stration, not from mere human authority, but from the canonical writings of the Apostles and Prophets; so he explicitly tells us, that provincial Councils may be corrected by Ecumenical Councils, and that earlier Ecumenical Councils themselves may be amended by better advised later Ecumenical Councils.

IN FINE, THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD ALONE THEY

ADMIT TO BE TRULY INFALLIBLE.

CHAPTER III.

SUPREMACY.

THE Latin Theologians claim for the See of Rome the right of a dominant Supremacy over the whole Church Catholic: so that those, who are not in subjection to that See, are to be accounted as aliens and rebels and schismatics.

Now the plea, on which this claim is set up, is the transmission of the dominant Supremacy of St. Peter to his canonical successors the Bishops of Rome.

In such a plea, it is evident, that two historical facts are alleged: the dominant Supremacy of St. Peter over the entire Catholic Church; and the constantly acknowledged dominant Supremacy of the Roman Bishops, on the specific ground that they are severally St. Peter's successors.

Hence our present business is to produce testimony against each of these two alleged historical facts.

I. The testimony against the dominant Supremacy of St. Peter must obviously be sought in the volume of the New Testament.

cern.

Here our purpose must be to inquire, not whether the holy Apostle might or might not, in some cases, be recognised, by his brethren in the Apostleship, as the first among equals in ecclesiastical authority: for, with this very inferior and (in truth) very insignificant question, either affirmatively or negatively, we have no manner of conBut our purpose must be to inquire, whether the whole tenor of the Greek Scriptures be not absolutely fatal to the notion; that Peter was the sovereign monarch of the Catholic Church, that his dominant supremacy extended over every member of it, and that all the other Apostles (so far from being his ecclesiastical equals) both rightfully owed and cheerfully paid to him a due canonical obedience: for this, not the former, is the real question which must be brought under discussion.

1. The positive testimony, against the dominant Supremacy of St. Peter, may be arranged under the following particulars.

(1.) Shortly after the ascension, we find Peter apparently taking the lead in the important business of appointing a successor to the miserable Judas. He acts, at least, as a sort of prolocutor; and, in so far, he might seem to have some kind of preeminence: but, as we advance in the narrative, the phantom of an absolute primacy flits away from our grasp and vanishes into impalpable ether.

Had Peter been the divinely-appointed vicar of Christ upon earth; he, no doubt, acting as the

Lord's special representative, would have appointed, by his own exclusive sovereign authority, the new suffragan Apostle: for, in regard to such elevated rank, it were plainly inconsistent to come to any other conclusion.

But, in point of fact, we do not find, that this was the case. The whole Assembly, not he himself specially, appointed two candidates for the vacant office: and, when that preliminary step had been collectively taken, the matter was referred, not even then to Peter, but by lot to the Supreme Head of the Church himself.

From these recorded circumstances I infer, that the prolocution of the zealous and warm-hearted Peter was incidental rather than official1.

(2.) The next time, that we hear of Peter, is on the day of Pentecost. Through the descent of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles spake with diverse tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance: and the strangers in Jerusalem were not a little amazed at the circumstance. Whereupon Peter, standing up with the eleven, explained to them the fact and nature and object of the miracle.

Now the substance of the explanatory speech, ascribed by name to Peter, must certainly, both from the turn of the expression and from the necessity of the narrative, have been alike delivered by all the Apostles. Had Peter alone spoken in a single particular tongue, a small part

1 Acts i. 13-26.

only of the multitude would have understood him. Doubtless, therefore, the same matters were delivered by the other Apostles in other tongues to other divisions of the multitude: and, accordingly, we read, not that Peter stood up solely, but that he stood up jointly with the eleven; not that the multitude in return addressed Peter exclusively, but that they spake unto Peter and unto the rest of the Apostles'.

(3.) Soon after this transaction, we find St. Peter, not enacting the sovereign primate, but submitting with St. John to the collective authority of the Apostolic College.

When the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, THEY sent unto them Peter and John2.

It is easy to conceive, that Christ's monarchal vicar might send two of his dependant suffragans, in the quality of his legates, a latere, upon an ecclesiastical errand: but it is very difficult to explain, how the dependant suffragans took upon themselves to send Christ's monarchal vicar and their own lawful dominant primate upon the business of the Church, thus apparently governed in common by a spiritual aristocracy, not by a single absolute spiritual sovereign.

(4.) In course of time, the Gentiles, no less than the Jews, received the word of God from

1 Acts ii. 1-37.

2 Ibid. viii. 14.