Chapter XVI. Of the Superiority of the Bishops, and of the Supremacy of the Pope

Q. How do you prove that besides priests or presbyters, there has been always in the church the Order of bishops, superior to that of priests?

A. I prove it both from scripture and perpetual tradition. The New Testament, in several places, mentions bishops, as Philip, i. 1. 1 Tim. iii. 2. Tit. i. 7. Acts XX. 28. And it is visible, that the angels of the seven churches of Asia, mentioned in the first, second, and third chapters of the Revelation, were the bishops of those sees, and accordingly had a jurisdiction over them. It is no less visible, from the epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, that both one and the other were bishops, with power of ordaining inferior priests; and Timothy, in particular, is instructed by the Apostle, in what manner he is to comport himself to the priests under him, 1 Tim. v. 17, 19. And as for perpetual tradition, it is evident from all kind of monuments, and from the most ancient church history, that the church has always been governed by bishops, and that the Apostles every where established bishops. Thus St. Irenosus, 1. 3. c. 3. Tertullian, L. de Prescrip. and other ancients assure us, that Linus and Clement were ordained bishops by St. Peter and St. Paul for the see of Rome. Thus Eusebius, and other ancient monuments, inform us, that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, and was succeeded by Anianus; thai Evodius and Ignatius, disciples of the Apostles, were, after St. Peter, the first bishops of Antioch; that St. James was constituted by the Apostles the first bishop of Jerusalem, and had for successor Simeon the son of Cleophas; that St. Polycarp was made bishop of Smyrna by St. John, &c.

Q. How do you prove, that amongst bishops one should be head, and have a jurisdiction over the restT

A. Because Christ has so appointed, who gave that pre-eminence to St. Peter with respect to the rest of the Apostles; as appears from St. Matt. xvi. 18, 19. when, in reward of his faith and confe»- fiion, he confirmed to him the name of Peter, or Rock; and promised to him, that upon this rock he would build his church, and the gates of hell should not prevail against it; and that he would give him the Mceys of the kingdom of heaven,' &c. And from St. John xxi. 15, &c. when our Lord, after having asked St. Peter, 'Dost thou love me more than these?' three times committed to him the charge of all his lambs and sheep, without exception; that is, of his whole Church. Hence, St. Matthew, ch. x. 2. reckoning the names of the twelve Apostles says, *The first, Simon, who is called Peter.' Now, it does not appear that ho could be called the first, upon any other account but by reason of his supremacy; for that he was first in age is more than appears, and that he was first in calling is not true; for St. Andrew came to Christ before Peter, and was probably the elder brother; and certain it is, that the Evangelists, in reckoning up the names of the Apostles, upon several occasions, neither follow the order of their age, nor of their calling; yet they always reckon Peter in the first place, and sometimes more clearly to intimate his pre-eminence, name him alone as chief or prince; as St. Mark i. 36. ^ Simon, and they that were with him:' St. Luke ix. 32. ^ Peter and they that were with him:' Acts ii. 14. 'Peter standing up with the eleven:' Acts v. 29. 'Peter and the Apostles answered and said,' &c. where the Protestant translation has put in the word ^ other Apostles,' as clearly seeing that the former expression (which is that of the original) too clearly expressed St. Peter's being something more than the rest.

It is also worth observing, that our Lord was pleased to teach the people out of St. Peter's ship, St. Luke V. 3. that he ordered the same tribute to be paid for himself and Peter, St. Matt. xvii. 27: that he particularly prayed for Peter, that his faith should not fail, and ordered him to confirm or strengthen his brethren, St. Luke xxii. 32, &c.

Hence St. Peter's supremacy is acknowledged by the perpetual tradition of the holy fathers. See Origin on the 6th chapter to the Romans, and in his 5th Homily upon Exodus; St. Basil, of tho Judgment of God, c. 2. p. 402: St. CyriK of Jerusalem, in his 2d Catechesis: St. Epiphanius, Haer, 61. 5 17. & Hoer. 64. }. 7. and in his Anchoratus, j 6. p. 14, 15: St. John Chrysostom in his 2d Homily on the 50th Psalm, in his 54th Homily upon St, Matthew, &;c. St. Cyril, of Alexandria, in his 12th Book upon St. John: St. Austerius, Bishop of Amaseea, in his sermon upon St. Peter and St. Paul: and among the Latins, St. Cyprian, Epist. 70. to Januarius: St. Optatus of Milevis, 1. 2. and 7. St Ambrose, 1. 10. upon St. Luke; St. Hierome in his 1st. Book against Jovinian; St. Augustine, 1. 2. de Baptismo, c. 1: St. Leo, Epist. 84. to Anastasiusj St. Gregory the Great, 1. 4. Epist. 32, &:c.

Q. How do you prove that St. Peter was to have a successor in this office of chief bishop of the Church?

A. Because as Christ established his church to remain till the end of the world, St. Matt, xxviii. 20. so most certainly he designed, that the form of government which he established in his church should remain for ever. Hence, supposing the supremacy of St. Peter, which we have proved above from scripture, it cannot be questioned, but that our Lord designed that this supremacy, which he appointed for the better government of his church, and the preserving of unity, should not die with Peter, no more than the church, (with which he promised to remain for ever,) but should descend, after St. Peter's decease, to his successors. For it is not to be imagined, that Christ should appoint a chief bishop for the government of his church, and maintaining unity in the Apostles' time, and design another kind of government for succeeding ages, when there was like to be so much greater danger of schism, and consequently so much greater need of one head, to preserve all in one faith and one communion.

Q. But how do you prove that the Pope or Dishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter.

A, I prove it, first, because the church never acknowledged any oihcr for her chief pastor; and no olher does, or ever did, put in a claim to the spiritual supremacy, in quality of St. Peter's successor; so that, supposing what has been proved, that Christ appointed a chief pastor of his Church, the bishop of Home must be the man.

Secondly, I prove it from the current sense of the holy fathers and councils, that have acknowledged this supremacy in the see of Rome and her bishops. See St. Ignatius, disciple of the Apostles, in the beginning of his Epistle to the Romans, where he calls the church of Rome the presiding church; St. Irenseus, I. 3. c. 3. who calls the same the greatest and most ancient church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; and adds, that all sectaries are confounded by the Roman tradition: for to this church, by reason of its more powerful principality, says he, it is necessary that every church resort, or have recourse; in which (church) the apostolical tradition has always been preserved by those that are in every place; and St. Cyprian, in his 55th Epistle to pope Cornelius, where he calls the see of Rome, the chair of Peter, and the principal church from which the priestly unity has its origin. Ecclesiam Princi])alem^ unde TJnitas Sacerdotalis exorta est.

See also St. Optatus, bishop of Melevis, in his 2nd Book against Parmenianus, the Donatist Bishop of Carthage: where he thus addresses himself to his adversary. You cannot pretend to be ignorant, that Peter held first the bishop's chair in the city of Rome, in which Peter, head of all the Apostles sat — in which one chair unity might be maintained by all, lest the rest of the Apostles should each one claim his own separate chair. So that he is now a schismatic, and an offender, who against this single chair erects any other. In this one chair, which is the first of the properties of the church, Peter first sat; to him succeeded Linus, lo him Clement, &c. Give you now an account of the origin of your chair, you who claim to yourselves the holy church. *

And St. Jerome, writing to pope Damasus,.EpisL 57. tells him; I am joined in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter: upon that rock I know the church is built: whoever eats the lamb out of this house is profane: whosoever is not in (this) Ark shall perish in the deluge, &c.

And St. Augustine in his Psalm against the Donatists thus addresses himself to these schismatics. Come brethren, says he, if you have a mind to be engrafted in the vine, it is a pity to see you lopped off in this manner from the stock. Reckon up the prelates in the very see of Peter: and in that order of fathers see which has succeeded which. This is the rock over which the proud gates of hell prevail not. And in his 162d Epistle he tells the Donatists, that in the see of Rome the principality (or supremacy) of the apostolic church was ever acknowledged. Semper ApostoIiccB Cathedrcc viguit Principatus,

And St. Prosper, in his dogmatic Poem against the enemies of grace, calls Rome, the See of Peter, which being made to the world the head of pastoral dignity, rules by religion all that which she possesses not by her arms. And to the same effect St. Leo the Great, in his first Sermon upon St. Peter and St. Paul, thus addresses himself to Rome: these are they who have advanced thee to this glory, that being made the head of the world, by being St. Peter's See, thou hast a wider extent of religious empire than of earthly dominion. Foi though by thy many victories thou hast extended thy dominions far and near by sea and land, yet that which has been subdued by the labour of thy arms is not so much as that which has been made subject to thee by Christian peace.' All these fathers, hitherto quoted, flourished within four hundred years after the passion of Christ.

The supremacy of the bishops of Rome has also been acknowledged by many general councils: as by the general Council of Ephesus, in the sentence of depositions against Nestorius, anno 431, by the general Council of Chalcedon, in their epistle to St. Leo, anno 451, by the general Council of Constantinople, anno 680, in their epistle to pope* Agatha: not to menton the decrees of later general councils, especially the fourth of Late ran, anno 1215, the second of Lyons, anno 1274, and that of Florence, anno 1439. Though as pope Galasius, long ago, in the Council of Rome of seventy bishops, anno 494, has declared, 'The Roman See hath not its pre-eminence over other churches from any ordinances of councils, but from the words of our Lord and Saviour in the gospel, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,' &c.

Q. But has the pope or bishop of Rome in every age since the days of the Apostles, exercised this supremacy over other churches?

A. Yes, most certainly: in the very age immediately after the Apostles, that is, in the second century, pope Victor threatened to excommunicate the bishops of Asia Minor, for keeping Easter at an undue time, Eusebius, I. 5. Histor. Eccles. c. 24. And though it is probable he relented upon the remonstrances of St. Irenseus and others, yet no one of them all charged him with usurping an authority which did not of right belong to him-In the third century, St. Cyprian, epist. 67. wrote to pope Stephen, desiring him to despatch his letters into the province and to the people of Aries, by which they might be authorized to depose Marcianus the bishop of Aries, and substitute another in his place. Dirigantiir in Provinciam d te liierce, quihus ahsente MarcianOy alius in locum ejus substituatur.

In the fourth century, pope Julius cited St. Anthanasius, bishop of Alexandria, that is to say, the second patriarch of the church, to his Council at Rome, to answer the accusations of his adversaries; who accordingly did appear, and was there cleared. See St. Athanasius's Apology against the Arians, num. 29. p. 148. of the new edition; and Theodoret, 1. 2. Hist. c. 3. The same pope, as we learn from the historian Socrates, 1. 2. c. 15. and Sozomenus, 1. 3. c. fi. about the same time restored by his authority to their respective Sees, from whence they had been deposed by the Eusebians, St. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, St. Lucius, bishop of Adrianople, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza in Palestine; and this as Sozomenus expressly words it, because, by reason of the dignity of his See, the care of all belonged to him. In the fifth century, pope Ceiestine deputed Si. Cyril, Patriach of Alexandria, to proceed as his delegate to the excommunication of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constinople, torn. 3. Concil, Labbe, p. 349. And in the same century, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Flavian, both Patriarchs of Constantinople, unjustly deposed by numerous councils in the East, appealed from their judgment, the one to pope Innocent I. the other to pope Leo the

Great. See the espistle of St. John Chrysostom to pope Innocent, and the 23d epistle of St. Leo. In the sixth century, pope Agapetus deposed Anthymus Patriarch of Constantinople; not to mention many other instances in all these centuries of the exercise of the pope's jurisdiction over other churches; and as for the following ages there is no dispute.

From all which it follows, that the Protestant pretences of the Pope's having received the supremacy from Phocas, the emperor of Constantinople, who began to reign anno 602, is a groundless fiction, like the idle tale of pope Joan.

Q. But does not our Lord intimate, St. Luke xxii. 24, 25, 26. that amongst his disciples none.should be the chief or head.

A. No; but only that 'he that is the greatest should be as the younger, and he that is chief as jie that doth serve,' verse 16. Which words, so far from denying, evidently suppose a chief; which is further confirmed by our Lord's alleging himself for an example in the following verse, who was most certainly chief. So that what is here recommended, is not equality of jurisdiction, but humility in superiors.

Q. But does not St. Paul say, 2 Cor. xii. 11. *In nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostle, though I be nothing;' where was then St. Peter's supremacy?

A. It is visible that St. Paul speaks with regard to his labours, miracles and doctrine, in which he was inferior to none; but whether St. Peter or he had a superior jurisdiction, was foreign to the matter he had then in hand, and therefore no wonder that he takes no notice of it.

Q. If St. Peter was head, how come St. Paul to withstand him to his face at Antioch, Gal. ii. 11?

A, Because as the Apostle tells us in the same place, he was to blame, viz. in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jews: and this it was that St. Paul reprehended, because of the danger of the Gentiles taking scandal thereby. But this no way disproves St. Peter's superiority, since no one doubts, but that a superior, when in fault, may sometimes lawfully be reprehended by an inferior.

And, after all, do our adversaries imagine that the enhancing the dignity and authority of St. Paul makes any thing against the bishop of IlomC; who indeed inherits the succession both of St. Peter and St. Paul, who both honoured Rome with their preaching and with their death?

Q. But some Protestants doubt whether St. Peter ever was at Rome, what say you to this?

A. Grotius, a learned Protestant, writes that, * no christian ever doubted but St. Peter was at Rome.' In Synopsi Criticorum, p. 1450. H. And Chamierus, another learned Protestant, tells us, that "all the fathers with great accord have asserted that Peter went to Rome and governed that Church." Omnes Palres magno consensu asseruerunt Petrum Romam esse profectutn, eamque Ecclesiam administrasse, 1. 13. c. 4. } 2. And Dr. Pear-son, the Protestant bishop of Chester, one of the most eminent men amongst the Protestant writers ever known, has demonstrated, by innumerable arguments, that Peter was at Rome, and that the bishops of Rome are his successors. See Pearson's Opera Posthuma, printed at London, anno 1688, p. 27, &c.

Q. Does the scripture any where affirm that St. Peter was at Rome?

A, St. Peter's first epistle seems to affirm it, chap. V. 13. where, by Babylon, the best interpreters understand Rome, so called by the Apostle, as afterwards by St. John in the Apocalypse, because then the chief seat both of the empire and of heathenish idolatry, as formerly Babylon had been. And so this place is understood by St. Papias, disciple of the Apostles, and Clement of Alexandria, alleged by Euseb. 1. 2. Hist. c. 15. and by St. Hie-rome, 1. de Scriptor. in Marco; by venerable Bede, (Ecumenius, and others. Nor is there any probability that the Babylon here mentioned could be that in Chaldaea, which at this time was nothing but a heap of ruins, nor that in Egypt, W'hich was but a very inconsiderable place in those days, and in which no monuments of antiquity give us the least hint that St. Peter ever preached.

But if the scripture had been entirely silent in this matter, we have it proved by universal tradition, which is the means by which we come to the knowledge of the scripture itself And indeed there is a more universal tradition for St. Peter's being at Rome, than there is for many parts of the scripture which Protestants receive: for whereas many of the ancient fathers have called in question some books of scripture — for instance the Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, &c. and there is scarce any part of the Bible or New Testament but what has been rejected by some heretics of old; yet we cannot find that St. Peter's being at Rome was ever called in question by any single man, infidel or christian, catholic or heretic, for thirteen or fourteen hundred years after Christ; though all heretics and schismatics, as being always enemies of the church of Rome, would have been most glad to have called in question this succession of

St. Peter (which the bishops of Rome ever gloried in) had not the matter of fact been out of dispute.

The ancient fathers that have attested St. Peter's being at Eome, besides many others, are, St. Irenaus, 1. 3. c. 3; St. Denys, bishop of Corinth; Caius and Origen, alleged by Eusebius in his Church History, p. 71, 78; Tertullian, 1. de Prsescript, c. 36. and in Scorpiaco, c. 5; St. Cyprian, Epist. 6!2 and 55; Arnobius, 1. 2. contra Gentes; Lactantius, 1. de Morte Persecutorum, c. 2; Eusebius, 1. 2. Hist. c. 14. p. 62, 1. 3. c. 4. p. 74; St. Athanasius, in Apolog. de fuga sua, p. 331; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 6. p. 54; St. Ambrose, 1. 4; Hexam, c. 8; St. Jerome, de Scriptoribus Eccles. in Petro & in Marco, and in his Chronicon ad Anncs 43 & 69 Sulpitius Severus, 1. 2; Hist. St. Augustine, 1. de Hser. c. 1. Epist. 63. 1. 2 contra Lit. Petil. c. 61; St. John Chrysostom, torn. 6. Hom. 12; Orositus, 1. 7. c. 6; St. Peter Chrysologus, Epist. ad Eutych; St. Optatus, 1. 2. contra Parmenia; Theodoret, in Epist. ad Eom. & 1. 1. Hasret. Fab. c. 1, &c.