ever, was undoubtedly alive, when Peter died: for he is known to have long survived all his brethren. Hence, as John had, by the latin theory, been a suffragan of the dominant primate Peter; he would plainly, on the death of Peter, become, by the same latin theory, a suffragan of the new roman dominant primate who was Peter's legitimate successor in the universal monarchy and thus, at length, we shall be brought to the goodly conclusion; that An inspired Apostle of the Lord owed the canonical obedience of a dependent suffragan to an uninspired Bishop of Rome.

2. After this prelude, we may profitably observe, both the early unscrupulous opposition to the dictates of the Roman Bishop, and the fair acknowledgment even on the part of some Roman Bishops themselves that they neither possessed nor claimed any such dominant monarchal authority as that which has been so bountifully bestowed upon them by more modern Latin Divines.

(1.) In the second century, Victor of Rome, a very intemperate and apparently a very foolish Prelate, thought fit to excommunicate the Asiatic Bishops, because, forsooth, they refused to observe Easter at the same time with himself.

To this impudent usurpation of a dominant authority which did not belong to him, his episcopal equals very properly refused to submit: and, instead of bowing to a presumptuous individual who (according to Pope Gregory VII and the present Roman Doctors) was the divinely lawful monarch

of the Universal Church, they, in conjunction with the excellent Irenèus of Lyons in the West, sharply reprehended him in written documents which were extant in the time of Eusebius, and refused to make any alteration in the practice to which they had always been accustomed '.

(2.) Toward the close of the same second century or at the beginning of the third, the Roman Bishop asserted his right to a dominant supremacy in the Church (so early did this vain figment begin to blossom), on the plea that he was the successor of the universal monarch St. Peter.

Upon this, Tertullian plainly told him, that he was an usurper: stating, at the same time, very distinctly, that, whatever preeminence or privilege Christ might be supposed to have granted to Peter, he granted it to Peter personally and not to any line of his pretended successors in the primacy 2.

1 'Αλλ' οὐ πᾶσί γε τοῖς ἐπισκόποις ταῦτ ̓ ἠρέσκετο· ἀντίπαρακελεύονται δήτα αὐτῷ (scil. Victori) τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς πλησίον ἑνώσεως καὶ ἀγάπης φρονεῖν. Φέρονται δὲ καὶ αἱ τούτων φωναὶ πληκτικώτερον καθαπτομένων τοῦ Βίκτορος· ἐν οἷς Kai ó Eipηvatoç. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. 24.

1 De tua nunc sententia, quæro, unde hoc jus Ecclesiæ usurpes? Si, quia dixerit Petro Dominus; Super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni cælestis; vel Quæcunque alligaveritis vel solveritis in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in cœlis: idcirco præsumis, et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem, id est, ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam: qualis es, evertens atque commutans manifestam Domini intentionem PERSONALITER hoc Petro conferentem. Super TE, inquit, ædificabo Ecclesiam meam; et dabo

(3.) In the third century, Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage took opposite sides on the question of the rebaptisation of heretics.

For presuming to differ from him on this topic, Stephen had excommunicated the Asiatics. But his arrogance made not the slightest impression upon Cyprian. On the contrary, he summoned a provincial Council of the African Bishops and these Bishops, with Cyprian at their head, unceremoniously ratified, with a severe allusion to the insolent though utterly disallowed pretensions of Stephen, the doctrine espoused by the Asiatics'.

TIBI claves: et, quæcunque SOLVERIS vel ALLIGAVERIS, non quæ SOLVERINT vel ALLIGAVERINT. Tertull. de pudic. Oper. p.

767, 768.

At the beginning of the Treatise, Tertullian, in a somewhat sneering manner, propounds those claims of the Roman Bishop which called forth his strenuous indignation.

Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium, Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum, dicit: Ego et mochiæ et fornicationis delicta pœnitentia functis dimitto. O edictum cui adscribi non poterit bonum factum! Ibid. p. 742.

Perhaps it may be said, that this Treatise was written by Tertullian after he had fallen into the heresy of Montanism. Doubtless it was: but that is nothing to the purpose; for his heresy respected the alleged character of Montanus, not the question of Roman Primacy by virtue of a pretended succession from Peter.

1 1 Superest, ut de hac ipsa re singuli, quid sentiamus, proferamus; neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrúm Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit; aut, tyrannico terrore, ad obsequendi necessitatem, collegas suos adigit: quando

(4.) In this same third century, Firmilian of Cappadocia, no less than Cyprian of Carthage, took a zealous part in the baptismal dispute: and, if we may judge from his somewhat uncourtly phraseology, he appears to have venerated the papal supremacy quite as little as Cyprian himself.

Stephen of Rome had idly claimed to be the monarchal successor of St. Peter. But Firmilian absolutely sneers at him for setting up such a ridiculous figment, pronounces him to be a second Judas, and calls him an arrogant and presumptuous and manifest and notorious idiot'.

habeat omnis Episcopus, pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suæ, arbitrium proprium; tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest judicare. Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem, et præponendi nos in Ecclesiæ suæ gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. Concil. Carthag. Sentent. Episcop. LXXXVII. in Oper. Cyprian. vol. i. p. 229, 230.

This decision of the eighty-seven African Bishops exactly expresses Cyprian's own sentiments relative to the Episcopate, as set forth in his Treatise on the Unity of the Church. He considers all the Bishops collectively as forming only one joint governing Episcopate.

Unitatem firmiter tenere et vindicare debemus, maximè Episcopi qui in Ecclesia præsidemus, ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus-Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Cyprian. de Unit. Eccles. Oper. vol. i. p. 108.

He repeats the same opinion in his Epistle to Antonianus. Episcopatus unus, Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus. Cyprian. Epist. Iv. Oper. vol. ii. p. 112. 1 Sed non si nos propter Stephanum hanc beneficii gratiam

(5.) In the fourth century, Ambrose, if Ambrose were the author of the ancient Work on

cepimus, statim Stephanus beneficio et gratia digna commisit. Neque enim et Judas, perfidia sua et proditione qua sceleratè circa Salvatorem operatus est, dignus videri potest, quasi causam bonorum tantorum ipse præstiterit, ut per illum mundus et gentium populus liberaretur. Sed hæc interim, quæ ab Stephano gesta sunt, prætereantur: ne, dum audaciæ et insolentiæ ejus meminimus, de rebus ab eo improbè gestis longiorem mæstitiam nobis inferamus-Qualis vero error sit, et quanta sit cæcitas ejus, qui remissionem peccatorum dicit apud synagogas hæreticorum dari posse, nec permanet in fundamento unius Ecclesiæ quæ semel a Christo supra petram solidata est. Hinc intelligi potest, quod soli Petro Christus dixerit: Quæcunque ligaveris super terram, erunt ligata et in cœlis: et, quæcunque solveris super terram, erunt soluta et in cœlis. Et iterum in Evangelio, quando in solos Apostolos insufflavit Christus, dicens: Accipite Siritum Sanctum; si cujus remiseritis peccata, remittentur illi; et, si cujus tenueritis, tenebuntur. Potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum Apostolis data est, et Ecclesiis quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt, et Episcopis qui eis ordinatione vicaria successerunt-Atque ego, in hac parte, justè indignor ad hanc tam apertam et manifestam Stephani stultitiam: quod, qui sic de Episcopatûs sui loco gloriatur, et se successionem Petri tenere contendit super quem fundamenta Ecclesiæ collocata sunt, multas alias petras inducat et Ecclesiarum multarum nova ædificia constituat, dum esse illic baptisma sua auctoritate defendit-Stephanus, qui per successionem cathedram Petri habere se prædicat, nullo adversus hæreticos zelo excitatur-Quinimo tu hæreticis omnibus pejores: nam, cum inde multi cognito errore suo ad te veniant, ut Ecclesiæ verum lumen accipiant; tu venientium errores adjuvas, et, obscurato lumine ecclesiasticæ veritatis, tenebras hæretica noctis accumulas-Vide, qua imperitia reprehendere audeas eos, qui contra mendacium pro veritate nitun