A.D. 375. This clearly shows that some one had used the pen since Optatus, and it is my belief that the first two books have been almost re-written. They contain Cyprian's theory and Cyprian's name, without any mention of Cyprian's works. These, especially in the Donatist controversy, could not have failed of being cited, had Cyprian's works and these books been written by the parties whose names they bear.*

I believe I have now given all the information which I can collect, on the subject of St. Peter's supremacy, contained in the works written during the period embraced by this volume. If the reader will reconsider it, he will be able to form an opinion whether the Christians of that day believed that the Church was specially committed to St. Peter's care, so that he was the universal bishop. I think he will see that there is not a vestige of it, even if all the quotations from the different writers are genuine.

It is my impression, from reflecting on numberless particulars which it is impossible to state in detail, that such an idea as the supremacy of St. Peter had never once crossed the mind of the Church at this time. Under such circumstances no express statements negativing such a supremacy can be expected. What is not even dreamed of cannot be denied and refuted; and yet Origen seems unconsciously to have done something like it. But this, however, is the foundation of the Roman

theory. If Peter had no supremacy, the Roman bishop has none; and the question, so far as it depends on any knowledge of this supremacy existing in the minds of Peter's subjects being a test of its truth or falsehood, and it is incre dible that, if it had existed, it should not have been known and most frequently alluded to by them, is settled. And it is needless to say a word more.

But still we will proceed, for a few pages will exhaust the subject.

We will now inquire whether the Christians during this period believed, although they have left no intimation of any supremacy of St. Peter, that this unmentioned supremacy descended on the bishops of Rome as St. Peter's successors. If the language which I use in the course of the inquiry be absurd, the reader must excuse me and attribute it to my subject. The idea of a supremacy in the Roman bishop is the very extreme of absurdity.

The same order shall be preserved as in the previous inquiry. The Holy Scriptures make no allusion to the supremacy of the Roman bishop. St. John, who was contemporary with three of these awful personages, never alludes to them in any

way.

Do the writings of the Eastern Church furnish any evidence of the Roman supremacy?

I believe that, with the exception of Eusebius's Church History, none of them mention even the name of any Roman bishop. Nor do we find any thing about his succession to St. Peter's universal

bishopric, of which, as has been seen, they knew nothing.

Do the writings of the Alexandrian Church furnish any evidence of such a fact?

The same answer may be again returned. Not even the name of any Roman bishop is mentioned in any of them as far as I know.

Thus we are driven back to Italy and the West for our knowledge of this wonderful fact; which, if true, must have been as important and as well known in the East and in Alexandria as in the city of Rome. It must have been giving practical proofs of its existence every day. What knowledge, then, is there to be found of it in the Western Church, the home of these awful personages?

Justin Martyr never even names any bishop of Rome.

Irenæus only does so in a chapter which must first be proved to be genuine before it can be received as evidence. It is in the third chapter of the third book of the "Work against Heresies," the statements of which have already undergone examination, and been shown to have been tampered with. But even in that chapter there is no mention of Peter's supremacy, nor of the Roman bishop having inherited such supremacy from him. It is merely a grandiloquent description of the Roman Church.

As Tertullian knew of no supremacy of St. Peter,

so neither does he mention any descent of it on the Roman bishop.

Hilary, I believe, never even mentions the Roman Church or prelate.

Any testimony that Optatus might bring must first be proved to be genuine. It is at present in immediate connection with a manifest interpolation.

There is, therefore, no testimony, or none of any genuine character, that can be brought, even from the Western Church, to prove that the supremacy of the Universal Church was considered by them to have descended on the Roman prelate. But there are one or two writings to be adduced which seem very contradictory of such a notion.

The only ante-Nicene writer (Tertullian) who informs us that Peter was crucified at Rome, informs us also that Clement was the first bishop; and (since the list in Irenæus is probably spurious) there is no better testimony to be found. Let us, then, look at the letter which Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church. In a passage where he is setting before the eyes of the Corinthians many scriptural worthies for their imitation, he says:

66

Through rivalry and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted and slain. Let us place before our eyes the excellent apostles. Peter endured not one or two, but many toils, from the effect of evil passions in others, and thus having borne testimony, he went to his appointed place in glory. From the same cause, Paul patiently and gloriously endured suffering, having been in chains seven times, and exiled, and stoned, and having

been a preacher in the East and in the West, he obtained honourable fame from his faith. Having taught the whole world righteousness, and approached the extremity of the West, and given testimony before the rulers, he then left the world, and went into the holy place, having been a noble example of suffering endurance."*

Were an indifferent person commenting on this passage, he would, I think, naturally imagine, that as the writer was clearly seeking to magnify the apostles, he was advancing all he knew about them that tended to their praise; and he would think it a fair conclusion that what he said of one, and not of the other, belonged exclusively to the former. Examining the passage on these principles, which no Romanist can possibly object to, because they adopt it in their interpretation of the words "rock" and "keys," even when there is no other apostle mentioned but Peter, and even when the same gifts in substance are elsewhere given (at least so the Church of the first four centuries thought) to all the other apostles, he would see several particulars said of St. Paul which were not said of St. Peter. Among others, the fact of his having preached in the West, and having borne testimony to Christ before the rulers. He would also see that nothing is said of either, except their death, which is not to be learnt from the Acts of the Apostles. Nothing is said of St. Peter having been in the West, and, consequently, nothing of his ever having been in Rome.

* Sect. 5.