so old as Christianity, by more than a thousand

years.

O'Leary. Well, but was not St. Peter Bishop of the Catholic Church at Rome?

Melancthon. I believe not, O'Leary. So far from his having been Bishop of that Church, there is no satisfactory historical proof that he ever was at Rome at all.

O'Leary. Not at Rome, your honour? What! did you never hear of his contest with Simon Magus in that city, and of his being crucified there during Nero's persecution?

Melancthon. Yes, O'Leary, I have heard of his shooting the magician when he was flying, and bringing him down to the earth; and also of the Apostle being crucified with his head downward. But the former story I reject as fabulous, and the latter as unsupported by sufficient evidence. Eusebius omits the fable altogether; and mentions the place and manner of St. Peter's death rather as a probable tradition than as an undoubted fact. Besides, what appears to me to be strong presumptive evidence that St. Peter never was at Rome, is, that neither he nor St. Paul so much as once mention the fact. Peter wrote his last Epistle a little before his death, which took place in the year 67; but in this there is no allusion to his being in Rome and his first Epistle was written from Babylon, not from Rome. St. Paul wrote se

veral Epistles from Rome: in the year 57, to the Philippians, to Philemon, to the Ephesians, and to the Colossians; and his Second Epistle to Timothy in 68; but in not one of these Epistles is St. Peter so much as once named. Is it probable, think you, O'Leary, that St. Paul, who mentions the names of many other brethren, would have omitted the name of Peter, had he been there?

O'Leary. I confess, your honour, I think he would have been mentioned first.

Melancthon. But if St. Peter was never Bishop of Rome, then what becomes of the authority and infallibility of your Popes, who pretend to derive both from his having first sat in the Roman Papal chair? If he was never Bishop of Rome, they, poor sinners, are not his successors; and, however infallible he might be, and whatever power he might possess to transmit his authority and infallibility to those who should succeed him, they can have no share in it, for they are not his legal heirs: they are bastards, and not sons.

O'Leary. I don't know how to refute your honour, for which I am really sorry; for if what you say be correct, we are all wrong. Destroy the succession, and all is over. Ordinations, sacraments, and absolutions are all invalid and worthless.

Melancthon. Yes, O'Leary, if these derive

K

O'Leary. Well, but as you think my reason for Peter's supremacy to be of little value, pray will your honour have the goodness to let me hear your reasons for rejecting it? Perhaps they are no better.

Melancthon. If not, O'Leary, then I hope you will treat them with supreme contempt. My reasons are the following:-First, Peter never affected superiority over any of the other Apostles. Secondly, Not one of the Apostles, either directly or indirectly acknowledged Peter to be their head. Thirdly, Long after Christ gave the name of Cephas to Peter, there was a contention in his presence, among the Apostles, who should be greatest, when our Lord, instead of saying, (which he certainly would, had the fact been so,) "Peter is the greatest, for I have made him your head," said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, but ye shall not be so;" (Luke xxii. 24—26;) and in another place, “One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.” (Matt. xxiii. 8.) Fourthly, In the council which was held at Jerusalem, an account of which you may read at your leisure, in Acts xv., though Peter was present and spoke in that council, James, and not Peter, presided; which is evident from these words: "My sentence is," &c. He, as the Chairman or President, pronounced the judgment of the court; which most assuredly he

would not have done, had Peter been the supreme head. Fifthly, St. Paul, who uniformly taught obedience to rulers, withstood Peter to the face at Antioch, (Gal. ii. 11,)-a thing utterly incredible, on the supposition that Peter was the supreme head. Sixthly, St. Paul explicitly denies Peter's superiority, when he says, “I was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles." (2 Cor. xi. 5.)

O'Leary. I confess your reasons appear much better than mine, and exceedingly plausible. Yet one thing very much puzzles me, which I shall thank your honour to explain. If the Roman Catholic Church be not the most ancient, and if Peter be not the supreme head, and if the Pope be not his successor, how comes it to pass, that from the beginning, all churches, till the time of Luther, were subject to the Bishop of Rome?

Melancthon. It was not till the seventh century that the supremacy of the Church at Rome was admitted, which was accomplished at the desire of Pope Boniface III., by the infamous Phocas, "that abominable tyrant, who waded to the imperial throne through the blood of the

Emperor Mauritius.”* For a long period pre

vious to this, the title of "Universal Bishop" had been assumed by the Bishops of Constantinople, which indeed was never very palatable

Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, 4to, vol i., p. 320.

their virtue and efficacy from Popes being the successors of St. Peter, they are not worth a fig: and the money you have paid your Priests for praying your grandmother out of purgatory, and for granting you absolution for getting drunk, and swearing, and the other bad things that you have done, which I forbear to name, is all thrown away. Alas! O'Leary, you have fallen among thieves, who have sadly plundered you.

O'Leary. But suppose, your honour, that St. Peter had been Bishop of Rome, in that case you would not deny the supremacy, and succession, and infallibility, of the Roman Catholic Church?

Melancthon. Yes, O'Leary, I would deny

them all.

O'Leary. Why, surely you don't deny that St. Peter was the prince of the Apostles, and that they were all subject to him?

Melancthon. Indeed I do, for which I shall assign my reasons; but as you seem to think he was SUPREME, I should like to know your reason for that opinion.

O'Leary. My reason, your honour, is this, -the Priest says he is, and that an Evangelist has asserted the fact.

Melancthon. Which Evangelist, and where? O'Leary. The Evangelist St. Matthew, in chap. xvi. 18.