V. and VI. The ancients considered all the bishops independent 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 versâ.

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 ordinance, 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 VI.

That in fact the Roman 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.

I. 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 application.

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

III. 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

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

VI. The appointment or confirmation of inferior offices 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 deposed. 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 VII.

That the Papal Supremacy is indefectible and unalterable.

Supposing that the Pope had a universal sovereignty, nevertheless 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 thirtyninth, belonging, as they do, to questions raised by the same classes of schismatics.

PART VI.

CIVIL RIGHTS AND DUTIES.

38. OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS AND MILITARY SERVICE.

39. OF CHRISTIAN MEN'S GOODS.

40. OF A CHRISTIAN MAN'S OATH.