There is no agreement as to the time when the apostle should have visited Rome.1 The time specified is absolutely contradictory to scripture history. There are several considerations grounded upon scripture statements, which involve this assumption in impenetrable obscurity, and make it more difficult to believe than to reject the story, as "but a fable."3 It is also not improbable that Peter died at Antioch and not at Rome.* The arguments against the supposition by many learned men, have never been satisfactorily answered," while they have been considered irrefragable even by Romanists themselves."

Thus much may suffice, as to the uncertainty which surrounds the question, whether Peter ever was at Rome at all. But that Peter was the fixed and resident bishop of Rome, is a most untenable position, and contrary to all reason."

That Peter occupied that chair as the head of the papal succession as the exclusive source of transmitted grace to the church-is a gross and palpable fabrication, destitute of all scriptural basis or historic verity, and the pregnant source of innumerable crimes, and the blackest enormities that have stained the bloody page of ecclesiastical history.

"All unavoided is this doom of destiny." The very core of the papacy is rottenness. The corner-stone is wanting, and its airy castle topples to the ground. There is uncertainty, to say the least, around the very charter from which this whole succession dates its lineage. God in his merciful providence has thus baffled the devices of Satan, and wrested from him this prime principle of intolerance and heresy-the very pillar and ground of the unity and infallibility of Rome.

But let this pass, and supposing Peter to have been bishop of Rome. Whom, we inquire, did this imaginary pope-or these popes-choose and ordain to be his successor? No one could have dared to assume the apostolate of Peter and the primacy of Rome, the destined mistress of the world, unless called as was Aaron-unless called, chosen, and invested with the keys of earth, hell, and heaven, by the divine apostle. Who was thus chosen, called, and ordained? We ask and demand an answer-Who?

"These great apostles," answers Dr. Hook, "successively ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement, bishops of Rome," from whom "the prelates in these realms derive their mission by an unbroken, spiritual descent." And "this continued descent is evident to every one who chooses to investigate it." Most boldly spoken. And now, surely, we will have the proof; "for these are matters of fact resting on history, and not on preconceived opinions, and controversialists must be reminded" of this. Unlock, then, your doors, ye guardian prelates, summon to your aid the whole orders of "bishops, priests, and deacons, who can, if they please, trace their spiritual descent from St. Peter or St. Paul." Let it please you to bring forth the priceless Sybil leaves, on which are charactered, in burning proof, strong as of Holy Writ, the insignia of this early royalty. Oh, why so tantalizing to a world ready to pay all due homage to your just honors? or so modest, as to conceal from view the evidences of your unpretending greatness?

To be most serious, (where gravity itself might be overcome, to see this mountainous fabric in laborious agony,) here, again,

1) Dr. Hook's Two Sermons, 3d ed., Lond., 1837, pp. 7, 8.

2) Edinb. Rev. Oxf. Theol. Ap., 1839, p. 294.

3) Dr. Hook, as above.

confusion becomes worse confounded. There is no proof whatever, either in the New Testament, or in any authentic document of the apostolic remains, or in any veritable authors, that the apostles called and invested any single individual named or nameless, with the prelacy of Rome.

Irenæus is the first writer they produce. He testifies that Linus was the first occupant of the see of Rome, though how he came there, or when, or by whom, or whether validly ordained, or himself a valid subject for ordination, he does not tell.1 He does not even say which of the apostles delivered the episcopate to Linus, nor that he was ever ordained by the imposition of hands at all, and thus received the communication of the plenitude of episcopal grace. And, more than this, what Irenæus does say, he does not pretend to authenticate by testimony, but gives it as "that which is held as a tradition from the apostles," if, indeed, as Grabe argues, this does not refer exclusively to the fidem, or faith, of which he speaks, and not to the successiones or succession. To Linus, Irenæus says, succeeded Anacletus, to him Clemens, and to him Evaristus and Alexander. Now Irenæus wrote the treatise from which this testimony is derived, about the year A. D. 176 or 192.*

The next witness is Eusebius, who was consecrated bishop about the year A. D. 320.5 He says that "after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first that received the episcopate at Rome;" and that after holding it twelve years, he "transferred it to Anacletus," who was "succeeded by Clemens." Now let us be permitted to cross-examine this witness. We would then inquire what Eusebius knows about this matter, from actual documentary or other sufficient data, especially as it is pretended by some that he had by him such existent records." Eusebius answers in this same work, (chapter iv.,) "but how many, and which of these, actuated by a genuine zeal, were judged suitable to feed the churches, established by these apostles, IT IS NOT EASY to show, further than may be gathered from the writings of Paul." On what, then, we would ask, did this writer rely, as the source of his information? He frankly declares, "that he was obliged to rely much on tradition, and that he could trace no footsteps of other historians going before him only in a few narratives.10 Let us further inquire, then, if Eusebius knows whether any individual

1) Adv. Haer, ii. 3.

2) Irenæus, cap. iii., § 2, p. 175; Grabe in Dissert. iii., § 4.

3) Ibid., § iii., p. 174.

4) Lardner, vol. ii., p. 166. 5) Ibid, vol. iv., p. 72.

6) Eccl. Hist. iii. § 2.

7) Lib. iii., § 13.
8) Ibid., § 14.

9) See Eccl. Hist. Leipsic edition, vol. i., p. 187, Notes.

10) See his introductory chapter, and Dr. Miller on the Min., p. 129.

apostle did really designate Linus to the episcopate at Rome? Eusebius gives no answer to that question. Let us again ask, whether Linus was actually ordained by imposition of hands? Eusebius does not say. Was it during the life of the apostles Paul and Peter that this Linus received the episcopate? "No," says Eusebius, "it was after their martyrdom." But pray, inform us, what was the nature of that episcopate which Linus thus received after the death of the apostles? This, Eusebius does not determine so that whether he was a presbyter-bishop, or a diocesan-bishop; whether a governor of presbyters, or himself a presbyter, or presiding moderator, president, or senior among other presbyters; whether he was a bishop of the church at Rome, or of the whole region around Rome; whether he had under him the orders of presbyters and deacons, who were excluded from all right to ordain; and whether his office was considered as of divine right, in its superiority; all this, which is of the very essence of the prelatic doctrine of apostolical succession, is left entirely undetermined-nay, rather determined against its claims, since we are referred by Eusebius to the Acts of the Apostles and to the Epistles, where, as we have already seen, prelacy is not to be found.

Linus, then, not receiving his office till after the death of the apostles, could not receive it from them, and could not, of course, transmit, in succession, any gifts, graces or powers, which he never received. He was never invested with this office by the apostles, for he received it after their death, and, of course, whatever virtue there is in Romish succession, must originate with and terminate in Linus, and not in the apostles. Neither do Irenæus nor Eusebius give any proof, but only a tradition, in the one case a hundred years old, and in the other more than two hundred, and in both cases delivered after the hierarchy had entered on its progress, and the prelatic spirit had wormed itself into the bosom of the church, and corroded that vital energy which lay in its purity and simplicity. We know not, and it is impossible that we now should know, who was the first stationed minister or pastor at Rome. We know not who succeeded him, nor how this successor was appointed, nor when, nor how ordained; and that he was a diocesan prelate of the first order, having under him two other orders, essentially distinct; and that he was the first link in the electric chain of celestial grace-these are figments which break in the rough and uncivil hands of stubborn historical verity, like a rope of

1) μετα την Παυλόν και Πετρού μαρτυρίαν, ch. 11, § 1, vol. i. p. 187.

sand.

A poor foundation this, whereon to build the destiny of millions!1

But, perhaps, what is wanting in the testimony of these two early traditionists, (and to whom, although they do not verify this baseless theory, we yet owe much), may be made up by the clear, full, universal, and unvarying testimony of other writers. Nothing of the kind is, however, true. The case of this tottering erection is made infinitely worse by the very attempt to renew or strengthen its frail foundations. Irenæus and Eusebius, we have seen, place Anacletus next to Linus, as having received the episcopate from him. Now Tertullian and several others assure us that this is an entire mistake, for that Clemens was first of all and the next lineal descendent of Peter, or whosoever it might be. Epiphanius and Optatus again seriously affirm that Anacletus and Cletus were before Clemens. Jerome, Augustine, Damasus, and others differ from them all, and assert that Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus were all anterior to Clemens, and the first links in this chain of living energy. Damasus is of opinion that Peter ordained two successors, and not one merely. Vossius declares that before the time of Evaristus, two or three successors sat together on this episcopal throne.2

1) Thus it is shown that the whole of this stupendous pantheon rests upon the two pillars of Irenæus and Eusebius. But Irenæus, besides that he gives no positive testimony as to what is of importance in the case, does actually, in other parts of his writings, show that by bishops he meant presbyters, and that he had no conception whatever of modern bishops or prelates, (as in Lib. 4 cap. 43, and Lib. 5, cap. 23; and see Div. Right of the Min. Pt. 2, p. 115-117.) If Irenæus, therefore, proves any thing in the case, it is that presbyters are the only true successors of the apostles.

as

As to Eusebius being more in the dark, and less liable to detection, he is rather more bold. But as Scaliger, with the approbation of Bishop Reynolds, affirms, Eusebius read ancient history parum attente they show by many proofs. All he declares is only on the authority that sic scribitur, so it is reported, and his only references are to unexisting records. (See Div. Right of Min., p. 64.)

On the doubtful credit to be attached to Eusebius in this matter, see also Henderson's Review and

Consid., Edinb., 4to., 1706, p. 331, 371-373, where he quotes Scaliger, Didoclave, Stillingfleet, &c.; Mosheim's Commentaries, vol. i., pp. 135, 297, 294; Stillingfleet, Irenicum, p. 341; Plea for Presbytery, Glasg., 1840, p. 248.

We may here apply the rule laid down by Bishop Lloyd. "But for the number of witnesses, I think that is not much to be considered when they come, (as these do,) all in file, one after another, so that all their strength is resolved into the credit of one author." Hist. Acct. of Ch. Gov. in Great Brit. and Irel., Lond., 1684, Pref.

Again, he makes it a chief argument against the Scottish claims "by showing the distance of time at which the first author of them lived, from the persons and things of which he writ." Ibid. "It is a shrewd presumption against the truth of any matter delivered in history, when it is said to have been many ages before the time of him that was the first author that mentioned it." Ibid.

2) See Dr. Miller on the Ministry,

p. 327.