Boultbee on Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates

The corresponding Article (the 36th) of Edward differs from the present chiefly in the portion dealing with the royal supremacy, which was simply asserted as follows : ’ The King of England is Supreme Head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and Lreland.*

The Royal SupREMAcr.

For a Ml comment on this ^lart of the Article we must refer to those portions of civil and ecclesiastical history which treat of the prolonged resistance of the English Crown to the papal claims ; the repudiation of those claims by Henry Y IH. ; the intermediate struggles; and the final establishment of the supremacy imder Elizabeth ; to which we must add th^ extent to which this prerogative was strained by the Tudor and Stuart princes, and the sted£ist opposition carried out through so many years by the Puritans.

In the original statute of 1534, which first declared the royal supremacy, the words used were these : The king ^ shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only and supreme head in earth of the Church of England.’ The title Head was open to

28G ABTICLE XXXVII.

obvious objections as being applied in the New Testament to Girist. Papist and Puritan alike did not lose the opportunity thus opened for acrimonious attacks.

When the royal supremacy was restored by Parliament after Mary’s death, the objectionable word was avoided, and Governor substituted for it. Furthermore this title was ex- plained in the Injunctions to which reference is made in this Article. They were set forth by royal authority in 1559, the first year of Elizabeth, and deal at some length with ecclesias- tical arrangements and discipline. Tht: explanation of the oath of supremacy to which the Article refers is as follows : * Her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons which . . , labour to notify to her loving subjects, how by words of the said oath it may be collected, that the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of divine service in the Church, wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil disposed persons. For certainly her Majesty neither doth, nor ever will, chal- lenge any authority, than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, King Henry VIH. and King Edward VI.; which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this realm ; that is, under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons bom within these her realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal soever they be, so as no other shall or ought to have any superiority over them.’

The supremacy thus given to the Tudor sovereigns was used by them in an arbitrary manner, under the authority of Acts of Parliament, which gave them very large powers over the Church. The truth seems to be that the boundaries of the ecclesiastical, as well as the civil power of the Crown, were very ill defined. They only became ascertained and limited after the severe struggles which culminated in the civil wars and were terminated by the Eevolution.

In the present day the royal supremacy signifies little more than the supremacy of the civil law and courts over ecclesias- tical legislation and jurisdiction. Still this general principle

THE ROYAL SUPBl^MACY. 287

is in several respects brought to bear more closely on the Church of England than on other religious bodies within the realm. The latter are free to make any regulations they please for their own internal government, provided they do not contravene the law. The civil power will only interfere with them for purposes of the common peace and order ; or when invoked by a member of any such body who alleges that he has suffered wrong by the violation in his case of tue laws and regulations of that body. The civil court will then interpose, and compel such a religious body to give to the aggrieved member all the privileges and rights which he enjoys according to the rules imder which that body has constituted itself. Striking instances of this have recently occurred in the history of the Free Church of Scotland, and of the Saurin con- vent case in the Church of Home. These two ecclesiastical bodies have advanced claims of independence irom the State beyond all others. But the civil courts allowed them no exemption from their jurisdiction.

The position of the Church of England, as established, gives to the civil power yet more control in her case. The Church of England has no power to change any portion of the Liturgy or Articles, or to modify any existing canon, or to enact a new one. The Liturgy is sanctioned by Act of Par- liament, and can be altered by no other authority. The Convocation has no power to deliberate on a new canon with- out license from the Crown, nor has such canon, when agreed upon, any force without the royal assent. The patronage of bishoprics and benefices, generally, has perhaps not much to do with this subject, inasmuch as there might be patronage in a Church not established, as for instance in the case of Colonial Sees, or trustees of dissenting chapels. But the use pf the royal supremacy which has attracted most attention, and created most discontent in some quarters, is that the final appeal in ecclesiastical causes has been reserved to the Crown ever since the Heformation. During the papal usurpation the right of appeal lay to the Pope from the bishop’s or arch- bishop’s court Since the declaration of the royal supremacy that appeal has lain not to any ecclesiastical court, but to the

Crown. Subsequently to the accession of Elizabeth the Gonrt of High Commission, usually consisting of bishops and ecde- siastical lawyers, exercised this jurisdiction. The Court of High Commission was abolished just before the civil war, and was not restored with Charles II. Its functions as a court of appeal were transferred to the Court of Delegates appointed by the Sovereign. This was abolished in 1833, and a committee of the Privy Council was specially organised to exercise juris- diction in all cases in which the appeal lies to the Crown. The chief judges of the several courts are members of this board, and in ecclesiastical cases it is necessaiy that at least one bishop shall be present.

It will be observed that whether in the ecclesiastical court, or in the Privy Council, eminent lawyers are the judges. The difference is chiefly one of form. In the Bishop’s Court, or that of Arches, the judge sits under the conmiiBsion of the bishop or archbishop. In the Privy Council all is transacted in the name of the Sovereign; and the final sentence goes forth as the act of the Crown, and not in any ecclesiastical name. It must further be borne in mind that these courts are not legislative. Their province is to interpret the existing law, and that should be deemed the best tribunal which is most competent to investigate and declare the meaning and obligation of the laws.

The Papal Supremacy.

On this point the Article is content simply to deny any jurisdiction of the Pope in this realm of England. But this opens the whole question of his claims. Among the most interesting of modern publications on this subject must be named * The Pope and the Council, by Janus.’ It shows with great historical grasp that the claims of the Popedom were un- known to antiquity ; and it traces out step by step the story of usurpation and forgery which recounts the growth of the papal power. But it will be more satisfactory if, in accord- ance with the principles of this work, we take as our guide in dealing with this subject one of the masterpieces of English theology. For an exhaustive and unanswerable argument we

select Barrow’s * Treatise of the Pope’s Supremacy.’ Arch- bishop Tillotson says of it that * many others have handled the subject before, but he hath exhausted it. […] He hath said enough to silence the controversy for ever, and to deter all wise men, of both sides, from meddling any further with it… . There it neither from Scripture, nor reason, nor antiquity, any evidence of the Pope’s supremacy ; the past and the present state of Christendom, the histories and records of all ages, are a perpetual demonstration against it, and there is no other groimd in the whole world for it, but that now of a long time it hath been by the Pope’s janizaries boldly asserted and stiffly contended for, without reason.’

The following analysis of the principal portions of Barrow’s great treatise may serve to put the student in possession of the main points of the argument. In the Introduction the author takes this preliminary view of the question.

• The disagreement of the Roman doctors about the nature and extent of papal authority is a shrewd prejudice against it. If a man should sue for a piece of land, and his advocates (the notablest that could be had, and well paid) coidd not find where it lieth, how it is butted and bounded, from whom it was conveyed to him, one would be very apt to suspect his title. If God had instituted such an office, it is highly probable we might satisfactorily know what the nature and use of it were : the patents and charters for it woidd declare it. Yet for resolution in this great case we are left to seek ; they not having the will, or the courage, or the power to determine it… . Hence even the anathematizing definers of Trent (the boldest undertakers to decide contro- versies that ever were) did waive this point : the legates of the Pope being enjoined to advertise, that they should not for any cause whatever come to dispute of the Pope’s authority.*

Barrow then proceeds to examine, with numerous quotations from leading Romish divines and papal bulls, what is the most received doctrine on the supremacy. He admits that there have been and are low^er opinions of it in the Roman Ohurch, e,g, that the Pope is subject more or less to a General Council, or to the established canons of the Church* It is notorious

that this was maintained in the Councils of Pisa, Constance and Basil. But although these decisions receiyed papal confir- mation, it is certain that they have been repeatedly repudiated. Barrow brings a strong array of papal and other quotations to prove that the papal supremacy has been most generally held to involve rmiversal dominion. In the words of the bull of Pius y. against Elizabeth, ’ this one [the Pope] he hath con- stituted prince over all nations and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, dc’stroy, dissipate, ruinate, plant, build.*

The degree in which temporal power over Christendom is really claimed, is (as is well known) much disputed. Bellar- mine vouches for the common opinion of Catholics that ’ by reason of the spiritual power, the Pope, at least indirectly, hath a supreme power even in temporal matters.’ This, in the opinion of Barrow, really amounts to the same thing. We may now add to this the &mous encyclical of the present Pope (1864), distinctly re-asserting the subjection of the civil power, and its obligation to punish heresy at the call of the Church. And the decree of the recent Vatican Council has made bind- ing on all Romanists what were previously the private opinions of the Ultramontanes among them. But although the civil supremacy thus claimed makes the assumption the more glaring to those who know history, yet the ecclesiastical supremacy alone, together with its essential consequences, is necessary to Barrow’s argument.

To clear thinking, clearness of arrangement is indispensable. Each grows out of, and leads to, the other by an inevitable law. In proceeding to discuss the question of the papal supremacy, Barrow distributes the Roman claim to a perpetual primacy and authority, derived from St. Peter and trans- missible to all iiiture ages, into the following seven sup- positions : —

I. That Peter had a primacy over the apostles. II. That Peter’s primacy, with its rights and prerogatives, was not personal, but derivable to his successors.

III. That Peter was Bishop of Rome.

IV. That Peter did continue Bishop of Rome^ after his trans-

latiou; and was so at his decease.

BARROW ON THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 2fll

V. That the Bishops of Rome (according to God’s ordinance and by original right derived thence) should have a universal supremacy and juri^ction over the Christian CJhurch. YL That in point of fact the Roman bishops continually, from Peter’s time, have eigoyed and exercised this sovereign power. YII. That this power is indefectible ai^d unalterable.

To fix these seven suppositions carefully i the naind, and to consider them in the light of the scriptiiral and historic knowledge already (as it is hoped) possessed by the studeti must at once, in his mind, be fatil to the papal olainis. The strength, of a chain consists in the tsenacily and hold of each link. If one link fail the chain is brokeix. If any ope of thse seven suppositions be false, the argument for the papacy has £iiled.

The examination of these sevqn auppositiops forms so many sections, into which the work is .diyi4e4* It is proposed now to give the outline of the consider^tiou of each supposition.

Supposition I. That St. Peter had a Primacy over the JLpo^tles*

There are four kinds of Primacy ; —

I. Of Personal Excellence, n. Of Reputation.

III. Of Order or ^Precedence.

IV. Of Power or Jurisdiction.

I. The first of these Barrow grants to St. Peter on the con- sideration of several passages of Scripture.

n. The second he is also ready to grant, referring to Gal. ii. 2, 6, 9, &c.

III. On examining several passages 3an’ow thinks that

St. Peter was the first called to be an apostle — the first who

avowed our Lord’s divinity — perhaps the oldest — first in the

list of the apostles, &c. He would, therefore, grant a sort

of precedence of order, but not of degree or rank.

xj2

IV. Barrow denies a primacy of jurisdiction, on the fol- lowing grounds :—

1. That there would have been a dear diyine commission to such a primacy.

2. When was such an office instituted ? Barrow examines St. Peter^s position at different times ; and observes that the Lord did enjoin humility towards each other, but never sub- mission to him as superior.

3. Peter’s office would have been distinct in character and title from that of the other aposties.

4. No higher title than apostle was known. (Eph. iv. 1 1.)

5. Our Lord positively declared against such a primacy* (Luke xxiL 24-30.)

6. Particular passages having been examined, it is con- cluded that no administration was given to St. Peter which was not elsewhere granted to the other aposties.

7. Peter in his two Episties makes no intimation of such a power.

8. In the Acts of the Aposties, where Christ’s words are reduced to action, no trace whatever of such power is to be foimd, but rather the contrary.

9. In all controversies in Scripture no appeal is ever made to St. Peter’s judgment — nothing said of obeying or dis- obeying him.

10. The apostles acted independentiy of each other in Church organisation. This was especially true of St. PauL

11. The apostolic ministry was exercised through such remote regions that St. Peter coidd not exercise such a power.

12. The apostles had the only superintendence tiiey needed, the promised Paraclete.

13. St. Paul’s conduct towards St. Peter showed that he acknowledged no subjection to him.

14. On the supposition of this primacy, St. Peter ought to have outlived the other apostles. Otherwise, during the last thirty years of the first century, was St. John subordinate to the Bishop of Rome ?

15. The other apostles might claim superiority on the same grounds as St. Peter.

16. The Fathers down to Jerome and Chrysostom assert the equality of power and authority amon^ the apostles.

17. The most eminent Fathers, speaking at length of St. Peter, mention no such prerogative.

18. Romish argimients for the superiority of St. Peter are refuted— .especially these six particulars are closely examined:

(1) Peter the Rock. Matt. xvi. 18.

(2) The keys. Matt. xvi. 19.

(3) Feed my sheep. John xxi. 16.

(4) Sundry other passages in which Peter is prominent in Action.

(5) The order of the names in the lists of the apostles.

(6) Patristic testimony.

Supposition II.

That St Peter* 8 Primacy, with its rights and prei’ogatives, was not personal, but derivable to his successors.

Whatever may have been the nature of St. Peter’s authority, Barrow lays down the following conclusions relating to it : —

I. It was grounded on personal acts and qualities.

n. That all the passages relied upon by Romanists (see above) are accomplished and exhausted iu St. Peter’s own person.

III. That a foundation is laid once for all ; successors must be only superstructure.

lY. That the apostleship was in its nature extraordinary and personal, and, therefore, not derivable.

y. That the other apostles (as such) had no successors.

294 AETICLE XXXVn.

Hence there could be no remaining primacy among the apostles, if there was no such body.

VI. If some privileges of Sti Peter are derivable, why not all?

YII. If it be ^d that the bishops are successors of the apostles, it may be granted in certain respects, they having originally received jurisdiction and authority from the apostles. But inasmuch as they existed with the apostles, they cannot, as Bellarmine argues, be properly their successors.

Yin. In the permissible sense of tiis word, all faiahopB are equally successors of the apostles.

IX. That this last is the sense in which Cyprian and others hold this transmission.

X. That St. Peter and other apostles transmitted this derivable power equally to the bishop of every church they founded.

XI. That thus Irenseus and others claim this succession even for bishops of churches not planted by the apostles.

Xn. That the distinction claimed by Eomanists for some- thing peculiarly transmissible in Peter has no ground.

XIII. That so momentous a claim could not have been avoided by Scripture and by the first Fathers, all of whom are ffllent upon it.

XrV. If such a succession had been designed and known, it is impossible that Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, &c., expounding the very passages relied on by Romanists, should not in some way have touched upon it.

Supposition HI.

That St, Peter was Bishop of Home,

The following considerations make against such a suppo- sition : —

I. This would confound the two oflices of bishop and apostle distinct by God’s appointment ; —

n. Distinct also by the nature of their duties.

III. For St. Peter to become Bishop of Rome would be aa if the King should become Lord Mayor of London.

rV. Having the superior charge, St. Peter would not need the inferior and particular authority.

V. St. Peter’s apostleship of the circumcision gave him special charge of the Jews throughout the world.

VI. In fact, as far as we can gather, St. Peter travelled much, and could seldom reside in Home. Various circum- stances related of Peter are here examined to show this.

VII. Repeats HL and IV.

VIII. He would have given a bad example of non -residence, censured bj all primitive canons.

IX. For St. Peter to be Bishop of Rome would offend against the earliest church rules— especially against

X. One forbidding the translation of a bishop to another see — for the Romanists make Peter to have been first Bishop of Antioch, then of Rome —

XI. And against another forbidding two bishops to preside in the same city.

Supposition IV.

That St Peter did continue Bishop of Borne after his trans^ lation {from Antioch), and was so at his decease.

The following opposing considerations are alleged: —

I. Early writers give different accounts of this, saying that Peter, or Peter and Paul, appointed other persons to be bishop, Linus, or Clemens, or Anacletus. Hence he was either never bishop or did not continue so, for —

II. This would have been a great irregularity according to early canons, which forbade a bishop even at the point of death to appoint a successor.

HI. Yet if he were bishop, he divested himself of the office by appointing Linus or Clemens.

IV. In short, either St. Peter retained the episcopacy, in which case there were more Bishops of Rome than one at the same time ; or else he resigned it, and did not die Bishop of Rome.

V. Hence the ancient expressions about St. Peter’s bishopric must be imderstood of his exercising the apostleship in that

city, as Ruffiniu says, ‘while there was a bishop there in the proper sense.

VL The most ancient writers never expressly style St. Peter Bishop of Rome.

Vn. The lists of Roman bishops sometimes count in the apostles, sometimes not, as in other churches also.

yni. Other churches besides Rome were called apostolical sees, as Ephesus, &c.

IX. The apostolical constitutions, recounting the first bishops, never reckon any of the apostles.

X. All apostles had full episcopal power, wherever fhey were, as the greater includes the less.

XI. It is aigued that James, an apostle, was Bishop of Jerusalem. Answer, The weight of testimony is against James the son of Alphseus, who was an apostle, being identical with James, the Lord^s brother, who was Bishop of Jerusalem. [See Lightfoot’s Dissertation, in his ’ Commentary on the Epistle to Galatians/] But if he were an apostle, there were special reasons why one of the apostles should have a fixed residence in the city which was the fountain and centre of Christianity.

Supposition V.

That the Bishops of Borne {according to God’s institution and “by original right derived from thence’) should have an universal supremacy and jurisdiction over the Christian Church.

This supposition is treated under the following heads : —

I. The previous four suppositions failing, this of necessity falls to the ground.

II. But admitting those suppositions, this fifth does not of necessity follow. For the jurisdiction of St. Peter might have existed, and might have been transmitted, and yet not to the Bishop of Rome, but, for example, to the whole college of bishops.

III. This kind of transmission of the apostolical authority, in fact, was the doctrine of the early Fathers, especially of Cyprian, the Apostolical Constitutions, &c.

rV. Other bishops of churches of apostolical foundation claimed to be successors of the apostles in the same sense atf they admitted the Bishop of Rome to be successor of Peter. Yet they did not claim jurisdiction out of their own diocese.

V. St. James, Bishop of Jemsalem (called an apostle in the Roman liturgy) was more certainly Bishop of Jerusalem than St. Peter was of Rome. And Jerusalem, not Rome, was called mother of all the churches by the Second General Council. Yet the Bishops of Jerusalem, successors of St. James, claimed no general jurisdiction.

VI. As St. Peter founded other churches, and is called by some writers Bishop of Antioch, why should not such suc- cession, if existing, appertain to the Bishop of Antioch ?

VII. They say the succession came to Rome by St. Peter’s will. It is asked where such will is to be found.

VIII. Bellarmine asserts positively God’s command to St. Peter to fix his see at Rome. But afterward overturns this by saying Non eat tmprobabile that God commanded, &c.

IX. Antioch at least has a plea for a share in Peter’s pre- rogatives. Query, what share ?

X. St. John, perhaps, might have, at least, equal claim with St. Peter, as the surviving apostle.

XL The Bishop of Jerusalem might put in his claim as successor of Christ Himself, even although St. Peter might have had jurisdiction for his life.

Xn. A successor of St. Peter would more fairly be ap- pointed by the suffrages of the whole Church, than by the votes of a few persons at Rome for a bishop there.

XIII. If God had purposed such a succession of xmiversal sovereignty. He would not have left the mode of election so uncertain as that to the see of Rome has been.

XIV. Other sovereignties, though assured at first, have passed into uncertain channels. *Who is heir-at-law of Adam?’ So there might be a monarchy in Peter and in some successors, and yet by defect of title it might now be lost.

XV. It cannot be proved that God intended the Church to have any one imvarying mode of government.

298 AETICLB XXXVn.

XYL In &ct. there have been long intervals when there was no Bishop of Rome at all. Of which vacancies Barrow gives ten classes.

[…]

This portion of the Treatise must be very briefly epitomised. I. The papal supremacy has neither divine nor human testimony, as shown in the following particulars.

1. On such a point God would have plainly declared His will.

2. Obedience to higher powers is inculcated. How could obedience to the universal pastor be omitted ?

3. The apostles remember the temporal sovereign ; how coidd they forget the Pope ?

4. St. Paul, writing to the Romans, and also from Home, omits altogether any privileges of that see.

5. No early Father, though noticing many traditions, has any relating to papal authority.

6. Eusebius gives a fuU. list of Roman bishops, but has nothing about their supremacy.

9-11. It is unnoticed by any ancient summary of doctrine, catechetical discourses, or synods.

12, 13. Early popes did not assert it, and persons denying popes’ decrees were not called heretics.

14. A omiversal empire would have been most offensive to pagans, but not one names such a thing.

15. Constantine and other emperors woidd not have embraced a religion with such claims.

16, 17, 18. The apostolical canons and the Pseudo-Diony- sius Areopagita and Ignatius define ecclesiastical orders, but do not name the supremacy.

19, 20, 21. Early popes do not use any sovereign style, and other bishops address them as equals.

22-26. This dogma is never alleged against heretics by the Fathers, nor by early Popes, all of whom do, however, appeal to Church tradition against heretics.

27. The voluminous works of ancient Fathers from Origen to Augustine, contain no such dogma, not even when treating on Tu es Petrus.

n. This pretence is contrary to Scripture.

1. It invades the prerogative of Christ.

2. It makes the Church a temporal dominion.

3. It destroys the brotherly equality of bishops.

4. It denies the Scriptural rights of individual churches.

5. It takes away the liberties of Christian people.

6. It deprives princes of their rights oter part of their subjects.

III. As Romanists little regard Scripture proo&, further, it crosses tradition and the Fathers.

1. Usage shows right — ^there was no such usage.

2. The state of the early Church did not admit it.

3. The Fathers knew nothing above a bishop.

lY. Arguments against the papal supremacy from abstract considerations.

1. The inconvenience of such a dependence of distant Churches ; and the impossibility of one man governing an overgrown dominion.

2. By its very nature such a power would be encroaching and exorbitant.

3. It would naturally make religion and doctrine subserve its own interests.

4. Errors so introduced would be unchangeable.

5-7. The officers of such a power woidd inevitably become corrupt, and such corruption would be perpetual, and re-act imfavourably on the pontiff.

8, 9. It must clash from time to time with civil power, and hence indispose princes to Christianity itself.

10. It is more safe and natural that national Churches should exist independently of each other.

11. Such a power is needless and useless.

V. and VI. The ancients considered all the bishops indepen- dent in their own diocese, and equal amongst each other.

VII. The ancient bishops, when occasion arose, asserted their equality with the Roman bishops.

VIII. The primitive bishops addressed the Roman bishops as * brother or colleague,* and vice versd,

IX. The original ground of eminence given to the see of Rome is shown to be its dignity and importance as the capital of the empire.

X. All prerogatives of particular sees were of human ordi- nance, for purposes of order or of local or other convenience. This is proved by a careful examination of the patriarchal and other jurisdictions in the early Church.

Finally, the growth of papal power is historically traced to a concurrence of causes, arranged under thirty-six heads.

Supposition VL

That in fact the Boman Bishops continually, from St. Peter’s time, have enjoyed and exercised this sovereign power ^

This is a question of fact, to decide which the principal branches of sovereignty are individually examined.

L Such a sovereign would have power to convene supreme councils, &c., and would have used it.

It is proved, on the contrary, that this never was done but by the emperors, and that sometimes on the Pope’s appli- cation.

II. Such a sovereign would preside over, and moderate in, all general synods. But it is shown that the Emperor or his commissaries presided.

m. Legislative power would belong to such a sovereign of the Church, or at least a power of veto. It is, however, proved that acts of the general councils were ratified by the Emperors, not by the Popes.

IV. Such absolute sovereignty would enact or dispense with laws. The legislative usages of the early Church negatives such a power in the Pope.

V. Such a sovereign as the Pope claims to be would exercise

nniversal jurisdiction. It is shown that such an authority was unknown.

VI. The appointment or confirmation of inferior oflSces would appertain to such a sovereign. The early modes of electing bishops, popes, and other ministers of the Church being examined, it is shown that the popes had no such power.

VII.-X. Powers of censure and deprivation, of absolving and restoring bishops, would appertain to such a sovereign, but it is shown that these belonged to synods. Power also of receiving appeals, and commissioning other bishops, would belong to him. But it is shown that this only became so by gradual encroachment

XI. Such a sovereign could be neither censured nor de- posed. But popes have suffered both of these.

XII.-XIX. Other branches of sovereignty are similarly examined.

All these are claimed by the popes, and are all unknown to the early Church,

Supposition VIE.

That the Papal Supremacy is indefectible and unalterable.

Supposing that the Pope had a universal sovereignty, never- theless change of circumstances might have brought it to an end. But especially departure from the true doctrine of Holy Scripture would terminate it, as Ambrose says, * They have not the inheritance of Peter who have not the faith of Peter.’ This leads the author to a detailed statement of the doctrinal errors of the Roman Church, with which the Treatise closes.

The remaining two clauses of the thirty-seventh Article will be examined in connexion with the thirty-eighth and thirty- ninth, belonging, as they do, to questions raised by the same classes of schismatics.

r

Part VI.

.OF CHRISTIAN MEN’S GOODS. 89. OF A CHRISTIAN MAN’S OATH.

m

■‘i ■■

..V

S05

ARTICLES XXXVIIL and XXXIX.

Notes

• . That there is no account of the time, manner, &c., of St. Peter being vested with such authority, nor of the nature and rules of such an office.
• . St. Peter nowhere appears as a judge. Also 1 Cor. L 12 (I am of Cephas, i&c.) is inconsistent with a popedom in St. Peter.
• . The New Testament does contain precepts on the order and ministers of the Church, &c. How could a mention of the spiritual monarch have been avoided, if he existed ?
• . St. Peter (1. Ep. iL 13-17) urges obedience to kings. Why did he forget his successor ? The Mse decretals every- where urge obedience to the Pope.