Peter suggested the necessity for appointing a successor to Judas. But he made no appointment himself. They

66

(the disciples, v. 15) appointed two (v. 23); and having prayed, they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias" (v. 26).

2.-The appointment of the seven deacons, Acts vi. Instead of St. Peter, by his own pontifical authority, appointing the deacons to their office, the TWELVE Apostles desired the multitude to select the men. (v. 3.) The whole multitude then chose seven persons, "whom they set before the Apostles, and when they had prayed they laid their hands upon them."

3.-The Council at Jerusalem, Acts xv. According to Cardinal Manning :—

"It belongs to the successors of Peter alone to convoke, to direct, to prorogue, to translate, to confirm and to dissolve the Ecumenical Councils of the Church."

If such privileges belong to the successors of " Peter alone," surely they must have belonged to himself; yet, if so, strange to say, he descended from his pontifical dignity very low indeed, for he neither convoked, directed, nor dissolved the Council; and his confirmation of its decrees was only given in common with the "Apostles and elders and brethren," verses 23-29. In the Council, while sitting, the decision was announced by James, and not by Peter. "Wherefore, my sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God," &c.

* Centenary of St. Peter, p. 70.

CHAPTER XI.

THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.

SYNOPSIS.

1. St. Peter's supremacy being disproved, the only ground for the Pope's supremacy is taken away. If Peter's supremacy could be established, it would remain to be proved :-(1). That St. Peter was at Rome. (2). That he was Bishop of Rome. (3). That he filled that office at his death.

2. Platina's statement of the Roman case. Note, St. Peter's contest with Simon Magus. Caranza's account of St. Peter at Rome.

3. The Roman story improbable.

4. The New Testament proves the incredibility of St. Peter's Roman Episcopate. The Historical and Chronological Index" of the Douay Bible compared with the facts recorded in the New Testament, to show that the Roman story is false.

5. Did St. Peter write from Babylon in the East, or does Babylon, in 1 Pet. v. 13, mean Rome? Du Pin and Hug cited. The Romish objection fully confuted by Michaelis.

6. Evidence from the Council at Jerusalem, Acts xv. compared with Gal. ii. 1, and i. 18. The Epistle to the Romans.

7. St. Paul on his arrival at Rome, Acts xxviii. does not find St. Peter there. Argument from St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians,, Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Tim. From 2nd Peter.

8. Summary of the argument from the New Testament.

9. Silence of the Apostolic Fathers concerning Peter's Roman episcopate. 10. Keenan's proof that St. Peter was at Rome. Refutation of his three fold

argument.

If St.

11. St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome. St. Peter being an Apostle could not become a Bishop. Those offices inconsistent with each other. Essential qualifications requisite to constitute an Apostle. Peter was Bishop of Rome there must have been two Bishops in the same See. Irenæus, Dionysius, Epiphanius, and Eusebius cited. 12. Who appointed St. Peter to be Bishop of Rome? When and where was the appointment made?

13. Can the Popes be connected with St. Peter? (1). Were any privileges to descend from St. Peter? (2). Were they personal or local? Even if the Popes were St. Peter's successors as Bishops of Rome, it would not follow that they inherited his Apostolic dignity and supremacy. 14. Did Peter bequeath his supremacy to the Bishop of Rome? Where is the proof?

15. Arguments against the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome in the Primitive Church. Would not St. John have been the successor to the supreme dignity, rather than Linus or Cletus? Would not the Bishop of Jerusalem have been as likely a successor as the Bishop of Rome? 16. Argument from the silence of the Scriptures with regard to the Pope. 17. Argument from the silence of the Fathers; the Ancient Creeds; the Pagan opponents of Christianity, and the Roman civil powers. 18. Argument from the silence of the Heathen philosophers; the great Christian Apologists, from the fact that the Popes were not called upon to determine the great controversies on faith, &c. Those who opposed the Popes were not condemned as heretics, e.g. St. Cyprian. 19. General Councils were not convened by the Popes. To convoke general Councils belongs to the Pope's supremacy. Manning, the Rhemish Annotators and Leo X. referred to.

20. The Emperors and not the Popes, convoked the general Councils. Socrates, Justinian. I Nice, convoked by Constantine.

21. Council of Constantinople convoked by Theodosius I.

Ephesus by Theodosius II. Socrates, Evagrius, Du Pin.

Council of

22. Council of Chalcedon convoked by Marcian. 2nd Con. of Constantinople by Justinian. Evagrius, Du Pin. 3rd Con. of Constantinople convoked by Constantine Pogonatus.

23. The Popes did not preside in the general Councils.

Eusebius, Grier cited.

Nice.

Du Pin, Socrates,

24. The Pope did not preside in the Council of Constantinople, Barrow,

nor of Ephesus.

25. The Pope did not preside in the Councils of Chalcedon, or 2nd Constantinople.

26. The Pope did not preside in the 3rd Council of Constantinople. 27. If the Pope's supremacy had been acknowledged, his confirmation of the general Councils would have been required to give them force; but it was the Emperors, and not the Popes who confirmed them. 28. The Canons of the first four general Councils were incompatible with the Papal supremacy. Nice, Canons IV. and VI.

29. Constantinople, Canons II. and III. 30. Chalcedon, Canons IV. and XXIII. get Canon XXIII. rescinded.

31. RISE AND PROGRESS OF PAPAL POWer.

Ephesus, Canon VII.

Efforts of the Papal legates to

Du Pin

32. THE FORGED DECRETALS: Hallam's description of them. proves that they are forgeries. Papal supremacy built upon them. Hallam.

33. The forged donation of Constantine. Du Pin denounces the imposture. Genebrard cited. Dr. James on the frauds and forgeries of the

Romish Church.

34. THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES. Originated in the grants of Pepin and Charlemagne. The conduct of Popes Zachary and Stephen. 35. Bishop Doyle on the origin of the Pope's temporal power. Machiavel on the Popes as the authors of wars in Italy. Charles Butler cited. 36. THE DEPOSING AND ABSOLVING POWER. This claim repudiated by Christ and opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, John xviii. 34-37, Luke xii. 13, 14, Rom. xiii., Tit iii. 1, 1 Pet. ii. 13-15.

37. Doyle on the progress of Papal usurpation. His opinion of the Scriptural arguments of Gregory VII., and of the bull unam sanctam.

38. Charles Butler's repudiation of the Pope's temporal authority. His denunciation of the bull of Pius V. against Queen Elizabeth. His statement as to the rise and progress of the usurpation. 39. Deposition of Henry IV. by Gregory VII. Du Pin and Doyle cited. 40. Deposition of Frederick II. by Pope Honorius III.

Deposition of

Frederick II. by Gregory IX., and by Innocent IV. Deposition of the
Emperor Otho by Innocent III.

41. Deposition of King John by Innocent III. (Note, the interdict described by Hume.) Papal usurpation and English humiliation. (Note, the oath of fealty taken by John.)

42. Henry VIII. excommunicated by Paul III. Bull of Pope Pius V. against Queen Elizabeth. Bull of Sixtus V. against Henry of Navarre and the Prince of Condé.

43. IRELAND AND THE POPES. Bull of Adrian IV. to Henry II. Bulls of Gregory XIII. and Clement VIII. to stir up rebellion in Ireland.

44. Why the Popes do not now depose Princes, and absolve subjects from oaths of allegiance, accounted for by Cardinal Manning.

1. In the last chapter, the supremacy of St. Peter was discussed; the arguments on its behalf stated and refuted, and a mass of unanswerable proofs adduced against it. The supremacy of St. Peter being disproved, the whole ground on which the Pope's supremacy could be established is thereby taken away.

But even on the supposition that the supremacy of St. Peter could be proved, the Pope's supremacy would not follow as a necessary consequence. At the outset, these three questions present themselves, and require clear and distinct answers in the affirmative, before the Papal claims could be further entertained :

I. Was St. Peter ever at Rome at all?
II. Was he Bishop of Rome ?

III. Did he continue as such, and did he fill that office at his death?

2. The Romish statements on these points are as follows:

Platina asserts that St. Peter "came into Italy in the second year of Claudius," and that "in his time he came to Rome," that there he encountered Simon Magus, with results very disastrous to the latter; that "he constituted two bishops, viz., Linus and Cletus, who might exercise the sacerdotal ministry to the Romans and other Christians." After this he "consecrated Clemens a bishop, and in these words recommended to him his chair, and the Church of God: I deliver to thee the same power of binding and loosing which Christ left to me; do thou, as becomes a good pastor, promote the salvation of men, both by prayer and preaching, without regard to any hazard of life and fortune. Having set these things in order, at the command of Nero, in the last year of his empire, he was put to death, together with St. Paul, though the

kinds of their punishment were different; for St. Peter was crucified with his head towards the ground and his feet upwards He continued in the see twentyfive years." This took place "in the thirty-seventh year after the death of Christ."*

Caranza's account of Peter at Rome is similar in substance to that of Platina. He is very precise as to the exact period of time during which Peter sat in the episcopal chair at Rome, being, as he says, twentyfour years, five months, and eleven days. He says that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus; that he consecrated blessed Clement a bishop; and that he was crowned with martyrdom, together with St. Paul, A.D. 68.†

3. The whole story bears internal evidence of its improbability, and would create very strong suspicion in the mind of an unprejudiced enquirer as to the truthfulness of any part of it.

If St. Peter was put to death about A.D. 68, the Romish theory required that he should have become Bishop of Rome in or about A.D. 43, and Bishop of Antioch about A.D. 36.

On the supposition that St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch seven years, and Bishop of Rome twenty-five years, we must expect to find frequent references to such facts in the "Acts of the Apostles," and in the" Epistles."

* Platina's Lives of the Popes, translated by Ricaut, pp. 3-6. St. Peter's contest with Simon Magus is thus described by Platina :"To such a height of impudence did this lewd fellow arrive, that he challenged St. Peter to work miracles with him; and particularly he undertook to raise to life a dead child, which, indeed, at first seemed somewhat to move at his charms; but it being manifest presently that the child, nevertheless, continued dead, still, at St. Peter's command in the name of Jesus, it immediately arose. Simon, being enraged hereat, proffered as a further trial, which of them was the more holy man, and more beloved of God, to fly from the Capitol to the Aventine in the sight of all the people, provided Peter would follow him. While he was yet flying, at the prayer of Peter, who with hands lifted up to heaven, beseeched God not to suffer so great a multitude to be deluded with magical arts, down he fell and broke his leg, with grief of which misfortune he died not long after at Aricia, whither his followers had conveyed him after this foul disgrace."-p. 4.

+Summa Conciliorum, p. 9, Lovanii, 1681.