Melancthon. Is that the only reason you have for believing in St. Peter's supremacy, O'Leary? O'Leary. I don't know any other.

Melancthon. Will you be kind enough to unfold your reason? for I don't at present understand how you can prove it from that

text.

O'Leary. The doctrine is proved from the name which is given to Peter, Cephas, which signifies "a head." Hence, in a very learned work, entitled "Mercy and Truth; or, Charity maintained by Roman Catholics," by Edward Knott, a Jesuit, we have the following words :"In the city of Rome there was first an episcopal chair placed for Peter, wherein Peter, the head of the Apostles, sat, whereof also he was called Cephas."

Melancthon. And so all the foundation you have for your opinion, is the criticism of a Jesuit on the word Cephas. Alas! for the edifice which is built on such a foundation! He appears to have thought the word derived from xa, signifying "a head;" whereas, it is a κεφαλή, Syriac word, and signifies "a stone."* I have never doubted that many of the heads of your Church have been wooden heads; but it seems I have been under a mistake, for they were made of stone, and not of wood.

* Chillingworth's Works, fol. ed., p. 231.

O'Leary. Well, but as you think my reason for Peter's supremacy to be of little value, pray will your honour have the goodness to let me hear your reasons for rejecting it?

they are no better.

Perhaps

Melancthon. If not, O'Leary, then I hope you will treat them with supreme contempt. My reasons are the following:-First, Peter never affected superiority over any of the other Apostles. Secondly, Not one of the Apostles, either directly or indirectly acknowledged Peter to be their head. Thirdly, Long after Christ gave the name of Cephas to Peter, there was a contention in his presence, among the Apostles, who should be greatest, when our Lord, instead of saying, (which he certainly would, had the fact been so,) "Peter is the greatest, for I have made him your head," said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, but ye shall not be so ; " (Luke xxii. 24-26;) and in another place, "One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." (Matt. xxiii. 8.) Fourthly, In the council which was held at Jerusalem, an account of which you may read at your leisure, in Acts xv., though Peter was present and spoke in that council, James, and not Peter, presided; which is evident from these words: "My sentence is," &c. He, as the Chairman or President, pronounced the judgment of the court; which most assuredly he

would not have done, had Peter been the supreme head. Fifthly, St. Paul, who uniformly taught obedience to rulers, withstood Peter to the face at Antioch, (Gal. ii. 11,)-a thing utterly incredible, on the supposition that Peter was the supreme head. Sixthly, St. Paul explicitly denies Peter's superiority, when he says, "I was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles." (2 Cor. xi. 5.)

O'Leary. I confess your reasons appear much better than mine, and exceedingly plausible. Yet one thing very much puzzles me, which I shall thank your honour to explain. If the Roman Catholic Church be not the most ancient, and if Peter be not the supreme head, and if the Pope be not his successor, how comes it to pass, that from the beginning, all churches, till the time of Luther, were subject to the Bishop of Rome?

Melancthon. It was not till the seventh century that the supremacy of the Church at Rome was admitted, which was accomplished at the desire of Pope Boniface III., by the infamous Phocas, "that abominable tyrant, who waded to the imperial throne through the blood of the

Emperor Mauritius.”* For a long period pre

vious to this, the title of "Universal Bishop" had been assumed by the Bishops of Constantinople, which indeed was never very palatable

Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, 4to, vol i., p. 320.

to the Bishops of Rome. But when, in the year 588, John, Bishop of Constantinople, assembled by his own authority a Council at Constantinople, to inquire into an accusation brought against Peter, the Patriarch of Antioch, and publicly avowed himself oecumenical or universal Bishop; Gregory I., Bishop of Rome, became indignant at his arrogance, and, dreading the effects of such supremacy, opposed his claim in the most vigorous manner in letters addressed to the Emperor, and to such persons as he judged proper to second his opposition. But all his efforts were without effect; and the Bishops of Constantinople continued to assume the title in question. So that, instead of all churches being subject to the Bishop of Rome till the time of Luther, the supreme authority of the Roman Church was not established till the reign of the infamous Phocas; and the assertion of this supremacy in a short time led to a division between the Eastern and Western Churches, the latter becoming subject to the See of Rome, whilst the former indignantly rejected her dominion, and have uniformly despised her authority.

O'Leary. After all, your honour admits that there has been a Church in Rome from apostolic times; and though I confess that I am not sufficiently learned to confute the arguments by

Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, 4to, vol. i., pp. 288, 289.

which you have endeavoured to show that Peter never was Bishop of Rome, yet I am willing to hope, after all you have said, that he was its first Bishop; and if so, there having been a regular chain of successors, from that time to the present, all ordinations, and sacraments, and absolutions, are valid; and therefore, being a member of the Catholic Church, I am safe.

66

a re

Melancthon. What do you mean by gular chain of SUCCESSORS," O'Leary? O'Leary. Successors of the Apostle Peter. Melancthon. Do you mean that they succeeded him in the office of Apostle?

O'Leary. No, I think I never heard my Priest, who is a very learned man, call them Apostles, but only the successors of the Apostles.

Melancthon. But is not this the same thing as calling them Apostles? Suppose I were to say that George the Fourth is the successor of King George the Third, in what sense would you understand me?

O'Leary. Of course, your honour, I should understand you to say, that George the Fourth succeeded to the throne of George the Third, and like him exercised every regal office.

Melancthon. Do you think then, O'Leary, that the Popes possess all apostolic gifts, and exercise all apostolic functions?

O'Leary. I confess I feel myself at a loss to answer the question.