in Rome or in Antioch; because we do not find the like of any other of the apostles. This is said on the presumption that St. James, who was bishop of Jerusalem, was not either of those two of the twelve, who bore the name. Considering the itenerant lives of the apostles, and their being continually employed in gathering and in governing Churches distant from one another; we ought not to admit, without satisfactory evidence, that the single instance of relation to a local charge took place in the person of St. Peter-the very apostle, who is supposed to have sustained the weight of the government of all the Churches of Christendom. For although this matter is not here admitted; yet it is held by those, who suppose him to have taken on himself the local episcopacy of two sees in succession-that of Antioch and that of Rome.

It is proposed to prove in this section-That St. Peter was never properly bishop of the Church of Rome-That some occasional expressions of the early fathers, which seem to favour the opinion here denied, admit of a different interpretationAnd that even on the supposition of a spiritual supremacy, it was not conceived, during many centuries, to have descended.

First: St. Peter was never properly bishop of Rome. Irenæus, who wrote long before any of the authors supposed to affirm what is here denied, says, as cited by Eusebius-" The blessed apostles, planting and building the Church," (meaning that of Rome)" committed unto Linus the government of the ministry."* This supposes no other government to have been in St. Peter, than what was in the apostles generally: and as to local relation to the Church of Rome, the episcopal character must have begun in the person of Linus. Tertullian reports,† that St. Peter ordained Clement, for the Church of the Romans: which must have ↑ De Prescrip. 32.

* Lib. v. cap. 6.

been on a vacancy of the see; and still supposes the local episcopacy to have been in other hands than those of St. Peter. Besides Linus and Clement, there was at least one bishop; and some say there were two of that character: which still confirms the idea of the fulness of the see, exclusively of the persons of the apostles. The account of these matters is different, in what are called the apostolick constitutions: for there,* St. Peter is introduced saying, that Linus, the first bishop, was ordained by St. Paul; and Clement, the second, by himself. Which ever of the accounts be correct, it amounts to the same. The said work, in the place referred to, reciting the names of the first bishops of Rome and of Antioch, assigns Linus to the former, and Evodius to the latter: not reckoning St. Peter to be especially related in that capacity, to either of them. In like manner, the first bishop of Ephesus is said to be Timothy; although none doubt of the labours of St. John, in that quarter. But in the instance of Jerusalem, the first bishop is said to have been St. James-meaning not the son of Zebedee, nor the son of Alpheus, but James surnamed the Just-in consent with the concurrent voice of antiquity.

Secondly: Some occasional expressions of early fathers, appearing to favour the contrary opinion, admit of a different interpretation. For instance, Eusebius: who, althought he speaks of Linus as being the first bishop of Rome after St. Peter, yet in another place,‡ reckons Alexander the fifth bishop after Peter and Paul. This shows the lax sense in which, in both the places, he refers to apostolick but local episcopacy: because the words, taken in a strict sense, would make St. Paul no less bishop of Rome, than St. Peter. The same Eusebius reckons Evodius the first bishop of Antioch-still,

* Lib. vii. cap. 46. ↑ Lib. iii. cap. 4. Lib. iv. cap. 1. Lib. iii. cap. 22.

1

after Peter and Paul, who are of course noticed in their apostolical characters only.

When St. Cyprian* calls the Church of Rome the chair of St. Peter, he may be understood as using the words in the same sense with those of Eusebius: and at any rate, the periods at which these two authors wrote, ought to prevent the setting up of their authorities, against that of the documents above referred to; which so clearly distinguish between a local episcopacy, and the general superintendence of every one of the apostles, wheresoever residing.

But all these are minor considerations: and it is more important to remark, that on the supposition of the spiritual'supremacy of St. Peter, there is no evidence, for many centuries, of its having been considered as descending along the line of the bishops of Rome.

In that estimable remnant of antiquity-the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, it might be expected that there would have appeared some consciousness of the said supremacy; if he had conceived of it, as having been transmitted to him by St. Peter. For Clement was bishop of Rome; and his epistle is addressed to a Church, in which there existed a schism, the effect of insubordination. Yet the address savours not in the least of the character of one, who had any right to interfere in their concerns; otherwise than in the way of intreaty and exhortation. A passage of this very epistle, however, has been produced as favouring the Roman claim. It is that noticed in the last dissertation; wherein the saint recommends, that all things be done in due time and order; for this purpose mentioning, by way of example, the service of the Jewish temple; in which the high priest, the priests, and the Levites had their respective offices. It is entirely with the view to the imitating of them, in

* Ep. 45. + Cap. 48.

the observance of comely order. Cotelerius, in his notes, supposes the analogy to be founded on the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons: and the same is the opinion of many Protestant Episcopalians. But even that Roman Catholick editor, does not seem to have discovered in the passage, any especial reference to the episcopacy of the see of Rome.

Victor's rash excommunication of the Asiatick Churches, towards the conclusion of the second century, has been advanced by some as evidence of supereminent authority. But it is well known to those acquainted with the sentiments governing in those days, that every Church conceived of herself as possessing a right to refuse communion with another, which should make any essential innovation in the faith. The errour of Victor, did not consist in challenging to himself an extraordinary prerogative in this matter; but in making an unwarrantable use of a prerogative acknowledged to exist in him, and in every member of the Episcopal body. The tenour of the reproof of this prelate by St. Irenæus, may be considered as a standard of publick opinion on the subject.

St. Cyprian's resistance of the domineering spirit of another bishop of Rome, towards the middle of the third century, abundantly shows, that whatever he may have thought of the chair of St. Peter, he knew of no descent of the authority of the apostle: for he plainly avows the sentiment, that every bishop has the charge of a certain portion of the flock, and that he is accountable for his conduct, not to any other bishop, but only to Jesus Christ. In the time of this father, the easy communication between Rome and Africa, in connexion with the confessed dignity of the see, induced the discontented in his diocese to repair to that city, with their complaints. And in this way began a corrupt practice, which grew to an enormous height, to the great injury of Christendom. But it was not the fault of Cyprian, that the evil was not checked in the beginning: for he complained loudly of it, as injurious to ecclesiastical discipline.

It is evident, that the burden of proof of the supremacy in question, ought to lie on the other side. No proofs are offered, higher than the level of those which have been noticed. Evident disproof may be gathered from the silence of Christian writers, as to any controlling power, especially seated in the see of Rome. But to dispense with any thing further, so far as relates to the first three centuries, there shall be here copied the following, from Dupin's Abridgment of the Discipline of the Church, within that limit"The Church of Rome, founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, was considered as the first, and its bishop as first among all the bishops of the world. Yet they did not believe him to be infallible; and although they frequently consulted him, and his advice was of great consequence, yet they did not receive it blindfold and implicitly; every bishop imagining himself to have a right to judge in ecclesiastical matters."*

On descending lower, there is no occasion to go beyond the fourth, and the first half of the next century. It would be easy to multiply authorities, to the same purpose as the above: but it may be sufficient to exhibit circumstances, connected with the general councils held within that time; as being utterly inconsistent with the authority here in question.

If there be any such authority, and if the decisions of the general councils are to be received as the sense of the whole Church; the authority must certainly extend to the calling of those bodies, and to the presiding in them. Both these, and the ratifying of their decrees, have been affirmed in authoritative instruments of Roman bishops, to belong to them.

The first council-that of Nice-was held in the year 325; being confessedly called by the emperour Constantine. Its decrees were sent to Sylvester bishop of Rome, as they were to various other bishops of eminence, but not made dependent on subsequent sanction; as may be seen in the historian Socrates, who

Vol. I. p. 590, of his work.