venience, prejudice to the rights of Christian states and people, to the interests of religion and piety, to the peace and welfare of mankind-whence it is to be rejected as a pest of Christendom.

5. The ancients did assert to each bishop a free, absolute, independent authority, subject to none, directed by none, accountable to none on earth, in the administration of affairs properly concerning his particular Church.

6. The ancients did hold all bishops, as to their office, to be equal; all of them deriving their commission from God, intrusted with the same divine ministries of instructing, dispensing the sacraments, ruling and exercising discipline; to which functions the least bishop hath a right, and to greater the biggest cannot pretend.

7. The ancients, when occasion required it, maintained their equality of office and authority, particularly in respect of the Roman see-not only interpretatively by practice, but directly and formally, in express terms asserting it.

8. The language used by the primitive bishops to the Bishop of Rome shows that they did not regard him as their Sovereign, but as their equal.

9. The precedence of the Bishop of Rome over other bishops was claimed by him and yielded by them on grounds inconsistent with the idea of sovereign authority.

"The Church of Rome was indeed allowed to be the principal Church, as St Cyprian calleth it; but why? was it preferred by divine institution.? no, surely Christianity did not make laws of that nature, or constitute differences of places. Was it in regard to the succession of St Peter? no; that was a slim upstart device; that did not hold in Antioch; nor in other apostolical Churches.

But it was for a more substantial reason; the very same, on which the dignity and pre-eminency of other Churches was founded; that is, the dignity, magnitude, opulency, opportunity of that city in which the Bishop of Rome did preside; together with the consequent numerousness, quality, and wealth of his flock; which gave him many great advantages above other his fellow-bishops. It was (saith Rigaltius) called by St Cyprian the principal Church, because constituted in the principal city.

10. All ecclesiastical presidencies and subordinations between the bishops of various sees, whether Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, or others, were introduced by human ordinance, upon prudential considerations, to meet temporary exigencies, and no divinely instituted or permanently established supremacy can be claimed for Rome, more than for any of the others.

It may be inquired-How, then, did Rome attain this universal sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Church for so many ages if it hath no solid foundation in Scripture or elsewhere? In reply, we may show by what ways and means so groundless a claim and pretence hath gained belief and submission. From slender roots, from slight beginnings, and on the slimmest pretences did this bulk of exorbitant power grow. Nor shall we wonder that this dominion, the

vastest that ever man on earth did attain to, or even aim at, was possessed by the Popes for so many generations, if we consider the many causes which did concur and contribute thereto.1

SUPPOSITION VI.

That in fact the Roman Bishops continually from St. Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this power.

"This is a question of fact which will best be decided by a particular consideration of the several branches of sovereign power, that so we may examine the more distinctly whether in all ages the Popes have enjoyed and exercised them or not.

And if we survey the particular branches of sovereignty, we shall find that the Pope hath no just title to them, in reason, by valid law, or according to ancient practice, whence each of them doth yield a good argument against his pretences."

The various branches of sovereign power are considered in order, and it is shown by appeals to ecclesiastical history, even as recorded by Romanists themselves, that the claims of the Bishop of Rome were never conceded by the early Church; and that in all ages an amount of independence has been practically enjoyed which is incompatible with the theory of an absolute supremacy. It is indeed true that the most arrogant pretensions and the most exorbitant demands have been made by the

The historical sketches which follow, under this and the next head, do not admit of analysis or abridgement within the limits of this volume.

Popes and by theologians on their behalf. But though these have been conceded in certain places, by some portions of the Church, under special circumstances, they have never received the consent or sanction of the Church Catholic, but have been opposed and resisted. This is proved by an ample historical induction.

SUPPOSITION VII.

That the Papal supremacy is indefectible and unalterable.

Even though we should grant that the Pope, as successor of St Peter, did receive universal sovereignty, it does not therefore follow that it must always belong to him, or that it does so now. It may have been God's will that he should possess it but for a time. He may have received it, not absolutely, but upon conditions, failing in the discharge of which his authority expires. If indeed God had declared that the papal sovereignty was absolute, irrevocable, and immutable, then we must admit it. But this is not the ordinary method of the divine procedure. God reserves to himself the right to abrogate, to transfer, to qualify the authority he confers on human governors. "If God had positively declared his will concerning this point, that such a sovereignty was by him granted irrevocably and immutably, so that in no case it might be removed or altered, then indeed it must be admitted for such; but if no such declaration doth appear, then to assert it for such is to derogate

from his power and providence, by exemption of this case from it. It is the ordinary course of Providence so to confer power of any kind or nature on men, as to reserve to Himself the liberty of transferring it, qualifying it, extending or contracting it, abolishing it, according to his pleasure, in due seasons and exigencies of things. Whence no human power can be supposed absolutely stable or immovably fixed in one person or place." If no clear declaration of God's will can be adduced in this case we must suppose that it follows the ordinary rule of Divine providence. But no such Scriptural warrant can be urged. We therefore conclude that the papal authority is not indefectible, but may fail even if it have ever been conferred.

"If then the Bishop of Rome instead of teaching Christian doctrine doth propagate errors contrary to it; if instead of guiding into truth and godliness, he seduceth into falsehood and impiety; if instead of declaring and pressing the laws of God, he delivereth and imposeth precepts opposite, prejudicial, destructive of God's laws; if instead of promoting genuine piety, he doth, in some instances, violently oppose it; if instead of maintaining true religion, he doth pervert and corrupt it by bold defalcations, by superstitious additions, by foul mixtures and alloys; if he coineth new creeds, articles of faith, new Scriptures, new sacraments, new rules of life, obtruding them on the consciences of Christians; if he conformeth the doctrines of Christianity to the interests of his pomp and profit, 'making gain godliness;" if he prescribe vain, profane, superstitious ways of worship, turning devotion into foppery and pageantry; if, instead of preserving order and peace, he fomenteth discords and factions in the Church, being a make-bate and incendiary among Christians; if he claimeth exorbitant power, and exerciseth oppression and tyrannical domination over his brethren, cursing and damning all that will not