the infallibility and absolute power of the pope is not de fide, that it may be disputed in the catholic church; and yet have the confidence to assert that the communion of the Roman pontiff is absolutely necessary to every part of the catholic church. How is it possible that, if the pontiff may fall into error in faith, his communion must always be necessary? How can it be always and absolutely necessary, if he may make regulations in spirituals and temporals under penalty of excommunication, which churches are not bound to obey? If churches are justified in refusing unreasonable demands of the Roman pontiff; if they are justified in preserving their own liberties, and the sacred canons; if they are entitled to defend the christian truth supported by scripture, tradition, and the decrees of œcumenical synods, even against the Roman pontiff; then they are still churches of Christ, although that prelate should have excommunicated them; and though other churches, under an exaggerated opinion of the necessity of obeying him, should view them as blameable or even heretical.

II. I have already shown that there is no sufficient proof that the Roman pontiff is by divine right the successor of St. Peter; but the absolute necessity of being in his communion, rests entirely on this supposition.

III. The catholic church has never judged communion with the Roman pontiff always and absolutely necessary. The bishops of Asia were acknowledged as brethren by the rest of the church, though Victor separated them from his communion. St. Cyprian and the African bishops did not cease to be catholics though pope Stephen excommunicated them; and St. Firmilian declared to that prelate, that so unjust an

a

excommunication only separated its author from catholic unity. Meletius, bishop of Antioch, was not in communion with Damasus, and yet he was acknowledged by all the eastern church; and was afterwards accounted a saint by the church generally. Atticus of Constantinople, and St. Hilary of Arles, were respectively not in communion with Innocentius and Leo of Rome, and yet no one doubts their communion with the catholic church. And "who," says Du Pin, “would dare to say that Athanasius and the rest were schismatics, and the Arians in the church, because Liberius admitted the latter to his communion, and rejected the former ?" Therefore the Roman pontiff is not the centre of unity in such a sense, that whoever is separated from his communion is cut off from the catholic church. This in fact must be admitted after all by Romanists. Delahogue says: "It is to be observed, that the centre of unity, though necessary to the church, may be interrupted, in that respect by which all catholics are united by the same visible bond of communion; for during forty years of the great western schism, various competitors for the pontificate had their respective obediences; and each of them excommunicated those which did not adhere to them. we have proved that none of these obediences were schismatical"." Hence it is plain that Romanists cannot affix the charge of schism on any church merely from the fact of its not being in the Roman communion. Would they in reality themselves submit to any regulations whatever in ecclesiastical affairs, that the Roman pontiff should choose to make, provided that they were enforced under penalty of excommunication?

But

Delahogue, De Eccl. Christi, p. 393.

We know perfectly well that they would not: and therefore they cannot condemn any church from the mere fact of its being separated from the papal com munion.

OBJECTIONS.

I. Irenæus says, "To this (Roman) church, on account of her superior principality, every church must resort, that is the faithful everywhere; in which church. the apostolical tradition was always preserved by them." Therefore communion with the Roman church was necessary.

Answer. Irenæus says the necessity of resorting to the Roman church, arose from "the principality" or pre-eminence of that church: but he does not say that this pre-eminence is of divine institution: therefore he does not teach that the necessity of resorting to that church is of divine institution.

II. Cyprian, in writing to Cornelius of Rome, says, that "the unity of the catholic church" is to be found in his communion d.

Answer. It was so: for Cornelius was the bishop of the catholic church at Rome, while Novatian was bishop of the schismatics. Therefore the communion of Cornelius was that of the catholic church.

III. Ambrose says that his brother Satyrus, when near his death, inquired of the bishop whom he had sent for in order to receive baptism, "whether he agreed with the catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman church ?"

e

Answer. The Roman church was, at that time, the

Irenæus, adv. Hæres. lib.

iii. c. 3.

d Cyprian. Epist. 45. 52.

e Ambros. Liber de Excessu Fratris. n. 47.

principal orthodox church; Satyrus mentioned it, not as the centre of unity by divine institution; but in order to designate more particularly the faith which he approved.

IV. Jerome wrote to pope Damasus: "I am of the communion of your holiness, that is of the chair of Peter: on that rock I know the church is built. Whoever eateth the lamb beyond that house is profane. I know not Vitalis, Meletius I reject, Paulinus is unknown to me. Whoever gathereth not with thee, scattereth f."

Answer. These were three rival bishops at Antioch, each of whom seemed not without a reasonable claim. In this perplexity, Jerome wrote from Syria to Damasus, with whom the whole catholic church communicated at that time, to enquire which of these bishops was acknowledged by him; as this would determine which was in communion with the catholic church, and therefore which ought to be acknowledged. This is the real meaning of Jerome's complimentary expressions to Damasus.

V. Optatus argues with the Donatists that, "an episcopal chair was first conferred on St. Peter in the city of Rome,. . . in which all should preserve unity, lest the other apostles might each claim it for themselves; so that whoever should set up a chair against the one chair, should be a schismatic and an offender. It was in this one chair, which is the first of the gifts of the church, that St. Peter first sat ;" to whom others succeeded till Damasus, "who is now our colleague, with whom all the world is united with us in the

same communion, keeping correspondence by circular letters ""

h

Answer. It is not denied, that S. Optatus in arguing against the Donatists as to the "cathedra" which they admitted to be one of the gifts of the church, refers to the chair of Peter at Rome as constituting the centre of unity in the catholic church. It was so in fact at that time, and had very long been so. But Optatus does not affirm that it was in such a sense the centre of unity, that whatever churches should be at any time separated from its communion must be schismatic or heretic. It may be added, that the argument of this holy bishop alone, is quite insufficient to establish an article of faith, or even to render a doctrine probable.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN SEE.

THOUGH it has been shown that the bishop of Rome has not by divine or human right any proper jurisdiction over the universal church, it would be equally unjust to that see, to the primitive church, and to ourselves, to deny or diminish the ancient legitimate privileges of the chair of St. Peter.

While all bishops are alike successors of the apostles, it cannot be denied that the bishops of metropolitan and patriarchal sees have influence and authority in the church generally, in proportion to the dignity of their

h Optatus, Lib. ii. De Schism. Donatist.