66

would have decided the whole question. Instead of which, what does Eusebius tell us? He says, "a synod for this cause assembled in Palestine, of whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, were chief. At Rome, there was a synod also gathered together for the same cause, whereof Victor their bishop was president. Again,. there was another of the bishops of Pontus, where Paulinus as the senior presided; and another of the bishops of Gaul, which Irenæus superintended. Book 5, c. xxi.

Here nothing is more clear than that Rome and its bishop are only mentioned as on an equality with Jerusalem or with Gaul. There is not a word of any peculiar value attaching to the decision of Victor of Rome, or of the synod over which he presided.

But we must go further. Victor himself, the difference still subsisting, proceeded to censure the Asian churches, and to break off communion with them, on this account. To a modern Romanist, this seems quite natural. The decision of a pope, and especially of a pope with the support of a synod, would be held final with a modern Romanist. But nothing of the kind seems to have occurred either to Irenæus or to Eusebius. On the contrary, Eusebius speaks with approval of several bishops who "sharply reprehended" Victor for this step, of which reprovers Irenæus is one. Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was appointed to the see of Smyrna by the apostles themselves;-Irenæus not only disapproves of the act and sentence of the bishop of Rome, but he writes a letter to him, to rebuke him for causing a schism in the church. Is it possible, in the view of these facts, to imagine that either Irenæus or Eusebius believed in the supremacy of the Roman see? There is not the least trace of such an idea, in the whole account of this transaction.

The next controversy that arises, is that of the rebaptizing of heretics. Here Cyprian, the most celebrated bishop (afterwards a martyr) of Africa, differed

from the opinion of the Roman bishop. Each excommunicated the other, and for many years, Carthage and Rome were at mutual enmity. But there was no symptom throughout the quarrel, of any claim to infallibility on the part of Rome, or of the least concession of such a claim, on the other.

Again, in book, 7, c. xxix. we find a synod held upon the case of Paul of Samosata. But we do not find the bishop of Rome, nor any representative of his, either presiding over that synod, or even present at it. The sentence having been passed, it was communicated by letter, equally to the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Alexandria. There is nothing here to evince the least belief in the supremacy of Rome. In fact, any stranger to the controversy, carefully perusing Eusebius and Irenæus, would close both of them without ever having had a single idea tending towards papal supremacy presented to his mind.

The Romanists, however, are fond of quoting the description of the see of Rome, given by Irenæus.

This is a natural and just description of what must have been the rank and estimation, and circumstantial importance of the see of Rome, quite apart from any claim of supremacy.

It only remains, then, to ask, what says the general current of history, as to the precedence, or power of the see of Rome?

This is best answered by the single fact, that when Constantine summoned the first general Christian council, the council of Nice,-the bishop of Rome, so far from being considered the natural president, as he must have been, on the supposition that the claims of the papacy were then well known and admitted,― was actually not present;—and so far as we can see, the precedence was given to Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, out of respect to his great age. Nothing, surely, can be more decisive than this, of the question whether the supremacy of the see of Rome was then known and acknowledged.

When, however, we descend to later periods of ecclesiastical history, we perceive a change.

As the papal supremacy had, of course, a beginning, and as each succeeding year of the history, both of the church and of the empire, grows darker and more forlorn, after the days of Constantine, we might naturally expect, in tracing the annals of the following reigns, to come to the traces of the rising Papacy. And so, in fact, we do. The prediction of Paul, (2 Thess. ii. 7, 8.) that "when he who now letteth be taken out of the way, then shall that wicked one be revealed," was exactly fulfilled. Constantine removed the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople, and though it was afterwards for a time restored, yet soon the imperial power, which had kept the episcopal in subjection, was finally taken from Rome, and the bishop became the first authority in that city. He that had let or hindered the rise of the Papal power, was now taken out of the way, and that power rapidly grew and increased to its present dimensions. But there is no difficulty in tracing its rise, or in understanding its origin.

The conclusion, then, of the whole matter, is this: Let the Romanist take the Acts of the Apostles, and all the epistles, and show us, if he can, the least trace of any primacy conceded either by the apostles themselves, or by any of their immediate followers, to Peter. Then let us proceed onwards, and consult every fragment of church history that is extant, and we shall have to pass over several centuries before a shadow of Papal supremacy appears. On these grounds, then, we come to the conclusion, that no authority is to be found for this alleged supremacy, and that the whole assumption is like all the other pretensions of Popery, the offspring of later and more corrupt ages. Our conclusion, therefore, is, 1. That Scripture shows no supremacy, or authority, conferred on Peter, more than on the other apostles: 2. That even if a doubt remained on this point, on that of a permanence of such authority, vested in some

alleged successors of the apostle, it cannot be denied that Scripture is wholly silent: 3. That the bishops of Rome have no more claim to be considered the successors of the apostle, than the bishops of Antioch or Alexandria: and, 4. That the voice of all antiquity witnesses, that the supremacy of the Romish see was wholly unknown for the first three or four centuries, and only sprang up on the decline of the imperial power.

167

IX. THE RULE OF FAITH.

RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT.

IT will be admitted to be evidently expedient, at this stage of our discussion, to pause for a short time, in order to review the course of reasoning through which we have passed, and to recapitulate the leading arguments bearing upon the grand question of the

RULE OF FAITH.

SCRIPTURE

The Protestant rule has been often referred to, though briefly, as consisting of HOLY alone: but our chief attention has been given to the consideration of that opposed to it by the adherents of Rome, which rule, if simply and honestly stated, is nothing else than THE CHURCH. We have been occupied in discussing the claims of the bishop and clergy of Rome, both to assume to themselves the title of "The Catholic Church," and, under that title, to claim the attribute of Infallibility. And we will now endeavour to review, in a very few words, the line of argument through which we have travelled in the preceding essays.

Our first glance at the subject brought before our view the two opposing principles as to the Rule of Faith; when it appeared that the favourite position taken up by the Romish controversialists, was, that their church was "The Holy Catholic Church," and therefore infallible; a position which we at once proceeded to controvert; and to show that the assumption of Catholicity on the part of the church of Rome, -the assertion that the whole church of Christ is comprehended within its communion,-is not only most arrogant and intolerable, but is also altogether at