alterations, in matters of discipline, arrangement, and subordination, had been often made: but who durst abrogate the prerogatives granted by his Lord and Master to the prince of the apostles, and by him transmitted to his church? Thirdly, the power claimed in this way was more indefinite, and might be extended, nobody knows how far, as long as there was found enough of ignorance and superstition in the people to favour the attempts of the priesthood. Besides, when the claim was of divine right, the pontiff had this advantage, that he alone was considered as the proper interpreter of his own privileges. The case was totally different with all human decrees, authority, and claims whatever. Add to this, that whilst they derived from any terrestrial power, they could never raise their claims above the authority which was acknowledged to be the source. But when the source was believed to be in heaven, no claim over earthly powers, however arrogant, could endanger their exceeding in this respect. And though I believe that all these considerations were not fully in view at the beginning, yet it is certain, that for these purposes they employed this topic in the course of a few centuries, when they would have all power, secular as well as spiritual, to have been conferred by Peter, a poor fisherman of Galilee, upon the Pope.

It was some time, however, before the old ground of canons, imperial edicts, and ancient custom, was entirely deserted. Zozimus, the successor of Innocent, and a most aspiring pontiff, recurred to these as the sole foundation of his pretended right of judging in the last resort. It was, perhaps, prudent not to desert a plea at once which had great weight with many, and to risk all upon a novelty, which, till men's ears were familiarized with it, might, for aught he knew, be but little regarded. In process of time, however, the credulity of the people keeping pace with their degeneracy in knowledge, and virtue, and rational religion, dispelled all apprehensions on this head; and the repeal of the canons of Sardica by other councils, compelled his holiness to recur to the new ground pointed out by Innocent, which was found, upon trial, to afford a much firmer bottom whereon to erect the wonderful fabric of the hierarchy.

Accordingly, in less than fifty years after this plea had been

ushered in by Innocent, it began to be a common topic with the pontiffs, and all the advocates of pontifical jurisdiction. Hilarius, in the first letter he wrote after his accession to the papal chair, mentions, with much exultation, the primacy of St Peter, and the dignity of his see. There was the greater need of this alteration, as Rome was, both in riches and splendour, daily declining, and, from being the imperial city, was become only the capital of Italy, a Gothic kingdom, as Constantinople was, in strictness, the only imperial city, and was now become much superior to the other in populousness and wealth. Accordingly, in the time of Pope Gelasius, about the close of the fifth century, in a synod consisting mostly of Italian bishops and dependants on the pontiff, a decree was obtained, declaring boldly, (as if, says Bower, all records had been destroyed, and men knew nothing of what had happened but a few years before), "that it was not to any councils, or the decrees of any, that the holy Roman Catholic and apostolic church owed her primacy, but to the words of our Saviour, saying, in the gospel, Thou art Peter, &c., and thereby building the church upon him, as on a rock which nothing could shake; that the Roman church, not having spot or wrinkle, was consecrated and exalted above all other churches, by the presence, as well as by the death, martyrdom, and glorious triumph of the two chief apostles, St Peter and St Paul, who suffered at Rome under Nero, not at different times, as the heretics say, but at the same time, and on the same day; and that the Roman church is the first church, being founded by the first apostle; the church of Alexandria the second, being founded by his disciple, St Mark, in his name; and that of Antioch the third, because St Peter dwelt there before he came to Rome, and in that city the faithful were first distinguished by the name of Christians."

Why was there no mention here, I must beg leave to ask, of the church of Jerusalem, which had been infinitely more highly honoured, even in their own way of estimating honours, than any or all of those churches put together? It had been honoured by the presence, the ministry, the martyrdom, the resurrection, and glorious triumph of the Lord Jesus Christ, the sole founder and king of the church universal;

honoured by the descent of the Holy Ghost on the whole college of apostles, whereby they were both authorized and qualified to commence their ministry; honoured further by the express command of Jesus Christ to all his apostles, to begin the discharge of their office at Jerusalem.

But, says the Romanist, it was for this very reason, the murder of the Lord of glory, that the Jews were rejected from being God's people, and Jerusalem in particular humbled, in being denied the honours she had otherwise enjoyed as the capital of the church of Christ. Is it then reasonable, that Jerusalem should be punished for the death of the Master, and Rome rewarded and honoured for the slaughter of his servants? Shall that be pleaded as a merit to the one, which is accounted a dishonour to the other? And if not the guilt of the murderers, but the testimony given to the truth by the sufferers, and the importance of the oblation, are the things to be considered, the martyrdom of Jesus Christ was infinitely more important, in respect both of the victim and of the consequences, than that of all his apostles and followers put together. It is true, the infidel Jews were rejected as a nation, because they had previously rejected the Lord's Messiah; and in this fate the unbelieving inhabitants of Jerusalem justly shared, when their temple and polity were destroyed: but this was no reason why the church of Jerusalem, that is, the believing inhabitants and believing Jews, a church which Christ himself had planted, and which was, for some time, watered by the joint labours of all his apostles, should be involved in that punishment. On the contrary, their faith, their fortitude, their glory, are enhanced by the unbelief, apostasy, and unrelenting cruelty of their countrymen and fellow-citizens. And that our Lord himself meant to show a particular respect to his faithful servants or church in that city, is manifest from what has been observed, the order he gave to his disciples to wait there the fulfilment of the Father's promise, the effusion of the Spirit in a variety of miraculous gifts, after which they were there to begin their ministry for out of Zion this new law was to issue, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

I adduce all this, more as an argumentum ad hominem to the papist, than as implying that it was intended that one

church ought to have jurisdiction over another, by whomsoever founded. The disciples were commanded to call no man father upon the earth, because they had only one Father, who is in heaven, and they themselves were all brethren; and to call no one master, teacher or guide, because Christ alone was their master, their teacher, their guide. It is scarcely worth while to criticise minutely this decree of Gelasius. It founds their whole claim on a tradition, which has been shewn to be not only uncertain, but exceedingly improbable. It is somewhat remarkable, that he takes just as much of tradition as will suit his purpose, and no more. The tradition was as universal, and much more probable, that Peter was likewise the founder of Antioch; but this he did not judge convenient to admit. Besides, that Mark founded Alexandria in Peter's name, had never been heard of in the church before. In this pitiful manner he was obliged to mutilate and misrepresent tradition, that by all means he might avoid letting it appear, that the dignity of those several cities in the empire, and that alone, had determined the rank of their respective bishops. With a gross and ignorant people, such as the Romans were now become, bold assertions would supply the place both of arguments and of testimonies. The Pope had also this further motive in this new conceit, to mortify as much as possible the patriarch of Constantinople, (the only prelate powerful enough to be a rival), by exalting the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch above him; and doubtless, by this expedient, he hoped the more easily to gain the two last mentioned bishops to his side.

Nothing from this time forwards was heard from the patronizers of Romish usurpation, but Thou art Peter, and I give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and so forth. These things began now to be echoed from every quarter. What is often repeated, how weak soever, never fails to make some impression, especially on the illiterate. The hard stone is at length hollowed by the eaves' drop, however feeble and unperceivable the effect of a single drop must be accounted.

Matters were advanced so far at the beginning of the sixth century, that when Pope Symmachus was summoned to appear before an assembly of bishops, and undergo a trial for

several crimes of which he was accused, it was pleaded by some, (for the first time indeed), that no synod or council had a right to judge the Pope; that he was accountable for his actions to God alone. It must be owned, that this notion, though at present like an article of faith with every genuine son of Rome, (I mean not every Roman Catholic), appeared to the generality of Christians, at the time it was broached, exceedingly extravagant and absurd. But the synod (for it was not a general council) which Theodoric king of the Goths had convened, consisting entirely of Italian bishops, who were in several respects dependent, and had now of a long time considered the exaltation of the Roman see as the exaltation of their country, and the only means left of raising themselves above the eastern part of the empire, though they were not inclinable to give a positive decision in this extraordinary question, were satisfied to supersede the necessity of deciding it, by absolving the pontiff from all the charges brought against him, and restoring him to all his authority both within and without the city.

It was impossible to foresee how far the advocates for the hierarchy would carry the privileges they derived from the prince of the apostles, as they commonly affected to style St Peter. What shall we think of this high prerogative, the title, the absolute jus divinum, to commit all crimes with impunity, at least in this world, being amenable to no jurisdiction temporal or spiritual? Yet nothing less than this was the Pope's benefit of clergy! Some, to avoid one absurdity, in giving an unbounded license, have run into another, maintaining the impeccability of Popes in action, as well as their infallibility in judgment. But let any man who has read their history, even as written by their own friends and favourers, believe them to be either impeccable, or infallible, if he can. I shall only remark, by the way, that in an Italian synod, assembled little more than a century before the pontificate of Symmachus, the bishops, however partial to the Pope, were so far from exempting him from the jurisdiction of a council, that they presented a petition to the emperor Gratian, begging it, as a special favour, that the bishop of Rome might not be judged by a subordinate magistrate, but either by the emperor himself or by a council. And to