knowest that I love thee.
He saith to him, Feed my sheep. 5

Upon the first of these texts, your Doway version has
this note : { The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the
vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of,
were the same as if he had said in English. Thou art a
rock, and upon this rock, I will build my Church, So thai
by the plain course of the words. Peter is here declared to
be the rock upon which the Church was to be built, Christ
himself being both the principal foundation and founder of
the same.*

I shall cite to you, by and by, in their proper place, many
authorities from the primitive fathers mentioned in your own
Canon law. to prove that they gave no such interpretation
to these texts : from which the inference may be safely drawn
that the primitive Church of Rome did not hold your doc-
trine. But meanwhile, the importance of the subject de-
mands a critical examination of the first text especially, in
which I shall have no difficulty in shewing how very iar
your commentary has strayed from the true laws of inter-
pretation.

You tell us, in the note which I have quoted from your
Doway version, what our Lord must have said ' in the vul-
gar language of the Jews, 1 For what purpose is this, breth-
ren ? Do you mean that the original Gospel which is in
the Greek, is not our only sure authority ? True, indeed,
it was supposed by some of the ancients, that the gospel
according to St. Matthew was first written in Hehrew } and

EXAMINATION Off SCRIPTURE. [CHAPTER 4.

afterwards translated into Greek; but you know perfectly
that there is no positive evidence of this fact, and that the
Christian Church throughout the world possesses no other
original of St. Matthew's gospel than the Greek in which
all the rest of the New Testament Scriptures were written.
You surely, then, would not lead us from this faithful record,
to the imaginary words which our Lord might have used in
Hebrew : nor can you argue the point on any other ground
than the Greek text would justify, without prostrating the
whole authority of the Book of God.

But we are happy in the aid which we derive in this
point of controversy, from your own Latin Vulgate, decla-
red, by your Council of Trent, to be authentic, so that c no
one may dare or presume to reject it, under any pretext
whatsoever.'* And therefore,|leaving the fanciful notion of
what our Saviour might have said in Hebrew, to the actual
record 'of what he did say, as it stands in the Greek, and in
your own accredited Latin, let us examine whether your
Doway Commentary is tenable.

In the Greek the words are : rfu si Jlsrgos, xai sift <rca><rrj <ry

In the Latin Vulgate : Tu es Petrus, et swper hanc pe-
tram cedificabo Ecclesiam meam.

Now the closest version of the Greek in English would
be : Thou art a stone, and on this rock I will build my
Church. But to preserve at once, the true idea of the ori-
ginal, and also the play upon the name, is not possible in
any modem language. To make the Greek and the Latin

'Decretumde editions etusu sacrorum librorum. Sacrosancta Sy.
nodus - Btatuit et declarat ut hasc ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, qua
longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata-est, in publicis leo-
tionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus, et expositionibus, pro aa-
thentica habeatur ; et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat
vel praesumat. Concil. Hard. toin. z. p. 23.

CHAPTER 4;] EXAMINATION OP SCHIPTURE. 25

accord with your Commentary, you know perfectly well,
brethren, that an alteration of the phraseology would he
necessary. Thus, in the Greek, our Lord does not say : &*>
Tafaq T& nhg, but &nl Tufay Ty nha } recurring to the radi-
cal word which is of a different gender, UBTQU is the root,
signifying a rock, which rock was Christ. -T/ergaios is the
adjective, signifying rocky or stony. And nsjQog } the name
given to Peter, signifies a stone, and sometimes a rock in a
diminutive sense, being derived from -ns?Q<x. Therefore, as
I shall shew you in due time, the fathers held th,at Peter re-
ceived his name from the rock, just as the believer is called
Christian from Christ. In like manner, your Latin Vulgate
stands opposed to your Doway Commentary, and would
require an alteration in its language, before it could be made
to correspond with your doctrine. Instead of: Tu es Pe-
trus, it would be necessary to write it: Tu es Petra, et
super hanc petram, &c. So that in both these authoritative
records, Peter is one word of the masculine gender, and
the rode is a different word, of the feminine gender ; and
yet you ask us to believe that they are both the same.

I have before me several versions of this passage, which
it may be not altogether useless to cite, before we leave it.
The it&ffcef thought in the original is instructive and beautiful,
but it does not admit of a faithful rendering in many langua-
ges ; for PJSter became a proper name, which could only
shew its relation to the rock in those languages where the
term rock was derived from the Grecian fountain. Thus
in the German version of the passage, we read : Du bist
Petrus, und auf diesen Felsen will ich bauen meine Oem-
eine. Here, as in the English, the turn of the original is
altogether lost, for the structure of the German did not al-
low of its being translated,
3

26 EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE. [CHAPTER 4

In the French, on the contrary, the correspondence of the
name is made so perfect, that equal injury in another respect
is done to the original meaning, Tu, es Pierre, et sur cette
pierre je latirai mon Egtise. Literally : Thou art Peter,
and on this stone I will huild my Church. In this version
the Church is truly built on Peter, but the rock is omitted
altogether.

In the Italian and the Spanish, the versions are more true
to the original. Thus in the Italian : Tu sei.Pieiro, e so-
pra questa pietra io edifichero la mia chiesa.

And in the Spanish : Tu eres Pedro, y sobre esta piedra
edificare mi Iglesia. The fidelity of the J^alin Vulgate is
well retained in both these versions, but out : of ,1;he whole
Seven languages, brethren, you see that there is not one
which justifies your Doway Commentary. The French ap-
proaches the nearest to it, but there, as I have she.wn you,
instead of changing Peter into the rock, you have changed
the rock into a stone, in order to make it agree with Peter.

Plainly, then, as it seems to me, by no fair process of
interpretation, can this celebrated text be made to support
the supremacy of Peter. The Apostle was blest with the
privilege of being a stone, yea, a foundation stone in the ed-
ifice of Christ's Church. But he was not the foundation
the rock on which the Church was built. That rock was
the Redeemer ; ( For no one can lay another foundation/
as your own version expresses it, (1 COR. in. 11.) 'but that
which is laid : which is Christ Jesus.'

But there is a strange error based upon a text in the Gospel
of St. John, which several of the popes of Rome have ad-
vanced, in their solicitude to find authority for their favorite
doctrine. It is thus stated by Vigilius in a letter to Eleuthe-
rius :

CHAPTER 4.] THE NAME, CEPHAS. 27

'Although the election of all the Apostles was the same,
yet it was granted to the blessed Peter that he should be
raised above the rest, whence he was called Cephas, be-
cause he was the head and the first of all the Apostles, and
what precedes in the head, must necessarily be followed in
the members.'* And again, in one of the supposititious
decretal epistles, attributed to Pope Anaeletus, ' It was
granted to Peter that he should go before the others as Ce-
phas, and chief of the Apostolate,' and the same idea oc-
curs many times, being justified &n6rfs xeyuAijg., ;as they tell
us.f

Now this assertion is peculiarly unfortunate, for it is di-
rectly opposed to the Apostle John, and to the plain mean-
ing of the language to which the word belongs. For the
expression used by our Lord is this : ' Thou art Simon the
son of Jona : thou shalt be catted Cephas, ivhich is inter-
preted Peter ' In the Greek this latter name is ns-igoz } sig-
nifying a stone, as has been explained already ; in the Latin,
Petms : in English, Peter. But the name Cephas is a He-
brew word ; and hence St. John, here, as in some other
places, sets down the Hebrew first, and then adds the Greek
interpretation. Our Lord did not give the Apostle two new
names, but one. It appears to us in two shapes, indeed,
because the Saviour spoke in Hebrew, and St. John wrote
in Greek, but they have the same signification. The true
original, therefore, of this celebrated name is xs> (kepha)
the Hebrew word signifying a stone, derived from T 3 (kiph)
a rock. From this simple explanation, it is plain that the

* Mansi Concil. Tom. 1. p. 75. ' Quoniam licet omnium apostolorum
par electio, BeatoPetro tamen coricessum est, ut ceteris praemineret :
unde et Cephas vocatur, quia caput et primus est omnium Apostolo-
rum : et quod in capite praecessit in membria sequi necessum est.'

t Mansi Concil, Tom. 1. 617.

28 'TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE [CHAPTER 4.

passage, properly funderstood, has no imaginable connexion
with the doctrine which has vainly sought support from
it. Doubtless, brethren, most of you know this ; but
still, the extravagance is found in your books, without any
corrective, and as it might mislead some ignorant minds,
it is perhaps as well to mention it.

Let us now proceed to ascertain how far your doctrine
accords with the other evidence of Scripture.

First, then, we read of many occasions in which the Apos-
tles were anxious about the point of supremacy, but in
every instance the Redeemer discouraged them, and incul-
cated an humble equality. Thus, (Mat. xx. 25.) 'when
the mother of James and John desired a superior place for
her sons, and the other Apostles were moved with indigna-
tion, it is recorded that ' Jesus called them to him and said;
You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over
them ; and they that are the greater, exercise power upon
them. IT SHALL NOT BE so AMONG YOU : but whosoever
will be the greater among you, let him be your minister ;
and he who would be the first among you, shall be your
servant.'

Again, (Mat. xxm. 8.) warning his Apostles against the
love of superior station, he saith ' Be ye not called Rabbi.
For one is your master, and ALL YOU ARE BRETHREN.'

Again, (Luke ix. 46.) wej read that ' there entered a
thought into them, which of them should be the greater.
But Jesus, seeing the thoughts of their heart, took a child
and set him by him ; and said to them : Whosoever shall
receive this child in my name, receiveth me : and whoso-
ever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me. For he
that is the least among you all, he is the-greatest.'

Again, (Luke xxi. 24.) ' There was a strife amongst
them, which of them should seem to be greater. Aod he

CHAPTER 4.] ADVERSE TO THE SUPREMACY. 29

said to them : The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and they that have power over them are called beneficent.
But you not so : but he who is the greatest among you,
let him be as the least, and he that is the leader as he that
serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or
he that serveth ? Is not he that sitteth at table ? But I
am in the midst of you as he that serveth. And you are
they who have continued with me in my temptations. And
I appoint to you, as my Father hath appointed to me, a
kingdom. That you may eat and drink at my tabk in my
kingdom, and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel.'

Now all these instances are related as occurring subse-
quently to the gift of the keys to Peter, and the promise that
the Church should be built on the rock, &c. which you in-
terpret to be the grant of his supremacy. So that neither Pe-
ter nor his brethren could have understood this promise of
Christ as you do ; for if v they had, they surely would not
afterwards have disputed which of them should be the
greatest. They must have looked on that question as per-
fectly settled in Peter's favor, and would have regarded him
with deference accordingly. Neither does our Lord's lan-
guage agree with your doctrine ; for instead of discoura-
ging the whole inquiry, and inculcating fraternal equality
amongst them, he would, as it seems to me, on your suppo-
sition, have reproved their want of acquiescence in his de-
clared will, and have reminded them that he had constituted
Peter the Governor and Chief already.

But this is not the whole of the Scriptural objection to your
notion of Peter's supremacy. For in the twentieth Chap-
ter of St. John's Gospel we read (22. v.) that after our
Lord's resurrection he came into the room where the disci-
ples were gatheied together, and said to the,m : ' Peace be
3*

&0 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE [cJHAPTEfc 4

to you* As the Father hath sent me, I also send <you.
Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgivej
they are forgiven them ; and whose you shall retain, they
are retained.' Now I ask you, was not Peter included in
this solemn transaction? The power of the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, you alldw'to be the power of remitting
sin, or authoritatively pronouncing forgiveness. This grant
was indeed first promised to Peter: but was it actually con-
ferred on him, until the Saviour gave the spiritual faculty,
by breathing on him and saying ; Receive ye the Holy
Ghost ? And in this actual conferring of the power, are
not the other Apostles included, without distinction or dif-
ference? Hence, as the character of an office is not to be
determined by the time when it was first promised, but by
the rights actually conferred, it seems abundantly evident
that this passage decides the whole controversy. Peter in-
deed was the first to acknowledge Christ, and therefore he
was the first to receive the promise of the apostolic commis*
sion. But as in the parable of the householder the Lord
said : I will give unto this last, even as unto thee ; so, when
we come to the actual conferring of the Spiritual faculty,
by which alone the power of binding and loosing can be
exercised, we find no difference between the first and the
last. All the apostles are breathed upon ; All receive the
Holy Ghost : to all it is said : Whose sins you shall forgive,
they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain,
they are retained. Peter has his part among the rest in the
powers of this high commission, but there is no more hint
of any supremacy over his brethren in its exercise, than there
is in the promise of the fiual reward where the Redeemer
had said, that the apostles should sit on thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.

To that part of your theory which claims St. Pe-

CHAPTER 4.] ADVERSE TO THE SUPREMACY. 31

ter as the first bishop of Rome, there is an objection in the
very terms of the Saviour's charge, recorded in St. Mark's
gospel ; (xvi. 15.) ' Go ye into the whole world, and preach
the gospel to every creature.' For it is perfectly evident
that this precept could not consist with the apostles' confi-
ning themselves to a particular diocese as you say St. Peter
did, for seven years to Antioch, and twenty five to Rome.
The whole world was the field committed to thirteen chief
laborers ; and it seems hard to suppose that any one of
them was authorized or intended to fix himself in a particu-
lar city as its bishop for such a length of time. In accord-
ance with this remark., I shall presently cite to you, from
Irenaeus, the oldest list of the bishops of Rome extant, in
which Linus, and not St Peter, is set down <as the first bish-
op of that city.

But passing over this point, let us proceed to ascertain
how the rest of the Scripture evidence accords with your
doctrine that fct. Peter was the Chief Ruler and Governor
of the other Apostles. And here we shall find many diffi-
culties in the way of your hypothesis, which I confess my-
self unable to solve.

In that invaluable record called the Acts of the Apostles,
Peter appears prominently on several important occasions, as
a speaker, a preacher, and a worker of miracles : but in no
instance does he appear to assert or to exercise any supe-
rior power or dominion, such as you claim for the bishop of
Rome over the other bishops. So far from it, that on some
of these occasions he looks like one more ruled than ruling.
Thus, when the conversion of the Samaritans, through the
ministry of Philip, was made known to the Apostles who
were in Jerusalem, (Acts, vm. 14.) ' they sent to them Peter
and John.' Here is an inversion of authority. Instead of
Peter sending the other Apostles, they sent him. Again,

TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE [CHAPTER 4,

(Acts, xi. 2.) when Peter returned from the conversion and
baptism of Cornelius, and 'was come up to Jerusalem^
they who were of the circumcision disputed against him ;*
and Peter explains the whole matter, concluding in the 17th
verse hy saying : ' Who was I, that I could oppose God ?'
Neither he nor his accusers, on this occasion, seem to have
had any notion of his superior dignity, as ' bearing the per-
son of Christ upon earth,' in the words of your Canon law,
and being the Chief Ruler and Governor, to whom, in the
gift of the keys, ' the plenitude of power' was granted, ac-
cording to your Doway Commentary.

Again, (Acts xv.) we read that the Apostles and elders
came together to consider of the question, whether the gen-
tile converts should be bound by the ceremonial law : and
this is what is commonly called, the first Apostolic Council.
But if it is to serve, according to your doctrine, as the exam-
ple and warrant by which the other Councils of the Church
should still be holden, the place of Peter seems strangely
inconsistent with the authority claimed for him by the bishop
of Rome, For he does not appear to have summoned this
Council, nor to have presided in it, nor to have opened its
proceedings, nor to have framed its definitive decree, nor to
have performed any subsequent act of formal approbation.

* The Apostles and ancients came together' ' When there
was much disputing, Peter rose up and said,' &.c. After',
he had concluded his address, Barnabas and Paul (v. 12.)
related ' what great signs and wonders God had wrought
among the Gentiles by them.' 'And after they had held
their peace, James answered, saying : Men, brethren, hear
me. Simon hath told in what manner God first visited the
Gentiles, to take out of them a people to his name. And
to this agree -the words ol the prophets, as it is written,' &c.

* Wherefore J judge^ continues the Apostle James, (19th

CHAPTER 4.] ADVERSE TO THE SUPREMACY. 33

v.) ' that they who from among the Gentiles are converted
to God, are not to be disquieted.' fee. ' Then it pleased the
Apostles and ancients, with the whole Church, to choose
men of their own company, and to send them to Antioch
with Paul and Barnabas : Judas who was su manned Barsa-
bas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren, writing by
their hand : The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the
brethren of the Gentiles, greeting.' &c. Now in all this
transaction, where is the least appearance of Peter's su-
premacy ? What is there that looks like the assertion of
your Doway Catechism, that ' the rest of the 'apostles
were Peter's sheep, and he their head or pastor ?' What
is there that looks like Peter's ' holding the place of the
Redeemer himself upon the earth,' and ' bearing the au-
thority, not of a mere man, but of the true God,' in the
language of your Canon law ?

But the evidence of Scripture does not rest here. We
find the whole of the remaining chapters of the book of the
Acts, devoted chiefly to the labors of the great Apostle of
the Gentiles, and Peter is hardly named again. Nor, if we
take the record of the sacred history in its own integrity,
does there seem any room to question, that if any suprem-
acy had been conferred on one Apostle above the oth-
ers, the claim of Paul to that supremacy stands on by
far the stronger ground. Peter was indeed called first, and
Paul last, but it is not inconsistent with the divine govern-
ment, that the first should be last, and the last first, and thai
the elder should serve the younger. The call of Peter was
like that of the o.ther Apostles, but Paul was converted by
a vision, and called in connexion with a miracle. His la-
bors, his gifts, his sufferings, his share in the epistolary por-
tion of the New Testament, his comprehensive, deep, and
truly extraordinary knowledge of divine truth, his being

TESTIMONY OF ST. PAUL [CHAPTER 4,

raised up into heaven, where he heard things not lawful for
man to utter take the whole together, brethren, and sure-
ly it cannot be disputed, that the weight of the Scriptural
evidence is greatly in his favor.

There are two points, however, which seem conclusive
to my mind on this branch of our subject; one, that St.
Paul himself allows no supremacy to St. Peter : the other,
that the Book of the Acts clearly makes him, and not St.
Peter, the first founder of the Church at Rome.

On the first of these points, let us hear St. Paul himself
m his epistle to the Galatians. (i. 15.) 'When it pleased
him,' saith this great Apostle, ' who separated me from my
mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his
Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles,
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither
went I to Jerusalem to the Apostles who were before me ;
but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus.
Then, three years after, I came to Jerusalem to see Peter,
and stayed with him fifteen days : but other of the Apos-
tles I saw none, except James, the brother of the Lord.'
' Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem
with Barnabas) taking Titus also with me. And I went up
according to revelation, and communicated the Gospel which
I preach among the Gentiles ; but apart to them who seem-
ed to be something ; lest perhaps, I should run, or had run
in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, but because of
false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately
to spy our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they
might bring us into bondage. To whom we yielded not by
subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gos-
pel might continue with you.' (Gal. H. 1 5.)

'But of them who seemed to be something,' continues

CHAPTER 4.] AGAINST PBTER*S SUPREMACY 35

the Apostle, ' (what they were some time, it is nothing to
me ; God accepteth not the person of man) for to me, they
that seemed to be something, added nothing. But on the
contrary, when they had seen that to me was committed the
Gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the
circumcision ; (for he who wrought in Peter to the apostle-
ship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the
Gentiles :) And when they had known the grace that was
given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to
be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fel
lowship : that we should go the Gentiles, and they to the
circumcision.' ' But when Cephas was come to Antiochy
1 withstood him to the face, because he was blameabJe. For
before that some came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles ; but when they were come, he withdrew and sep-
arated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. And to
his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented ; so that
Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But
when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth
of the Gospel, I said to Cephas, before them all ; If thou,
being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and
not of the Jews, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to fol-
low the way of the Jews ?'

Now, I ask you, brethren, to ponder these extracts from
the writings of St. Paul, and see how totally incompatible
they are with your doctrine of St. Peter's supremacy*
Here is this great teacher, whom the fathers so continually
call the ' elect vessel,' following the Apostleship for three
years without conferring at all with the other Apostles ; then
visiting Peter, of whom he speaks without any note of dis-
tinction : then fourteen years after, visiting Jerusalem again r
mentioning those who seemed to be something, with an ex-
press denial that they added any thing to him, and as ex.-

36 PAUL, THE FOUNDER [CHAPTER 4.

press a declaration, that the chief care of the Gentiles was
committed to him, as the chief care of the Jewish converts
was to Peter : then speaking of Peter, along with James,
and John, as pillars, but, (observe it, brethren) not even
giving the first place to Peter, but to James : then taxing
Peter with inconsistency, and withstanding him to the face,
and openly rebuking him for his dissimulation, expressly-
declaring that Peter feared them of the circumcision, and
I pray you, say, whether it is possible to conceive that St.
Paul knew, all this time, that he was writing about the Ru-
ler arid Governor of the whole Church, the Prince of the
Apostles, with respect to whom the other Apostles were
sheep, and he their head and pastor ; yea, who represented
the person of Christ himself upon the earth, and exercised
the authority, not of a mere man, but of the true God. These
words, which are the very expressions of your Doway Cat-
echism and your Canon law, have only to be compared in
sober sincerity with the epistle to the Galatians, to convince
any candid mind, as it seems to me, of their total inconsis-
tency. And as the Apostle Paul knew the mind of the
Spirit, and the polity of Christ's Church, with the unerring
certainty of inspiration, his testimony surely should be deci-
sive.

On the other point, viz. that Paul, and not Peter, was the
first founder of the Church of Rome, the Book of the Acts
is clear and positive. For we read (xix. 21.) that ' Paul
purposed in the Spirit, as soon as he had passed through
Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying : After
I have been there I must also see Rome.' Again, (Ch. xxni,
11.) the Lord standing by him said : ' Be constant ; for as
thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear
witness also at Rome.' * Then in the 28th Chapter, his ar-
rival in that city is related, with many interesting particulars,

CHAPTER 4.] OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 37

and the book ends with stating that e he remained there two
whole years in his own hired lodging, and received all that
came in to him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teach-
ing the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with
all confidence, without prohibition.' With what success
his labors were attended, we learn from his epistle to the
Romans, (i. 8.) where he saith, ( I give thanks to my
God through Jesus Christ for you all ; because your
faith is spoken of in the whole world.' Now inasmuch as
St. Paul was in an especial manner the Apostle of the
Gentiles as James, Peter and John had given to him the
right hand of fellowship, (Gal. n.) and it was settled be-
tween them that they should go to the Jews, and he to the
Gentiles as Rome was the chief city of the Gentiles, and
Paul purposed e in the Spirit/ that is, by divine suggestion, to
go there, as he was encouraged in his purpose by avision, and
safely conducted on his way, and preached successfully two
years, while not one word appears of Peter's labors in that
quarter, I have certainly the fullest evidence that the Lord
appointed him and not Peter to that special work, and that
the Holy Spirit, in dictating to the Evangelist Luke what
circumstances should be handed down to the Church in the
inspired history of the Acts of the Apostles, thought it good
to t record this important fact, to be a standing memorial to
the end of time. That after all this, brethren, St. Paul
should be made to act a secondary part to St. Peter in found-
ing the Church of Rome, and that the sacred oracles should
thus become subordinate to the testimony of tradition, is
only one of many strange things which meet the eye of in-
vestigation, when employed upon the subject of your exclu-
sive claims.

To conclude this branch of the evidence, it maybe neces-
sary to remind you, that in the two epistles of St. Peter

38 ST. PETER'S TESTIMONY, [CHAPTER 4.

there is not one word of intimation on the supreme rule
and government supposed to be conferred on him. In St.
Paul's epistles, we have several strong allusions to the
Apostolic rod, and the delivering persons to Satan as a con-
sequence of his ecclesiastical judgment. And St. John re
fers very plainly to his authority where he speaks of Dio-
trephes. But St. Peter neither speaks of his powers him-
self, nor does any other Apostolic writer speak of them for
him ; so that the whole tenor of Scripture seems, to my
mind, irreconcileably hostile to your doctrine. Some of the
proof is positive, some negative, some circumstantial; but
the result, one would suppose, could hardly be mistaken.
And yet, you make this very doctrine an article of faith,
necessary to salvation ! Have you never wondered, breth-
ren, that the Acts of the Apostles, and the twenty-one epis-
tles of the New Testament, should contain so much that
might have been omitted, in the rich abundance of their
treasures, while yet the supremacy of Peter, although essen-
tial, as you imagine, to the very being of the Church, should
have been so strangely passed by ?

CHAPTER V.

BRETHREN IN CHRIST,

The first writings which your voluminous works on the
Councils of the Church offer to their readers, are the Apos-
tolical canons, the Apostolical Constitutions, and the Decre-
tal epistles of the early bishops of Rome.

Of the first of these, the Apostolical Canons, your au-
thors, as you are aware, speak with high respect. They
do not indeed, consider them the true productions 'of the
Apostles ; but yet they are supposed to be recognized by the
Councils, and are therefore entitled to great regard. (28) Be
this supposition right or wrong, it is enough for our present
purpose to state the fact, that not one of the eighty-four
Canons according to one version, or the fifty according to
another, furnishes the slightest warrant for your claims to
universal dominion. They speak largely of the bishop,
priest and deacon, but not a word of Peter's supremacy, of
the high prerogatives of the Roman bishop, of the mother
and mistress Church of Rome, or of any thing which resem-
bles in the least your present doctrine. To shew,diowever,

(28) Of the Apostolical Canons, Dionysius Exiguus says : (see
Mansi Concil. Tom. 1, p. 3.) ' In principio canones qui dicuntur
Apostolorum, de Graco transtulimus, quibus plurimi consensual non
praluere facilem.' And Isidorus Mercator says, (ib. p, 6.) ' Deni-
que propter eorum auctoritatem cteteris conciliis prssposuimus canones,
qui dicuntur apostolorura, licet aquibusdam apocryphi dicantur.'

40 TESTIMONY OF [CHAPTER 5.

distinctly, my authority for this assertion, it may be as well ,
to quote those Canons which exhibit the genuine ecclesias-
tical polity of the' primitive day.

Thus, Canon 13th (in the Greek code) stands thus : ' It
is not lawful for a bishop to leave his diocese in order to
take charge of another, even although he is constrained by
many : unless it be for some reasonable cause, as for the
greater gain which he may confer on the inhabitants thereof
in respect of piety, and this shall not be decided upon by
himself, but by the great exhortation of many bishops.'
(29.)

You remember, brethren, that yotir Canon submits the
translation of bishops to the Pope alone. Here it is sub-
mitted to the judgment of many bishops, of course, to a
council. The difference is too manifest to be mistaken.

The thirty-third Canon gives us a further proof of the
same kind. ' It is necessary that the bishops of each na-
tion should know him who is first amongst them, and es-
teem him as their head ; and that they should do nothing of
difficulty or of great moment, without his opinion; and
each of them should take heed to do those things which be-
long to his own diocese, and to the villages which are under
his authority. But neither should the primate do anything
without the opinion of all. For thus shall concord continue,
and God will be glorified, through our Lord Jesus Christ.'
(300

(29) Mansi Concil. Tom. l.p. 31. ' Episcopo non liceat sua relicta
parochia ad aliam transilire, etiamsi a pluribus cogatur : nisi sitaliqua
causa rationi consenlariea, quae eum cogat hoc facere,utpote ad majus
lucrum, cum possil ipse iis, qui illic habitant, pietatis verbo conferre ;
idque non ex EG, sed multorum episcoporum judicio et maxima exhor-
tatione.'

(30) Ibid. 35. ' Episcopos uniuscuj usque geiitis nosse oportet eum
qui in eis est primus, et existimare ut caput : et nihil facere, quod $&

CHAPTERS.] THE APOSTOLIC CANONS. 41

The comment of Binnius himself upon this Canon, zeal-
ous as he is for your claims, interprets it rightly of the me-
tropolitan bishops. ' The Council of Nice/ saith he, * and
the council of Ephesus followed these Apostolic Canons,
decreeing that every bishop should acknowledge Ms primate
and metropolitan.'' But here is not one word of your fun-
damental doctrine of obedience to the supposed chief ruler,
the bishop of Rome. (31.)

Once more, the thirty-sixth canon provides, that ' Twice
in the year, a council of bishops shall assemble and exam-
ine amongst themselves the decrees of religion!, and com-
pose all the ecclesiastical controversies that may occur :
once in the fourth week of Pentecost, and again on the
twelfth day of October.' (32.)

The same principle is here carried out, viz : the deter-
mining disputes on all religious questions in a council, instead
of taking them by appeal, according to your doctrine, be-
fore the single judgment of the Pope.

Lastly, the seventy-eighth Canon has these words : ' A
bishop accused of any delinquency by men of credit, must
be called to answer by the bishops : and if he appears and
confesses or is convicted, he must suffer the punishment.

arduum aut magni momenti, practer illius sententiam : ilia autem
facere unumquemque, quae ad snam parochiam pertinent, et pagos qui
ei subsunt. Sed nee ille absque omnium sententia aliquid agat.
Sic enim erit concordia, et glorificabitur Deus per Dominum Jesum
Christum.'

(31) Ibid. 61. E. ' Nicaena Synodus can. 6. et Ephesina illis actis
quae post 7. Can.editasunt, hos canones Apostolorum sequuntur, sta-
tuentes ut singuli Episcopi suum primum et metropolitanum agnos-
cant,' &c.

(32) Ibid. 35. E. Bis in anno fiat episcoporum S^nodus, et inter se
examinent decreta religionis, et incidentes ecclesiasticas controversias
componant; semel quidem quarta hebdomada pentecostes, iterum
autem Hyperberetaei duodecimo.'

4*

4 AfOSTOLtC CANONS. [CHAFTEB 5*

But if "being summoned, he does not appear, let him be
called the second time, by two bishops sent to him for that
purpose. And if he does not obey this call, let him be
summoned a third time, by two bishops more. But it he
then, contumaciously despising them, does not appear, the
council may pronounce against him those things which they
see proved, lest he should profit by flying from judgment/
(33.)

Here is the precise course taken by the primitive Church
against all the early heretics : viz. they were called before
a council, and not before the Pope. So that we have the
decisive testimony of this most venerable relic of antiquity,
directly adverse to your doctrine. How the evidence can
be fairly evaded, brethren, I confess myself unable to ima-
gine.

(33) ibid. 43. ' Episcopum a virisiide4ignis ob aliquid accusatum,
ipaum ab episcopis vocari necesse est : et si sc quidern stiterit, et con*
fessus vel convictus sit, stataatur pceua. Si autem vocatus non paru-
erit, secundo etiam vocetur, missis ad ipsum episcopis duobus. Si
etiam sic non obedient, vdcetur et tertio, duobus ad eum rursus missis
epiacopis. Si autem vel sic aspernans et contuma.x se non stiterit,
Synodus ea quae videntur, adversus eum pronunoiet, ne lucrifacera
Tideatur, duia judicium subterfugit. 1

CHAPTER VI.

BRETHREN IN CHRIST, ;

The next piece of antiquity which comes under the name
of the Apostles, is called the Apostolical Constitutions, and
purports, as you are doubtless well aware, to be a com-
plete body of ecclesiastical doctrine, government, and wor-
ship, set forth by all the Apostles in Council, Clement of
Rome acting as their notary. This claim of Apostolic au-
thority is universally denied by your writers ; but neverthe-
less they warmly applaud the work, as containing nothing
inconsistent with the system of the first four centuries, as
being the chief fountain of ecclesiastical doctrine and prac-
tice in the Greek Church, and as being very useful, nay,
necessary to be known by every one studious of Christian
antiquity. Your scholars think its probable age was A. D.
309, but as it is styled apostolical, and as you present it,
for that reason, amongst the earliest records of the Church,
I take it as you give it to me. (34)

(34) Your learned Philip Labbe S. I. (Mansi Concil. Tom. l.p.254.
declares the Apostolic Constitutions to be 'Uberrimum ilium universi
fere apud Graecos canonic! juris fontem et discipline Ecclesiastics
thesaurum in plerisque locupletissimum jraaav xavovixyv rd^iv, ut doce

Epiphanius, complectentem,' ' Satisque constare, nihil quicquam

in iis reperivi, quod Ecclesiastical quatuor primorum sseculorum disci
.-plinae consentaneum non sit,' &c. And again, your learned Editor says:
(Mansi Concil. Tom. ] . 254.) ' Constitutiones quas vocant apostolicaa

44 TESTIMONY OF THE [CHAPTER 6.

For myself, I must frankly say, that I have read nothing of
ancient times with such interest as these constitutions. They
are rich in doctrine, in eloquence, and in forms of devotion,
and curious in point of ceremonial detail. But I have
searched them in vain for any trace of your doctrine on the
primacy of Peter, the vicarious authority of the bishop, or
the maternal dignity of the Church of Rome. So far from
this is the aspect of the primitive Church presented through-
out the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions, that the
most absolute equality appears in the episcopal office, and
amongst the apostles themselves. A few specimens of the
mode in which the subject is treated may be desirable.

The caption of the whole work is a specimen of this
equality. ' The Apostles and elders, to all who believe in
the Lord Jesus Christ, throughout the nations, Grace be to
you and peace from Almighty God,' &c. (35)
- Another specimen is furnished in the following passage ;
' On account of these things also, we ourselves, being gath-
ered together in one, Peter, Andrew, James and John, the
sons of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, and Mat-
thew, James of Alpheus, and Lebbeus whose surname is
Thaddeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Matthias, who was
elected in our number in the place of Judas, and James the

opus esse spurium, ab.iis, quibus adscribuntur, apostolis, tum.et ab ipsa
apostolorum aetatepenitusalienum,nenioTheologos modo jgnorat vel
dissitetur.

Ibid. 256. ' Q,UBB si conjecturae admittantur, intra spatium iliud,
quod anno 309 et 325 concluditur, vulgatarum Constitutionum sedes
figenda est.'

' Utcumque res habeat se se, utile est opus ad multa, et dogmatum
nostrorum vetu'stati adstruehdseapprimenecessarium.'

(35) Mansi. Concil. Tom. 1. p. 274. Constitutione* qute tribunntur
apostolis.

'Apostoli,etpresbyteri omnibus qui exgentibus in Domimnn Jesum
Christum credidietis, gratia vobis, et pax ab Omnipotente Deo, &c.'

CHAPTER 6.] APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS. 45

brother of our Lord, the same who is the bishop of Jerusa-
lem, also Paul, the Doctor of the Gentiles and the chosen
vessel, all, I say, gathered together in one, have written to
you this Catholic doctrine to support "and confirm you, to
whom the Episcopal office every where is entrusted. In
which doctrine we set forth these things to you : that there
is only one God, Almighty, and besides him there is no
other, and he can only be worshipped and adored through
Jesus Christ our Lord by the Holy Spirit : also, that the
Holy Scriptures must be used, the Law and the Prophets,
that parents must be honored, that every evil action must
be avoided, that the resurrection and the judgment must be
believed, that a final reward must be expected, that all crea-
tures may be used in food, with giving of thanks, since they
are of God,' &c. (36)

Another specimen of the same : ' Therefore, we, the
twelve Apostles of the Lord who are together, have marked
out to you the constitutions of every ecclesiastical matter,
Paul, the chosen vessel, and our brother Apostle, being

(36) Ibid. Lib. vi. Cap. 14. p. 458. ' Propter quse et ipsi nunc in
unum congregati, Petrus, Andreas, Jacobus et Joannes filii Zebedsei,
Phiiippus, Bartholomaeus, Thomas et Matthseus, Jacobus Alphaei, et
Lebbseus cognomento Thaddaeus, Simon Chananaeus, et Matthias,
qui loco Judge in numerum nostrum electus est, et Jacobus frater Dom-
ini, idemque Hierosolymitanus episcopus, item Paulus Doctor Genti-
um ac vas electionis, omnes, inquam, in unum congregati scripsimus
vobis catholicam hanc doctrinam ad fulciendum ac confirmandum vos,
quibus universalis episcopatus creditus est. In qua doctrina haec vobig
exponimus : Deum omnipotentem unum tantum esse, ac praster hunc
ueminem alium esse, oportereque huncsolummodocolere ac venerari
per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum in Sancto Spiritu : item uti
ecripturis sacris, lege et prophetis, honorare parentes, omnem actio-
nem pravam fugere, resurrectionem et judicium credere, remunera-
tionem expectare, omnibus creaturisin cibouti cum gratiarum actione,
>utpote a Deo factis,'

46 TESTIMONY OF THE [CHAPTER 6.

present, and James the bishop, and the other elders and
the seven deacons.' '

' I, therefore, Peter, say first, that the bishop is to be or-
dained as we have all decreed alike already,' &c. (37)

' I, James, the brother of John, the son of Zebedee, say,
let the deacon proclaim :' (previous to the administration of
the eucharist) ' no catechumen must approach, no one of
the hearers, no one of the unbelievers, no one of the here-
tics,' &c. (38)

* Concerning the ordination of the presbyters, I, the belo-
ved of the Lord, (sc. John,) lay down this constitution to
you bishops: when you ordain a presbyter, O bishop, place
your hand upon his head, the presbyters and deacons stand-
ing present/ &c. (39) ,

1 But concerning the ordination of deacons, I, Philip, set
forth this constitution, that you, O bishop, shall ordain the
deacon, by the laying on of your hands, all the presbyters
and deacons being present,' &c. (40)

'And concerning the deaconess, I, Bartholomew, set

(37) Ibid. Lib. 8. cap. 4. p. 538. Nos igitur duodecim apostoli Dom-
ini, qui una sumus, has vobis constitutiones de omni ecclesiastica
forma indiciums, praesente Paulo vase electionis, et cos-apostolo noa-
tro, et Jacobo episcopo ac reliquis presbyteris et septem diaconis.
Ego igitur primus Petrus dico ordinandum esse episcopum, ut omnes
pariter antea constituimus,' &c.

(38) Ib. Cap. 12. p. 551. 'Dico ego Jacobus frater Joannis Zebe-
daei, ut statim edicat diaconus : ne quis ex catechumenis : ne quis ex
audientibus : ne quis ex infidelibus : ne quis ex haereticis, 1 &c.

(39) Ib. cap. 16. p. 567. ' De ordinatione presbyterorum ego dilectus
a Domino constituo vobis episcopis : Cum presbytcrum ordinas, epis-
cope,impone ipse manum capiti presbyteri, astantibus tibi presbyteris
et diaconis,' &c.

(40) Ib. cap. 17. p. 570. ' De ordinatione vero diaconorum ego
Philippus constituo, ut diaconum ordines, episcope, imponendomanus
praesentibus omnibus presbyteris, et diaconis,' &c.

CHAPTER 6.] APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS. 47

forth this constitution, that you, O bishop, shall lay hands
on her, in the presence of the presbyters, the deacons, and
the deaconesses,' &c. (41)

c I, Simon, the Canaanite, lay down this constitution lor
the number of bishops necessary in the ordination of a bishop,
namely two or three,' &c. (42)

c And I, Paul, the least of the Apostles, set forth this
constitution to you bishops and presbyters, concerning the
Canons,' &c. (43)

I might multiply such passages, brethren, many fold ; but
these specimens, 1 trust, are sufficient to shew the simplicity
and equality with which the powers of the Apostles are ex-
hibited in . this interesting record of antiquity. Can these
passages be fairly reconciled with your doctrine, that Peter
was the prince of the Apostles, and the ruler over the rest,
that ' he was their pastor and they his sheep/ &c ?

But, to conclude our citations from this work, I shall ask
your attention to one passage more, where the episcopal
jurisdiction is mentioned: 'To you, bishops, it is said:
^Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in
heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be
loosed also in heaven.' (44) Here we have the very lan-
guage which the Saviour addressed to Peter, used in the

(41) Ib. Cap. 18. * De diaconissa vero ego Bartholomaeus constitno
ut manus ei, episcope, imponas praesentibus presbyteris, et diaconis
ac diaconissis;'

(42) Ib, Cap. 27. p. 575. ' Ego Simon Cananaeus constitno a quot
episcopis debeat ordinari episcopus, scilicet a duobus, aut tribus epis-
copis,' &c.

. (43) Ib. Cap. 32. 573. ' Et ego Paulus minimus apostolorum, haee
vobis episcopis et presbyteris de canonibus constituo,' &c.

(44) Ib. Lib. 2. Cap. 11. p. 298. 'Vobis episcopis dictum est: Quod-
cunque ligaveritis super terrain, erit ligatum et in coelo, et quodeun-
que solveritis super terrain, erit solutum et in ccelo.'

48 APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS. [CHAPTER 6.

plural form, and applied to all bishops without distinction
or difference, agreeing admirably with the sentiment of the
final chapter, where Christ is called the ' High Priest, the
Pontiff, the bishop of all.' (45)

Surely, then, we cannot differ in the conclusion, that nei-
ther the Apostolical Canons, nor the Apostolical Constitu-
tions yield any support to your doctrine. To my mind, a
far stronger inference appears equally plain, that these relics
of antiquity are altogether inconsistent with your claim, and
do, of themselves, go far to prove, that the primitive Church
of Rome held no such principle.

(45) Ib. 594. D. E. 'Omnium episcopum, et Pontificem Christum,
Jesum Dominum nostrum. '* Primus igitur natura Pontifex unigenitus
Christus non sibi honorem rapuit,' &c. .

CHAPTER VII.

BRETHREN IN CHRIST, i

We come next to the decretal epistles, which purport, as
you know, to be the authoritative decrees and letters of the
earlier bishops or Popes of Rome, recorded in the Pontifi-
cal book of Pope Damasus. These writings are of a very
different character from the subjects of my last chapter.
The favorite topic which runs through them all, is the au-
thority of the Roman See, the Supremacy of Peter, and
the dignity of that Church which claims to be the mother
and mistress of all the Churches. And if they were gen-
uine, they would be entitled to great weight in settling the
antiquity, if not the divine right, of this your fundamental
doctrine.

But here, brethren, is the difficulty. These decretal
epistles are forgeries, and admitted to be so by all your own
enlightened men. It is believed, on the authority of Hinc-
mar, that they were the fruits of the dishonest zeal of
Riculfus, who was the bishop of Moguntum, A. D. 787,
and who, finding the .authority of the Pope needed support
in France, devised these false documents in the hope of in-
creasing it.

Certain it is, by the plain statement of your own wri-
ters, that they began to be published about A. D. 836, and
that Pope Nicolas 1, A. D. 865, contended strongly with

50 THE DECRETAL EPISTLES. [CHAPTEE 7.

.1

the French clergy, in order to have these forgeries received.
Through his efforts and those of his successors, they did by
degrees obtain credit amongst the Western Churches. But
their falsehood was exposed in full light after the Reforma-
tion, and has been ackowledged for a long period amongst all
candid men of your own communion. For proof of what
is here asserted, I refer to the extracts below, where you
will find, that although Binius and Turrianus were weak
and bigotted enough to write in defence of these frauds, yet
the great mass of your eminent scholars united in their con-
demnation. The language of your famous .Labbe is par-
ticularly strong. ' They are so deformed,' saith he, ' in the
eyes of all discerning men, that no art, no paint, whether
white or red, can disguise them.'*

Observatio Philip Labbe, S. I- Mansi Concil. Tom. 1. p. 86. ' Mi-
rum est viris doctissimis Turriano, Binio, et quibusdam aliis in tanta
eruditionis ecclesiasticse luce probari potuisse decretales illas episto-
las, a quocumque, seu mercatorc, seu peccatore fabricatas, et antiquis
Romanse urbis Pontificibus circiter annum Christians epochs octin-
gentesimum tuppositas : adeo enim perspicacibus viris deformes vi-
dentur hoc saltern tempore, utnullaarte, nullacerrussaautpurpurisso
fucari possint. Eas omnes. saltern plerasque earum repudiarunt ern-
ditissimi quique tractatores Catholici, Baronius, Bollarminus, Perro-
aius, Contius, Antonius Augustinus, Lorinus, Sirmondus, Ducaeus,
Petavius, Marca, Bosquetus, ut alios modo, sive antiquiores, sive re-
centiores, silentio obvolvam.'

Ib. p. 87. Antiquo juri universalis Ecclesiae assensu roborato, sue-
cessit Jussum Novum, quod ab anno 83G publicari coepit, et adnitente
Nicolao 1. et cseteris Romania pontificibus paulatim usu invaluit per
oecidentis provinciis.

Ib. p. 89. Riculfus autem, a quo publicatam fuisse docet Hincmar-
us, Ecclesiam Moguntiacam tenuit ab anno 787, usque ad annum 814,
et Sedem A.postolicam devote coluit ; ut testis est auctor prEefatipnis
ad Benedict! LevitEB collectioncm. Quod fortasse illi epistolarum
interpolandarum desiderium injecit, ut labantem Rosaanae Ecclesiae
auctoritatem in Galliis restauraret.

Ib. p. 90. E. Contenderat tamen Nicolaus literis ad universoB Gal-
liae Episcopos datis anno 865 ut decreta ilia reciperentur, et magno
oonntu Gallicanorum Episcoporum argumenta repulerat.

CHAPTER 7.] ACKNOWLEDGED FRAUD. 51

Brethren, what think you of the iact thus candidly ad-
mitted by your own authors ? That the admission is honor-
able to their honesty, I gladly acknowledge. That it does
them credit as lovers of historic truth, I freely allow. That
it clears the character of your Church at the present day,
from all participation in this nefarious management, is equal-
ly undeniable ; and I bear my testimony thus far, with un-
feigned satisfaction, in favor of the personal integrity, which
your frank dealing has exhibited. But may I rest it here ?
Are there not some suggestions presented to every mind of
common reflection by the existence of such a fraud, which
brings a dark cloud upon the very character of the claim it-
self? Does not the admission that the ninth century gave
birth to such an imposture, executed by a bishop and pa-
tronized by successive Popes, cast a mist of melancholy sus-
picion upon the whole sanctuary of ecclesiastical faith, and
force a sigh of deep regret over the shame of men, who
could palter with every principle of truth, while they boast-
ed of infallibility ?

Avoid them as we may, brethren, these questions will ob-
trude themselves upon us. Why were these epistles forged,
if the prerogatives of St, Peter and his successors were in
reality believed to be then, what your Canon law states
them to be now ? Why should men high in office and hav-
ing much to lose by a failure in such an attempt, actually
concoct a scheme of imposition, for the sake of establishing
a claim which was protected by divine right already ? And
if it be undenied and undeniable, that forgeries so extensive
were actually palmed upon the Churches for many ages, by
the successors of Nicolas the 1st. the presumed chief ru-
lers and governors, who held the place of Christ upon th
earth, and had committed to them the plenitude of power?
what security have we for the pure and faithful guardian-

52 ACKNOWLEDGED FRAUD. [CHAPTER 7.

ship of the other books, which come down to us through
the same hands from the same remote antiquity ?

But I turn from the prosecution of this theme, my breth-
ren. It is not necessary to my argument to press it farther :
and no mind of true Christian feeling would desire to dwell
on it, longer than necessity required. Unhappily for the
credit of ecclesiastical fidelity, other occasions will present
themselves in the progress of our inquiry, where the same
fault will call for the same reprehension. But, perhaps,
though the spirit of the bishop of Moguntum and Pope Ni-
colas the 1st, was not confined to their day nor to their per-
sons, yet the decretal epistles constitute, on the whole, the
boldest assault upon the truth of antiquity, which was ever
made in the service of ecclesiastical ambition.

CHAPTER VIII.

BRETHREN IN CHRIST.

The earliest undoubted records which you present to us,
ifter the Scriptures, are the writings of the Apostolic fathers,
as they are called, from which nothing positive can be de-
rived on the point in question. As a useful instance of cir-
cumstantial evidence, we shall by and by have occasion to
note the conduct of Polycarp on the subject of the time of
holding Easter. And in one of the epistles of Ignatius, ad-
dressed to the Romans, his entire silence on the supposed
pre-eminence of their Church and the derived supremacy of
Peter, looks altogether adverse to your claims. But the
epistle of Clement, the bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians,
expostulating with them on their deposing their ministers
and contending among themselves, will furnish us with a few
passages, marking the simplicity of that early day. The
date of this piece of antiquity, is not far from A. D. 90. I
shall cite it from your own Latin version.

' The Church of God which worships at Rome, to the
Church of God which worships at Corinth, called and sanc-
tified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
grace and peace from Almighty God, through Jesus
Christ, to each and all of you be multiplied.' (47) An hum-

(47) Mansi Concil. Tom. 1. p. 171. Ecclesia Dei quae incolit Bo-
mam ecclesiae Dei quae incolit Corinthum, vocatia saactificatisin TO-

54 TESTIMONY OF CLEMENT, [cHAPTKH 8

ble beginning this ; for Clement, instead of affectirig to rule
the Corinthians by his official power, unites with his Church
in a fraternal expostulation.

* The Apostles,' continues Clement, ' preached to us from
Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God. Christ, therefore,
was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ ; each mission
was performed in its own order, by the will of God. There-
fore, having received their command from him, and being
certainly assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, with the
plenitude of the Holy Ghost, they went forth announcing
the approach of the kingdom of God. Preaching, therefore,
through regions and cities, they appointed the first fruits of
those whom they approved in the spirit as bishops and dea-
cons, over those who believed.' (48) Here was an excellent
opportunity to have introduced the supremacy of Peter and
the maternal authority of the Church of Rome, but Cle-
ment makes not the most distant allusion either to the one
or to the other.

< Our Apostles also/ saith this primitive witness, * knew
through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be con-
tention about the name of bishop. Therefore, on this ac-
count, being filled with perfect foreknowledge, they consti-
tuted those of whom we have spoken before, and delivered

Imitate Dei per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum in vobis eingulw
et erga vos invicem multiplicetur.'

(48) Ibid. 202. c Apostolj nobis evangelizaverunt a Domino Jeeu
Christo, Jesus Christus a Deo, Missus est igitur Christus a Deo, et
apostoli a Christo : factumque est utrumque ordinatim ex voluntate
Dei. Itaque acoeptis mandatis et certo persuasi per resurrectionena
Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et in fide confirmati per verbum Dei cum
Spiritus Sancti plenitudine et securitate, egressi sunt annuntiantes ad-
Tenturum ease regnum Dei- Praedicantes igitur per regiones ac urbes,
primitiaa earum, spiritu cum probassent, in episcopos et diaconos eo-
nim qui credituri eraat coBBtituorunt.'

CHAPTERS.] ADVERSE TO THE SUPREMACY 55

a. rul thenceforward for the future succession, that when they
departed, other approved men should take their office and
ministry. Those, therefore, who were constituted by them,
or after their time, by other approved men, with the con-
sent of the whole Church, and who fulfilled their ministry
to the sheepfold of Christ, humbly, quietly, and liberally,
and through a long period, obtained a distinguished report
from all men, those we think it unjust to depose from then-
office. For it will not be accounted a light sin, if those who
offer gifts without strife and with holiness, should be re-
moved from their episcopate.' (49) In this passage, it
seems difficult to imagine how Clement could avoid some
allusion to his own jurisdiction, if he had understood it as
being any thing like your Canon law. The Corinthians
had schismatically deposed their bishop and ministers, which
they should not have attempted under any circumstances,
according to your system. The Canon law declares it to
be, by divine right, the prerogative of the bishop of Rome,
as chief ruler and governor, to depose bishops. All, there-
fore, that the Corinthians could legally have done, was to have
preferred a complaint to the see of Peter. And in presu- *
ming to act without applying to the vicar ofChrist, the pas-
tor and prince over the whole Church under heaven, they

(49) Ibid. 203. ' Apostoli quoque nostri per Dominum nostrum Je-
Bum Christum cognovenmt futuram esse de nomine episcopatus con-
ten tionem. Earn igitur ob causam, perfectam praecognitionem adepti,
praedictos constituerunt, ac deinceps futurae successionis hanc tradi-
derunt regulam, ut cum illi decessissent, ministerium eorum ac m-
nus alii probati viri exciperent. Q,ui igitur ab illis, aut deineeps ab
aliis viris eximiis, consentiente ecclesia universa constituti sunt, et
ovili Christ! humiliter, quiete, liberaliterque ministrarunt, ac lonjpo
tempore praeclarum ab omnibus reportarunt testimonium : hoa cei*-
emusofficio injuste dejici. Non enim leve erit peccatum, si eos, qni
eitra querelam et sancte offerunt dona, ab episcopatu removerimus.'

56 TESTIMONY OP CLEMENT, [CHAPTER 8,

showed themselves manifest despisers of government, and
guilty of an open contempt of the highest authority. Why
does not Clement mention this feature in their conduct ?
Why does not the Church of Rome, writing to her subor-
dinate subjects, assert her just rights as ' the Mother and
Mistress of all the Churches ?' Why does not her bishop
recognize, on such an occasion, his own official powers, and
call the refractory Corinthians, not only to a sense of their
duty to their own pastors, but of their duty to himself, their
chief pastor ?

I confess, brethren, my utter inability to account for the
total absence of these topics from this famous document of
genuine antiquity, on any other hypothesis than this : Cle-
ment did not enforce the claims of the Church of Rome as
the mother and mistress of Corinth, nor his own as their chief
ruler, simply because those claims were not then in being.
Hence he urges them to return to their duty, by the princi-
ples of the gospel, and specially by the obligation of Christian
charity, and concludes by this beautiful supplication :

' May God. the Inspector of all, the Lord of all spirits,
the Master of all flesh, who chose our Lord Jesus Christ,
and through him elected us a peculiar people, give to every
soul who shall invoke his holy and majestic name, faith, fear,
peace, patience, equanimity, continence, purity, and tem-
perance, to the praise of his name, through our High Priest
and Advocate, Jesus Christ; through whom, to him, be
glory, majesty, power, honor, both now and forever, Amen.'

(50) Ibid. 214. * Inspector omnium Deus, Spirituum Dominue, et
herus universae carnis, qui elegit Dominum Jesum Christum, et per
enm nos in populum peculiarem, det omni animae, quae magnificom
et eanetum nomen ejus invocaverit, timorem, pacem, patientiam,
aequanimitalem, continentiam, puritatem et temperantiam, ut nomi
ni ejus gratia sit, per eummum saeerdotum et patronum nostrum Jeeuro

CHAPTER 8.] ADVERSE TO THE SUPREMACY. 57

Your industrious collectors give us several other epistles
of Clement, which, on some accounts, are curious and in-
teresting enough ; but as they are admitted to be apocryphal
amongst yourselves, and do not, even if they were genuine,
allude to the point before us, it would be useless to waste our
time upon them.

Christum, per quern illi gloria, majestas, potentia, honor, et rwnc et
in omnia saeeula saeculorum. Amen.'

CHAPTER IX.

BRETHREN IN CHRIST^

The next of the fathers whose testimony I shall present
to you, is Irenseus, who flourished in the second century,
and to whose writings you always appeal, although, as
I am well convinced, they may in vain be searched for any
evidence in support of your present system. He speaks
throughout of the Church as being founded by the Apostles
in general, and never mentions Peter as being entitled to any
primacy over the rest. Nay, in his relation of the establish-
ment of the very Church of Rome, he makes it the act of
both Peter and Paul ; and while he grants to that Church
on important rank, he expresses himself in such a manner
as is totally irreconcileable with your style at the present
day. The passages which are most to the purpose are as
follows :

We have not known,' saith he, ' the system of our sal-
vation, except by those, through whom the Gospel came to
tis j which then, truly, they preached, but afterwards by
the will of God they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to
be the pillar and ground of our faith.' (51.) Here, you

(51) Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus,
qnam per eos, per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos ; quod quidem
tune praeconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scriptures
nobia tradiderunt, fundamentum et colimmam fidei nostrse futurum.'
Iron. Coot. Hares. Lib. 3. Cap. 1.

CHAPTER 9.] TESTIMONY OF IRENJBUS. 59

perceive, Irenseus calls the Scriptures the ' pillar and ground
of our faith,' and refers this pillar and ground to the Apos-
tles generally, without distinction 1 . A little farther on, he
says that ' Matthew among the Hebrews, published the
Gospel in their own language, Peter and Paul then preach-
ing at Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. Af-
ter their departure, Mark, the scholar and interpreter of
Peter, delivered to us in writing what had been announced
by Peter, and Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a
book the gospel that had been preached by him.' (52) Here,
though speaking on the very point, there is not a hint of
Peter's supremacy, although you must be well aware, that
had Irenseus known of such a doctrine, every motive of
truth and interest would have combined to bring forth a
declaration of it.

But the third chapter of the same book presents a pas-
sage to which you frequently refer, and therefore I shall in-
sert it at length, that its true meaning may be clearly seen.

Arguing against the Gnostic heretics of his day, Irenaeus
says, ' The tradition of the Apostles being manifested through
the whole world, it remains to be seen throughout the
whole Church by all who wish to behold the truth. And
we are able to enumerate those who were instituted bishops
by the Apostles in the Churches, and their successors to
our own time, who taught and knew nothing like what these
men rave about. But since it would be tedious in such a
volume, to reckon the successions of all the Churches, we

(52) 'O uiv dtfeMaT&aro? Iv TOI? EfiQaioi? rij idia. SialtxT arrrvv, xai
voacph il-ijveyxsr iuayyeitou, rov ni-cgov xai lov Ilavlov Pwiir, i

,

Maqxog 6 /latfij-njs xai t^tJjvtOTJjs IltTQOv, xai avrbgTct tinb Hir^ov
QvaaofievK Jyy^af/iw? iiftiv naQadiSioxf xui Jovxag <5i 6 'axolov&os
TO vrf Ixsirov xriQvaaouevov Ivayyiliov IT (SijSAiw xari&troS ibv

60 TESTIMONY OF [CHAPTEB 9.

confound all those, who, in any manner, whether through
self gratification, or vain glory, or through blindness and
evil opinion, infer what is unseemly, by the successsions ol
the bishops of that greatest, most ancient and universally
known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the
two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, which shows the
tradition which it has from the Apostles, and the faith an-
nounced to men, and descending even to us. For to this
Church, on account of the more powerful principality, it
must needs be that the whole Church should resort, that is,
those who are faithful, from all places round about ; in which
Church the tradition which is from the Apostles has always
been preserved by those round about it.' (53)

'The blessed Apostles therefore founding and establish-
ing this Church, delivered to Linus the episcopal right of
governing it, of which Linus Paul makes mention in his
epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, after
him in the third place from the Apostles, Clement is cho-
sen to the episcopate, who saw the Apostles themselves,
and resided with them, and had as yet their preachirig
sounding in his ears, and their tradition before his eyes, nor

(53) 1. ' Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifes-
tat am, in omni Eeclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint vid*-
re : et habemus armunierare eos qui ab apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi
in Ecclesiis, et successores eorura usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docue-

runt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur.' 2. 'Sed quoniam

valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enume-
rate succession es ; maximse, et antiquissimEe, et omnibus cognitse, a
gioriosissimis duofous apostolis Petro et Paullo Romse fundatse et con-
stitutes Ecclesise, earn quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem, etannun-
tiatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem
usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo,
vel per sibi placentia, vel vanam gloriam, vel per caecitatem et malam
sententiatn, praterqiiam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam
propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conveiiire E-
cleeiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his,
qui sunt undique, conservata est eaquas est ab Apostolia traditio.'

CHAPTER 9.] IBENJEUS. 61

be alone, for at that time many survived who had been
taught by the Apostles. Under this Clement, a serious
dissension having arisen among the brethren at Corinth, the
Church which is at Rome wrote very powerful letters to
the Corinthians, bringing them to peace, and repairing their
faith, and enforcing the tradition which had been recent-
ly received from the Apostles, announcing one Almighty
God, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man,
who had sent the deluge, and had called Abraham, who
had brought forth his people out of Egypt, who talked with
Moses, who appointed the law and sent the prophets, who
prepared fire for the devil and his angels. That this Father
.of our Lord Jesus Christ was announced by the Churches,
those who wish to be informed can learn from the Scrip-
ture itself, and can also understand the Apostolical tradi-
tion, since this is a more ancient epistle for these men,
who now teach, falsely, and pretend that there is another
God above the Demiurgus who is the maker of all things.
To this Clement Evaristus succeeded, and to Evaristus Al-
exander, and then the sixth after the Apostles Sixtus was
constituted, and then Telesphorus, who also made a glorious
martyrdom, and then Hyginus, afterwards Pius, after whom
was Anicetus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and now, in
the twelfth place from the Apostles, Eleutherius holds the
episcopate. By this ordination and succession, that tradi-
tion which is from the Apostles in the Church, and the
preaching of the truth, reach even to us. And this is a
most abundant proof, that it is the same life-giving faith,
which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles
until now, and delivered in truth.'

1 And also Polycarp, who was not only taught by the
Apostles, and had conversed with many of those who had
seen our Lord, but was even constituted bishop in the

68 TESTIMONY OF [CHAPTJBB 9.

i

Church of Smyrna by the Apostles who were in Asia,
whom we also saw in our early youth, (for he persevered
greatly, and at a very great age, making a glorious martyr-
dom, he departed this life,) he likewise taught always those
things which he had learned from the Apostles, which he
delivered to the Church, and which alone are true. To
these things, all the Churches which are in Asia bear testi-
mony, and those who, even to the present day, have suc-
ceeded Polycarp, who was a man of much greater authority,
and a more faithful witness of the truth than Valentinus and
Marcion, and the rest who hold their perverse opinions.
For he was the man, who, when he came to Rome, in the
time of Anicetus, converted many heretics from those of
which I have already spoken, to the Church of God, de-
claring that he had received from the Apostles that one and
'only system of truth which he delivered to the Church.' (54)

(54) 3. 0cfisita>aavTtg 'ovv xai oix5o/njfeavTtg 01 iiaxanioi anudtoioi Tip
ixliijaiccv, 4ivco Ttjv TJ; smaxonijg isiTovgyiav Ivext'iQiaav. TOVTOV TOW
Jivov HavHog iv rat; TiQog Ttfib&fov tmotoJ.atg fitfivrjTai. diaSt^fTat 61
avTOf d.vtyxJLt]Tog, fierce TOVTOV <5e T^'ITOI Tonco ano TK>V anoOToiuiv Tip
fmaxonyv xHtjQoVTai KJ.r^it]g, 6 xai iwQaxwg Tovg /.taxctQiovg anoaiviovs,
xai ov^f^7.t]y,oig avroig, xai sri svaviov TO xtfavyfia Tcor anoaroitav, xai
T>jr naquSoaiv TCQO o(p&aifi<av s'^ftov, 6v f.iovog, 'STL yctq noUoi vnsMmQvro
TOTS ano T&V anoaToiiav dsSidayfiivot. ini TOVTOV ovv TOV K^jftsrTos aror-
01(0$ ovx ollyrig Tofg tv KoQiv&o) ysvofiiftig aotl.yoig, fniaTtrf.sr / iv
ixx/lTjoJa txavtoToTtjv yQatpyv roig KoQiv-&ioig, tig itpj]r?jv ovjiijS
Tovg, XK'I avavtoiiaa, rtjv niariv uVTcov, xai i t v vswaTt ano TOJV

annuntiantem unum Deum omnipotentem, factorem cceli et terrafl,
plasmatorem hominis, qui induxerit cataclysmum, et advocaverit
Abraham, qui eduxerit populum de terra ^Egypti, qui colloquutus eit
Moysi, qui legem disposuerit, et prophetas miserit, qui ignera praepa-
raverit diabolo et angelis ejus. Hunc Patrem Domini nostfi Jest
Christi ab Ecclesiis annuntiari, ex ipsa Scriptura, qui velint, discere
possunt, et Apostolicam Ecclesiae traditionem intelligere ; quum sit
vetustior epistola his qui nunc falso dooent, et alterum Deum euper
Demiurgum et factorem horum omnium, quae sunt, commentiuo*
tur.

CHAPTER 9.] IRENJEUS. ' 63

Here is the passage with its context, shewing the argu-
ment of Irenaeus fully. And I beseech you, brethren, to
have a little patience, until we can examine the testimony
and understand its real bearing.

The words on which you rely, are those in which Irenseus
declares, that ' to the Church of Rome, by reason of the
more powerful principality , it must needs be that the whole
Church resort, that is, those who are faithful from all
places round about ; in which Church the tradition which
is from the Apostles has always been preserved.' And
these, you say, prove Irenaeus to be a witness, that the
Pope then possessed supreme authority over the Christian
world, and that the Church of Rome was acknowledged
of right as the mother and mistress of all the Churches.
But do the words of Irenaeus authorize your conclusion ?
Does he not, in the first place, speak of all the Apostles in-

Toy <Ji JCf.rjusvra TOVTOV diade%eTai EvuQEdTog, xal TOV EVUQSCITOV

avdQog' iixP ovrtag szrog 7ro TK>V 3 aTioaToJltav za-friaiaTcci JjTi/'o'Tog

31 Tot/Toy TeHeffyoQog, 6g xai tvSo^tog liiuQTVQrfiev trreiTa Yytvog, SIT

Utog. ns-&' ov -AvixtjTog. SiadE^auivov lov ^LvixijTov SiarijQog, rvv

ta TOTCCO TOV Tfjg iTtiaaoTcfjg ariorcav ctTroaroiiav -/.uTe%Ei xir^

T?)" 'awTij TU'^SL, y.ai TI; *avTii JiiJa^Tj ^rs 'ano -KOV 'aTcoarolw iv T/ -

xitjalcc haqaSoctig, xal -zV rfjg 'ain&tias xi'jQvyuu y-ari'fVTr^.tv iig i,iiag.

4. Kai UolvKa.Qno<; Se ov uovov *&n<t 'arcoctTo/.iav ua&ij-iev-S-eis, r.al
avvavaoiQatpsignoZlotg roCgrov Xqicrtov swQaxoaiv, *u/.f.u -/.al 'a/ro 1 } anoff-
IO)MV y.aTttOTad-sig iig -tip ^taiav, 'sv -iy 3 sv Suvqvif ^sxxitiaict, 'sniaxo^
nog, ov r.ai r^isf? i s<a(>axtt^sv 'sv ry Tf^iortj i^.ixin (tTimoJ.v yctQ naqiutt-
, xi l navv y>;(jAtos, ^svdo^uig y.ai 'sTTKfaviGTUTa [laQivQ^aag 'at^P.-^i
TOU^IOD) ratJTW 8iSa$ag 'ati\ (i 1 xai -rcaqurSiv 'anoa-rulwv tiia-Stv, a xi l
^ exxlriaia Ttaqadidwaiv, a xaf /.IOVK ^tanv 'aliy^by MetQTVQOvat rovrotf
ftt HUTa trfv ^toiuv ixx^ijolat Ttctaat, v.a.i 61 ui%Qi i>i)v SiaSsStyutvoi Tor
Xlohjy.aQnov , noM.to ^a^ioTciarorfQov xai ^E^UIOTSQOV 'aty-
2vra, Ovaltvrivov xal JMaQxiiovog, xai 1 TWV iomtav xaxoyrw^iovwv. of

fj 'P<b t uy, noMLovg 'ano* TWV TIQOUQIJU fvttr
*tig T^V 'exxhialav TOV Psov, fiiav xa fiory