his Epistle to the Galatians, which is decisive on this point. "When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (ii. 11.) The manner in which St. Paul rebuked the dissimulation of St. Peter, on that occasion, is a fact fatal to the alleged supremacy of that apostle. "It is evident, from this passage, that Paul, so far from acknowledging any supremacy in Peter, when he met with him in the same city, finding that he had been acting with dissimulation, publicly rebuked him. And Peter did not attempt to justify himself, although he might have found very plausible reasons for his conduct: he felt that it was condemned by the Spirit of God, speaking in Paul, and he did not resist him. Now, let any candid man say, which of these two acted as the superior. Peter follows a certain line of conduct towards the Gentiles: Paul comes, and without consulting Peter upon it, or appealing to the other apostles, by the wisdom given him from above, judges it to be wrong, and by the authority committed to him, publicly withstands Peter, rebukes him, and then records the transaction in an epistle, regarded, even by the church of Rome, as written under the influence of inspiration."*

There are other facts recorded in the New Testament, a brief notice of which will be useful in elucidating this matter. When Samaria received

* Rev. J. Carlisle's Examination of Roman Catholic Episcopacy.

the gospel," the apostles at Jerusalem sent unto them Peter and John." (Acts viii. 14, 15.) This is totally inconsistent with the idea of Peter's supremacy over the apostles. St. Paul, in his Epistle allusion to St. Peter;

to the Romans, makes no

this is inconsistent with the notions of the latter apostle, being at that time the Bishop of Rome. St. Peter, in the Epistles which he wrote, conveys not a single hint of that superior dignity which after ages attributed to him. In the statement of the gradations of offices, ordained by Christ in his church, given in 1 Cor. xii. 28-30, there is no mention whatever of the primacy or supremacy of one apostle above the rest. On this fact the acute Chillingworth remarks-" No less a wonder was it that St. Paul should so far forget St. Peter and himself, as that, first, mentioning of him so often, he should do it without any title of honour; secondly, speaking of the several degrees of men in the church, he should not give St. Peter the highest, but place him in equipage with the rest of the apostles, and say, God hath appointed (not, first, Peter, then the rest of the apostles, but) first, apostles; secondly, prophets: certainly, if the apostles were all first, to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest."

The result of the previous inquiry sufficiently justifies the conclusion, that there is not a single particle of evidence in the New Testament to favour the doctrine of the Romish church as to the

supremacy of St. Peter. If St. Peter possessed no such supremacy, even conceding the disputed point of his being bishop of Rome, it is clear he could not convey that dignity to the popes of Rome, his alleged successors. The assertion of Peter's having been the bishop of Rome, on which so much stress is laid by Romish writers, is founded on testimony of a very doubtful nature. Though not certain, it appears from the testimony of some early writers probable, that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there about the twelfth year of Nero. There is, however, no evidence beyond that of the uncertain tradition of the church of Rome, to show that he was ever the bishop of that city. On such slight grounds it has been attempted to found those extravagant and unscriptural claims, which have enabled the Roman pontiffs, as the pretended successors of St. Peter, not only to tyrannise over the Catholic church, but also to trample on the rights of sovereign princes. Few facts can be more clearly proved than this, that the supremacy of the bishop of Rome was unknown in the purest ages of the Christian church-that this impious claim was not set up, or even partially recognized, till the close of the sixth century.

The rise, progress, and tyranny of this antichristian power will be considered in the following chapter. We will close the present chapter by exhibiting the faithful protest of the church of England against this usurped supremacy. In the 37th

article, it is declared, "The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England." The importance of this renunciation of Papal supremacy will hereafter be noticed. The protest contained in the article quoted, is expressed more fully in the Homily, concerning obedience to rulers and magistrates, from which the following quotation will be sufficient:" Here let us take heed that we understand not these and such other like places, (which so straitly command obedience to superiors, and so straitly punished rebellion and disobedience to the same,) to be meant in any condition of the pretended or coloured power of the bishop of Rome. For, truly, the Scripture of God alloweth no such usurped power, full of enormities, abusions, and blasphemies; but the true meaning of these and such places be to extol and set forth God's true ordinance, and the authority of God's anointed kings, and their officers appointed under them. And, concerning the usurped power of the bishop of Rome, which he most wrongfully challengeth as the successor of Christ and Peter, we may easily perceive how false, feigned, and forged it is, not only in that it hath no sufficient ground in holy Scripture, but also by the fruits and doctrines thereof. For our Saviour Christ and St. Peter teach, most earnestly and agreeably, obedience to kings, as to the chief and supreme rulers of this world, next under God: but the bishop of Rome teacheth, that they that are under him are free

from all burdens and charges of the commonwealth, and obedience towards their prince, most clearly against Christ's doctrine and St. Peter's. He ought, therefore, rather to be called antichrist and the successor of the Scribes and Pharisees, than Christ's vicar, or St. Peter's successor." *

Bishop Jewel, in his Apology, says--" There neither is, nor can be, any one man which may have the whole superiority in this universal state (of the church;) for that Christ is ever present to assist his church, and needeth not any man to supply his room, as his only heir to all his substance and that there can be no one mortal creature which is able to comprehend, or conceive in his mind, the universal church, that is, to wit, all the parts of the world, much less able, rightly, and duly to put them in order, and to govern

them."

Bradford (Martyr) observes—“ The Papists do place in pre-eminence, over the whole church, the pope, thereby unplacing Christ, which is the head of the church, that giveth life to the whole body, and by his Spirit doth make lively every member of the same. This they do without all Scripture."†

* Hom. x. 3. + Epistle of Bradford to Lady Vane.