Full text of "The supremacy of St. Peter : and his successors the Roman pontiffs ; with some strictures on "A discourse on papal infallibility" by Robert Lee, D.D. ; lectures delivered in St. John's Catholic Church, Perth"

See other formats

NEW PUBLICATIONS,

INCLUDING THE NEWEST CATHOLIC CONTROVERSIAL WORKS.

K I PT ON SALE BT

MARSH & BEATTIE,

(AGENTS fOR c. OOUCAN, LONDON,)

13 SOUTH HANOVER STREET, EDINBURGH.

AUDIN'S HISTORY OF HENRY THE VI [1., AND THE SCHISM
OF ENGLAND. Translated from the French by Edward George
Kirwan Browne. Svo. cloth, Ss. 6d.

BALMEZ, (REV. J.) PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY.

Compared in their Effects on the Civilization of Europe. Svo. 9s.

BENEDICT XIV. (POPE) ON HEROIC VIRTUE; a portion of the
Treatise of Benedict XIV. on the Beatification and Canonization
of the Servants of God. Translated from the Latin. 3 vols. Svo.
cloth, 12s.

BONOMI (J.) NINEVEH AND ITS PALACES. Illustrated. Svo.
cloth, onJy 6s.

CALVIN, HISTORY OF HIS LIFE AND DOCTRINES, from the
French of Audin. Svo. cloth, 10s. 6'd.

CANONS AND DECREES OF THE SACRED AND (ECUMENI-
CAL DECREES OF TKENT, celebrated under the Sovereign
Pontiffs, Paul III., Julius III., and Pius IV.; translated by the
.Rev. J. Waterworth; to which are prefixed Essays on the External
and Internal History of the Council. Svo. cloth. 10s. 6'd.

CATHOLIC PULPIT, containing a Sermon for every Sunday and
Holiday in the Year. 2nd Edit. Svo. cloth, 10s. 6d.

COMPITUM; or, The Meeting of the Ways of the Catholic Church.
5 Books published, price 5s. each. Books 1 and 2, with Appendix.
6s. each.

CONTROVERSY ON THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
OF ROME, and on Article VI. of the Church of England, between
the Right Rev. Dr Brown, R.C., Bishop of Newport, and the Rev.
Joseph Baylee, M.A., Principal of St Aidan's College, Birkenhead.
Svo. cloth. 5s.

DE PONT E, S. J. (VEN. FATHER LOUIS) MEDITATIONS ON
THE MYSTERIES OF OUR HOLY FAITH; together with a
treatise on Mental Prayer. Being the translation from the Original
Spanish by John Heigham. Revised and Corrected. Vol. 1, price
3s. The Work to be completed in 6 vols 18s.

FAITH OF CATHOLICS ON CERTAIN POINTS OF CONTRO-
VERSY, confirmed by vScripture, and attested by the Fathers of the
first five centuries of the Church. Compiled by the Rev. Joseph
Berington and the Rev'. John Kirk. Third edition, revised and
greatly enlarged by the Rev. J. Waterworth. 3 vols, Svo. 3 Is. 6d.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

HAHN HAHN, (COUNTESS) FROM BABYLON TO JERUSALEM.
Translated from the German by Elizabeth Atcherley. 8vo. cloth, 9s.

FROM JERUSALEM. 8vo. cloth, 9s.

HAY, (KIGHP REV. DR.) SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF MIRA-
CLES DISPLAYED. 2 vols. 12mo. cloth, 5s. New Edition.

HOLY SCRIPTURES ; their Origin, Progress, Transmission, Cor-
ruptions, and True Character. l8mo. cloth, Is. 6'd.

HUG, (M.) TRAVELS IN TARTARY, THIBET, AND CHINA.

Translated from the French. Illustrated Edition. 2 vols. 8vo.
cloth, gilt, only 5s.

KEENAN, (REV. STEPHEN) CONTROVERSIAL CATECHISM;

or, Protestantism Refuted and Catholicism Established, by an appeal
to the Holy Scriptures, the testimony of the holy Fathers, and the
dictates of Reason; in which such portions of Scheffmacher's Cate-
chism as suit modern Controversy are embodied. Revised and en-
larged, (ninth thousand,) price Is. 6d. sewed, 2s. cloth.

CATECHISM OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION : being,

with some small changes, a Compendium of the Catechism of Mont-
pellier, in which, by the light of Scripture and Tradition, are ex-
plained the History, Dogmas, Morality, Sacraments, Prayers,
Ceremonies, and Usages of the Church of Christ. 12mo. 2 vols. 5s.

KENRICK. F. P., (Bishop of Philadelphia) PRIMACY OF THE
APOSTOLIC SUE VINDICATED. 8vo. cloth, 8s. 6d.

TREATISE ON BAPTISM. 12mo. cloth, 3s. 6d.

THE FOUR GOSPELS. Translated from the Latin Vulgate,

being a revision of the Rhemish Translation, with Notes Critical and
Explanatory. 8vo. cloth, 10s. Od.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, THE EPISTLES, AND

THE APOCALYPSE. 8vo. cloth, 12<. 6d.

P. R., (Bishop of St Louis,) VALIDITY OF ANGLICAN

ORDINATIONS EXAMINED. 12mo. cloth, 4s.

LINGARD, (REV. DR.) HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from the first
Invasion of the Romans, to the Reign of William and Mary, in the
year 1688. Handsomely printed in ten large octavo volumes, price
Six Pounds, cloth lettered.

CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTIONS ON THE DOCTRINES

AND WORSHIP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. A New
Edition. 18mo. Is.

A NEW VERSION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS; with

Notes, Critical and Explanatory. 8vo. la. 6d. in boards.

LIVES OF THE MOST EMINENT PAINTERS, SCULPTORS,
AND ARCHITECTS, OF THE ORDER OF S. DOMINIC.

Translated from the Italian of Father Marchese, with Notes by the
Rev. C. P. MEEHAN. 2 vols. Svo. 10s. cloth.

THE

SUPREMACY OF ST PETER

HIS SUCCESSORS THE ROMAN PONTIFFS.

" A DISCOURSE ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY,"

BY ROBERT LEE, D.D.,

DELIVERED IN ST JOHN'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, PERTH,

REV. JOHN S. M'CORRY, M. AR

EDINBURGH:
MARSH AND BEATTIE, 13 SOUTH HANOVER STREET;

MARGEY, GLASGOW J DRUMMOND, PERTH ;

CHARLES DOLMAN, LONDON ; G. BELLE W, DUBLIN ;

AND ALL BOOKSELLERS,

1852.

P R!E F A C EL

HAD the writer proposed to himself simply a Treatise
on the important subject which he has ventured to handle,
much of what is found in the following pages would neces-
sarily have been excluded. He had in view, however, not
only to vindicate the Supremacy of the Apostolic See, but
also to expose the sophistry of the " Discourse on Papal In-
fallibility;" and therefore has he been led into many inciden-
tal, but he hopes not irrelevant, observations. How far he
has succeeded, it is for others to judge. Of this, however,
he feels satisfied, that at a time when the Press is literally
teeming with anti-Catholic publications, any apology, how-
ever slender, for the ancient faith of Christendom, will be
heartily welcomed by the children of Holy Church. In
the Lectures delivered — the substance of which is here

jv PREFACE.

given — he made it his study to press home on his separated
brethren the absolute necessity of recognising the Roman
Pontiff as the one ecumenical Primate of Christ's Church, to,
whom obedience in spirituals is most justly due, and ought
certainly to be rendered ; for unless the Head is acknow-
ledged, there never can be unity among the members. It
was well observed by Grotius, that " without the primacy
of the Pope, controversy becomes endless ;" and Leibnitz,
in his letter to the Landgrave of Hesse-Rheinfels, wrote
these remarkable words :• — " I have given it, in express
terms, as my opinion, that if we could remedy the ills which
afflict the Church by recognising the Primacy of the Pope,
m» should be wrong not to do it"

Now, if these distinguished men, many years ago, freely
admitted that the only prospect for religious peace was to
rally round the chair of Peter at Rome, how much more
emphatically would they now write, seeing that Protestant-
ism is daily increasing, not in numerical strength, but ra-
ther, so to speak, in numerical division. The Supremacy
of the Holy Roman See, on the other hand, is the first
link in that glorious chain of unity which girds the entire
globe, and which binds together the members of the mys-
tical body of Christ in the profession of the same faith, in
the participation of the same sacraments, and in the recog-
nition of the same visible Head. This unity of the Church,
being on<> of her characteristic notes, is so essentially con-

PREFACE.

centred in the See of Peter, that the ancient Christian
writers have with one accord declared,

" Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia."

Sx JOHN'S CATHOLIC CHURCH,
PERTH,

Feast of St Gregory VII. Pope, Confessor.
May, 1852.

CONTENTS.

PRELIMINARIES, ., . if

I. THE SUPREMACY PROMISED,. . 20

II. THE SUPREMACY INSTITUTED^ 55

III. THE SUPREMACY EXERCISED, . 82

IV. THE SUPREMACY PERPETUATED, MO

THE SUPREMACY OF ST PETER, ft*

I COME this evening to treat a vitally important sub-
ject— a subject which, has of late engrossed much
public attention — I come to speak of the Supremacy
of the Pope I The very word is electric — it awakens
a world of thought. Yet how varied and how con-
flicting the ideas which are associated with that ever-
venerable name ! In Great Britain, where there is
such a multitude of contradictory creeds — all rejoicing
in the privilege of mutual recrimination, yet all hush-
ing up their differences for the while, to make com-
mon cause against the ancient Church — the Pope is
viewed, by the eyes of fanaticism, as " the Man of Sin
— the Son of Perdition — the very Antichrist — the little
horn" mentioned by the prophet Daniel — in a word, a&
the incarnation of all that is wicked ! By the children
of Holy Church, however, the Sovereign Pontiff is
looked up to with affectionate devotedness, as Christ's
representative and vicegerent upon earth — as the
Primate of Christendom — as the common Father of
all the faithful — as the heavenly appointed guar-
dian of the souls of men — as, under God, the uni-
versal Shepherd of the sheepfold of Christ.

Sundry reasons have induced me to select this sub-
ject for a series of Lectures : one of which is, the
publication of " A Discourse on Papal Infallibility,"
by the Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University
of Edinburgh. Now, before pronouncing on the
merits of this rather curious lucubration, it will be

desirable to place Catholic doctrine in its proper point
of view.

We Catholics, then, believe that a Church was in-
stituted by Jesus Christ to be the sole depositary of
his religion, and to transmit that religion inviolate to
the remotest posterity. We believe that this Church is
a perfectly organized body, acting in a visible manner,
and through visible agencies, — having a regular sys-
tematic spiritual government — a government which is
judicial, with the power of settling all matters' in dis-
pute— a government which is legislative, with the power
of framing such la\\s as may meet the exigencies of the
times — and a government which is executive, with the
power of enforcing its decrees, under the severest spi-
ritual censures. We believe that this Church, form-
ing the mystical body of Christ upon earth, is distri-
buted into two grand departments — the pastors teach-
ing, and the people taught — the priests, the Lord's
anointed, who are the dispensers of the mysteries of
God, and the faithful, to whom those sacred ordi-
nances are dispensed. We moreover believe, that as
the Church is composed of men, and not of angels, it
necessarily presents a visible body ; and being a visible
body, it must have a visible head. The mystical body
of Christ, which is his Church, is one ; therefore the
Head must be one : but the body is visible, therefore
the Head must be visible also. Now it has ever
been the belief of Catholics that St Peter was ap-
pointed by Christ Jesus as the visible head of his
Church, and that the successors of St Peter have in-
herited the self-same rights with which he, in the first
instance, had been invested. For let it be remem-
bered that the privileges of the pastors of the Church
were not mere personal gifts, but rather attached to
the office of the ministry, and as being essentially
connected with that office must they of necessity de-
scend. St Peter was the head of the Church, and
was the first Bishop of Rome ; therefore the Roman

Pontiffs are indisputably his successors. St Peter had
a primacy of order or rank among the apostles, and
likewise a supremacy of power and of jurisdiction
over the universal Church : therefore, by right of suc-
cession, the Roman Pontiffs are possessed of identi-
cally the same heaven-born prerogatives." This is my
position — this I proceed to demonstrate.

PRELIMINARIES.

Before entering on the line of argument which I
mean to pursue, permit me some preliminary re-
marks. In previous Lectures I have proved that
St Peter was at Rome, and was the first Bishop of
Rome. When, then, we speak of the supremacy of the
Pope, we understand that, being Bishop of Rome, he is
the lawful successor of St Peter, and invested with the
plenitude of power and jurisdiction over the entire
Church. This power — this jurisdiction, is completely
spiritual, and does not interfere in the slightest de-
gree with that temporal allegiance which is due to
the Sovereign under whose government, for the time
being, we may live. The supremacy of the Pope is
therefore of a purely spiritual complexion, and is by
no means necessarily connected with any temporal
sway. Yet from the time of Pepin, in the eighth
century,- the Popes have held dominion over the
Roman States. This temporal sovereignty is not,
however, a necessary adjunct to the papal character,
for the supremacy of St Peter's successors over the
whole Church was the same before it was acquired, as it
would be the same, should it happen to be lost. So
that the Supreme Pontiff would be as much the Head
of the Church, whether, like so many of his predeces-
sors, he might fly for refuge to the Catacombs, or
come forth to be martyred in the Forum, or be taken
a prisoner by the enemy, or be driven into banishment ;

and the echo of his paternal voice, from the deepest
dungeon or the remotest region under heaven, would
be borne on the wings of the wind to the extremities of
the globe, and would be as eagerly heard, and as wil-
lingly obeyed, by 250 millions of Catholics scattered
throughout the world, as when from his throne in
the Vatican, or Quirinal Palace, he sends forth
his sacred rescripts, stamped with the seal of the
Fisherman, to confound the undermining diplo-
matists of the day, and to teach men " truth, and
justice, and judgment," and to comfort his suffering
children with the assurance, that for the sake of the
" lambs and the sheep" committed to his care, he is
ever ready " to spend and be spent." Oh ! well may
the common Father of the faithful say, in the language
of the apostle of the Gentiles, " But I most gladly
will spend and be spent myself for your sakes." 2
Cor, xii. 15.

With regard to the civil power of the Popes, this
much we distinctly avow, that no sovereign in Europe
has a better right to his throne, than have the Supreme
Pontiffs to the States of the Church. Assuredly they
are not to be despoiled of their lawfully acquired pos-
sessions, because a rebellious horde of godless miscre-
ants, under the patronage of the insidious foes of Catho-
licism, have for years back been concocting their nefa-
rious schemes for the subjugation, or rather the over-
throw of that sacred Institute, which was upreared and
is upheld by the right arm of God. The Catholic powers
of Europe — aye, and the Protestant powers likewise —
know and feel that the Head of the ancient Church of
Christendom, with his immense preponderating moral
weight, must, from the circumstances of the times, and
the balanced power of the nations, be in a perfectly in-
dependent position. They freely acknowledge that
the interests of their respective governments demand
that the Pope ought by no manner of means to be tri-
butary to any temporal potentate, lest his vast moral

influence should be thrown into the scale of that par-
ticular power, with which he was more immediately
connected. Truth to say, however, the interests of
humanity, as wrell as of religion, imperatively require
that the Popes should not be hampered, even in tempo-
ral means, but that they should be possessed of re-
sources, in some measure proportioned to the demands
made upon them, and to the multifarious duties of
which they have to acquit themselves. They are — who
can deny it ? — at the head of the great Christian com-
monwealth ; and the constitution of society requires
that, even in a temporal view, they should be equal to
their supereminent position. Hence they are sovereigns
in a twofold capacity ; and that dual sovereignty they
have ever used for the welfare of mankind, since they
have always stood in the van of every thing great and
good — since they have been the constant patrons of
literature — the protectors of the arts and sciences —
the pioneers and promoters of civilization — as well as
the grand bulwarks'of Christianity. For we fearlessly
ask, what would have been the state of society, from
the commencement of the Christian era down to the
present period, if not for the Roman Pontiffs ? Who
Christianized the globe ? Who diffused the light of
Catholic truth among the nations " in darkness and
in the shadow of death ?" Who sent single-hearted
missionaries to the New world — priests with crucifix
in hand and the blessing of heaven on their heads,
who wended their way through the forests and over
the rocky mountains of America, and civilized the
red Indian, and taught the wandering tribes to
kneel down and adore the living and true God ?
Who protected the poor against the rich, and made
the sanctuary an asylum for the unfortunate ? Who
first raised their voices against slavery, and de-
clared that man was never made to become the pro-
perty of man ? Who stirred up the enthusiasm of the
middle ages, and awoke the chivalry of Europe to

embark in those glorious crusades which, during
the eleventh and twelfth centuries, were set on foot
for the rescue of the Holy Land ? Who founded our
universities in England and in Scotland, and in other
countries, and made literature flourish before Pro-
testantism existed — and printed and published thou-
sands of copies of the sacred Scriptures before the
Reformers were heard of? Who threw the mantle of
patronage over the artists, and made the painter give
life to the canvass, and the sculptor to produce sta-
tuary that all but spoke, and the architect to rear
those magnificent cathedrals which are at once the
glory and the boast of every Catholic land ? Yes,
ecclesiastical history tells us that the Roman Pon-
tiffs did all this, and much more than this. The
world knows it, and, however reluctant, the world
is forced to admit it: and every Protestant state,
as well as Catholic, is obliged to defer to the con-
ventional etiquette which obtains, in regard to the
oldest and most dignified court upon earth — the
court of Rome ; for the papal nuncio takes pre-
cedence of every other ambassador at all Christian
courts. We may then venture to assert, while dis-
claiming all pretensions to prophecy, that, no matter
what may be the fate of other dynasties, the Sove-
reign Pontiffs shall remain, as long as society remains,
the enlightened and benignant rulers of the Roman
States.

It may be observed, while touching this subject,
that the court of St James's demurs at receiving an
accredited ecclesiastic from the Vatican. Now it
must be contended, despite of all that has been said
and written on the subject of diplomatic relations,
that to be represented by any other, would certainly not
be in keeping with the sacred character of the Papal
court. The court of Rome is decidedly more ecclesias-
tical than civil. Its civil power is comparatively limit-
ed ; but its spiritual, its moral power, stands without

a rival in the world. The exercise of that power has
ever made itself felt, and, as we have seen, has lately
shaken to its very centre the proudest nation under
heaven — instance Great Britain, on the re-establish-
ment of the Catholic hierarcy in England. After all,
it matters but little to Rome whether a British am-
bassador is admitted to the Vatican, or a Papal
nuncio is received at St James's. It shews, however,
the temper of the times, and the profound Christianity of
our rulers, when representatives can be exchanged with
the Grand Turk, but not with the common Father of
Christendom !

Moreover, let us remark, in regard to the subject
under consideration, that our chief difficulty lies,
not in mustering, but in condensing the multiplied
arguments which have been accumulated by the
master minds who have written upon this and other
similar theological questions. "Who that is acquainted
with the noble dissertations of Suarez, Bellarmine,
Hosius, Eckius, Melchior Cano, Patavius, Maldon-
atus, not to speak of the very learned works of
two living most distinguished Roman professors,
Perrone and Passaglia, and a host of other writers of
the present and preceding ages — but must pay defe-
rence to gigantic genius, and to the most profound
and extensive erudition ? Now, all these eminent men,
and so many others that we might name, have de-
voted their time and their talents to illustrate and to
sustain the doctrines of the ancient Church, and how
successfully they have done so, let the suffrages of
Christendom bear witness. Contrast with those
transcendent and inimitable efforts the puny and ephe-
meral writings of so-called Protestant divines, and
they sink into utter insignificance. But when one
compares with those splendid works the doughty lu-
cubration, for example, " on Papal Infallibility ! "
will not a smile be provoked at the coolness of the
Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of

Edinburgh, when with the very gift of assurance, lie
puts the extraordinary questions : " Why Popery, a
thousand times confuted, still exists, and even spreads,
and why the success of Protestantism, in the actual
world, has not been at all commensurate with its
achievements in the field of controversy ? "

Would the learned Professor, then, in some subse-
quent publication, have the goodness to enlighten his
fellow-citizens by stating distinctly when, where, and
by whom Popery was confuted : and likewise by enu-
merating the " achievements of Protestantism in the
field of controversy ? " We promise him that such a
curiosity in polemics would not pass unanswered.
Eeally it is a tax on Christian forbearance to hear a
Presbyterian parson talk of the " thousand confuta-
tions of Popery," as he has the politeness to desig-
nate that venerable religion, which was the religion
of Scotland for 1000 years before the Kirk of Calvin
and Knox was cradled, and which still is the uncon-
quered and unconquerable religion of Christendom.

As to " the achievements of Protestantism in the
field of controversy," pray where shall we find them?
What country in the world — quc& regio in terris —
points to the trophies of Protestant theological war-
fare ? If uncharitable railing, and slanderous impu-
tations, and reckless assertions from the pulpit and
press be achievements, then do we Catholics yield the
palm at once to Protestantism. But if candour and
charity and truth be the weapons which alone are to
be admitted into the " field of controversy," then Pro-
testantism, and her disorganised squadrons must
forthwith sound a retreat. Talk of achievements, in-
deed ! Why, the only achievements on record just
now are some starving children and decrepid old crea-
tures who are kidnapped by certain gentlemen in black,
and after the hungry appetite has been appeased, and
a rag has covered the denuded limbs, they are forth-,
with christened Protestants, and duly gazetted by the

organs of the Bible Society, as so many accessions to
the twin churches as by law established. What a
mockery of religion is all this ! Conversions manu-
factured by money or meal are a downright imposi-
tion— hypocrites can thus be made : sincere Christians
never ! Yet these are the only conversions of which
Protestantism can boast. Contrast with these the
countless conversions to Catholicism which day after
day are occurring, and then take the scales, and weigh
on which side the preponderance will be found.
Truly a marvellous reaction in favour of the old reli-
gion, despite of all odds, is going on— the tide of con-
version is still fast flowing to Rome, and who can
say when it is to stop ! Oh, may another and another
wave, touched by the breath of Heaven, urge on
every poor mariner, who is drifting on the sea of pri-
vate opinion, to near and board the " boat of Peter —
the ark of God," for that is the only vessel that can
weather every storm — the only ship that can pilot
him into the harbour of security ! If separatists still
cling to the tiny raft of private judgment — if still
they remain on those religious wrecks, which are the
Churches of Scotland and of England, as by law established,
they are every moment in danger of being dashed
against the wild cliffs of rationalism, or swallowed up
in the dismal ocean of infidelity !

Yes — deny it who will, the fundamental princi-
ples of both Churches are decidedly infidel in their
tendency: they are both based on the system of
private judgment. Private judgment, strictly speaking,
ought to reject in religion whatever it cannot un-
derstand : but the mysteries of revelation, being
above private judgment, cannot be understood ; there-
fore private judgment ought to reject them. There-
fore the fundamental principles of the reformed creeds
are decidedly infidel in their tendency. Protestantism,
as a system, is dead to all intents and purposes : it is
more, it has exhibited unmistakeable signs

tion. It has degenerated into sheer Rationalism in
Germany, and Rationalism will ere long be the order
of the day in Great Britain, unless God's providence
should interpose to save our common country, by a
second conversion to the ancient Faith !

The philosophic eye of Babington Macaulay has long
since perceived that Protestantism is stationary, if not
rather retrogressive. Comparing the progress of the
two antagonistic systems, the Catholic and the Pro-
testant, he says — " We see that, during these two hun-
dred and fifty years, Protestantism has made no con-
quests worth speaking of. Nay, we believe that, as
far as there has been a change, that change has been
in favour of the Church of Rome." Thus does the
Rhetorical Historian candidly avow his sentiments, and
in so speaking, does he re-echo the opinions of two
other Protestant writers of celebrity — Hallam in his
History of Literature, and Ranke in his History of the
Popes.

Truth to say, however, and it is a hard saying,
there is no religion, and there never was any religion,
properly so called, in mere Protestantism. It is a
negative system of Christianity — a system which may
hold for gospel truth to-day, what it may reject as the
most arrant falsehood to-morrow. The Protestant
Bishop Llyod says, " As to the general term Protestant,
I am not at all satisfied with it, and I have both rea-
son and experience to warrant me in this dislike."
Refor. Cat. Another Protestant Bishop, Mant, in
his " Charge"n'of 1836, writes,—

" Now the terms * Protestant' and * Protestantism,'
by which numerous and important classes of profes-
sors of the gospel are denominated, convey, however,
a very indefinite description of those who are com-
prised under the denomination. * Protestant' is in fact
a negative, rather than a positive term : it describes rather
what the persons so denominated deny, than what

they admit ; it represents their disallowance of certain
doctrines and practices which they think to be impro-
perly ingrafted on a belief of the Christian verity, lut
it does not set forth the doctrines and practices which
they hold, as constituents and vehicles of the truth.
In short, it represents them as protesting against cer-
tain corruptions and errors, which (they think) charac-
terise the Church of Rome : but it does not convey an idea
of the particular religious sentiments respectively , which each
class of Protestants maintains, as characterising it-
self."

For the first 1500 years of the Christian era, no
Protestant Church was known in the world. Luther's dis-
pute about indulgences began on the vigil of All
Saints, 1517 : and in the eighth year of the reign of
Henry VIII. He was excommunicated by Leo X.
in June 1520 ; and in 1529 the adherents of Luther
first assumed the designation Protestant. Thus, then,
at the commencement of the so-called Reformation,
Protestantism was a deliberate protest on the part of
private judgment against the ancient church — against the
power namely, and the mysteries of God. Such it has
continued, more or less, according to the constitution
of men's minds. No wonder then, as a system, it
should die the death. The only marvel is, that God
should have endured it so long.

If, however, there is no genuine religion among
those separated from the Church, there is indubitably
a superabundance of Fanaticism. There is what there
was in Saul before his conversion, a morbid feeling that
he was doing the work of God in persecuting the Chris-
tians 5 and this sanctimonious feeling is largely diffused
throughout the land, when we see the high and the
low, the rich and the poor, re-echoing the discordant
chorus, which is periodically raised by so-called Jfe-
verend Gentlemen against Pope and Popery ?

In summing up these preliminary remarks, which

»2

have branched out to an unexpected extent, there it
etill an additional observation, which we are here de-
sirous to make. Our adversaries, and among others
the Professor of Biblical criticism, invariably confound
two things, in themselves distinctly different. They
speak of the infallibility as they speak of the Supremacy of
the Pope. Now the supremacy of the Pope is an article
of Catholic faith, but not so his infallibility', this latter
is what is called a school opinion, or, in other words, an
open question. We believe that the Church — the Pope
in union with the Episcopal body — is infallible ; it is
not of faith, to believe in the personal infallibility of
the Supreme Pontiff, no more than in his personal im-
peccability. The courtier, but eloquent Bishop Bos-
suet and other Galileans, denied the proposition that
the Pope is, under any circumstances, personally infal-
lible. Now, if that proposition were of faith, it could
not salva conscientid be denied. Yet Bossuet's ortho-
doxy was undoubted ; — no one defended more energe-
tically the supremacy of the Pope — no one tore the
Reformation more dexterously to shreds than the wri-
ter of the " History of the Variations " — no one insist-
ed with greater clearness or cogency of argument on
the necessity of being in communion with the holy Ro-
man See than the Eagle of Meaux. Yet Bossuet wag
opposed to what Dr Lee calls " Papal Infallibility."
We speak thus distinctly, that our adversaries may
see how it is quite allowable for Catholics to hold dif-
ferent opinions, on those points, which are not declared
by the Church as articles of faith. For ourselves, we
maintain, what we are ready to demonstrate as a fact,
that no Roman pontiff ever propounded, ex cathedra,
heterodox doctrines regarding faith or morals.

Hence, at the very outset of his " Discourse on Papal
Infallibility," the reverend gentleman confounds two
things, in themselves perfectly distinct — the Supremacy,
namely, and Infallibility. He writes — " The supre-

macy and infallibility of the Pope may be said to be
the hinges on which the whole body of modern Popery
turns." Thus does he broadly assert, what is not true, that
the infallibility is equally a dogma of Catholic faith, as
the supremacy of the Pope.

It must surely be matter of surprise that the Profes-
sor of Biblical Criticism in the University of Edin-
burgh should, in the first page of his essay, fall into
so egregious a blunder. If he had consulted any of
our standard Catholic works, he would have at ence
seen how distinctly the line of demarcation is drawn
between the infallibility and the supremacy of the Pope.
We maintain the supremacy of the Pope — we maintain
the infallibility of tlie Church. It is not then too much
to say, that the Professor should have made himself
acquainted with the question at issue, before venturing
to preach and publish a a Discourse on Papal Infalli-
bility!"

In speaking of the hallucinations of presbyterian
parsons, and of their crass ignorance of Catholicism,
we cease to be astonished at the extravaganza, in which
more especially the zealots of the Free Kirk wantonly
indulge when, at their Presbijteries, Synods, and General
Assemblies, they propose periodically their preposterous
u Overtures anent Popery." Yet have they admitted,
through their very Coryphceus, that our doctrines were
unknown to them, — Dr Candlish himself having public-
ly declared that he had never studied " the Popish
controversy." Still, not knowing in reality what it is,
they go on protesting against our " pure and undefiled
religion!" Now what can be the meaning of the fan-
tastic tricks which these restless spirits are constantly
playing in matters of religion, except to pander to the
fanaticism of their blind, but doubtless in many cases,
well-intentioned followers, and thereby, if possible, to
keep afloat the sinking sustentation fund, and other

ingenious devices, very appropriately called by them-
selves "Schemes!"

But these " Schemes " shall end, and the Free Kirk
shall, ere long, come to an end, and all our modern
Protestant sects shall pass, as the ancient heretical and
schismatical sectaries have passed away, and England
and Scotland, which in an evil hour had apostatized,
may eventually be regained to the ancient faith — the
" faith our fathers held of God." Then there will be
great jubilee in heaven, and on the earth, that the light
of Catholic truth hath shed its benignant rays once more
over our common country, and that the sheep which had
been wandering in the mazes of error, have by the kind
providence of God, and the crook of the universal Shep-
herd, been conducted back into the fold of Christ.

I. THE SUPREMACY PROMISED.

HAVING made, then, the necessary preliminary re-
marks to render the treatment of our subject as simple
as possible, we proceed forthwith to a distinct enunci-
ation of the question at issue. "We shall first give the
authorized statement of our doctrine, and then exa-
mine the scriptural grounds on which it is sustained.

In the constitution of Pius the Sixth, issued on the
28th November 1786, we read as follows : — "That the
Church was founded by Christ, on the firmness of the
rock ; aud that, by the singular favour of Christ,
Peter was selected above the rest to be, by vicarious
power, the Prince of the Apostolic choir ; and there-
fore, to receive the supreme charge and authority,
to be perpetuated through his successors for all
time, of feeding the whole flock, of confirming his

brethren, and of binding and loosing over the whole
earth — is a Catholic Dogma, which having been received
from the mouth of Christ, and handed down and de-
fended by the constant teaching of the Fathers, the
Universal Church has always held most inviolably,
and frequently confirmed against the errors of innova-
tors by the decrees of Sovereign Pontiff and Councils."

This is, as it were, an abstract from the decree of
the General Council of Florence, convened in the
year 1439. The Fathers there assembled as the re-
presentatives of the entire Church thus speak : " We
define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman
Pontiff hold the Primacy over all the earth : and that
the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of the
blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles : and that
he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole
Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians ;
and that to him in the person of Peter, was commit-
ted by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feed-
ing, ruling, and governing the universal Church ac-
cording to the manner specified in the Acts of Ecume-
nical Councils, and in the Holy Canons." 1

Anterior to this, at the Council of Lyons, A.D. 1274,
the Greeks were received into the communion of the
Church, having signed the confession that " the Holy
Roman Church holds a supreme and full primacy and
headship over the whole Catholic Church, which she
truly and humbly acknowledges to have received from
the Lord himself, in the person of blessed Peter, the
Prince or head of the apostles, whose successor is the
Roman Pontiff, with plenitude of power." 2

In the year 680, the Sixth General Council met at
Con stan stinople to condemn the Monothelite heresy.
It thus addressed the Roman Pontiff Agatho : — " To
you, as prelate of the first see of the universal Church,
standing on the firm rock of faith, we willingly leave

1 Mansi xxxi. 2 Idem xxiv.

what should be done, having read through the letter
of a true confession sent by your Paternal Blessed-
ness to our most religious Emperor : which we re-
cognize as divinely written from the supreme head of
the apostles."

In 451, the great Council of Chalcedon was called
to condemn the heresy of Eutyches. At the opening
of the council, Paschasinus, legate of the apostolic
see, said, " We have in our hands the commands of
the most blessed and apostolic man, Leo, Pope of the
City of Rome, ivhich is the head of all churches." l

In 431, the third council was held at Ephesus to
sit in judgment on Nestorius. Bishop Acadius, ad-
dressing St Cyril of Alexandria, who presided, by spe-
cial commission from the Roman Pontiff Celestine,
said, " Let your Blessedness order to be read the let-
ters of holy Pope Celestine, Bishop of the Apostolic See, by
which you will be able to learn what care he bears for
all the churches."*

In 347, the Council of Sardica was assembled. In
its synodical letter to Pope Julius, we read, " For
this will seem the best, and by far the most fitting, if
the Lord's bishops make reference from all the pro-
vinces to the head, thaFis, the see of the Apostle Peter"*

In 325, the first General Council after the Apo-
stolic Council of Jerusalem was convened at Nicaea.
That great Council with one voice declared that " the
Roman Church had always the primacy" *

The Primitive Church for about three hundred years,
in which it was assailed by almost unremitting perse-
cution, never met in general council. During that
period it was governed by the Mother Church at Rome
— mater urbis et orbis — which had been founded by
St Peter. Many of the records of the three first cen-
turies, as might be expected, have perished, but far
more than enough are extant to prove, to a demonstra-
1 Mansi vi. a Ibid. iv. 3 Ibid. iii.

* Ballerini Codex Canonum.

tion, the Supremacy of the Holy Apostolic Sec. The
facts, which are patent to every student of ecclesias-
tical history, of Pope St Clement writing to the Church
of Corinth to heal its dissensions, during the first cen-
tury, and during the very lifetime of St John the Evan-
gelist— of Pope St Victor remonstrating with the Asia-
tic Churches in the second century — of Pope St Ste-
phen censuring the African Churches in the third —
and in the same century of Pope St Denys receiving an
apology for his faith from Dionysius Bishop of Alex-
andria— all these facts, and many others that might be
alleged, are proofs positive, palpable, incontestable, that
during the very first ages of the Church, the Primacy
of the Holy Roman See was admitted without the
slightest demurring. The force of these facts is con-
centred in this, that the Roman Pontiff alone, by right
of succession to the See of Peter, claimed to exercise
unlimited jurisdiction throughout Christendom, and it
is a Fact which disdains refutation, that the Roman
Pontiff has exercised in every succeeding age, the most
unlimited authority throughout the whole Christian
world.

We now proceed to shew the Supremacy of St Peter
himself, for in seeking to demonstrate the Supremacy
of the Roman Pontiff's, we have first to establish the
Supremacy of their illustrious predecessor. We shall
take our text from Scripture, and prove by scriptural
arguments alone, that Peter was invested by our Bles-
sed Lord with a superiority over the rest of the Apos-
tles. We have thus at once to grapple with the Pro-
fessor of Biblical Criticism in the University of Edin-
burgh, who has the astonishing hardihood to write, that
the object of his publication was to shew " that the
Papal Supremacy and Infallibility are without proof
from Scripture /"

A reference to the pages of the New Testament will
test the haphazard assertion which has been so reckless-

ly made. In the Gospel of St John i. 42, we read that
the very first time Christ saw Simon, he thus address-
ed him, «* Thou art Simon the son of Jona ; thou shalt
be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." Cer-
tainly it is a remarkable, as it is a pregnant circum-
stance, that Simon at the very first interview with the
Redeemer, should receive a new name ; and that that
name should be Cephas — a Syro-Chaldaic term, mean-
ing rock — corresponding to the Greek word xsrooc —
the Latin word Petra — the English word Peter. As-
suredly this circumstance is the more significant, as
Andrew the elder brother of Simon, was called first to
the school of Christ, and yet no change was made in
his name. The cause of the change of name in regard
to Simon, we shall see in the sequel. Meantime let
us observe that the Almighty was pleased, for his own
wise purposes, to change the names of some of his
faithful servants, and that for obvious reasons. Thus,
in the book of Genesis xvii. 5, we find these words —

" Neither shall thy name be called any more Abrain ;
but thou shalt be called Abraham, because I have made
thee the father of many nations." Abraham, in Hebrew,
signifies the father of many nations.

Again, Genesis xv.

" Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call Sarai, but Sa-
rah," -God having promised to her a son in her old

Again, Genesis xxxii. 28.

" Thy name shall not be called Jacob, but Israel,"
from the fact that after wrestling with the angel, he
was assured that he should always prevail against
men.

Again, Matthew i. 21, it is said of the Saviour of
mankind,

" Thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save
his people from their sins." The Hebrew word cor-
responding to Jesus signifies a Saviour.

It is most remarkable, as I have said, that our
blessed Lord, at the very first interview with Simon,
should have changed his name ; and we are naturally
now led to inquire what could have induced this change.
Fortunately we have not to make much research into
holy writ, to find a most satisfactory reason for the
conduct of the Redeemer, since the same Gospel of St
Matthew clears up every obscurity that might surround
the matter in question. In the 16th chapter we read,
" And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi,
and he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say
that the Son of Man is ? But they said, Some John
the Baptist, and others Elias, and others Jeremias, or
one of the Prophets. Jesus saith to them ; but whom
do you say that I am ?"

Attend, I pray you, to this profoundly interesting
narrative. Anxious seemingly to know what men
thought of his sacred person, the Redeemer put the
question to his disciples, and he received from them
the answers which we have just repeated. He pur-
sues the interrogatory, and in the most pointed manner
he asks: " But whom do you say that I am?" He
wishes to have a positive declaration of their own belief.
Now, who is to make it ? Who is to be the foreman —
the mouth -piece of the apostolic body ? Who is to pro-
claim aloud the divinity of the incarnate God ? Is it An-
drew, who was first called to the school of Christ ? or, Is
it John, the favourite disciple? — No : it is Simon the son
of Jona, the younger, brother of Andrew. What says
he ? " Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ,
the Son of the living God," Glorious is this public con-
c

fession of the divinity of Jesus ! Whereupon, as a reward
for that testimony, Christ pronounces upon Simon a
special benediction, and declares that his knowledge
was not derived from men, but that a distinct revelation
had been made to him by God himself. " And Jesus
answering, said to him, " Blessed art thou Simon Bar-
Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to
thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to
thee, that thou art Peter , and upon this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it." That is, I— the Christ, the Son of the living God,
to whose divine nature thou hast borne testimony, say
to thee, that thou art Peter — rock — and upon this rock
I will build my Church. I am the builder, but thou
art the rock upon which my Church shall be built.
Behold here the reason why, at our first meeting, I
changed thy name from Simon Bar-Jona to Cephas —
Peter — rock.

Never did our blessed Lord speak more pointedly,
or with greater emphasis. He declares Simon Peter
blessed, because he uttered the words of inspiration,
and he rewards him in consequence, by the assurance
that he was to be the rock of his Church. He singles
him out from the other apostles, " / say to thee :" he
separates him from the rest by employing the pro-
noun Thou, and he addresses him individually in
the most distinctive terms. Thus, then, for the rea-
sons already assigned, as Abram was called Abraham
— as Sarai was called Sarah — as Jacob was called Israel
— as the Messiah was called Jesus — do we at once know
why Simon was called Peter or rock. Christ, who is
tvisdom itself, chose the most solid foundation for his
spiritual edifice, the Church, in contradistinction to the
foolish man who rears his building upon sand. " The
gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church," says
the divine founder of Christianity. " The rain fell,
and the floods caine, and the winds blew, and they beat

upon that house, and it fell not : for it was founded
upon a rock" To be built upon a rock conveys the
idea of a foundation which is quite immovable : hence
our blessed Lord, to accommodate himself to our notion
of things, speaks of the impregnable character of his
Church, by pointing to the solidity of its foundation.

Popular prejudice has long been in the habit of main-
taining that the only rock signified by the words rehearsed
is Christ, or the profession of faith made by Peter.
But this gratuitous assumption cannot stand the test
of criticism.

In the first place, it has been proved by the most
eminent scripturists that Christ spoke not in Latin,
nor in Greek, but in Hebrew, or rather the dialect of
Hebrew, the Syro-Chaldaic, then the prevailing tongue
in Judea. Kepha is the term which in that language
means a rock, and doubtless was the very word em-
ployed when the Redeemer said " upon this rock I
will build my church." Kephas— s is the Greek ter-
mination—or Cephas, was the name given by Christ
to Simon, which in Greek is rendered vsreoe, Peter.
Peter, xtroog, and Kephas, are the same name — the
one English, the other Greek, the last Syro-Chaldaic.
" Jesus looking upon him, said, Thou art Simon, the
son of Jona : thou shalt be called Cephas, which is
interpreted Peter ,-" John, i. 42. It is obvious, then,
that Christ must have accosted Peter in these words :
" Thou art Kepha — rock— and upon this Kepha —
rock — I will build my Church." The same emphatic
expression used twice in the same short sentence, with
reference to the same subject, shews distinctly that
Kepha — Peter — was the rock, on which Christ de-
clared he would build his Church.

In the Syriac version of the New Testament, " Peter''
and "rock" are expressed by precisely the same word —

Anath Chipha, vehall hada Chipha.

In the Arabic version, the words are also the same,
for " Peter" and " rock :"

Anath Alsachra, wahal hada Alsachra.
In a Chaldaic manuscript preserved at Rome, which is
said to have been written in Mesopotamia in the year
330, the same word, sciuha, stands for Peter and rock.

In the second place, the particle /t«/ — and — points
out the link of connection between the members of
the sentence : " Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I
will build my Church." If the first rock were dif-
ferent from the second, some other particle must of
necessity have been employed to shew the change of
subject.

Christ says, " Thou art Peter — Rock — and upon
this rock," &c. Now this — the demonstrative pro-
noun— necessarily refers to the rock mentioned in the
same sentence. To assume that Christ pointed with
his finger to himself when he said " on this rock,"
is unwarrantable, because it is gratuitous. Such 'a
mode of supposed acting, by supplying signs and ges-
tures, is subversive of all sound interpretation of
Scripture. In point of fact, the German Rationalistic
School, as we see from Rose's Protestantism in Ger-
many, from Strauss's Life of Jesus, and from the writ-
ings of Paulus, De Wett, Wegshieder, and other sophists
— for to call such men philosophers would be u phrase
absurd" — hasadoptedthis method in expounding Scrip-
ture. Hence it is that all the miracles of Christ and
his Apostles have been explained away, and the entire
mysteries of revelation have shared the same fate.
Many Protestants do not seem to be aware of the
disastrous consequences of private interpretation of
Scripture ; but the truth is, that by pursuing that
system to its legitimate extremes, it must end in sheer
rationalism ! They are taught, however, to arrest the
progress of private judgment in its headlong career,
and to say to it, with Canute, " Thus far wilt thou

go, and no farther." Private judgment, however, is
no more to be kept back, than was the ocean, by any
such arbitrary boundaries.

To defend the interpretation denying Peter to be
rock, or to assert that the question is at best but
doubtful, and cannot now be determined, has been the
object of several Protestant writers. They laboured
long, but they laboured in vain. They were clear-
sighted enough to see what should result from the ad-
mission that Peter icas the rock. If Peter were the rock,
the Church was built upon Peter, and if the Church
were built upon Peter, no doubt Peter was invested
with superior prerogatives ; and if so invested, Peter
must have had a primacy among the Apostles, and his
supremacy must have extended over all the children
of the Church ; these sequences are inevitable.

Other Protestant commentators, not of course view-
ing the question in this light, have denounced as un-
tenable any distinction between Peter and rock.

Marsh, late Bishop of Peterborough, in his " Com-
parative View," thus writes : — " But though it was so
easy (not quite!) to confute the arguments of the Romish
writers on this subject, both the Lutheran and the Cal-
vinist divines, from the very commencement of the
Reformation, had recourse to the uncritical expedient
of torturing the words of our Saviour to a meaning
which they cannot convey. These learned divines
could not divest themselves of the notion, that St
Peter was not a sort of tutelary saint, because he was
claimed by the Church of Rome ; and therefore in the
same proportion as the Church of Rome endeavoured
to raise the importance of St Peter, in the same propor-
tion did the followers both of Luther and Calvin en-
deavour to lower it. And as the words of the Latin
vulgate, Tu es Petrus, et super lianc petram ccdijicabo ecclc-
siam meam, were so interpreted by the Romish writer?,
as if that Church were the only Church to which the

words applied, the Lutheran and Calvinist divines saw
no other expedient of confuting their adversaries, than
by asserting that the latter part of the passage applied
not to St Peter at all." He subjoins : " It seems a
desperate undertaking to prove, that our Saviour al-
luded to any other person than to St Peter ; for the
words of the passage can indicate no one else."

Bloomfield, a distinguished Anglican — not the pre-
sent weak and temporizing Charles James of London —
commenting upon this very text, says, " Almost every
modern expositor of note, refers it to Peter himself;
and with reason."

Stanley, " Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic
Age," writes : " That it was in consequence of the
confession, and in reference to it, that the name was
bestowed, thus agreeing with the probable origin of
the only other surname bestowed in like manner
on any of the other apostles (Luke ix. 54), there can
be little doubt. But as the name Cephas has re-
gard, not merely to this particular act, but (John i.
42) to the general character of which it was the ex-
pression, so it seems certain that the words themselves
(SKI ravry rr\ <vzrga) though occasioned by the confes-
sion, refer to Peter himself"

Bengel, an erudite commentator, writes that " Kir&a
and trsroog are synonymous, as both are expressed in
Syriac by the term Jcepha." He observes also that it
would be incongruous to attach a feminine termination
to the name Peter.

Dodwell coincides in this opinion, and demonstrates
at much length how Petra must be understood to refer
to Peter. It may be observed that the Greeks never
apply a feminine noun to a man, except in derision.
Hence the Evangelist wrote Petros and not Petra ;
both terms, however, may be reckoned synonymous.

Rosenrnuller, the learned German, in his Scholia
in Nov. Test. torn. 1, very graphically illustrates

the passage in question. He says, " The rock is
neither the confession of Peter, nor Christ, pointing
out himself by his finger, or by a shake of the head
(which interpretations the context does not admit), but
Peter himself. The Lord speaking in Syriac, used no
diversity of name, but in both places, said Cephas. . . .
* Thou art called by me Peter, because thou will be as
a rock.' And Christ promises that He will build his
Church on Peter. Allusion is made to the custom pre-
vailing in Palestine of building houses that are exposed
to floods and whirlwinds, on a rocky soil, that they
may be able to resist the violence of waters and winds.
Therefore whosoever thinks of building a durable house
should above all look around for a rock, or firm ground :
The rock is the first thing whence the work is to be
begun." Thus did this erudite Rationalist write from
merely considering the New Testament as an authen-
tic record of historical events. He did not look on
the Christian religion as a divine institute, but as
the work of a very good man, for if he had, he would
not have hesitated to cry out, as did Rousseau and
others whose names are known to fame — " Prove to
me that Christianity is true, and to-morrow I arn a
Catholic." Yes : all genuine Christianity must be
Catholic, and there can be no Catholic Christianity
save in communion with the Chair of Peter — the see oj
Rome. If Rosenmiiller had come to our Scottish
land — the land of the " mountain and flood," he would
have seen here what he saw in Germany, countless
systems of religion calling themselves Christian, founded
not on the rock of authority, but on the quicksands of
private opinion ; and he might say, what all Catholics
aver, that such sects having no stable foundation, must
eventually totter to their fall !

But let us proceed, by citing other Protestant au-
thorities.

Gerard, in his " Institutes of Biblical Criticism,"

commenting on this very passage, writes : " The
connection shews that Peter is here plainly meant"

Thompson of Glasgow, in his Monatessaron, says :
" The words Petros and Petra are here used as appel-
lations of the apostle ; and consequently Peter was the
rock on which Christ said his Church should be built
... Protestants have used all the hardihood of lawless
criticism in their attempts to reason away the Catholic
interpretation." This indeed is an admission with a ven-
geance, coming from one who is a Protestant himself,
and what is more, being, I believe, of the Presbyte-
rian school !

Moreover, Dr Lee — fas est ab hoste doceri — says :
" We must admit that that view appears the most
obvious and natural, which makes Peter the rock
on which the Church was to be built, especially
considering what is added respecting * the keys
of the kingdom of heaven' being so committed to
his custody. ... It may also be acknowledged that
the Popish advocates have gained some advantage
from the replies which Protestants have sometimes
made." Again, he admits that the supposed action
of Christ pointing to himself as the rock " is al-
most too pitiful for refutation." Besides, he admits
that the sophism founded on the change of gender,
-Tsr^o; and csrpa, " has been well replied to, not
only by Bellarmine, Maldonatus, and the other Pa-
pal commentators, but by Grotius, Bengel, and many
other Protestant critics." He speaks, however, rather
cavalierly when he says — " This untenable position
has furnished to the Romanists their only triumph :
and how eager they have been to magnify this small
victory, any one may observe, who looks into their
commentators."

Now, assuredly, you will agree with me that there
is no possible argument in a nickname, and that every
thing savouring of rudeness of speech should be

avoided, even in polemical warfare. In calling
Catholics "Romanists" Dr Lee is perhaps not aware
that he is offending against the common courtesies
of society, and that he is but copying the conduct of
Julian the Apostate, who out of contempt for Jesus
Christ decreed that the Christians should be named
Galileans ; but who, when struck by the hand of God,
cried out in a paroxysm of fury and despair — Vicisti
GaliloBe vicisti I We envy not the Reverend Professor
for imitating, however unwittingly, such a wretched
example. Like all entrenched in a false position, the
Professor endeavours to escape with the best grace he
can, by enouncing, in pompous terms, that the post
surrendered is " the only triumph of the Romanists,
and that the victory is but small." I do hope you will
see, in the sequel, that other triumphs are in store, and
that victories for truth are not always small : though
it is, I confess, but a small victory to upset the " Dis-
course on Papal Infallibility."

Well, then, the Professor of Biblical Criticism in the
University of Edinburgh gives up, as untenable, a popu-
lar objection which can no longer be urged with any
colour of argument. For how can such an objection be
urged any more, when it has been proved by the most
eminent Scripturists, as I have already stated, that the
language spoken by Christ was the Syriac, or the Syro-
Chaldaic, and that therefore the word for Peter and rock
is precisely the same. So that Christ must have said, and
did say, while addressing Simon Peter — " Thou art a
rock, and upon.this rock I will build my Church." The
same identity of expression is to be found in the Arabic
version, as is very abundantly demonstrated by the
learned Maronite Ecchelensis, in his elaborate treatises
" De Origine Nominis Papse." It is true, the genius
of the Latin and Greek languages requires a change in
the termination, on account of a difference of gender :
and the like happens with regard to the Italian, Spanish „

and Portuguese versions of the passage. But the same
word in French — Pierre — means rock and Peter, as
occurs in the Syro-Chaldaic and other kindred tongues.;
In all these other languages mentioned, the similarity
of the two words is, however, most striking. In Ger-
man, like the English, the words are dissimilar.

The great theologian of the day, Passaglia, one
of the many most distinguished professors in the
Roman College, in his work of surpassing interest —
" Commentarius de Prserogativis Beati Petri Apos-
tolorum Principis," Lib. ii. cap. 4 — employs a vast
amount of erudition to illustrate this particular point.
After having examined the matter by the light of
Scripture, and proved his thesis to a demonstration,
he brings all the appliances of philology and patris-
tic literature to bear, and summons in the most dis-
tinguished Protestant authorities, such as Bengel,
Dodwel, Rosen miiller, Theophilus Kuinoel, Henri-
cus Michaelis, and others, to pay tribute to the Ca-
tholic view. He moreover inserts the very words in
the Syriac language, to shew the perfect identity of ex-
pression— Peter and Rock. And thus having investi-
gated the question under its every aspect, he clenches
it so thoroughly, that no one having any pretensions
to biblical scholarship need ever attempt to stir it
anew.

Let us, however, not be misunderstood, when we
declare that Peter is the rock on which the Church of
Christ is built. It is true that this has come to pass
in accordance with the good providence of God : yet
it is equally true that the essential Rock of the Church
is Christ Jesus himself, who is the chief corner stone,
and by whose almighty hand the whole fabric is sus-
tained. Christ, then, is the rock by excellence — Peter
the rock by appointment: Christ is the rock by inherent
power — Peter the rock by power received from him :
Christ is the heavenly agent — Peter the living earthly

instrument. It is, then, from Christ, and through 7m-
divine merits alone, that the Church founded on Peter
derives all her vitality. So that if Peter is the rock,
it is Christ who has made him the rock; and if the
Church is built upon Peter, as upon a rock, it is again
Christ who has done all this. He is the great Architect ;
it^ is He who laid the foundations ; it is He who hath
reared the superstructure ; it is He who hath regis-
tered a vow in the archives of heaven, that against
his Church, built upon the rock, the " gates of hell
should never prevail " ! It is then God, not man,
who both speaks and acts. There can therefore be
no undue aggrandising of St Peter, and nothing in
the least derogatory to our blessed Lord in thus speak-
ing, since we simply state the positive fact. It was
the will of the man God, as expressly announced, that
His Church upon Peter should most certainly be
built, and that will hath taken effect. Adieu then to
all cavilling ; for all that has happened, originated in
the wisdom, and has been executed by the power of the
Most High.

The learned Camaldolese monk, ! Don Mauro Cap-
pellari, in his excellent work, " II Trionfo della Santa
Sede," most judiciously observes : " It is true that the
essential rocJc is Christ alone, and not Peter ; for we
must distinguish the essence of the Church from its
visible ministry, of which the Apostles are foundations.
But among them Peter is pointed out as the principal
foundation." It is worthy of remark that this work
was published thirty years before its author was raised
to the supreme Pontificate, under the name of Gregory
XVI. — clarum et venerabile nomen — who was the im-
mediate predecessor of the present saintly Pontiff, Pius
the Ninth.

This distinction then between the esssence of the
Church and its visible ministry being made and remem-
bered, will serve to remove many sophistical objections

which are flippantly urged. Thus, for example, a dif-
ficulty is raised from those words of the apostle to the
Corinthians (1 Cor. iii. 9.) " You are God's building.
According to the grace of God that is given me, as a
wise architect, I have laid the foundation, and another
buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how
he buildeth thereupon. For no man can lay another
foundation but that which is laid, which is Christ
Jesus." Now, it is perfectly true that the only foun-
dation on which we can build our hopes of future hap-
piness, is Christ and his infinite merits ; knowing as
we do " that there is no other name under heaven,
given to men, whereby we must be saved." Still this
does not weaken, much less nullify the promise pre-
viously made by Christ to Simon Peter, of being con-
stituted the rock on which his Church should be built.
For does not the same apostle, in his epistle to the
Ephesians, ii. 20, declare, that the faithful are " built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner stone ? " Where
he speaks of the apostles and prophets as being the
foundation of Christians, without any apprehension of
being misunderstood, since he always proclaimed that
Jesus is the grand key-stone of the Christian building.

Another parallel passage may be cited from Apocal.
xxi. 14, where the apostles are called the foundations
of the city of the living God. " And the wall of the
city had twelve foundations, and in them the twelve
names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Now this
is easily understood ; for every foundation rests upon
Him.

Let it here be observed, that the Scriptures furnish
many examples, in which the very same titles are given
to the apostles as are given to Christ, but of course in
a wholly different meaning.

He says of himself, John viii. 12, " / am the light
of the world." Yet in Matt. v. 14, He speaks of the

apostles in the same terms, " You are the light of the
world."

He says of himself, John x. 11, "I am the good
shepherd." Yet in the same chapter it is stated, " And
he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other
some evangelists, and other some pastors — shepherds"

In 1 Pet. ii. 25, we read, " For you were as sheep
going astray ; but you are now converted to the Shep-
herd and Bishop of your souls." And in the Acts, xx.
28, we read, " Take heed to yourselves, and to the
whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you
bishop*"

Now, although the very same designations in other
passages of Holy Writ are applied to Christ and his
apostles, still the sense is markedly different, and
readily understood. But it is needless to accumulate
instances.

In the work to which I have just now referred, the ve-
nerable Pontiff cites a passage from a sermon delivered
by his illustrious predecessor St Leo the Great, who oc-
cupied the Chair of Peter in the middle of the fifth cen-
tury, and who by a masterly touch brings out into bold
relief the whole scene, as depicted by the inspired pen-
man. Thus by a stroke of his pencil does he give
breadth to the outlines of Christ's discourse to Peter,
and light to any supposed shade. 4t As my Father has
manifested my divinity to thee, I make known to thee thy
excellency : for thou art Peter, that is, as I am the invio-
lable rock, the corner-stone, who make both one — I the
foundation other than that no one can lay — neverthe-
less thou also art a Rock, because thou art strengthened
by ™>y power, so that those things which lelong to me
by nature, are common to thee with me by participation ."
I need not linger any longer in developing this scrip-
tural argument, which I trust has already been put
forward with sufficient clearness.

Come we now to examine another invincible argu-

merit in favour of Peter's Supremacy, and which
is presented to us under the figure of the " Keys."
Our blessed Lord in the same gospel of St Matthew,
chap. xvi. continues his address to Peter : —

" And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven : and whatsoever ihou shalt hind upon earth,
«hall be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou
shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."

This, then, is the second prerogative specially given
to Peter, and this let us now consider. The term
keys is obviously not to be understood in its literal
acceptation ; the language is metaphorical, and it be-
hoves us to inquire what is thereby meant. In all
times and places the keys have ever been the recog-
nised emblem of the highest authority, and the pos-
session of the keys is symbolic of supreme power and
jurisdiction. The common consensus of mankind is
unanimous upon this head.

" Among oriental nations," says the illustrious
Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster,1 " this con-
nection of real power with these its emblems is very
marked. We are told by the most accurate of Eastern
annalists, how the keys of the temple of Mecca were
in the hands of a certain tribe, and with it, the com-
mand in that place ; and so necessarily were the two
conjoined, that when the material keys were extorted
by fraud from their possessor, he irrevocably lost his
dominion over the sanctuary. And on another occa-
sion, he shewed that the possession of the emblem
really conferred the power which it represented."
See Specimen Hist. Arab. Oxon, 1806.

This type of authority indicated by keys, was em-
ployed by other ancient nations.

Parkhurst says, that "Pluto and his wife Proserpine,

were by the Greeks and Romans represented with keys

in their hands." We need not mention that Pluto, in

mythology, was reputed king of the infernal regions,

1 Lectures on the principal Doctrines, &c.

JEschylus speaks of Jo as the priestess of Juno's
temple, and calls her " key-holder" of the temple of
Juno.

Callimachus exhibits the goddess Ceres as a priest-
ess, and says that she " had a key on her shoulder."

Jahn, in his interesting work on Biblical Archaeo-
logy, says, — " There is a particular propriety in car-
rying the keys on the shoulder, when they are borne as
a symbol of authority. For it is very common to
speak of the weight of office or authority, its burden, pres-
sure of heavy duties, and the like : and to say of a per-
son who is placed in an office of great trust and power,
that a weighty burden or a weighty responsibility is placed on
his shoulders.'11 Again he says : " Keys were not made
of metal except for the rich and powerful, and these
were sometimes adorned with ivory handles." See
Odyssey, xxi. 7.

Kitto, in his Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, ob-
serves that the keys were frequently made of wood,
and were much larger than ours.

Chardin, in his Travels in Persia, remarks that the
Persians still use wooden keys.

But let us ourselves recur to holy writ, and we
shall find, that both under the old and the new dispen-
sation, the inspired writers have employed the figure
of the keys to denote that the existing chief ruler was
possessed of paramount authority.

Thus we read in Isaiah xxii. 22, of Eliacim, the
son of the high-priest Heli, who was to be substituted
to Sobna in the priesthood, — " I will lay the key of
the house of David upon his shoulder; and he shall
open, and none shall shut ; and he shall shut, and none
shall open." The key was hung on the shoulder in
former days as the badge of authority, just as in our
own times the sceptre, the sword, or mace, are usually
borne on the shoulder as emblems of royal power.

In the same book of Isaiah ix. 6, we find, standing
out prominently, what is meant by the emblem keys.

We read in that most beautiful passage regarding
the Messiah, " A child is born to us, and a son is
given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder :
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
God the mighty, the Father of the world to come,
the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied,
and there shall be no end of peace. He shall sit upon
the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to esta-
blish it and strengthen it with judgment and with
justice, from henceforth and for ever."

We have seen, then, what the ancient nations un-
derstood by the figure of keys. They believed that
figure to be emblematic of supreme authority. To
carry the key upon the shoulder, was equivalent to
have the government upon the shoulder. Hence the
prophet wrote of the Redeemer, " The government
is upon his shoulder;" thereby intimating, that he
was invested with supreme power. The thin signified
being the government, is here substituted for the sign,
namely keys.

In the Apocalypse i. 18, Christ is said to have
" the keys of death and of hell ;" and this to mark
his supreme dominion over both. \

" I am the first and the last, and alive and was
dead ; and behold I am living for ever and ever, and
have the keys of death and of hell"

Again, Apoc. iii. 7, " These things saith the holy
One and the true One, He that hath the key of David:
He that openeth, and no man shutteth ; shutteth, and
no man openeth."

This text evidently points to the Redeemer, and the
key of David represents the supremacy of power which
our blessed Saviour was to wield in his spiritual king-
dom, the Church, for he declared, that " all power"
had been given to him by his Eternal Father. This
power and kingdom of Christ were prefigured by the
temporal power and kingdom of David. Hence in St
Luke i. 32, we read the language of prophecy, " He

shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Most High, and the Lord God shall give unto him
the throne of David his father ; and he shall reign
in the house of Judah for ever."

Again, Apoc. ix. 1. — But this text is in relation to
the enemy instead of the Saviour of mankind :

" And I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth,
and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit.
And he opened the bottomless pit : and the smoke of
the pit arose, as the smoke of a great furnace ; and the
sun and the air were darkened with the smoke of the
pit. And from the smoke of the pit there came out
locusts upon the earth." •

" The key of the bottomless pit" signifies the power
which the evil spirit, " the fallen star," was permitted
to employ. Quickly did he exercise that power ; for
he opened the pit, and then followed in rapid succes-
sion the dismal evils which the rest of the chapter re-
cords.

Again, Apoc. xx. 1. — Mention is here made of a
counteracting agency from heaven against the evil
one :

" And I saw an angel coming down from heaven,
having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in
his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, the old
serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him
for a thousand years. And he cast him into the bot-
tomless pit, and shut him up."

Many ancient writers seem to think that Christ is
here signified by the angel : others accept the term
angel in its ordinary meaning. Certain, however, it
is, that the heavenly messenger having the key of the
bottomless pit, is clothed with boundless power over the
" old serpent." See Passaglia, Lib. cit. cap. viii. pag.
474.

But why dwell in proving what no rational mind

can deny, that the keys are the symbol of supreme authority ?
Is it not so ? Has not this very case been brought
home to ourselves ? Instance among other examples
which might be brought, the first coming of the Queen
to our ancient city of Perth, when her Majesty was
presented with the keys by the chief magistrate, to in-
dicate that she was invested with the fulness of tem-
poral power. By the way, this was a mere empty
ceremony, so to speak, since our " fair citie" no longer
rejoices in her gates. Still it is an evidence of the sym-
bolical meaning which was formerly, and is yet, at-
tached to the keys as emblems of power. Besides, it
is a relic of the customs of the good old Catholic times.

In fact, with the keys is associated the idea of per-
fect possession. To give up the keys of a town or a
fortress, is tantamount to a surrender; and, on the
other hand, to receive the keys of a house is to obtain
the right of possession.

It is therefore obvious, from the parallel passages
which we have adduced by way of illustration, that
when our blessed Lord said to Peter, " I will give to
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," he meant to
convey to him all possible spiritual power.

We have previously seen that Christ, the God man,
to whom nothing is impossible, had constituted Peter
as the rock of his Church. The Church of Christ was
the spiritual kingdom of Christ upon earth. He who
had been constituted the rock of the Church, or spiritual
kingdom, is now appointed by the same divine autho-
rity, the viceroy of the kingdom, — the living represen-
tative upon earth, and plenipotentiary of the Redeemer.
Christ addresses Peter individually, " I will give to
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." " What
keys ?" cries out St Basil ; " what power ? The keys,
the power which Christ himself possessed, and alone
possessed, until he shared them with Peter ; and still
possesses, but now shared — communicated, but not

alienated — elevating Peter, but not lowering Christ —
giving much, but losing nothing."

But let us proceed. Christ continues his address
to Peter, — " And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,
shall be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou
shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in hea-
ven." Never was language plainer, and never was
greater power given by God to man ! The power of
binding and of loosing is uncontrolled — no limits are
defined — no restriction whatever is made. Christ
pledges his sacred word, that the exercise of that
power, paramount as it was, and uncircumscribed,
should be ratified by God above. He declares, that
the acts of his vicegerent, done in his official capacity,
as head of the Church, should be stamped with the
broad seal of Omnipotence ! What more could our
blessed Redeemer say, or what more would men have
him to say ? Or could any words more clearly prove
the supremacy for which we contend, than those which
fell from the divine lips of our Saviour on that solemn
occasion ?

Certainly we are not straining the point, but taking
the simple, natural, and legitimate meaning of the
words. To attach any other, or to try to explain
them away, is to offer violence to the sacred text, and
to run counter to our every idea of hermeneutics, which
require the Scriptures to be interpreted in their natural
obvious sense, unless there be an evident reason to the
contrary.

Acting in accordance with these sound canons of
scriptural exegesis, the ancient Fathers and all Catho-
lic theologians receive the words in question in their
literal acceptation, as implying that St Peter was in-
vested with the plenitude of power. It would be tedi-
ous to lay before you the many extracts which we might
cull from Tertullian, Origin, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa,
Epiphanius, Serapion, Caesarius, Chrysostom, and so

many others, whose united testimony is as consenta-
neous as it is irrefragable. One circumstance, how-
ever, should not be forgotten, for it speaks volumes
with regard to the belief of Christian antiquity. Among
the many works of art seen at Rome in the Basilics —
in the Vatican and other museums, — and which have
been carefully preserved from the earliest ages, — St
Peter is uniformly characterised as bearing one, two,
or more keys. This of itself is abundantly significant,
nay it is proof palpable that the primitive Christians
believed, as Catholics have ever believed, that the
power of the keys was specially given to the Prince of
the Apostles. See Ciampini, Aringhi, Foggini, and
others, who have compiled the most interesting vo-
lumes on Christian Antiquities.

The Professor of Biblical Criticism writes in rather a
burlesque tone about " St Peter painted with a great
key in his hand," &c. True, he may write as he
pleases ; but surely it is far from being wise to indulge
sarcasm at the expense of Christian antiquity. Those
who sneer at the saints may eventually scoff at the re-
ligion of the God of the saints. The transition is ra-
pid : ridicule passes quickly from one to all the articles
of the Christian code. Facilis descensus averni !

But let us bring forward some distinguished Pro-
testant writers, who eschew this levity, and who hesi-
tate not to adopt the Catholic view of the question.
Thus Potter, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his work
" on Church Government," writes : " Our Lord received
from God the keys of heaven ; and by virtue of this
grant had power to remit sins on earth : the same
keys, with the power which accompanied them, were
first promised to Peter, as the foreman of the Apos-
tolic College."

Bloomfield says : — " The key was a badge of high
office and distinction in the regal governments of an-
tiquity, of which vestiges remain even in our own

times. Thus, to confer the keys of the kingdom of
heaven on any one, is to invest him with authority there-
in, for the promotion of its establishment and preserva-
tion." Commenting on those words of Christ to Peter,
" Whatsoever thou shalt bind," &c. he thus proceeds :
— " Whatsoever thou shalt declare lawful and consti-
tute in the Church, shall be ratified and held good
with God." To bear him out in this interpretation,
he appeals to the book of Daniel, to the Chaldaic para-
phrase, to the Rabbinical writers, and to other sources.

Cameron, in his Scriptural commentary, writes : — " It
is obvious from the words referred to, that something
in particular was given to Peter, which was not common

to the other apostles For there are many things

which prove the singular prerogative conferred on Peter

by Christ, apart from the rest of the apostles

Again : What was the drift of the discourse of Christ ?
Was it not — I say to fhee ; I will give to fhee ; Thou art
Peter ; all this in the most emphatic manner addressed
to Peter alone"

Hammond, in his Annotations on Matthew, thus
writes : — " The keys of the kingdom of heaven signify

the power of governing the Church This is the

power which Christ promises he will give to Peter ex-
clusively.1'

Clerk, who edited a new edition of Hammond's Com-
mentaries on the New Testament, perfectly coincides
with the author.

It is unnecessary to bring forward any more Protes-
tant testimonies, or to subjoin many observations of
our own on what they have written. They admit that
the keys are emblematic of the highest authority ; they
admit that to Peter alone the keys were given by Christ ;
and they admit that the power of the keys was to be
exercised. Therefore, ex concessis. Peter had the su-
premacy of power and jurisdiction given him by Christ
under the figure of the keys, and that power exercised

by him on earth, was to be confirmed by God in hea-
ven.

Dr Lee, with the characteristic hankering after no-
velties which distinguishes the votaries of our Scottish
Zion, endeavours to throw a lurid light upon the sub-
ject. He acknowledges that the delegation of the keys
to Peter was " a distinction appropriate as well as ho-
nourable ;" but then he vainly contends " that the
power, whatever it might be, was strictly personal — I
will give to thee the keys."

Now this is a mode of arguing which logicians style
an attempt to prove too much, and which therefore
proves nothing. Qui nimis probat, nihil probat. Give
the power of the keys, says the Professor in equiva-
lent terms, by all means to Peter, but it must not des-
cend to the Roman Pontiffs — " let it be strictly per-
sonal." On precisely the same grounds might we
argue, that all the other prerogatives given to Peter
and the Apostles should be " strictly personal :" we
might argue that these prerogatives expired with them,
and consequently, that the privileges of the Christian
ministry, nay, that Christianity itself was not to sur-
vive their death ! For what would the Christian reli-
gion become if we sweep away the vitally important
privileges imparted by Christ to his Apostles, of teach-
ing, and preaching, and baptising, and administering
the other sacred ordinances, if these privileges were
" strictly personal," — if they were not hereditary — if
they were not to be transmitted to their legitimate
successors ? Why should any particular exception be
made ? If the apostolic gifts died with the aposto-
lic times, what right has " the minister of the Old
Greyfriars" to mount the pulpit and to preach to the
refined citizens of our modern Athens the crude nostrums
of Calvinism, or to propound from the chair of biblical
criticism the ludicrous crotchets of private interpreta-
tion of Scripture? If apostolic gifts are "strictly per-

sonal," why again does he venture to baptize, or to
dispense "the Lord's Supper?" Where is his right, if
such ceased with the Apostles ? Is not this enough to
shew how gratuitous is his assumption, that the power
in question "was strictly personal?" Beyond any
doubt, the essential gifts of the Christian ministry,
given in the first place to the Apostles, were for ever
to be perpetuated in the Church. This is no idle
assertion, for we have the promise of Christ himself
that he would be with them, and of necessity with
their successors, all days, even to the consummation
of the world. The Apostles were not to be exempt
from the common fate of nature. They were to die,
but the immortal privileges of the Christian ministry
were not to die with them. These powers were to
live on, and by the sacrament of holy orders were to
be handed over to " faithful men," who should suc-
ceed them in doing the work of the apostolate. But
we shall treat this subject more at large when we come
afterwards to speak of the supremacy perpetuated.

Private judgment may think otherwise, and private
opinion may speak differently, but the revealed truths of
Christianity were surely never intended to be brought
to the bar of private judgment, much less to be lacerated
by private opinion. The system of Church authority was
established by Christ, at the beginning, when he said,
" Hear the Church ; he that will not hear the Church, let
him be to thee as a heathen or a publican ; " and that
glorious system which alone conserves unity, and
" captivates the understanding in obedience to faith,"
is to be continued to the end.

But let us listen again to our reverend opponent.
Dr Lee, commenting on this passage, — " Whatsoever
thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven ;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be
loosed in heaven," — says, with all self-complacence,
" The schoolmen and the doctors of the middle ages

cannot be the proper authorities to inform us, what is
the meaning which should be attached to those two Greek
verbs, " binding and loosing." Now, if they are not
" proper authorities," can we have the simplicity to be-
lieve, that a proper authority hi critical exegesisof Scrip-
ture, is to be found in the present occupant of the chair
of Biblical Criticism in the University of Edinburgh ?
We really marvel at the modesty of Presbyterian Pro-
fessors.

Other Scriptural proofs let us hasten to adduce,
which must strengthen our position. On the eve be-
fore the passion of our Lord, when the divine Shepherd
was to be struck, and his flock to be dispersed ; when
the storm of persecution was to burst over their heads,
and the Master whom they so much loved was to be
torn from among them ; then it was that the blessed
Jesus thus feelingly discoursed with his disciples : —
" You are they who have continued with me in my
temptations : and I appoint to you, as my Father
hath appointed to me, a kingdom ; that you may eat
and drink at my table, and may sit upon thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel." l Thus, as
the Father had constituted him king, does he give
unto them a kingdom for their fidelity to him in the hour
of trial. But this kingdom was not of this world : it
was not temporal, it was spiritual. They were appointed
to spiritual ordinances — to partake of the banquet of
the Lamb, and as priests and kings to sit on thrones
to judge. These distinctions are common to them all,
but you will observe the peculiar privileges reserved
for Mm who is the " Leader," Luke ix. The kingdom
of Christ, I say, was a spiritual, yet a visible kingdom,
and such a kingdom must have a spiritual, visible king,
or supreme governor. Hence Christ directs himself to
the Prince of the apostles, and tells him how Satan had
desired to destroy their thrones and altars ; tells him
1 Luke xxii, 28,

how their adversary was so anxious to undermine their
faith, nay to ruin their souls, but that in order to coun-
teract his nefarious stratagems, he had besought the
Father to protect the throne of Peter •, and thereby to se-
cure the rest from destruction. " And the Lord said,
Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you,
that he may sift you as wheat : but I have prayed for thec,
that thy faith fail not : and thou being once converted, con-
firm thy brethren." — Luke xxii. This is a most important
declaration, and should be duly weighed. The enemy
of mankind had sought the destruction of the apostles,
and to prevent that calamity the Redeemer prayed spe-
cially for the indefectibility of Peter's faith, that there-
by he might strengthen the faith of his brethren. " Si-
mon, Simon," he touchingly said, behold your " ad-
versary, who was a murderer from the beginning," has
sought to winnow you all, that he may cast you as
chaff into the fire, " but I have prayed for thee, that thy
faith fail not : and thou being converted, confirm %
brethren."

Surely, then, if Christ was so earnest in prayer for
Peter — if he singled out Peter as the object of his par-
ticular solicitude — it was because so much depended
on that apostle. He prayed for Peter, who was to be
the head, and should become the support of the apos-
tolic body ; and in praying for the head, he prayed for
the members. Christ prayed specially for him, whom
lie had pronounced " blessed " for testifying to his divi-
nity— he prayed for him whom he had constituted the
rock of his Church — he prayed for him to whom he
had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven — he
prayed the Father that the faith of Simon Peter
should fail not, but that, being once converted, he
should confirm his brethren. " Being once converted,
— that is, after having bewailed his sad fall, his
faith should be so fortified as to enable him to
strengthen his brethren. For it should be remem-

bered — and this observation is calculated to sileuce au
objection which is Urged, that because Peter fell in
the hour of trial, he was not the head of the Church —
it should be remembered, I say, that although the pro-
mise of Christ had been made to Peter, and the prayer
offered up in Peter's behalf, still the office of chief pas-
tor had not as yet been conferred upon him. It was
only after the resurrection of our blessed Lord, being about
to withdraw his visible presence from mankind, that
he gave to Peter the commission to " feed the lambs and
the sheep," thereby constituting him the supreme shep-
herd of his entire flock. Here we are lost in admira-
tion in contemplating the mercy and the power of God,
for pardoning the penitent, and elevating the humble
Peter to the highest dignity of the Church, notwith-
standing his triple denial, which to him afterwards was
ever the subject of the bitterest grief.

St Leo (serm. 3) justly observes — "The danger
arising from the temptation of fear was common to all
the apostles, and they likewise needed the aid of the
divine protection, since the devil was desirous of
harassing them all, and of destroying them all ; and
yet special care is taken of Peter by the Lord, and suppli-
cation is made especially for the faith of Peter, as if the
state of the others is likely to be more secure if the mind
of the prince be not overcome."

But be it observed that even during the lifetime of
our blessed Lord, Peter enjoyed pre-eminence among the,
apostles. To shew that there was a " Leader" amongst
them, and yet to inculcate upon all the necessity of hu-
mility, Christ Jesus contrasts the spirit by which they
should be guided with the pompous pride of worldly
princes. On a previous occasion he had brought forward
a little child to teach them an example ; and, on the
present, he offers himself as a model for their imitation,
" The kings of the earth lord it over them .... but
you, not so : but he who is greatest among you, let

him be as the least : and he that is the Leader as he
that serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at
table, or he that serveth ? Is not he that sitteth at
table ? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serv-
eth," Luke, xxii. 25. Thus, while he speaks of one
who is the greatest among them— one who is the Leader
— does he press home upon them the duty of overcom-
ing one another by meekness and condescension, so
that the very First among them shall, like their divine
Master, lead on by his example of humility and for-
bearance.

This view of the subject, that there was a Leader or
Primate among the apostles, or chief, as the Protestant
version has it, gains additional force, by the conside-
ration of many incidental circumstances. In the cata-
logues of the apostles, which the evangelists have fur-
nished, Peter is always mentioned as the first, and Ju-
das the last. Thus,

Matthew, x. 2.
•; The first, Simon, who is called Peter."

Mark, i. 36.
" Simon, and they that were with him."

Luke ix. 32.
w Peter, and they that were with him."

Again, Acts v. 29.

" But Peter and the apostles answering said, we
ought to obey God rather than men."

It is unnecessary to cite more instances ; for all the
evangelists invariably mention Simon Peter by name,
or as the first, and the rest of the apostles collectively,
or in promiscuous order. By St Matthew is St Andrew,
and by St Mark is St James, named before the other
ten : by St Luke sometimes is St Andrew, and some-

times is St John, mentioned before the other ten ; but
St Peter is ever mentioned by all the evangelists in the
first place. Besides, when mention is made of St An-
drew, it is generally added, that he was the " brother
of Simon Peter :" St Peter, on the other hand, is never
styled the brother of St Andrew. Now this very cir-
cumstance is significant, as shewing that St Peter, al-
though the younger brother, and called subsequently
to the school of Christ, was invested with such dignity
in the apostolic college, that it was highly honourable
for St Andrew to be related to him.

Well does the distinguished Archbishop Kenrick
of Baltimore write : 1 " We are naturally led to con-
sider in what sense Peter is called The First, 6 -r^wrog ;
whether merely as occurring first to the memory of the
sacred writer on this occasion; or because he was
leader and head of the others. The first supposition
is excluded by the very remark that he was the First,
which would have been superfluous, if the order of regis-
tering the names, in this instance, were merely meant,
especially since the others have no number attached to
them. Besides, the constant custom of all the evan-
gelists, who invariably place the name of Peter first,
proves that this place was assigned him for a special
reason, since the names of the rest are put in various
order, with the exception of Judas, who, on account
of his perfidy, is always placed last. We cannot sup-
pose that Peter is put first merely on account of the
excellence of his personal qualities, when we remem-
ber his weakness in the hour of temptation. He is
First evidently as Leader and Head. Whilst our Lord
was on earth, He alone was Head of His Church, and
Peter had not positive authority over his brethren.
At that time his precedency was rather of order, or
rank, than of jurisdiction and government ; but it was
wisely so ordained, that by this position he might be

1 Primacy of the Apostolic See,

•

prepared for the high office to which he was to be ele-
vated." Yes, it is but just to infer that his name was
placed the first, because he really occupied the first
rank in power and jurisdiction among the apostles.

The Protestant Bishop Barrow writes in his Treatise,
" The Pope's Supremacy :" — " Constantly in all the
catalogues of the apostles, St Peter's name is set in
the front, and when actions are reported, in which he
was concerned conjointly with others, he is usually
mentioned, which seemeth not done without careful design or
special reason. Upon such grounds it may be reasonable
to allow St Peter a primacy of order."

Professor Lee objects, that " the epithet, Jirst, is of
no particular significance, .... it cannot indicate that
he had any jurisdiction or supremacy over the rest ;
for that he had any such, no one will ever believe,
who will venture to read the New Testament by the
light of common sense," May we ask if the Professor
of Biblical Criticism brought his common sense to bear,
when he could have penned so audacious a statement ?

Surely there must be, and there must have been,
some " common sense" among the great majority of
Christians ; and yet the sensus communis of Christen-
dom has ever been in favour of Catholic interpre-
tation, to the utter rejection of Calvinistic theorizing.
How unwarrantable is it, then, for a so-called min-
ister of the gospel, to try and explain away what
is so peculiarly telling! As if the inspired evangelists
wrote at random, and employed words in the sacred
text of "no particular significance!" Is this the
manner, may I ask, in which the Professor grapples
with those things which are " hard to be under-
stood, which the unstable wrest, as they do also
the other Scriptures, to their own destruction ?'n
Is this the way in which our reverend adversary
meets those strong scriptural arguments which speak
1 2 Pet. iii. 16.

£2

so emphatically in favour of Catholic truth, by an-
nouncing to his alumni that they are of no " particular
significance," and wisely leaving them unanswered,
because they are unanswerable ? We really sympathize
with the students of the biblical class in the Edin-
burgh University, for being trained after such a fashion,
and indoctrinated with the precious prelections which
are enounced from the Biblical Chair.

The epithet, first, is then, on the contrary, of decided
significance. Coupled with the proofs already adduced,
it proves to a demonstration that Peter was primus
of the apostolic college, and was possessed of supre-
macy over the body apostolic.

Add to what has been said, that on every occasion,
Peter stands forth as the first, both in word and in action.
Does the Redeemer wish to know the sentiments of his
apostles on any given point ? It is Peter that inva-
riably replies for himself and brethren.

It was Peter who answered, when Jesus being
pressed by the multitude, said, " Who is it that
touched me ?" Luke viii. 45.

It was Peter, who said unto the Lord, " Behold we
have left all things and followed thee ;" Matthew
xix. 27.

It was Peter, who from his intense love of Jesus,
was desirous that the announcement of his death might
not be accomplished ; Idem. xvi. 22.

It was Peter, who, in the name of James and John,
wished to tarry on Mount Thabor ; Idem. xvii. 4.

It was Peter who beckoned to John, leaning on
Jesus' bosom, that he should ask who it should be who
was to betray him ; John xiii. 23.

It was Peter, when Jesus mentioned to his disciples
that he was soon to leave them, who said, " Lord,
why cannot I follow thee now ? I will lay down my
life for thee ;" Idem. xiii. 37.

It was Peter alone who strove to defend his Master,

when the Jews came to lay violent hands upon him ;
Idem, xviii. 10.

But it is useless to add more examples by way of il-
lustration, as Peter is constantly singled out in particu-
lar by name, while the rest are spoken of in glolo. It is
thus evident, that Peter was ever the object of Christ's
special solicitude — that he held thejirst place — and that
he was the Leader and Head of all the other apostles.

If, then, despite of what has been so coolly written
by Dr Lee, we bring our common seme to bear upon the
subject at all, we are forced to admit, from reviewing
the proofs already adduced, that no point is more
clearly established in Scripture than the supremacy of
Peter. But truth to say, our adversaries, generally
speaking, lay their common sense aside, when they ap-
proach to the consideration of this or other doctrines of
the Catholic Church. Their minds are warped with
prejudice from their earliest years, and by a perverted
ingenuity, they try to make the Scriptures harmonize
with their preconceived erroneous ideas. It is not, then,
what the Scriptures say, but what they force the Scriptures
to say and to mean, that is the cause of such contradic-
tions and contrarieties in religion : and such shall con-
tinue to be the case as long as men, in matters of faith,
continue to follow the deceptive glimmerings of a pri-
vate fallible judgment, instead of the steady beacon-
light of God's unerring Church !

II. THE SUPREMACY INSTITUTED,

Having, for the benefit of the Professor of Biblical
Criticism in the Edinburgh University, proved from
Scripture, that our blessed Lord promised to Peter
that he would constitute him the rock on which his

church should be built — having likewise proved that
he would give to Peter the keys, with the assurance,
that what he should bind or loose on earth should be
bound or loosened in heaven — having also proved that
a special charge had been delivered to Peter, to confirm
his brethren in the faith, we come now to contemplate
the perfect fulfilment of all those promises, in the insti-
tution of the office of the supremacy. There is an argu-
ment which may not inappropriately be introduced here,
which will serve both to illustrate and to strengthen
our position. That argument is derived from considering
the constitution of the ancient synagogue. The syna-
gogue was confessedly a type of the Christian Church,
and had many things to prefigure the glorious reality.
Amongst others, the synagogue had its High Priest,
who was the visible head of the Jewish Church — who
was appointed to settle all disputes which might arise,
and to whose judgment all were obliged to defer.

This is distinctly laid down in the book of Deutero-
nomy, xvii. 8, " If thou perceive that there be among
you a hard and difficult matter in judgment, .... arise
and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall
choose. And thou shalt come to the priests of the
Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time ;
and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall show thee
the truth of the judgment. And thou shalt do what-
soever they sliall say that preside in the place, what the
Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee ac-
cording to his law ; and thou shalt follow their sen-
tence, neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor
to the left hand. But he that will be proud, and re-
fuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who minis-
tereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the
judge : that man shall die, and thou shall take away the evil
from Israel."

Here, then, was a strict obligation imposed on the
people of the old covenant, to obey in religious matters

the rightly constituted authority, and to submit, under
the severest penalty, to the judgment pronounced by
the synagogue. Private feelings or opinions were utterly
discarded. There was but one Ugh priest, for the time
being, of the Jewish church, and from his award there
was no appeal. Now if all that was done under the
old law was merely a figure of what should be done
under the new — if the organization of the Jewish was a
bare type of the Christian church — if, moreover, the
high priest of the synagogue was possessed of such
ample powers, how great must be the powers with
which the supreme pontiff of the church of Jesus Christ
is invested ? The new law surpasses the old, inasmuch as
the substance surpasses the shadow, and the thing typified
surpasses the mere type: hence in the same proportion
do the prerogatives of the sovereign pontiff of Christen-
dom transcend the prerogatives of the high priest of
the former dispensation.

It is very true, what we all know and believe, that
Jesus Christ is the great High Priest of God and man.
But he no longer visibly exists upon the earth, whereas his
church exists; and his church being a visible body,
must have a visible head, and where else are we to look
for this visible head, except in the person of the Ro-
man pontiff, the legitimate successor of Simon the
fisherman ?

If we demur to make this admission, we leave the
most conspicuous feature under the ^Jewish govern-
ment without its counterpart in the Christian church.
We set at nought what is universally admitted, that the
" shadow of the good things"1 was to be followed by
the substantial reality, and that the outlines of the
Jewish system were to be perfectly filled up by the
great Christian institute.

Let it be moreover added, that every existing go-
vernment— democratic , aristocratic, monarchical, or what-

1 Hebrews x. 1.

ever may be its constitution, has a head or chief exe-
cutive* Without such, it would be nothing but an
amalgam of confusion : in point of fact, it would cease
to be a government, and would degenerate into the
sheerest anarchy. Now the church is a visible society,
has a visible government, and must have a visible head.
The theory of an invisible church is too preposterous to
dwell in refuting it — an invisible church for visible beings !
How incongruous the idea! Without, then, a visible head,
the body of the faithful could never be preserved in
unity. In truth, our separated brethren, who clamour
so lustily against the supremacy of the Roman pontiff,
admit, notwithstanding the boasted privilege of private
judgment, the absolute necessity of having some kind of
head upon the shoulders of their respective creeds. Their
heterogeneous systems will not work unless there
should exist some tribunal of appeal, where their dif-
ferences may be hushed up, but certainly not adjusted.
We have seen this carried out in the famous Gorham
case, where the question of baptismal regeneration was
brought before the tribunal of the Court of Arches,
and thence carried by appeal to the Queen in council.
It then became the duty of her Majesty to preside, as
supreme ecclesiastical governor, and to pronounce, as
spiritual head of the Anglican Church, upon this funda-
mental article of Christianity — whether it was, or was
not, the doctrine of the English Church, as by law esta-
blished?

In our own country of Scotland, there is an ever-
lasting appeal from the Presbytery to the Synod, and
from the Synod to the General Assembly, which is held
yearly at Edinburgh ; and all this time, the grand
principle of the Reformation, private judgment, is practi-
cally set aside. The General Assembly is then supreme
in the Scottish Kirk ; the spiritual headship of the sove-
reign being utterly repudiated.

Bishop Gillis, in his eKcellent letters on the " Eccle-

siastical Titles Bill," says with much point, in reference
to Scotland, —

" There is in Scotland no body of Christians, of any
kind or description, acknowledging the spiritual supre-
macy of the Queen. There is none which does not
emphatically protest against it.

" The established Presbyterianism of Scotland re-
jects that supremacy.

" Every branch of Presbyterian dissent, the Free
Church included, rejects it.

" The Episcopalians reject it.

" The Catholics reject it.

" The Unitarians and the Society of Friends, of
course, reject it. In a word, the whole nation re
jects it.

" The law of the land protests against the spiritual su-
premacy of the sovereign. It was abrogated in Scot-
land, when Episcopacy was abolished in 1689, when
" the King had ' Chimney Money' granted him instead
of his supremacy." *

" The abolition of said royal spiritual supremacy was
confirmed in 1707 by the Articles of Union, where the
rights and privileges of the respective Churches of
England and Scotland were made fundamental condi-
tions of the Union of the two Kingdoms."

During the sittings of the General Assembly, how-
ever, Her Majesty's Lord Commissioner invariably
presides ; although, I believe, the annual farce is enacted
of protesting against his official presence. Be this as
it may, the Assembly is looked upon as Supreme in the
Scottish Kirk, and acts, to all intents and purposes,
with as much dogmatism as if it were gifted with a
species of infallibility. When this oracle speaks, its
voice must be heard, and obeyed. Should the accused
minister have the hardihood to refuse to yield to the

1 Guthrie's History of Scotland.

sentence of the " Fathers and Brethren" he is cen-
sured for his temerity ; and, if obstinate, he is liable to
be eliminated from his charge. If he fall back upon
private judgment, he is answered in equivalent terms —
private judgment is very fine in theory, but it works badly
in practice. So that, in such case, there is no other
expedient for the unfortunate parson but to devour
the cud of his chagrin, or to throw up his living —
which direful extreme, particularly if he be married, it
is rather uncomfortable to contemplate !

Look also at the Wesleyan Methodists and their or-
ganization : they have their meetings — their confer-
ences— their tribunals of appeal. They try to settle
their religious differences among themselves, without
having recourse to any Church by law established, whe-
ther by God or man. Should any member prove re-
fractory, he is admonished : if he does not relent, he is
forthwith expelled from the body ; and during all this
time it is duly announced, as an article of their creed,
that each one is to exercise and to follow his own pri-
vate judgment !

We need not enumerate other instances, for all Pro-
testant sects have a head of some kind or another. To
this head, or supreme executive, they must all — nolen-
tes, volentes — respectively succumb. Now, what is all
this but multiplying heads on the mystical body of
Christ upon earth, which is his one visible Church — mul-
tiplying tribunals of appeal among Christians, and
thereby increasing the sources of religious discord.
Instead of recognising the one oecumenical Primate,
who can trace back the unbroken line of his prede-
cessors to the days of Simon the fisherman — instead
of converging to the one grand centre of unity, to-
wards which the great majority of Christians, in every
age, have tended, what do we find in Great Britain,
but each Protestant sect— and the number is legion —
or rather each Protestant individual, standing isolated

upon the unstable tripod of his own private judgment
— each one giving forth his new fangled views for Gos-
pel truth — each one becoming a stumbling-block to his
fellow men ; and thus each Protestant, however un-
consciously, doing what he can to undermine the foun-
dation of the " household of faith," and to tear in
pieces the unity of the Church, which is so often as-
similated to the seamless garment of the Redeemer!

To prove, then, that Christ chose Peter to preside
over the college of the Apostles — to govern the entire
Church, and to discharge those duties of Headship^
which he himself, while living in the world, fulfilled,
is beyond any doubt abundantly evident from the
scriptural evidence already adduced. Additional and
most convincing argument, however, is furnished
from the Gospel of St John.1 After his resurrection,
the Redeemer manifested himself to his disciples by
the sea-side, and the following affecting dialogue is
recorded to have taken place between Christ and Si-
mon Peter, in the presence of Thomas, James, John,
and others. It was upon that occasion that he re-
quired a triple avowal of Peter's love, as a kind of
counterpoise to Peter's triple denial. Peter had pre-
viously made a glorious declaration of the divinity of his
Master : that declaration of Faith received its reward
by his being constituted the Rock of the Church — this
avowal of superior love is to have its recompense, by
his being appointed the universal shepherd of Christ's
fold. — '* When, therefore, they had dined, Jesus saith to
Simon Peter : Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more
than these ? He saith to him : yea, Lord, thou knowest
that I love thee. He saith to him : Feed my Lambs.
He saith to him again : Simon, son of John, lovest
thou me ? He saith to him : yea, Lord, thou knowest
that I love thee. He saith to him : Feed my Lambs.

1 John xxi. 15.
F

He saith to him the third time : Simon, son of John,
lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved, because he said
to him the third time — lovest thou me ? And he said
to him : Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest
that I love thee. He said to him : Feed my Sheep.1'

This beautiful passage is brimful of meaning and of
importance, and requires only to be developed to prove
all that we require. Father Passaglia, to whose work
of surpassing erudition and interest I have already re-
ferred, commenting upon it,1 says :— There are three
things chiefly to observed in regard to this discourse :
the first is, that Christ addresses Peter alone, sepa-
rated from the rest of the apostles and disciples ; the
second is, that certain distinctive and super-eminent
privileges are accorded to him ; and the third is, that
their peculiar excellence is to be uncircumscribed by
any limits, whether of honour or of order, but rather
to involve supreme and universal authority. The very
designation, " Simon, son of John ;" — the significant
transition of the discourse, " when they had dined,
Jesus saith to Simon Peter;1' — the words in the com-
parative degree, " Lovest thou me more than these ?" —
all go to prove to a demonstration the individuality of
Peter alone.

Moreover, it is obvious that certain super-eminent
privileges were to be accorded to him since the Re-
deemer, at three successive times, required the pledge
of his unequalled affection : diligis me impensius his?1
And as a reward for that superior love which burned
in the heart of Peter, the divine commission was thrice
given to him to feed the flock of Christ. " Feed my
lambs — wot/Active ra vgoffard pou — pasce oves meas."

Now, to receive unlimited authority " to feed the

lambs, and to feed the sheep," is to be constituted

universal shepherd over the entire sheepfold of Christ.

"To feed the lambs and to feed the sheep" is to tend,

1 Liber i. cap. 10, 2 Luke vii. 42.

to watch over, to control the people and the pastors
themselves — the people who, under this figurative Ian
guage are represented in relation to their pastors, as
lambs in relation to sheep. To feed a flock is to direct
all its movements — to rule it without let or hindrance.
This the original Greek text distinctly implies; be-
sides, this is the usual scriptural meaning of the term.
Thus, King David is styled the Shepherd of God's
people:1 again, King Cyrus is called the Shepherd
of God :2 and Christ is named the Great Shepherd of
the one sheepfold.3 These designations clearly sig-
nify the chief ruler. Besides,4 where the Vulgate has :
Reges eos : the Greek version runs To//a,av£/£ auTovs :
pasces eos-— Feed them, as the Syriac and Arabic in-
terpreters render it. Thus, what we read in St Matthew,5
Re gat populum meum, is rendered in Greek, xoi^avsi
rov Xaov ftov — feed my people.

Therefore Peter, in receiving the commission to
feed the lambs and to feed the sheep, is in consequence
appointed Head Shepherd of the Fold of Christ. That
commission he received in the presence of John,
James, Thomas, and others, who were so many living
witnesses to testify to the grand fact. By virtue,
then, of his primacy of office, he was to exercise a su-
premacy of jurisdiction over all. This superintend-
a nee was to be particular as it was to be general. He
was to have a care that in every quarter the lambs
and the sheep should drink of the water that flows
from the river of life, and should feed upon the pastu-
rage which strengthens to salvation !

Eueherius, Bishop of Lyons, who lived in the be-
ginning of the fifth century, wrote to this effect]: —
First, Christ intrusted Peter with his lambs, next
with his sheep ; because he made him not only a shep-
herd, but the Shepherd of Shepherds. Peter then

1 Ezekiel xxxiv. 2 Isaiah xliv. 3 John x.

4 Psalms ii. 9. 3 Matt ii. 6.

feeds the lambs, he also feeds the sheep. He feeds
both the young and their mothers. He rules both
subjects and prelates. He is therefore a shepherd over
all. For besides lambs and sheep there is nothing in
the Church."

Origen, commenting on St Paul's Epistle to the
Romans, cap. vi. says, " When the chief power of
feeding the sheep was given to Peter, and the Church
was built upon him as upon a rock : the profession of
no other virtue was required of him than that of love."
Thus allusion is made to two of the leading arguments
which prove Peter's supremacy.

We shall afterwards take occasion to dwell on this
most important commission of Christ to Peter. Mean-
time it may be well to look into the expositions of
some distinguished Protestant commentators on the
text in question.

Bengel1 expounds those words, v\sTov ravruv, more
than these ; that is, " thy fellow disciples." He adds :
Peter had formerly promised to do more than they —
" although all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never
be scandalized:"2 — now he simply says, " I love thee" —
amo te — without adding, plus his, more than they.

Bloomfield3 contends that the only true meaning of
the text is — " Lovest thou me more than these love me f
which interpretation,^ says, has been sanctioned by the
best commentators, both ancient and modern, and that
any other interpretation is jejune, far-fetched, and alien
to the circumstances of the case and to the persons
concerned.

Rosenmiiller4 writes as if there could be no doubt
about the matter : " Ayavag ,us vhsTov rovruv : amas me
magis quam hi ceteri? Lovest thou me more than
these others? royrwv, in this place, is the masculine
and not the neuter gender, and cannot refer, as Whitby

* In Gnom ad. John xxi. 2 Matt.xxvi. 33.

8 In Notis ad H. « In Scholiis.

would have it, either to the ship or to the fish, but to
the rest of the Apostles." We might have observed
that when Christ first shewed himself to his disciples
by the sea-side, and before the conversation which we
have rehearsed took place, they were engaged in fish-
ing. According to His direction, the net was thrown
on the right side of the ship, and " Simon1 Peter went
up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes."
This miraculous draught was doubtless significant of
the multitudes of believers which the apostles, with St
Peter at their head, should gather into the Church.
Some writers have allowed their prejudices so far to
blind their judgment, as to suppose that the question
put by Christ to Peter had reference not to the apostles,
but rather to the fish f an idea so utterly preposterous,
as to be unworthy of notice.

Dr Lee surmounts the insuperable argument in favour
of papal supremacy resulting from Christ's commission
" to feed the lambs and the sheep" — by standing aloof
from it entirely — a line of acting followed by many of
his compeers, who find it their best policy not to at-
tempt to grapple with what would be to them per-
fectly overwhelming.

Here we may be pardoned for introducing a some-
what lengthy quotation from Leibnitz,2 who, though
standing as it were at the threshold, never was received
into the church. It is much to our purpose, and beau-
tifully unfolds the subject on hand. " Since, there-
fore, our merciful and sovereign God has established
his Church on earth as a sacred ' city placed upon a
mountain13 — his immaculate spouse and the interpreter
of his will — and has so earnestly commanded the uni-
versal maintenance of her unity in the bond of love,
and has commanded that she should be heard by all

1 John xxi. 11.

a System of Theology. Translated by Dr Russell.

1 Matt. v. 14.

who would not be esteemed ' as the heathens and the
publicans;1 it follows that he must have appointed some
mode by which the will of the Church, the interpreter of
the divine will, could be known. What this mode is,
was pointed out by the apostles, who in the beginning
represented the body of the Church. For, at the Coun-
cil which was held in Jerusalem, in explaining their opi-
nion, they use the words, ' It hath seemed good to the
Holy Ghost and to us."1 1 Nor did this privilege of the assist-
ance of the Holy Ghost cease in the Church with the death
of the Apostles ; it is to endure l to the consummation of the
ivorldj and has been propagated throughout the whole
body of the Church by the Bishops as successors of the
Apostles.'

" Now, as from the impossibility of the Bishops fre-
quently leaving the people over whom they are placed,
it is not possible to hold a council continuously, or even
frequently, while at the same time the person of the
Church must always live and subsist, in order that its
will may be ascertained, it was a necessary conse-
quence, by the divine law itself, insinuated in Christ's
most memorable words to Peter,2 — (when he commit-
ted to him specially the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
as well as when he thrice emphatically commanded him
to * feed his sheep '), — and uniformly believed in the
Church, that one among the Apostles, and the successor
of this one among the Bishops, was invested with pre-
eminent power ; in order that by him, as the visible
centre of unity, the body of the Church might be bound
together ; the common necessities be provided for : a
council, if necessary, be convoked, and when convoked,
directed ; and that in the interval between councils,
provision might be made lest the commonwealth of the
faithful sustain any injury. And as the ancients unani-
mously attest that the Apostle Peter governed the Church,
suffered martyrdom, and appointed his successor in the city
1 Acts xv. 28. 2 Matt. xv. ; John xxi.

of Rome, the capital of the world ; and as no other
Bishop has ever been recognised under this relation,
we justly acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be chief of
all the rest."

This extract is made for the special benefit of the
Professor of Biblical Criticism, who, in keeping with
his usual reckless mode of assertion,1 speaks of " that
meeting at Jerusalem which has often, though very im-
properly, been styled the first General Council." And
again,2 " That Peter was ever at Rome, is a point
which has been much disputed, and is incapable of any
historical proof. That he did not plant the Roman Church
is as certain as that Paul did not ; but that he was ever
Bishop of Rome is impossible, for he could not become
a Bishop without ceasing to le an Apostle.1"1 Such a tissue
of negations is not often met with in the compass of a
few lines, and yet every one of which is flashingly un-
true. Let me refer the worthy Doctor to a pamphlet,
" Was St Peter ever at Rome?" in which is detailed a
series of historical proofs for that fact, and for other
analogous matter.

To return now to our subject, we may adduce, by
way of confirmation, the words of Jahn, who, in his
Biblical Archaeology, thus writes : " In the Bible
kings are called shepherds ; an appellation by no means
ignoble, but on the contrary highly honourable and
sublime. This name is often given to God himself in
the Old Testament, and means overseer and gover-
nor."— Perrone De Petri Primatu, cap. i. sect. ii.

In the oldest classical writers, such as Homer, Xe-
nophon, Sophocles, and Euripides, kings and chief-
tains are described as " the shepherds of the people."
In the Old Testament the same idea perpetually oc-
curs, especially when speaking of David, and contrast-
ing his early occupation of watching his father's flocks,
with his subsequent appointment to rule over God's
1 Page 28. 2 Page 68.

people.1 It is a favourite image with the prophets, to
describe the rule of the Messiah, and of God over
his chosen inheritance, after it should be restored to
favour.2 And our blessed Redeemer himself adopts
it, when speaking of the connection between him and
his disciples — his sheep that hear his voice and follow
him. In the writings of the Apostles we find at every
step the same idea. St Peter calls Christ " the Prince
of Shepherds,"3 and tells the clergy to feed the flock
which is among them ; and St Paul warns the Bishops
whom he had assembled at Ephesus, that they had
been put over their flocks by the Holy Ghost,4 to " rule
the Church of God." Thus his Eminence, Cardinal
Wiseman, on the Supremacy. Hence the commission
to feed the flock is a commission to govern and direct
the flock : but as Peter received from Christ the unre-
stricted commission to feed the entire flock — the Sheep
as well as the Lambs — it follows as an inevitable infer-
ence, that Peter received unbounded authority over
all — " the pastors teaching and the people taught"-
and, consequently, was invested by Christ himself with
primacy of power and supremacy of jurisdiction over
the universal Church. Therefore, independent of all
traditionary testimony, and upon the clearest and best
defined principles of critical exegesis, the Supremacy of
St Peter is demonstrated from Scripture alone ; and
thus is exploded the figment of the Professor of Bib-
lical Criticism, " that the Papal Supremacy is without
proof from Scripture!'1'1

Easy would it be for us to bring forward the united
testimonies both of the Western and the Eastern
Churches, to corroborate our position, but we fear pro-
lixity. Our adversaries well know — despite of some
desperate efforts at inis- translation — that the ancient
Fathers of the Church unanimously defend all Catho-

1 2 Kings v. 2.. 2 Isaiah ad. 11.

• 1 Pet. v. 4. 4 Acts xx. 28.

lie doctrines. Hence it is that they try so ingeniously
to depreciate their authority. The High Church party
laboured long and earnestly to promote the study of
patristic literature, but found, to their grievous disap-
pointment, that the Fathers both of the Greek and La-
tin Churches were so perfectly inexorable in their writ-
ings, as to refuse point blank to buttress up the tottering
fabric of Anglicanism. No wonder, then, that of late,
both at Oxford and Cambridge, they should cease to be
held in such favour, on account of their uncompromising
character. The Low Church party, or the Calvinistic
School, as developed in Scotland, is in general opposed
to the study of the Fathers, from a kind of intuitive per-
ception, that all their writings inculcate the absolute ne-
cessity of being in communion with the Apostolic Ro-
man See, and cut at the root of heresy and schism un-
der its every germ. Besides, there would be this addi-
tional danger from the study of Patristics, that sincere
minds would most naturally become imbued with an-
cient doctrine, to the utter rejection of all modern
religious theories. If so, what would result again,
but what we have seen already, that the most gifted,
the most learned, and the most virtuous of the Pro-
testant Establishment would listen, like obedient chil-
dren, to the voice of their holy mother who had been
so long to them a stranger, and would then be re-
ceived into the pale of her communion.

Here I cannot forbear laying before you a cita-
tion from the writings of the great Abbot of Clair-
veux. In his book " De consideratione," which he
addressed to the then reigning Pope Eugenius III.,
he told that Pontiff some salutary truths. His
testimony on that very account is, critically speak-
ing, the more valuable, as it shews he could adopt the
language of remonstrance, although firmly believing in
the Primacy of the Holy See. Thus does St Bernard

proceed in a strain of reasoning, beautiful as it is strik-i
ing.1

" Most Holy Father, you are he to whom the Keys
were given : to whom the sheep were intrusted.
There are indeed other gate-keepers of heaven, and
pastors of the flocks : but you have inherited both titles
in a sense far different and more sublime. They have
each of them their respective flocks, severally assigned
to them : all have been intrusted to you, one flock to
one man. Nor are you the shepherd of the sheep alone,
but of the shepherds also : the one pastor of all. Do you
ask me how I prove this ? From the word of the
Lord. For to which, I do not say of the Bishops, but
of the Apostles themselves, were all the sheep com-
mitted so absolutely and unreservedly ? If thou lovest
me, Peter, feed my sheep — What sheep ? The people of
this or that district, city or kingdom ? — * My sheep,' he
says — who does not manifestly see, that He did not
designate any, but assigned them all to him ? None
are excepted where no distinction is made. The other
disciples were perchance present, when intrusting all
to one, He recommended unity to all, in one flock, and
one shepherd: according to that passage, " my dove is
one, my beautiful one, my perfect one." Again.2
" Other sheep I have, that are not of this fold : them
also I must bring : and they shall hear my voice :
and there shall be made one fold and one Shepherd."
In these words did the divine Shepherd foretell the
union that eventually should take place of the Jews
and the Gentiles in His Church. It is true that this
was not be effected by Him personally, since the spe-
cial object of His mission had reference to the lost
children of the house of Israel. But He was to ac-
complish it through the medium of his apostles and
their successors, who were to continue the work of

1 Lib. ii. de Consid. cap. iii. 2 John *• 16.

the ministry, arid who, from the east to the west —
from the north to the south, were to labour to gather
the poor stray sheep into the " one fold of the one uni-
versal Shepherd.'1''

The great Bishop of Geneva, St Francis of Sales,1
is equally happy in representing the peculiar prero-
gatives of St Peter, under the various symbols found
in Holy Writ. He says, " Is the Church likened
unto a house ? It is placed on the foundation of a rock,
which is Peter. Will you represent it under the figure
of a family ? You behold our Redeemer paying the tri-
bute as its master, and after Him comes Peter as his repre-
sentative. Is the Church a bark ? Peter is its Pilot •
and it is our Saviour who instructs him. Is the doctrine
by which we are drawn from the gulf of sin exhibited
by a fisher's net ? ^It is Peter who casts it ; it is Peter who
draws it : the other disciples help, but it is Peter who presents
the fishes to our Redeemer. Is the Church represented
by an embassy ? St Peter is at its head. Do you pre-
fer the figure of a kingdom ? St Peter carries its keys.
In fine, will you have it shadowed under the emblem
of a flock and a fold ? St Peter is the shepherd — the
universal pastor under Jesus Christ.

This same good Bishop of Geneva, whose sweetness
of conversation and sanctity of life could convert the
unbelievers, when other strong minds could only
confute them, as was said of him by the famous Cardinal
du Perron, has brought together, from diverse sources,
a variety of appellations by which the common Father
of the Faithful is designated. The Sovereign Pontiff
then is called —

The most holy Bishop of the ) „ ..

Catholic Church } Council of Soissons of 300 Bishop..

The most holy and most happy ) T ,

Patriarch ) Idem'

1 Controv. Dis. 42.

The most happy Lord ................. St Aug. Epis. 95.

The universal Patriarch .............. St Leo, Epis. 62.

T World'' °f ^ ChUrCl; °( ^ } ""X*- ad *' f- <* C°™' Mi">'

The Father of Fathers ................. Council of Chalced. scss. iii.

The Sovereign Pontiff of Bishops.... Idem in proef.

The Sovereign Priest .................. Council of Chalced. sess. xvi.

The Prince of Priests .................. Stephen Bishop of Carthage.

The Prefect of the House of God... { C°£^j£ ^^^ Bptot tC
The Guardian of the Vineyard of ) T ,
the Lord } L

The Vicar of Jesus Christ f8^!^*?!*"** ia Evang>

The Confirmer of the Faith of)

Christians J

The High Priest I Valentinian, and with him all anti

The Sovereign Pontiff .................. {

The Prince of Bishops .................. Idem.

The Heir of the Apostles ............. St Bernard, Lib. de. consid.

Abraham by the Patriarchate ........ St Ambrose in 1 Tim. iii.

Melchisedeck through holy orders... Cone, de Chal. Epis. ad Leoneni.

h st Bernard'

Samuel by his Jurisdiction ............ Ibid.

Peter by his Power ...................... Ibid.

Christ by unction ........................ Ibid.

The Pastor of the fold of Jesus ) _ , T ., ,

Chrigt > Idem Lib. de consid.

The Key-bearer of the House of j T ,

God ................................. 1 Id<

The Pastor of all Pastors .............. Ibid.

The Pontiff called to the fulness 1 ... .

of Power ........................... } Ibld'

St Peter was the Monk of Jesus

Horn. 1, in Mat.
' ad

The Origin of sacerdotal unity ...... Id. Epis. iii. 2.

The Bond of Unity ..................... Id. ibid. iv.

The Church in which resides the 1 _, .... ...

chief principality. ___ ............ } Id' lbl<J' u1'

The Church, root and mother of J St Anacletus of the 1st cent.

all others .» ......................... j Epist. adorn. Epis. et Fideles.

The Seat on which the Lord hath

founded the Universal Church

> St Damasus Epist. ad univ. Episc.

The Cardinal Point, and the Chief ) „, ,r , „ . . „ .

of all the Churches J St Marcel Epist. ad Episc. Antioch.

The Refuge of Bishops Council of Alex.

The Supreme Apostolic Seat St Athanasius.

The Presiding Church The Emperor Justin, in Lib. 8.

The Supreme See, which cannot ) c, T .

be judged by any other | St Leo in nat' S'S< AP°8'

the Church set over and pre- ) victor d* Utique in Lib. de perf.

ferred to all others j

The First of all Sees St Prosper in Lib. de Ingrat.

The Apostolic Fountain St Ignatius, Epis. ad Rom.

The most sure Haven of all Catho- ) _ .. frt A 04. r< i •

lie Communion } CounCl1 °f R°me' Under St Gelasiu»-

It would be an idle parade of gleaning, to continue
a catalogue of similar appellatives, which could easily
be drawn from the decrees of Councils, the writings
of the apostolic fathers, and the epistles of the saints
and sages in every age. We shall content ourselves
with giving one more extract from the Catholic side,
and then proceed to adduce the declarations of those
who are not in communion with the Church.

Count de Maistre, in his elaborate work, " Du
Pape,"1 very happily observes, that there is " nothing
in all ecclesiastical history so invincibly demonstrat-
ed, as the monarchical supremacy of the sovereign
Pontiff. It was not, indeed, at its origin, what it
became some centuries later; but in this precisely does
it shew itself divine ; for every thing that exists legiti-
mately and for ages, exists at first in germ, and is
developed successively.'1'1 He then cites Bossuet,2 who
speaks in the most energetic and thrilling manner.

" Peter appears the first in every way : the first in
making profession of faith — the first in the obliga-
tion of charity — the first of all the apostles who saw
our Saviour risen from the dead, as he was also the
first witness before all the people : the first when there
was question of filling up the number of the apostles
—the first to confirm the faith by a miracle — the first
to convert the Jews — the first to receive the Gentiles
— the first everywhere. But it is impossible to
say all: every thing concurs in establishing his
primacy. . . . The power, divided among many, im-
ports its restriction : conferred on one alone, over all,
and without exception, it bears the evidence of its
1 Translated by the Rev. ..-Eneas M'D. Dawson.
3 Sermoa sur PUnit£.

plenitude. All reverence the same power, but not in
the same degree, nor to the same extent. Jesus Christ
commences by the chief, and in the person of the chief t
developes all his power, in order that we should learn
that the ecclesiastical authority, being originally cen-
tred in one individual, has been diffused only on the
condition that it should always be reflected back on
the principle of its unity, and that all they who share
in it, should be inseparably connected with that See,
which is the common centre of all churches."

The great Bishop of Meaux proceeds in his own
impassioned strain. " It is that chair — the chair of
Peter at Rome — so celebrated among the fathers of
the Church, in exalting which they have vied with
one another, attributing to it the principality of the
apostolic chair — the chief principality — the source of
unity — the highest degree of sacerdotal dignity — the
Mother Church, which holds in her hand the con-
duct of all other churches — the Head of the episco-
pate— whence proceeds the light of government — the
principal chair, the only chair, through which alone
all are able to preserve unity. In these words you
hear St Optatus, St Augustine, St Cyprian, St Ire-
naeus, St Prosper, St Avitus, St Theodoret, the Coun-
cil of Chalcedon, and the other Councils — Africa,
Gaul, Greece, Asia — the east and the west united
together. . . . Since it was the design of God to permit that
there should arise schisms and heresies, there was no constitu-
tion that more firmly could sustain itself, or more powerfully
bear them down. By this constitution every thing in
the Church is strong, because every thing therein is
divine and united; and as each part is divine, the
bond also is divine, and all together is such, that
each part acts with the power of the whole. . . . For
this reason our predecessors declared, that they acted
in the name of St Peter, by the authority given to
all the bishops, in the person of St Peter, as vicars

of St Peter ; and they spoke thus, even when they
acted by their ordinary and subordinate authority ;
because all was committed in the first place to St
Peter ; and because such, is the correspondence of one
part with another throughout the whole body of the
Church, that what each bishop does according to the
rule, and in the spirit of Catholic unity, the whole
Church, the whole episcopate, and the chief of the
episcopate, do together with him."

After this magnificent burst of eloquence, further
comment would be unavailing. We shall now bring
forward testimonies from the liturgies of the Russo-
Greek Church, which certainly must fill us with sur-
prise, seeing that that Church no longer acknow-
ledges the supremacy of the Roman pontiff. Still
they are exceedingly interesting, and are, as it were,
the very condemnation of the schismatical church
that continues to use them daily in her service. The
following hymn is sung by the Russian Church : —

" 0 ! St Peter ! prince of the apostles ! apostolic
primate ! immoveable rock of faith, in recompense of
thy confession, eternal foundation of the Church : pas-
tor of the speaking flock : bearer of the keys of hea-
ven : chosen from among all the apostles to be, after
Jesus Christ, the first foundation of the holy Church
— rejoice ! rejoice ! never to be shaken pillar of the
orthodox faith ! chief of the apostolic college." — From
the Prayer-Book " Akaphisti Sedmitchnii."

Again, " Prince of the apostles. . . . Thou hast
been the first bishop of Rome, the honour and the
glory of that very great city. On thee has the Church
been consolidated." — From the " Office of the Saints."
Moscow, 1813.

Again, " God said to Peter, « Thou art Peter;'
and he gave to him this name, because upon him, as
on a solid rock, Jesus Christ founded his Church." —

From the Book of Rites, styled " Pholog." Mos-
cow, 1677.

In equally glowing terms does the Russo-Greek
Church speak of the successors of St Peter : —

" After the death of St Peter and his two succes-
sors, Clement held with wisdom at Rome the helm of
the bark, which is the Church of Jesus Christ." —
From the Office of January 15th, " Mineia Mesatch-
naia."

Again, " Clement, martyr of Jesus Christ, disciple
of Peter, . . . and the true heir of his throne." — From
a hymn in honour of Clement, " Minei Tchethiki."

Several other equally pointed testimonies are at
hand, which we forbear extracting. These, how-
ever, in their own way, go so far to vindicate the
supremacy of the holy Roman Church, while they
serve to confound every heretical and schismatical
communion that is separated from the centre of unity.

Well does De Maistre write, when he says,1 " If it
be asked, how a Church which recites such testi-
monies daily, nevertheless obstinately denies the su-
premacy of the Pope, I reply, that men are led to-day
by what they did yesterday ; that it is not easy to ob-
literate ancient liturgies ; that they are followed by
habit, even whilst systematically contradicted ; that,
in fine, the blinded, at once and most incurable pre-
judices, are those of religion. All this considered,
we are not entitled to be astonished at any thing.
The testimonies, meanwhile, are all the more pre-
cious, that they strike at the same time the Greek
Church, mother of the Russian, which has ceased to be
her daughter. But the rites] of the liturgical looks
leing the same, a moderately vigorous man can easily
pierce loth churches, though no longer united, with the
same blow."

1 The Pope, book i. chap, x.

In a note which is here appended, the following
judicious observations are made for the enlightenment
of those who believe that the churches in Russia and
Greece are the same. " It is not uncommon to hear
confounded in conversation, the Russian and Greek
churches. There is nothing, however, more obviously errone-
ous. The former was indeed, at its origin, ^a province
of the Greek Patriarchate. But there happened to it,
what must necessarily happen to every church that is
not Catholic, which by the force of circumstances alone,
will end always by becoming wholly dependent on iti
temporal Sovereign." How strikingly is this remark
illustrated in the Anglican establishment, from the
time that Queen Elizabeth threatened to unfrock the
refractory English Prelate, to the days of her present
gracious Majesty, when the almost unanimous peti-
tion of the bench of Bishops in the Hampden case,
was utterly disregarded. All this proving the Angli-
can church to be more and more the mere creature —
the absolute slave of the state. " There is then, no
longer, a G reek church out of Greece ; and the church
of Russia is no more Greek than it is Coptic or Ar-
menian. It stands alone in the Christian world, not
less a stranger to the Pope, whom it does not acknow-
ledge, than to the separated Greek Patriarch, who
would be considered a maniac, if it entered into his
mind to send any kind of order to St Petersburgh.
The shadow even of all co-ordinate authority in re-
ligion has disappeared, as regards the Russians to-
wards their former Patriarch. The church of this
great people, wholly isolated, has ceased even to have
a spiritual chief possessing a place in the pages of
ecclesiastical history. As to the " Holy Synod" we
ought to entertain, in regard to each of its members
taken singly, the highest consideration ; but behold-
ing them in a body, we can only see the national con-
sistency rendered complete, by the presence of a civil

representative of the prince, who exercises over this ecclesiasti-
cal committee, precisely the same supremacy that the sovereign
exercises over the church in general."

With regard to the Greek church in particular,
these and similar testimonies in favour of the holy
apostolic see are found, and still read in her liturgy.
We wish this to be distinctly remembered, as it ought
to tell upon our high church religionists in Scotland.
The Scottish as well as English Episcopalians have
for some time past been anxious to fraternize with
the Greek Church. Now, the Greek Church admits
almost the entire creed of the Catholic Church, which
they do not. There are two articles of faith, how-
ever, which the Greek Church does not receive, and
these involve her in the crimes of heresy and schism
— of heresy, because she denies one of the fundamental
dogmas of Christianity, viz. the procession of the
Holy Ghost ; and of schism, on account of her conti-
nued separation from the centre of unity.

It is idle for the so-called Bishops and Presbyters
of the English and Scottish Episcopal denomina-
tion to deceive themselves, and what is worse, to de-
ceive their followers, by talking about their orders. Their
orders are a nullity in the eyes both of the Catholic and
of the Greek Church. The Catholic Church looks
upon him, who is styled by the law of the land, Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, as a mere layman. In the
same light does she regard those ycleped Bishops who
are appointed overseers, not by the grace of God and
the favour of the apostolic see, but by the patronage of
her gracious Majesty, and the favour of her prime
Minister ! Those who are at all acquainted with the
schism of Photius, know full well, that the Greek
Church refuses to recognise the validity of mere Eng-
lish or Scottish ordination. In fact, as the distin-
guished Father Theiner, Priest of the Oratory, point-
edly observes in his elaborate work, L'Egliso Schis-

matique Russe.1 " The Russian Church— (the same
may be said of the Greek) — has always regarded the
followers of Protestantism, as a sort of Pagans, with
whom it forbids the faithful to place themselves in
service. This may be seen in the code of Alexis
Michallowitch, in 1648."

Renouf in his letter to Mr Allies, says, " Any one
who admits the orthodoxy of the Roman or Greek
Churches must necessarily look upon Anglicanism
as a tissue of Anti-Christian heresies."

An extract or two from the very interesting " Jour-
nal of a Tour in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Greece,"
by Mr Patterson, late of the Oxford School, will
serve in its own way to quench the pretensions of An-
glicanism. The author and his fellow traveller Mr
Wynne, like Moore's " Irish gentleman in search of
religion," had embarked on a pilgrimage to the Holy
Land, with the devout anticipation of finding the
Anglican branch church grafted upon some one of the
Eastern religious trees. His sad disappointment, let
us hear from himself, in the preface : —

" My hope in the then state of my belief, was that I
should find support for the * High Church' views, in
the religious state of the East. Never was there a
more signal mistake. The attitude of the Anglican
establishment towards the Church is indeed paralleled
to a certain extent by the schismatic bodies of the
East ; but while they for the most part utterly reject
the Anglican claims, they themselves afford the best
examples of those sins for which she remains cut off
from the Catholic Church. In the mirror thus held
up, I saw what birth and education had disguised to
me in my own communion— the essentially abnor-
mal and maimed condition of local and national
Christianity."

Again he says, " The notion that the Eastern sects.
1 Chap. xi. p. 301.

help our positions as Anglicans, seems to me quite
visionary."

The following little morceau speaks volumes. It
gently chides those Episcopalians in England and
Scotland who have assumed to themselves the name " Ca-
tholic :" — -for no one else would give it to them — who talk of
their clergymen as " Priests," and of the communion
service as a " celebration." These designations are all
misnomers, and quite out of place, when applied to
the empty services of Scottish or English Episcopacy.
The unreality of the whole system is thus laid bare in
a few words : —

" We walked up to the Catholic Convent (at Girgeh
in Egypt), and were most kindly received by the Fran-
ciscan missionary. He had with him a friend, who
lives about three hours from here, and seemed a very
intelligent and well informed person, and like the Fa-
ther himself, an Italian. Of course one of the first
questions was whether we were Catholics? — We an-
swered in the affirmative : and the Padre asked whe-
ther we were Priests, as he had heard that mass was
celebrated on board our boat ? I said that W. was a
Priest, and celebrated: upon which he begged us to stayr
and that W. should celebrate in his Church. He also
asked me, whether he had the license to celebrate from
Rome, or from his Archbishop? . . . All this con-
vinces us that it is absolutely necessary in future to
renounce the name of Catholic in intercourse with Ca-
tholics, who, of course, cannot conceive persons out of
communion with them taking it."

Easily could we cite now, were it necessary, the tes-
timonies of many distinguished Protestants, who con-
eur with the learned Grotius in declaring,1 " that with-
out the primacy of the Pope, there would be no longer
any means of putting an end to disputes, and of deter-
ming points of faith."

1 Votum pro pace-

Yes ! without this central and rallying point there
would be nothing but religious confusion in Christen-
dom— without this grand principle of church organiza-
tion there would be no order, and consequently no
unity in the " Household of Faith." Thanks to God's
kind providence it hath been otherwise ordained, and
in the " One Fold of the One Shepherd," there is
peace — there is happiness — there is security : elsewhere
these inestimable blessings are to be sought for in vain-

The present illustrious Bishop of Baltimore, from
whose work on the Primacy I have already quoted, sums
up thus beautifully upon this most important subject : —
" The wisdom of Christ in appointing a ruler and pas-
tor under himself, to confirm and unite the brethren, is
obvious. Order can be maintained in a body of men
only by some authority exercised by one, whatever be
its origin, or its limits : and that authority should be
proportioned to the importance of the objects to be at-
tained, and the number of persons to be directed or
governed. A certain precedency of rank may suffice
in a body, where objects dependent on the will of the
members are at stake : but where high interests, inde-
pendent of the fluctuating views of men, are in ques-
tion, a binding authority, divinely constituted and guarded,
is necessary. Even among the apostles there was evi-
dently a certain precedency exercised by Peter, whilst
our Lord was present. When he had withdrawn from
earth, and the apostolic band was augmented by a
large number of Bishops, and the Church was spread
throughout many nations, every appearance of unity
would soon have vanished, had there not been a cen-
tral authority around which all might gather. This
became still more necessary, when the apostles closed
their career, and their successors were multiplied and
scattered to the utmost bounds of civilization, and be *
yond it. The confusion of tongues would have ensued,
had there not been a divinely constituted Leader. The

professed subjection of all to Christ would not have re-
strained the vagaries of human opinion, or preserved
the harmony of believers. Without an infinitude of
miracles, in proportion to the number of professors, and
the diffusion of religion, there would be no order, no
unity, no faith ; and the evidence which our Lord re-
ferred to, for convincing the world that He was sent by
the Father, namely, the union of His disciples in the
profession of revealed truth, would have been utterly
wanting. Whilst Christ was visibly present, the dis-
ciples gathered around Him, and were one family, He
being the Head : when He was about to withdraw His
visible presence, He left Peter at the head of his
brethren, pastor of the fold, and ruler of the kingdom.
To this divine arrangement, we owe the preservation
of the revealed truths, and the unity of the Church."

Ill THE SUPREMACY EXERCISED,

Having demonstrated that the supremacy was pro-
mised, and that the supremacy was instituted, we pro-
ceed now to shew how frequently it was exercised by
the prince of the apostles. Christ Jesus having ac-
complished the great end of his high and holy mission
upon earth, ascended to his Father and his God. Be-
fore his departure he had put all in order — he had
made every arrangement for the complete carrying
out of the work of the ministry — he had declared who
were to teach, and who were to be taught, and he had
announced to all the indispensable necessity of listen-
ing to his Church. " And if he will not hear the
Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publi-
can."1 His Church he had founded upon a rock, and
1 Mat. xviii. 17.

that rock was Peter: His Church was likened to a
kingdom; and the keys of that spiritual kingdom he
delivered to his viceroy, and that viceroy was Peter:
His Church was assimilated to a sheepfold, and the
care of the lambs and of the sheep he gave to his
principal shepherd, and that shepherd was Peter: His
Church was his mystical body, and the head of that
body he constituted Peter. We have only to open the
New Testament, and we shall see how Peter, knowing
and feeling the responsibilities of his sacred office, pro-
ceeded at once to discharge the onerous duties which
came within the sphere of the Primacy. In turning
over the pages of the inspired volume, we cannot
fail to observe the prominent part which Peter acted
in every crisis, and under every emergency.

After the ascension of our blessed Lord, the very
first step which he took in his official capacity, as
Head of the Church, was to fill up the place left va-
cant in the Apostolic College, by the treasonable
apostacy of Judas.

" In those days, Peter rising up in the midst of the
brethren, said : . . . . Men, brethren, the Scripture
must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke
before by the mouth of David concerning Judas ....
who was numbered \vith us, and had obtained part
of this ministry. . . . His bishopric let another take.
Wherefore of these men who have companied with
us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went
out among us. ... One of these must be made a wit-
ness with us of his resurrection."1

Here Peter directs the attention of his brethren to
the prophecy that had been made in regard to the
treachery of the fallen apostle : he declares that an-
other must be appointed to the bishopric, and he an-
nounces from amongst whom the selection is to be
made. He was perfectly authorized to have named
1 Acts i. 15.

the successor to Judas in the apostleship, but he ab-
stained from so doing, not from any defect of power,
but rather to afford an example of its moderate use.
This is the view which the great Bishop of Constan-
tinople takes of the case.

In his third homily, St John Chrysostom says:
" Peter having received from Christ the care of the
flock, and being the leader of the apostolic college,
is always the first to speak. Why did he not himself
alone beg of the Lord to give him some one in the
place of Judas? Why do not the brethren of them-
selves proceed with the election ? Behold how he
does all things with the general consent, nothing au-
thoritatively, nothing imperiously — Men, brethren, he
says. Since Christ called his disciples brethren, still
more should lie style them such. Wherefore he ad-
dressed them, all being present : Behold the dignity
of the Church, and its angelic condition. ... Could
not Peter himself have chosen the individual ? Most
certainly. But he abstains from doing it, lest he
should appear to indulge partiality. He is the first to
proceed in this matter, because all have been delivered
over into his hands: for to him Christ said: Thou
being converted, confirm thy brethren"

Let us just follow for awhile the course of events
as narrated by the evangelist. The apostles leave the
place of assembly filled with the Holy Ghost. They
go forth to the streets of Jerusalem, and they con-
found the natives as well as the strangers who at that
time were there " out of every nation under heaven,"
by speaking to them in their own " tongues, the won-
derful works of God." And they wondered, saying,
"Are not all these that speak Galileans ?" * Who is now
to answer them ? who is to speak on the part of the
apostles ? who is the first to preach after receiving the
Holy Ghost? who is the first to announce to the con-
1 Acts ii. 7.

gregated multitude to " do penance and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Christ Jesus? " It is
Peter, the prince of the apostles ; and the Lord blessed
his first sermon by adding to the Church " in that day
about three thousand souls."

Time went on — some years passed away, and the
Gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles as it had
been to the Jews : all the nations of the earth are to
partake of the salvation purchased on Calvary. Who,
then, is the. first to instruct the Gentiles, and to con-
vert them to Christianity? It is again Peter , whom
God himself by a vision authorized to baptize Corne-
lius the Centurion, and who was to preach to the un-
believers the baptism and faith of Christ crucified.
" While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy
Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And
the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter,
wrere astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost
was poured out upon the Gentiles also."1

The apostles had received the power of working
miracles as a proof of their divine mission. Who,
then, is the first to exercise that heavenly prerogative?
It is Peter who works the first miracle in healing the
sick, and raising the dead.

In the Acts of the Apostles2 we read — " Now Peter
and John went up into the temple, at the ninth hour
of prayer. And a certain man who was lame — seeing

them— asked to receive an alms But Peter said:

Silver and gold I have none : but what I have I give
thee : In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, arise and
walk" He then preached aloud the glad tidings of
redemption, and " five thousand " souls were added to
the Church.

Again,3 " And he found there a certain man named
Eneas, who had kept his bed for eight years, who was
ill of the palsy. And Peter said to him : Eneas, the
Lord Jesus Christ healeili thee, arise."

1 Acts x. 44. 2 Chap. iii. 1. t» Acts ch. ix. 33.

Again,1 In Joppe, there was a certain woman,
named Tabitha, " full of good works, and alms deeds
which she did. And it came to pass that she was
sick and died. . . . And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh
to Joppe, the disciples hearing that Peter was there, sent
unto him two men, desiring him that he would not be
slack to come unto them. And Peter rising up went
with them. . . . Peter kneeling down prayed, and turn-
ing to the body he said: Tabitha, arise"

The rulers of the world lay violent hands upon
the apostles, and Peter is the First to proclaim, in
chains and before the tribunal, that there is no salva-
tion in any other name, but in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ. " Then Peter, filled with the Holy
Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people and
ancients, hear."

Herod persecutes the apostles, and Peter he casts
into prison. The whole Church is thrown into mourn-
ing, thus deprived of its visible Head, and prayers
without ceasing are poured forth by the faithful to
heaven in his behalf. An angel is sent by God to
loose his chains, and set the noble captive free.

Peter, as head shepherd, was ever watchful over all
the members of his flock. Ananias, and Sapphira,
his wife, had been guilty of fraud. The chief pastor
denounces the iniquity, and they "fell down and gave
up the ghost." Acts v.

Simon, the sorcerer, wished to " purchase the gift
of God with money : " Peter is the first to execrate
the Simoniacal proposal. " Keep thy money to thy-
self to perish with thee." Acts viii. 20.

Now, these may be considered as minor acts which
so far tell in favour of Peter's chief apostolate, be-
cause they shew that he took the lead among the
apostles, yet still more positive proofs are at hand.

The unity of the Church was threatened — division
was making its appearance — considerable sensation
1 Chap. ix. 36.

was created at Antioch, in consequence of certain Ju-
daizing Christians, who seemed to require that all con-
verts from the Gentiles should submit to the rite of
circumcision, and to other observances of the Mosaic
law. The circumstance was rather serious, for two of
the apostles had expostulated with them in vain. " Paul
and Barnabas had no small contest with them :" l but
failed to make them acquiesce in their judgment.
It was therefore resolved upon that they, " and cer-
tain others of the other side, should go up to the
apostles and priests to Jerusalem, about this question^
Here, then, was the tribunal of appeal : to this tri-
bunal all of necessity were to bow. There was no al-
ternative whatever — either to submit to the decision
of the Church speaking authoritatively in her first
council of Jerusalem, or to be reputed as " the hea-
then or the publican."

" The apostles and ancients assembled to consider
of this matter. And when there had been much dis-
puting, Peter, rising up, said to them : Men, brethren,
you know that in former days God made choice
among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should bear
the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, who
knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto
them the Holy Ghost as well as to us : and put no
difference between us and them, purifying their
hearts by faith. Now, therefore, ivhy tempt you God^
to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which
neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear ?
But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we believe
to be saved, in like manner as they also."

The account here furnished in the 15th chapter of
the Acts is most important. The apostles and an-
cients had convened together to perpend the subject
in question. Peter, as head of the Apostolic College,
presides over the august assembly, and after the mat-

1 Acts xv. ii.

ter had been examined in its various bearings, he rises
up to pronounce the final decision. In a strain of
inspired eloquence, he proceeds to remind the vene-
rable assembly that he had been selected to announce
the Gospel to the Gentiles, and that God had showered
down his graces upon them. He goes on to state how
objectionable it would be to impose unnecessary bur-
dens upon the brethren by requiring the observance
of the ceremonial law which was already abrogated,
and he declares that the great fundamental point to
which the attention of the Gentile and the Jew
should be directed, was salvation to all, through the
atoning merits of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We find that a most profound impression was made
by the discourse of the great apostle. " All the mul-
titude held their peace," and seemed to ponder over
his words. As before mentioned, not a little misunder-
standing prevailed at Antioch, which both Paul and
Barnabas were unable to correct. This collision of
opinion manifested itself afterwards during the debate
in the Council of Jerusalem. But no sooner did
Peter arise to speak, and to speak ex cathedra, than all
was silence, and the result shewed itself in the great
unanimity which thereupon prevailed. Now, it is
impossible to read the simple narrative, as given by
the inspired penman, without being struck with the
tone of authority which pervades the discourse ot
Peter. The result abundantly proves his decided su-
periority, when he quashed all further dissension.

The decree which emanated from the council em-
bodied the decision of Peter, and the suggestion of
James, and was couched in the following solemn
terms : — " It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost
and to us, to lay no farther burden upon you than
these necessary things : — That you abstain from things
sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled."

All Christian antiquity agrees that St Peter was

the head of the Council of Jerusalem, and the con-
curring circumstances on record tend to indicate that
he either summoned the council personally, or con-
sented to its convocation. We have seen how he
spoke in the manner no one else could venture to
speak — he spoke with supreme authority. He silenced
further disputing, by his enlightened instruction, and
finally pronounced the decision which was at once
acquiesced in by all assembled.

Tertullian1 describes the decision of Peter as the
exercise of the power of binding and of loosing : " The
decree of Peter loosed such things of the law as were
set aside, and bound fast such as were retained."

St Jerome says,2 that " Peter was the author of this
decree."

Theodoret,3 the celebrated Bishop of Cyrus, speaks
of the controversy at Antioch as a question which
Paul wished should be referred to Peter, that thereby
it might be settled. In his letter to Pope Leo he thus
writes : — " If Paul, who was the herald of truth, the
organ of the Holy Spirit, had recourse to the great
Peter, in order to obtain a decision from him respect-
ing the observances of the law, for those who disputed
at Antioch on this subject, with much greater reason,
we who are abject and weak, have recourse to your
Apostolic See, that we may receive from ,you, reme-
dies for the wounds of the Churches. For it is fit that
you in all things should be first, for your throne is
adorned with prerogatives."

St John Chrysostom4 writes : " How zealous is Peter !
How sensible that the flock was by Christ committed to
his charge ! How does he shew himself the Chief in
this Council I as having received from Christ the charge
of the flock : as being the first of the choir, he is the
first to speak with authority on the question : because

1 De pudicitia. 2 Epis. 45.

a Episod. Leonem. * Hoin. iii. in Acta.

to him all had been made subject. For Christ says
to him : * Do thou, being converted, confirm thy
brethren.' "

Protestant writers cannot disguise from themselves
the strong testimonies which we are thus able to bring
from Christian antiquity to illustrate and to prove this
fact. Hence many of them yield to the pressure from
without, and write accordingly.

Cave1 explains the words of Paul, " that he went to
Jerusalem to see Peter," of his going up to that city
on the occasion in question, " because Peter was the
leading person in the council."

Barrow2 admits the conspicuous part which St Pe-
ter uniformly acted. He says, " At the consultation
about supplying the place of Judas, he rose up, pro-
posed, and pressed the matter. At the convention of
the apostles and elders, about resolving the debate
concerning observance of Mosaical institutions, he first
rose up and declared his sense. In the promulgation
of the gospel, and defence thereof, before the Jewish
rulers, he did assume the conduct, and constantly took
upon him to be the speaker ; the rest standing by him,
implying assent, and ready to avow his word."

But why dwell on what is so abundantly patent to
every candid mind? The sacred Scriptures invariably
represent Peter as the first of the apostles — the chief
pastor of the fold — the foundation and the head of the
Church. This grand truth we must either admit, or
declare aloud that there is nothing clear — nothing
proved in Scripture.

However, while we uphold on the strongest grounds
the official dignity of St Peter, we would wish to ab-
stain from instituting any comparison, with regard to
the relative merits, or to the personal qualifications of
the Apostles. We know that they were chosen by

i Soee. Apos. 3 A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy.

Christ, and all singularly favoured. The natural ta-
lents of some may have been greater, and more highly
cultivated than others. But that is beside the question.
The question is, Who was constituted by the Redeemer
the Head of his Church?

It is true that some of them have left more writings
to posterity, and perhaps, during their lifetime, may
have laboured more incessantly than Peter. Matthew,
Mark, and Luke record, each in his own way, the his-
tory of the life and teaching of our blessed Saviour.
The beloved John, from his isle of Patmos, towers aloft
in spirit before the throne of God, and gives us to know,
in his mysterious book of the Apocalypse, what he has
seen and heard. Paul is taken up to the third heaven,
and future generations will read with rapture his im-
mortal epistles. The time will come, says Bossuet,
when Rome, the city of learning, and the mistress of
the arts and sciences, will feel more proud of one of
Paul's unstudied letters, than of all the polished ora-
tions of her Cicero. Whereas Peter leaves nothing be-
hind him but two short epistles. Yet Peter is the
centre of unity : he is the fundamental rock of the im-
mortal edifice of Christ's Church !

In the Apostolic age, Peter's superior rank was known
and duly recognised. No one disputed that he was
the rock of the Church — no one contended for the keys
of his authority — no one ambitioned his shepherd's
crook. The Evangelists point him out as pre-emi-
nently distinguished by the nature of his office, and
advert to the various circumstances in which he stands
conspicuous. He is always mentioned as holding the
first place, and he shews himself well worthy of his
position : for he was the first to confess the faith — the
first to express his obligation of love — the first to give
an example of severe penance and renewed constancy
— the first of the Apostles who saw Christ after his
resurrection — the first to bear testimony to this fact

before all the people — the first to fill up the number of
the Apostles — the first who confirmed the faith by a
miracle — the first to convert the Jews — the first to re-
ceive the Gentiles — the first to suffer for the sake of
Christianity, and to preach Christ crucified before the
Judges — the first to call a general council, and to de-
clare what was necessary to be done : in a word, Peter
was the first upon all occasions, and every thing cries
out in favour of his Primacy.

The judicious Potter, in his work on Church Go-
vernment, observes, " Our Lord appeared to Peter after
his resurrection, before the rest of the Apostles ; and
before this, He sent the message of his resurrection to
him in particular." He speaks of Peter's public mode
of acting after Christ's ascension, and thus sums up, —
" From these and other examples which occur in the
Scriptures, it is evident that St Peter acted as chief of the
college of Apostles, and so he is constantly described by
the primitive writers of the Church, who call him the
Head, the President, the Prolocutor, the Chief, the Fore-
man of the Apostles, with several other titles of dis-
tinction."

Our adversaries, however, in general, who " strain
at gnats," and set aside the clearest demonstrations
which tell against them, follow in the wake of .the Re-
formers, and unblushingly assert with Luther, that " all
the Apostles were equal ;" and, with Calvin, that
" Peter's superiority to the rest of the Apostles can-
not be proved from Scripture." Now, in answer to
these flippant objections, we reply : —

Firstly, We have proved that Peter alone was made
the rock on which Christ's Church was built : the ori-
ginal text importing, " Thou art a rock, and upon this
rock I will build my Church."

Secondly, We have proved that continued triumph
was secured to the Church built on Peter, the rock :
" the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Thirdly, We have proved that " the keys of the
kingdom of heaven" were given, in express terms, to
Peter alone : " To thee will I give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven."

Fourthly, We have proved that the power of bind-
ing and loosing given to all the Apostles in common,
was given to Peter singly and pre-eminently — " What-
soever thou shalt bind — whatsoever ihou shalt loose."

Fifthly, We have proved that Peter alone was
charged to confirm his brethren, and that his own faith
should never afterwards fail : " Thou being converted,
confirm thy brethren."

Sixthly, We have proved that Peter alone, as su-
preme pastor of the fold of Christ, was commissioned
to " feed the lambs, and to feed the sheep."

Now, if we take into account, by way of contrast,
the powers given to the Apostles in common, and to
Peter in particular, we shall find, as Allies, with great
beauty and strength of sentiment, has put the case in
his interesting work, •' The See of St Peter," that —

1. He received many things alone — they nothing
without him.

2. His powers can be exercised only by one — theirs
by many.

3. His powers include theirs — not theirs his.

4.. The ordinary government of the Church, pro-
mised and prefigured in the keys of the kingdom of
heaven, conveyed and summed up in " Feed my sheep,"
that is the pastoral office — radiates from his person :
the Episcopate is folded up in the Primacy.

Moreover, as to the continuance and descent of these
powers, the same principle which leads all churchmen
to believe, that the ordinary powers bestowed on the
Apostles in common for the good of the Church are
continued on those who govern the Church for ever,
leads also to the belief, that the power bestowed on Peter,
likewise for the good of the Church, continues on to his

successors in like manner. Indeed, part of the promise
is express on this head, assigning perpetual continu-
ance to the Church founded on Peter.

Farther, we learn in what respects the Apostles were
equal to Peter, and in what he was superior to them.

They were equal in the powers of the Episcopate ;
they were equal also in those of the Apostolate, super-
added to the former, that is, immediate institution by
Christ, and universal mission, they were inferior to
him in one point only, which made up his Primacy,
namely, that they must exercise all these powers in
union with him, and in dependence on him ; he had singly,
what they had collectively with him. He had promised
and engaged to him first and alone the supreme govern-
ment, a portion of which was afterwards promised to
them with him ; and after the apostolate granted to
them all in common, he had the supervision of all en-
trusted to him alone. For even they were committed to
his charge in the words, " Feed my sheep." And so
he alone was the door-keeper, he alone the shepherd of
the fold ; he alone the rock on which even they, as
well as all other Christians were built ; in one word,
He was their head, and so his primacy is an essential part,
nay the crown and completion of the divine govern-
ment of the Church ; for the body without a head is
no body." This is distinctly brought out in the relative
position of the Apostles ; their orders were the same,
but Peter's superior jurisdiction stands conspicuously alone.

An objection is drawn from the Acts, chapter
8, verse 14. u When the apostles who were in
Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the
word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John."
Hence it is argued that Peter being thus sent by the
apostles, was only their equal, and not their supe-
rior.

In answer to this we say that this is a mere verbal
quibble ; and, secondly, we say that although the verb

to send usually implies superiority in those who send,
yet the word is frequently employed, where an expres-
sion of desire is only signified. A case in point will
illustrate our meaning. In the book of Josue1 we read
that Phinees the High Priest of the Jews was " sent "
by all the people to confer with the tribes of Reuben
and Gad. Surely the high dignity of the priesthood
was in no manner compromised, because he had gone
on that embassy at the express desire of the people, who
certainly would never have dreamed of commanding
him. When the dispute arose at Antioch about the
ceremonial law, the disciples " determined that Paul and
Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should
go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about
this question." This is as much as to say they sent
Paul and Barnabas — the word determine being equally
strong. Now no one contends that these two apostles were,
inferior to those who had " determined they should go
up to Jerusalem." The apostles then sent Peter and
John to Samaria, doubtless by strongly urging upon
them the expediency of that visit, and the more so, as
it specially belonged to the office of the supreme Pas-
tor to admit into the Church those inveterate schis-
matics as were the Samaritans, and thus for the one
shepherd to gather the strayed sheep into the one fold.

It is objected, if the doctrine of Peter's supremacy
and his successors be scriptural, we should find it in
the Bible ; but the Bible is silent on the subject,
therefore it is not scriptural.

This at most is a negative argument, lut it is not even
iJiat: it is a hollow objection certainly of no avail
against the positive proof which has been adduced.
But let us see how it can be made to recoil against
our adversaries. The laborious Husenbeth thus
happily retorts : Protestants own " the spiritual

supremacy of a temporal prince. If this doctrine be
an article of faith, we may reasonably expect that it
would be distinctly and explicitly stated in Holy
Scripture. Yet what the thirty-nine articles have de-
termined on this head, the Bible never so much as
once ever mentions. Not a hint on the topic of the
Queen's absolute spiritual monarchy is dropped in
any part of the inspired ecclesiastical history : nor is
Peter himself, throughout his two epistles, or Paul.
throughout his fourteen letters, a whit more commu-
nicative, although both had very Jit occasions to mention
the matter, when writing on the power of Icings, (1 Pet.
ii. 17, Rom. xiii. 1.) Now let our opponents take their
choice, either on their own grand principle of Bible
alone, give up the King or Queen's spiritual supre-
macy, or with us admit, that although Scripture had
been totally silent on St Peter's supremacy, which,
however, I have shewn that it is not, we might yet
from tradition as well have believed it, as both we and
they believe the lawfulness of infant baptism, and the
truth of the Scripturesathemselves." We may add also,
that from tradition alone, we recognise the lawfulness
of sanctifying the first day of the week, instead of the
seventh, which was commanded by God himself in the
old law to be kept holy.

It is objected that the Jewish converts could not
have believed in the supremacy of Peter, since they
murmured against him for having gone to the Gen-
tiles, and eaten with them. " When Peter was come
up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision
contended with him, saying : why didst thou go in to
men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them ?x

This is a flippant objection, and easily removed.
Peter, remembering the lessons of humility inculcated
by his divine Master, meekly explained the reasons
which had induced him to act as he had done : thus

1 Acts xi. 2.

practising himself what he says in one of his epistles,1
« Be ready always to satisfy every one that asketh
a reason." True, he might have taken the high
hand, and appealed to the sovereign authority of his
office, but he thought it more prudent to accommo-
date himself to their weakness, and to show cause why
he received the Gentiles into the Church. The Jewish
Christians, still under the influence of early preju-
dices, looked upon the heathen with the greatest
aversion. They were filled, however, with confusion,
when Peter declared unto them that the Holy Ghost,
with his sevenfold gifts, had descended upon the Gen-
tiles in the persons of Cornelius and the members of
his family. The sacred text says, " Having heard
these things, they held their peace, and glorified God,
saying, God then hath also to the Gentiles given re-
pentance unto life." The Almighty is no exceptor of
persons ; and the circumstances of race, of caste, and
of country, which eve now have a miserable in-
fluence upon \veak minds, can never for a moment be
regarded by that Eternal Being who has created all
men to his own image and likeness. We may cease,
however, to wonder that the Jewish converts mur-
mured against Peter, when we remember that their
forefathers murmured against Moyses, whose heavenly
mission had been proved by the most stupendous
prodigies. Human nature, when left to itself, is en-
compassed with infirmities, and betrays its earthly
tendencies in so many different ways.

The great St Gregory3 brings the whole affair pro-
minently forward, where he says : " When Peter was
blamed by the faithful, had he regarded the authority
which he had received in the Holy Church, he might
have answered, that the sheep should not dare re-
prove their shepherd, to whom they bad been intrusted.
But if on the complaint of the faithful, he had made

1 1 Peter iii. 15. 2 Lib xi ep Xi

mention of his own power, he would not truly have
been the teacher of meekness. He appeased themr
therefore, in an humble manner, and in the case for
what they blamed him, he even brought forward
witnesses : ' These six brethren came also with me.'
Since then the Pastor of the Church, the Prince of
the Apostles, he who performed in an extraordinary
manner signs and miracles, did not disdain humbly
to give an explanation of the conduct for which he
was blamed, how much more should we who are sin-
ners, when we are blamed for any thing, be ready to
appease our censors by humble explanation ?"

An objection is urged from the Epistle to the Gal-
ations,1 that Peter and Paul had distinct missions —
the one over the Gentiles, the other over the Jews,
and that therefore Peter's superintendence did not
extend over all. To Paul " was committed the Gospel
of the uncircvmcision, to Peter was that of the circum-
cision."

One slight explanation in reply, will destroy at
once this flimsy objection. If we remember the pro-
mises of Christ to Peter — if we recollect that to Peter
as supreme Shepherd of the Fold was committed the
guardianship of the lambs and the sheep — if we take
the fact into account that Peter admitted Cornelius
and his family into the church, we must admit that
Peter's superintendence was universal, and was to
remain un circumscribed. No doubt that Paul was
called in an extraordinary manner to be the Apostle
of the Gentiles, — to preach the Gospel to the uncircum-
cised — and that Peter had a special charge over the
Jews ; still Peter's general commission over the entire
flock is undeniable, as has been amply proved, and
was never to be superseded.

Bloomfield observes : " St Peter was chiefly but not
entirely occupied by the Jews, and St Paul chiefly,

1 Chap, ii 7.

but not wholly with the Gentiles." The special sphere
of St Paul's labours, and the field of action particu-
larly assigned to the different apostles, beautifully
harmonize with St Peter's presidency, and general
supervision.

Another objection, popular as it is trite, is invariably
brought forward. It is from the epistle of St Paul to
the Galatians, chap, ii. 11, " But when Cephas was
come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because
he was to be blamed" — thereby intimating that Paul
rebuked Peter for withdrawing from familiar inter-
course with the converted Gentiles, lest he should
offend the Jews who had arrived at Antioch.

Now let it be observed, in the first place, that before
the objection could hold good, it would be necessary
to ascertain distinctly, that the Cephas of whom St Paul
speaks was in reality St Peter. It is worthy of note,
however, that Clement of Alexandria denies the fact,
and strenuously contends that this Cephas was one of
the 7 2 Disciples. See Eusebius, Historia Ecclcs. Lib.
1. cap. 12, For he says, that St Paul was in the
habit of calling that apostle by his own name Peter —
that he so styled him in the eighth verse of the same
chapter, and that no reason can be assigned, why he
should fall back on the old appellative Cephas. The
learned priest Zaccharia in his Dissertations, shows
how many distinguished writers, both ancient and
modern, have been led to coincide with the opinion of
Clement.

But waiving this point of historical criticism — dato
sed non concesso, — supposing that Cephas was really the
apostle Peter, why then we answer, that the privileges
of supremacy do not necessarily include the exer-
cise, on all occasions, of the strictest prudence and dis-
cretion. The misunderstanding that arose between
the two apostles, resulted from a difference of opinion,
not affecting any doctrinal question, but simply with

100

respect to what was most expedient to be done tinder
the given circumstances. St Peter thought it better-
to conciliate the Jewish rather than the Gentile eonvertsr
although bj so doing he tampered with that Christian
liberty by which we were freed from the ceremonial
law. St Paul, on the other hand, with his character-
istic ardour, openly blamed the imprudence of St Peter
in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles,
for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts, and
said, that this was " not walking uprightly unto the
truth of the Gospel." Thus did he remonstrate with
Cephas — "• If thou being a Jew livest after the man-
ner of the Gentiles, and not of the Jews, how dost thou
compel the Gentiles to follow the way of the Jews."

Granting, then, for the sake of argument, that the
Cephas here mentioned was St Peter, and that he was
openly rebuked by St Paul, what then ? Did St Peter
in consequence cease to be the chief of the apostle? and
tho head of the church ? Or did St Paul deny that the
supremacy was any longer vested in St Peter ? Most
assuredly not. If a superior should fall into a mistake,
it is not only allowable but praiseworthy for an inferior
to admonish him, not forgetting, of course, the respect
due to his office. Thus the faithful general Joab
strongly expostulated with David King of Israel,1 and
yet acknowledged him as his Sovereign. The great ab-
bot of Clairvaux spoke his mind most flatly to Pope
Eugenius III. and never for a moment thought of
calling in question his supremacy. "We Catholics
of the British Empire— forming one tJiird of the popu-
lation of these Islands — may and do with our whole
heart denounce the shameful iniquity of that abor-
tive enactment, the so-called Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,
which has received the sign manual of her Majesty,
without questioning her right to be our lawful Queen.

* 2 Kings, xix. 5.

101

Our adversaries, however, are driven to extremes, since
they grasp at every shadowy objection which may give
a colour of plausibility to their sophistry.

There are other ancient writers, however, who frank-
ly admit, that the Cephas in question was in reality St
Peter, and thus write under this conviction.

Tertullian1 says : " Paul reproved Peter for no other
reason, than the change of his mode of living, which he va-
ried according to the class of persons with whom he as-
sociated, not for any corruption of divine truth.'1

Augustin writes:2 " A just liberty is to be admired in
^aul, and holy humility in Peter."

Gregory, the Great exclaims: 3 " Behold he is repro-
ved by his inferior, and he does not disdain the reproof :
he does not call to mind, that he has received the keys
of the kingdom of heaven."

Now although Paul " withstood Cephas to the face,
because he was blameable," for having done what dis-
pleased the Gentiles, and was inconsistent with Chris-
tian liberty, still he did not forget the dignity of Pe-
ter's office. In the same epistle to the G-alatians he
tells us,* that he had gone to Jerusalem to visit Peter —
a visit which the ancient writers look upon to have been
paid out of deference to Peter's high official position.
" After three years, I went to Jerusalem to see Peter,
and I tarried with him fifteen days."

The great archbishop Chrysostorn views the matter
in this light.6 " Peter was the organ and prince of the
apostles : wherefore Paul went up to see him in preference
to the rest." Again,6 " After so many illustrious acts, al-
though he stood not in need of Peter ... he goes up
to him as a superior and elder, and he had no other
motive for the visit, but merely to see Peter. Remark
how he pays them due honour, and regards himself not

1 Lib. Cont. Marcion. 2 Epis. 21. 3 Lib. in Ezech.

* Chap, i. 18. * Horn. 87, in Joan. 6 In cap. ad Gal.

i 2

102

only as no better, but not even as equal to them. This
is evident from his journey : for as many of our breth-
ren now travel to visit holy men, so Paul likewise with
similar disposition went up to Peter. This was even
much more humble on his part : for men now travel
for their own improvement, but this blessed apostle
went to learn nothing, and to be set right on no point,
but for this only motive, to see him and honour him
by his presence. He uses the term : iffrogijffai — to become
acquainted with Peter : not /'to — simply to see Peter. He
went to become intimately acquainted with him, as
visitors seek to know thoroughly great and splendid
cities."

It is still objected that the very words addressed by
Peter to his fellow-labourers in the ministry, imply an
equality of position.1 " The ancients, therefore, that
are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an an-
cient and a witness of the sufferings of Christ."

To this we answer with Archbishop Kenrick, that
the " term #j»g(r/$u«g0u$ — presbyters, here rendered an-
dents, was then applied to Bishops, whom St Peter
addressed, declaring himself their fellow Bishop, tfu^-
flrgg0]3yrggo£. Perfect equality cannot be meant by this
expression, since, as an Apostle, he was certainly su-
perior to a local Bishop. The character of Bishop is
undoubtedly the same ; but the jurisdiction of an
Apostle, being universal, far exceeds that of him who
is charged with a special flock, as all must acknow-
ledge. There can be no doubt, then, that the text is
consistent with the superior authority of the sacred
writer. The very fact of his general address to the
Bishops, whom he exhorts, and entreats them to per-
form their pastoral duties in an humble, exemplary,
and disinterested manner, affords no slight presump-
tion of his general superintendence and control. His

1 1 Pot. 5.

103

exhortation suits the chief pastor of the flock : — ' Feed
the flock of God which is among you : taking care
thereof not by constraint, but willingly, according to
God : neither for the sake of filthy lucre, but volunta-
rily : neither as domineering over the clergy, but being
made a pattern of the flock from the heart. And when
the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a
never fading crown of glory.' 7>1 Grotius has well re-
marked that this epistle is worthy of the prince of the
Apostles.

11 Paul instructed Timothy and Titus, his own dis-
ciples, whom he had with his own hands consecrated
Bishops: at Miletus he addressed the Bishops, who
came from Ephesus, who were in like manner his spe-
cial disciples : as an Apostle he could direct his admo-
nitions to any Bishop: but it seems not without a spe-
cial design of the Holy Ghost, that Peter, writing to
the strangers — proselytes to Judaism first, and then to
Christianity, dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cap-
padocia, Asia, and Bithynia, should have given solemn
injunctions to all the Bishops of those countries on
the duties of their charge."

But it is high time to make an end of these objec-
tions,^ and thus to wind up the third point, which we
have endeavoured to prove. As we have seen the
Supremacy promised and instituted, so have we seen
the Supremacy duly exercised. Let it be always borne
in mind that the privileges of Church government
were not to remain in abeyance, but rather to be
brought into action when and where required. Now
the Supremacy of Peter stands prominently forward as
one of the most glorious privileges with which Christ
has adorned his Church. In fact, it is so essentially
identified with the well-being of the Church, that with-
out it all would be confusion, but with it all is regu-

1 1 Pet. 2-4.

104

larity. Without the Supremacy of Peter, there Would be
no unity in the Church, and without unity there could
be no catholicity. Take away that Supremacy, and the
Church ceases to be One. She ceases to be Catholic ;
for catholicity without unity is an absolute impossibi-
lity. Take away that Supremacy, and the Church sinks
from her high position — she becomes the Church for
the nation, and is no longer tla.Q' Church for the world.
She would thereby lose her cohesive and consolidating
principle — the key-stone of the arch would be remo-
ved— and the Church would thus be parcelled out into
a thousand and ten thousand different sections. Take
away the Supremacy of Peter, and you destroy the centre
of unity — of universality : you set aside the focus where
the rays of spiritual life and heat are collected toge-
ther : you overturn the axis on which revolves the
whole machinery of Ecclesiastical organization : you
pull down the chief pillar which sustains the wonderful
fabric of the Redeemer, and instead of having, what
you now possess, a structure of surpassing loveliness
which ravishes the eye, and leads captive the heart,
you would then have nothing but a heap of moulder-
ing ruins, in which all the beauteous proportions of
her divine architecture would be utterly lost.

Take away the office of Supreme Pastor, and who
is to " feed the Lambs and the Sheep" — who as Head
Shepherd is to nourish the flock of the one fold, with the
pure milk of holy doctrine — who is to prevent it from
browsing on poisonous pasturage — who is to guard it
from those wolves in sheep's clothing, which are prowling
about for its destruction ?

Take away the office of Chief Ecclesiastical Ruler,
and who is to take precedence in Christendom, — who
is to convoke, a General Council, — who is to preside
on such occasions, — who is to receive appeals, to set-
tle disputes, to pronounce censures, to absolve from
excommunications — in a word, to govern the " holy

105

Churches — to propagate religion in those nations " sit-
ting in darkness and in the shadow of death," — to or-
dain single-minded Pastors for the conversion of souls —
to consecrate single-hearted Bishops to watch over the
priests and the people — to establish new diocesses — to
erect a new Hierarchy, as has been the case in England
— to revive an old one, as might be the case in Scot-
land— to foster an ever-faithful one, as has always
been the case in Ireland ?

Take away the office of the Primacy, and where is
the rock on which Christ built his Church, and where
is the Church against which the gates of Hell were not
to prevail? Where is the " pillar and ground of
truth"1 — where the " shield of faith to extinguish all
the fiery darts of the most wicked one ?"2

No ! the Church of Christ cannot do without the
Supremacy, and the souls of men cannot do without
the Church. The Church exists for the benefit of
men, and the Supremacy exists for the benefit of the
Church. We speak of things as they are, not as they might
be. God might have ordained otherwise, but he has
not done so. Hence, according to the appointment of
God's providence, the Supremacy of Peter is part and
parcel of the Christian constitution, and it can no more
be violated with unhallowed hand, than, for example
the Sacraments can be tampered with, or the sacred
ordinances of religion can be cast aside.

The Supremacy, no doubt, is visible, for the Church is
visible. It has a soul and a body: it thinks, it speaks, it acts,
and has acted, the most conspicuous part on the stage of
human existence for now more than eighteen hundred
years! It is invariably vested in one man, and gene-
rally speaking a feeble old man, and this has become
the stumbling-block of the world, and this remains the
enigma which the world's children are unable to un-

1 Ep. Tim. iii. 15. fi Eph. vi. 16.

106

ravel. The march of civilization and of intellect — the
progressive advances of the sciences and arts have cer-
tainly smoothed down difficulties, and have made as
household words what was wrapt in obscurity before :
but the Supremacy of Peter baffles mere human science,
and still continues an insuperable barrier to all but the
faithful children of Holy Church. The mathematician
understands his problems, the chemist his compounds :
the philosopher understands his metaphysics, and the
astronomer his planets, but without the faith of a Ca-
tholic, no one can appreciate the nature of the sove-
reign pontificate. Yet no study can be more delight-
ful— none more inviting — certainly none richer in its
rewards. The Papacy is the grand fact of the day —
there it stands, and has stood, from the commencement
of Christianity, unchangeable in its essence, and un-
changed • and there it shall stand — come weal, come
wo — till time shall be no more. It burns before men's
eyes as a pillar of light to illumine the darkness of the
world. It is placed aloft so as to be seen from all
countries, and heard in all climes. It speaks out the
words of peace and good will, while it holds in its hand
the triple cord of Faith, Hope, and Charity, which girds
the universe, and which unites the earth with heaven !

The Supremacy then lives, and upon the transitory soil
of earth it must have a home. Such a home was
found in Italy, upon the banks of the Tiber. It was
a place which had been rendered famous by a thou-
sand classical associations, but still more celebrated
has it become by its now sacred reminiscences. Yes !
Rome was the city, the metropolis of the empire —
the greatest city then in existence, and still the
most interesting city of the world — that the apostolic
fisherman of Galilee, no doubt under the inspiration
of heaven, chose for the seat of his supremacy. How
strange and how unjustifiable must it appear to the
British senators of the Parliament of 1851, to think

107

How strange and how unjustifiable must it appear to
the British senators of the Parliament 0/1851, to think
that an aged pilgrim from Asia, bending under the
weight of years, should with staff in hand journey to
Europe, and without consulting the Emperor Caligula,
who then held the reins of government, should venture
to knock at the gates of the imperial city, and unfurl
the standard of the cross in the very centre of the
Forum! Surely no Papal aggression was ever com-
parable with this. Yet so it was. Peter came without
leave of the Ccesars, to establish Christianity upon the
ruins of Paganism : he came to save the souls of the
Roman people, and to sanctify the very stones them-
selves by converting the Pantheon and the other
temples of the Heathen Deities, into Basilics for the
worship of the living and of the true God. He came
to plant his Primatial Chair in the midst of Pagan, but
which soon should become Christian Rome — to dig the
foundations of that spiritual hierarchy, whose dominion
should extend far beyond the boundaries of the Roman
Empire — which should have no limits but the habitable
globe, and no end but the consummation of the world.
Surely such a man was either insane, or urged on by
the spirit of the Most High. Surely such an apostle
must have forgot all mere human prudence, and must
have been prepared for every sacrifice.

Peter is so prepared ! With the cross in one hand,
and the crosier in the other, he carries along with him
the independence of one who is ready to yield his life
for truth — the glorious independence of self-immola-
tion. And so it fell out: for a martyr he became, and
for 300 years all the Roman pontiffs, save two, sealed
the faith by their blood. For three long centuries the
Church passed through the ordeal of the direst perse-
cution. During those ages of sorrow she was widowed
of her chief pastors in rapid succession — she suffered,
she bled. Still she went on conquering and to conquer;

108

for, to use the language of the Fathers, the blood of the
martyrs is the seed of the Church. If her supreme pas-
tors were mowed down one after the other by the scythe
of the most oppressive tyranny, the providence of hea-
ven called up forthwith a successor to watch over the
lambs and the sheep of Christ

But upon this most interesting subject let us hear
the eloquent Father Laeordaire. In one of those mag-
nificent conferences delivered in Notre Dame of Paris,
and which enraptured his audience, he thus proceeds : —
" Between the Tyrrhenian Sea and the blackened sum-
mits of the Apennines, around a few hillocks, a hand-
ful of brigands built their cabins. Whilst digging the
foundations of their ramparts they had found a bloody
head, and the oracle had affirmed that that city would
be the head of the universe : and in truth, had this
handful of robbers possessed maps of the world — had
they drawn, with a compass, circles upon this map,
with diametrical lines of nine hundred miles in every
direction, they would then have seen that that very
spot was the centre of a multitude of peoples of Europe,
Asia, and Africa, and of those whose remote countries
are bathed by the waves of the Mediterranean. But
instead of a compass, they extended their iron hand
around them, and commenced an empire, which was to
have for boundaries the ocean, the Rhine, the Euphrates,
and Atlas. And after seven hundred 'years — after
having destroyed the nationality of their neighbours —
after having been satiated with blood, booty, glory,
and pride, these brigands became the first nation of the
universe, and had intrusted their^haughty republic into

the hand of one master This master was still alive

when St Peter deliberated in what part of the world he
would establish his apostolic chair. It was — will you
believe it, — it was under the very eyes of this master,
whose frown alone made the world tremble — it was in
his city, it was on the steps of his throne, that St Peter

109

planted his chair, and sought his independence. But
what independence will he obtain in such a place— he
who pretends to an empire far vaster than that pos-
sessed by the Roman Emperors? And what an hide*
pendence I He does not trouble himself about it — he
carries it with him — he carries the independence of one
who fears not to die for truth— the independence of
martyrdom 1

" Of all the pontiffs his successors, two only during
three hundred years died in their beds ; and yet it was
so, because years pressed forward quicker than the
sword for them ; so that the first crown of the Papacy
was the crown of martyrdom; its first independence,
the independence which death gives to those who despise
it. It was proper that the power of the Church should
commence with these long sufferings. Truth ought,
no doubt, to have been able to enter empires, without
paying the tribute of blood ; but God wished to shew
what it is necessary for man to suffer, when he pretends
to preach truth to men. He determined, therefore, the
sequel in such a manner, that during three centuries
the Church, and her first apostle at her head, shed their
blood, in order to prove that they deceived not the
world in proclaiming themselves to be the bearers of the
word of the Most High.

" Now in what manner did the spiritual supremacy
develope itself — by what means was it able to manifest
itself, whilst the whole Church was subjected to the law
of martyrdom ? It seemed that there was an evident
forgetfulness on the part of Providence — a neglect of
the first and primary rules of policy* But God does
not judge like men. It was precisely because the sove-
reign pontiffs had no human resources to establish
their supremacy, that it was to be more authentic and
more immortal. Had they experienced any protection
from the Caesars, we should be told that the Church of
Rome had become the first, because it was established

in the first city of the empire, under the protection of
the imperial purple ; but as St Peter came to Rome,
staff in hand, to be crucified — he and his successors, for
three centuries — civil influence had no claim in the es-
tablishment of the pontificate. It was meet that the
poor old man, shut up in the catacombs that border the
Roman highways, should reign over the world. It
was meet that, from the bosom of these habitations of
the dead, rather than of the living, his government
should be obeyed — that homage should be rendered
to him — that his chair should be the principal one —
that he should be the prince of pastors, the bishop of bi-
shops : and this is what all the Fathers proclaim with
one accord. Striking acts, which could deceive no one,
were also requisite, in order to furnish future genera-
tions with unquestionable proofs." These we shall un-
fold, when we proceed to speak of the perpetuation of
the Supremacy.

IV. THE SUPREMACY PERPETUATED.

We proceed now to shew how the sacred office of
the Supremacy, which was instituted by the Redeemer,
and Jlrst held by Peter, has been regularly filled, in an
unbroken line by Peter's legitimate successors. We
proceed to unfold the Perpetuation of the Supremacy.
Let it be borne in mind that we have to deal with facts,
not with theories — with facts which stand prominently
forward in the pages of ecclesiastical history, and which
boldly challenge the minutest scrutiny. For Christianity
is a fact, and Catholicity is a fact, and the office of the
Primacy, and the perpetuation of that office are facts
— stern, palpable facts — so that we must grapple with
them as such, and not view them as if they had no real
existence in the history of the world. Against such

Ill

facts, all abstract reasoning sounds as mere declamation.
These facts are to be established like all others, by the
weight of testimony. The testimony which we shall
bring forward for the perpetuity of Papal Supremacy
will, we hope, prove most conclusive and satisfactory.

Meantime, let us observe that the Primacy was esta-
blished by Christ to cement and to consolidate the unity
of his Church. It really is a constituent portion of the
Church herself, and, as being essentially connected with
her very being, it must last as long as the Church
lasts : but the Church is to last to the end of time ;
therefore, to the end of time, is the Supremacy to be per-
petuated.

This is a necessary consequence from the principles
already laid down. The very language which was
spoken by Christ — the very ideas which he wished to
convey, in his emphatic addresses to Simon Peter, give
us to understand the enduring nature of his glorious
Church, and the permanency of her heaven-Born insti-
tutions. He spoke of his Church as the one fold under
the one Shepherd ; now, as the fold was to remain for
ever, so was the Shepherd. He spoke of his Church as
a kingdom, and the keys of that kingdom he gave to
one ruler, who was his viceroy ; but as his kingdom was
to continue to the consummation of the world, so was
his viceroy. He spoke of his Church as being founded
on the -/rgrgog — rock ; now, as the Church was to remain
all days, so was its foundation. The inspired Apostle
of the Gentiles likened the followers of the Redeemer
to a body having many members, but one head : but the
body is visible, so likewise must be the head, and the
life of the body consists in its union with the head.

The sheepfold of Christ is then one — the kingdom of
Christ is one — the mystical body of Christ is one — the
church of Christ is one — oneness is the character-
istic feature of the religion of Christ, as it is of the
works of God. All nature tends to one common
centre. The Redeemer earnestly prayed for the unity

112

of his Church — that Church which was so soon to
become universal. Now there could be no universality
without unity, and there could be no unity without one
head ; and that head must be supreme — therefore the
Supremacy. " And not for them only do I pray, but
for them also who through their word shall believe in
me : that they all may be one, as thou Father in me,
and I in thee : that they also may be one in us : that
the world may believe that thou hast sent me." x

To conserve that unity in his Church, our blessed
Saviour established the supremacy of Peter ; but as he
wished the Church's unity to continue, so did he wish
Peter's supremacy to be perpetuated. That august
office was certainly not to die with Peter, for it was
not instituted merely for his individual benefit. It was
not, so to speak, bound up with the person of Peter,
that when he was martyred, it also was to expire. No !
It was hereditary in the Church — it was heritable by
entail to his successors. As the other ordinances of
the Christian religion were to be handed down to pos-
terity, so it also was to be transmitted. Why should
any exception be made by men, since none has been
made by Grod ? Why should any one venture to say
that such a privilege or such an ordinance was not to
outlive the apostolic times, as if the Almighty were
more anxious for the salvation of his creatures in the
frst than in the nineteenth century ? Hence, on the
selfsame scriptural grounds that Protestants advocate
the permanence and perpetuity of baptism and the
Lord's Supper, and the continued right to preach the
gospel, do we demonstrate the permanence and perpe-
tuity of the supremacy of the holy apostolic see. If
they demur at our reasoning, we shew how the same
objections which they bring against the perpetuity of
the Supremacy will tell against the perpetuity of the
Sacraments which they admit. Thus do we foil them

1 St John xvii. 20.

113

with their own weapons, while we rebuke them for
their inconsistency.

Here, if any where, as logicians say, do we argue
a fortiore. If Christ considered the supremacy of Peter
so necessary, even during the lifetime of the apostles, to
conserve all in the unity of faith, how much more neces-
sary did he foresee that primatial office to be for subse-
quent ages. In proportion as Christianity should diffuse
itself among the nations, and the number of the children
of Holy Church should increase, in the same proportion
do we recognize the necessity of this grand combining
and conservative principle of ecclesiastical organization.
The Redeemer foresaw that heresies would be broached,
and that schisms should burst forth — he foresaw that
the faith of many of his followers would become Ian*
guid, and that piety would grow cold ; and are we to
suppose that, having futurity thus clearly before his eyex,
he made no permanent provision to meet the exigencies
of the times — that he left not within his Church the
necessary means to carry on the work of the ministry,
to grapple with every difficulty, to surmount . every
danger, to rally those nations which might fall away
from the faith, and to endeavour to bring the wander-
ing sheep back into the unity of the fold ? We cannot
make such a supposition without insulting the wisdom
and outraging the goodness of our blessed Lord.

Without, then, the Supremacy perpetuated, the Church
could not possibly have subsisted in her original inte-
grity after the death of the apostles.

Without the Supremacy perpetuated, the Church would
have been left, like a ship having no pilot, to steer her
course through the boisterous ocean of the world.

Without the Supremacy perpetuated, the Church would
have been in the position of an army without a general, a
navy without an admiral, and thus having no head to com-
mand, the trumpet would sound in vain : no one would
prepare for battle — there would be no acting in con-

114

cert, and there never would be the achievement of vie-
toiy.

But we are not left to our own superficial reasoning
upon this most important point ; for tradition cornea
to our aid — tradition, which is as universal as it is
unanimous in accounting for the institution and the
perpetuation of the supremacy. All the ancient
Fathers with one accord have declared that the Supre-
macy was established by Christ to preserve the unity
of his Church. To this effect you hear them crying
out with St Cyprian the martyr, bishop of Carthage,,
who in the third century thus wrote, — " That Christ
might manifest unity, he ordained by his awn autho-
rity,1 that its origin should begin with one single indi-
vidual (Peter.)" You hear them in the fourth century,
with St Jerome,2 — " One among the twelve is chosen,
that a head being constituted, the occasion of schism
might be taken away." You hear them, with St Optatust
in the same century,3- — " You cannot deny that St Peter,
the chief of the apostles, established an episcopal chair
at Rome. This chair was one, that all others might
preserve unity, by the unity they had with it; so that
whoever set up a chair against it, should be a schis-
matic and a transgressor. It is in this one chair, which
is the first mark of the Church, that St Peter sat."
You hear them, with Pacian,4 — " That the unity of
the Church springs from one head ;" — with Ambrose,6 —
w Where Peter is, there is the Church ;n — with Augus-
tine,6— " The Church is bound up in Peter ;" — with
Innocent,7 — " That the Episcopacy, and all Church
authority, are derived from Peter."

In thus scanning the writings of the ancient Fathers,
do we see how all of them, without exception, have

1 De Unit. EC. 2 Lib. adv. Jovin.

8 De Schis. Donat.. * Epis. iii. ad Symp,

5 In Psal. XL. « Serm. 131.

115

put forward the unity of the Church as the paramount
reason why Christ instituted the office of the Primacy,
and why he gave to Peter supremacy over the apostles,
over all the faithful, and over the universal Church.
Hence, according to Patristic teaching, the supremacy
of Peter and his successors is that mysterious chain
which was intended to bind all the true followers of
Christ in the unity of the same faith, and in the one-
ness of the same communion.

So impressed are Separatists with the idea of hav-
ing a head or chief executive for the preservation of
order among them, that every section of religionists
have set up a tribunal, to which its members are bound
to defer. The Kirk of Scotland, which is somewhat
republican in its ecclesiastical government, has its
General Assembly and moderator to regulate its affairs.
The Free Kirk is similarly equipped. The Church of
England, monarchical in its constitution, has her gra-
cious Majesty to pronounce what is and what is not
to be held as an article of Anglican belief. The Scot-
tish Episcopalians have their Primus, who by nature
of his office ranks first, and is to preside over six
bishops. The Arminian Methodists, and the Calvinis-
tic Methodists — the Baxterians, and the Brownistsr
and the Cameronians, and the Dunkers, and the
Glassites, and the Independents, and the Moravians,,
and the Muggletonians, and the Quakers, and Sweden-
borgians, have all their peculiar constitutions.

If, then, every mere national, or quasi national
Church, has a head, or chief executive, either clerical
or lay, to direct its movements — if every little sect,
every handful of worshippers, has its constitution — is
it to be supposed that there exists not a head for the
universal Church — for that Church, which is not
English, nor Scottish, nor German, no* Greek, nor
Russian, but which is literally and emphatically Ca-
tholic— for that Church, which has received from her

116

divine Founder, as an inheritance, the entire globe to
instruct — that Church upon whose domain the sun
never sets — which has priests and people in every
country, altars in every clime — which was unquestion-
ably the first Christian Church in the world, as most
certainly she shall be the last. Yes ! Deny it who
may, the Catholic Church H&s a head, and the same
she has had from the beginning. She has her supreme
pontiff, who is the successor of St Peter, and who, by
the inherent right of the apostolic see, is the chief pas-
tor of universal Christendom.

Do you ask me how I prove this ? I answer, that
proofs more than abundant are at hand. Observe,
however, that I go not now into the question, " Was
St Peter ever at Rome?"1 I treated that already in a
distinct dissertation, in which I adduced conclusive
testimonies from many ancient writers, to prove what
only in modern times has been wantonly disputed. It
is worthy of note, that during the first thirteen hun-
dred years of the Christian era, no one ever thought of
denying that St Peter was bishop of Rome, or that he
both lived and died in that city ; and no one now calls
this great fact in question, but he who is either blinded
by prejudice, or ignorant of ecclesiastical history. In
truth, the most learned Protestants, such as Grotius,
Scaliger, Blondel, Shrock, Bertholt, Pearson, Basnage,
and Cave, have been engaged in sifting and establish-
ing this point. Among others, we may mention the
well-known name in the literary world, the distin-
guished Bunsen of Prussia, now ambassador at the
British Court. In a work of surpassing interest,
" Rome, Sacred and Profane," he, in conjunction with
other erudite Germans, proves, from the most authen-
tic historical documents, that the relics of St Peter,
which repose under the high altar of his Basilica at

1 See Lectures.

117

Rome, are really the venerable remains of that great
pontiff and apostle.

According to the accounts of the best ecclesiastical
annalists, such as Eusebius, Natalis, Alexander, Palma,
and others, Peter, after the ascension of our Lord into
heaven, having visited the various towns of Judea,
Galilee, and Samaria, went to Antioch, in Syria, about
the year 36 of the Christian era, and ruled that Church
for some years. Having elevated Evodius to the
episcopal dignity of the see of Antioch, he went forth
to the capital of the Roman empire, and transferred
thence his apostolic chair, in the year 42. He carried
along with him, of necessity, his supreme authority
and jurisdiction over the universal Church; and hence
in his person were identified, the pontiff of Rome, the
primate of Christendom, and the centre of Catholic unity.

Now, it has ever been understood, that all the essen-
tial prerogatives of power and jurisdiction which were
brought to a see by its first bishop, were to be conti-
nu§d to his successors. That this was the case is
quite evident, if we look to the four great patriarchates
into which Christendom was divided, and which rank
as follows — Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusa-
lem. Rome was the first, because established by
St Peter, and because his chair was there permanently
planted; Alexandria was the second, which was found-
ed by St Mark, who had been a disciple of St Peter ;
Antioch the third, because it had been the see of St
Peter, before his removal to Rome ; and Jerusalem
the fourth, and which was first occupied by St James.
The sacred rights which were brought to those four
patriarchates descended respectively to their imme-
diate successors. The same is to be said with regard
to the other minor sees. Every one conversant with
canon law, knows the recognised rule of the Church,
that the essential rights of the Episcopacy descend to
the lawful successor in each particular bishopric..

118

All Christian antiquity attests that St Peter founded
the Roman Church ; therefore the sacred rights of St
Peter descend to his successors, the Roman pontiffs.
But St Peter had universal jurisdiction over the whole
Church, consequently that also descended.

All Christian antiquity calls the Roman see the
Chair of Peter — Cathedra Petri — never the chair of
Paul, or of any other of the apostles.

All Christian antiquity considered the bishop of
Rome as head of the Church, as supreme governor, as
occupying the place of Peter, and as his legitimate
successor in the primacy.

This we shall distinctly see, when we bring forward the
testimonies of the Fathers. Meanwhile let us remark,
that we may gather, indirectly it is true, from the very
epistle of St Paul to the Romans, that St Peter found-
ed their Church. This epistle was written about
twenty-four years after our Lord's ascension. After
saluting " all that are at Rome the beloved of God,
called to be saints," he expresses his thankfulness to
God that their " faith is spoken of in the whole world."
He then goes on to state, that he longs to see them of
whom so much has been said, " if by any means now
at length I may have a prosperous journey, by the will
of God, to come unto you." It is well known that as
yet he had not been at Rome ; hence his anxiety to visit
that Church, which had become already so celebrated.

Now who founded that Church, so renowned, whose
faith, even in the apostolic days, " was spoken of in
the whole world?" Obviously not St Paul, for as yet
he had not visited the imperial city. Christian anti-
quity, I say again, points to no other but St Peter ;
therefore to St Peter, for having built up the holy
Roman Church — the mater urbis et orbis — let the glory
and the praise be given. St Paul came afterwards,
and laboured in the vineyard of the Lord with St Peter
at Rome. He also is mentioned by ancient writers as

119

having been associated with St Peter in extending the
foundations of the holy Roman Church. Both apostles
rivalled each other in holy zeal, and both finished their
mortal career at Rome, by shedding their blood for the
faith.

We are enabled to speak distinctly on these matters,
from having at our command the most authentic histo-
rical records. The ancient writers of ecclesiastical
history have duly chronicled the names of those who
succeeded St Peter after his martyrdom.

Eusebius1 says, " After the martyrdom of Peter and
Paul, Linus was first elected bishop of the Church of
the Romans."

St Irenasus,2 bishop of Lyons, writing in the second
century, says, " The blessed apostles having founded
and instructed the Church, delivered over the episcopal
administration to Linus, who was succeeded by Ana-
cletus, and then by Clement, who both saw and con-
versed with the apostles."

It seems to be of this Clement, the third successor
of St Peter, that St Paul speaks in his epistle to the
Philippians, chapter 4, " who laboured with me in
the gospel, and whose name is written in the book of
life."

The ancient writer of the verses against Marcion3
says, that " Linus first St Peter's chair did fill."

Optatus* of Milevi, who lived in the fourth century,
and other ancient writers, distinctly declare, that Linus
was the first pontiff who succeeded St Peter.

The old authors of the catalogues of the Roman pon-
tiffs placed Linus immediately after St Peter.

Tertullian6 upbraids the heretics of his time as new
religionists, and asks them to shew the line of episcopal

1 Hist Eccles. lib. iii. c. 4. 2 Lib. Adv. Haeres. cap. 3.

3 See Tertullian. * Lib. Adv. Farm.

* Lib. de Praes.

120

succession of their teachers. He says how Polycarp
was placed by John in the Church of Smyrna, and
how Clement, ordained by Peter, afterwards occupied
the apostolic Roman see. Thus does he speak, — " Let
the heretics shew the origin of their churches — let
them evolve the order of their bishops, in regular suc-
cession from the beginning, so that the first bishop
should have either one of the apostles, or one of the
apostolic men, who persevered with the apostles, for
his predecessor."

In the catalogues of the Roman pontiffs, which have
been furnished by most distinguished ancient writers,
such as Irenaeus, Eusebius, Optatus, and Augustine — •
men who wrote at different times, in different places,
and without any previous arrangement among them-
selves, or mutual understanding, the line of succession
in the Roman Church is distinctly noted down to their
own days. The ancient catalogue of Liberius, so called
because drawn up during his pontificate, presents the
list of Roman bishops from St Peter to the year 354,
in which it was compiled. Now all these writers
attach the greatest importance to that unbroken succes-
sion of supreme pastors in the Roman Church. That
is the first object of their solicitude. They do not
refer to their own sees : that is a secondary considera-
tion. Eusebius does not insist upon the succession of
bishops in his own see of Csesarea, nor Irenaeus upon
that of Lyons, nor Optatus upon that of Milevi, nor
Augustine upon that of Hippo ; but they all with one
accord point to Rome, and to the succession of Rome's
bishops. And why this? Unless the succession of
the bishops of Rome was looked upon by them as a
striking fact, and as a most important theological
argument. All the holy fathers, then, without excep-
tion, and every ancient Christian writer, proclaim, with
one voice, the Roman see to be the chair of Peter —
the mother Church of all other churches — the only

121

Church which teaches the true faith — the only Church
which is conservative of true religion.

In the foregoing catalogues, Cletus and Anacletus
are both mentioned as second in succession from St
Peter. Irenaeus and Eusebius speak of Anacletus as
following Linus. Jerome, Rufinus, and the writer
against Marcion, mentioned by Tertullian, call him
simply Cletus. It is most likely, that under these two
names the very same pontiff is meant ; and this opinion
is held by Valesius, in his notes on Eusebius's history,
by Tillemont, in his life of St Clement, arid by Peter
Constantius, in his elaborate dissertation prefixed to
his edition of the epistles of the Roman pontiffs.
However, this becomes legitimate matter for historical
criticism, but does not in the least affect the line of
Papal succession.

Let us listen now to Irenaeus,1 who has recorded
the names of the Roman Pontiffs, from St Peter to the
time in which he wrote. He omits the other patriar-
chal sees, and betakes himself to Rome, the first and
greatest of all others : — " As it would be tedious to
enumerate the whole list of successors, I shall confine
myself to that of Rome, the greatest, and most an-
cient, and most illustrious Church, founded by the
glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, receiving from them
her doctrine, which was announced to all men, and
which, through the succession of her bishops, is come
down to us. To this Church, on account of its supe-
rior headship, every other must have recourse ; that is,
the faithful of all countries. They, therefore, having
founded and instructed this Church, committed the
administration thereof to Linus. To him succeeded
Anacletus; then, in the third place, Clement. To
Clement succeeded Evaristus ; to him Alexander ; and
then Sixtus, who was followed by Telesphorus, Hygi-

1 Adv. Haer. 1.
L

122

nus, Pius, and Anicetus. But Soter having suc-
ceeded Anicetus, Eleutherius, the twelfth from the
apostles, now governs the Church."

Clement, then, was third in succession from St Peter^
and was bishop of Rome, in the^zrs^ century. During
his pontificate, a schism broke out at Corinth. As
supreme governor of the universal Church, he ad-
dresses a letter to the Corinthians, and sends also his
apostolic delegates among them to settle their diffe-
rences. Now observe, that Corinth was far distant
from Rome, but nigh to Ephesus. At the very time
of which we speak, the beloved disciple, St John, wag
residing at Ephesus. Yet it is not the bishop of Ephe-
sus, but the bishop of Rome, that interposes his autho-
rity, to heal the breach in the Church of Corinth. Is
not this proof positive, that even during the lifetime of
the apostles, the Roman pontiffs, as successors of Peter,
not only possessed, but exercised unlimited jurisdiction,
over the whole Church ? The epistle of Pope Clement
to the Christians of Corinth, is justly reputed as one of
the most valuable monuments of ecclesiastical anti-
quity. But other cases equally pointed are at hand.

Victor wras the fourteenth Roman pontiff, and flou-
rished in the second century. In the exercise of his
supremacy, he called the bishops of the Eastern
Churches to account as to their manner of keeping
Easter. They answered, that they followed a tradition
which had been handed down to them by St John.
Thereupon he ordered a council to be convoked in
Judea, and threatened excommunication against those
who would not abide by its decisions. The prelates
of the East assembled and obeyed ; and thus unifor-
mity was enjoined and observed. Is not this, again,
additional proof of the recognised power and jurisdic-
tion of the Roman pontiffs in the very earliest ages of
the Church ?

St Cyprian, writing in the third century, mentions,

123

that Cornelius was chosen bishop of Rome in the year
251, when "the place of Fabian, that is, the place of
Peter, was vacant."1 In a letter to this pontiff, he
alludes to certain African schismatics, and says, " A
false bishop having been ordained for them by here-
tics, they venture to set sail and carry letters from
schismatical and profane men to the chair of Peter, and
the principal, or ruling Church, whence sacerdotal unity
has arisen : nor do they reflect that they are Romans
whose faith is extolled by the apostle, to whom perfidy
can have no access"2 Thus St Cyprian speaks the
language of his contemporaries, while he re-echoes the
declarations of his predecessors, that the Roman pon-
tiff, being the successor of St Peter, had a care of ah
the Churches, and that with the chair of Peter, sacer-
dotal unity was of necessity connected.

The testimony of St Cyprian is the more valuable,
from the circumstance of a misunderstanding which
took place between him and Pope St Stephen. St
Cyprian contended, that persons baptized by heretics
were not truly baptized : St Stephen, on the other
hand, announced the teaching and practice of the
Church, that such were not to be re-baptized, and
gave utterance to that celebrated sentence, which has
since become an aphorism, — " Nihil innovetur, nisi
quod traditum est." Let there be no innovation— let
there be nothing but what has been handed down.
Thereupon St Cyprian relinquished his own theory
upon the matter, and eventually bowed to the decision
of the supreme pontiff.

St Denys, pope and martyr, occupied the see of
Peter about the middle of the third century. Then
it was that the priests of Alexandria sent a formal
complaint to the Roman pontiff, of the unsound teach-
ing of their bishop, Dionysius. He was in consequence

1 Epis. LV. ad Antonian. 2 Epist. ad. Cornel. LIX.

124

called upon by the sovereign authority of the apostolic
see, to give an account of himself, which he did satis-
factorily; and thus do we behold the patriarch of
Alexandria abiding by the behests of the Roman
supremacy.

Pope Damasus ascended the chair of Peter in the
year 366. To him St Basil the Great recurs, and ex-
poses the difficulty of his position. In order the more
effectually to engage the solicitude of the holy father,
he takes occasion to remind him of the kind interposi-
tion of his predecessors, the Roman pontiffs, in the
affairs of the Church of Caesarea. Thus does he write :
— " From documents preserved among us, we know
that the blessed Denys, who with you was eminent for
his faith and other virtues, visited by his letters our
Church of Caesarea, gave comfort to our forefathers,
and rescued our brethren from slavery. But our con-
dition is now much more lamentable. Wherefore, if
you are now at this time induced to aid us, soon all
being subjected to the heretics, none will be found to
whom you may stretch out your hand."1

Listen now to a beautiful passage from a letter
of the learned St Jerome to the same holy pontiff,
Damasus. This epistle2 was written during his seclu-
sion in the deserts of Syria, and is touching in the
extreme, as it is most Catholic in sentiment : — " I am
following no other than Christ, united to the commu-
nion of your holiness, that is, to the chair of Peter.
I know that the Church is founded upon this rock.
Whosever eateth the Lamb out of this house is a pro-
fane man. Whosoever is not in the ark shall perish
by the flood. But forasmuch as being retired into
the desert of Syria, I cannot receive the sacrament at
your hands, I follow your colleagues, the bishops of
Egypt. I know not Vitalis— I do not communicate

1 Kp. Ixx. ad Damas. 3 Ep. xiv. ad Damas.

125

with Meletius — Paulinus is a stranger to me — he that
gathereth not with you, scattereth"

The illustrious saint and bishop John Chrysostom
appealed to the intervention of the Roman Pontiff
Celestine, and entreated his holiness to restore him to
his see, from which he had been unjustly driven. " I
beseech you to direct, that what has wickedly been
done against me, while I was absent, and did not de-
cline a trial, should have no effect ; and they who have
thus proceeded may be subjected to ecclesiastical pu-
nishment."1 Does not this prove that the Roman
Pontiffs had complete jurisdiction over the Asiatic
churches, when the very Patriarch of Constantinople
appealed to the authoritative intervention of the apos-
tolic Roman see ? Still more emphatically does the
great bishop write when he asks — " For what reason
did Christ shed his blood ? Certainly to gain those sheep,
the care of which he committed to Peter and his successors."*
This shews the belief that the supremacy of Peter was
vested in his successors.

Let us now bring forward the testimony of another
patriarch, St Cyril of Alexandria. In the most pointed
manner does he rebuke the errors of the Nestorians,
while he declares at the same time that all are in duty
bound to obey the Roman Pontiff. " That this is so
I will produce, as an ample witness, the most holy
Celestine, the Archbishop of all the world, and the father
and patriarch of the great Rome, who himself thrice
exhorted you by letters to desist from that mad blas-
phemy, and you obeyed him not. . . . All, by divine right,
bow the head to Peter ; and the princes of the world
obey him, as they would the Lord Jesus. We also,
who are members, ought to adhere to our head, the
Roman Pontiff, and apostolic see."3

Easily might we select, from the works of other an-

1 Ep. ad Innoc. a Lib. de sacerd. 3 In Encom. S. Mar.

126

cient writers, a multitude of similar passages, which,
in as far as Christian antiquity is concerned, would
convincingly prove our point. But this is altogether
unnecessary, as the testimonies already adduced are
abundantly telling, and speak forcibly the mind both of
the Eastern and the Western Church, in theirs*, and
what Separatists call the purest ages of Christianity.
We shall sum up our quotations from the apostolic
fathers by a brief extract from St Augustine,1 the great
light of the church in the fifth century. Observe the
extreme importance which he attaches to the doctrinal
decisions of Rome. " The decisions of the two coun-
cils having been already sent to the apostolic see, the
rescripts have come from thence. The cause is now
finished ; would that error was also ended ! Causa finita
est ; utinam finiatur error ! "

From then what we have seen — from the many and
striking testimonies which we have adduced — from the
fact of priests, and bishops, and patriarchs who ap-
pealed in their hour of trial to the apostolic see — from
the final decisions given by the holy Roman Church,
as the highest court of judicature upon earth, it is cer-
tain that the supremacy of Peter and his successors,
the Roman Pontiffs, was, during the first five ages of
the church, unanimously and universally recognised.
That this same papal supremacy was also acknowledged
in subsequent ages by all Christendom, we shall after-
wards prove.

The learned Newman, in his elaborate work on
Development of Christian Doctrine, has brought into
the following brief compass the salient points of the
three first ages of the church, which, considered in
the aggregate, serve to constitute an irrefragable argu-
ment in favour of the Roman supremacy. He says —
" Faint they may be one by one ; but at least they are

1 Sermo. xi.

127

various, and are drawn from many times and coun-
tries, and thereby serve to illustrate each other, and
form a body of proof. Thus St Clement, in the name
of the Church of Rome, writes a letter to the Corin-
thians, when they were without a bishop ; St Igna-
tius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church, and it
only, out of the churches to which he writes, as 4 the
church which has the first seat in the place of the
country of the Romans ; ' St Polycarp of Smyrna be-
takes himself to the bishop of Rome on the question
of Easter ; the heretic Marcion, excommunicated in
Pontus, betakes himself to Rome ; Soter, bishop of
Rome, sends alms, according to the custom of his
church, to the churches throughout the empire, and,
in the words of Eusebius, ' affectionately exhorted
those who came to Rome, as a father his children ;'
the Montanists of Phrygia came to Rome to gain the
countenance of its bishop ; Praxeas, from Africa, at-
tempts the like, and for a while is successful ; St Vic-
tor, bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the
Asian churches ; St Irenseus speaks of Rome as ' the
greatest church, the most ancient, the most conspicu-
ous, and founded and established by Peter and Paul,'
— apppeals to its tradition, not in contrast indeed, but
in preference to that of other churches, and declares
that ' in this church, every church, that is, the faith-
ful from every side, must meet, or agree together —
propter potiorem principalitatem — on account of its
superior headship.' * 0 church, happy in its position,'
Bays Tertullian, ' into which the apostles poured out,
together with their blood, their whole doctrine ! ' The
presbyters of St Dioiiysius, bishop of Alexandria, com-
plain of his doctrines to St Dionysius of Rome ; the
latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The
emperor Aurelian leaves * to the bishops of Italy and
of Rome' the decision, whether or not Paul of Samo-
sata shall be dispossessed of the see house of Antioch ;

128

St Cyprian speaks of Rome as ' the see of Peter, and
the principal church, whence the unity of the priest-
hood took its rise . . . whose faith has been commended
by the apostle ; to whom faithlessness can have no
access :' St Stephen refuses to receive St Cyprian's
deputation, and separates himself from various churches
of the East ; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by St
Cyprian, have recourse to Rome ; Basilides, de-
posed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome, and gains
the ear of St Stephen. Whatever objections may
be made to this or that particular fact, and I do not
think any valid ones can be raised, still, on the whole,
I consider that a cumulative argument rises from them
in favour of the active and doctrinal authority of
Rome."

In every subsequent age of the Church have we the
most accredited witnesses to testify to the supremacy
of the Roman pontiffs. As it would be tedious to cite
many extracts from their works, we shall content our-
selves by referring to two of the most distinguished
schoolmen of the middle ages. In his work of tran-
scendent merit,1 the great Doctor St Thomas Acquinas
thus writes : —

" It is plain that the supreme power of government
over the faithful belongs to the Episcopal dignity. But
likewise, that though populations are distinguished into
-different dioceses and cities, yet as there is one Church,
so there must be one Christian people. As therefore
in the spiritual population of one Church, one bishop
is required to be the Head of the whole population, so
in the whole Christian people, one is required to be the
Head of the whole Church.

;' Also for the unity of the Church it is required, that
all the faithful agree in faith. But concerning points
of faith, it happens that questions are raised. Now

1 Summa Cont. Gent. iv. 76.

129

the Church would be divided by a diversity of opi-
nions, unless it were preserved in unity by the sentence
of one. So then it is demanded for the Church's
unity, that there be one to preside over the whole
Church

" Moreover, the Church militant is drawn by likeness
from the Church triumphant, whence John in the
Apocalypse saw Jerusalem descending from heaven,
and Moyses was told to make all things according to
the pattern shewn to him in the Mount. Now in the
Church triumphant one presides .... so presides one
in the Church militant.

11 Hence it is that Christ said to Peter before his as-
cension 'Feed my sheep;' and before his passion,' 'Thou,
when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren ;' and
to him alone he promised, ' I will give to thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven,' that the power of the
keys might be pointed out as to be derived through him
to others, for the preservation of the Church's unity.

" But it cannot be said, that although he gave this
dignity to Peter, yet it is not derived through him to
others. For it is plain, that Christ so set up his
Church, that it should last for ever, according to that
of Isaiah ix. 7 ; ' He shall sit upon the throne of David,
and upon his kingdom, to establish it and strengthen
it with judgment and with justice from henceforth and
for ever.' Plain, therefore, is it that He set up in their
ministry, those who then were in such a way, that
their power should be derived unto their successors for
the good of the Church unto the end of the world ;
especially as He says himself, ' Behold I am with you
all days even to the consummation of the world.'

" But by this is excluded the presumptuous error of
certain persons, who endeavour to withdraw themselves
from obedience and subjugation to Peter, by not recognising
his successor, the Roman Pontiff', as pastor of the universal
Church." Thus writes the Angelic Doctor as he ia

130

styled, whose testimony is as eminent as his reasoning
is conclusive.

Come we now to St Bonaventure, who, on account
of his ardent charity, and prodigious erudition, is sur-
nained the Seraphic Doctor. Let us see what he says : —

" Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted his Holy Church
to his apostles, but principally to Peter, to whom he
said specially three times, concerning the universal
flock 1 of the faithful, ( feed my sheep.' But that the
universal Church might be governed in a more ordered
manner, the holy apostles arranged it into patriarchates,
primacies, archbishoprics, bishoprics, parishes, and
other canonical distinctions : that inasmuch as by one,
or by few, the individual faithful could not be fitly
provided with all things necessary to salvation, many
might be called to a participation of this care, accord-
ing to their several limitations, for the good of souls :
and in proportion to the extent of pastoral care, each
one of them too received a certain power of authority,
the fulness of ecclesiastical power dwelling in the apos-
tolic see of the Roman Church, in which the Apostle
Peter, prince of the apostles, specially sat and left there
to his successors the same power.

" But threefold is the fulness of this power, viz. in
that the supreme Pontiff himself alone has the whole
fulness of authority which Christ bestowed on his
Church ; and that he has it every where in all churches,
as in his own special see of Rome ; and that from him
all authority flows unto all inferiors throughout the
universal Church."

We abstain, for the sake of brevity, from additional
quotations, which we might make from Socrates, So-
zomen, Venerable Bede, Archbishop Lanfranc, and so
many others who ever pointed to Rome as the centre
of unity, and to the Roman Pontiff as the successor of
St Peter.

1 Tom. vii.

131

Another most important line of argument shall we
now bring forward to witness to the continued supre-
macy of the Holy Roman see. We appeal to the coun-
cils that have been convoked in times of emergency,
in various parts of the globe. Justly have these cele*
brated councils been reputed as the most authorized ex-
ponents of the doctrines of Christianity. Those glorious
assemblies were constituted of the highest, most learned,
and virtuous ecclesiastics, who were recognised as the
living representatives of the " household of faith," —
as the witnesses pre-orckiined by God, and who came
at the call of the chief pastor, from the east and the
west, the^ north and the south, to meet in congress,
and to publish aloud to the universal world what were
the doctrines which had been taught in their respective
churches, and which had been handed down to them
by their apostolic predecessors. Thus were all novel-
ties in belief carefully excluded, and the good seed of
divine truth was kept separate from the tares of error.

During the lapse of 300 years, no Council, save the
Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, was convened, on ac-
count of the unceasing persecutions of the Roman em-
perors. But when the emperor Constantine became a
Christian, and peace had been restored to the Church,
then it was that she was enabled to assemble her
apostolic prelates from all parts of Christendom, not
indeed to enact any new article of faith, because that,
so to speak, was beyond her commission, but to stem
the tide of innovation, and to draw up those discipli-
nary decrees, for the better ordering of morality, and
the fuller development of doctrine.

" The holy see entered now upon a new phasis of
spiritual and temporal existence. The world had be-
come Christian. It had been conquered by the force
of martyrdom, and the grace of God. A prince mounts
the throne of the Caesars, who understands Christianity,

132

not only as the religion of the majority, but also as
emanating from God, for the salvation of men. He
recognises it ; he does more. By one of those inspi-
rations incomprehensible to men, he removes his throne
to the extremities of Europe — to the shore of the
Euxine, in order to leave old Rome, with her natural
power, and her inexpressible celebrity, to the majesty
of the supreme pontiffs ; so that, from that period, mere
temporal prince never sat enthroned in Rome. When
Theodosius divided between his two sons the empires
of the east and west, it was at Milan that the emperor
held his court, and never at Rome. In vain the He-
rules and the Ostrogoths wished to establish a new
empire in Italy. It was at Ravenna that they founded
their capital. In vain did the Lombards approach
Rome ; for Pavia, not Rome, was the place of their
sojourn. Kings and emperors passed no longer through
Rome, but as travellers. Nevertheless the civil sove-
reignty of the Papacy did not as yet result from this.
The popes possessed in Rome, by the departure of the
emperors, only a moral sovereignty, of which they
made an honourable use, by becoming the guardians
of the west against barbarians. Rome, nine times
taken by assault, was nine times restored from her
ruins by them ; and they were seen, by the power of
their prayers, and the majesty of their countenance, to
stop at its gates, Attila, the scourge of God." Thui
speaks the eloquent Father Lacordaire.

In the year 325, the first Council was convoked at
Nicoea, in Asia Minor, by the authority of Pope Syl-
vester. The sovereign pontiff, being unable to preside
in person, deputed as his legates, Hosius, bishop of
Corduba, and two priests, Vitus and Vincentius. They
were his representatives, and in quality thereof, took
precedence of the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria,
and of all the other assembled bishops. Is not this

133

significant enough ? Is not this proof of the primacy
of the holy see ? Is not this proof positive of the re-
cognised supremacy of the Roman pontiff, when two of
his legates, who were simply priests, presided upon the
occasion, and sat above bishops, and patriarchs, at the
great Council — the first, and the most august Christian
assembly ? Then it was that a canon was passed, de-
claring, " that the Roman Church always had the
primacy;" and then " it was determined, that all these
things should be sent to Sylvester, bishop of Rome."
These are the words of the Council, which was com-
posed of 318 prelates, many of whom had been suffer-
ing witnesses for the faith, and bore on their bodies
the scars of their combats. Thus, in the fourth cen-
tury, the great Council of Nicaea bowed before the
supremacy of Rome, and by receiving the confirmation
of the Roman pontiff, became ecumenical.

In 347, another Council was held at Sardica; and
in the synodical letter which was drawn up and sent
to Pope Julius, it says, " for this will seem the best,
and by far the most fitting, if the Lord's bishops make
reference from all the provinces to the head, that is,
the see of the apostle Peter. "a A canon was likewise
passed, that " when any bishop feels himself aggrieved,
he may appeal to the bishop of Rome, who shall ap-
point judges to hear and decide the cause." The Coun-
cil of Sardica points distinctly to Rome as the head
see, and as the tribunal of appeal.

In 431 a general council was convened at Ephesus.
St Cyril of Alexandria was deputed by Pope Celestine
to preside — Arcadius and Projectus, bishops, and Philip,
priest, being also papal legates. To this effect was a
decree passed : — " It is doubtful to no one, but rather
known to all ages, that holy and most blessed Peter,
prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and

1 Codex Canonum Ballerini. a Mausi, iii. 40.

134

foundation of the Catholic church, received from our
Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour and Redeemer of the hu-
man race, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and that
the power of loosing and binding sins was given to
him ; who to this very time and for ever lives, and exer-
cises judgment in his successors. And so our most blessed
Pope Celestine, the bishop, his successor in due order,
and holding his place, has sent to this holy council us
to represent him."1 Thus was it stated that the au-
thority of Peter lives and acts in his successors, and
thus was the perpetuation of Peter's supremacy dis-
tinctly avowed.

In 451 was assembled the great council of Chalce-
don. Pope St Leo the Great sent Paschasinus and
Lucentius, bishops, Boniface and Basil, priests, to act
as his legates. When the rescript of Leo, condemning
the heresy of Eutyches, was read, the whole assembly
cried out with one voice, " This is the faith of our fa-
thers ; Peter has thus spoken through Leo ; the apos-
tles so taught."2 The general council of Chalcedon,
in the fifth age of the church, re-echoed the cry of
Rome's supremacy.

In 680 the sixth general council met at Constanti-
nople to crush the Monothelite error. The assembled
fathers thus address Pope Agatho : — " We willingly
leave to you what should be done, as prelate of the
frst see of the universal church, standing on the firm
rock of faith, having read through the letter of a true
confession sent by your paternal blessedness to our
most religious Emperor j which we recognise as divinely
written from the supreme head of the apostles."3 We for-
bear commenting on what speaks volumes.

In 869 the eighth general council was held at Con-
stantinople. There were present three papal legates,
four patriarchs, and 102 bishops. The following pro-

1 Mansi, 1290. 2 Cone. Gen. torn. iv. * Mansi, ii. 683.

135

fession of faith was signed by all assembled : — " Be-
cause the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be
passed by, who says, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church/ these words are proved
by the real effect which has followed ; because in the
apostolic see the Catholic religion has ever been kept
immaculate, and holy doctrine celebrated there. Where-
fore by no means desiring to be separated from its faith
and doctrine, and following in all things the constitu-
tion of the fathers, and chiefly of the holy prelates of
the apostolic see, we anathematize all heresies . . . con-
demning particularly Photius, and Gregory of Syra-
cuse, parricides, that is, who have not feared to put out their
tongue against their spiritual father. Since following in
all things the apostolic see, and observing in all things
its constitutions, we hope that we may be worthy to bo
in one communion, which the apostolic see sets forth,
in ivhich is the complete and true solidity of the Christian re-
ligion. But this my profession I (viz.) have written
with my own hand, and delivered to the most holy
Adrian, supreme Pontiff and universal Pope."1

Now, in addition to the declaration of the supremacy
of the Roman see, this document is otherwise most im-
portant. It was signed by the four patriarchs, and by all
the bishops of the Eastern church there assembled. It
denounced as parricides Photius and Gregory of Syra-
cuse, who were then living, but who afterwards be-
came the authors of the Greek schism, and the noto-
rious founders of the Greek schismatical church. Thus
in the middle of the ninth century, and before the ac-
complishment of the unhappy Greek schism, a general
council held at Constantinople proclaimed the neces-
sity of being in one communion with the apostolic
Roman see. The decrees of that council which had
been convened in the East will remain as an eternal

1 Mansi, xvi. 27.

136

monument to condemn the fatal schism which followed,
and which resulted from Grecian jealousy, perfidy, and
pride.

It would really seem a work of supererogation to
bring forward other equally luminous testimonies of
the subsequent councils, which were held respectively
at Lyons, Vienne, Pisa, Constance, Basle, Florence,
not to speak of the Lateran. councils : because, from
the very first held at Nicsea in 325, till the last in Trent
in 1545, the same unanimous declaration was repeated,
" that the Roman church always had the primacy."
Is not this enough ? or rather is not this far more than
sufficient to prove how all Christian antiquity, as re-
presented by the glorious councils which ever and anon
have been held, proclaimed, with the voice of unity and of
universality, that the Roman church was the first church,
and that the Roman Pontiff had supremacy over all ?

To confirm this most important point in favour of
pontifical supremacy, which is derived from the united
evidences of so many venerable councils, we might
appeal to another line of argument. We might appeal
to the patron saints of all nations — to the very founders
of the various churches throughout Europe, and the
other quarters of the globe. We might appeal to Au-
gustine of England, Palladius of Scotland, Patrick of
Ireland. We might appeal to those self-devoted men,
who in different ages carried the light of truth to the
countries which were " in darkness and in the shadow
.of death." We might ask them to tell us who he was
that sent them on their high and holy mission of pro-
pagating the faith of Christ — from whom did they re-
ceive ordination, consecration, jurisdiction ? — and I
am sure that one and all of them, from their seats of
glory in heaven, would point to Rome, and would say
— There dwelt, in our days, the apostolic successor of
Peter, who had a care of all the churches ; and He it
was that sent us, and He it was that blessed our evan-

137

gelical ministrations. Yes ! and there still dwells th»
meek and gentle Pontiff, who literally " spends and is
spent" in carrying on the glorious work of the apos-
tolate. We speak as to facts — facts against which there
is no reasoning. We ask you to read, and study, and
pray, and believe.

All church history proclaims, trumpet-tongued, the
supremacy of Peter — the supremacy of Peter's succes-
sors ; while all church history declares the incontro-
vertible fact, that every Christian nation that ever ex-
isted, is indebted to the Roman Pontiffs for its Chris-
tianity. We fearlessly appeal to history, and we abide
by her decision.

Church history tells us that all controversies were
settled by the supremacy of Rome — " Roma locuta est,
causa finita est" — instance the disputes at Corinth, the
paschal controversy, the controversy concerning bap-
tism, and all other controversies which afterwards arose
in modern times, down to the last vexata qucestio re-
specting the godless colleges in Ireland.

Church history tells us that the supremacy of Rome
was the grand bulwark of the faith against all ancient
heresies, which are reputed such even by Protestants
themselves — instance the Arian, Macedonian, Nesto-
rian, Eutychian, Pelagian, Novatian, and so many
others, — and that every heresy, without exception, was
anathematized by the authority of Rome.

Church history tells us that the supremacy of Rome
opposed and condemned all modern religious innova-
tions, no matter where or by whom broached ; and that
Rome was the only barrier which the great apostasy of
the sixteenth century was unable to surmount- — Rome,
the only rock against which fell in empty spray the
wild surges of spiritual anarchy, which had been lashed
into fury by the insane fanaticism of Luther, Calvin,
and Knox.

History tells us that Rome was the only church that

M 2

138

ever claimed and ever exercised universal power and
jurisdiction — the only church that always appointed
pastors for every land — bishops for every nation —
that established a hierarchy when and where she judged
fit — that deposed bishops according to the canons —
that reinstated bishops who had unjustly been driven
from their sees — that pronounced censures, suspension,
interdict, excommunication — that watched over the
morality as well as the education of her children — that
encouraged the good, while she rebuked the doers of
iniquity.

History tells us that Rome is the only power that
can cope with, and that can conquer the world — the
only church that can prevent her clergy from sinking
into mere vassals of the state, and her people from be-
coming sheer automata in the hands of designing men.
" Not Aman was more troubled to see Mardochaeus
sitting in the king's gate, than temporal sovereigns are
to see a feeble old man occupying the chair of Peter at Rome"1
And why all this? but because the world, and the
princes of the world, hear ringing in their ears that
emphatic declaration of the Redeemer, which they can-
not possibly gainsay, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."

But I shall be told that Rome has been opposed —
that the Roman supremacy has been warred against in
every age, as well as in the present. I know, and
most readily do I admit the fact. But this I likewise
know, and this I fearlessly assert, that the enemies of
the Roman Pontiffs were the enemies of Christianity.
Yes ! from the days of the impious Simon Magus down
to the unfortunate renegades Achilli and Gavazzi, the
ten thousand different heresies which at various times
rose up in conflict with the church, have hated Peter
and Peter's successors with an undying hatred. Ever

1 Brownson.

139

has it been the desperate policy of heresy and schism —
of the world and the devil, to attack the papacy, and
to denounce the Pope. Heresy cannot endure the ex-
istence of a power which prevents religious innovations
— schism cannot endure that the unity of the church
should remain inviolate — the world cannot endure that
things spiritual should take precedence of things material
— and the devil cannot endure that his utmost efforts
should eventually prove abortive. Hence the opposition
that ever has been, and ever shall be raised by the powers
of darkness against the church of Christ, and against
her anointed head. " They have persecuted me, says
the Redeemer to his holy spouse the church, and they
will persecute thee. But fear not, I am with thee all
days even to the end."

The Papacy is the highest spiritual office in the
church — the most glorious spiritual dignity under hea-
ven* The Sovereign Pontiff — the Vicar of Jesus Christ
alone can fill it, because it is no other than the chair
of Peter. The occupant of that chair, the holder of
that office may die, or may be put to death, but the
Chair still remains — the Papacy lives on. The Papacy
lives, and has lived for more than 1800 years. " The
Papacy remains, not in decay — not a mere antique,
but full of life and youthful vigour."1

The Papacy remains on the rock of ages, unchanged
in its original constitution, firm in its original strength
— the palladium of authority — the centre of unity —
bound up with the destinies of that immortal church
which is " fated not to die." The Papacy remains un-
altered, unimpaired, while all nature around it, on the
other hand, is in a constant state of change and of de-
cline. Empires have risen, and dynasties have fallen —
the governments of Europe, of Asia, of Africa have ex-
changed hands, and been moulded into different forms;

1 Macaulaj.

140

•

but the long line of Supreme Pontiffs has been unin-
terrupted, and that glorious chain will go in succes-
sion, link after link, till time shall be swallowed up in
eternity.

" There is not, and there never was on this earth, a
work of human policy (it is not human, it is divine) so
well deserving of examination, as the Roman Catholic
Church. The history of that Church joins together the
two great ages of human civilization. No other insti-
tution is left standing which carries the mind back to
the times, when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the
Pantheon, arid when cameleopards and tigers bounded
in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal
houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the
line of supreme pontiffs. That line we trace back in
an unbroken series, from the pope who crowned Napo-
leon in the nineteenth century, to the pope who crowned
Pepin in the eighth" * — to the pope Sylvester who bap-
tized the emperor Constantino at Rome in the fourth,
to the popes who suffered, and bled, and died for the
faith, in the third, and second, and/rsZ.

During the three first centuries of the Christian era,
the Church was subjected to the law of martyrdom,
and during that period she passed through the ordeal
of ten most bloody persecutions, under Nero, Domitian,
Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Severus, Maximin, Decius,
Aurelian, and Dioclesian, — every one of her chief pas-
tors, except two, dying by the sword.

Well was it said by Ranke,2 in speaking of the
Roman pontiffs in the first ages, that " their succes-
sion was rather to martyrdom and death, than to
office." In those bitter days of persecution, the
Church was straitened on every side. Christianity
was a felony ; and the profession of the Christian
religion was subjected to the most rigorous penal

1 Macaulay. 2 History of the Popes, book I.

141

laws. The worship of the living and true God was
prohibited by the state ; but all the deities of mytho-
logy might be adored in the Pantheon. The divine
faith of Christ was alone proscribed ; but every other
religious system, no matter how absurd, was to enjoy
unbounded toleration. Oh, how like the position in
which we Catholics of the British Isles are at present
placed ! Every religious system, no matter how
ludicrous or ungodly, rejoices in full liberty ; but the
profession of the Catholic faith is to be fettered with
penal enactments ! And yet this in a kingdom which
never ceases to boast of her unparalleled freedom and
liberality !

Purely Providence wanted to convince the world,
that the Roman pontiffs were pre-eminently the
*; good shepherds" that lay down their lives for their
flock, since, out of thirty popes who occupied in suc-
cession the chair of Peter at Rome during the three
first centuries, two only were not called upon to seal
the faith with their blood. And surely it likewise
intended to shew, that they were men after God's
own heart, since, for the first 500 years, the name of
every single pope, Liberius alone excepted^ has been
registered in the calendar of saints.

When the emperor Constantino became a Christian,
about the year 313, a new epoch was dated for Chris-
tianity. Paganism quickly fell into the throes of
dissolution, and the religion of the cross rose trium-
phant over its ruins. In vain did Julian the apostate
afterwards endeavour to revive the worship of the
heathen deities. The colossal power of the Cassars
was fast ebbing. The Roman empire, the most for-
midable that the world has ever seen, embracing, as
it did, the sovereignty of the earth, was now rent into
the Eastern and Western provinces, and like all insti-
tutions of mere human growth, was tottering to its
fall. No longer, then, could it shield idolatry, or
oppose the progress of Christianity. The whole

142

fabric of pagan superstition was thus to be dashed to
pieces, and like the Philistine idol, was to be hurled
to the ground, before the majesty of the ark of truth
— -the Church of the living God.

Emancipated from the thraldom of a pagan empire,
the Church rushed forth to the propagation of the
faith, and quickly did she extend her pacific sway
throughout the globe. Meantime a spawn of heresies
was brooding ; for " heresies there must be," says
St Paul.1 The most monstrous theories were now
broached on the grand mystery of the incarnation,
and appeared under the designations of Arianism^
Pelagianism, Nestorianism, the Monophysites, and
the Monothelites. What was to be done to oppose
innovation, and to save the unity of the faith ? The
Church, headed by the Roman pontiffs, called her
bishops together, and in those glorious Councils to
which we have already referred, anathematized, and
thus crushed the rising heresies and their abettors.

From the time of Constantino, in the fourth cen-
tury, till the time of Pepin, in the eighth, in which
dates the temporal power of the popes, what scenes
of anarchy and bloodshed were not the Roman pon-
tiffs doomed to witness? Successive hordes of bar-
barians from the north — Goths, Vandals, Alains,
Huns, Heruli, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Lombards, and
Sueves, poured down like a torrent upon the lovely
plains of Italy, and swept as a destroying angel over
the land. Other continental and adjoining countries
were similarly treated. Cities were pillaged — castles
were dismantled — villages were burned down — pre-
cious libraries — thousands of volumes were consigned
to the flames, at Constantinople, at Alexandria, as
well as in very many European cities. What is to
be done in this state of chaotic confusion ? Who is to
come to the rescue of civilization ? Who is to stand

1 Cor.

143

tip and save society from utter ruin, and arrest the
arm of the harbarian, and pour love into his bosom,
and teach him to be a man, and then to be a Chris-
tian, and tell him that peace is preferable to war.
that there is a moral influence stronger than the
sword, and a divine influence superior to either ?
Who was it, I ask, that did this, and far more than
this ? Was it not the successor of Peter ? Was it
not the Roman pontiff Leo, that walked forth alone
to confront the savage Hun, Attila, and afterwards
encountered the barbarous Genseric? And was it
not another Roman pontiff, Gregory, surnarned the
Gjreat, who went out to meet the invading Lombards,
and overawed them by his august presence ? What
were the weapons of these great high-priests of God,
but the cross and the crosier, and the burning elo-
quence that flowed in resistless streams from their
inspired lips ? Who that knows history, can deny
the inestimable blessings which the immortal bishops
of Catholic Rome conferred upon society at large,
after the fall of the Roman empire ? " It was the
Church, says the distinguished historian, Guizot,1
with its institutions, its magistrates, its temporal
powrer, which strove triumphantly against the inter-
nal dissolution that convulsed the empire, and against
barbarism — which subdued the barbarians themselves,
and became the link, the medium, the principle of
civilization, as between the Roman and barbarian
worlds."

; Time went on, and another formidable enemy
arose. The great struggle of hundreds of years du-
ration was now to commence between the cross and
the crescent — the Christian religion and the Moham-
medan imposture. The false prophet of Mecca had
his millions of followers, who had become masters of
a large portion of the habitable globe — who had ex-

1 Gen. History of Civilization in Europe,

144

tended their conquests to the centre of Asia — had
reduced under their sway all Northern Africa, and
had made considerable inroads into Europe. Who
again was it that sounded the tocsin of alarm against
the enemies of the Christian name, the avowed foes
of every Christian nation ? Was it not the Roman
pontiffs, from their watch-towers on the Vatican
and Quirinal hills, that raised that apostolic voice
which was sure to be re-echoed and obeyed, in every
city, and town, and hamlet, in Christendom, and
which called upon all Christian nations to forget
their private feuds, and to make common cause
against the common enemy of religion as well as of
morality ? Then was it that the Crusades were orga-
nized. The Crusades ! which upreared the standard of
redemption — which enlisted under that glorious ban-
ner the flower and the chivalry of Europe — and which
vowed to heaven that the crescent should never van-
quish the cross, and that the Koran of Mahomet
should never supplant the Testament of Jesus. The
Crusades ! which, whatever may have been their
drawbacks, were most decidedly just in principle,
and noble in policy — which were the legitimate off-
spring of the " ages of faith," and undoubted proof
that the Catholic warriors, who embarked in the he-
roic enterprise of rescuing the Holy Land, cherished a
love of the Saviour's religion, aye, and of the Saviour's
tomb, which was stronger than death. The Crusades !
which, by going forth to Palestine, and pushing hos-
tilities into the very heart of the enemy's camp, taught
the Musselmen the prowess of the Christian knight,
and the bravery of the Christian soldiery, and admi-
nistered a never-to-be-forgotten lesson, that Chris-
tianity, and her shrines, and her temples, were not
to be outraged with impunity. Time forbids us to
enter into particulars, so we must hasten on apace.
Come we now for a moment to another eventful

145

era in the history of the Church, and of her pontiffs,
the period of the so-called Reformation. It would
be impossible to say, in a few words, what would
afford ample matter for a long series of lectures.
This much, however, we may most certainly declare,
that the power which triumphed over paganism and
the Roman empire — the power which conquered here-
sies and subdued ruthless barbarians — the power
which made the crescent grow pale in the sight of the
cross — that that same power, as embodied in the
supremacy of the Roman pontiffs, has risen victo-
rious over the lamentable apostasy of the sixteenth
century. The same have we to say with regard to
subsequent revolutions which have taken place in Eu-
rope at different times. Tedious would it be to touch,
however slightly, upon events which occupy so large
a space in the pages of history. But we do most
boldly proclaim in the face of heaven and earth,
that the Church has nothing to fear from man, because
God is with her ; and if God be with her, no matter
who is against her. True it is, however, that the Church
still may suffer — still may she be persecuted — still may
she groan under the iron hand of oppression. Such is
the permission — such the providence of Heaven ! She
may be scourged, as was scourged her great Founder
— she may be treated with contumely, as He also was
treated — she may be doomed to drink a portion of that
chalice of suffering, which He drank to the dregs —
She may weep again, as she wept of old when her
apostolic prelate, Peter, was enchained in the Mainer-
tine prison — Her heart may bleed anew, as it bled be-
fore when she was widowed of her venerable Pontiffs,
who came forth from the Catacombs to profess the faith
and die — Tears may stream from her eyelids once again,
as in those days of sorrow, when the cry of extermina-
tion— " Christian! ad leones I" To the lions with the
Christians ! — rung throughout the city of the Caesars,

146

and when bishops, and priests, and people of every
rank in life, were mercilessly exposed in the amphi-
theatre to be devoured by wild beasts, because they
worshipped the God of the cross, and not the gods of
the Pantheon ! Our holy mother, the Church, may
mourn again, as during her eventful career she often
has had occasion to mourn, when the sword of fanati-
cism was laying desolate Catholic lands — when the
altars at which her priests offered the pure and holy
sacrifice were sacrilegiously torn down — when the
stones of the sanctuary were scattered in the streets,
and when, as in Scotland, her venerable cathedrals, her
churches, and her religious houses were reduced by
demons in human form to one sad heap of mouldering
ruins. She may weep her sorrow again, as she wept
before, when sacrilegious hands dragged the magnani-
mous Pius VI., and afterwards the saintly Pius VII.T
into captivity, and when the disturbances of anarchists
sent the present noble pontiff, Pius IX., into exile at
Gaeta. The Church — such is her destiny — may see a
recurrence of these calamities, and see them with the
bitterest pain. But never can she compromise matters
with her oppressors — never can she yield in the slight-
est tittle to her persecutors — never can she tolerate
an invasion of her liberty, nor countenance the least
encroachment upon her rights. The reason is obvious :
she is a divine, and not a human — she is a spiritual, and
not a mere temporal establishment. She holds the faith
which she received from God. To God, then, and not
to man is she amenable. For when did the apostles or
their successors crave permission from the emperors or
their proconsuls to preach the gospel, to administer the
sacraments, to found new diocesses, to establish new
hierarchies, to remove abuses, and to inflict canonical
censures ? Was it not because they did all these things,
despite of opposition, that they were denounced, pur-
sued like felons, cast into prison, and eventually put to

147

the sword ? What marvel, then, if the only church in
the world which declares herself to be possessed of the
{supremacy of Peter should act like Peter, and like
Peter's apostolic successors? What marvel if, like the
apostles, she also should say to the rulers of the earth,
" If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather
than God, judge ye."1 What marvel if she should
speak to all princes and potentates as spoke the late
glorious Pope Gregory XVI, to the Emperor of the
Russias — " You may send your armies to surround the
walls of the eternal city, but you are grievously mis-
taken if you think to force the Roman Pontiff to act
against his conscience ! "

For I ask, what do men mean in clamouring against
the only church of Christ upon earth ? What do legis-
lators propose to themselves with their penal laws,
their threatened fines and imprisonment for conscience
sake ? What does Protestantism, and Presbyterianism,
and Freekirkism, and Socialism, and Rationalism ex-
pect in this desperate onslaught against the Catholic
Church in Great Britain and Ireland, and throughout
the Continent ? To pull down the fabric that was up-
reared and is upheld by the right arm of the God om-
nipotent ? Ah ! surely they have little faith in Scrip-
ture who believe not the words of old Gamaliel, in re-
gard to the foundation of the church by the apostles —
" And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these
men, and let them alone ; for if this design or work
be of men, it will fall to nothing ; but if it be of God,
you are not able to destroy it ; lest perhaps you be found
to oppose God."8 Surely they have read history nei-
ther wisely nor well, who dream of the discomfiture of
a church that has borne the brunt of the battle for
more than eighteen hundred years — which knows what
it is to fight, but not to be overcome — which has been

1 Acts iv. 19. 2 Acts v. 38.

148

wounded, but never killed — injured, but never de-
stroyed— which has a charmed life, and which, though
ik doomed to death" by men and demons, is " fated not
to die." No ! No ! let no man tell me that the church
of God is in danger. Tell me not that the Catholic
church has any thing to fear from heresy or schism —
from revolutions, or from a second Reformation. Tell
me not that her foundations can be sapped, or that
her citadel can be taken. Her whole history proclaims
the contrary — her whole history is the best proof of
her absolute indestructibility. " The nations raged,
and the people devised vain things : but He who dwell-
eth in heaven laughed at them, and the Lord derided
them."1 What ? the church of Christ in danger ! the
Catholic church in peril ! What Catholic thinks so —
what Catholic says so ? I am well aware that Protest-
ants think so, and say so. But Protestants are not
Catholics, though some, like the Donatists of old,
would wish to arrogate to themselves the glorious
name.

" Nothing," says the eloquent Chrysostom,3 " is
stronger than the church of Christ : if any one should
propose to attack her, he must needs waste his strength,
as though he waged war against Heaven itself. No
power can conquer the church : God is in the church,
who is stronger than all."

" This is the holy church," exclaims Augustine,3
" the one church, the true church, the Catholic church,
which wars against all heresies. She may battle against
them ; she cannot be overcome. All heresies went out
from her, like useless branches cut off from the vine.
But she remains in her root, in her vine, in her charity.
The gates of hell shall not conquer her.1'

With joy of heart do we repeat these words, which

1 Psalms ii. 2 Serni. de expul. sua.

3 De sym. ad catech.

149

were spoken fifteen hundred years ago, and which
are true to the letter, now in the nineteenth, as they
were in the fourth century. Surely the children of
the Church may be permitted to speak in the warmest
eulogy of their holy mother, when we find those that
are without her pale expressing themselves in the
following glowing strains: — " The Catholic Church
is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world
missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent
with Augustine, and still confronting hostile kings
with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila.
The number of her children is greater than in any
former age. Her acquisitions in the new world have
more than compensated for what she has lost in the
old. Her spiritual ascendancy extends over the vast
countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri
and Cape Horn — countries which, a century hence,
may not improbably contain a population as large as
that which now inhabits Europe. The members of
her communion are certainly not fewer than one —
(rather two hundred and fifty millions) ? and it will be
difficult to shew, that all the other Christian sects
united, amount to one hundred and twenty millions.
Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term
of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the
commencement of all the governments, and of all the
ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the
world ; and we feel no assurance that she is not des-
tined to see the end of them all. She was great and
respected before the Saxon had set foot in Britain —
before the Frank had passed the Rhine — when Gre-
cian eloquence still flourished at Antioch — when
idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. . . .
Four times since the authority of the Church of Rome
was established in Western Christendom, has the
human intellect risen up against her. Twice she
remained completely victorious ; twice she came

N 2

150

forth from the conflict, bearing the marks of cruel
wounds, but with the principle of life still strong
within her. When we reflect on the tremendous
assaults which she has survived, we find it difficult to
conceive in what way she is to perish."1 Perish!
the Church of God is as imperishable as her heavenly
founder ! Immortality is written above her portico :
indestructibility is engraven upon her walls : the
words of the Redeemer are re-echoed for ever and
ever from her cupola — " The gates of hell shall not
prevail against her!'1

But we must wind to a conclusion, and tear our-
selves away from this delightful theme. Yet before
we go, let us sum up, in a few words, what we have
said upon this vitally important subject of the Pa-
pacy. We have proved that Christ promised to in-
stitute the office of the supremacy ; we have proved
that Peter alone of the twelve apostles held that
office — that he discharged the duties annexed to that
office — moreover, that that office survived his
death, and was filled by his lawful successors, the
bishops of Rome. If then the supremacy of Peter still
survives, it must be vested in some individual. It is
not a mere abstract truth, but rather, so to speak,
concrete ; for it must live, and move, and have a
being. Now no one so much as even claims the su-
premacy of Peter, except the Roman pontiff ; and we
submit, from the accumulation of proofs already ad-
duced, that his claim is founded upon the most un-
questionable evidence. Witnesses we have brought
forward — witnesses of the most unimpeachable cha-
racter, to testify to the line of succession in the Ro-
man see. If we refuse to admit their testimony, all
moral certainty is gone ; we can be sure of nothing ;
history becomes a narrative of uncertainties; and

1 Mucaulay's Review of Ranke's Lives of the Popes.

151

universal scepticism would then be the inevitable re-
sult.

Irenseus,1 who lived towards the end of the second
century, furnishes a list of the Roman pontiffs from
Peter down to Eleutherius, who then sat in Peter's
chair, at the time in which he wrote.

Eusebius,2 who lived at the close of the third cen-
tury, furnishes a list of the Roman pontiffs who suc-
ceeded each other down to his own time, and men-
tions distinctly that Linus was first in succession after
Peter.

Optatus,3 who lived in the fourth century, furnishes
a similar list, and terminates his catalogue with the
name of Siricius, who was then the Roman pontiff.

Augustine,4 who lived in the fifth century, furnishes
likewise a list of Roman pontiffs, from St Peter down
to Anastasius, and called upon his adversaries, the
Donatists, to produce a parallel line of pastors.

Now, if we deny the testimony of these most ac-
credited witnesses — if we reject the line of succession
of Roman pontiffs, as drawn up by those distinguished
men who wrote at different times, in different coun-
tries, among whom there could not possibly have
existed any collusion, and who had no other end to
serve save the cause of truth — if, I say, we venture
to deny this great fact, we must, to act consistently,
deny likewise other historical facts. We cannot make
an exception, but throw overboard all facts recorded
in history, both ancient and modern. If we deny the
chronological succession of Roman pontiffs, we must
deny the chronological succession of the Roman em-
perors— we must sweep aside all that is recorded of
the Latin kings — of the kings of Egypt, of Assyria,
of Persia, of Athens, of Lacedemon, of Thebes, of
Troy — in a word, of all that is recorded in classical

1 Lib. iii. adv. Haer. a Hist. Eccles. 1. iii. c. iv.

3 Lib. Cont. Farm. * Epis. liii.

152

history. Certainly we cannot contemplate such a piece
of extravagance, without at once seeing its absurdity.
Therefore it follows, that as we admit without scruple
the facts which are registered in history which is pro-
fane, we must admit those facts which are chronicled
in history which is ecclesiastical, seeing that the foun-
dation on which they are grounded is equally solid
and unexceptionable. Prejudice alone can make a
difference ; common honesty admits, that historical
facts, narrated by writers equally worthy of credence,
must stand or fall together.

But it is said that — admitting the line of succession
— many of the Popes were bad men — that they abused
a temporal power which they ought not to have pos-
sessed— that they claimed the right to depose princes,
and to absolve their subjects from the oath of allegiance
— moreover, that the Church of Rome taught the doc-
trine of persecution. These are the usual popular ob-
jections which are so flippantly urged. Now let us
review briefly each of these points of indictment.

To the first point we say, that to any one who studies
the human heart, it will not appear matter of much
surprise, that among upwards of 250 Pontiffs, whose
spiritual reign extended over a period of more than
1800 years, some few there were whose lives did not
correspond with their exalted position. Indeed they
would have been more than mortal, if every one of
them had passed through life without the slightest
blemish, seeing that even among the twelve apostles,
one was a traitor. Now in the long line of pontifical
succession, which we shall afterwards read, there is
not one in twelve, nor one in twenty, against whom the
tongue of calumny and detraction has been let loose :
while it is a consoling fact, that some of the very Pon-
tiffs who were most maligned, such as Innocent III.,
Gregory VII., Boniface VIIL, and others, have re-
cently been vindicated by writers cf the first literary

153

eminence. Suffice to mention the names of Eichhorn,
Luden, Miiller, and Ranke, distinguished German Pro-
testants, who have been engaged in the noble work of
repairing the characters of Rome's slandered Pontiffs.
Moreover we say, that while Christ promised the gift of
infallibility to his church, we are nowhere told that he
promised the gift of impeccability to his apostles, or to
their successors. Sin certainly is blameable in every
creature, but more particularly in those who have the
most august ordinances to discharge. Fortunately,
however, the validity of the sacraments does not de-
pend on the sanctity of the minister.

We may moreover add — not by way of extenuating
iniquity, but to shew the infirmity of human nature
when unprotected by divine grace — that under the old
law, God's appointed messengers sometimes forgot
their duty. Instance David, Solomon, Samson, Heli and
his sons. The priests of the kingdom of Judah failed
also to recollect that they had been specially appointed
to offer sacrifices to God alone. When our divine Sa-
viour appeared on the earth, he admonished the people
to follow the good doctrine, and not the bad example of
their teachers. Thus did he draw the distinction —
" The Scribes and the Pharisees have sitten in the
chair of Moyses. All, therefore, whatsoever they shall
say to you, observe and do : but according to their works,
do ye not."1 Thus what they said was to be done, but
their works were to be shunned.

Granting, therefore, what we neither wish to palliate
nor deny, that the conduct of some few Popes was a
reproach to the supreme Pontificate, we contend that
the objection serves to strengthen what it is intended
to invalidate — the promises, namely, of God to his
church. For if the Church, despite the shortcomings
of her visible head, still remained intact, is it not an

1 Matt, xxiii. 2,

154

additional proof of the watchful providence of Hea-
ven over her ever chequered destinies ? No matter,
then, what is said by ignorance, and exaggerated by
malevolence — no matter what delinquencies, real or
imaginary, may be imputed to some half-dozen, or
half a score of Pontiffs ; this much we fearlessly main-
tain, and we are prepared to demonstrate, that no
Pope ever propounded, ex cathedra, any dogma at
variance with faith and morals. With these draw-
backs, in as far as individual responsibility was con-
cerned, and which might tarnish, but could not de-
stroy the Supremacy of the Pontiff's office, — no
more than the regal office of England could be
destroyed, although held by those monsters of de-
pravity, Henry and Elizabeth, — where shall we find,
in searching the annals of the entire world, a line of
sovereigns that can for a moment be compared with
the long unbroken chain of Rome's Bishops, who, with
very few exceptions, stand out as models of virtue, of
learning, and of sanctity? We speak because we
know, and we challenge investigation. Surely D1-
Alembert was no patron of the Papacy, yet he does
not hesitate to write : "In no list of sovereigns will
you ever find, in equal number, so many men worthy
of the attention of posterity."

To the second point, namely, " that the Popes
abused a temporal power which they ought not to
have possessed ; " we say, that, in as far as Catholic
faith is concerned, we might safely yield to the whole
allegation. As Catholics, we are called upon to defend
the spiritual not the temporal power of the Popes, al-
though, in favour of the latter, very much certainly can
be urged. The temporal power is an accidental ap-
pendage, and not essential to the Supremacy. That
abuses did happen we are not slow to acknowledge.
But what is there under heaven that has not been
abused ? Our adversaries pounce upon certain faults

155

of Papal administration, which they call abuses, and
forget those innumerable benefits which that same Pa-
pal power has so long conferred upon society. Such
is that ingratitude which requites incalculable bles-
sings by " casting stones" against its benefactors.

To the third point, " that the Popes claimed the
right to depose Princes, and to absolve their subjects
from the oath of allegiance," we might in the language
of the Schools say, Transeat, such being no article of
Catholic faith. The unanimous reply of five celebrated
Catholic Universities — Sorbonne, Louvaine, Douay,
Alcala, and Salamanca to an eminent statesman, is
abundantly declaratory. Pitt, then Prime Minister of
Great Britain, sent to make inquiries upon this subject,
and received for answer, that such was no doctrine of
the Catholic Church.1 That the Popes may have used,
or even if you please, stretched a power which was
forced upon them during the middle ages, is possible
enough. But we should remember the times to which
allusion is made. Society was then in a state of tran-
sition and of turmoil. Civil and social rights were ill
defined : might and right were nearly equivalent
terms, and brute force was too often the order of the
day. Frequently were princes tyrants, and these tyrants
ground the people to the dust. No wonder that the
sovereign Pontiffs, who were justly held in the most
profound veneration, and looked up to by all Christen-
dom as the mediators who alone could be depended
on, should have read a lesson both to princes and to
people ; and while they inculcated to the people obe-
dience to the constituted authorities, they likewise ad-
monished the princes that they had duties to discharge,
as well as rights to guard.

During the ages of faith, the spiritual relations
which subsisted between the supreme Pontiffs and all

1 See Chas. Butler's Works.

156

Catholie nations, induced the latter to have recourse to
the former in almost every emergency. They recog-
nised the Roman Pontiff as their common father upon
earth. No marvel, then, that the voice of such a
father should be listened to by his spiritual children,
when no other voice would be heard. Urban IV.,
writing, in the thirteenth century, to Michael Pala»o-
logus, emperor of Constantinople, says1 — " Catholic
kings, when any dissension occurs between them, or
when their vassals presume to rebel against them,
immediately have recourse to this church, as to a har-
bour of safety, imploring salutary counsel and aid, and
unfailingly receive from her remedies, whereby tran-
quillity and peace are secured : by which means serene
harmony and harmonious serenity are re-established
among those who were discordant and troubled ; the
seditions of subjects are quelled, and the complaints of
the litigious are hushed. Moreover, the same Roman
Church acts as a tender mother to the infant heirs of
such kingdoms, whenever they are left orphans, by the
death of their parents during their minority ; and she
diligently and advantageously undertakes their govern-
ment and protection, and defends their inheritance and
kingdoms, in cases of necessity, even at her own ex-
pense, from any invaders and usurpers."

Before, then, objecting to Papal intervention, we
should consider the circumstances of those times, and
inquire what else could have been done, or what better
umpire could possibly have been chosen. The Pope
was appealed to by both parties, and it was his duty
to arbitrate between them. Whether kings reign by
divine right, or by the sovereign will of the people, is
a question upon which we shall not enter. Certain,
however, it is, that during the middle ages, both kings
and people believed that the Popes were perfectly jus -

1 Apud Rayn. anno 1263.

157

fcified in interposing between them — that they were
fully justified in declaring, that when a prince wan-
tonly abused the power with which he was invested,
and trampled under foot all the laws of God and his
country, that the people were no longer bound to obey,
and that resistance became a duty.

It is fashionable in almost every circle to speak of
the marvellous happiness of the British Isles, and to
contrast, with pride and pleasure, the superior excel-
ence of the British constitution with Continental go-
vernments. We think ourselves happy, and therefore,
of course, we are so. But if we so think, why find
fault with other nations who envy not our lot, and be-
lieve, perhaps not untruly r, that they are far happier
than we ? Let us not be so one-sided as to refuse to
others the same privilege that we, claim, of thinking for
themselves, and of exulting in the glories of their own
dear father-land.

To prove, however, that even Protestants can ap-
preciate the benefits of Papal intervention, let us listen
to Sir Edward Sandys,1 who compares the relative
position of Catholic and Protestant Europe, and de-
clares the decided advantage of the former in this par-
ticular. He thus writes :— - " The other have the Pope
as a common father, adviser, and conductor to them
all, to reconcile their enmities, to appease their dis-
pleasures, to decide their differences,"

Ancillon2 speaks of the Popes of the middle ages :
— " They formed a supreme tribunal, erected in the
midst of universal anarchy : and their decrees were
in general as respectable as they were respected."

Andisio 3 an Italian writer, but not of the rebellious
Mazzini school, called the Papacy " a spiritual tribune--
ship, which effectually pleaded for the people, when
sovereigns went beyond the just limits of authority/'

Europse Speculum, p. 202, a Fletcher's Comj>. View, 157.
3 Educaz. del Clero.

158

Brownson1 years ago wrote, " Wrong have they been
who have complained that kings and emperors were
subjected to the spiritual Head of Christendom. It
was well for man that there was a power above the
brutal tryants called emperors, kings, and barons, who
rode rough shod over the humble peasant and artizan
— well that there was e -re on earth a power that
could touch their cold and atheistical hearts, and make
them tremble as the ver t slave." A L .. It is
to the existence and exercise of that power, that the
people owe their existence, and the doctrine of man's
equality to man its progress." This distinguished
American writer has lately been received into the
Church.

The eminent statesman and historian Guizot,2 thus
writes : — " We speak of the rights of temporal power
without difficulty ; but at the epoch under review, the
power was a mere brute force — an intractable ruffian-
ism. The Church, however imperfect its notions of
morals and of justice might still be, was infinitely supe-
rior to such a government ; and the cry of tlie people
•was continually raised, beseeching it to take its place.
When a Pope or a few Bishops proclaimed a sovereign
denuded of his rights, and his subjects free from the
oath of fidelity, such an intervention, although doubt-
less open to serious abuses, was often, in particular
cases, legitimate and salutary. In general, whenever
liberty was wanting to mankind, its restoration has been
the work of religion. In the tenth century the people
were not in a state to defend themselves, or to make
their rights available against civil violence, and religion
came to the rescue in the name of Heaven."

Too many of those then who clamour against the
Catholic Church and against her Pontiffs, often know
not what they say. They repeat by rote what the/

1 Boston Quarterly Review, 1842.

2 Gen. Hist, cf Civiliz. in Europe.

159

have heard, without inquiring whether it be true or
false. They are thus the mere echoes of a popular
cry. The adversaries of Catholicism do not seem to
be aware of how much society is indebted almost ex-
clusively to the Church and her Pontiffs. They for-
get that while now-a-days we reap the fruit of a re-
fined state of civilisation, it was the Catholic Church,
ages back, that sowed the seed, — that if we have now
a beauteous superstructure, it was she who laid the
foundations. For it was she that began the great
work of religious as well as social regeneration — it
was she, after the fall of the Koman Empire, that
humanized the barbarian, and first raised her voice
against the curse of slavery. It was she that protect-
ed the liberty of the free, 'and set on foot her reli-
gious orders for the redemption of the captive. Jt
was she that elevated the tone of men's character, and
particularly the character of women: for while before
Christianity appeared, a plurality of wives was of ten in-
dulged in, she declared that such a degradation of the
sex was not to be tolerated — that monogamy should
be strictly observed— that the marriage tie was indis-
soluble, and that as long as husband or wife lived,
neither could be permitted to marry a second time.
It was she that established the " Truce of God,"—
that called into being her military orders — her men-
dicant and preaching orders — and founded those sa-
cred conventual and monastic institutions, where de-
spite the calumny of the day, the happy inmates lead
the lives of angels, and even upon earth have a fore-
taste of heaven. It was she that endowed hospitals
for all the woes that afflict suffering humanity — that
formed her Guilds for the industrial classes — that orga-
nized her various trades corporations — that studied the
constitution of human nature — that therefore address-
ed herself to the souls and bodies of her children—
that made religion a pleasure, not a toil — attractive

160

not repulsive — that hung roses instead of thorn*
around her altars, and caused the ever-recurring fes-
tival to be welcomed as the harbinger of joy to all
^ men of good will." It was the Catholic Church by
her Pontiffs that did these things and infinitely more.
Talk not to me of the Reformation, or of its spawn
of creeds ! Talk not of an irreligious system which
could pull down, in some countries sf Europe, the sa-
ered edifice of Christianity, but never could build it
up — which could tell not what it believed, but rather
what it disbelieved, and which could license its votaries
to sport with the eternal truths of revelation !

Were Protestants only to know that of which we
Catholics feel certain, then it would be seen and ad-
mitted, that the influence of the so-called Reforma-
tion was most disastrous, not only to faith and
morals, but to literature — to the arts and sciences —
as well as to civil and religious liberty. Upon
other occasions we have proved all this. Truly it
is a most egregious mistake to employ the argu-
ment post hoc, ergo propter hoc, in relation to the
change of religion in the sixteenth century. What !
The idea, because during the lapse of 300 suc-
ceeding years, certain nations have so far rallied
from the sad consequences of religious anarchy,
and have made great advances in science and in
letters, that we are to attribute such results to some
apostate friars who fanned the flame of rebellion,
and raised throughout the half of Europe a fear-
ful conflagration, is something too monstrous calmly
to entertain. Our adversaries forget the injuries
that were inflicted at the time upon civilization under
its various aspects, and how much every advancement
in social life was retarded by that unhallowed event.
They forget also how it would require years upon
years to undo the evil that was done, even before
starting again in the race of social and intellectual
improvement. But of this, for the present enough.

161

To the fourth point, that " the Church of Rome
taught the doctrine of persecution," we flatly deny the
charge. It is no doctrine of the Catholic Church to
persecute. On the contrary, it is a maxim in her mo-
ral code, " Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine," — the Church
hates bloodshed. Her weapons are spiritual, not car-
nal : she wields the sword of the Spirit, not the sword
of flesh. It is idle to allege certain cases, the changes
on which have been so often rung : for such the Church
is by no manner of means accountable, no more than
she is responsible for the sins of her children.

The oath prescribed to be taken by Bishops at their
consecration has been frequently urged as sanctioning
persecution. A little explanation will clear up this
matter. The bishops of Ireland had represented to the
then Pope Pius VI. that exception had been taken to
a clause in the oath in respect to heretics, which had
given rise to much abusive clamour. The holy father
returned an authoritative explanation, through his emi-
nence Cardinal Antonelli, then Prefect of the college
of Propaganda, to this effect : — "His Holiness Pius VI.
has not disregarded your requests : and therefore, in
order effectually to remove every occasion of cavil and
calumny, which, as you write, some borrow from the
words in the form of oath of obedience to the apostolic
see, that bishops are required to take at their conse-
cration— * I will prosecute and oppose heretics, &c. to
the utmost of my power/ — which words are maliciously
interpreted as the signal of war against heretics, autho-
rizing persecution and assault against them as enemies;
whereas the pursuit and opposition to heretics, which the
bishops undertake, are to be understood as referring to
their solicitude and efforts in convincing heretics of their
errors, and procuring their reconciliation with the Ca-
tholic Church : His Holiness has graciously condescend-
ed to substitute in place of the ancient form of oath,
that one which was publicly repeated by the Archbishop

162

of Alohilow, to the great satisfaction of all the court
of St Petersburg!), in presence of the Empress, and
which we transmit to you in this letter." Thus we
gee the misconception which arises from not appre-
ciating the spirit, and not estimating properly the doc-
trines of the Church.

It is still urged, however, that — waiving the ques-
tion of the temporal power of the Papacy — its spiritual
authority is enslaving, because it is so absolute and
domineering.

Now this is a most popular and flippant objection,
$s it is well calculated ad captandum not only the vul-
gus, but likewise the optimates. Yet, after all, it is
mere declamation. It is very fine indeed for those to
talk in this manner who uphold the supremacy of pri-
vate judgment, in contradistinction to the supremacy of
the Pope. But Catholics are not private-judgment-men,
for they acknowledge a divinely constituted authority
in matters of religion. They believe that the spiritual
authority of the Papacy has been built up and sup-
ported by the hand of God, and that it is their duty,
as it is their interest, to obey it, as they would obey
God himself. " He that hears you, hears me."

The spiritual power of the Papacy is the power of
the Church administered by her visible head. As we
are commanded by Christ himself to obey the church
under the severest penalties — " If he will not hear the
church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publi-
can"1— so we are commanded to obey him who is
the living representative of the Church, and the Vice-
gerent of the Redeemer. The inference is inevitable.
If to obey Christ — to obey his Church — to obey his
Vicar upon earth be slavery, then is the Catholic a
slave 1 then obedience is slavery ! then are all men
slaves ! for every man is obliged to obey laws of some

1 Matt, xviii. 17.

163

kind or another. But obedience in religion is rather
to be put in possession of true liberty than slavery ;
for the land -marks of faith are distinctly laid down ;
one is thereby guarded from the unbridled license of
private judgment, and from the fickle fickleness of
private opinion.

To talk of the domineering tendency of the Papacy
is to declaim, not to reason. The Papacy has its legi-
timate province — there has it ample range, and there
is it all-powerful. Should it travel out of its own
sphere, and mingle in the fray of mere temporal con-
cerns, then exception might and would be taken. But
as long as it attends to those affairs which directly or
indirectly affect the well-being of the children of holy
Church, nothing has it to fear, no matter what may be
the quarter whence opposition arises.

We are told, however, by Mazzini, in an uproarious
tirade, that the " Papacy is a corpse," and that speech
has been applauded by a London audience to the very
echo. How then has it happened that this corpse has
lately convulsed the British Isles, and frightened Pro-
testantism out of all propriety ? The Papacy a corpse
indeed ! — that living and life-like body, whose head but
speaks a single word, and Europe, Asia, Africa, Ame-
rica are all attention, and 250 millions of subjects obey
as one man ! Away with such miserable drivelling,
as unworthy of observation.

There is a constant clamour in this country against
the Jesuitism, as it called, of the Court of Rome. At
that we are not surprised. Bigotry and intolerance are
always clamorous. The Roman Court does not re-
quire our feeble advocacy, for it can take care of itself.
Its wisdom and caution are proverbial — immeasurably
greater than what we pique ourselves upon in Scotland.
Roma — mora has passed into an aphorism. The other
European courts are not slow in awarding the praise
of the most profound sagacity and unequalled states-

164

manship to the Court of Rome. The Russian ambas-
sador Italinsky1 observed, that "Rome is invulnerable
in her dogmas, and that it is the only court in which
no complete blunder in politics is ever made." It
would be tedious to refer to other testimonies ; but we
may remark, while on this subject, that at the congress
of Vienna, in which were assembled representatives
from the various courts, to settle the affairs of Europe,
Cardinal Consalvi, the papal nuncio, was the master
mind present. Even politically speaking, then, the
Court of Rome has always stood eminently conspicuous,
nor is there any danger of its lapsing from its high and
well-established character in the diplomatic world.
This, however, is beside the question.

One peculiar characteristic we have not as yet men-
tioned, and that is, the perfect adaptation of the Catho-
lic Church to every kind of government. No matter
whether the form of government be democratic, aris-
tocratic, or monarchical, the Church can accommodate
herself to all. This very fact is significant, because
it shews the ineffable wisdom of the divine Founder of
Christianity, in fashioning his Church in such a manner
as to meet the requirements of all times and places.
Ranke has not failed to observe this, when he says,
" This religious system has no inherent form or neces-
sary affinity to one form of government more than to
another."2 Still, however, it should always be borne
in mind, that the power which we ar knowledge in the
Papacy is spiritual, and quite distinct from the alle-
giance which we owe to the civil government under
which we live. Upon this principle we give to CaBsar
the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things
that are God's. We may also remark, that the Catho-
lic Church is constitutionally most conservative. She
has been commanded to guard the sacred deposltum of

1 Histoive dn Fapo Leon XTT. par Artand.
2 Hist, of the Topes, vol. i. p. 407.

165

faith with the most jealous care ; yet, while faith is
unchangeable, discipline, or her external administration,
may change. Providing, then, her doctrine is left in-
tact, she is well disposed to yield to the claims of
rational liberty, but never to that license which would
lead to anarchy or insubordination. It is mere verbiage
to talk of the Catholic Church being the enemy of
liberty. Surely England and Scotland, not to men-
tion other nations, were free countries in Catholic
times. Surely England was free when the great char-
ter of liberty was signed — and Scotland was free when
at Bannockburn she achieved her independence. As
long as Scotland was Catholic, she could boast of her
own Scottish king, but when Scotland lost the faith, she
lost her crown.

We need not advert to other incidental matter, as we
have been led on in the treatment of our subject to
much greater length than we had originally contem-
plated. Still we have said but little, comparatively
speaking, by way of apology for the doctrines of that
ancient church, against which so much, day after day,
is recklessly uttered. But if even that little should
serve to strengthen the Catholic in his faith, and to
soften, or, peradventure, to remove the prejudices
of the Protestant, something will be gained for the
cause of truth. To promote that cause, and to contri-
bute what we can to undo the sad work of the Refor-
mation, have we devoted ourselves without reserve.
God is our witness how earnestly we would wish to
labour for the propagation of our pure and undefiled
religion ; and how anxiously we pray that Great
Britain, which in an evil hour had prevaricated from
the faith, may once again be united to the Mother
Church of Christendom.

Surely it is time for our fellow-men in Scotland
and in England to consider whether what is com-
monly termed the Reformation was the work of God

1GG

or the work of man ; for if it were not the work of
God, those who were engaged in it must have been
urged on by every thing else than a heavenly agency.
It is time to study the characters of the so-called Re-
formers— to inquire if they could have been animated
with the spirit of the Gospel of peace, and if they bore
any kind of resemblance to the Apostles of Christ. It
is time to review, with calmness but with all earnest-
ness, that fearful revolution which tore from the
bosom of the ancient Church these two celebrated
kingdoms, that for nearly a thousand years had been
most faithful to the Holy Apostolic See — which de-
stroyed the religion that was associated with the his-
toric glories of both countries — the religion of the
Alfreds and the Edwards — the Margarets and the
Bruces — the religion in which our forefathers died,
and were saved ; which set up a totally new system
of religion — a system the very reverse of the old, and
which never had been heard of before in the Christian
world — a system which announced itself not from
Rome, not from any of the Apostolic nor Patriarchal
Churches, but rather to have proceeded from Wur-
temberg and from Geneva !

Surely men who have souls to save, and a God to
serve, should make every inquiry whether an especial
revelation had been communicated to the Reformers
to bring about so marvellous a change, and to stig-
matize the ancient faith of Christendom as nothing
short of idolatry, before committing their eternal des-
tinies to a system which had no existence in the world
before the sixteenth century. They should, more-
over, inquire whether the Almighty could have au-
thorized the Reformers to insult His sacred presence
in the very temples which had been consecrated to
divine worship, — whether He could have authorized
them to trample under foot the Holy of Holies — to
maltreat his anointed servants— to desecrate his ca-

167

thedrals — to demolish his churches — to break clown
his a' tars — to profane his sanctuary — to pillage mo-
nastic and conventual institutions — to rob the poor of
their patrimony — to alienate the bequests of the dead
— before continuing in a system which was cradled in
sacrilege, and brought up in licentiousness, and which
presents upon its countenance not one genuine feature
of a celestial origin ! If the Reformation were every
thing else but the work of God — if the Reformers
were whatever you please, except men of God — is it
not painful in the extreme to find so many of our
friends and our kindred, and of those whom we love
and value, unfortunately wedded to an anti-religious
system, which never could have received the sanction
of Heaven, yea, which is an anathema in the sight of
God and his angels ?

Surely it is time, it is more than time, for Catholics
to redouble their every exertion — to press home upon
the hearts and the intellects of their fellow men the
unity and the importance of religious truth — to employ
every legitimate means to disseminate the doctrines of
the one true faith, and to beg of the Father of light
and the God of all understanding, to illumine the minds
of those who are in darkness, and to bring them to a
knowledge of eternal truth. Oh ! how earnestly should
we pray, and were it possible, even weary heaven with
our prayers, for our own salvation, and for the salva-
tion of all men ! How endearingly should we entreat
the good Shepherd to bring back the lost sheep from
its wanderings ! How unceasingly should we beseech
our patron saints and holy angels who surround the
throne of the Eternal to unite their orisons with ours
in behalf of our common country, — that Great Britain,
once an island of saints — once studded over from sea
to sea, with those beauteous temples on whose altars
the pure sacrifice was offered up to the Lord of Hosts
— may again worship in spirit and in truth, may again

168

be brought within the hallowed precincts of the one
fold, and may again, as in the days of old, recognise
the crook of the one universal Shepherd upon earth I
For such a consummation must we " in season, out. of
season" labour— for such, must we frequently and most
fervently pray.

In giving these Lectures to the public, we disclaim
all merit whatever, as our only desire is to be useful,
We would, however, most humbly beg God's blessing
on the writer, as well as on the reader; and gladly would
we lay our little work at the feet of the Supreme Pon-
tiff, the Father of Christendom, — before whose aposto-
lic predecessor, Gregory XVI., we have often been
privileged to kneel — while we would present it as a
feeble expression of our heartfelt devotedness to the
holy, apostolic, and Roman See.

In conclusion, let us adopt, in respect to the Church
of God upon earth, the touching petition of the old
Psalmist, in regard to the house of the Lord, when,
with exquisite tenderness of feeling, he cried out,
Psal. xxvi. tl Unam petii a Domino, hanc requiram, ut
inhabitem in domo Domini omnibus diebus vitse meae :
ut videam voluptatem Domini." Amen.

169
'CHRONOLOGY OF THE POPES.

With the view of rendering those Lectures on Papal
Supremacy still more useful, I have deemed it ad-
visable to append a catalogue of the Roman pontiffs.
In addition to those ancient writers already mentioned
as having drawn up lists of the popes, I may also
name Hegesippus,1 who relinquished Judaism to emr
brace Christianity. He went to Rome in the year 157,
and died about the year 181. He is the first writer
after the Apostles who left a body of ecclesiastical his-
tory from the death of Christ down to his own time.
Only a few fragments of his history are now extant*
His work was written with great simplicity, which
caused St Jerome to remark, " that it resembled the
simplicity of the lives he described."

In furnishing this catalogue, I abstain, at present,
from touching upon sundry points which have formed
legitimate subjects for critical inquiry, but which do
not in the least affect the line of succession. It cannot
be matter of surprise that chronologists should differ
somewhat with regard to the precise year in which St
Peter came to Rome, as well as to the year of his mar-
tyrdom. All, however, are unanimous with regard to
the facts themselves — that St Peter came to Rome —
that he founded the Roman Church — that in Rome he
fixed his primatial see — and that in Rome he died a
martyr for the faith.

During the despicable excitement throughout Great
Britain, consequent on the re-establishment of the
hierarchy in England, the question, whether St Peter
•had been at Rome was much canvassed. Upon that
subject I published the substance of two lectures
which I had delivered, and in which I had brought

1 See Mabillon.
p

170

forward the best historical evidence to prove this great
historical fact. My witnesses were Clement, Ignatius,
Papias, Irenaeus, Dionysius, Caius, Tertullian, Origen,
Optatus, Eusebius, Paulus Orosius, and Jerome. I
also referred to Arnobius, Hegesippus, Cyril, Ambrose,
and Augustine. I referred to the Councils, from the
first held in Nicaea, in 325, to the last in Trent, in
1545 ; and I appealed to the Fathers assembled on
those august occasions to give testimony as to the
uniform belief of Christendom with respect to this
leading fact of Church history. I referred to the
Liberian catalogue of the popes, which had been drawn
up in the year 354, and to the very portraits of the
popes, which so many ages back had been painted on
the walls of the Ostian Basilica. I referred to the
most distinguished Catholic antiquarians, such as
Schelestrasius, Blanchini, Mamachius, Mabillon, Pagi,
Henschenius, Muratori, and others ; and I next re-
ferred to eminent Protestant writers, Grotius, Ham-
mond, Scaliger, Newton, Blondel, Barratier, Bertholt,
Pearson, Basnage, Cave, and Shrock, who all agree in
what the erudite German, Neander, writes, " It is hy-
percritical to call in question the tradition presented
by the harmonious testimony of ecclesiastical antiquity,
that St Peter was at Rome."

Much other historical and monumental evidence did I
adduce to witness to this great historical fact ; for facts
are proved by testimony, and not by reasoning ; and
after having brought to bear all the little scholarship
which I could command, I had flattered the belief that
the position which I had undertaken had been tolerably
proved. I now find, at this very moment when these pages
are passing through the press, and on the very eve of
publication, that I have been honoured with a reply.
The anonymous author of " Faith and Infidelity,"1

1 The Truth about Rome : a Short Treatise on Supremacy. Lon-
don : Houlston & Stoneman, 65 Pateruoster Row. Price 2s. 6d.

171

has volunteered an attack upon my little essay. It is,
however, only partial ; for much ground that I co-
vered has been left untouched. Even that assault,
such as it is, appears to be any thing but successful.
No position has been taken by the enemy, and the
proofs which were standing rank and fie are still
without a scar. It is reasonable to suppose that ar-
guments which are incased in panoply are not to be
demolished by a mere explosion of powder, and
that an ephemeral lucubration of some ninety pages
is not likely to storm the citadel which has been
defended by the erudition of the present and past
ages. Besides, the designation under which the
treatise is ushered into notice is singularly infelicitous.
If, instead of " The Truth," it had been dubbed " The
Falsehood about Rome," it certainly would have been
more to the purpose. Time, however, presses, and
forbids saying more at present. Still the right of
giving a rejoinder remains, if such should afterwards
be considered expedient or necessary.

Meanwhile let the object of attack be stated by the
writer, who thus speaks : — " I find published in the
present year (1851) a small pamphlet from the pen of
the Kev. J. S. M'Corry, M. Ap. entitled, « Was St
Peter ever at Rome ?' As this inquiry is the first ab-
solutely necessary to be answered, before proceeding
to any effects resulting from such a visit to the capital
of the empire, I think I cannot do better than consider
this pamphlet as my guide to the assertions of the Romish
Church on this whole subject. We will therefore give
the reader, in the words of its author, what he styles
' an unbroken chain of evidence, reaching back from
our own days to apostolic times.' It will, however,
not be necessary for us to trace the subject further
than the establishment of supremacy."

The writer thereupon proceeds to the attack, and
makes reference to the pamphlet in almost every sue-

172

ceeding page. Already has a reply been forthcoming,
and this before I was even aware of the existence of the
"Treatise on Supremacy!" The very Rev. Dr Hu-
senbeth,1 in a masterly dissertation, follows in the
wake of the writer, and, in his own caustic and argu-
mentative style, administers a very salutary chastise-
ment. He has certainly anticipated much of what I
might have said, and, no doubt has said it much bet-
ter, still the unceremonious personality of attack
might justly warrant me in inflicting a second casti-
gation. Ma vedremo* A truce, however, to these
ambagesy and let us hasten on to the recording of that
glorious line of supreme Pontiffs, which stands un-
paralleled in the history of the world.

First Century.

1. St Peter, Martyr.
St Linus, M.

St Anacletus or Cletus, M. !
St Clement, M,

Second Century.

5. St Evaristus, M.

St Alexander, M.

St Sixtus I., M.

St Telesphorus, M.

St Hyginus, M.
10. StPiusI.

St Anicetus, M..

St Soter, M.

St Eletitherius, M.

St Victor I., M.
15_ St Zephyrinus, M.

Third Century*
St Callistus, M.

St Urban I., M.

St Pontian, M.

St Antheros, M.
20. St Fabian, M.

St Cornelius, M.

St Lucius, M.

St Stephen I., M.

St Xystus II., M.
•25. St Denys, M.

St Felix I., M.

St Eutychian.

St Cajus, M.

St Marcellinus, M,

Fourth Century.

30. St Marcellus I., M

St Eusebius, M.

St Miltiades, M.

St Sylvester I.

St Mark.
3-5. St Julius.

St Liberius.

St Damasus I.

St Siricius.

1 The Roman Question : A Refutation of a Treatise professing
to be " The Truth about Rome," by F. C. Husenbetht D.D,
London : Burns & Lambert. Price 2.s. 6cU

173

St Anastasius L

Eighth Century.

85. John VI.

Fifth Century.

John VII.

Sisinnius.

40. St Innocent I.

Constantine.

St Zosimus.

St Gregory II.

St Boniface I.

90. St Gregoiy III.

St Celestine I.

St Zacharias.

St Sixtus III.

Stephen II.

45. St Leo the Great

Stephen III.

St Hilary.

St Paul I.

St Simplicius.

95. Stephen IV.

St Felix III.

Hadrian I.

St Gelasius I.

St Leo III.

50. St Anastasius II.

St Symmachus.

Ninth Century.

Sixth Century.

Stephen V.

St Paschal I.

St Hormisdas.

100. Eugene II.

St John I.

Valentine.

St Felix IV.

Gregory IV.

55. St Boniface.

Sergius II.

John II.

St Leo IV.

St Agapetus I.

105. Benedict III.

St Sylverius.

St Nicholas I.

Vigilius.

Hadrian II.

60. Pelagiusl.

John VIII.

John III. '

Maiinus.

St Benedict.

110. Hadrian III.

Pelagius II.

Stephen VI.

St Gregory the Great

Formosus.

Romanus.

Theodore II.

Seventh Century.

115. John IX.

65. Sabinian.

Boniface III.

Tenth Century.

St Boniface IV.

St Deusdedit I.

Benedict IV.

Boniface V.

Leo V.

70. Honorius I.

Sergius III.

Severinus.

Anastasius III.

John IV.

120. Lando.

Theodore.

JohnX,

St Martin.

Leo VI.

75. St Eugenius I.

Stephen VIIL

St Vitalian.

John XL

Adeodatus IL

125. Leo VII.

Donus I.

Stephen IX.

St Agatha

Marinus II.

80. St Leo II.

Agapetus IL

St Benedict II. John XII.

John V. 130. Benedict V.

Conon. John XIII.

St Sergius L Benedict VL

174

Bonus.
Benedict VII.
135. John XIV.

John XV.1 or XVL
Gregory V.
Sylvester II.

Eleventh Century.

John XVII. or XVIII.
140. John XVIII. or XIX.

Sergius IV.

Benedict VIII.

John XIX. or XX.

Benedict IX.
Ho. Gregory VI.

Clement II.

Damasus II.

St Leo IX.

Victor II.
J50. Stephen X.

Nicholas II.

St Alexander IL

St Gregory VII.

Victor III.
155. Urban II.

Twelfth Century.

Paschal II.

Gelasius II.

Callistus II.

Honorius II.
1GO. Innocent II.

Celestine II.

Lucius II.

Eugene III.

Anastasius I V.
1G5. Hadrian IV.

Alexander III.

Lucius III.

Urban UI.

Gregory VIII.
170. Clement HI.

Celestine IIL

Thirteenth Century.

Innocent III.
Honorious III.
Gregory IX.
175. Celestine IV.
Innocent IV.

i \nother John was elected, but died
before consecration .- heuce a difference
of reckoning.

Alexander IV.

Urban IV.

Clement IV.
180. B. Gregory X.

Innocent V.

Hadrian V.

John XX. or XXI.

Nicholas III.
185. Martin II.

Honorius IV.

Nicholas IV.

St Celestine V.

Boniface VIII.

Fourteenth Century.

190. B. Benedict XL

Clement V.

John XXI. or XXII.

B. Benedict XII.

Clement VI.
195. Innocent VL

Urban V.

Gregory XL

Urban VI.

Boniface IX.

Fifteenth Century.

200. Innocent VII.

Gregory XIL

Martin V.

Eugene IV.

Nicholas V.
205. CaUistusIIL

Pius II.

PaulH.

Sixtus IV.

Innocent VIII.
210. Alexander VL

Sixteenth Century.

Pius III.

Julius II.

LeoX.

Adrian VI.
215. Clement VII

Paul III.

Julius III.

Marcellus II.

Paul IV.
220. Pius IV.

St Pius V.

Gregory XIII.

Sixtus V.

175

Urban VII.
225. Gregory XIV.
Innocent IX.
Clement VIII.

Seventeenth Century.

Leo XI.

Paul V.
230. Gregory XV.

Urban VIIL

Innocent X.

Alexander VII.

Clement IX.
733. Clement X.

Innocent XL

Alexander VIIL

Innocent XIL

Eighteenth Century.
Clement XL

240. Innocent XIIL
Benedict XIIL
Clement XIL
Benedict XIV.
Clement XIIL

245. Clement XIV.
Pius VI.

Nineteenth Century.

Pius VII.
Leo XIL
Pius VIIL
250. Gregory XVL
Pius IX.,

Whom we cordially hail In the lan
guage of the Church— -ad
anno*.

THE END.

Printed by STEVENSON <fe COMPANY, 32 1 histle Street

By the Same Author^

CORRESPONDENCE with the REV. F. MACRAE,

Presbyterian Clergyman, . . 4d,

A LETTER to the REV. A. ANDERSON, in An-
swer to his Lecture " on Purgatory," . 6d.

A LETTER to the REV. W. K. TWEEDIE, Mi-
nister of the Free Tolbooth Kirk, Edinburgh,
respecting the Free Church Catechism " on
Popery" 4d.

WAS ST PETER EVER AT ROME ? The Sub-
stance of Two Lectures delivered in St John's
Catholic Church, Perth, . . 4d,

A PANEGYRIC on ST PATRICK, delivered in
St Patrick's Catholic Church, Edinburgh, March
17, 1851, .... 2d.

MARSH & BEATTIE,

13 SOUTH HANOVER STREET, EDINBURGH

C. DOLMAN, LONDON.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

MACLACHLAN, (REV. PAUL,) THE ROCK. THE INFALL1.
BILITY OF THE CHURCH VINDICATED; a Reply to the
Rev. Dr Robt. Lee's Discourse on Papal Infallibility, and the causes
of the late Conversions to Romanism. 12mo. 8d.

THE BIBLE: ITS USE AND ABUSE; or, an Inquiry

into the Results of the respective Doctrines of the Catholic arid
Protestant Churches, relative to the Interpretation of the Word of
(rod. Foolscap 8vo. cloth, 4s. By post, 6d. extra.

MAISTRE, (COUNT JOSEPH DE,> THE POPE, considered in his

relations with the Church, Temporal Sovereignties, Separated
Churches, and the Cause of Civilization. Translated by the Rev.
^Eneas M'D.Dawson Small octavo, 5s. cloth.

LETTERS ON THE SPANISH INQUISITION. Tran-
slated by the Rev. ^Eueas M'D. Dawson. ISmo. cloth, Is. 6d.

MARTINET, (ABBE,) RELIGION IN SOCIETY, OR THE
SOLUTION OF GREAT PROBLEMS; placed within the reach
of every mind. 2 vols. 12nio. cloth, 6s.

MOEHLER, (REV. DR.) SYMBOLISM; OR, EXPOSITION OF
THE DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CATHOLICS
AND PROTESTANTS. Translated by J. B. Robertson, Esq.
2 vols. 8vo. 14s,

MORES CATHOLICI; OR, AGES OF FAITH. Eleven Books, in
three very large vols. royal 8vo. price £1, 6s. each.

MURRAY, (REV. DR P.) ESSAYS ON THE INFALLIBILITY
OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, AND THE SUPREMACY
OF ST PETER. (Irish Annual Miscellany, 1852.) 8vo. 6s. cloth.

NEWMAN, (REV. DR,) DISCOURSES ADDRESSED TO MIXED
CONGREGATIONS, 8vo. cloth, 12s.

LECTURES ON CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES FELT BY

ANGLICANS IN SUBMITTING TO THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH. Svo. cloth, 12s.

LECTURES ON CATHOLICISM. (Cheap Edition. Svo. 5s.

LECTURES ON UNIVERSITY EDUCATION ; delivered

in Dublin, May 1852. Now ready, Lectures 1, 2, and 3, 6d. each.

PATTERSON, (J. L.) A JOURNAL OF A TOUR IN EGYPT,
PALESTINE, SYRIA, AND GREECE, with Notes, and an
Appendix on Ecclesiastical matters. Svo. with numerous plates, 12s.

PROTESTANT'S TRIAL ON CONTROVERTED POINTS OF
FAITH, by the Written Word. 18mo. 8d.

ROCK, (REV. DR.) HIERURGIA ; OR, TRANSUBSTAN-
TIATION, INVOCATION OF SAINTS, RELICS, AND PURGA-
TORY, besides those other articles of Doctrine set forth in the
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, expounded ; and the use of Holy Water,
Incense, and Images, &c. Second Edition, with additions, and
illustrated with fifteen engravings, and above thirty woodcuts, in
one large volume. Svo. (nearly 600 pages,) price 10s. cloth lettered.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

STAFF, (DR. J. A.) THE SPIRIT AND SCOPE OF EDUCATION,
IN PROMOTING THE WELL-BEING OF SOCIETY. Trans-
lated from the German. Post 8vo. cloth, 5s.

*»* To all who are interested in the question of Education for the young, — and who
is not? — we strongly recommend the study of Mr Robert Gordon's translation. The
work will he of no little value to every Catholia who would study the great subject of
the age. — Rambler.

STOTHERT. (REV. J. A.) THE GLORY OF MARY IN CON-
FORMITY WITH THE WORD OF GOD. Crown 8vo. hand-
somely bound in cloth, gilt edges, 3s. 6d. By post, 6'd. extra.

SERMONS BY THE REV. E. PEACH, for all Sundays and Festi-
vals of the Year. New Edit. 8vo. cloth, 9s.

SPALDING, (RT. REV. DR.) D'AUBIGNE'S HISTORY OF
THE GREAT REFORMATION IN GERMANY AND SWIT-
ZERLAND, reviewed and refuted, &c. 12mo. cloth, 3s. 6d.

STUART, MARY, (QUEEN OF SCOTLAND) THE LETTERS
AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF. Collected from the Original
MSS. preserved in the State Paper Office of London, and the prin-
cipal Archives and Libraries of Europe, together with a Chronological
Summary. By Prince Alexander Labanoff. In seven volumes.
8vo. price Six Shillings each vol.

TERESA, (ST.) WAY OF PERFECTION AND CONCEPTIONS
OF DIVINE LOVE. Translated by the Rev. J. Dalton. 8vo.
cloth, 3s. 6d.

LIFE OF. Written by herself, and translated by the Rev. J.

Dalton. 8vo. cloth, 5s. 6d.

TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE GUNPOWDER PLOT. Extracted from
Lingard's History of England and Dodd's Church History of England,
including the Notes and Documents appended to the latter, by the
Rev. M. A. Tierney, F.R.S., F.S.A.. with Notes and Introduction
by Vindicator. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.

WISEMAN, (CARDINAL) LECTURES ON THE PRINCIPAL DOC-
TRINES AND PRACTICES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
I2rno. cloth, 4s. 6d.

THE REAL PRESENCE OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF

OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE BLESSED EUCHARIST,
proved from Scripture; in Eight Lectures, delivered in the English
College, Rome. I2mo. 4s. 6d.

TWELVE LECTURES ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN

SCIENCE AND REVEALED RELIGION, with Maps and Plates.
2 vols. foolscap octavo, cloth, I Os.

WALSH, (RIGHT REV. DR.) THE CATHOLIC OFFERING; a

Gift Book for all Seasons. 8vo. cloth, gilt, 10s. 6d. The same il-
lustrated with numerous plates, 16s., also morocco extra, 20s.

MARSH & BEATTIE, 13 HANOVER STREET, EDINBURGH.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The supremacy of St. Peter : and his successors the Roman pontiffs ; with some strictures on "A discourse on papal infallibility" by Robert Lee, D.D. ; lectures delivered in St. John's Catholic Church, Perth"

See other formats