le titre d'Evêque œcuménique ou universel. Baronius croit que ce titre se trouvoit donné au Pape dans l'inscription de la lettre qui lui fut adressée par le Concile."* le Concile."* And, indeed, one is reduced to the alternative of believing, either that his holiness there refers his rival John to a fact which had no existence, which, however, is by no means likely, or of admitting the probable conjecture of Baronius, that this title was given to Gregory in the inscription of some letter addressed to him by the Chalcedonian Fathers.

With respect to the objections made to the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome from the language of St. Gregory in the epistles just quoted, it is my duty to state the explanations which Catholics have given of it; and on this point, perhaps, I cannot do better than quote what the learned Dr. Milner,† and the equally learned anonymous author of the Introduction to "The Protestants' Apology," have said relative to the Pope's supremacy.

Speaking of this papal attribute, Dr. Milner observes: "We find this superiority in the clearest and strongest terms, attributed to the Popes, during the first three centuries, by the illustrious fathers and writers who lived in them;

* Abrégé Chronologique de l'Histoire Ecclesiastique, tome. p. 317.

+ Letters to a Prebendary, Lett. II.

particularly by St. Irenæus, who boasts of his having been instructed by St. Polycarp, the disciple of the apostles; by Tertullian, the most ancient Latin father whose works are extant; and by St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, the great light of the church in the third century. We find this prerogative claimed and exercised by pope Victor in the case of the churches of Asia Minor, which he threatened to excommunicate; whether on sufficient grounds or not, is foreign to the present question; likewise in the case of the Montanists, and several other heretics, whom the same pope actually did cut off from the communion of the church. Finally, not to multiply instances, we find this prerogative exercised in the case of several bishops, and other individuals in Gaul, in Spain, and in Africa, which were judged and decided upon at Rome by pope Stephen, during the period in question,"

These arguments certainly go to prove, what I should think few sensible readers will feel in the least disposed to question: that, from a very early period of christianity, the bishops of Rome have held a peculiar authority over a large portion of the christian world; and that, whether from the dignity of their diocese, as including the metropolis of the Roman empire, or from whatever other cause, the Roman Pontiffs have always exercised a kind of supremacy in spiritual matters; and this will appear still more clearly when I have adduced the arguments employed by the anonymous

author already alluded to: "While St. Gregory," says he, "was anxious for the rights of his colleagues, he was not forgetful of his own. In the letter to John of Constantinople, he mentions St. Peter as the first member of the holy universal church, and speaks of his own appointment to the government of the church." Writing to the emperor Mauritius, by whom John was patronised, he says: "the management and primacy of the whole church had been given to St. Peter." Elsewhere he asserts, that "the apostolic see is the chief of all churches;" and with regard to the very church of Constantinople, he says, in a letter to John, bishop of Syracuse, that "no one doubts of its being subject to the see of Rome." In another letter to the same prelate, he writes thus: "As to his saying that he is subject to the apostolic see; if bishops be guilty of faults, I do not know of any bishop, who is not subject to it; but when nothing culpable requires its interference, they are all equal, according to the rule of humility." On this passage Fleury remarks thus: "These words of St. Gregory indicate, in a precise manner, the limits of the power of the head of the church. As long as bishops do their duty, he treats them as his equals: but he is the superior of all of them, when there is a question of correcting them."

the

I have quoted quite sufficient to shew, that popes of Rome have early claimed, and it has been granted to them, a government and

supremacy over the rest of their brother bishops, in points of general discipline and order in the church nor do I see why protestants should feel so extremely sore on this point: to my mind, it only proves, that the simplicity of the gospel of Christ was encroached upon in very early times, even earlier than most writers seem to allow. But that St. Peter had any superior rank or authority over the rest of the apostles, is not by any means clear. The Acts of the Apostles, the first, and the only correct, Ecclesiastical History, does not, according to my views, convey any such a notion; and I feel very little concern about the Acts of any other Apostles besides those of whom we have clear and authentic accounts in the New Testament. It is to be feared, we all lay too much stress upon the Fathers: writers who agreed upon hardly a single point of doctrine or discipline; and too little upon the sacred volume, which contains every thing necessary to be known or believed relative to our future happiness.

If Protestants cannot maintain their ground with Catholics, armed, like David against the giant of Gath with a sling and a stone, from the Bible only, they had better give up the contest: for it is hopeless to fight against the army of Councils, Synods, Fathers, and Schoolmen, which Catholics are able to bring into the field on these occasions. One little book, which I can carry in my bosom, and refer to in every

?”

exigence of moment to my soul's peace, is worth all the mighty tomes of the Vatican; superior, in my estimation, to all that bishops ever wrote, or canonists have quarrelled about. Which of the councils, from the first of Nice, to that of Trent, will point out in clear, unequivocal terms, "what we must do to be saved?" and of which of the Fathers shall we inquire "the way to the kingdom of heaven ?" Alas! alas! they all deceive or confuse us; and we are compelled to recur to those records of immortality, which are alone infallible, to learn this simple truth, that "to enter into life, we must keep the commandments;" and that doing this, it boots little who is the visible head of the church; when, or how, he acquired his real or pretended supremacy; nor am I painfully anxious to know whether Gregory the Great or John the Fraster first lorded it over God's heritage; whether Pallavicini or Paolo Sarpi, give the truest history of the council of Trent-whether the lascivious and cruel Harry VIII. or the luxurious and careless

* "While we possess the Bible, which is every day becoming more free from faulty corruptions of the text, we need have no other guide: for we know, that erroneous doctrines had even crept into the religion of Christ during the days of the Apostles." MS. note, in the hand writing of the late excellent Duke of Grafton, on the margin of page v, of Simpson's Apology for the Doctrine of the Trinity; formerly his Grace's copy.-How seldom do Dukes concern themselves about the sacred text or the doctrines of the Gospel!