successor of St. Peter. Not until Rome became jealous of her new and formidable rival in the East;-not until she began to feel the shock of that political convulsion which finally tore the Empire to fragments, did the Bishop of Rome put forth his preposterous claims, first to Primacy, and then, to Supremacy. History was tortured. Traditions were manufactured respecting St. Peter, to suit the ends of ambition and corruption. It was only by such usurped and fortuitous possession of ecclesiastical and civil power, that the Bishop of Rome was, at length, enabled to establish a policy different from that which CHRIST and His Apostles founded in the beginning. It is Anti-Scriptural, Anti-Primitive, Anti-Catholic, unjust, and tyrannical, always, and everywhere. The loss on the part of Rome of her temporal power, in our times, by which her anathemas become ridiculous, and a growing familiarity on the part of the Church at large with Primitive Christianity, will restore, and is restoring to the Church Catholic a sound sentiment on this subject.

This claim of Rome to be the "Mother and Mistress of all other Churches," deserves the special attention of American Churchmen. Rome asks us, with an air of confidence, "Where was your Church before the Reformation ?" We reply, Where, in Britain, was your Church, before the time of Augustine? For six hundred years, the old British Churches knew nothing of any such usurpation of the Church of Rome, and when Augustine, St. Gregory's Legate, demanded their submission to the Bishop of Rome as their Patriarch, the reply of the old Abbott of Bangor, Dinothus, speaking for seven Bishops and for the British Church, was,

"That they knew no obedience due to him whom they called the Pope, but the obedience of love, and that, under God, they were governed by the Bishop of Carlon."

That reply, eventually, cost them their lives. And yet, during this whole period of six hundred years, the Church had

* See Bishop Jewell's Defense of Apology. Part V. p. 493. See also, Sammes' Ant. of Brit. p. 511; Bramhall's Works, Vol. I. ii.; Sir H. Spelman's Br. Councils, p. 111, App. ii. ; and Timpson's Br. Eccl. History, p. 79; Am. Quar. Church Review, Vol. X.

existed in England in its completeness. Tertullian, Eusebius, and Origen, all describe the British Church as founded in the very earliest age of Christianity; and Eusebius says it was by the Apostles themselves. There were three British Metropolitan Bishops at the Gallican Council of Arles, in A. D. 314; viz., Eburius, Bishop of York; Restitutus, Bishop of London; and Adelfius, Bishop of Caerleon; together with a Presbyter and Deacon.† Soon after, the number of Provinces was increased to five; and it is believed that, by the close of the fourth century, there were twenty-eight Episcopal Sees in Britain, and within the five Provinces, not less than seven hundred Clergy. Nor, as we might easily show, has the Succession from those old British Bishops ever been lost in the English Church, down to the present day.‡

At the Reformation, the English Church simply returned to her primitive condition, as an integral branch of the One Catholic Church. As Bishop Jewell says,—

"We have returned to the Apostles, and the Ancient Catholic Fathers."§

This she had a right to do. This is what she did do. She was still the old Church of England.||

The claim of Rome to be built upon St. Peter; and to be the "Mother and Mistress of all other Churches," has been, we trust, sufficiently examined. This is Rome's strong plea. Carefully and honestly investigated, it has not the slightest foundation on which it can stand. Begun in corruption, built up in deception, sustained by violence and persecution, it is ending in rejection and loathing.

*Tertull. c. Judæos, c. vii.; Eus. Præp. Evang. iii. 7; Origen, Hom. in Ezek. IV, in St. Luc. Hom. 6.

Thackeray's Ancient Britain, Vol. I. pp. 275-9.

See Dr. T. W. Coit's Lectures, on Early History of Christianity in England. New York: 1859. For a full list of authorities, see R. W. Morgan's St. Paul in Britain. London: Parkers. 1861.

Nos ad Apostolos, veteresque Catholicos Patres rediisse." Apologia Ecclesiæ Anglicana

See Bramhall's Works, Vol. II. pp. 471-498.

IV.

I AM NOT A PAPIST, BECAUSE IT IS A DOCTRINE OF THE ROMISH CHURCH THAT THE POPE HAS SUPREME CIVIL POWER OVER ALL THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE EARTH.

This power of the Pope over Civil Governments;-the power to dethrone Kings and dispose of their Kingdoms;-the power to absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance to Civil Rulers, is distinctly claimed and asserted in the Canon Law of the Romish Church. This usurped power has been exercised again and again. Thus the Fourth General Lateran Council, held at Rome in 1215, is her highest possible authority; being attended by two Patriarchs, seventy-seven Archbishops, four hundred and twelve Bishops, and assisted by embassadors of all the Christian princes. Here is Canon Third :—

:

"We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy which exalteth itself against this holy orthodox and Catholic Faith, which we have set forth above, condemning all heretics by whatsoever names they may be reckoned. . . . . Let such persons, when condemned, be left to the secular powers, who may be present, or to their officers, to be punished in a fitting manner. ... And let the secular powers, whatsoever offices they may hold, be induced, and admonished, and, if need be, COMPELLED by ecclesiastical censure that, to the utmost of their power, they will strive to exterminate from the lands under their jurisdiction, all heretics who shall be denounced by the Church. . . . But if any temporal lord, being required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to cleanse his country of this heretical filth, let him be bound by the chain of excommunication, by the Metropolitan and the other co-provincial Bishops. And if he shall refuse to make satisfaction within a year, let this be signified to the SUPREME PONTIFF (or Pope,) that forthwith he may declare his vassals to be absolved from all their fidelity to him, and may expose his land to be occupied by Catholics, who, having exterminated the heretics, may without contradiction possess it, and preserve it in the purity of the Faith."†

In 1570, Pope Pius V. deposed and anathematized Elizabeth, Queen of England, and absolved her subjects from allegiance, in the following language:

66

Being, therefore, supported by His authority, whose pleasure it was to place us (though unable to bear so great a burden) in this supreme throne of justice, we do, out of the fulness of our Apostolic

* See the Bull of Pope Gregory XIII. prefixed to the Canon Law. IV Lat. Coun. Canon iii., A. D. 1215.

[Oct., power, pronounce the said Elizabeth to be a heretic, and the favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of excommunication, and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ. And moreover, we do declare her to be deprived of her pretended title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever; and also the nobility, subjects, and people of said kingdom, and all others who have in any sort sworn allegiance unto her, to be forever absolved from any such oath, and all manner of duty, dominion, allegiance, and obedience. And we also do, by authority of these presents, absolve them, and do deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended title to the kingdom, and all other things before named. And we do command and charge all and every person, the noblemen, subjects, and people, and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, or her orders, mandates or laws; and those who shall do the contrary, we do include in the same anathema."

These are not solitary illustrations of what is meant by the Papal Supremacy. In A. D. 1210, John, King of England, was anathematized and deposed by Innocent III. The Emperor, Henry IV, was twice anathematized and deposed by Gregory VII. In A. D. 1245, the Emperor, Frederick II. was anathematized and deposed by Innocent IV. In A. D. 1283, Peter, King of Arragon, was anathematized and deposed by Martin IV. In A. D. 1322, Matthew, Duke of Milan, was anathematized and deposed by Urban V. In A. D. 1535, Henry VIII., King of England, was anathematized and deposed by Paul III. In A. D. 1583, Henry of France was anathematized and deposed by Sixtus V. In A. D. 1591, Henry IV., of France, was anathematized and deposed by Clement VII. In A. D. 1643, Charles I., in Ireland, was deposed by Urban VIII. In A. D. 1729, George II., King of England, was deposed by Benedict XIII. Within the present century, Pope Pius VII. absolved Frenchmen from allegiance to Louis XVIII., and authorized obedience to Napoleon Bonaparte; and in 1809, the same Pope reasserted the despotic pretensions of the Gregorys, and excommunicated Napoleon himself.

Have the Canons of that old Lateran Council of 1215 ever been abrogated? They are regarded by Romanists as binding on their consciences at this day. Even within the present century, at the secularization of certain German Churches and Chapters in 1803, by the "Diet of Augsburg," we find Pope Pius VII. using the following language of complaint:

* Bullar. Roman. Vol. IV., part iii. p. 93.

"To be sure, we are fallen into such calamitous times, that it is not possible for the spouse of Jesus Christ to practise, nor even expedient for her to recall her holy maxims of just rigor against the enemies of the Faith; but, although she cannot exercise her RIGHT of deposing heretics from their principalities, and declaring them deprived of their property, yet can she for one moment allow that they should rob her of her property to aggrandize and enrich themselves? What an object of derision would she become to heretics, who, in mocking her grief, would say, that they had found out a way of making her tolerant !"'*

The present Pope, Pius IX, in his late Encyclical Letter, a most remarkable document, protests against that

"Erroneous opinion, very hurtful to the safety of the Catholic Church and of souls, and termed delirium by our predecessor, Gregory XVI. of excellent memory, viz. Liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every man, a right which ought to be proclaimed and established by law in every well-constituted state.'"

So, also, in his recent letter to Maximilian, the Mexican Emperor, he says:

"Your Majesty is well aware that, in order effectively to repair the evils occasioned by the Revolution, and to bring back as soon as pos sible happy days for the Church, the Catholic Religion must, above all things, continue to be the glory and mainstay of the Mexican nation, to the exclusion of every other dissenting worship; that the Bishops must be perfectly free in the exercise of their pastoral ministry; that the Religious Orders should be reëstablished and reörganized, conformably with the instructions and the powers which we have given; that the patrimony of the Church and the rights which attach to it, may be maintained and protected; that no person may obtain the faculty of teaching and publishing false and subversive tenets; that instruction, whether public or private, should be directed and watched over by the Ecclesiastical Authority; and that, in short, the chains may be broken, which, up to the present time, have held down the Church in a state of dependence, and subject to the arbitrary rule of the Civil Government."

I have no room here to trace the history of the growth of power in the Bishop of Rome, until, at length, Hildebrand stood forth claiming the power of "the two swords;" to show how the pretended donation of Constantine to the Pope, having no other existence than in forged Decretals,† and yet thor

"Ess. His. Temp. des Pap." tom. 2. p. 320.

For an account of those "Forged Decretal Epistles," their shameless imposture, and their authority, even now, in the Papal Church, see an Article in The Church Review, Vol. III. No. 4, from the pen of the Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Vermont, and Gosselin's Power of the Pope, Vol. I. pp. 181 and 317.