Chapter VII · PAPAL SUPREMACY.

The doctrine of Papal Supremacy shall next be brought to the legitimate test of Scripture and Historical Evidence.

I. We find the claim of this supremacy authoritatively propounded, in manner following.

1. The Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all other Churches. [55a]

2. I acknowledge the holy catholic and apostolic Roman Church to be the mother and mistress of all Churches: and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. [55b]

II. Such, in form, is the claim: but where find we its substantiation in the Bible?

1. The Roman Church had indisputably been founded in the apostolic age: for one of St. Paul’s Epistles is addressed to it.

Yet NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE is said in Scripture, either prophetic or declarative, respecting the divine appointment, and consequently the divine right, of the Papal Supremacy.

We NO WHERE read in Holy Writ: either that the Roman Church ought justly to be obeyed, as the mother and mistress of all other Churches; or that the Pope is, at once, the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

From whatever quarter the divines of Trent have made these discoveries: it is quite clear, that the Bible throws no light upon the present subject.

2. The Romish Clergy, however, assure us: that the primacy or monarchy of the entire Catholic Church was, in the following express terms, granted to St. Peter by Christ himself.

Thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. [56]

Now, whether our Lord did or did not grant the monarchy of the Church to Peter; respecting which monarchy, by the way, neither claim nor trace can be found in any part of the New Testament: the true question, I apprehend, touches, not Peter, but the Pope. In other words, it matters little to the point before us, whether Peter was or was not divinely appointed the monarch of the Church: unless it can also be proved, that the Pope is the lawfully and divinely constituted successor to all Peter’s alleged regalities.

Where, then, is the scriptural demonstration of the Pope’s hereditary successorship to the asserted special privileges and authority of St. Peter? In other words, where have we any proof from the Bible: that The Roman Pontiff, as the oath in the Tridentine Profession of Faith determines, is, at once, the Successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Truly, the Bible, though we painfully search it through from beginning to end, SAYS NOT ONE WORD about the matter.

III. But, where the Bible is so provokingly silent, peradventure the earliest Fathers, in delivering their testimony, may be somewhat more communicative.

To establish the Pope’s claim of rightful successorship to St. Peter, we must obviously establish the FACT that St. Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome. For, since, so far as foundership is concerned, St. Peter founded many Churches: the mere circumstance, even if the circumstance were ever so well established, of his having founded the Roman Church, would no more constitute the Roman Bishop heir to his regalities, than the same circumstance would convey the same privilege to the Bishop of any other Church similarly founded by St. Peter. Whence it is quite clear: that, in no method, save that of The regular succession of one diocesan Bishop to another diocesan Bishop in the same episcopal See, each Bishop inheriting the duly transmitted authority of his predecessor, can any intelligible case be made out for the Pope’s alleged successorship to Peter in the pretended office of Christ’s supreme Vicar.

Accordingly, as the Romish Clergy well know and confess, this precise matter is the very hinge, upon which turns the whole of the present question.

Was, OR WAS NOT, THE APOSTLE PETER THE FIRST DIOCESAN BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CHURCH?

We have here before us a simple question of FACT: and doubtless, like every other simple question of FACT, it must be determined by historical testimony.

1. Negatively, then, we may safely say, that the alleged fact of Peter’s diocesan Roman Episcopate is altogether incapable of substantiation through the medium of evidence.

Not a single writer of the three first centuries gives the slightest intimation, that Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome.

But, if the alleged fact cannot be established from the writers of the three earliest centuries; it is obvious to the meanest capacity, that it can never be established from the interested fictions of a later period.

2. We may, however, advance beyond negativeness: though even that were amply sufficient; for no man can be justly required to admit an alleged fact, without so much as a shadow of historical substantiation. Positively, we can say: that, in the writers of the three first ages, not only is there no testimony to be found for the asserted fact of Peter’s diocesan Roman Episcopate, but we are absolutely encountered with direct testimony against it.

(1.) Irenèus of Lyons, who lived from the latter end of the first century to the latter end of the second, distinctly attests: that the Church of Rome was JOINTLY founded by the TWO Apostles Peter and Paul; and that, When the TWO Apostles had thus JOINTLY founded it, they JOINTLY delivered the Episcopate of their newly founded Society to Linus. Accordingly, in strict agreement with this account of the transaction, Irenèus places Linus the FIRST in his list of the twelve successive Roman Bishops, who governed that Church, from the time of its original joint foundation by Peter and Paul, down to the year 175 when he published his Work against Heresies. [58a]

Now such an account is plainly incompatible with the pretended fact: that Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome. For the account states: that Peter and Paul, having jointly founded the Roman Church, committed the episcopate of it to Linus. Whence it dearly follows: that the first diocesan Bishop of Rome was Linus, not Peter.

(2.) The evidence of Irenèus is directly confirmed by the ancient author of the Apostolical Constitutions.

He gives us a list of the primitive apostolically ordained Bishops: and, in the course of it, he unequivocally states, even in so many words, that Linus was consecrated the FIRST Bishop of the Roman Church; adding what is not unworthy the attention of the Latin Clergy, that Linus was so consecrated the FIRST Roman Bishop, not by Peter but by Paul. [58b]

IV. On the grounds now stated, many persons will incline to rest, either partially or wholly, in the strongly expressed judgment of the learned Scaliger.

As for the coming of Peter to Rome, HIS ROMAN EPISCOPATE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, and his final martyrdom at Rome, no man, whose head can boast a grain of common sense, will believe a single syllable. [59a]