as the object of their intense hatred and | another in their stead. To this august bitter persecution. All the shafts of and imposing assembly, savouring howmalevolence and calumny were directed ever much more of the grandeur of against him, and intimations reached this world than of the spiritual glory of him that he would soon be called to ac- the Church of Christ, the evangelical count for his conduct in the seat of the preacher was summoned, and, as he un"Beast" itself, the city of seven hills. derstood and expected, with a view to Fearless and faithful, he still prosecuted give an account of his statements, and his noble career, and heeded not the defend them before it. For this he fury of his adversaries, so long as he duly prepared, and having obtained the could preach "the words of life," and needful "safe conduct" from the Emannounce the true doctrines of the king-peror, proceeded on his way to that dom of heaven. But this liberty was soon denied. He was forbidden to preach, or to testify in any way the words whereby his fellow-creatures might be saved. Without being heard, or any opportunity being given for defence, he was excommunicated at Rome, and the thunders of the Papal prerogative were hurled about his ears. Agreeably to ecclesiastical order, he sent his proctors to answer for him; but they were committed to prison, and so remained for a year and a half. He reasoned, expostulated, entreated, but all in vain. His adversaries are bent on his destruction. He is hurried, like his Divine Lord, from one scene of harassment and persecution to another; till at length a general council is convened, and he is summoned to answer for his doings and his doctrines there. It was the celebrated General Couneil of Constance, assembled by command of the Emperor and the Pope, in the year 1415. The alleged object of it was, according to the historians of the day, to settle the disputes between the rival pontiffs, and determine who should be the infallible successor of St. Peter, for three of them were at that time contending, to the scandal of all Christendom, for that imaginary honour, and hurling mortal defiance at each other for the usurpation of the Papal throne. As in some other quarrels of a similar kind, though of somewhat less importance, the three lost it, and the Council and the Emperor, more powerful, if not more wise, appointed once beautiful city in which the Council was to be held. No sooner had he arrived there, however, than he was cast into prison. Contrary to all law and authority, to all righteousness and truth, the emissaries of the Pope had conspired against him, and, to secure their victim, immured him within the walls of the city jail. He expostulated, he reasoned, he pleaded; and some powerful friends that were with him in the city expostulated and pleaded too, but all in vain. Rome was never yet known to relax its grasp when once the witness for truth was within its power: and after innumerable vexations and delays, this holy and excellent man was condemned to die the death, and suffer in the fire. He received his sentence without dismay, conscious truth and the presence of his God and Saviour sustaining him in prospect of the awful scene. "I expected," he said, " to give an account of myself before the Council, but this I am denied; however, I am willing to lay down my life, rather than betray the truth." He was called so to do. The sentence was passed. On the 6th of July, 1415, he was conducted to the stake." Full of faith and the love of God," says the historian, "he sustained this punishment with admirable constancy." Not a murmur escnped his lips; not an accent of malice or uncharitableness towards his murderers fell from his tongue. He knew that they as well as himself must shortly pass to a higher tribunal, a tribunal at which there is no respect of persons, and from which there is no appeal. I and the fire kindled to receive them. With a hope full of immortality, he committed his spirit to Him that gave it, and his body was consigned to the flames. Thus the same general Council of the so called infallible church distinguished itself in the annals of earth and of hell by dooming Huss and Jerome, two of the noblest servants of God that Europe ever saw, and Wyckliffe's books and bones, to the flames. So lived, and so died, the first of modern martyrs-the leader of the "noble army" in latter times. "He was," says D'Aubigné, "if we may be But "the wrath of man shall praise allowed the expression, the John Bap- Him, and the remainder of that wrath tist of the Reformation. The flames of will he restrain." It is impossible not his pile kindled a fire in the church to perceive and to acknowledge the that cast a brilliant light into the sur-hand of God, the overruling providence rounding darkness, and whose glim- of the Most High, in all the circummerings were not to be so readily ex- stances connected with the martyrdom tinguished " of Huss, and its consequences to the church and to the world. His very conversion, at that time, from the errors of Popery into the "marvellous light" of the truth of the gospel, was significant of a Divine interposition; and the means which led to it were equally expressive of the wisdom and guidance of Him who worketh all in all. The grace that fitted him, as an instrument, to bear the contumelies and reproaches of Rome, and sustained him under them so long, was not less conspicuous; and the heroism and fortitude with which he endured the final scene, manifested the presence of Him who, out of weakness, makes his servants strong, and enables them to put to flight the armies of the aliens. "I am far," said he, in the prospect of his fate, "from the strength and zeal of the Apostle Peter: Jesus Christ hath not given me his talents; but this I say-placing all my confidence on Jesus Christ-I am determined, when I hear my sentence, to continue stedfast in the truth, even to the death." And he did. That Saviour forsook him not. "Now," said the bishops, as they stood around him at the stake, "we commit thy soul to the devil." "But I," said the venerable sufferer, "commit my spirit into thy hands, O Lord Jesus Christ, for thou hast redeemed it." Jerome was there. The spirit and sufferings of Huss bút confirmed him in the truths he had dis Not satisfied with thus wreaking their vengeance on this devoted and honoured servant of God, who was the harbinger of mercy and of "the dayspring from on high" to the Continent of Europe, this infatuated Council proceeded to lay the axe, as they thought, to the root of the tree, and to seal up, if possible, the very fountain from which such heretical sentiments as those which Huss had advanced were derived. Accordingly they sought to darken our "Morning Star," and for ever extinguish his beams. Supposing, and that justly too, that Wyckliffe had been the teacher both of Huss and Jerome (whose name soon occurs on the Martyrs' roll), they pronounced him infamous, though now in the tomb, declared his writings to be abominable, and ordered his books to be destroyed, and his very bones to be exhumed and burnt, to indicate what his own fate would have been, had he still survived in the land of the living. This was nearly forty years after the Reformer of Lutterworth had slept in his grave. Of course, the stern mandate was obeyed. England, at that time, dared not to resist the Papal sway, and perhaps its own votaries were too much gratified to carry into execution the fatal behest. On the appointed day the mortal remains that had not yet seen corruption were dug from their peaceful slumbers, covered and begun to proclaim. They rolling on, and those purposes shall be were now fastened in his soul, as a nail in a sure place, by the Master of assemblies," and with zeal, intrepidity, and success, almost equal to that of his predecessor, he opened them far and wide, till he also was called to seal his testimony with his blood. But, "why do the nations rage, the people imagine a vain thing, and the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel against the Lord," and against his servants? "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." The rage of Rome is vain. It can do "nothing against the truth;" and all its direst tragedies and darkest events shall be "for it," and ultimately subserve its interests. There is a hand they cannot see, and a supreme Governor whose purposes they cannot control. Time is fulfilled. The present century (1483) "Now to the God of victory M. C. ARE THE BISHOPS OF ROME SUCCESSORS OF PETER? His successors are only equal to the successors of Paul or of any other apostle; but are they his successors at all? Your catechisms, indeed, assert it thus: "Why do you call the Church Roman? Because the visible head of the Church is Bishop of Rome, and because St. Peter and his successors fixed their see at Rome.-Who is the visible head of the Church? The Pope, who is Christ's Vicar on earth and supreme visible head of the Church. To whom does the Pope succeed as visible head of the Church? To St. Peter, who was the chief of the apostles, Christ's Vicar on Earth, and first Pope and Bishop of Rome." (Doyle's Catechism.) In opposition to this statement, I shall show you how improbable it is that Peter ever was a bishop of the Church of Rome. First, let us examine the evidence afforded by the New Testament. 1. As Paul was appointed by our Lord his apostle to the Gentiles, so Peter was especially called to labour among the Jews. (Gal. ii. 7—9.) So that, if Peter had settled at Rome, he would have deserted the mission which was especially assigned to him. 2. As late as A.D. 58, when Paul wrote his letter to the Church of Rome, Peter was not its bishop; for in that letter he makes no mention of Peter, while he sends numerous salutations to other members of the church. 3. When Paul was carried as a prisoner to Rome, he preached the gospel freely within his own house for two years. (Acts xxviii. 30, 31.) Is it likely, that during that period Peter would leave his important duties in the East to assume the superintendence of a church which already enjoyed the ministry of Paul? 4. During his imprisonment at Rome, A.D. 61, 62, Paul wrote four letters; three to the churches at Ephesus, Philippi, and Colosse, and one to Philemon. In these letters individual Christians are mentioned, but there is At there no mention of Peter. In three of them, | rected his attention. In the year, fore, 65 or 66, Peter was still acting And between A.D. 65 and A.D. 67, when he was martyred, Peter certainly did not become bishop of the Church of Rome. Since the circumstantial evidence of the New Testament so strongly contradicts the idea that Peter was ever bishop of the Church of Rome, we are entitled to ask the most explicit and contemporaneous historical testimony in its favour before we believe it. Do the times which immediately follow the apostolic era furnish this testimony? Let us, 1st, consider the evidence adduced that Peter visited Rome and taught there. No author, either in the first century or in the first half of the second, has mentioned it. For above eighty years all the churches of Asia and Europe were silent on this point. No one seems to have known anything about it. The first two authors who have broken this long silence are Dionysius and Irenæus. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth in the second half of the second century, and therefore from eighty to one hundred years after the supposed events, wrote as follows to the Romans :- "You have wisely united the Romans and the Corinthians as plants planted in the field of the church by the hands of Peter and of Paul. | the beginning of the third century, says Both together they sowed the doctrine of the Church of Rome, "That happy of the gospel in our city of Corinth. church, into which the apostles poured Both passed together into Italy, and their whole doctrine with their blood; then confirmed the same doctrine by where Peter was crucified." (M'Corry, their death." (Euseb. ii. 25. Neander, p. 9.) Origen, too, who was born a.d. "Histoire de l'Etablissement de l'Eg- 185, and died A.D. 274, adds, "Peter lise," vol. i. p. 28.) Irenæus, who was came to Rome, and was nailed to a made Bishop of Lyons, A.D. 179, and cross with his head downwards." who was martyred A.D. 202, wrote to- (M'Corry, ib.) Unsupported by any wards the close of the second century, early testimony, or any argument, these and therefore above one hundred years statements, made above one hundred after the death of Peter, "Peter and and thirty years after the supposed Paul preached at Rome, and founded events, are of still less value than those the church there." (M'Corry: "Was of Dionysius and Irenæus. About the St. Peter ever at Rome?" p. 8.) Two same time further evidence was offered. considerations show that these state- Zephyrinus was Bishop of Rome from ments are of little value. 1. Neither of A.D. 201 to A.D. 218. During his episthese authors was in circumstances to copate, and, therefore, between A.D. verify these facts; they do not cite any 201 and A.D. 218, Caius wrote thus: authorities, nor give any reasons for "I can show the trophies of the apostheir belief: but from eighty to one tles. If you wish to see them, go to the hundred years after the events offer an Vatican or the Ostian way. There you unsustained opinion. 2. Their state- will see the monuments of those who ments are manifestly erroneous. Paul have founded this church." And Euseand Peter certainly did not plant to- bius, a century later, adds, "The monugether the church of Corinth. (Acts ments of Peter and Paul are still seen xviii. 1-11: 1 Cor. iii. 5-10; iv. 15.) in the cemeteries of Rome." (Euseb. Paul and Peter certainly did not go ii. 25.) From the nature of the case together to Rome. (Acts xxvii., xxviii.) these monuments could not be raised in And we have seen proof from the New honour of the apostles at the time of Testament that these two apostles did their martyrdom, because the persenot preach together at Rome. Diony- cuting emperors would have destroyed sius, therefore, is wholly in error. Ire- both them and their builders. Before næus is not more exact: for Peter and their erection, therefore, a considerable Paul certainly did not found the Church interval must have occurred, during of Rome. Peter, as we have seen, was which the Church of Rome was acespecially the apostle of the Jews, la- quiring power. These monuments were bouring in the East; and Paul, who probably not erected till towards the wrote his Epistle to the Church of close of the second century, for no auRome before he had ever visited them, thor of the second century mentions declares that even then "their faith them: and a century after the death of was spoken of throughout the whole the apostle Peter, a monument may world." (Rom. i. 7-15.) Since, there- have been raised in the capital in his fore, parts of these statements of Dio- honour, even if he had never been there. nysius and Irenæus are manifestly erro- The progress of superstition rendered neous, we cannot have much confidence this the more likely. "In this age," in the rest. says Waddington, of a later period, "arose the stupid veneration for bones and relics. It was inculcated and believed that prayer was never so surely Some years later, Tertullian, who was made presbyter of the church of Carthage, A.D. 192, and who wrote about |