evidence behind it that they knew of any dif ference among the powers or authority of the apostles, and never acknowledged any submission to the Roman prelate, on the ground of any divine commission of the Church to his care, I shall feel amply satisfied, and my readers, I think, will also, that no such universal bishopric by divine right ever existed.

In continuing this inquiry, I shall divide the Ante-Nicene Church into its three great divisions,

the Eastern, the Alexandrian, and the Western; and I shall take their testimony separately. This distinction is not a merely geographical one. The three divisions were essentially distinct, and, as I have said, had each their peculiar intellectual characteristics, which affected even their views of theology.

That St. Peter was an eminent servant of Christ cannot be disputed; but our question relates merely to his alleged supremacy; and, in the first place, what evidence does the history of the Christian church, as contained in the New Testament, furnish on this point?

In whatever honour or respect St. Peter may have been held by his brother apostles and the Churches, there is no statement in the Acts or Letters of the Apostles which gives the slightest hint that this honour and respect were paid to him as to one who had authority over them (to say nothing of supremacy over the Church) imparted by their Lord. Indeed, it may safely be affirmed that the New Testament not only does not support

the idea of Peter's supremacy, but does, by anticipation, refute it, as strongly as it is possible to refute any doctrine, which had never at the time been surmised or dreamed of.

It is, however, necessary more fully to examine the uninspired writings of this period, and to inquire whether they had any idea that the Church was committed to the care of St. Peter alone and exclusively.

§ 1. THE EASTERN CHURCH.

THIS portion of the Universal Church, comprising Asia Minor, Antioch, Palestine, and the countries still further to the East, contained more than the usual proportion of Christians, and numbered among its members many important writers, whose productions, partly from the decline of the Greek Church and the inroad of infidels, and partly from the ignorance in the West of the Greek language, have now perished. This loss is deeply to be deplored. Had the writings of the Greek Church survived the middle ages, church history, both internally and externally, must have received the most valuable elucidation. Some of their productions, however, have reached us, and notices of works and extracts are furnished by Eusebius.

(1.) Among the former are the Epistles of Ignatius, supposing them to have been written by him. If, as the Roman writers say, there was only one bishop between him and St. Peter in the see of

Antioch, his letters might have been expected to have furnished valuable support to the Roman theory, particularly as one of them is directed to that church, and the migration of the supremacy from Antioch to Rome may be supposed to have been yet fresh in his memory, and still more so in that of his correspondents. Strange as it may seem, however, there is not the slightest allusion to this supremacy which had nearly fallen upon his own shoulders; and there is only one mention of St. Peter, and that is made in a manner which implies a perfect equality with St. Paul. He says to the Romans," Not as Peter and Paul do I give you command: they were apostles; while I am one condemned: they were free; while I, even to this present hour, am a slave."

(2.) Papias*, the next writer who mentions St. Peter, is called a disciple of St. John. He has been already mentioned † as bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, and the author of several books of various merit. In the preface to one of his exegetical works he states, to the party for whom he wrote it, "I shall not scruple to join to my own interpretations whatever at any time I have rightly learnt from the elders, and well borne in mind, assuring you of their truth. For I did not take pleasure, like the multitude, in the men who spoke much, but in those who spoke truly. Nor did I pay attention to those who recorded precepts foreign to

* See Routh's Reliq. Sac. i. 7.

† See before, p. 21.

our faith, but precepts which had been given by our Lord, and came from the Truth itself. And if any disciple of the elders came to me, I inquired of him their words; what Andrew or what Peter had said; what Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew had said, or any other of our Lord's disciples." This extract seems to show that Peter was, in his opinion, only as one of the apostles, and invested with no supremacy over the others.

(3.) A similar view must have been taken by Serapion, eighth bishop of Antioch, at the close of the second century, in a work which he wrote on a spurious book called the Gospel of St. Peter. He said, "We receive Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but spurious writings passing under their names we reject."*

Here, too, there is no distinction made between Peter and his brethren: they equally represented Christ.

§ 2. THE ALEXANDRIAN CHURCH.

LET us now inquire what the writers of the Alexandrian Church have said on St. Peter's exclusive government of the Universal Church. Of the Alexandrian Church we have magnificent remains, whether we regard their extent or the talents and learning of the writers; and, from the variety of the topics on which they write, some bearing directly upon the subject, there can be no doubt, if

See Routh's Reliq. Sac. i. 452.

the supremacy of St. Peter was an acknowledged (and therefore a practical) doctrine, of its being found frequently and distinctly introduced in their writings; while, as a matter of course, no teaching of a contrary tendency will appear.

The two writers whose works have largely descended to us are Clement and Origen, each, as we have seen, in succession, presidents of the catechetical school at Alexandria, and flourishing between the years A. D. 190-240. The writings of the former are, however, silent upon any supremacy of St. Peter. Clement makes no mention of any distinctions of rank or power among the apostles.

The writings of his pupil and successor, Origen, are still more numerous. They consist of treatises, polemical works, and very copious expositions of the books of the Old and New Testament; but, on examination, it will be found that they contain no support to the idea that the Universal Church was committed specially to the care of St. Peter; nay, they very clearly show us that their author had never even heard of such a notion. It must be remembered that the supposed consequence of Peter's supremacy, — namely, the Roman supremacy, — must, if true, have been seen everywhere, and in full exercise, in Origen's days. It had been in existence nearly two centuries. Its importance for salvation could not have been magnified too highly. Witness its place among the doctrines of the present Roman Church. Every approach to it must have paved the way for an allusion to it. Witness the painful efforts which modern Roman writers make to

-