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}