him; and, whosesoever ye shall retain, they shall be retained1.

Nor did Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom he built his Church, when afterward Paul disputed with him concerning circumcision, claim or assume any thing to himself insolently or arrogantly: so as to say, that he himself held the primacy, and that by posterity obedience ought to be paid to him rather than to Paul. On the contrary, he despised not Paul, because he had formerly been a persecutor of the Church: but he admitted the counsel of truth, and readily assented to that legitimate system which Paul vindicated'.

After these things, a false Bishop having been by the heretics appointed to themselves, they dare to set

Nam Petro primum Dominus, super quem ædificavit Ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit, ut id solveretur in cœlis, quod ille solvisset in terris. Et, post resurrectionem, quoque ad Apostolos loquitur, dicens: Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos. Hoc cum dixisset, inspiravit, et ait illis: Accipite Spiritum Sanctum : si cujus remiseritis peccata, remittentur illi; si cujus tenueritis, tenebuntur. Cyprian. Epist. Jubaian. lxxiii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 201.

2 Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit et super quem ædificavit Ecclesiam suam, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione postmodum disceptaret, vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumsit: ut diceret se primatum tenere; et obtemperari, a novellis et posteris, sibi potius oportere. Nec despexit Paulum, quod Ecclesiæ prius persecutor fuisset: sed consilium veritatis admisit; et rationi legitimæ, quam Paulus vindicabat, facile consensit. Cyprian. Epist. Quint. lxxi. Oper. vol. ii. p. 194, 195.

sail: nor do they fear to bear letters, from schismatical and profane persons, to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church whence sacerdotal unity has arisen; for they consider not, that they are Romans (whose faith was praised by the Apostle himself,) to whom perfidy cannot have access'.

II. Such is the case, for the dominant Supremacy of the Roman Church and her Bishop over the whole Catholic Church of Christ, made out, by Mr. Berington, from Holy Scripture and from the Fathers of the three first centuries 2.

Now it is obvious, that, in order fully and distinctly to establish this point, two matters must be severally substantiated: the first is, that Christ constituted Peter supreme head both of the Universal Church and likewise of all the other Apostles, thus erecting an absolute monarchy in the Society of which he was the founder; the second is, that All the paramount authority, originally vested in Peter, has from him rightfully descended to the Roman Church and Bishop.

1

The substantiation of each of these two points

Post ista adhuc insuper, pseudoepiscopo sibi ab hæreticis constituto, navigare audent; et ad Petri cathedram, atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis et profanis literas ferre; nec cogitare eos esse Romanos (quorum fides, Apostolo prædicante, laudata est), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum. Cyprian. Epist. Cornel. lix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 135, 136.

* See Berington's Faith of Cathol. p. 157-159, 168, 169. The Bishop of Strasbourg produces no evidence on this point.

is plainly necessary. For, unless Peter himself had received from Christ a grant of universal dominant Supremacy; it is clear, that no such Supremacy could be inherited from him by the Bishop and Church of Rome: and, whatever exalted Supremacy might have been conferred upon Peter by Christ; it is equally clear, that no such Supremacy can be claimed by the Roman Church and Bishop, unless they can first demonstrate themselves to be the divinely constituted heirs of Peter.

Our business, therefore, will be to inquire, how far these two points are substantiated by the evidence which Mr. Berington has adduced: evidence, as we have seen, partly drawn from Scripture, and partly extracted from writers of the three first centuries.

III. Let us begin with examining the testimony, which he has produced from Scripture.

1. Here, the first question is: Whether the texts, which have been alleged, demonstrate, that Christ appointed Peter to be the Monarch or Supreme Head of his Church.

(1.) With respect to the second and third alleged texts from Scripture, they may safely, I think, be dismissed without much ceremony 1.

How a prayer on the part of Christ that Peter's faith should not fail, and how an admonition to the same Apostle that he should strengthen his

1 Luke xxii. 31, 32. John xxi. 15-17.

brethren when he himself should have been converted, can afford any historical proof, that Christ appointed Peter to be the Monarch or Supreme Head of his Church, passes, I am free to say, my own comprehension.

As little can I divine, how the same remarkable grant is substantiated by a thrice repeated injunction from Christ that Peter should feed his flock. The triple command seems pretty evidently to allude to Peter's triple denial of his Lord. Hence we are very naturally told, that Peter was grieved, because Christ said to him, the third time, Lovest thou me? Yet, by some inconceivable process, the latin doctors transmute, what Peter himself with much mortification deemed an implied reproof, into a glorious grant of universal dominant Supre

macy.

To adduce such texts, in proof of an asserted historical FACT, is so utterly childish, that the experiment can only serve to shew the grievous scantiness of scriptural testimony.

(2.) The sole text, therefore, which can be viewed as carrying with it even the least cogency, is the first'. Let this first text, then, be brought to the test of sober examination.

If the present text conveys any grant of that Supremacy for which the Romanists contend, the grant can only be comprehended, in the supposed allegation on the part of Christ that Peter is the

1 Matt. xvi. 15-19.

rock upon which he will build his Church, and in the special exclusive conveyance of what is called the binding and loosing power of the keys: for no where else, in the entire text, can we discover a vestige of any grant of universal dominant Supremacy.

Now, in two of the passages cited from Cyprian, I readily admit, that that Father considers Peter himself to be the rock upon which Christ promises to build his Church: but, to make out any satisfactory case of evidence, it ought to have been shewn by the latin advocate of papal preeminence, that that interpretation was, without any variation, universally received, as the undoubtedly true one, from the very beginning.

A modern theologian, Mr. Husenbeth to wit, has indeed roundly asserted: that, by ALL the holy Fathers and doctors, by all the Councils, and by the most learned and pious men in the world in every age down to the Reformation, the clause in question has been UNIFORMLY understood as Catholics now understand it. But the assertions of this declamatory writer, in more instances than one, are not remarkable for their scrupulous accuracy. The truth is the early theologians are by no means agreed as to the import of this part of the text. Justin, the oldest Father who notices the place, contends, that the rock, upon which our

1 Husenbeth's Defence of the Creed and Discipline of the Catholic Church. chap. iii. p. 69.