Nor are the adherents of the Roman Church more agreed as to the extent of the Pope's authority even in spiritual matters. Some attribute to him an absolute supremacy, whilst others put great restraints upon his authority, and affirm that he is subject, both in doctrine and discipline, to the Church, or a general synod representing it. And these two factions bandy, to and fro, the charge of heresy.

"Yea, even popes themselves have shifted their pretences, and varied in style, according to the different circumstances of time and their variety of humours, designs, interests.

In time of prosperity and upon advantage, when they might safely do it, any Pope almost would talk high, and assume much to himself; but when they were low, or stood in fear of powerful contradiction, even the boldest Popes would speak submissively or moderately. As for instance, Pope Leo I. after the second Ephesine Synod, when he had to do with Theodosius II., did humbly supplicate and whine pitifully; but after the Synod of Chalcedon, having got the emperor favourable, and most of the bishops complacent to him, he ranted bravely. . . . We may observe that the pretences and language of Popes have varied according to several periods, usually growing higher as their state grew looser from danger of opposition or control.

In the first times, while the emperors were pagans, their pretences were suited to their condition, and could not soar high; they were not then so mad as to pretend to any temporal power, and a pittance of spiritual eminency did content them.

When the empire was divided, they could sometimes be more haughty and peremptory; as being in the West, shrouded under the wing of the emperors there (who commonly did affect to improve their authority, in competition to that of other bishops), and at distance from the reach of the Eastern emperor.

that

When the Western Empire was fallen, their influence upon part of the empire which came under protection of the Eastern emperors rendering them able to do service or disservice to those emperors, they, according to the state of times, and the need of them, did talk more big or more tamely.”

This perplexed variety of opinions makes it exceedingly difficult to state the question for discussion. The pretence to temporal authority may, however, be rejected as palpably absurd, having nothing but impudence and sophistry to countenance it.

"I therefore shall spare the trouble of meddling with it, confining my discourse to the Pope's authority in ecclesiastical affairs; the pretence whereto I am persuaded to be no less groundless, and no less noxious, than the other, to Christendom; the which being overthrown, the other, as superstructed on it, must also necessarily fall.

And here the doctrine which I shall contest against is that in which the cordial partisans of that See do seem to consent, which is most common and current, most applauded and countenanced in their theological schools; which the Popes themselves have solemnly defined and declared for standing-law or rule of jurisdiction, which their most authentic synods, whereby their religion is declared and distinguished from others, have asserted or supposed; which the tenour of their discipline and practice doth hold forth; which their clergy by most solemn professions and engagements is tied to avow; which all the clients and confidents of Rome do zealously stand for, more than for any other point of doctrine; and which no man can disclaim without being deemed an enemy, or a prevaricator toward the apostolic See.

Which doctrine is this, that (in the words of the Florentine Synod's definition) the apostolical chair and the Roman high priest doth hold a primacy over the universal Church; and that the Roman

high priest is the successor of Saint Peter the prince of the apostles; and the true lieutenant of Christ, and the head of the Church; and that he is the father and doctor of all Christians; and that unto him, in Saint Peter, full power is committed to feed and direct and govern the Catholic Church under Christ; according as is contained in the acts of general councils and in the holy canons.

That (in the words of Pope Leo X. approved by the Lateran Synod) Christ, before his departure from the world, did in solidity of the rock institute Peter and his successors to be his lieutenants, to whom it is so necessary to obey, that who doth not obey must die the death."

There are, indeed, some within the Roman Church who deny to the Pope this supreme authority, yet, notwithstanding these oppositions, the former opinion averring the Pope's absolute sovereignty doth seem to be the genuine doctrine of the Roman Church, if it have. any.

"Of such vast pretences we have reason to require sufficient grounds. He that demandeth assent to such important assertions, ought to produce clear proofs of them. He that claimeth so mighty power, should be able to make out a good title to it; for no man may take this (more than pontifical) honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as was Aaron. They are worthily to be blamed, who tumultuously and disorderly fall upon curbing or restraining those who by no law are subject to them.

We cannot well be justified from a stupid easiness in admitting such a lieutenancy to our Lord, if we do not see exhibited to us manifest and certain patents assuring its commission to us. We should love the Church better than to yield up its liberty to the will of a pretender, upon slight or no ground. Their boldly claiming such a power, their having sometimes usurped such a power, will not excuse them or us. Nor will precarious assumptions, or subtle

distinctions, or blind traditions, or loose conjectures serve for probations in such a case.

Such demands they cannot wholly balk; wherefore, for satisfaction to them, not finding any better plea, they hook in Saint Peter; affirming that on him, by our Lord, there was instated a primacy over his brethren, all the apostles and the disciples of our Lord, importing all the authority which they claim; and that from him this primacy was devolved by succession to the bishops of Rome, by right indefectible for all future ages.

Which plea of theirs doth involve these main suppositions.

I. That Saint Peter had a primacy over the apostles.

II. That Saint Peter's primacy with its rights and prerogatives was not personal but derivable to his successors.

III. That Saint Peter was bishop of Rome.

'IV. That Saint Peter did continue bishop of Rome after his translation, and was so at his decease.

V. That the bishops of Rome, according to God's institution and by original right derived thence, should have an universal supremacy and jurisdiction over the Christian Church.

VI. That in fact the Roman bishops continually from Saint Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this sovereign power.

VII. That this power is indefectible and unalterable.

The truth and certainty of these propositions we shall in order discuss, so that it may competently appear, whether those who disclaim these pretences are, as they are charged, guilty of heresy and schism; or they, rather, are liable to the imputations of arrogancy and iniquity who do obtrude and urge them."

SUPPOSITION I.

That St Peter, by our Lord's appointment, had a primacy, implying a sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Apostles.

In order to the resolution of this point let it be considered that there are several kinds of primacy. 1. A primacy of worth or personal excellency; 2. Of reputation; 3. Of bare dignity or precedence; 4. Of power or jurisdiction.

1. We may readily admit that St Peter had a primacy of worth; or that in personal endowments he was the most eminent amongst the twelve apostles, particularly that in quickness of apprehension, boldness of spirit, readiness of speech, love to our Lord, zeal for his service, activity, industry, and resolution, he was transcendent. Although afterward there did spring up one who, in hardly any of these respects, would yield to him, and who could confidently say that he did not come behind the very chiefest of the apostles. (1 Cor. xv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 23.)

2. A primacy of repute may likewise be conceded unto St Peter, being a necessary consequence of those eminent qualities and illustrious performances already spoken of. (Compare 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11; Gal. ii. 2-9.)