saying, It is one thing to speak concerning authority, and another thing concerning the execution of it: that the Pope hath the authority of ordaining in the provinces of other Bishops; but that custom has established his non-exertion of this authority. If he hath this authority by right, it could not be so abolished by custom as to make that ordination actually unlawful which he might effect without the consent of the Metropolitan; for custom does not prescribe where a thing is forbidden by an express law, says Hostiensis.* We do not deny that prerogatives have been con

the close of the fourth century, in giving his sense of the 6th Canon of this Synod, is admitted to have stated it truly and clearly; viz. That the ancient custom be kept both in Alexandria and Rome; that he (the Bishop of Alexandria) have the care of Egypt; the other (the Bishop of Rome) of the Suburbicary Churches, i. e. over all those places in Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, &c. over which the Præfect, or the Vicar of the City of Rome, had jurisdiction in temporal affairs. And even the old Latin paraphrastical Version of these Canons confines the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to the Suburbicary Churches. And not only these two Editions of the Canons, but those of other writers on them, call the several districts in which the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria exercised their jurisdiction, Provinces; whereas the district of a Patriarch was always called his Diocese, that of an inferior Bishop his Parish: And therefore by Metropolitans here must be meant those who had the largest Provinces, or were the most remarkable on account of the largeness of cities, and had a proportionable deference paid to them. The reason why such particular care was taken of the privileges of the Bishop of Alexandria was, that Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, being deposed about twenty years before this Council, by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, in a provincial Synod, for idolatry and other crimes, did yet ordain several Bishops and Clergymen in Egypt, without the consent, and in opposition to the sentence passed against him by the Bishop and Synod. Against this the 4th Canon of the Council was probably framed :-" A Bishop ought to be constituted by all the Bishops that belong to the Province; but if this be not practicable, by reason of urgent necessity, or the length of the way, Three must by all means meet together, and when they have the consent of those that are absent, signified by letter, then let them perform the ordination; and the ratification of what is done must be allowed to the Metropolitan in every Province."

Let it further be observed, that the authority of Metropolitans must have been much older than this Synod; for here their privileges are called ancient customs. Vide Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum.

Hostiensis. The author here cited by Bishop Davenant is Henry de Suza, a celebrated Civilian and Canonist of the 13th century, of such repute as to have been called " the source and splendor of the Law." He

ceded to the Roman Church, and to the Bishop of Rome, by the ancients; but not because of his being the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church, and armed with apostolic authority by right Divine, but on account of the sobriety, the consistency, and the distinguished learning of those who, in the earliest times, were set over that Church; on account of the dignity of the city of Rome, which was the seat of empire; and, lastly, as Gerson says, by the gracious and voluntary concession of other churches.

Now let us sift a few arguments of our opponents.

1. Pellarmin, lib. 2, De Rom. Pont. cap. 12, says, Peter had the government of the whole church committed to him; but some one ought to succeed therein as supreme head by Divine right; and this successor can be no other than the Pope.

I answer, there is nothing solid in this argument. First, as it regards Peter, to whom they say the government of the whole church was committed when it was said to him alone, John xxi. 15-17, Feed my sheep. I confess, in his character of Apostle, the power of feeding the flock of Christ every where was given to Peter; but this was common to him with the rest of the Apostles, to whom also it was said, Go, teach all nations, Matth. xxviii. 19. Secondly, we deny that successors were appointed in this apostolic power either to Peter or any one of the Apostles; for not fresh Apostles, but Bishops, succeeded to Apostles. Thirdly, if we allow a successor to Peter in apostolic power, he will not be, by Divine authority, the Roman Pontiff; because no Divine authority appropriated the Roman See to Peter. Whence even Cusa* does not hesitate to

was first created Archbishop of Embrun, and then Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia in 1262; whence he derived the appellation of Ostiensis, or Hostiensis; under which title he is frequently cited, and by Davenant in the latter mode of orthography.

• Cusa was a profound Lawyer and Divine, created a Cardinal by Pope Nicholas V. in 1448, and afterwards Bishop of Brixia. It is said that he was the author of a Refutation of the Koran, addressed to Pius II. and highly esteemed as a very learned production. A treatise of his concerning "Learned Ignorance," in which he aimed to correct and reform the disorders and abuses which the Scholastic Divines had introduced into the Semi

confess, that, if a Bishop of Treves should be chosen for the head of the Church, he would be more properly the successor of Peter than the Roman Bishop.

2. They argue, the Church is one body, and hath one head on earth besides Christ: but any other head on earth besides the Pope is assigned by no one; therefore he is the head and sovereign of the whole Church. And that it has a head on earth, he (Bellarmin) proves from those words, 1 Cor. xii. 21. The head cannot say to the feet ye have no need of me; but Christ can say this; therefore there is a head in the Church besides Christ.

I answer; Although the Church be one body, and militant here in earth, yet no necessity obliges us to confess any earthly head of the whole Church; because Christ, who is ascended into heaven, is also in the world by his Spirit, and quickens and rules the whole Church; but he forms particular churches, and governs them by particular prelates and ministers. The plea, however, which he brings from the Scripture is futile and childish: for the Apostle means not by the head and the feet, the Pope and the Church; but by the head, any man in the church endowed with eminent gifts; by the feet, any humble or inferior perThis will readily appear if we weigh the scope of the passage. For he is not cautioning Peter against lording it over the Church; but he is warning those who were distinguished by spiritual gifts among the Corinthians, against despising their inferiors; as Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Aquinas explain it.*

son.

naries, is still extant. Yet this erudite man, notwithstanding the bold admission also above made, in order to sustain the Papacy set up the notion of a running sense of Scripture, which might be suited to the various occasions of the Church, and adapted to every new rite. Vide Dr. Wright's Sermon

at Salter's Hall, in 1734-5, on "Scripture and Tradition."

Though the champions for the Papacy in former ages of comparative darkness might think to impose upon the ignorant and unwary by such "futile and childish" modes, as even Bellarmin for want of better could employ in the plea here refuted; yet in these days one would hardly imagine they would have the effrontery to risk it. However, in 1810, a Roman Catholic Priest in Lancashire, sent forth two octavo volumes of "Sermons ;" and in one of them, in support of Papal Supremacy, revived an old gloss upon

3. The Church would not be governed in the best way unless it were governed by one supreme spiritual head; but Christ left the Church instituted and governed in the best manner; therefore by one.

I answer; Christ alone is the spiritual Sovereign of the whole Church; but to institute an earthly sovereign, on whose will the whole Church should depend, would be the worst mode of governing the Church; because no mortal can discharge that office even moderately well. For how shall the Pope sitting in the Vatican, take care of the churches of the Indians or the Ethiopians? But that Pontiff does not aim at the care of churches, but at empire.

4. The Church is always increasing, and it must increase until the Gospel be preached in all the world: but this cannot be done unless there be one chief president, on whom the apostolic charge and trouble of preserving the whole Church and of extending it, may devolve; for no one ought to preach unless he be sent; and no particular Bishop can send beyond his own province.

Scripture, much akin in fallacy and plausibility to the one above, but managed with more ingenuity. For, with the most artful sophistry, carried on through two pages, he labours to prove that the words of our Lord to Peter, recorded John xxi. 15-17, "Feed my lambs; feed my sheep," were 2 commission to Peter, in the first place to govern the faithful intended by the lambs; in the next, a jurisdiction over the pastors of the faithful, conveyed in the words "Feed my sheep." The consequence, he concludes is, that "since Christ gives Peter a superintendence over his whole flock, he confers upon him a jurisdiction distinct from that of the rest of the Apostles-a jurisdiction more enlarged than theirs—a jurisdiction reaching over the whole body of the Church, over the taught and the teachers, over the governed and the governors." So that, as the Rev. Joseph Fletcher, in his excellent volume of "Lectures on the Principles and Institutions of the Roman Catholic Religion," justly observes," according to this arguing the 'lambs' mean the sheep,' and the sheep' mean the shepherds!!!" It is to be believed, that this is the general mode of Popish instruction. The recently published discourses of a neighbouring Priest, under every cautionary restraint, might be adduced as containing abundant evidence of the truth of the assertion; and, more recently still, a distinguished Papal Orator, in the town where the Translator writes, was heard, in his ordinary pulpit exercises, labouring to establish his auditory in the belief of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, by attempting to prove, that it was the uniform and universal belief of the Christians of the first four centuries of the Christian era!!!

I answer; To send preachers to infidel nations is not now the work of apostolic power, but of Christian charity. Every Bishop therefore in the vicinity of any heathen nation, may, from the duty of charity, either by himself, or by others, preach the Gospel to them; and, if they should embrace the Christian faith, what is to hinder Bishops and ministers being set over them (if they require it) legitimately ordained by any other Bishop? To extend the Church therefore there is no need of a new Apostle.

We conclude, then, since the Pope of Rome is not immediately called by Christ-nor embued with Evangelical knowledge by direct and extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Spirit-nor endowed with universal power over the whole Church, he can by no mode of reasoning be styled an Apostle, or Apostolic Bishop.*

Ver. 2. To the saints and fuithful brethren in Christ, which are at Colosse.

In these words is contained the second part of the title, which we call the Inscription, in which the Apostle describes both the place where they dwell, and the characteristics of those to whom the Epistle is sent: and this is entitled the superscription or inscription according to our custom, who are in the habit of inscribing these circum

• The grand point at issue between Rome and her opponents, is the question of Infallibility: therefore, to the refutation of this from the actual history and tendency of her doctrines, Mr. Garbett's "powerful and valuable work" (as it has been justly styled) the "Nullity of the Roman Faith" is directed, and contains in its pages a refutation of the main arguments of their most famous modern defence, Bishop Milner's "End of Controversy." Upon the whole Difficulties of their system, it seems almost needless to refer to the well known volume of Mr. Faber in answer to the Bishop of Strasburg. For the recent attempts to remove the mass of crime that lies against their Church, Mr. Townsend's "Accusations of History" is quite sufficient. The present revival of this great Controversy, and the modern garb in which their advocates have cloaked the Papal tenets, have induced the Translator to refer the uninformed reader to works which appear to him to meet more especially the existing state of the discussion; and the study of which will leave him void of excuse if he be entangled in the mazes of this never-slumbering and artful enemy.