\0 A
THE EVIDENCE FOR
THE PAPACY.
THE EVIDENCE FOR
THE PAPACY,
AS DERIVED FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
AND FROM PRIMITIVE ANTIQUITY.
WITH AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
BY
THE HON. COLIN LINDSAY.
"Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it ; and I will give to thee the keys of the King-
dom of Heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it 'shall be bound
in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in
heaven." S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19.
LONDON:
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. PATERNOSTER ROW.
MDCCCLXX.
LONDON
STRANGEWAYS AND WALDEN, PRINTERS,
Castle St. Leicester Sq.
OF
ONE LATELY DECEASED
WHO
WHEN IN LIFE
EXPRESSED A DESIRE THAT THE AUTHOR OF THIS WORK
WOULD STATE IN WRITING
THE GROUNDS WHICH LED TO HIS CONVERSION
TO
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Eequieecat in pace.
PREFACE.
THIS Work does not claim to be in any sense original : the only
difference between it and others on the same subject, is its ar-
rangement, and perhaps its treatment. In investigating the
Roman Claim, it appeared to me that it would be more satis-
factory to treat it as a strictly legal question, to be decided
after perusing the evidence. The Church is a corporation, governed
and administered according to the terms of its Charter, and in
order that we may ascertain what these terms are, we must ex-
amine carefully the Patent of incorporation, and all the numerous
documents that serve to throw light on the subject in question.
Instead, therefore, of writing a Treatise, I have preferred to
adopt this method that is, to prepare a case for consideration,
and then to form a judgment upon the evidence adduced.
I admit that this method is not so interesting as a treatise
might be, but it appeared to me that to those who desire to study
the question of the Papacy it would be more satisfactory; es-
pecially as it would enable them to examine the Evidence apart
from the argument based thereon.
The Introductory Epistle prefixed to this Work was originally
prepared for those in whom I have an immediate interest, and
viii PREFACE.
this circumstance will account for some expressions which would
not have appeared had the Letter been addressed to a mere friend.
Many of the translations of passages from the Fathers and
Councils have been taken from the "Faith of Catholics," "The
Library of the Fathers," the "Ante-Nicene Library," and other
valuable works, chiefly Anglican and Protestant. I have pre-
ferred, whenever possible, the adoption of Anglican and Pro-
testant translations of the Fathers, &c., believing that they would
be more acceptable to those for whom this work was mainly
undertaken. I have not, however, accepted these without examin-
ation, for every passage that has been made use of has been
carefully compared with the originals and verified; and when-
ever the rendering was not as accurate as I considered it ought
to be, I have not scrupled to amend it.
Quotations from the Holy Scriptures have, for the same
reason, been mostly taken from the English Authorized
Version.
The translations from the Fathers have been proved from
the following editions : S. Clement and S. Ignatius, Patrum Apost.
Antw. 1688. S. Irenseus, ed. Ben. Paris, 1710. Tertullian, ed.
Venet. 1744. Origen, Ben. ed. Paris, 1733. S. Cyprian, ed.
Baluz., Paris, 1716. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. Vales. Camb. 1720.
Eusebius, Prseparatio Evan. Colon. 1688. S. Hilary of Poitiers,
Paris, 1693. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Venet. 1763. S. Ephraem
Syrus, Rom. 1732. S. Gregory of Nyssa, Paris, 1638. S. Gregory of
Nazianzum, Paris, 1630. S. Basil, Paris, 1721. S. Epiphanius,
Colon. 1682. S. Ambrose, Paris, 1686. S. Jerome, Paris, 1693.
S. Chrysostom, Paris, 1724. S. Augustine, Ant. 1700, and
Paris, 1833. S. Cyril of Alexandria, Paris, 1638. Theodoret, Opera,
Halle, 1796. S. Peter Chrysologus, Colon. 1627. S. Leo, Venet.
I 753- Other authors in Gallandius, Bib. Vet. Pat. Venet. 1765, &c.
PREFACE. ix
Labb<, S. Concil. Venet. 1728. Hardouin, Concil. Act. Collect.
Paris, 1715. Fleury, Eccl. Hist. Paris, 1722.
The reader will find much repetition of passages from Scripture
and the Fathers, as well as of argument, but in order to carry out
effectually the legal treatment of the subject of this Work, I
found it impossible to avoid this defect. It seemed to me of
the first importance that each Part and Section of the Work
should be complete in itself. I have, therefore, not scrupled to
repeat my arguments and proofs as often as I thought necessary.
I cannot conclude without expressing my deep obligations and
thanks to my friend and connection, the Rev. Father Eyre, S. J.,
who has most kindly revised the proof-sheets of this Work.
Rome, Dec. 1869.
V
CONTENTS.
Preface ..'.-, v
Introductory Epistle , xxi
Reasons for Secession ib.
Duty of Inquiry xxvii
Discernment of Churches xxxi
Characteristics of the Church of Christ as given
in Scripture :
Unity and Indefectibility . . , xxxiii
Sanctity and Infallibility . . xxxviii
Catholicity k xliii
Apostolicity k xliv
Perpetuity of the Church . . . xlv
The Test xlvii
Two hypotheses respecting Unity ... ib.
Application of the test to the Anglican,
Greek, and Roman Churches ... li
Rome, the Normal Church . . > . % Ixiv
FIRST INQUIRY.
S. PETER'S SUPREMACY*
PART I. HOLY SCRIPTURE.
i. PROPHECY.
Visions of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel of the Four Empires, and
of the Empire of Christ . . 1
Observations . . , . . . . . . 2
Stone cut without Hands
The Stone is Christ ,,....-. 3
The Rock is Christ , .... 4
xii CONTENTS.
Page
The Stone is S. Peter . . 4
The Rock is S. Peter ib.
The Jasper Stone ib.
Observations * ib.
The Divine Commission
Of the Apostles ........ 5
Of S.Peter ib.
The Stater and the Two Ships 7
S. Peter the Head of the Apostles
On the Appointment of a new Apostle .... 8
On the Day of Pentecost 9
The Apostles before the Sanhedrim . . . ib.
The First Council of Jerusalem ib.
Admission of the Gentiles 10
Objections .12
The Rock . . . - ib.
The Keys ib.
The Strife for Pre-eminence 13
S. Peter sent by the Apostles to confirm . . . . ib.
S. Paul's assertion of Equality ib.
S. Paul " withstood him to the Face" .... 14
Summary of the Evidence *1 \ \ I 5
PART II.
I. CONSENSUS PATRUM.
S. Ignatius 17
Comment ib.
S. Irenaeus 18
Comment 19
Tertullian ib.
Comment ib.
Origen 20
Comment 21
S. Cyprian 22
Comment x .... 23
S. Firmilian 25
Comment ib.
S. Peter of Alexandria . 26
Comment ib.
Eusebius . ib.
Comment ib.
S. James of Nisibis . . 27
Comment ... ib.
CONTENTS. xiii
Page
S. Hilary of Poitiers 27
Comment 28
S. Cyril of Jerusalem 29
Comment ib.
S. Optatus of Milevis 30
Comment ib.
S. Ephraem of Syrus 31
Comment ib.
S. Gregory of Nyssa 32
Comment ib.
S. Gregory of Nazianzum 33
Comment ib.
S. Macarius of Egypt 34
Comment ib.
S. Basil ib.
Comment 35
S, Epiphanius . ib.
Comment 36
S. Ambrose 37
Comment 38
S. Jerome 40
Comment ib.
S. Chrysostom 41
Comment 43
Prudentius 45
Comment ib.
Pope S. Innocent ib.
S. Augustine ........... ib.
Comment . 48
S. Maximus 49
Comment ib.
Pope S. Boniface 50
Comment ib.
S. Cyril of Alexandria ib.
Comment . . ? . , . . . . ..51
Theodoret ib.
Comment ib.
S. Peter Chrysologus ib.
Comment . . . . . . . . . .52
Pope S. Leo ib.
Comment 54
Pope S. Felix 55
Comment ib.
Pope S. Gelasius ib.
Comment 56
S. Avitus .... ib.
XIV CONTENTS.
II. ANALYSIS OF PATRISTIC DOCTRINE RELATIVE TO S. PETER.
Page
The Primacy generally . 57
The Rock ib.
The Foundation of the Church . ... ... 58
S. Peter, the Vicar, or Representative of Christ .... 59
S. Peter, the Representative of the Church . . . 60
The Church founded in S. Peter singly and alone . . . . ib.
S. Peter the Origin and Source of Unity and Jurisdiction . .61
The Divine Commission to Peter . ib.
Supreme Jurisdiction ib.
Supreme Pastor . .62
Co-equality in the Apostolate . ..... 6^
S. Peter Supreme Head and Ruler .64
PART III. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM.
Necessity of a " clear Revelation " . 66
S. Peter's Commission . . . . . . . . .69
Counter-arguments against the Supremacy 71
Apostolic Custom 73
Counter-allegations . . 87
Admissions 88
Conclusion 89
SECOND INQUIRY.
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
Introductory Observations 93
Monarchy the Governmental Law of God in the Uni-
verse .94
Monarchy the Governmental Law of God in His King-
dom on Earth 98
PART I. s. PETER'S SUCCESSORS IN THE APOSTOLIC SEE.
S. PETER AT ROME.
i. HOLY SCRIPTURE.
S. Peter at Rome J0 $
Observations ib.
The Apocalyptic Babylon (see Note) . 1 10
CONTENTS. XV
PART II. CONSENSUS PATRUM.
Page
Preliminary Remarks on the Study of the Primitive Fathers re-
specting the Supremacy 1 16
I. S. PETER AT ROME.
S. Clement ....'. 121
Comment ib.
S. Ignatius ib.
Comment . 122
SS. Clement and Papias ib.
Comment ib.
SS. Dionysius and Caius ib.
Comment . . 123
S. Irenaeus ib.
Comment ib.
Tertullian ib.
Comment ib.
S.Cyprian . . 124
Comment ib.
Eusebius ib.
Comment 125
S. Optatus of Milevis ib.
Comment ib.
S. Jerome ib.
Comment . . . ib.
S. Epiphanius ib.
Comment 126
S. Chrysostom ib.
Comment ib.
S. Augustine ib.
Comment .......... ib.
Summary of Evidence . . . . . . . . .127
II. THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
i. Testimony of Fathers and Doctors.
S. Ignatius .128
Comment ib.
S. Irenaeus 131
Comment ib.
Tertullian . 134
xvi CONTENTS.
Page
Tertullian the Heretic . J 35
Comment .... * 136
S. Cyprian . . . . . 1 37
Comment . 140
S. Firmilian .145
Comment . . . 146
S. Hilary of Poitiers . . . ib<
Comment ib.
S. Optatus of Milevis 148
Comment 149
S.Basil .... . ib.
Comment 15
S. Ambrose 152
Comment . ib.
S. Jerome > . ISA-
Comment 155
S. Chrysostom 156
Comment 157
S.Augustine 158
Comment 159
S. Paulinus 161
Comment * . . . 162
Bacchiarius ib.
Comment ib.
S. Cyril of Alexandria ^ . .163
Comment Pv . . ib.
Theodoret 164
Comment 165
S. Peter Chrysologus 166
Comment . . . ib.
Socrates 167
Sozomen ib.
Comment ib.
S. Vincent of Lerins 168
Comment ib.
Victor Vitensis 169
S. Avitus ib.
Comment . 170
Summary of Patristic Evidence 171
2. Testimony of Councils.
(Ecumenical Council of Nicaea 175
Council summoned by the Emperor and the Pope . . . . ib.
Selection of Bishops .... ib.
Hosius, President and Legate of the Pope . ib.
CONTENTS. xvii
Page
Confirmation of Ancient Customs 176
The Paschal Question ib.
Synodical Epistle to the Pope 177
Comment .......... ib.
Council of Sardica . . . . . . . . .180
Appeals to the Pope ib.
Synodical Epistle to the Pope 181
Comment ib.
Council of Aquileia 183
Comment . . . . . . . . . .184
CEcumenical Council of Constantinople . . . . . .185
Confirmation of Nectarius to the See of Constantinople ib.
Case of Macedonius 186
The Primacy . . . . . . . . . ib.
Comment ib.
Council of Carthage 187
Comment ib.
Council of Milevis 188
Comment ib.
CEcumenical Council of Ephesus 189
Epistle of the Pope to S. Cyril ib.
Condemnation of Nestorius ib.
Arrival of the Legates with Papal Letters . . .190
Deposition of Nestorius ib.
Synodical Epistles . 191
Comment .......... ib.
(Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon 194
Expulsion of Dioscorus from his place in the Council . ib.
Admission of Theodoret to the Council . . . ib.
The Eutychian Heresy 195
Trial and Condemnation of Dioscorus . . . ib.
The Primatial Rank ib.
Objection of the Legates 196
Synodical Epistle to the Pope ib.
Comment 197
The Province of Tarragona 202
Comment . . . . . . . . . . ib.
Council of Rome .......... 203
Comment ib.
Summary of Conciliar Evidence ....... 204
III. Imperial Testimony.
Aurelian 207
Comment ib.
Gratian jb.
Comment .......... 208
b
xviii CONTENTS.
Page
Galla Placidia . . 208
Comment 209
Theodosius and Valentinian III ib.
Valentinian III. ib.
Comment 210
Marcian and Valentinian III 211
Marcian ib.
Comment .......... ib.
Summary of Imperial Testimony 212
PART III. PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, &c.
Preliminary Remarks 214
S. Clement I ib.
S. Anicetus 216
S.Victor ib.
The Roman Clergy during the Vacancy of the Holy See . . .217
To the Carthaginian Clergy ib.
S. Cyprian to the Roman Clergy 218
Ibid 219
To S. Cyprian 220
S. Stephen 221
Question of Re-baptism ib.
S. Cyprian to S. Stephen respecting Marcianus of Aries ib.
S. Julius 222
To the Eusebians ib.
Historical account by
Socrates ib.
Sozomen 224
Marcellus to S. Julius 225
S. Damasus 226
S. Peter of Alexandria ib.
To Bishops of Numidia ib.
To Bishops of the East 227
S. Siricius ib.
To Bishop of Tarragona ib.
S. Anastasius ..... 228
To John, Bishop of Jerusalem ib.
S. Innocent ib.
To Victricius, Bishop of Rouen . . . ib.
To the Bishops in Synod of Toledo .... 229
To Rufus and Bishops of Macedonia . . . . ib.
To Alexander, Bishop of Antioch ib.
To Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio . . . 230
CONTENTS. XIX
Page
To Council of Milevis 230
To Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage 231
To Felix, Bishop of Nocera 232
S. Zosimus ........... ib.
To the Bishops in the Council of Carthegia . . ib.
S. Boniface 233
To Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica ib.
To the Bishops in Thessaly ib.
S. Celestine 234
To the Bishop of Illyricum ...... ib.
To S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria . . . . ib.
To Nestorius, the Heresiarch 235
To the Faithful of Constantinople ..... ib.
S. Xystus ib.
To John, Bishop of Antioch ib.
S. Leo the Great ib.
To the Metropolitans of Illyricum ib.
To the Bishops of Vienne 236
To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica . . . . ib.
To Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus 237
To Maximus, Bishop of Antioch ib.
Extracts from Sermons ....... ib.
S.Felix III 239
To the Emperor Zeno . ib.
To Flavian of Constantinople . . . . ib.
S. Gelasius 240
To Peter, Bishop of Alexandria ib.
To the Emperor Anastasius . . . . . .241
To the Bishops of Dardania ib.
Decrees of Council of Rome ib.
S. Anastasius II ib.
To the Emperor Anastasius ib.
Observations 242
PART IV. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM.
Introductory 248
S. Peter's Prerogatives ib.
S. Peter, Bishop of Rome 250
The Roman Pontiffs Successors of S. Peter 251
The Roman Ecclesiastical Princedom . . . . . . 254
S. Anicetus and S. Polycarp 262
S. Victor and the Asiatic Churches 264
XX CONTENTS.
Page
The African Protests 269
S. Stephen and S. Cyprian ib.
Case of Apiarius ... , 283
S. Gregory the Great and the Title of (Ecumenical Bishop . . 290
Admissions 298
Summary . .......... 306
PART V. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION
309
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
MY DEAR
I HAVE been asked, by several persons, to state the reasons
that induced me to quit the communion of the Church of England,
in which I was born and bred, and to become a member of the
Roman Catholic Church. Considering my near relationship to you,
the active part I have taken for many years in " Church work," and
my having occupied positions of some responsibility, this request is,
I admit, reasonable, and I think I should be doing wrong if I did not
accede to it.
In complying with this request, I cannot do better than address
myself to you, who have the first right to be informed on a matter of
such grave moment to you and myself, and which could not fail, I
grieve to say, to have given you much pain.
I.
REASONS FOR SECESSION.
The immediate cause that led me to study the Roman question,
was my engagement in a work I intended publishing, and which had
partly been printed, on the doctrine and discipline of Christ as the
" Church of England had received the same, according to the com-
mandments of God." In a work of that sort, it was impossible to
avoid a complete investigation of those principles of Church govern-
ment which Christ had instituted for the benefit of His people.
Upon this point alone I devoted more than six months to incessant
study, and at last I arrived, at that time reluctantly indeed,
but not so now, at the following conclusions : (i), That our Lord
designed the formation of one Kingdom and Church on earth, which
xxii AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
He solemnly promised should remain indefectible and infallible till
the end of the world ; precluding, thereby, the possibility of any
real disunion or failure within the one royal Fold He established ;
so much so, that the necessary inference must be drawn, that among
the many religious communities or sects now existing, one, and one
only, could be regarded as that one Church and Kingdom which He
founded. (2), That in constituting His Kingdom and Church, Christ
did appoint one of the Apostles even S. Peter to be the Rock and
Foundation, upon whom He built His Church, to whom He gave the
Supreme Jurisdiction, as signified under the Symbol of the Keys,
which were delivered to him alone; whom He commissioned to
strengthen or confirm the Brethren in their Faith, and to be the
Shepherd of the Universal Flock : and (3), That these High Prero-
gatives passed to the Bishops of Rome, as Successors to the Chair or
Cathedra of S. Peter which he erected in the Imperial city. Having
arrived at these conclusions, a further truth became apparent, viz., that
the Catholic Church, strictly so called, is limited to those Pastors
and people who are in visible communion with S. Peter and his Suc-
cessors in the See of Rome. A still further result, also, was in-
evitable, viz., that all communions and religious communities not in
visible communion with the Apostolic See, were necessarily in a state
of rebellion and schism, and that every one, Priest and people, under
such circumstances, was really guilty, though without doubt uninten-
tionally, of a sacrilegious crime every time he ministered or received
the Sacraments. Having, then, come to these conclusions, there
was but one step for me to take, as a loyal subject of my Lord and
God, and as one entrusted with the charge of a family, and further, as
one, who had for many years taken a somewhat prominent part in
Church matters, viz., to submit to that Body, which I had become
persuaded was the only one true Catholic Church, which Church
alone was in possession of the road to eternal life, which alone
inherited the promises made to the Fathers, and which alone enjoyed
the right to represent Jesus Christ, and to exercise His Jurisdiction
upon earth in a word, I considered it my duty to become a member
of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Mother and
Mistress of all Churches.
It is due to myself to say, that up to the time I commenced the
study of this question of Church Government, I had no suspicion
whatever that the Primacy of Rome rested upon any other founda-
sion than that of ecclesiastical ordinance or custom. In common
with other Anglicans I believed that this Primacy was one of honour
and dignity only, in no way essential to the existence of the Church
as a Divine polity, a dignity which had been, as I believed, granted
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. xxiii
to the Roman Bishop, because of his See being situated in the
Imperial city.
I cannot, however, affect to deny that I had long been dissatisfied
with the state of things in the Church of England, for I could never
conscientiously admit, that it was right and proper that her oral
teaching, and her practice, should be, in some important particulars,
directly opposed to her written law, or that it was honest that con-
trariety of opinion on some of the most vital points of faith should
be permitted, with the approval of her Bishops, to be openly held and
taught by her ministers. The knowledge of these blemishes, and
they are most fearful blemishes, never aroused any suspicion in my
mind of the Catholicity of the Anglican Church, or of the validity of
her orders ; the only effect it had was to incite me, in concert with
others, to labour for her emancipation from State thraldom, and for
her restoration to true unity and peace.
After this statement, it is a natural question on your part to ask
me to submit to you the nature and extent of those authorities upon
which I have based my present convictions, and which of course
alone justify my conduct. It is my purpose both in this letter, and
in the Work to which it is an Introduction, to lay before you the
arguments as well as the evidence, which have brought me into the
True Church of Christ.
The evidence which I have collected with as much care as I could,
I have arranged under the form of Two Inquiries ; the First having
reference to the Divine commission to S. Peter alone, and to S. Peter
and the Apostles. The Second refers to the fact of S. Peter having
visited Rome, erecting there his Cathedra or Chair, to the occupancy
of which his Successors, Bishops of Rome, have succeeded, inclusive
of all the exalted Prerogatives inherent in that Cathedra. The
evidence itself, you will find, consists of Holy Scripture, and the
Traditions of the Church for the first five centuries of the Christian
era. I have fixed upon this period, because it is that which the
Church and State of England have accepted as one remarkable for
the perfect purity of doctrine and discipline, taught and enforced by
the Catholic Church. In one of her Homilies, the Church of
England says, " Now although our Saviour Christ taketh not or
needeth not any testimony of men . . . yet for our further contenta-
tion, it shall ... be declared . . . that this truth and doctrine con-
cerning the forbidding of images, and the worshipping of them, taken
out of the Holy Scripture, as well of the Old Testament as the
New, was believed and taught by the old Holy Fathers, and most
ancient doctors, and received in the old Primitive Church, which
was most uncorrupt and pure." (Horn. Idol. Part II.)
xxiv AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
The Order of Council, issued under Queen Elizabeth, against the
Papists, and which was agreed to by the Church of England, clearly
shows the principle of interpretation adopted by the Church of
England, and her opinion respecting the condition of the Primitive
Church till just before the commencement of the Pontificate of
S. Gregory I. " .... If they [the Papists] shall show any
ground of Scripture, and wrest it to their own sense, let it be showed
by the interpretation of the old doctors; such as were before
Gregory I If they can show no doctor to agree with them
.... then to conclude that they have no succession in that doctrine
from the time of the Apostles, and above four hundred years after
(when doctrine and religion were most pure). For that they can
show no predecessor whom they might succeed in the same."
(Sir ype, Life of Archbp. Whitgift, vol. I. p. 197. Ed. 0/^22.) Again,
the acts of Parliament fully endorse these principles. The Statute
2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. i, for enforcing uniformity to the new Book of
Common Prayer, declares it to have been drawn up by those who
had " as well eye and respect to the most sincere and pure Christian
Religion, taught by the Scripture, as to the usages in the Primitive
Church." In the Act of Elizabeth " for restoring to the Crown the
ancient jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical," the decrees of the
first four General Councils, and of every other General Council, respect-
ing heresy, are, provided they are in accordance with Holy Scripture,
formally incorporated into the civil and ecclesiastical law of England.
With regard to the area of the Primitive age of the Church, the Order
in Council above quoted adopts the period of 400 years after the
Apostolic age, that is, the first 500 years of the Christian Dispensa-
tion, " when religion and doctrine were most pure." The statute,
too, of i Edw. VI. c. i, pronounces the Primitive age to be a "space
of 500 years and more after Christ's Ascension."
The following principles of evidence which the Church of Eng-
land admits as binding upon herself consist, then, as follows :
(i), Succession of doctrine from the Apostolic times and for above
400 years after, that is, to the close of the fifth century : and (2),
The decrees of General Councils being agreeable to Holy Scrip-
ture. This period of the first 500 years she has adopted, on the
ground that it was " most pure and uncorrupt," "when doctrine and
religion were most pure."
As a loyal son of the Church of England, I restricted my inves-
tigation to the documents of the first five centuries, by which means
I was persuaded I should, with God's help, arrive at the truth,
whatever it might be.
The evidence, then, which I have collected, of the first 500
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. XXV
years, I have arranged under the "Two Inquiries" mentioned above;
to which I have added Comments, critical and argumentative, with
the view of bringing out into relief the real doctrine, which the
Fathers, as it appeared to me, taught on the subject of this Work.
I have not omitted to insert a chapter under each " Inquiry,"
entitled, "Audi alteram Partem" (or, "Hear the other side"), in
which I have considered, to the best of my ability, the arguments
advanced by Anglicans against the Supremacy of S. Peter and of the
Holy See : whether or not with success, I must leave it with you to
decide for yourselves.
Such is the general outline of my Work, which, if you will study
carefully in connexion with this epistle, you will, I think, agree with
me that I could come to no other conclusion than I have done.
Would that you, too, could see the Truth, and enter that one
true Ark of God, which alone can resist the billows of that terrible
flood of scepticism and lawlessness now ascending from the depths of
the lowest hell.
Before dismissing this portion of my letter I wish to inform you,
that in this investigation I did not wholly trust to my own guidance :
I consulted several learned theologians; to them I explained my
difficulties, submitting to them some of the most startling evidence
I had collected : but from them I received no real assistance ; one
suggested that there was a variety of interpretations put by the Fathers
upon the words, " Thou art Peter," and " Feed My Sheep ; " that the
Popes were fallible men, and that they had erred in faith, as for instance
Honorius ; and another informed me that the opinions of the Fathers
were not binding upon us ; and that no dogma whatever was of
faith unless formally decreed by a Free CEcumenical Council. After
ruminating upon this, I concluded that there was something funda-
mentally wrong in the arguments of my friends. In the first place, I
could not conceive how the Fathers could really vary in their teach-
ing on any essential or fundamental point of Faith. No doubt they
did apparently differ from each other in their interpretation of passages
of Scripture j but when we carefully scrutinize their interpretations,
they are not diverse from each other, as some assume : they turn
out to be but variations, in which true harmony of teaching is
throughout maintained.
Then with respect to Pope Honorius, it is evident, after reading
his extant letters, that he was no heretic, though he was blameworthy
in not detecting the deceit of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople.
And as regards the opinion that no dogma or doctrine is binding
unless formally decreed by an (Ecumenical Council, if this was true,
much of the Catholic Faith would even now be reduced to a nullity.
xxvi AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
If this opinion be sound, then it was permissible, without censure,
for one of the Faithful, before the Council of Nicaea, to deny the
Divinity of our Lord, simply because, though believed as de fide,
it had not been formally and dogmatical! v affirmed by a General
Council.
Towards the close of my career as an Anglican, I forwarded to
one whom I have ever loved and respected, and whom I shall always
love and respect, the evidence I had collected upon the question
of the Papacy, and after waiting a considerable time without receiving
any acknowledgment, I concluded that no answer was forthcoming.
It is but fair to add, that after my secession, my friend informed me
that he had been preparing an answer to the paper I had sent him.
Had I known this, I would unquestionably have waited for it, as^n
duty bound ; but day after day passed away without receiving any
reply to my letter, and as conviction was growing stronger and
stronger every hour, gathering force from frequent thought and re-
peated investigation, I felt I should be trifling with God and my own
conscience, if I deferred any longer to submit myself to the Chair of
S. Peter at Rome, to which is subjected, as I firmly believe, by God
Himself, every Episcopal Chair of the Universal Church.
You will perhaps assert, and so will probably my friend, of whom
I have just spoken, that I was too far gone to be saved, that it would
be a useless waste of time to make any serious attempt to prevent the
inevitable step being taken. To this I would reply, Not so. There
were two circumstances that rendered change distasteful : the first
was, that I was not, and never had been, what is called a "Romanizerj"
although I held what are called extreme High Church opinions, I
had no sympathy with what was held to be distinctively " Romish";
the second was, that my own reputation required- me to remain where
I was. If it could have been shown to me that the evidence I had
collected for the Papacy was false, and that it was capable of a totally
different interpretation from that which I had, conscientiously I trust,
put upon it, I should then have been better pleased, for it would
have enabled me with a good conscience to have continued in the
vocation to which I then believed God to have called me, and in
which my heart was engaged.
Having explained my reasons for " changing my religion," I
propose now to invite your attention to two very important subjects:
the first is the duty of inquiry into the grounds of the Faith that is in
us, not, indeed, in the spirit of scepticism, but with a view of estimating
the foundation on which we stand : the second, of acquiring a correct
knowledge of the characteristics of that identical Church which Christ
Himself founded on earth, previous to His departure to the Right
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. XXVli
Hand of God His Father. It seems to me that a correct knowledge
of the character of the Church is essential to a right comprehension
of the whole question of Church Government, whether it should turn
out to be Papal, Episcopal, or Presbyterian. When once we grasp
the form, the nature, and the marks of the original Church, as she
issued from Christ, when He breathed into her nostrils the breath of
a never-dying life, we shall be in a position of great advantage in
the study of the great question arising in this investigation.
II.
THE DUTY OF INQUIRY.
It is not an uncommon practice for clergymen of the Church of
England to assert, if not the unlawfulness, at least the impropriety,
of any of her members investigating some of the foundations on
which she rests her claim to their exclusive allegiance. If there
existed on earth only one Christian community, then their ob-
jection might be tenable, because such an examination might
imply a doubt of Christ and the Religion He taught. But when we
know that Christians are divided to a very great extent, that there
are many Christian communities and sects, all professing to worship
Christ as God and Man, it is impossible for us to avoid, if we have
any regard to our ultimate salvation, the necessity of making a careful
examination of the grounds on which the communion to which we, each
of us, belong, claims our respect and adhesion. While Christendom
is in the condition it now is, is it not wrong (it cannot be otherwise) to
prevent any one from inquiring into the truth of the religious system
in which he was brought up ? For if there be one only Church on
earth, which Christ recognises as His Church, it must be of prime
importance to us to be in its communion, else we run the risk of con-
demnation at the last day. Our Lord's parting address to the
Apostles contained these fearful words, " He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
(S. Mark, xvi. 16.) It cannot be doubted that when our Saviour
said, " He that believeth," He meant, he that believeth in Me,
and in My doctrine, and in the ordinances I have instituted, shall
be saved ; and contrariwise, he that refuses to believe in what I have
ordained, and in what I have taught, shall be damned. It was also
taught, he that breaketh one commandment, breaketh the whole law
of God ; so he that declines to accept any one article of faith is an
unbeliever, and in danger of condemnation. Now, if Christ really
XXVlii AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
did establish a particular religious community, and if He did institute
one only system of ecclesiastical authority, it follows that he who
declines to accept it is an unbeliever in the scriptural sense, and
entails upon himself condemnation. This is, I think, a fair and
legitimate application of this passage to the subject under discussion.
Again, S. Peter, in his Catholic Epistle, says, " Wherefore the rather,
brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure."
(2 Peter, i. 10.) The Apostle in the context alludes to certain
" exceeding great and precious promises," by which we " might be
partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in
the world through lust," and he then proceeds to counsel us to add to
our " faith, virtue ; and to virtue knowledge ; and to knowledge tem-
perance j and to temperance patience ; and to patience godliness ; and
to godliness brotherly kindness ; and to brotherly kindness charity."
He then says, " If these things be in (us) and abound," we shall be
neither " barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus
Christ;" but if we lack these things, /'. e. faith, virtue, knowledge, &c.,
then are we " blind and cannot see afar off, and (have) forgotten that
(we were) purged from (our) old sins." " Wherefore," he adds, " the
rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure ;
for if (we) do these things, (we) shall never fail ; for so an entrance
shall be ministered unto (us) abundantly into the everlasting kingdom
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." To "make our calling and
election sure," it is necessary that we should examine whether we
possess " faith," and " knowledge," no less than " virtue," " patience,"
&c. This necessarily involves inquiry whether we really hold the
true " Faith," and whether we are in possession of sound " know-
ledge," for if our " Faith " and " Knowledge " be defective, how can
our "calling and election" be reckoned by ourselves as "sure?" nay,
on the contrary, our " calling and election," in this case, must be
without any solid foundation, and consequently we run the risk of
having "no entrance .... into the everlasting Kingdom of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." The injunction, then, to " make
our calling and election sure," involves the necessity of a diligent
inquiry into the foundation of the Faith we have been taught, and
the religious system in which we have been brought up ; for if that
system be not of God, then we have no true Faith, we are not in
Jesus Christ, and we have the benefit of none of the Sacraments
He ordained.
S. Paul in different words declares the same counsel : " If a man
also strive for mastery, yet is he not crowned, except he strive
lawfully." (2 Tim. ii. 5.) The Apostle compares our pilgrimage to
a soldier's warfare, in which we are admonished to endure hardness,
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. XXIX
and not to entangle ourselves with the affairs of this life : that is to
say, we must war as Jesus Christ wills, and in accordance with those
laws and principles He ordained. The army of Jesus Christ is one,
it has over it one Captain-general, that is Himself, and, as we shall
see, one Lieutenant-general, to whom He has committed all His
authorities, until He returns to resume His command in Person.
Every soldier, then, if he desires to be crowned, must fight in that
army, even that particular army, subject to that officer Christ has ap-
pointed to the command, and to no other. Now, as it is notorious
that there are many separate armies, claiming Jesus Christ as their
Captain, (i), the Roman Church; (2), the Greek Church; (3), the
Anglican Church; and (4), the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Calvinistic,
Wesleyan, and Baptist communities, it is necessary that we should
investigate which of these is the army of Jesus Christ. They cannot
all be His army, for the very essence of an army is perfect unity and
absolute obedience to martial law, and to its commanders : whereas
all these armies disagree with each other on fundamental points, and
every one of them, except the Roman Catholic Church, is externally
and internally divided into sectarian parties, warring against each
other, instead of against the foes of Christ. To strive then lawfully,
that is, in obedience to the faith of Christ, in the one army He has
established, is essential to obtain the crown ; it therefore follows that
a careful inquiry is needful, that we may ascertain whether we really
are striving lawfully in that great war against the world, the flesh,
and the devil.
And this duty of inquiry is enforced by our blessed Lord Himself :
" Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal life :
and they are they which testify of Me." (S.John, v. 39.) You see
that Jesus Christ, notwithstanding He was very God, to whom every
creature is subject, whether they will or no, invited, nay com-
manded, His hearers to inquire whether He was not really and truly
their true Messiah. To inquire, in this case, was absolutely neces-
sary, for if He was the Messiah, God manifest in the flesh, to reject
Him was to subject themselves to certain condemnation; and to have
accepted Him as God, if he had not really been what He claimed to
be, would have been equally hazardous. Therefore Christ said,
" Search the Scriptures," examine the Word of God, and ascertain
whether I am or am not your long-predicted Messiah. This prin-
ciple, too, S. Luke witnesses approvingly in the Acts with respect
to the Bereans. The Thessalonians evidently at first rejected the
doctrine taught by S. Paul, apparently without any inquiry, but the
Bereans " received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched
the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (Acts, xvii. n.)
XXX AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
It cannot, therefore, be an act of disloyalty to the religious com-
munity in which one happens to have been brought up, to inquire into
the foundations on which it rests its claims to our allegiance. But,
contrariwise, it is a duty to search and see whether these things are
so. For as there cannot be many Christs, so there cannot be many
Churches. In the midst, then, of conflicting claims, it would be an
act of disobedience to Christ to refuse to inquire, with a view of
ascertaining which of these multitudes of religious communities, or
sects, is that which He instituted ; and it would be an act of sheer
folly to imitate the uninquiring spirit of the Thessalonians, and reject
the claims of any particular church, without " searching daily," to see
" whether these things were so."
For any clergyman of the Church of England, for a minister of
any denomination, to forbid us to follow the admonition of Christ
and His Apostles, to " search the Scriptures/' and to ascertain with
as much certainty as possible the ground oh which our faith is based,
in order that we may " make our calling and election sure," and be
in a position of striving lawfully in the army of the Lord, and thus
obtain the crown, is an act of gross injustice and cruelty ; for no
man can part with his responsibility. He is responsible to God
for the soul God has given him, and he is bound to act according to
the ability God has blessed him with. In the midst of rival com-
munities he is bound to ascertain, as best he may, which of all these
is " the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Ground of the
Truth." To refuse to do so, is to run a most fearful risk, for should
his " calling and election " be baseless, and should he, consequently,
be striving unlawfully, rejecting the ordinances of God, then how
can he fail to forfeit the erown he longs one day to receive on his
brow as a faithful soldier of Jesus Christ ?
Let me, then, as one who feels a deeper interest in you than any
one else can possibly do, implore you not to permit any fanciful notions
of loyalty to prevent you from examining the foundations of that
communion you were brought up in, for, be assured, that if it be
of God, it will have a Rock for its foundation ; but if it be not of God,
then you will discover, before it is too late, that it is founded upon
the ever-shifting sands. What I ask of you is this, viz. to look to
your foundation, and see if it is on the solid Rock ; for if it is not,
how can you hope to escape ultimate ruin if you elect to remain
in such a house ? What will it avail you, if after this life, when you are
standing before the bar of the last dread Tribunal, you should
discover, to your dismay, that during the seventy or eighty years of
your sojourn on earth, you have not been worshipping God accord-
ing to His will, that you have adhered to ecclesiastical systems
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. xxxi
which He never instituted, and that you have partaken of sacra-
mental ministrations He never authorized ? What will be your plea
when standing before that final Court of Appeal, if you should dis-
cover that you were not in the Ark of God's Church ? Will it be
"Invincible Ignorance?" "Invincible Ignorance" will, doubtless,
avail to arrest the hand of the Executioner; but then, before relying
upon this, let us understand what we mean by this term. A person
cannot, I apprehend, put in this plea, unless he has taken every
pains to learn the truth. If he has refused during life, especially
when invited, to investigate the foundation of his faith, how can he
say that he is invincibly ignorant, seeing that he has never made an
attempt even to inform himself on the vital question which has been
raised ? The term " Invincible Ignorance," I conceive, implies
ignorance after an honest and conscientious endeavour to learn the
Truth of God, which however, owing to some mental or moral defect,
is unattainable. Such an one may escape condemnation if not in
the true Church : but he who has wilfully and obstinately refused
to inquire, how can he say before the bar of the Eternal Judge
and His assessors, " I was invincibly ignorant ?"
If, then, we desire to be on the safe side, we must inquire into
the character and foundation of that system of which we are members ;
else, if we find ourselves in the wrong one, our chance of ultimate
salvation, if God's words be true, will be, to say the least, ex-
tremely doubtful. You may depend upon it that if any minister
of religion, or any other person, should take upon himself to for-
bid you to inquire, it is because he knows that the foundations are
not faultless. One thing is certain, that the true Church of God,
whichever it is, has nothing to fear from the most searching ex-
amination.
III.
DISCERNMENT OF CHURCHES.
The Apostle S. Paul informs us that one of the gifts of the
Spirit is " discernment of spirits," that is, the power of judging in
spiritual matters, to determine whether they are genuine. S. John
supports this principle, when he counsels his disciples to "believe not
every spirit, but (to) try the spirits whether they are of God : because
many false prophets are gone out into the world." (i John, iv. i.)
S. Paul again confirms this, when he directs the Thessalonians to
" despise not prophesyings," but to "prove all things." (i Thess. v. 20,
21.) From these Apostolical admonitions we may draw legitimately
xxxii AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
three inferences, viz. the duty of trying of what Spirit the ecclesiastical
system to which we are attached is composed ; whether it rests upon
that Rock which Christ Himself created and planted on this earth, as
the firm foundation of His Church. And, surely, there is good reason
for our endeavouring to exercise such powers as God has given us,
intellectual and moral, or both, for the discernment of the many
spirits which are abroad, exercising their prophetic office for the
propagation of damnable heresies. You know that this Apostle
foretold, that " in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils : speaking
lies in hypocrisy ; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ;"
" who shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that
bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction : and
many shall follow their pernicious ways ; by reason of whom the way
of truth shall be evil spoken of." (i Tim. iv. i, 2. 2 Pet. ii. i, 2.)
You are also aware that our Lord foreshewed, that in the latter days
there should be both false apostles and false prophets, who would
deceive the people. You cannot then doubt, that if ever there was
a time when the spiritual faculty of " discerning the spirits," dis-
tinguishing the good from the bad, the true from the false be neces-
sary, that time is pre-eminently the present. You will not forget
how the Spirit commended the Ephesian Church for exercising
this discernment. " I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy
patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil : and
thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and
hast found them liars." (Rev. ii. 2.)
You will, however, ask me the very natural question, How am I, an
ignorant Layman, to discern out of the many churches and religious
communities now existing, which of them is the Church of God ?
To this I would reply, provided you are earnestly endeavouring to
serve God, and are not obstinately prejudiced, you will not find it so
difficult to acquire a knowledge of the truth in a matter of this kind.
You will, perhaps, answer me by asserting your inability to read and
understand the writings of the Holy Fathers ? But it is not neces-
sary for you to study the Fathers ; they are most valuable auxiliaries
to those who have the means and time to study them ; there is one
Book which is sufficient of itself for this purpose, viz. the Holy Bible,
the written Word of God. This Holy Book, if read with an honest
and believing mind, will unfold to us how we may discern the many
theological spirits which are abroad, and discover which of them is
of God.
Before, however, you can make use of this gift of discernment,
you must first inform your minds thoroughly of the character and
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. xxxiii
attributes of that Church which Christ founded, and which He de-
signed should continue till the end of time ; and then by comparing
the communion in which you have been brought up, with the descrip-
tion of that Church, you will thus be enabled to discern the True
Church of God.
Let us now proceed with all reverence to discuss the character
and attributes of that Church which Christ Himself instituted. In pur-
suing this inquiry we cannot do better than follow the counsel given
as to this matter by the Church of England. In her Homily (2d part)
for Whitsunday, she says, " The true Church is an universal congre-
gation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the
foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being
the Head Corner Stone. And it hath always three notes or marks
whereby it is known : pure and sound doctrine, the sacraments
ministered according to Christ's institution, and the right use of
ecclesiastical discipline ;" and she adds, " The description of the
Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the
doctrine of the ancient Fathers, so that none may justly find fault
therewith." (Horn. Whitsunday, 2nd pt.)
The first note or mark which the Church of England admits as
essential for discerning the true Church is " pure and sound doc-
trine." Now a principal article of the Creed as received by her is, " I
believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." It is a
part of " pure and sound doctrine" to hold this dogma thoroughly and
without equivocation. I will now, in the words of Holy Scripture,
delineate, to the best of my ability, the character and attributes of
that Church which Christ Himself founded.
I. UNITY AND INDEFECTIBILITY. " Upon this Rock I will
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it." In these few words are enunciated two important points, viz.
unity and indefectibility. The solid Rock is itself a symbol of
perfect unity, of massive strength, of irresistible power, and un-
decaying durability. Our Lord Himself comments, by anticipa-
tion, on the nature of this symbol : " Whosoever heareth these
sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise
man, which built his house upon a rock ; and the rain descended,
and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house ;
and it fell not ; for it was founded upon a Rock." (S. Matt. vii. 24,
25.) And He contrasts this with the foolish man, who built his
house on the sands. " And the rain descended, and the floods came,
and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and
great was the fall of it/' (Ib. 26, 27.) The Rock, then, was the
xxxiv AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
indefectible foundation of the House of the wise man, and conse-
quently it was able to resist all the violence of the elements ; while
the House which was erected by the foolish man fell, because, being
built upon the sand, it had no real foundation whatever. Christ, the
great Master- Builder, erected His House upon the solid Rock, and
notwithstanding the rains, the floods, and the hurricane, it stood,
because it was founded upon the Rock.
But, perhaps, you will say that a Rock may be rent by the
violence of nature, and that which was once one rock might become
two or more rocks. In answer to this objection, I would point to the
words, " And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ;" that is,
against the Church so built on the Rock. Whether or no this might
be possible through the violence of nature concerns us not, because
we have a solemn guarantee given us, on the most sacred word of
Christ, that against the House or Church which He founded upon the
Rock of His appointment " the gates of hell shall not prevail ;"
therefore that Rock which He selected as the basis of His Church
cannot be divided or broken ; and the Church built thereon, par-
taking as it does of the unity, power, and strength of that Rock,
can neither be divided nor broken.
Again. The Rock is not merely an inert or lifeless foundation ;
it is, as S. Peter and S. John imply, a living Stone. It is a Stone
which grows. Daniel, in his prophecy of the Church, declares that
the Stone which smote the Image, and cast it down, "became a great
mountain, and filled the whole earth :" and it is added, that this
Mountain-Kingdom " shall never be destroyed ;" nor be " left to
other people, but it shall break in pieces, and consume all these
kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Dan. ii. 35, 44.) I
cannot imagine a more perfect symbol than this universal moun-
tain, or a trope more expressive of an indivisible unity, and an
incorruptible indefectibility. For how can such a mountain as this,
which fills the whole earth, be ever divided into separate parts ; and
what chance or possibility exists of the hand of man destroying this
impenetrable unity ? The Rock-Mountain, then, is a symbol of the
perfect unity and indefectibility of the Church and Kingdom of
Christ. When, then, our Lord said, " Upon this Rock I will build My
Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," we are to
understand that that Church not every Church, but that Church only
which was built on the Rock of His selection is one, indivisible,
and indefectible, for its unity cannot be divided, nor can it be
broken in twain, for " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
But the Lord has, in His mercy and goodness, left on record, for
our solace and assurance, that magnificent Prayer which He addressed
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. XXXV
to the Father for the perpetual unity of His Church and Kingdom.
He thus prayed : " I have given unto them (the Apostles) the
words which Thou gavest Me .... I pray for them ; I pray not for
the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me ; for they are
Thine Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name those whom
Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are Neither
pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me
through their word ; that they all may be one ; as Thou, Father, art
in Me, and I in them, that they also may be one in Us : that the
world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which
Thou gavest Me I have given them ; that they may be one, even as
We are one : I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made
perfect in one ; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent
Me, and hast loved them as Thou hast loved Me." (S. John, xvii.)
I, for my part, cannot see, after reading the words of our Lord,
" Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it/' and this most beautiful and affecting Prayer,
how it is possible that that Church and Kingdom which He insti-
tuted could ever really be divided or broken ; for not only has He
given us His most solemn word that it never should be, but He has
addressed to His Father this intercessory Prayer for the perpetual
unity of His Church, first as represented by His Apostles, and
secondly by those who should succeed them. But what was the
nature of that unity for which Christ prayed ? Let us examine
carefully the words He employed. " That they all may be one,
as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may
be one in Us I in them, and Thou in Me, that they
may be made perfect in one." The Unity, then, which Christ
desired for His Church was a unity resembling that of the Three
Persons in the Most Holy Trinity. " As Thou, Father, art in
Me, and I in Thee/' so I beseech Thee, "they also may be one
in Us :" such is the prayer. The Unity in the Holy Trinity is
that of Substance, consequently the Holy Trinity is said to be
undivided, for it is impossible to divide that Substance. As they
were one, one with each other, and in each other, being all
Three of one Substance, so is the Church, which Christ established
on the Rock, against which " the gates of hell shall not prevail,"
for she is one in Christ being Bone of His Bone, and Flesh
of His Flesh, by the union of Water and Blood, which flowed
from His wounded side even as Christ is one with the Father ; so
it must follow that as the Holy and Blessed Trinity is one and
indivisible, i. e. the Substance cannot be divided so also the
Church, which is the Body of Christ, is one and indivisible.
xxxvi AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
It is impossible, then, not to perceive that the Church which
Christ designed was one which was perfect in all respects
perfect as to her foundation a Rock ; perfect in her superstructure ;
perfectly impregnable against all the forces of the infernal powers,
and perfectly united in her organic constitution, for it is as thoroughly
one in God, and in herself, as " the Trinity in Unity," and " the Unity
in Trinity. "
But, further, in order that you may see how this indivisible and
uncorrupt indefectibility is a characteristic of the true Church, let
me set before you some passages which still further enforce this
great truth.
I have already pointed out the great mountain which covered the
whole earth as being the most perfect symbol of this unity and indefecti-
bility. There are other tropes which, in their degree, equally represent
this truth. " The kingdom of God is like to a grain of mustard-seed,
which a man took, and sowed in his field : which indeed is the least
of all seeds ; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and
becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the
branches thereof." (S. Matt. xiii. 31, 32.) This type of Unity is
analogous to that of the Stone the small Stone which struck the
colossal Image (i. e. the fourth Universal Empire) on its extremities,
and, destroying it, occupied its place, and thence grew into a great
mountain, filling the whole earth. Now a tree is a perfect Unity ; for it
consists of three organic parts the root, the trunk, and the branches.
These cannot be divided without producing the dissolution of the
part severed. The branch cannot live separate from the trunk,
nor can the trunk apart from the root. A tree is an indivisible unity ;
it cannot be divided without causing the destruction of the tree ; but,
on the other hand, the root and the trunk possess an inherent life
independent of the branches, so much so that, if many were cut off,
the tree would still remain whole, and also would still retain its inborn
vigour. The Church is likewise compared to a human body, which,
like the tree, consists of three main divisions the head, the torso,
and the members. The members cannot exist apart from the
body, nor the body from the head ; but so long as the head and the
body are" united, a man may live his allotted time, in health and
vigour, even if several of his members had been amputated.
Now the Church which Christ constituted is His Body, and that
can no more be really divided than a tree or a human body. Her unity
is not broken, though many of her members have been severed from
her body. As the tree and the human body both retain their perfect
unity and indefectibility, though divested of some of their respective
branches and members, so also the Church : the loss of the Greeks
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. xxxvii
on the one side and the Anglicans on the other may, indeed, have
terribly shaken her, but her unity and indivisibility, notwithstanding,
remain intact.
The Church can be no more divided than Christ Himself. S.
Paul asserts that in his Epistle to the Ephesians : " There is one
Body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your
calling ; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of
all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. iv. 3-6.)
As, then, God is one, Christ one, and the Holy Ghost one ; so
also is the Body of Christ, that is, the Church. As, then, God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are each an indi-
visible Unity, and together form one undivided Unity, so also is the
Kingdom and Church one, and organically indivisible, and absolutely
indefectible ; for as the Three Blessed Persons cannot be severed
from each other, or be injured by the armies of hell, no more can
this Kingdom and Church be severed in twain or broken by the hand
of man or devil.
I might continue the Scriptural evidence for this absolute one-
ness and indefectibility by referring to an enclosed city, a house, or
building, or family, each of which fully sustains the idea of this per-
fect unity.
I think I have now proved from Holy Scripture one point in the
character and attributes of that Church which Christ established, viz.
her perfect indivisible Unity and absolute indefectibility. I have
shown that Christ erected His Kingdom and Church on the Rock,
which Rock grew into a great mountain filling the whole earth ; and
also that this Kingdom and Church, in accordance with the prophecy
of Daniel, would never be destroyed, but would stand for ever. Our
gracious Lord promised most solemnly, " The gates of hell shall not
prevail against it," that is, it shall never be overcome with heresies,
it shall never be divided, but shall stand in its perfect unity and
strength for ever it shall never decay by lapse of time, nor shall
it ever be broken by the hand of man or by the shafts of the Arch-
enemy of mankind : and in order to sanctify this unity and inde-
fectibility, our Lord offered on the eve of His Passion that sublime
and most affecting prayer to His Father, by which He consecrated
His new Kingdom and Church, sanctifying it by the word of truth,
and cementing its unity in His own Blood, which He had just
before offered to His Father, and which He was about on the
morrow to shed in dread reality for His Church. This prayer alono.
is a guarantee of the indivisible Unity and perfect indefectibility of
His Church, to say nothing of His sacred promise, " The gates of
hell shall not prevail against it," even that Church which was,
xxxviil AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
founded on the Rock of His selection even Peter /. e. the Rock,
Peter.
II. SANCTITY. The Church is holy, because her code of doctrine
and morality is derived from God ; because Christ our Lord is present
by means of the Sacraments ; because the Holy Ghost dwells in the
Church ; and, lastly, because the whole Body is holy through the
washing of* regeneration. The point, however, I desire particularly
to draw your attention to, is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in
the Church, by which, in accordance with the promise of our Lord,
she is not only one and indefectible, but also infallible in all
matters relating to faith and morality. Indeed, this is the necessary
corollary, if the Unity of the Church be indivisible and her inde-
fectibility unimpeachable.
Let us now see what Holy Scripture teaches us on this point.
During our Lord's visible residence with the Church which He had
constituted, He was her infallible Paraclete, i. e. her Teacher, Guide,
and Counsellor, in all that appertained to truth and practice. For three
years S. Peter and the Apostles were under His personal training ; and
after His resurrection, S. Luke informs us of all that occurred during
those forty days He sojourned on earth, " Until the day in which He
was taken up, after that He, through the Holy Ghost, had given com-
mandments unto the Apostles whom He had chosen : to whom also
He showed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs,
being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining
to the kingdom of God." (Acts, i. 2, 3.) And just before His Ascen-
sion He addressed His Apostles, saying, " Go ye, therefore, and
teach all nations .... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you : and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world." (S. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) From the time, then,
Christ commenced His ministry till the last moment of His visible
residence on earth, the Church and Kingdom He had instituted pos-
sessed an infallible Teacher, Guide, and Counsellor.
The question which immediately occurs to one's mind now is,
Did our Lord make no provision for continuing this infallibility after
His Ascension? Was the infant Church, which was under a personal,
infallible Teacher and Guide, intended, as soon as Christ and His
Apostles had departed from this world, to be left entirely to her own
resources, to be the prey and sport of speculators and infidels, without
any such supernatural assistance as would be sufficient to preserve
her from error and apostasy? Was she, who had been under the
personal supervision of her Divine Founder, to be left without a
substitute of equal authority and equal infallibility ? Reason would,
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. XXXIX
I think, assure us this would be impossible ; but, thank the Lord
of All, Holy Scripture determines this for us, as fully and as
satisfactorily as possible.
Towards the close of our Blessed Lord's ministry, He startled
His hearers and the Apostles by saying : " Little children, yet a
little while I am with you. Ye shall seek Me : and as I said
unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to
you." Simon Peter immediately replies, " Lord, whither goest Thou ?"
Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow Me now ;
but thou shalt follow Me afterwards." (S.John, xiii. 33-36.) This
departure of Christ, which He announced, probably referred only to
His temporary absence in Hades ; but He soon after began to pre-
pare His Apostles for His final departure from this earth. He
commenced by saying, " Let not your heart be troubled : ye believe
in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many man-
sions : if it were not so, I would have told you." He here raises
the hearts of His Apostles, strengthening their faith in Himself, and
unfolds to their gaze the glorious mansions in heaven. Having thus
prepared them, He says abruptly, " I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and
receive you unto Myself : that where I am, there ye may be also ; and
whither I go ye know, and the way ye know." One may well imagine
the alarm the Apostles felt when they heard these startling words,
" I go." S. Peter was probably aware what was about to happen, for
Jesus had announced his intention not long before to him ; and it is
not unlikely that he, to whom was revealed the Divinity of Christ,
might have known more than his brother Apostles. At any rate he
was silent. After this, and after enforcing the duty of faith in Him-
self, Christ announces His gracious intention of supplying a Substitute,
equal in all respects to Himself in dignity, in knowledge, and in
power who should be for the future the Teacher, the Guide, and
the Counsellor of the Church, for ever. " And I will pray the Father,
and He shall give you another Comforter (or, Paraclete), that He may
abide with you for ever ; even the Spirit of Truth ; whom the world
cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him : but
ye know Him ; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will
not leave you comfortless" (or rather, orphans) ; " I will come to you."
(S.Jo/in, xiv. 1 6-1 8.) Again He repeats the afflicting words, "Yet a
little while, and the world seeth Me no more," with a view, apparently,
of impressing on the minds of His Apostles the reality of what was
about to happen, and yet to comfort them by adding, " But ye see
me : because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know
that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you." (Ib. 19, 20.)
xl AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
Then He recurs to His promise : " But the Comforter " (or, Paraclete),
" which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name,
He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remem-
brance whatsoever I have said unto you." Again He affectingly
reverts to His approaching departure ; but now He braces up the
souls of His Apostles : " If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice, because I
said, I go unto the Father : for My Father is greater than I." And
further He encourages them, saying, "And now I have told you
before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might
believe/' (Ib. 26-30.) Still the Apostles sorrowed, as well they
might, notwithstanding the tender consolations of their Lord and
Master. He then affectionately addressed them the third time on
this subject : " But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow
hath filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth ; it is expe-
dient for you that I go away : for if I go not away, the Comforter "
(i.e. the Paraclete) " will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send
Him unto you. And when He is come, He will reprove the world of
sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment : of sin, because they
believe not on Me ; of righteousness, because I go to My Father, and
ye see Me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is
judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear
them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will
guide you into all truth : for He shall not speak of Himself; but what-
soever He shall hear, that shall He speak : and He will show you
things to come. He shall glorify Me : for He shall receive of Mine,
and shall show it unto you." (Ib. xvi. 6-13.) Christ again reminds
His Apostles of His approaching departure, evidently knowing that
they could not realise to themselves that He would really leave
them. There are no incidents in Holy Scripture so pathetic as this.
Our Lord and the Apostles loved each other with a love past com-
prehension with love so intense that there are no words to give it
adequate description ; He loved them with all the power of spirit,
soul, and body, but, more than that, He loved them with a Divine love,
for He was very God. Their love was, if I may say so with reverence,
equal to His i. e. in their degree they loved with as much fervour ;
they loved Him fervently and passionately. Great, indeed, must
have .been their affliction and heartrending sorrow when they heard
He was about to leave them. Oh, it must have been a most terrible
sorrow : so great that their minds were, so to say, stunned, for they
could not understand what He meant, and they would not believe
what He said nay, they could not, so great was the depth of their
affliction. But we are indebted to this sorrow of the Apostles, for it
drew out from our dear Lord His most gracious and sacred intentions
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. xli
respecting His Church ; for through this grief we learn all about
that Divine Substitute He was about to send immediately on His
departure to the right-hand of the Father.
Let us now carefully realize Who this Substitute was, and the
nature of the mission He was to execute during the absence of the
Lord Jesus Christ. It is plainly stated that He who should come
would be the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the Holy and Undi-
vided Trinity. He was to come, not as an influence, but as a Person,
to dwell with the Church as personally as Christ did before His
Ascension, the only difference consisting in His not being visible
to us, inasmuch as He has never assumed a body, though at the
baptism of Christ He was manifested under the form or shape of a
"dove," and on his descent on the Apostles and disciples under the sign
of " cloven tongues like as of fire." That His presence was Personal
is evident from His mode of operation ; for He spoke, on different
occasions, audibly to Apostles and Prophets : for example, " As they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy 'Ghost said, Separate
Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."
(Acts, xiii. 2.) " And were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach
the word in Asia." (Ib. xvi. 6.) And again, after the Council of Jeru-
salem had decided the circumcision case, the Apostles and Elders, in
their Synodical Epistle, say, " For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost,
and to us," &c. (Ib. xv. 28.) These expressions clearly indicate that
the Holy Ghost was present in very Person, teaching, guiding, and
counselling, as Christ had been before His departure. This point
is of greater importance than it seems at first sight ; for, were He
present merely influentially by grace, it would by no means fulfil the
Lord's promise of sending some one to take His place in the Church,
as His Divine Substitute, by whose personal supervision His Church
would 'be taught all that she ought to know, and be guided in all
things she was to do, even to the reproving " the world of sin, of right-
eousness, and of judgment." For what is the exact meaning of the
word Paraclete, translated in the English Authorized Version as Com-
forter? It signifies literally a legal assistant, an advocate, or inter-
cessor. This is what our Lord was to His Church : He was her
Advocate /. e. He represented her, pleading her cause and her
Intercessor, inasmuch as He prayed for her and obtained benefits for
her ; among them, the gift of the Holy Ghost. But He was more :
He was her instructor, her teacher, and her guide ; so also is the
Holy Ghost, whom He sent, after His Ascension, to occupy His
place on earth, in the Church He had established.
It may be, however, remarked, that He no longer governs the
Church personally, His voice is no longer heard, and He does not
xlii AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
take, as it were, any active part in the government and administration
of the Church. But visible or audible manifestations are not essen-
tial as proofs of His personal Presence. We each of us know we have
a Soul, a substance separate and distinct from the Body it inhabits ;
we have never seen it, or heard it speak ; our acquaintance with our
own Soul is the innate consciousness that it is within us, and our
knowledge of its existence is by its manifestation through the mind
and the intellect, and the organism of the body. The real existence,
then, within us, is not dependent upon any visible or audible mani-
festations. So also in the Church. The Holy Ghost dwells within
the Church as a Divine Person. It is true that at first He manifested
Himself by descending, as it were, visibly under the form of " cloven
tongues like as of fire," and by giving directions to the Apostles audibly,
and by guiding them by means of a strong and overpowering impulse.
But this was to assure the infant Church of His real and true Pre-
sence, in very Person, so that we might perceive that the fulfilment of
the Lord's promise had been really accomplished ; and having once
come in very Person, He could not depart, because of the engage-
ment Christ so to speak entered into as the condition of His
departure, that He would send the Holy Ghost in His place, who
would abide with the Church for ever, so that having once come as
a Divine Person, and as the Substitute of the Lord, He would ever
continue, personally governing and administering the Church in
which He dwells. The Presence of the Holy Ghost is now ordinarily
known by His manifestations through the Body of Christ. He
speaks through her constituted authorities; and He directs the
Church by those appliances which God has provided, and He governs
her by means of those customs and laws which He has caused to
prevail. He promulgates decrees, too, by Councils, which are
drawn up in the name of the Holy Ghost. His actual Presence is
also discerned by the condition of the Church or community He is
said to reside in ; where He is present, there is necessarily unity and
concord in all matters appertaining to the doctrine of Faith and
morality ; where disunion and discord prevail, we may be quite cer-
tain that He cannot be in that community. But one thing is certain,
that the Church into which He descended, must have retained all the
characteristics which were the result of His coming; and further,
that having come, He must be in the Church at this present time ;
and therefore it may be safely concluded that the Church must be
even now remarkable for its unity, its interior peace, and its restless
earnestness in the performance of its functions. But I am anticipating
my subject.
Let us now examine carefully the mission the Holy Ghost was
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. xliii
sent to execute. He was (i) to abide or dwell with the Church for
ever. During the whole Christian Dispensation He was to dwell per-
sonally with the Church of Christ. (2) He " shall teach you all
things," i.e.. He shall be the Teacher of the Church, instructing her
in everything she ought to know. (3) He "shall guide you into all
Truth ; " the whole doctrine of Christ shall be brought to the mind of
the Church. (4) He " shall bring all things to your remembrance
whatsoever I have said," i.e., every truth which Christ had revealed
to the Apostles, in the secret chamber, and after His resurrection,
during those forty days before the Ascension, should be brought to
the recollection of the Church. (5) He shall also " show unto you,"
what " He shall receive of Mine ; " that is, He will inform the Church
of the whole mystery of the Incarnation and the Atonement of our
Lord. (6) He " shall show you things to come," that is, He will
prophesy in the Church, by those whom He shall from time to
time move so to do. And (7) He "shall glorify Me," that is, He
shall so inspire the Church, that she shall glorify Him by her witness
of Him, by her devotion to Him, and by her works.
The Holy Ghost is therefore to the Church what Christ was when
on earth, her Paraclete, i.e., her Teacher, her Guide, her Remem-
brancer, and her Inspirer. He was to fulfil this great mission, not
for a time merely, not by the Apostles only, but " for ever," i.e., until
the close of the Age or Dispensation. It is impossible to doubt
that the Church which possesses the Holy Ghost as her Teacher,
her Guide, her Counsellor, her Remembrancer, and her Inspirer,
must be infallible in her teaching, in respect both to doctrine and
morality, and also in all her decrees when pronounced in accordance
with those ecclesiastical principles which have always been in force.
It is impossible that the Church can be fallible in the performance
of its functions, if the Holy Ghost be really and truly present in the
manner and for the purpose our Lord intimated to His afflicted
Apostles. It is impossible that the Holy Ghost is not in her,
dwelling in and with her, as her personal Teacher and Guide ; be-
cause if it were not so the words of Christ would be falsified, and
His promises would be of none effect. It follows, then, that the
Holy Ghost is in the Church at this moment personally; and therefore
the Church is not only indivisibly one, and incorruptibly indefectible,
but she is absolutely infallible in the performance of every function
she has been commanded by God to perform for the promotion of
His glory and the benefit of mankind.
III. CATHOLICITY. The Church of Christ is portrayed in Scrip-
ture as not insular or national, but as universal. The Stone by
xliv AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
which the Lord struck the old empires of the Pagan world was
not intended to be located merely in the place where it fell, but
to grow into a great mountain, and to fill the whole earth. Such
was the prediction of the prophet, and the terms of the com-
mission signify nothing less. " Go ye therefore and teach all
nations." (S. Matt, xxviii. 19.) "Go ye into all the world, and
preach the Gospel." (S. Mark, xvi. 15.) S. Paul describes the
Catholic Church as " the whole Family in heaven and earth "
(Eph. hi. 15); and S. Peter, as "a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." (i S. Pet. ii. 9.)
These expressions are borrowed from the Old Testament, which
are descriptive of the holy people God then called, of their nation,
and their Church. But that Kingdom, when Christ came, after its
renewal, was intended to burst its boundaries, and to envelop in
its dominion the whole world. " Enlarge the place of thy tent,
and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations : spare
not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes ; for thou shalt
break forth on the right hand and on the left ; and thy seed shall
inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited/'
(Isaiah, liv. 2, 3.)
It is, then, an essential characteristic of the Church, that she should
not only be one and indefectible and infallible, but also universal, for
the Church was not designed to be composed of a number of countless
denominations and of independent branches, but one compact
Empire, consisting of all nations and languages, together forming
one " peculiar people," one " holy nation," under the government of
one Lord, and one Hierarchy.
IV. APOSTOLICITY. This is another feature by which the true
Church is characterized in Holy Scripture. The Church instituted by
Christ must have for its base the ordinances and commandments of
the Holy Apostles. During the sojourn of Christ on earth, He called
together His Twelve Apostles, and instructed them in all matters
which were of Faith ; He taught them the divine law of the New
Dispensation in fulness, which they were commanded to teach to all
nations, giving them the Holy Ghost to guide them into all truth, and
their Successors also, by virtue of the promise that the Spirit would
abide in His Church for ever, bringing to their recollection all that
He had said at the beginning. These institutes of the Lord the
Apostles handed down, commanding their Successors to adhere to
them under pain of anathema. " But God be thanked that ....
ye have obeyed from the heart that Form of Doctrine which was
delivered to you." (Rom. vi. 17.) "Now I praise you, brethren,
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. xlv
that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I
delivered them to you." (i Cor. xi. 2.) " Stand fast, and hold the
traditions which you have been taught, whether by Word, or our
Epistle." (2 Thess. ii. 15.) "O Timothy, keep that which is com-
mitted to thy trust." (i Tim. vi. 20.) "Hold fast the form of sound
words, which thou hast heard of me .... That good thing which
was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost, which dwelleth
in us." (2 Tim. i. 13, 14.)
And S. Peter adds, " This second Epistle, beloved, I now write
unto you ; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of
remembrance : that ye may be mindful of the words which were
spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us
the apostles of 'the Lord and Saviour." (2 S. Pet. iii. i, 2.) These
passages prove clearly that the doctrine of the Church which the
faithful were commanded to obey, was Apostolical. And not only
the doctrine, but the whole framework of the Kingdom and
Church was Apostolical : " Now therefore ye are no more strangers
and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the house-
hold of God ; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." (Ephes.
ii. 19, 20.)
The essential character of the Church of Christ, as set forth in
the Holy Scriptures, consists of an organization indivisibly one,
incorruptibly indefectible, absolutely infallible in its teaching and
conduct, universal in its territorial extent, and apostolical in its
foundation. Such is the "pure and sound doctrine" enforced by
the Church of England in the Homily alluded to above, which
insists on the one Church, so indivisibly one that she cannot be
divided ; so perfectly indefectible as to be impregnable against all
the assaults of hell ; so truly infallible that she cannot teach falsely,
for her dogmas are founded upon the sacred Traditions of the
Apostles partly written and partly unwritten which are made
known to the Church by God the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in her
as her Divine Paraclete ; and so universal in her empire that there is
no room for any other religious community of Christians, except as
in the character of rebels against the authority of Christ and His
own Body the Church.
V. PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. But there is a further ques-
tion to be considered, viz. Was it God's intention that this Scriptura
Church should continue in its perfect unity and indefectibility,
together with the gift of infallibility, to the end of time ? This per-
petuity of her perfect integrity has, indeed, been anticipated in the
xlvi AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
foregoing pages, but in order that you may see the truth in its
fulness, I will set before you, in a concentrated form, the authorities
which guarantee this perpetuity.
1. You will recollect the prophecy before referred to, that the
great Universal Spiritual Kingdom of God, which was to break up
and destroy the pagan Empire of Rome, and take possession of its
capital, was intended to be everlasting in its duration. " And in
the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a Kingdom
which shall never be destroyed ; and the Kingdom shall not be left
to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these
kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Dan. ii. 44.) No language
can be more precise than this, viz. that the Kingdom of Christ was
to be an institution of perpetual duration.
2. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it," i.e. the
Church founded upon the Rock of Christ's selection. The " gates
of hell," signify the powers of hell, which from the commence-
ment of the world have been in malignant array against God and
man. Now this is a promise that the Devil shall not prevail to
overthrow the Church. If heresy should ever obtain possession of
that Church, then her end has come, for a divided house cannot
stand. If the institution ceased to exist as soon as the last surviving
Apostle had breathed his last, then Satan would have succeeded in
defeating the prophecy, and the words, " the gates of hell shall not
prevail," would have been found to be nothing more than empty
sounds, having no real meaning. The Rock is the symbol not only
of indivisible unity and indefectibility, it is also the symbol of per-
petual durability ; so that here we have as strong an assurance as pos-
sible that the identical Church which Christ established should never
be destroyed, but shall last for ever, and that all the powers of hell
shall not avail to injure it.
3. " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world ;"
or, more literally, " Lo, I am with you all the days until the con-
summation of the dispensation." (S. Matt, xxviii. 20.) This was
addressed to the Apostles, and had reference not to them personally,
but to the office to which they had been appointed by Christ. The
office of the Apostleship was, then, one of a perpetual ordinance ; it
was to last till the end of the dispensation, i. e. till the Second Advent.
4. The promise of the Holy Ghost, as the Divine Substitute of
our Lord during His absence, consisted not merely in this, that He
should guide the Church into all truth, but that He should abide
with her for ever. "And I will pray the Father, and He shall
give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever."
*, xiv. 16.)
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. xlvii
You cannot, then, resist the truth, that the identical Church
which Christ our Lord founded before His Passion must be exist-
ing at this moment somewhere in the world : and not only so, but it
must be in that state of supernatural perfection in which she was first
created. Her unity and indefectibility at this day must be as
undivided and as uncorrupted as in the day when Christ said, " The
gates of hell shall not prevail/' Her infallibility in all that concerns
the Faith, Morality, and the Worship of the Church, must be as
certain now as in the time of the Holy Apostles, because of the
promise that the Holy Ghost " shall abide with you for ever," and
because of the further guarantee delivered immediately before the
Ascension, " Lo, I am with you all the days till the consummation
of the dispensation."
Where, then, in this wide world is that Church which is one and
indefectible, infallible, universal, and Apostolic? This is the
problem we have now to solve.
IV. THE TEST.
Such are the Scriptural characteristics of that Church which Jesus
Christ instituted before His departure to the Right Hand of the
Father, one, indivisible, indefectible, infallible, universal, and
Apostolic, and which was intended by Christ to continue in her
integrity till the end of time.
If this description of the Church of Christ is correct, it neces-
sarily follows that this Church is existing somewhere, or rather every-
where, at this present time ; and it behoves us, therefore, to look
around us, and endeavour, with God's help, and by the exercise
of our own reason, to discern it
Now there are in this world three great Churches, claiming to be
Divine and Apostolical in their foundation, and known as the Roman,
the Greek, and the Anglican communions, each of which, in its
degree, challenges the obedience of the Faithful.
Upon this there are maintained two hypotheses which must be
carefully investigated, viz. (i) That these three Churches in their
divided state, together form the one Body of Christ ; and (2) That
one only of these communions is the true Church. We will discuss
these separately.
I. Anglicans maintain that the whole Church consists of an
innumerable company of Bishops, clergy, and people, of every
nation, who confess the Faith as once delivered to the Saints, and
which has been handed down by the Catholic Creeds. The two great
Fathers of the Primitive age upon whom they rely as their authority
xlviii AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
for their hypothesis, are S. Ignatius and S. Cyprian, who, they
allege, regard each individual Bishop as the sole centre of unity to
his flock, to whom they are to look up as their guide and coun-
sellor, as absolutely and unreservedly as a flock of sheep regard their
particular shepherd.
The Anglican idea, then, as founded upon the alleged opinion of
these two Fathers, is, that the ecclesiastical system consists of an
innumerable number of fixed centres, round which revolve obediently
their respective satellites, which, according to their measure, illumi-
nate the darkness of that particular sphere within their domain.
In the course of my work it will be shown that while this theory,
as far as it goes, has the support of S. Ignatius and S. Cyprian, and,
I might add, of every Catholic ; yet it by no means exhausts the
whole of their teaching on this point. When S. Ignatius described
one particular Church, in contrast to all others, as emphatically the
Presiding Church, " presiding over the Love with the Name of Christ,
with the Name of the Father," he taught, implicitly at least, that how-
ever independent a Bishop might be within his diocese (to use modern
nomenclature), he was yet subject to an authority higher than himself;
for if one particular See possesses the Presidency, it follows as a con-
sequence self evident, that all other kindred bodies must be under
its jurisdiction. And so with respect to S. Cyprian, that while he
held extremely high views respecting the dignity and supreme autho-
rity of the Bishop within his diocese, he nevertheless, with S. Ignatius,
regarded one particular " Place " as pre-eminent, wherein was esta-
blished what he described as the " Principal or Chief Church,
whence the unity of the Priesthood took its rise."
It is here where the Anglican theory fails ; it conceives that every
orthodox Bishop, no matter how isolated he may be, is one of many
episcopal centres, which, together with all his brethren, whether
visibly united in inter-communion or not, form, in the aggregate,
the one Body of Christ. But this, as will be demonstrated, is not
the doctrine of the Fathers generally, or of these two in particular.
What they one and all held was, that while there were indeed
many separate centres in the firmament of the Church, yet were these
themselves under the control of centres of greater magnitude, and all
under the authority of a common Centre. The Episcopal systems,
as it seems to me, as taught by the Bible and Antiquity, may be
described as composed of circles within circles, the whole under the
supreme authority of one cardinal centre, which by its own centri-
petal force maintains the cohesion and the equilibrium of the
whole ecclesiastical system. The Hierarchical system of the Church,
as old certainly as the Ante-Nicene age, fully supports this opinion,
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. xlix
for we have episcopal systems within systems, till they reach the highest
authority. The first are the Priests, under whose care are the deacons,
and those in minor orders, and also the people : the second is the
Bishop, to whom all these are subject : the third is the Metropolitan,
who governs canonically the Bishops, the Clergy, and the people of
his province; then fourthly, in some parts of the world, the
Patriarch, who possesses canonical authority over the Metropolitans
and Bishops constituting his Patriarchate ; and lastly, that Prelate,
who occupies the " Place," which S. Cyprian asserted was " the
Place of Peter;" and who is the Bishop of that Church, which
S. Ignatius described as the Presiding Church, S. Irenaeus as the
" more powerful Principality," and S. Cyprian as " the Chief or
Principal Church."
The Anglican theory, then, that each individual Bishop, no
matter how orthodox he may be in Faith, is an independent centre ;
and that it is not of so vital a consequence as to affect life, whether
he is or is not united in communion with the Church generally ;
utterly breaks down : for such a theory is in direct opposition to the
hierarchical system, which has been in full operation from the very
earliest period of ecclesiastical history.
i. But it is impossible that the three antagonistic Churches, the
Roman, the Greek, and the Anglican, can together form the one
Body the Church which Christ instituted, for such a notion is
contrary to the description of that Church as given in Holy Writ.
For the first essential mark or characteristic is unity unity in
organism, unity in faith and doctrine, unity in communion. Can
it be truthfully asserted that the three Churches agree in matters of
faith ? In answer to this it will be sufficient to refer you to the
Article xix of the Church of England, in which she says, "As
the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred ; so
also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and
manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith ;" and in her
xxiind, "The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons,
Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and
also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and
grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the
Word of God ; " and again in the Article xxxi. she adds, " Where-
fore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that
the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remis-
sion of pain Or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous
deceits." By these three Articles the Church of England solemnly
rejects both the Roman and the Oriental Churches as guilty of
error, and she accuses the Roman Communion especially of inno-
d
1 AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
vating in doctrine and practice, and of performing certain solemn
functions, which she asserts to be "blasphemous fables and dan-
gerous deceits." Where, then, is the essential unity which Anglicans
say exists between the separated communions of the one Body the
Church ? But what do we understand by essential unity ? Is it out-
ward communion ? This has been long suspended. Is it in holding
the same Faith and Doctrine ? No such unity exists between the
Church of England and the Roman and Greek Churches. Is it in
sacraments, and especially in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, all
eating the same Bread, and drinking of the same Cup ? To this I
answer that the Church of England accuses the Roman Communion
of heresy in doctrine, in innovation as regards the Cup, and of blas-
phemy in that she pretends to offer the Blessed Sacrifice of the Altar
for " the quick and the dead," " for the remission of pain or guilt."
There is no essential unity whatever, either external or internal,
either in Faith or Sacraments, subsisting between the Anglican and
the Roman, and, I will add, the Greek Church. It follows, then,
that the three Churches cannot together form that Body which Holy
Scripture describes as one.
2. Not only is the Church one, but she is so one, that she is
indivisible and indefectible ; that is, she cannot possibly be divided,
or overcome by heresies. Now the three Churches are notoriously
divided ; and not only divided, but each one is antagonistic to
the other; each declaring the other to be in error and schism.
This state of things alone disposes of this triple unity.
3. How about infallibility ? Do the three Churches form that
infallible Body which Christ created ? Does the Holy Ghost, which
Christ promised should abide personally as His Substitute, for ever
with His Church, dwell in all three communions, teaching one
dogma at Rome, another at Constantinople, and yet another at
Canterbury ; denouncing from the Chair of S. Augustine the heresies
that proceed by His inspiration from the Chair of S. Peter, and pro-
claiming from the ecclesiastical throne of Byzantium that the dogma of
the Double Procession which He had taught in the West is contrary
to the Truth ? And yet if the three Churches, the Roman, Greek,
and Anglican, be together the one Church of Christ, the Holy
Ghost must abide equally in every part, so governing the minds of their
several hierarchies, that all should speak the same thing, and all be
joined together in the same judgment. This contrariety of utterance
at once disposes of this theory, for it is impossible, if the blessed
Paraclete be God, that He can be dwelling in antagonistic Churches,
and be the author of all their solemn diverse decrees regarding
Faith and Doctrine. We may now, I think, dismiss as utterly
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. li
untenable the notion that the Roman, Greek, and Anglican Churches,
together, notwithstanding their separation, can form that one Church
which Christ established.
II. The other hypothesis is much more reasonable and more
probably true, viz., that one only of these three communions, the
Roman, the Greek, or the Anglican is that one, indivisible, and
indefectible Body which Christ instituted, and which is infallible in
its judgments, universal in its dominion, and Apostolic in its doc-
trine. Let us bring each of these to the test.
i. We will begin with the Anglican Church, because she has so
far spoken with solemn authority, decreeing ex cathedra, as far as
she could, that both the Oriental and Western Churches are in error,
the Catholic especially, " not only in their living and manner of
ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith." By rejecting the whole
Church, except her own body, she has thus constituted herself
as that " One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," which she
confesses as often as she recites the Creeds contained in Jier Book of
Common Prayer. Let us then prove her claim by the Scriptural
characteristics of the true Church.
Is she one, indivisible, and indefectible in her doctrine and
discipline ? Here let me premise that it is far from being my desire
to say anything painful to your feelings, or to give expression to any
sentiments that would be considered as wounding charity, but in a
discourse of this kind it would be wrong in me to keep back any
portion of what I believe to be the truth, and necessary for the eluci-
dation of the subject now under treatment.
With respect then to this point, can it be said with any serious-
ness that the Church of England enjoys any unity of opinion
concerning vital points of Faith and Doctrine? What does she teach,
for instance, about the Sacraments, especially of Baptism and the
Holy Eucharist ? It is well known that ever since the Reformation
there have been two or more antagonistic schools of opinion on
the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence in the
Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Altar : the one school being
founded mainly upon the doctrine of the Prayer Book, the other
upon the Articles. In the Book of Common Prayer, Baptismal
Regeneration is unquestionably taught ; but after examining "Articles
of Religion," xxv and xxvii., we see that if they do not directly con-
tradict the Prayer Book, they, at least, so dilute it, that it is impossible
to say what is the dogmatic doctrine on this point.
The difficulty of determining what the Church of England really
holds respecting Baptism, was, without doubt, felt by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in the famous Gorham case. Had
Hi AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
th e doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration been as dogmatically denned
as the dogma respecting the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ,
and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, it
is impossible not to believe that the Judgment of the Court of Final
Appeal would have been very different from what it was. That
this doctrine was evidently felt to be, more or less, an open
question, is evident from the fact, that notwithstanding that the
Convocation of Canterbury has been revived for more than twenty
years, the English Bishops and Clergy have never deemed it
necessary either to protest synodically against the Gorham judg-
ments, or to pronounce judicially the true doctrine of this part
of the Catholic Faith. Upon the question, then, of Baptismal
Regeneration, it is evident that the Church of England is, at least.
not in earnest in maintaining it, in that she allows a difference of
opinion to be taught her children, not certainly to their souls' health.
And this indifference, which has always existed, has led to a depre-
ciation of the other Sacraments, and to the expurgation from her
sacramental system of the Unction of the Sick, which was enjoined
by Apostolic ordinance no less than Confirmation, &c.
Indeed her pronouncement with respect to what some describe as the
minor sacraments, shows this very strongly. " Those five commonly
called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders,
Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacra-
ments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt
following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scrip-
tures." Art. xxv. From this then we learn that the Sacraments of
Confirmation, Penance, and Extreme Unction (for these are not states
of life) are not Sacraments of the Gospel, but a " corrupt following of the
Apostles," the other two being of course " states of life allowed in the
Scriptures." Hence for many years Confirmation, though prescribed,
notwithstanding its being "a corrupt following of the Apostles," in the
Prayer Book, was very seldom if ever administered; and Penance,
for the administration of which a very beautiful form of Absolution is
provided, far stronger in terms than is customarily used in the Roman
Church, fell into universal desuetude till very recently ; and, as I ob-
served above, Unction of the Sick has been entirely abolished as utterly
useless, notwithstanding that S. James the Apostle in his inspired
Epistle commands its observance.
Here we have a contrariety of opinion respecting the value of three
Sacraments, which, if not of the Gospel, are at least of the Apostles ;
and this, after all, is much the same thing. The Article condemns them
as a " corrupt following of the Apostles," and the Prayer Book provides
for the ministration of two of them. Respecting, then, Holy Baptism,
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. liii
Confirmation, and Penance, the Church of England has no very
decided opinion, and she consequently allows her ministers and
people to hold and teach what they please.
But by far the most serious defection of unity is the Anglican
teaching respecting the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. Since
the days of Queen Elizabeth there have existed three streams of tra-
dition, wholly diverse, concerning the Presence of our Lord and the
Sacrifice. One party asserting the Real Presence absolutely under
the form of Bread and Wine, and the oblation to the Father of
the Body and Blood of Christ, under these signs, for the remission of
sins : another party, that the Presence is not real and objective,
but only spiritual and subjective, manifested alone to the worthy
receiver; and that the sacrifice is merely commemorative of what
occurred more than eighteen centuries ago on Calvary. A third party
denies any Real Presence at all objective or subjective the
opinion being that we merely eat and drink the sacramental
elements in remembrance of Christ ; at most they only admit a
Presence by virtue and effect, which, in point of fact, is no Presence
at all.
Now these three sets of opinions respecting one of the most
vital doctrines of Christianity, are allowed advisedly to be held and
taught by the clergy of the Anglican Church ; that is to say, it
is allowable to teach that Christ God and Man is present under
the form of Bread and Wine, in the Eucharist, and, at the same time,
and even in the same church, that He is not present at all : and
that He is offered by the priest to the Father for the remission of
sins ; and again, that no sacrifice at all is offered in the Blessed
Sacrament. In plain words, it is advisedly allowable for the ministry
of the Anglican Church to teach the doctrines both of the Real
Presence and of the Real Absence ; of the Sacrifice of the Altar, and
of no such Sacrifice.
Surely it must be of tremendous importance to any Christian to
know whether Christ is or is not really, truly, and substantially,,
present in the Sacrament; and for this reason, if for no other,
that if He be really present, to decline to bend the knee in adoring
worship is an act of rebellion and contempt of His Majesty ; and if
He be not present, to adore the elements is idolatry. Conceive and
realise the spectacle which is common in every English church in this,
land, of one portion of the congregation adoring a present God, as.
they believe ; and another, equally devout in their way, refusing
adoration on the ground of His not being really present. In all
sincerity, I ask you, Can you imagine a more horrible state of things ?
For many years I have contemplated in my own mind this hideous
llV AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
spiritual phenomenon with horror and amazement, wondering how
any Church could possibly permit such an insult to our Lord (as it
always appeared to me, and does so still) to continue.
But is this diversity and contrariety of doctrine accidental or of
purpose ? Had it been accidental, the late Pan-Anglican Council
would not have lost the opportunity of denouncing it, and of de-
fining, with some precision, what the faithful ought to believe. It is,
however, not accidental, but of set purpose. It is the boast of
Anglicans that their faith is comprehensive, that it includes within
the pale of the Church of God (what are called) all shades of ortho-
dox opinion, to the admittance even of diverse and contrary views
on some of the fundamental verities of our holy religion.
The present Bishop of Ely elaborately explained this, in a speech
he delivered in Convocation in 1868, which met with the evident
approval of all the assembled prelates, of whom not less than sixteen
were present.
"...., To come to the question concerning doctrine, I most
certainly agree with the words of the Bishop of Oxford yesterday,
that it is most undesirable to limit the comprehensive character of
the Church of England, that in all times since the Reformation
people have been allowed to hold extreme doctrines on the one side
and on the other, and I hope most earnestly that the time will never
come when members of the Church of England will not be allowed
to hold extreme doctrines on the one side and on the other. I
think I may venture to explain that. If a clergyman in my diocese
were to write to me and say, ' There is a layman in my parish who
holds the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, and has even a tendency to worship the Blessed Virgin ;
can I admit him to Communion?' my answer would be, ' You cer-
tainly can. He has not rejected the doctrines of the Creeds. He
is a Christian ; though he may be a mistaken Christian. He has not
renounced the communion of the Church, and it is not in your
power to excommunicate him.' "
Thus is the Roman " extreme " permitted to lay-communicants
of the Church of England; but what is the other "extreme?" It is
the rejection, in toto, as damnable heresies, of these doctrines which
may be held without censure by the supposed Romanising Church-
man in the diocese of Ely. This is what is called " comprehensive "
doctrine, which consists in members of the same body being per-
mitted to hold, as De Fide, directly contrary opinions on most vital
points of faith. But further. The Bishop of Ely later on in his
speech, says, " .... It has been said that the Immaculate Con-
ception is an open doctrine in the Church of England. Now, as a
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. lv
Bishop of the Church of England, I am prepared to say that the
Immaculate Conception is a distinct heresy against the Incarnation
and Mediation of our blessed Lord." (Chron. Convocat. Sess. Feb. 19,
1868, pp. 1128, 1131. Rivingtons). So that it is permissible for a
lay-communicant to believe, as very truth, a doctrine which the
Bishop, and the other Bishops who heard him and did not object,
solemnly averred to be a " distinct heresy against the Incarnation
and Mediation of Christ."* This is, indeed, " comprehensiveness ''
run mad; and yet, if we are to interpret the Bishop's language
literally, he would wish that the time should never arrive "when
members of the Church of England should not be allowed to hold
extreme doctrines on the one side and the other," inclusive of one
which he solemnly, " as a Bishop of the Church of England," pro-
nounces to be " a distinct heresy against the Incarnation and
Mediation of Christ." Now this " comprehensiveness " is fatal to
any Church accepting such a principle as the foundation for the truth
which she teaches. Christ sent the Church into the world to teach,
not to speculate ; to enforce obedience, not to allow men to hold
what opinions they please. The Church then which is " compre-
hensive" in her doctrine, permitting "extreme opinions" to be held
"on the one side," and " on the other side," can be no real Church
of Christ, in any sense of the term ; for the instant she admits this
principle as fundamental, she, ipso facto, ceases to be a Church. " I
would that thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art luke-
warm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth."
(Rev. hi. 15, 16.)
The Church of England, then, from the foregoing remarks, and
notably from what has fallen from the Bishop of Ely, that speech bear-
ing the character of a quasi-synodical utterance, is a house divided
against itself : it admits advisedly of contrary opinions, touching the
most vital points of faith, Baptismal Regeneration and no Baptismal
Regeneration ; the Real Presence and the Real Absence ; the Sa-
crifice of the Altar and no Sacrifice; the necessity of Confirmation,
and the opinion that it " is a corrupt following of the Apostles ;"
Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, and the Immaculate Con-
* It is only fair to say that the Bishop draws a distinction between an ordinary
lay-communicant, and one who holds or may hold an ecclesiastical office. But I
confess I do not perceive the distinction. If it is lawful for a lay-communicant to
hold "extreme opinions " on the one side or the other, I do not see why even the
Dean of the Arches should not enjoy this belief. If extremes on both sides are
lawful, all lay-communicants, be they judges, commissaries, or private individuals,
have an equal right to entertain them. If unlawful, then they are unlawful to
all classes.
Ivi AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
ception (" a distinct heresy," according to the Bishop of Ely,
" against the Incarnation and Mediation of Christ"), and, of course,
the reverse of these doctrines. These are what are called the "extremes
of the one side and of the other ; " but between these two ex-
tremes there may be held many " shades of opinion," so that it is
simply impossible for any one to say with certainty, what are
the distinctive doctrines of the Church of England, inasmuch as
Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, Truth and Heresy, have a legitimate
home in the Anglican communion. How, then, can the Anglican
Church meet the Scriptural Test of the true Church of Christ? Is
she one ? No, she is diverse and contrary. Is she undivided ?
Yes, for the present, but at the compromise of Truth ; but when the
foundation on which she now stands shall be removed, then she will
be split up into divers sects, or, what is more probable, her catholic-
minded children will go elsewhere for shelter. Is she indefectible ?
Heresy and Latitudinarianism have possession of most of her high
places, her formularies are contradictory, and her oral teaching is
double and multiform. Is she infallible ? It is simply impossible that
the Holy Ghost can be the author of " extreme doctrines on the one
side " and extreme doctrines " on the other." He is the Spirit of
Truth, and can teach only the Truth. He cannot teach both Truth
and Falsehood. Is she universal? Certainly not, for her aspira-
tions are purely national ; and she is not Apostolic in her doctrine,
inasmuch as one half of her teaching never came from the Holy
Apostles. You cannot then honestly say that the Church of England
represents the Church of the Bible : for remember that Church pos-
sesses, by solemn promise, the Holy Ghost as her perpetual Para-
clete, whose commission is to guide her into all Truth, bringing to
her recollection all that Christ ever said to the Apostles : and a
Church which advisedly admits " comprehensiveness " of doctrine,
which is another word for misbelief if not total unbelief, cannot be,
in any sense of the term, representative of that Church. It is, I con-
tend, impossible, if the words of Christ are to be believed. The con-
clusion, then, with respect to the Anglican Communion, at which
you cannot fail to arrive, after careful and unprejudiced considera-
tion, is, that she fails under the searching tests supplied by Holy
Scripture for the discernment of Churches.
2. The Greek Church fares but little better than the English
communion. She possesses no real unity, for she is' split up into a
variety of communions, known as Orthodox, Copt, Nestorian, &c.,
which have distinct and separate Hierarchies. She has long ceased,
as just shown, to be indivisible; and she .cannot claim indefecti-
bility, seeing that almost all her sacred Thrones have been at divers
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. Ivii
times defiled by fearful heresies, even to the denial of the Lord
Jesus Christ. Even now she is heretical respecting the doctrine
of the holy and undivided Trinity, in that she refuses to confess
that the Eternal Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Infal-
libility she, in consequence of these heresies, cannot claim; uni-
versality she has not, for she has never merged beyond her ancient
dominion ; and as for Apostolicity, though many of her great sees
were founded by the Apostles, they have frequently departed from
Apostolic teaching. The Eastern communion no less than the
Church of England fails under the Scriptural Tests.
3. We have now to consider the claim of that great Church
known as the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church ; even
that Communion which both Anglican and Greek have rejected on
the ground of heresy.
Among all the Churches there is none so remarkable for her Unity
as the Roman Catholic communion. So perfect is her Unity, that
it is the marvel as well as the envy of the world. Her unity in
organization is perfect : the whole of her vast Hierarchy is con-
sistent in all and every part ; and each rank and grade is thoroughly
subordinate to that which is superior in the order of its constitution.
Every Priest regards his Bishop as his spiritual Lord ; every Bishop
recognises his Metropolitan as his Chief; every Metropolitan his
Patriarch (where there is such) ; and every Patriarch, together with all
Archbishops, Metropolitans, Bishops, Pastors, Deacons, Subdeacons,
and other ministers, and the whole body of the Faithful, is subject
to the Pope, as the Successor of S. Peter in the See of Rome. Her
unity, too, in Faith is faultless. In every part of the world, where
she has subjects, she teaches the same faith, the same doctrine ; she
worships after the same form, and she enforces everywhere an uni-
formity of discipline. Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Concep-
tion, Purgatory, &c. &c., no less than the doctrines of the Holy and
undivided Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, &c., are taught
with precision in every Cathedral, Minster, Church, and Chapel, sin
every part of the world ; in the North and in the South, in the East
and in the West ; in the Old World and in the New ; in the land we
inhabit, and its antipodes. In all that concerns the Faith, there is no
faltering in the utterances of her Bishops and Priests ; her trumpet
blows no uncertain sound ; her blast is loud, full, and sonorous, and
is heard in every -region under the sun. The citadel of Truth,
planted on the tops of the mountains, even upon the seven-hilled
city, is as "a city set upon an hill," which is visible to all, and is by
all the Faithful regarded as their sacred metropolis, from which truth
and holiness derive their source. This marvellous unity is not a
Iviii AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
mere accident, the result of favourable circumstances ; it is not an
unity of the day only, it is one which has been a most remarkable
feature in the Roman Catholic Church, (and by this term I mean the
whole Church in union with Rome), from the very beginning of
Christianity. During the primitive ages of bloody persecution under
the heathen Emperors, and subsequently under their Christian suc-
cessors, both in the East and in the West ; during the dominancy
of Arianism and its kindred heresies ; during the glorious middle
ages, when Faith was in the ascendant ; during the time subsequent
to the ecclesiastical revolution in the sixteenth century ; in the pre-
sent half-infidel age, this Holy Church has ever preserved her Di-
vine Unity unsullied, teaching, through good report and evil report,
amid the crash of empires and the fall of particular Churches, " the
same thing," ever being " joined together in the same mind and in
the same judgment." Truly her Unity is marvellous, and well may
Churches and communions envy the Holy Roman Church her
glorious unity. And she is as indefectible as she is one. No
heresy has ever obtained possession of the Chair of S. Peter at
Rome. Every one of the Apostolic Thrones of the Church, except
S. Peter's at Rome, has been defiled with deadly heresy. The
Apostolic thrones of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and the epi-
scopal throne of Constantinople, have all, in their day, denied the
saving truths of the Gospel, at one time denying the Divinity of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and at another the integrity of His human
nature, and even to this day, as above said, refusing to confess
the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the eternal Son ; thus
showing how the influence of Arianism still has possession of these
ancient Apostolic Thrones. And in like manner in the extreme West
of Europe, the venerable throne of S. Augustine of Canterbury has
long yielded to the alluring pleasure of profane speculation ; for her
Prelates (let us admit for the sake of argument that they are Bishops)
have by turns held every heretical opinion, short of denying the Lord
Jesus Christ. But no heresy has ever obtained possession, even for a
moment, of the Throne of S. Peter at Rome. Not a single Pope has
ever been a heretic. Several Popes may have erred through fear, as
Liberius, or may have for the moment been deceived by the subtle lucu-
brations of heretics (for in craft and subtlety heretics are peculiarly
fertile) ; and some may have delivered erroneous judgments on matters
of discipline ; but not a single Pope, from S. Peter till the present day,
has ever, when pronouncing ex cathedra, and in the full enjoyment
of his individual liberty, and when fully informed of all the circum-
stances of any particular case or cause submitted to his judgment,
erred in any matters involving the doctrine of Faith. The Church
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. lix
of Rome has never faltered in her Faith, as the Oriental and
Anglican Churches have done, on any one point of the Catholic
Faith. The whole doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the
Divine and Human Natures of our Lord in one Person, and the
Atonement, have ever been fully taught and enforced in that Church.
S. Athanasius the Great, in the midst of his persecutions, found a
home in the Roman Church ; S. Celestine, by S. Cyril, whom he
appointed as his Vicar for the purpose, deposed Nestorius, and
affirmed the doctrine of the hypostatic union, and S. Leo the Great
condemned the Eutychian heresy. And equally, in modern times,
we find the Roman Church true and orthodox respecting the Faith
of Christ. As in ancient times the Oriental communions erred re-
specting the doctrine of the Incarnation ; so in modern times, in the
Western parts, we observe how grievous error has arisen concerning
the Sacramental System, which is the extension of the Incarnation.
As the East formerly denied Christ as God and man, so in these
latter days certain Western Churches repudiate Him in His Sacra-
ments. The Roman Church, instead of yielding to misbelief and error,
loudly proclaimed the reality of our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist ;
and as she, with the Fathers of old, pronounced that the Son of
God was consubstantial with the Father, when men denied His
Godhead, so has she, in these latter days, affirmed the dogma of
Transubstantiation, to exclude from her communion all who should
presume to assert that the words " This is My Body," " This is My
Blood," are not to be taken according to their literal signification.
And in the same manner as regards the Immaculate Conception ; in
the early ages the East denied, implicitly at least, and by con-
sequence, that Blessed Mary was the Mother of God, and in these
modern times, in the West, men have endeavoured to depreciate her
character, to lower her dignity in the scale of creation, reducing her
to a mere instrument for bringing forth the Lord of Glory, and even
to deny her Virginity before and after the Incarnation : hence it
was that the Holy Roman Church, with the vast majority of her
Bishops, with the Pope at their head, with characteristic instinct, pro-
claimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Well, but you
will say, these are new dogmas. Doubtless the dogmas may be new,
but the doctrines they teach are as old as the Apostles. They are
not newer in principle than the dogma of Consubstantiality which has
been received by all Christians. If it is unlawful to promulge any
new dogma now, it was equally wrong for the Church of the fourth
century to pronounce the decree of the Consubstantiality of the
Eternal Son. You will probably add that the Consubstantiality of
the Son was at least a Scriptural doctrine; I would reply, that
Ix AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
Transubstantiation possesses an equal Scriptural basis. The words,
" This is My Body," " This is My Blood," involve this dogma, just
as much, if not more so, as " the Word was God," justified the term
Consubstantial in respect to our Lord's Divine Nature. So also in
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there are direct and
indirect Scriptural proofs for it. The Angelic salutation involves it;
and it is manifest that there are only two persons mentioned in Holy
Writ as " Full of Grace," the one was our Lord Jesus Christ
(S. John, i. 14), and the other was His own Divine Mother, the
Blessed Virgin Mary. No other persons are described as being
" Full of Grace," and this expression involves absolute perfection
from the very beginning of existence. Indeed Dr. Pusey, in his
recent work, almost admits this doctrine, for he says, " For no one
who thinks can well doubt that as much (if not more) was vouchsafed
to the Mother of his Redeemer, as was granted to Jeremiah or
S. John the Baptist, Since, then, they were, according to Holy
Scripture, sanctified in their mother's womb, it is intrinsically pro-
bable that so was the Blessed Virgin, because she had a nearness to
our Lord, such as no other created being could have. Although this
(as some of the older of these [Fathers] who maintain it say) is not
stated in Holy Scripture, it seems almost involved in the belief as to
Jeremiah and S. John the Baptist, which is so contained." (Eirenicon,
Pt. \\.p. 392.)
So you see how earnest and energetic the Roman Church has
ever been in defence of the Faith, of the Incarnation, of the
Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son, of Transubstantiation in the
Eucharist, and of the Divine Motherhood of Blessed Mary. It is
impossible to show that, in any one point touching the Faith, the
Church of Rome has ever admitted heresy to be taught. Her
indefectibility, then, is as invulnerable as her Unity.
She is also indivisible : to this hour her communion has never been
divided into hostile sects. All who have held the Catholic Faith in
its fulness and integrity, have ever remained in visible communion
with the Holy See. The Orientals fell away through their heresies,
and notably through that heresy which to this time terribly sullies their
orthodoxy ; and, latterly, certain Westerns in England and Germany,
who have erred in many particulars: but the fall of Churches
does not divide Unity. S. Irenaeus says, "that the Church, which is the
salt of the earth, has been left on the earth's confines, suffering what
is human ; and while entire members are often rent from it, still it
continues a statue of salt (in allusion to Lot's wife), that is, the ground
of faith, confirming and forwarding the sons to their Father."
(Adv. Hceres. 1. iv. c. xxxi. n. 3. /. 269.) S. Cyprian says, " that the
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. Ixi
Church is not without, nor can it be separate nor divided against itself,
but that it preserves the unity of an inseparable and undivided house,
the testimony of divine Scripture manifests." (Ep. Ixxvi. Ad Magnum,
p. 151.) And again, "The Spouse of Christ cannot become adul-
terous, she is undented and chaste. She owns but one home ; with
spotless purity she guards the sanctity of one chamber ; she keeps us
for God ; she appoints unto a Kingdom the sons that she has born.
Whosoever, having separated from the Church is joined to an adul-
teress, is cut off from the promises of Christ. Neither shall he come
unto the rewards of Christ, who leaves the Church of Christ. He is
an alien, he is profane, he is an enemy. He can no longer have
God for a Father who has not the Church for his mother
And does any one believe that this Unity, thus proceeding from the
divine immutability and cohering in heavenly sacraments, can be
rent asunder in the Church, and be split by the divorce of antagonist
wills ? . . . Because Christ's people cannot be rent, His tunic,
woven and conjoined throughout, was not divided by those to whom it
fits." (De Unitate, p. 196.) Many testimonies can be added to show
that the Church cannot be divided and rent asunder. Indeed one
great Father affirms that heretics do not rend the Church, but they
rend themselves. Now the Church of Rome, notwithstanding the
loss of the Oriental and Anglican Communions, is not divided nor
rent : they separated themselves from her, and so ceased to be in her
communion, but she herself remains whole and entire as she was
before. She is as indivisible as a tree which has lost some ot
its branches, and as a body which has suffered the amputation of a
leg or an arm. This Church then possesses, to its full perfection, the
characteristic of indivisibility.
She is, too, as infallible as she is one, indivisible, and indefectible :
indeed the acquisition of these three characteristics necessarily proves
that she is infallible ; for if she is, and always has been, one, indi-
visible, and indefectible, how can she be otherwise than infallible in
her teaching? A Church which has never faltered in her faith,
which from the days of S. Peter has always taught the same truth
respecting Christ and His Sacraments, and has never contradicted
herself in any matter whatever of Faith, how can it be said that she is
not infallible? Her consistency in all ages in defence of Truth,
the perfect unanimity which has always prevailed concerning any
Article of the Catholic Creed, and the wonderful submission of the
whole body of the Faithful to her decrees as soon as pronounced by
the highest authority, show clearly enough that infallibility of teaching
is a very strong characteristic of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Certainly no other Church ever exhibited in such marked perfection
Ixii AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
these characteristics. The Oriental Churches and the Anglican
Communions, as has been already shown, have not preserved their
unity and indefectibility unsullied, and consequently the gift of
infallibility cannot be with them. Indeed they do not claim it for
themselves, which they certainly would if they were conscious they
possessed it; but the Roman Church does claim it for herself, because
she holds that the Catholic Church is composed of the Apostolic
See, together with all the Bishops, Priests, and Faithful in 'commu-
nion with her. And this innate consciousness goes a long way to
prove, coupled with the fact that she has ever preserved her unity
and her indefectibility, that she verily and indeed does possess the
gift of infallibility in all that concerns the Catholic Faith.
The universality of the Roman Church is, as all must admit,
indisputable. Neither the Greek nor the Anglican Churches claim
to exercise jurisdiction over the whole world. The Church of Rome
claims universal jurisdiction in every country where there are baptized
members of Christ, and she exhibits her universality by establishing
everywhere her Hierarchy. Not only in Italy, but in all Western
Europe, in the East, in Asia, in Africa, in America, in Australia,
and in the Islands of the Sea, her Hierarchy and her Priesthood are
to be found. She is the only one of the Churches which can say
that she has for her dominion " all peoples, nations, and languages."
The Apostolicity of the Church of Rome has been virtually
proved by the fact that she possesses all the former characteristics
which Scripture supplies us for discerning the true Church. It is in
vain for persons to deny that her constitution as a Church, her form
of doctrine, her manner of worship, and her code of discipline, are not
Apostolic. Her essential doctrine and worship, and her principles
of discipline, have never undergone any change. The symbol of
Faith may vary from time to time as the exigencies of the Church
demand : when heresies arise, definitions drawn up with precision
may become necessary in order to preserve that Faith whole and un-
defiled : canons of discipline may, from time to time, be altered to suit
the requirements of different ages, and even the ceremonials of Churches
may not always be the same ; but the Truth is ever the same in all
its full integrity. Dogmas may develop the Faith as once delivered to
the Saints, but it continues what it ever has been, Apostolic. The Church
of Rome has, as I have already said, never changed her faith ; her
doctrine at this day is identical in essence with that which was held
in the age of the Apostles ; so likewise of the Immaculate Concep-
tion of the Blessed Virgin, Transubstantiation, and the Consub-
stantiality of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Those who
deny that the Church of Rome is Apostolical in her foundation and
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. Ixiii
doctrine, endeavour to explain away the statements contained in
Holy Writ, which contain the full germ of every Dogma the Church
of Rome has ever promulged. If they can establish the non-
existence of these germs of doctrine, then, of course, the super-
structure must fall to the ground. They must get rid by fair argument
of the words, " Thou art Peter," &c., " Hail, thou that art full of
grace," "This is My Body," "This is My Blood," &c., &c., before
they can prove that the Dogmas of Rome are not Apostolic in
their foundation.
I think I have now demonstrated that of the three Churches,
the Anglican, the Greek, and the Roman, the last named is the only
one that can meet the Scripture tests of the true Church of Christ,
with any success. The Anglican Church breaks down utterly when we
apply the test of unity, indivisibility, and indefectibility and hence
she is neither infallible in her teaching, nor Apostolic in her foundation.
Nor does she lay claim to be the Universal Church, which she is
bound to do, if she persists in her rejection of the Roman and Greek
Church on the ground of error. The Greek Church fails, too ; for
she has, over and over again, been guilty of most fearful heresies
concerning the true nature of our Lord ; and even now, as observed
above, she is heretical touching the doctrine of the Holy and
Undivided Trinity. The Roman Church alone, to the exclusion
of all Churches out of her communion, is properly one, indivisible,
and indefectible, for she has never for an instant admitted any heresy
to defile her glorious Apostolic Throne; she has never failed in-
fallibly to proclaim the whole Truth without reserve ; she has ever
aspired to be universal, claiming all the earth for her dominion ; and
she has never forfeited her title to be Apostolic in her Faith, her
Doctrines, her Worship, and her Discipline.
What, then, is the conclusion which we are forced, by logical
necessity, to accept ? If all other Churches have failed to endure
the Scripture tests of a true Church, and if the Roman Church can
fearlessly submit with success to this tremendous ordeal, what other
conclusion can we arrive at, than that she alone is the Church of
Christ ; that she alone is the Catholic Church ; that she alone is the
Tabernacle and Ark of the Holy Ghost, who rules and governs
her, speaking through her constituted authorities, bringing to her
recollection all that Christ ever revealed to His Apostles ; Christ who
is the centre of her marvellous unity, the fountain of her wonderful
indivisibility, the maintainer of her extraordinary indefectibility, the
true source of her ineffable infallibility, the Divine cause of her
glorious universality of dominion, and the power by which she ever
remains fixed upon her Apostolic foundation ?
Ixiv AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
I repeat, then, that if we apply to all the Churches those charac-
teristics of the true Church which Holy Scripture describes, the Holy
Roman Catholic communion is the only one that can with any
success submit to the ordeal ; and, therefore, I conclude that, ac-
cording to the doctrine of Scripture, she alone, to the exclusion of
all others out of her pale, is that true Church of Christ, even that
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which was founded upon
S. Peter alone, and afterwards upon S. Peter and all the Apostles.
V.
ROME IS THE NORMAL CHURCH.
But why is it that the Holy Roman Church is the only Church that
is really one, indivisible, indefectible, infallible, universal, and Apo-
stolic ? It is because, as will be demonstrated more particularly in
the body of my Work, she is the Normal Church ; and that by Divine
appointment.
This, I believe, was the subject of Prophecy; it was foretold that
a Stone, cut without hands from the mountain of Sion, would descend
upon Pagan Rome, and would destroy that Power, take posses-
sion of it, and from thence would grow into a Universal Spiritual
Empire, which should " never be destroyed/' but which should
" stand for ever." That Stone was Christ, and, in a secondary sense,
His Vicar S. Peter, whom He surnamed Cephas, and created a
Rock, upon whom He founded His Church, delivering to him the keys
of jurisdiction and authority, commending to his care the Faith of
the Apostles, and entrusting to his guardianship the nourishment of
His sheep and lambs. This great Apostle came to the capital of the
world, and there, in conjunction with S. Paul, founded and consti-
tuted the Roman Church, wherein he erected his Cathedra, or
Chair, and thus made her the Presiding and Ruling Church. Thus
she became the Normal Church ; the " Mother," " the Root," and
" the Matrix" of the Universal Church, as S. Cyprian said ; the
source of Unity, as the same Father witnessed ; the fountain of all
the rights of venerable communion, as S. Ambrose and the Council
of Aquileia declared; in which, as S. Augustine wrote, the Prince-
dom of the Apostolical Chair has ever been in force. It is in con-
sequence of this fact, for, let people say what they will, it is a fact
as certainly ascertained as any other fact in history that the Church
of Rome is pre-eminently the Catholic Church, and hence is she
the legitimate heir of all the royalties of Christ ; the inheritor f all
AN INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE. Ixv
the sacred promises of perpetual Unity, Indivisibility, and Inde-
fectibility, and of the divine gift of her ever indwelling Paraclete.
To this Church the dominion of the world has been conceded, for in
the heart of her Empire is located the Presiding Chair of S. Peter,
to which all Chairs are subject.
It is the object of the Work, to which this Epistle is introductory
to prove what I have asserted. Whether I have made out my case,
it is for you, so far as you are yourself concerned, to determine.
What I ask of you is this, that you will read what I have written
with care and attention, and without prejudice ; for, remember,
it is an article of faith in the Church to which you are attached,
as well as in that to which I have now the happiness to belong, that
out of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. It is for you, after
having read the evidence which I have collected, to say, whether the
Catholic Church consists of the three divided Churches (the gates of
hell having so far prevailed to destroy the building Christ instituted),
or of that one Church which Christ has founded upon the Rock Peter,
against which He promised, upon His most sacred word, that " the
gates of hell shall not prevail."
Your most affectionate ,
COLIN LINDSAY.
ERRATA.
PAGE
25. Under " S. Firmilian," for 231 read 257.
30. In the "Comment," line 10, col. i,for for read from.
38. Line 15, col. i, for Choir razaf Chair.
107. Line 38, <%/0?r be zj^r/ to.
126. In " Comment" on S. Chrysostom, line I, col. 2, for the read that.
137. In " S. Cyprian," line 18, col. 2, and p. 141, in "Comment," lines 33,
36, 42, col. 2, for Apostolic read sacerdotal.
1 60. Line 29, col. 2, for Church read Rock.
172. Line 45,^07- Revelations read Revelation.
183. Line 8, col. i,for canon read canons.
187. Line 16, col. 2, after required insert a semicolon.
Line 17, col. 2, omit the parentheses.
195. Line 14, col. i,for Bishop read Bishops.
196. Line 43, col. 2, between the and blessed insert voice of the.
276. Line i,for every Catholic is read all Catholics are.
FIRST INQUIRY.
I. WHETHER S. PETER WAS APPOINTED BY CHRIST TO
BE HIS VICAR AND THE SUPREME GOVERNOR OF
THE CHURCH.
PART I. HOLY SCRIPTURE.
I. THE PROPHECY.
(i.) Vision of Nebuchadnezzar.
" Thou, O king, sawest, and be-
hold a great image. This great
image, whose brightness was ex-
cellent, stood before thee ; and the
form thereof was terrible.
" This image's head was of fine
gold,
his breast and arms of silver,
his belly and his thighs of brass,
his legs of iron, his feet part of
iron and part of clay.
(2.) Vision of Daniel.
" I saw in my vision by night,
and, behold, the four winds of the
heaven strove upon the great sea.
And four great beasts came up from
the sea, diverse one from another.
" The first was like a lion, and
had eagle's wings : I beheld till the
wings thereof were plucked, and it
was lifted up from the earth, and
made stand upon the feet as a man,
and a man's heart was given to it.
"And behold another beast, a
second, like to a bear, and it raised
up itself on one side, and it had
three ribs in the mouth of it between
the teeth of it : and they said thus
unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
" After this I beheld, and lo ano-
ther, like a leopard, which had
upon the back of it four wings of
a fowl ; the beast had also four
heads ; [and dominion was given
to it.
" After this I saw in the night
visions, and behold a fourth beast,
dreadful and terrible, and strong
exceedingly ; and it had great iron
teeth : it devoured and brake in
pieces, and stamped the residue
with the feet of it : and it was
diverse from all the beasts that
were before it ; and it had ten
horns .
2 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
" Thou sawest till that a Stone * " I saw in the night visions,
was cut out without hands, which and, behold, one like the Son of Man
smote the image upon his feet that came with the clouds of heaven,
were of iron and clay, and brake and came to the Ancient of days,
them to pieces. Then was the iron, and they brought Him near before
the clay, the brass, the silver, and the Him. And there was given Him
gold, broken to pieces together, and dominion, and glory, and a king-
became like the chaff of the sum- dom, that all people, nations, and
mer threshingfloors ; and the wind languages, should serve Him : His
carried them away, that no place dominion is an everlasting domin-
was found for them : and the Stone ion, which shall not pass away,
that smote the image became a and His kingdom that which shall
great mountain, and filled the whole not be destroyed." (Dan.vii. 2-14.)
earth." (Dan. ii. 31-35.)
' '
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FIFTH EMPIRE, 2>., THE CHURCH.
" And in the days of these kings " I saw in the night visions," as
shall the God of heaven set up a above,
kingdom, which shall never be de-
stroyed : and the kingdom shall not
be left to other people, but it shall
break in pieces and consume all
these kingdoms, and it shall stand
for ever. Forasmuch as thou saw-
est that the Stone was cut out of
the mountain without hands, and
that it brake in pieces the iron,
the brass, the clay, the silver, and
the gold ; the great God hath made
known to the king what shall come
to pass hereafter : and the dream
is certain, and the interpretation
thereof sure." (Ib. 44, 45.)
OBSERVATIONS.
Historical facts prove demonstratively, that this prophecy has long
ago begun to be fulfilled, (i.) From Nebuchadnezzar till the coming of
Christ there have been, no more and no less, than four universal Empires,
viz., Babylon; Medo-Persia, which conquered Babylon; Macedonia, under
* I have omitted verses 8-12, as the prophecy therein contained refers to the
last age of the world, and to the Second Advent. Compare this with Rev. i. 13-15*
and with verse 7, which states the period when the Apocalyptic prophecy will
begin to be fulfilled. The fact of the erection of the kingdom of God, by our
Lord (see S. Luke, xxii. 29), proves that Daniel's prophecy of the "Stone," and of
the everlasting Empire of Christ, has been fulfilled, and is still fulfilling.
SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE. 3
Alexander the Great; and the Roman Empire.* (2.) At the time of Christ's
appearance on earth, the Empire of Rome consisted of the dominions of
the above-mentioned kingdoms, and, in addition, of Western Europe, i.e.
the image in its full stature and development of power, glory, and excel-
lence. (3.) When the Stone, i.e., the Son of Man, smote the capital of Rome
(the legs and feet of theimage) this colossal Empire first tottered, declined,
and then was absolutely annihilated ; the four kingdoms as comprised
under the Empire, "the wind carried away, that no place was found for
them." (4.) It is a fact that the Roman Empire, as a polity, no longer exists
in any form, and its metropolis has for ages ceased to be the capital of
any civil state. The Stone, which smote the great Roman Head, remained
where it fell, and it has grown into a great Mountain, and filled the whole
earth ; i.e., it has become a great universal spiritual Empire, the centre of
which is ecclesiastical Rome. S. Cyprian, in allusion to certain persons
taking letters to Rome, says, they dared to carry them " to the chair of
Peter, and to the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood
took its rise." (Ep. lix. ad Cornel. Libr. Fathers,//. 164, 165.)
The prophecy, however, points to further events connected with the
last phase of this world's history which it is necessary to notice. The
Apocalypse informs us that the beast, out of whose head will arise the
ten horns, and among them the little horn (i.e., the Man of Sin and Anti-
christ), will be an empire composed of the symbolic leopard, the bear,
and the lion ; i.e., as I apprehend, the Macedonian Empire, with its
former Asiatic conquests of Babylon and Medo- Persia. Rome and the
West are apparently excluded from this prophecy; and the reason of
this seems to be, that Rome is consecrated to be the capital of Christen-
dom, for it is there where the Stone smote the Fourth Empire and
reduced it to ruin, and from thence it grew into a great Mountain,
filling the whole earth. And it was further predicted that the dominion
of Christ, as symbolized by this Stone, would be " an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away," and a kingdom "which shall not be destroyed."
Rome, then, the seat of the Empire of Christ, will remain, notwithstanding,
possibly, many temporary vicissitudes, the property of the Church, until
" the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
2. THE STONE CUT WITHOUT HANDS.
(I.) THE STONE is CHRIST.
"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The Stone
which the builders rejected, the same is become the Head of the corner :
this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes ? Therefore say
I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this
* See S. Jerome in Dan. T. iii. pp. 1081-1082 ; also S. Chrysost. in Dan.
T. vi. /. 212, &c.; also Dr. Pusey's Daniel, pp. 60-67.
4 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
Stone shall be broken : but on whomsoever It shall fall, It will grind him
to powder." (S. Matt. xxi. 42-44 ; see Acts, iv. n ; I Pet. ii. 4-8.)
"And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,
Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone." (Eph. ii. 20.)
(2.) THE ROCK is CHRIST.
"And that Rock was Christ." (i Cor. x. 4 ; see also Deut. xxxii. 15,
1 8, 30, 31 ; 2 Sam. xxii. 47 ; Ps. xviii. 2 ; xlii. 9, &c.)
(3.) THE STONE is S. PETER.
"And He brought him (Peter) to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him,
He said, Thou art jSimon the son of Jona : thou shalt be called Cephas,
which is by interpretation, A stone" (risTgo?). (S. John, i. 42.)
(4.) THE ROCK is S. PETER.
" And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (a rock), and upon
this (the) rock I will build My church ; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven." (S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19.)
(5.) THE JASPER STONE.
" And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain,
and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of
heaven from God, having the glory of God : and her light was like unto
a Stone most precious, even like a jasper stone,* clear as crystal . . . And
the wall of the city had Twelve Foundations, and in them the names of
the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb .... And the building of the wall of
it was of jasper : and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all
manner of precious stones. The First Foundation was jasper; the
Second, sapphire ; the Third, a chalcedony ; the Fourth, an emerald ; the
Fifth, sardonyx ; the Sixth, sardius ; the Seventh, chrysolyte ; the Eighth,
beryl ; the Ninth, a topaz ; the Tenth, a chrysoprasus ; the Eleventh, a
jacinth ; the Twelfth, an amethyst." (Rev. xxi. 10-20.)
OBSERVATIONS.
i. The typical Stone that smote the head of the Roman Empire
has evidently a double signification ; first, it represents the Son of
Man, Jesus Christ the Stone rejected by the builders ; and secondarily,
* "I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and One sat
on the throne. And He that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone."
(Rev. iv- 2, 3).
SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE. 5
Simon Bar-jona, who was called a Stone by Christ, and afterwards
surnamed Peter, a rock. Thus did Christ name him after Himself the true
Rock and the true Stone, pointing him out thereby as His Representative
and Vicar ; the foundation of the Church, and the source of Unity.
2. The Stone which struck the image " became a great Mountain and
filled the whole earth." S. John saw in a vision the great walled city which
crowned the summit of this " great Mountain," doubtless in its ultimate
glory and beauty, subsequent to the period of Antichrist. This he
describes under the metaphor of precious stones. Of the Twelve Stones,
one is pre-eminent and predominant, viz. the Jasper. This Stone is the
symbol (i) of Christ The Stone ; (2) of S. Peter, also the Stone ; and
(3) of the city wall, of which material it is exclusively built, none of the
precious Stones, emblematic of the other Apostles, having any share what-
ever in its composition.
The Stone, then, that was cut out of the Mountain of Sion, without
hands, was primarily our Lord, who sent His chief Apostle, also called the
Stone (who, like Himself, was symbolised by the Jasper), even S. Peter
to Rome, who there established the kingdom of God, which has since
grown into a great Mountain, filling the whole earth.*
The Stone which the builders rejected fell on the legs of the image of
Nebuchadnezzar, even Rome, and ground it to powder.
II. THE DIVINE COMMISSION.
i. OF THE APOSTLES.
(i.) As Priests. " This do in remembrance of me." (S. Luke, xxii. 19.)
(2.) As Kings. " I appoint unto you a Kingdom, as My Father hath ap-
pointed unto Me." (Ib. 29). (3.) As Judges. " Whosesoever sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are
retained." (S. John, xx. 23.) And (4.) As Evangelists. " Go ye into all
the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," " teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo ! I am
with you alway, even to the end of the world. Amen." (S. Mark, xvi. 15 ;
S. Matt, xxviii. 20.)
2. OF S. PETER.
" And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church : and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And
* The story of S. Peter meeting our Lord at the gate when leaving Rome to
escape the persecution, throws some light on this mystery. S. Peter said to Christ,
on His entering the gate, " Whither art Thou going?" To which He replied, " I
am coming hither to be crucified again." He was crucified again at Rome in
the person of his servant, S. Peter. The Stone that was rejected at Jerusalem was
again to be rejected at Rome, in the person of him whom he had surnamed
" the Stone." There is a great mystery in this Stone. See Milner's Church
History, who credits this story. Vol. i. pp. 99, 100.
6 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (S. Matt. xvi.
1 8, 19.)
" And I appoint unto you a Kingdom, as My Father hath appointed
unto Me : that ye may eat and drink at My table in My Kingdom, and
sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 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 thee, that thy faith fail not : and
when thou art converted, Strengthen* thy brethren." (S. Luke, xxii.
29-32.)
"Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more
than these ? He saith to Him, Yea, Lord ; Thou knowestthat I love Thee.
He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith unto him again the second
time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me ? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord ;
Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He
saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me ? Peter
was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me ?
And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things ; Thou knowest that
I love Thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. w t (S. John, xxi.
* It is important to notice the real force of this word " Strengthen." The verb
igu is almost always used in the New Testament in connection with the gifts of
grace. " For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to
the end ye may be established," o-Tjj^^va/ (Rom. i. n) : in the same manner as
regards S. Timothy, who was sent to the Thessalonians to establish or confirm
(ffrn^a.i) their faith, (i Thess. iii. 2.) It is used also for grace received direct from
Christ, as in Rom. xvi. 25 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17 ; and iii. 3. The verb a-rn^ea signifies
to prop, to support, to make fixed or firm. The commission then given to S.
Peter, as the Head of the viceroys of God's kingdom, was to perform the function
of confirming, or fixing immovably the faith of his brethren, the Apostles ; impart-
ing to them that gift or grace of Strength, which he (S. Peter), as the Rock appointed
by God, received from Him (the true Rock) for that end. For which purpose Christ
said to S. Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." By S. Peter's
immovable faith he was to be the prop, support, and the sustainer of his brethren,
the Apostles.
t Much stress is laid upon the circumstance that several of the Fathers say,
that our Lord was merely testing S. Peter's fidelity ; for, as he had three times
denied Him, so he was three times to confess his love and attachment to Him. But
this does not in the least degree touch the question at issue. It has always been
the custom of God to try His servants before calling them to any great work.
Abraham was tried, and found faithful. Blessed Mary's faith was tried, and she
believed. The Apostles were tried, when Christ said to them, "Whom say ye
that I am?" S. Peter alone answered, whom He had predestined to become the
Rock, and to receive the Keys. And now our Lord, just before His departure,
intending to complete His work of organizing the Church, and of appointing one in
His place as Chief Shepherd, tried S. Peter's love ; and after each confession of
his love, delivered to his special care the lambs and sheep of the Church.
SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE. 7
3. THE STATER AND THE Two SHIPS.
" And when they (Christ and His Apostles) were come to Capernaum,
they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your
Master pay tribute ? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the
house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon ? of
whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute ? of their own
children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto Him, Of strangers. Jesus
saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest We
should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the
fish that first cometh up ; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou
shalt find a piece of money (stater) : that take, and give unto them for
Me and thee."* (S. Matt. xvii. 24-27.)
" And it came to pass, that as the people pressed upon Him to hear
the word of God, He stood by the lake of Gennesaret, and saw two ships
standing by the lake : but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were
washing their nets. And He entered into one of the ships, which was
Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land.
And He sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. Now when He
had left speaking, He said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and
let down your nets for a draught. And Simon answering said unto Him,
Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing : never-
theless at Thy word I will let down the net. And when they had this
done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes : and their net brake. And
they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they
* There are three points to be noticed here. ( I ) The tax-gatherers recognised
S. Peter as our Lord's steward or agent, and they accost him, saying, " Doth not
your Master pay tribute ?" (2) Our Lord directed S. Peter to extract a stater out of
the fish's mouth ; and added (3) " That take and give unto them for Me and thee."
Why "Me and thee," and not also the other Apostles, who were with Him? or if they
did not lodge with Him, then the position of S. Peter is stronger in relation to our
Lord, still more intimate, inasmuch as he of all the rest was selected to be nearest
His Person. "Me and thee," then, identifies the two, the Master and the Chief
Servant ; the Householder and the Steward ; the Principal and His Delegate. Origen
has some remarkable observations on this passage. "Jesus having assigned a
reason for paying the tribute-money, sends Peter to draw out with the hook a fish,
in the mouth of which He declares a stater would be found, to be given for Himself
and Peter. It seems, therefore, to me, that they, considering this to be the greatest
honour to Peter on the part of Jesus, as judging him greater than the rest of
the disciples (xgimvras airov fniovet <ruv '/.oifuv yvu^i^eav), wished to ascertain clearly
that which they fancied ; and they accordingly inquired, in order to learn from Jesus
whether, as they suspected, He had separated Peter as greater than they; and
they at the same time, hoped to know the cause of Peter's having been preferred
before the rest." (T. iii. Comment, in Matt. Tom. xiii. n. 14, pp. 588, 589.) Whether
Origen's reasoning is sound may be a question, but the point in his comment,
so far as our subject is concerned, appears to be this, viz., that it was believed
that our Lord intended by this incident to show, how exalted was to be S. Peter'
position in the household of God. Doubtless the "We," and "Me and thee"
express relationship of the very closest and most intimate nature, implying that S.
Peter held a position next to the very Person of his Lord.
8 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships,
so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at
Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me ; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the
fishes which they had taken : and so was also James and John, the sons
of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto
Simon, Fear not ; from henceforth thou shalt catch men."* (S. Luke,
v. i-io).
III. S. PETER RECOGNISED AS THE HEAD OF THE APOSTLES.
i. ON THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW APOSTLE.
" AND in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and
said, . . . Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled,
which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning
Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. [Describing Judas' death,
he continues] : Wherefore of these men which have companied with
us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, ... must
one be ordained to be a witness with us of His Resurrection. And they
appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and
Matthias. And they prayed and said, &c. . . . And they gave forth their
lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven
Apostles."f (Acts, i. 15-26.)
* Nothing could be more pointed or more marked than our Lord's preference
for S. Peter. Let us consider each point in order : (i) Christ entered " one of
the ships, which was Simon's." (2) "He sat down and taught the people out of
(this) ship." (3) When he had finished, he said, "Launch out into the deep,
and let down your nets for a draught." (4) On a great multitude of fishes being
taken, Simon summoned his partners to his help, and they came and filled both
the ships, i. e. the second ship received of the overflow of S. Peter's. (5) S.
Peter's astonishment was so great that he fell down and adored Christ ; and (6)
our Lord said, "Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men." It seems
impossible to avoid the inevitable conclusion that our Lord, by this incident, was
pointing out S. Peter as the Head and Chief of His Church, for He teaches out
of his ship, i.e. the Church; and, without reference to the others, directs him to let
down his net for a draught of fishes (i. e. of men), the others, S. James and S.
John, assisting as his partners ; and He then informs S. Peter, in their presence,
"Henceforth thou" (not ye, but thou, Peter,) "shalt catch men." S. Ambrose
thus observes on this incident, " The ship is not agitated wherein prudence sails,
where perfidy is not, where faith breathes. For how could that be agitated, over
which he (Peter) presided, in whom is the foundation of the Church ? . . . Though
the rest are ordered to let down their nets, yet to Peter alone it is said, Launch
out into the deep; that is, into the depth of disputations. . . . Into this deep of
disputation the Church is led by Peter, so as to see thence rising again the Son of
God, thence flowing the Holy Spirit. . . . They of the synagogue came to Peter's
ship, that is, unto the Church." (T.I, Expos, in Luc. 1. iv. n. 70, 71, 77, p. 1353,4.)
f S. Peter here assumes, as a matter of right, the function of Chief Governor,
and Chief Pastor of the Church. A vacancy occurs in the apostolic body, through
SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE. 9
" Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,* and
abode with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save
James the Lord's Brother." (Gal. i. 18, 19.)
2. ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST.
[After the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, and
the wonders occasioned by it, so much so as to induce the unbelieving
Jews to say, "These men are full of new wine," S. Peter arose, and]
" standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye
men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you,
and hearken to my words," &c.f (See Acts, ii. 13, 40.)
3. THE APOSTLES BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.
[On account of the many signs and wonders which were wrought by
the Apostles, the high-priest and council were incensed, and having
had them arraigned before them, said], " Did not we straitly command
you that ye should not teach in this Name ? and, behold, ye have filled
Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's Blood
upon us. Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said, We
ought to obey God rather than men," &c. J &c. (See Acts, v. 28-32.)
the treason and death of Judas. He then, apparently without previous concert with
his co-apostles, directs, not suggests, as some say, but directs, or rather commands,
another to be ordained in his place ; and he further states authoritatively, from
what class of men a successor must be chosen, limiting thereby their choice;
" wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord
Jesus went in and out among us ... must one be ordained," &c. From the above
nothing can be clearer than the nature of that office S. Peter assumed on this
occasion, namely, that of the Ruler, the Governor, and Chief Pastor of the Church.
(See S. Chrys. Comment. Extract, No. 75. Part II.)
* Why does S. Paul mention this event, if there was no important reason
for so doing? Did he recognise by this visit S. Peter's office as the Chief
Shepherd, to whom he was under the necessity of showing respect, if nothing
more ? Else why did he see none of the other Apostles save S . James ? And why
did he see S. James ? Surely because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem and " the
Lord's Brother," to whom honour was due, S. Chrysostom believes that S. Paul's
visit to S. Peter was in order to recognise his Headship. (See Extract, No. 73,
Pt. II.)
+ Here, again, S. Peter assumes the position of the Leader and the Mouthpiece
of the Church. He speaks in behalf of the Church as her Representative, which
he was, as S. Augustine says (see Extract, No. 86, Pt. II.), by reason of the
Principatus Apostolatus (i. e. the Principate or Sovereignty of the Apostleship. )
The other Apostles, standing up with him, recognise him as their Chief.
J Here, again, S. Peter's pre-eminence is apparent, as at least the Leader of the
Apostles ; the First in order, having the right of first speech.
io s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
4. THE OPENING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD TO THE GENTILES.
" Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour : and
he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made
ready, he fell into a trance, [here follows the vision of the great sheet
let down from heaven] and there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter;
kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten
any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him
again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou
common. This was done thrice : and the vessel was received up again
into heaven. [The deputation arrived from Cornelius, S. Peter accompany-
ing them back to Caesarea, and there received the account of the visit of
the angel to Cornelius, who said to him, " Send therefore to Joppa, and call
hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; . . . who, when he cometh, will
speak unto thee."] " Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth
I perceive that God is no respecter of persons : but in every nation he
that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him. . . .
While Peter yet spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on all them which
heard the word . . . Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water,
that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as
well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the
Lord."* (Acts, x.)
5. THE FIRST COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM.
[This council was assembled to determine whether the Gentiles should
be subject to the Jewish rite of circumcision.] " And the Apostles and
elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had
been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and
brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among
us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel,
and believe. . . . Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon
the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to
bear ? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we
shall be saved, even as they." [After this SS. Barnabas and Paul ad-
dressed the synod, "declaring what miracles and wonders God had
wrought among the Gentiles by them."] " And after they had held their
* S. Peter had received the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, and, conse-
quently, he alone could open heaven to the Gentiles. Accordingly, Cornelius was
directed to send men to Joppa to invite S. Peter to visit him. While they were
on their way, the Lord made known to S. Peter His will respecting the Gentiles,
and directed him to go down to Csesarea, " doubting nothing." S. Peter obeyed,
heard what Cornelius had to say, and after witnessing the miraculous descent of
the Holy Ghost upon the Gentiles, "commanded them to be baptized in the
name of the Lord." This was the exercise of the Supreme use of the Keys, of
which he was the Custodian, and this too without any previous consultation with
his brother Apostles. S. Peter acted here in his capacity as our Lord's Vice-
gerent, on whom He built His Church, and to whom He had intrusted the Keys of
the kingdom of heaven. There is no passage in the New Testament which exhibits
S. Peter's supremacy in the Church more fully than this.
SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE. 1 1
peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me :
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to
take out of them a people for His Name. And to this agree the words
of the prophets. . . . Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them,
which from among the Gentiles are turned to God : but that we write
unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornica-
tion, and from things strangled, and from blood," &c.* (Acts, xv.)
* The proceedings of this Council have been held by some to prove the
superior position of S. James as the President of the Council ; but it is very
questionable whether the acts of this synod will support this view. In the first
place, it is not said that S. James presided, nor does the text imply it ; then,
secondly, S. James did not take the lead in the discussion. Let this point
be carefully considered. First, there was much disputing, by whom is not
stated ; but after awhile S. Peter arose, and in the language of authority ad-
dressed the assembled Apostles and elders. He, first of all, informs them of
the revelation he had received from God on the subject ; and he then rebukes
the party of the circumcision, saying, " Why tempt ye God to put a yoke
upon the neck of the disciples?" S. Paul and S. Barnabas do not seem to have
spoken on the subject in dispute, contenting themselves with recounting the great
miracles and wonders which had been wrought among the Gentiles. S. James
closes the debate, and delivers his judgment ; but how ? His judgment is based
professedly upon that of S. Peter, "Simeon hath declared how God at the first
did visit the Gentiles," and then he adduces the testimony of prophecy in support
of what S. Peter had said, concluding, "Wherefore my sentence, or decree," &c-
There is nothing in this account which witnesses against S. Peter ; on the contrary*
what little is said confirms the position he is alleged to have held, for he first
delivered judgment, and the cause was virtually concluded ; for all accepted his
judgment as final. S. James did but echo what S. Peter said, and supported it
by reference to the prophecies. (See S. Chrys. Extract, No. 77, Pt. II.)
It is, however, maintained that the "Simeon," referred to by S. James, was not
S. Peter, but the " Simeon " who circumcised our Lord, because, in his can-
ticle, he prophesied saying, " Which thou hast prepared before the face of all the
people ; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel " (S.
Luke, ii. 31, 32). If it was not for the similarity of the name of "Simeon," it would
never have occurred to any one to suppose, that S. James meant the aged priest
under the law. It is alleged that S. Chrys ostom fell into this mistake, but after care-
fully rcadkig his Homily on this chapter, I venture to think that this is very
doubtful. There are two considerations which will, it is submitted, dispose of
this objection. First, S. James evidently refers to a person who had been speaking.
Secondly, he recites "how God at the first did visit the Gentiles," i.e., by Peter,
whom He sent for the purpose of preaching the Gospel to them, and, as S. James
adds, "to take out of them a people for His name." When our Lord was taken
to be circumcised the Gentiles were not then visited, and this visitation, as a matter
of fact, did not take place before the conversion of Cornelius and his house. These
two considerations alone determine this point. But there is a third consideration
which should not be overlooked, and that is, that S. Peter was sometimes called
" Simeon." In his Second Epistle he thus commences, " Simeon (Zuptuv) Peter,
a servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. i. i). Fair inference, as well as
common sense, requires us to suppose that S. James alluded to S. Peter when he
commenced his judgment.
12 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
IV. OBJECTIONS.
Several passages are adduced to prove the contrary position, that S-
Peter was not only not Supreme Head of the Apostles, but that he and
the eleven were of one order and dignity, co-equal and co-ordinate ; and
that consequently he had no greater authority than any other Apostle.
1. " Upon this rock I will build my Church." It is held that all
the Apostles were rocks : this is true ; but one rock was pre-eminent and
predominant. The Church is built upon Twelve Foundations, but the
emblematic Stone of the First Foundation is identically the same as that
which symbolised our Lord, the true Stone, and also the wall of the city,
of which it is exclusively composed. Therefore, though all the rocks and
all the stones were equal, yet One was supreme; and besides S. Peter was
expressly called the Rock by Christ, when He gave Him this name (even
His own Name), which He did not bestow upon any other Apostle.
Again, it is said, The Church is built upon S. Peter's confession,
not upon the man Peter, very probably, and so some of the Fathers
teach ; but who made the confession ? Not the other Apostles, for
when Christ asked them, " Whom say ye that I am ?" all were silent
save one, and that one, S. Peter, merited to be the chosen Foundation of the
Church. But it is alleged that Christ addressed all in S. Peter, and
that S. Peter answered for all. No doubt this is true ; but it is not the
less true that the other Apostles, who had eagerly answered the first ques-
tion, "Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?" because they
knew what to answer, were silent when Christ said, " But whom say ye
that I am?" Why were they thus silent? If they had known what to
reply, they would have done so as eagerly as they had done before to the
previous question. But S. Peter alone answered. Why? Because the great
doctrine he confessed was revealed to him alone, not to the others : hence
he alone confesses, " Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God." He
indeed confessed on behalf of the Church, which was then in him singly
and alone, for he was the type, the representative, the figure, and the person
of the Church, and this because, as S. Augustine says, he held the " Prin-
cipate of the Apostleship." (See Extract, Part II. Nos. 83, 86.)
Once more. The Rock is Christ, say others ; true, for Christ is the
true Rock, and the true Foundation, nevertheless He created, in the
person of S. Peter, another Rock, which He Himself laid as the Foundation
on which to build his Church. These objections do not really touch the
point, for in the office of the Rock, our Lord and S. Peter are one, the
latter assuming a position of peculiar relationship to Christ, as His
especial Representative.
2. " I will give thee the keys." These keys, it is alleged, were delivered
to all the apostles. No doubt they were, but there was much difference.
To S. Peter our Lord delivered the keys absolutely, without reserve, and
without any reference to the other Apostles. Afterwards he gave them
to the eleven, but not independently of S. Peter; so that while S. Peter
could use them without being under the necessity of consulting his brother-
Apostles, they, on the other hand, could not do so, except in concert with
him. This truth seems evident from the circumstance that after our Lord
SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE. 13
had promised the keys to all, S. Peter came to Him and said, " Lord, how
oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him 1 till seven times 1
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times : but, Until
seventy times seven." (S. Matt, xviii. 21, 22.) S. Peter here, speaking in
the first person, indicates that in the sentence to be pronounced upon erring
brethren, he has a voice, not as a member merely of the Sacred College,
but as the Head and Chief. Origen evidently thought that S. Peter held a
superior jurisdiction. (See Extract, Pt. II. No. 9.)
3. The strife among the Apostles for pre-eminence, and our Lord's re-
buke, is said to witness (i) against any pre-eminence whatever, and (2) from
the very fact of such a dispute having arisen amongst them, it is evident
that the Apostles were ignorant of our Lord's intention of constituting S.
Peter as their Head. Now as regards the first point, our Lord's objection
was against the notion of a temporal or secular empire :* this is plain from
what follows ; for He immediately after formally constituted His spiritual
Kingdom. Another object He had was to reprove them for their ambition
and lust of power, which was wicked in such of them as had received no
commission to be chief; and He concluded by enjoining humility, pointing
to Himself as their model, who served them as a servant. It is next
alleged that these disputes showed that the Apostles did not understand,
that S. Peter was their elected Head, and therefore, it is concluded, there
was no such Head appointed. But this argument is fallacious, for,
first, our Lord had not yet fully commissioned S. Peter ; He had indeed
pointed him out as the Rock, and had promised him the Keys, but He
did not commission him to " Strengthen the brethren," or to " Feed the
sheep," until after this incident. Certainly after our Lord had finally
constituted him Chief Pastor, we read no more of any disputes, who should
be the greatest. S. Peter assumed the position Christ gave him, and the
Apostles, as a matter of course, accepted it.
4. " Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and
John." (Acts, viii. 14.) This, it is held, shows that S. Peter was subject
to the College of the Apostles ; but this proves too much : for then
the circumstance that the Church of Antioch " determined that Paul and
Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles
and elders about" the question of circumcision, would prove the infe-
riority of the great Apostle of the Gentiles to the local Church of Antioch
(Acts, xv. 2.)
5. " Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other
Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (i Cor. ix. 5.)
This, it is asserted, demonstrates the exact equality of all the Apostles ;
if so, why did S. Paul distinguish S. Peter from the "other Apostles?"
No doubt in such trifling matters, having no concern with the faith, or
government of the Church, S. Paul claimed to be equal to the Chief Apostle;
* That the Apostles believed that they were to be the rulers of earthly do-
minion is evident from their asking our Lord after His resurrection, " Wilt
thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ? " (Acts, i. 6.)
14 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
and he advances his claim by a regular ascending scale. He says he
is equal in this respect, (i) to the " other Apostles," (2) to "the brethren of
the Lord," and (3) highest of all, even to " Cephas," i.e. S. Peter. If any
thing, this proves S. Peter's high position in the apostolic hierarchy.
S. Chrysostom on this passage says, " Observe his (S. Paul's) skilfulness.
The leader of the choir stands last in his arrangement : since that is
the time for laying down the strongest of all one's topics. Nor was it so
wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the
rest, as in the foremost champion, and in him who was entrusted with the
keys of heaven. But neither does he mention Peter alone, but all of
them : as if he had said, Whether you seek the inferior sort, or the
more eminent, in all you find patterns of this sort drawn out for you.
For the brethren too of the Lord being freed from their first unbelief, had
come to be among those who were approved, although they attained not
to the Apostles. And accordingly the middle place is that which he hath
assigned to them, setting down those who were in the extremes (i.e. the
eleven, the brethren, S. Peter), before and after. (Horn. xxi. in I Cor.
ix. 5, see Lib. Path. pp. 280, i.) It is evident, then, that, in S. Chrysostom's
opinion, S. Paul regarded S. Peter as higher than the eleven, and in order
to give full force to his claim to certain privileges, he maintains his equal
rights (i) to the Apostles and (2), to the great Apostle S. Peter.
6. " But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the
face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. ii. n.) How dare S. Paul
thus publicly rebuke his Chief and Head, say Protestants ? But why not?
The twelve Apostles, as we have remarked, were all of the same order and
dignity, though one was recognised as their Chief; and there is nothing
extraordinary, in one of the Apostles expostulating with him if he erred in
conduct. Even in a State, it has been no uncommon thing for a minister
to remonstrate with his Sovereign, and sometimes even publicly oppose
him, if he despise the law, or trample upon the liberties of his subjects ;
and such an act on a part of a subject towards his King does not by any
means impair his imperial dignity and authority. S. Peter in this instance
acted a timid part ; which S. Paul saw would be injurious to the Church,
and he consequently "withstood him to the face." But this does not in the
least disprove that S. Peter was the Chief of the Apostles. Indeed, in
the previous chapter, S. Paul had pointed him out as the Apostle he went
up to Jerusalem purposely to visit, and in this very chapter he acknow-
ledged that the gospel of the circumcision irrespective, as it would seem,
of the eleven had been committed to him.
The objections against S. Peter are, it is submitted, pointless. The
great stress laid by Protestants is, that all the Apostles were equal in
dignity and authority, but it does not seem to have occurred to them
that equals have a Head over them. In all republics there is a Head,
who performs the duties of the Executive ; in the United States, equals
elect one of their own co-equal body, to be their Sovereign President for
a term of years ; the Swiss Confederation do the same ; Republican France*
and England under the Commonwealth, acknowledged Napoleon and
Cromwell as their respective Chiefs. In the case of the Church, Christ from
among equals selected one to be the source of unity and jurisdiction, to
SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE. ! 5
be in His Stead the Rock of the Church, the Support of the Brethren, and
the Chief Pastor of the Flock.
V. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE.
Holy Scripture then seems to attest the following facts : First, that
four great empires were to arise one after the other, viz., the Babylonian,
the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman. Secondly, that when
the Empire arrived at the fulness of its power and glory, a Stone, cut out
of the mountain of Sion, would smite it, and gradually destroy it ; and
that this Stone would supplant it, take possession of the Kingdom, and
itself grow into one great universal Empire, to which would be subject
"all peoples, nations, and languages." Thirdly, that Christ and the Church
are described under the metaphor of Stones : (i) Christ and the Apostles
as precious stones, and the faithful as stones which form the "living
stones" of the building. Fourthly, among the precious stones, symbolical
of Christ and the Twelve, it has been shown that one was pre-eminent
-&.& predominant, viz., the jasper. This stone was emblematic (i) of Christ
our Lord, (2) of S. Peter, and (3) of the material of the city wall. The
other precious stones were foundations, nothing more; the Jasper Stone,
/. e., our Lord and His vicar S. Peter, typified the first Foundation
and the very substance of the walls of the holy city. The prophecy,
then, of Daniel, together with that of S. John, demonstrated the great
fact that the Foundation and Source of that great Empire God intended
to establish on the ruins of Rome were (i) the Lord Jesus Christ,
and (2) His chief Apostle, S. Peter. Fifthly, that the various events
and incidents recorded in the Gospel explain what was our Lord's
will respecting S. Peter. It was shown that, when He first saw him,
He said, " Thou art Simon the son of Jona : thou shalt be called
Cephas, which is by interpretation, a Stone " (John, i. 42). Sixthly, that on
this Apostle confessing His divinity, Christ did then solemnly change his
name, saying, " Thou art Peter," a rock ; giving him His own name, by
which He had been known from the very beginning of the Mosaic
dispensation. By thus naming him the Rock He pointed out S. Peter
as his Vicegerent, as the Foundation of the Church, and Source of all
jurisdiction. " Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church ;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven" (S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19). Seventhly, no
sooner had our Lord constituted His kingdom than He immediately
pointed out S. Peter as its firm Supporter. " When thou are converted,
strengthen [or confirm, or fix immoveably] thy brethren " (S. Luke, xxii.
20/-32). This was the application of the office of the Rock Peter, viz. to
uphold, support, and sustain the faith of the Church. Eighthly, after our
Lord's resurrection, and immediately before His ascension, it was proved
that He delivered to S. Peter a most solemn charge, viz., to Feed the lambs
and sheep of His Church. Here, again, is another application of the office
of the Rock Peter, viz. that he was to be the all-powerful Protector of the
16 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
flock, and the invincible Guardian of the Fold. The commission then
granted to S. Peter alone, was to be a Rock to the Church, that is to say,
the Chief Foundation of the Church, the Main Source of jurisdiction and
unity, and the Universal Shepherd of the Lord's people ; in a word, to be
the Chief Pastor of the Catholic Church, an office which contains
within itself every prerogative of government, jurisdiction, and priestly
power. Ninthly, after the Ascension S. Peter immediately assumed
the exalted position to which Christ had appointed him; He (i) directed
the election of a new Apostle in the room of Judas Iscariot, settling the
conditions of election ; (2) upon the day of Pentecost, standing up with
the eleven, as the Mouthpiece of the Church and the Head of the
Apostles, he addressed the multitude ; (3) as the Leader of the Apostles
he addressed the high-priest, saying, "We ought to obey God rather
than men" (Acts, v. 19); (4) S. Peter, as holding the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, is commanded to open the kingdom to the Gentiles,
and he admits them by his sole authority into the Church : and (5) at
the Council of Jerusalem it was S. Peter who delivered the oracle of God
respecting the obligation of circumcision on Gentile converts, the other
Apostles with S. James accepting his judgment, the latter basing his own
upon that of S. Peter. Scripture, then, represents S. Peter as fulfilling a
double office ; (i) as the Deputy of our Lord, with a commission to rule in
His Stead, and (2) as the Representative of the Church, which he was,
because he was first named an Apostle ; because the Church was first
formed singly and alone in him ; and, thirdly, because he held the
Principate of the Apostleship. In this double capacity he performed the
office of Head, Governor, Ruler, and Chief Pastor of the universal Empire-
Church of Christ. Tenthly, with regard to the arguments adduced
against S. Peter's supremacy, it has been seen how groundless they are.
It was proved that, notwithstanding that the Apostles were co-equal and
co-ordinate, yet that that did not prevent them from having an executive
Head. Every nation, as it was observed, has a ruling Head ; every
republic a nation composed of equals possesses a Sovereign Head.
Why not the Apostolic Church ? The constitution of the present universal
episcopate explains how this may be. The Church is divided into Pa-
triachates, Provinces, and Dioceses ; all the bishops, without any ex-
ception, are co-equal and co-ordinate in the rule of the provincial Church,
yet the Bishop of the diocese is subject to the supremacy of the Metro-
politan ; and the Metropolitan to the Patriarch ; and the Patriarch, is
he subject to any one, and if so, to whom? The principle of this
arrangement corresponds to the constitution of the Apostleship, z>., con-
sisting of co-equal and co-ordinate Governors, subject to the one Head
S. Peter. It is unquestionable that our Saviour marked out S. Peter as
the Chief of the Apostles ; there is nothing in Scripture contradictory
or inconsistent with this appointment, and it is certain that, whenever
present, he was invariably the Leader and Governor ; and it is also certain
that Christ made him the Rock, the Sustainer, and the Shepherd of His
flock.
PART II.
I. CONSENSUS PATRUM.
[IN the study of the writings of the holy Fathers, it is important to
remember that they assume a previous knowledge of the doctrine and
discipline of the Church on the part of Christians to whom they were ad-
dressed. Without this previous knowledge much of the language of the
Fathers would have been unintelligible. The procem to S. Ignatius'
Epistle to the Romans would have sorely puzzled their Bishop and
priests, if they had never heard till then, that the great Roman Church
was the presiding Church, and that it was in some way distinct from
other churches, being named " with the Name of Christ (and) with the
Name of the Father."]
S. IGNATIUS.
A.D. 107.
i. " Ignatius .... to the ties of Jesus Christ, but I am the
Church .... which presides very least : they were free as the ser-
in the place of the Romans (JT<? vants of God, while I am, even until
X.KI TrgofcciQiiTou iv TOTTU ^a^t'ov 'P<w- now, a servant." Id. c. iv.
pai'av), all-godly, all-gracious, all- 3- "Let us therefore prove our-
blessed, all-praised, all-prospering, selves worthy of that Name which
all-hallowed, and presiding over we have received. For whosoever
love, with the Name of Christ, is called by any other name besides
with the Name of the Father (*/ this > he is not of God '> for he has not
w &vi**s Y C ^M, received the Prophecy which speaks
, which (Church) I greet * C US : The
in the Name of Jesus Christ," &c. . a n
Ep. ad Rom. Provm. (/^Ixii 2.)_ This was first fulfilled m
2. "EntreatChristforme,thatby ^ <%*%\ f r ^ **?
these instruments I may be found e ^ f C ^^ '
a sacrifice (to God). I do not, as ^ hen Pa ^ and Peter were laying
Peter and Paul, issue command- * e f undatlons of the Church
ments unto you. They were Apos- Ep ' ad Ma %' c ' x '
COMMENT.
S. Ignatius was a disciple of S. John, of S. John the Apostle. The procem to
and Bishop of Antioch. He was martyred the epistle to the Romans differs essen-
in A.D. 108, seven years after the death tially from the procems to his other
C
i8
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
epistles ; and the difference consists in
this, that while S. Ignatius describes the
Churches of the Ephesians, the Mag-
nesians, the Trallians, the Philadelphi-
ans, the Smyrnseans, as "predestinated
before the beginning of time ; " as
"elected through the true Passion of
Christ ; " as " blessed in the grace of
God ; " as " possessing peace j " as
"rejoicing exceedingly in the Passion of
our Lord," and as "filled with all-
mercy .... which (Church) I
salute in the Blood of Jesus Christ . . .
especially to those who are in unity
with the Bishop," &c., "who have been
appointed by the will of God the Father,
through the Lord Jesus Christ, who
. . has firmly established his Church
upon a rock, by a spiritual building, not
made with hands, against which the
winds and the floods have beaten, yet
have not been able to overthrow it ;" as
having ' ' obtained every kind of gift ; "
as "filled with faith and love, and is defi-
cient in no gift ; " as " most worthy of
God, and adorned with holiness ;" he
describes the Roman Church in terms fun-
damentally distinct ; viz. as " all-godly,
all -gracious, all -blessed, all -praised,
&c. ;" as "presiding over love, with the
Name of Christ, with the Name of the
Father." Now, whence is this distinc-
tion ? Why did S. Ignatius regard the
Roman Church, as so different from
other churches, so much so as to address
it as "presiding over love," as having
the " Name of Christ," and the " Name
of the Father?" The answer is im-
plicitly given in the body of the epistle
(see Ext. No. 2) because of its having
been evidently constituted by those great
Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul. When
S. Ignatius says, " I do not, as Peter
and Paul, issue commandments unto
you" he evidently alludes to both Apos-
tles, as having had a local connexion with
the See of Rome ; as having bestowed
upon that Church a dignity and an au-
thority superior to other Churches. But
did S. Ignatius regard S. Peter and S.
Paul as superior to other Apostles ? it
would seem so ; because he said, in his
epistle to the Magnesians, that "the
disciples were called Christians at An-
tioch, when Paul and Peter were laying
the foundations of the Church." (See
Extract^. 3.) If all the Apostles were
upon an exact equality, why not have
said, "when the Apostles were laying the
foundations of the Church ? " It is evi-
dent, then, that from the very form of the
expression, from the fact that the Roman
Church was the presiding Church, and
endowed "with the Name of Christ (and)
with the Name of the Father " (which
Name S. Peter alone bore, and which
consequently could have been derived
from no other source), that S. Ignatius
regarded these two Apostles, S. Peter
and S. Paul as the two great Chiefs
of the universal Church. The other
points especially connected with the See
of Rome will be considered in the next
S. IREN^US.
A.D. 178.
4. " But as it would be a very
long task, to enumerate in such a
volume as this, the successions of
all the Churches, we do put to con-
fusion all those who ... as-
semble in unauthorised meetings,
(we do this, I say), by indicating
that tradition, derived from the
Apostles, of the very great, the very
ancient, and universally known
Church, founded and constituted
at Rome, by the two most glorious
Apostles, Peter and Paul ; as also
(by pointing out) the faith preached
to men, which comes down to our
time by means of the successions
of the Bishops. For it is a matter
of necessity that every Church
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
should agree with this (the Roman)
Church, on account of its pre-emi-
nent authority (or, its more powerful
principality ; Ad hanc enim eccle-
siam propter potentiorem (or, po-
tioreiri) principalitatem necesse est
omnem convenire ecclesiam), that
is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch
as the apostolical tradition has
been preserved continuously by
those who exist everywhere." Adv.
Hares. I. iii. c. 3, . 2, pp. 175, 6.
COMMENT.
S. Irenseus was Bishop of Lyons,
and flourished about seventy years after
the death of the last surviving Apostle.
He was a disciple of S. Polycarp, who
was himself a disciple of S. John. S.
Irenasus, in the above extract, supplies
the information S. Ignatius omits ex-
plicitly 'to give, namely, that S. Peter and
S. Paul constituted the Roman Church.
Now we may understand why that
Church was "all-godly, all-gracious,
all-blessed, all-hallowed," why it had
the presidency over love, and why it
was endowed "with the Name of Christ,
(and) with the Name of the Father."
It is because these two Apostles found-
ed and constituted this Church, and made
it, as S. Irenaeus asserts, a more powerful
principality. S. Irenseus, then, evi-
dently held that S. Peter and S. Paul
were the two great Chiefs of the Apo-
stolic Church, possessing certain preroga-
tives, distinct from other Apostles,
which they communicated to the Roman
Church. Indeed this is in keeping with
what S. Paul says, that to S. Peter was
given " the gospel of the circumcision,"
and to himself (S. Paul) " the gospel of
the uncircumcision." (Gal. ii. 7.) Tak-
ing then these two Fathers, S. Ignatius
and S. Irenaeus, together, we obtain a
glimpse of the truth in this matter,
within a century after the decease of
the beloved Apostle. And we may
also discern this by the aid of Scripture,
by which we at once perceive why the
former addressed the Roman Church
in terms essentially different from other
Churches ; and why the latter regarded
this Church as a " more powerful princi-
pality." It was, because of the Supre-
macy, which Christ first gave to S.
Peter, and subsequently in a measure
to S. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles.
TERTULLIAN.
A.D. 195.
5. ... " Was anything hidden
from Peter, who was called the Rock
whereon the Church was to be
built ; who obtained the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, and the power
of loosing and of binding in heaven
and on earth?" De Prescript.
Haret. n. 22, p. 209.
6. " For if thou thinkest heaven
is still closed, remember that the
Lord left here the keys thereof to
Peter, and through him to the
Church (memento claves ejus hicDo-
minum Petro, et per eum, ecclesia
reliquisse) ; which keys every one
that is here questioned and con-
fesses, shall carry with him." Scor-
piace, n. x. p. 496.
COMMENT.
Tertullian was a contemporary of
S. Irenaeus, and a native of Carthage.
He evidently held that S. Peter pos-
sessed, singly and alone, in the first
2O
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
instance, at least, " the keys of the king-
dom of heaven," and that through him
they passed to the Church. S. Peter
was then, according to this Father, the
Source or Origin of all such jurisdiction
as were symbolised by the keys . H e was,
too, the Rock, even the Rock on which
Christ built His Church. The Rock is
the symbol of unity and power, for by
its massive and immovable strength, it
supports with power the whole fabric
built upon it, preserving it in compact
unity and order. S. Peter was this Rock
(hewn out of the True Rock), whose
commission it was to "confirm the
brethren," and to shelter the sheep and
lambs of the flock from the winds and
tempests of hell.
ORIGEN.
A.D. 2l6.
7. "See what is said by the Lord
to that great Foundation of the
Church, and to the most solid Rock,
upon which Christ founded the
Church (ecclesice fundamento, et
petrce solidissimce, super quam
Christus fundavit ecclesiam}" T.
ii. Horn. v. in Exod. n. ^,p. 145.
8. "At the same time came the
disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who
is the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven ? (S. Matt, xviii. i.) . . .
We must not suffer the design of
the Evangelist, in the words at the
same time, to pass by unexamined.
. . . Jesus, therefore, had come, to-
gether with His disciples, to Caper-
naum; then they that received tri-
bute-money came to Peter, and said,
Doth not your Master pay tribute?
Then when Peter had answered
them, and said, Yes; Jesus having
assigned a reason for paying the tri-
bute-money, sends Peter to draw
out with the hook a fish, in the
mouth of which he declares a stater
would be found, to be given for
Himself and Peter. It seems, there-
fore, to me, that they, consider-
ing this to be the greatest honour
to Peter on the part of Jesus, as
judging him greater than the rest
Of the disciples, (fttytrrw V6f4.io-a.v-
ivtu VTTO ray lyrov TFPOS
[ASt^ovcc, r&tv Xoivav yveaQiftav} wished
to ascertain clearly that which they
supposed ; and they accordingly
inquired in order to learn from
Jesus, whether, as they suspected,
He had separated Peter as greater
than they ; and they, at the same
time, hoped to know the cause of
Peter having been preferred before
the rest." T. iii. Comment, in Matt.
Tom. xiii. n. 14, pp. 588-9.
9. " What in a previous passage
(S. Matt. xvi. 19) was granted to
Peter alone, seems here (xviii. 18)
to be shown to be granted to all
who have addressed three admon-
itions to all sinners, in order that,
if they be not listened to, they may
bind on earth the person con-
demned to be as an heathen man
and a publican, since such an one
is bound in heaven. But, as it was
fit, even though something in com-
mon was spoken of Peter, and of
those who should thrice admonish
the brethren, that Peter should
have something peculiar above
those who should thrice admonish
xat jcotvov ti ff rov
x.ee,t rav
i|tf/gST
TTClgCt T6VS Tlf V0TJlVflSVTa$) J this
was previously ordained separately
respecting Peter ; thus, / will give
unto thee the keys of the kingdom
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
21
of heaven, before (it was said) and
'whatsoever thou shall bind on
earth, and what follows ; and truly,
if we sedulously attend to the evan-
gelical writings, even in them we
may discover, with regard even to
those things which seem to be com-
mon to Peter and to those who
have thrice admonished the bre-
thren, much difference and pre-
eminence in the words spoken to
Peter, beyond those spoken to in
the second place" (jrec^a, rov$ tizv-
Tzgovg). T. iii. in Matt. Tom. xiii.
n. 31,^. 613-4.
10. " Peter upon whom is built
Christ's Church (nsrgo$ 1\ ty' a
oix.ooofttiTcit n
against which the gates of hell shall
not prevail? &c. T. iv. In Joan.
Tom. v. p. 95 (Ex Euseb. H. E. I.
vi. c. 25).
ii. "When the Chief Authority
as regards the feeding of the sheep
was delivered to Peter ; and on him,
as on the earth, the Church was
founded (Petro cum summa rerum
de pascendis ovibus traderetur, et
super ipsum, velut super terram,
fundaretur ecclesia) ; of no other
virtue was the confession required,
than that of love." T. iv. /. 5, in Ep.
ad Rom. n. io,p. 568,
COMMENT.
Origen was born in Egypt, and
was celebrated for his great learning.
He regards S. Peter (i) as "The
Foundation of the Church," and the
"most solid Rock upon which Christ
built His Church ;" (2) as possessing
the keys in greater fullness than the
other Apostles ; and (3) as having " the
Chief authority " in the feeding of the
sheep.
1. The Foundation. The word Fun-
damentum has a definite meaning ;
viz., the basis of any superstructure ;
here, this word is used metaphorically
to signify the Chief Stone of the fabric it
supports. When, then, S. Peter is
described as the Foundation, we are to
understand that he was not only the
Foundation on which the Church was
originally built, but that he was the
main Stone of the Church, its main
Pillar and Supporter. He is, too, the
"most solid Rock," signifying that his
strength, as the Foundation and Stone of
the Church, is that of a solid and im-
pregnable rock, against which the gates
of hell shall not prevail.
2. That Origen regarded S. Peter
as superior to the rest, is evident from
his comment on S. Matt, xviii. (See
Extract^ No. 8.) It seems, according
to his interpretation of the incident of
the stater, that the Apostles did not
understand why our Lord directed S.
Peter to pay the tax for himself and
his Lord, exclusive, as it would seem,
of themselves, who were also associated
with him in the apostolate : in order
to ascertain our Lord's will on this
point, they immediately asked Him,
"Who is the greatest in the kingdom
of heaven?" By this they hoped to
discover, whether our Lord had in-
deed separated S. Peter, as greater
than themselves, and why He did
so. The doctrine then involved in
this comment of Origen is obvious,
viz. that he regarded S. Peter as sepa-
rated from the other Apostles in dignity,
and even in person : for if the incident
of the stater is to be interpreted as
showing our Lord's intention of separ-
ating S. Peter as greater than the rest,
it can signify nothing less than that
He meant to teach them that he was
to be His special Representative.
3. The Keys. Origen believes that
all the Apostles received the power of
22
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
binding and loosing, but that S. Peter
obtained the same in larger measure.
Comparing the two occasions (first to
S. Peter and then to the Twelve), when
our Lord promised the keys, Origen
says, there was "much difference and
pre-eminence in the words spoken to
Peter, beyond (^a) those spoken"
on the second occasion. Origen must
have believed that S. Peter had a su-
perior jurisdiction.
4. Furthermore, Origen evidently con-
sidered that S. Peter had "the Chief au-
thority " in the feeding of the sheep.
There can be little doubt that Origen
held that S. Peter was the Head and
Chief of the Apostles ; that he was
the Foundation and main-stay of the
Church : that, although all the Apostles
had the keys, yet, he had them pre-
eminently and in larger measure : that
he was exhibited to the Apostles as their
Superior, and, lastly, that in the pastoral
charge he had the chief share.
S. CYPRIAN.
A.D. 246.
12. "Peter on whom the Church
had been built by the Lord Him-
self (Petrus super quern <zdificata
ab eodem Domino fuerat eccle-
sia], one speaking for all, and reply-
ing with the voice of the Church
(unus pro omnibus loquens, et ec-
clesice voce respondent], says, Lord,
to whom shall we go ?" Ep. Iv. Ad
Cornel p. 83.
13. "There (S. John, vi. 68-70)
speaks Peter, upon whom the
Church was to be built (super quern
cedificanda fuerat ecclesid), teach-
ing and showing, in the name of the
Church, that, although a contuma-
cious and proud multitude of such as
will not obey may depart, yet the
Church departeth not from Christ ;
and the people united to the priest,
and the flock adhering to its shep-
herd, they are the Church." Ep.
Ixix. ad Pupian. p. 123.
14. " There is one baptism, and
one Holy Ghost, and one Church,
founded by Christ our Lord upon
Peter for (or, from) an original and
principle of unity (una ecclesia a
Chris to Domino super Petrum
origine unitatis et ratione fun-
data}?
Ep. Ixx. ad Januar. et Ep. Numid.
p. 125.
15. ... " For not even did Peter,
whom the Lord chose the first (nam
nee Petrus, quern primum Domi-
nus elegif), and upon whom He
built His Church, when Paul after-
wards disputed with him respecting
circumcision, claim anything to
himself insolently, or assume any
thing arrogantly, so as to ' say,
that he held the Primacy (prima-
tuni], and that obedience ought
rather to be paid to him by those
who were novices and had come
after him. Nor did he despise Paul
because he had been originally
a persecutor of the Church, but he
admitted the counsel of truth, and
readily assented, to the legitimate
reasons (or, method) which Paul
vindicated, giving, to wit, to us an
example of unanimity and patience,
that we may not with pertinacity
love what is our own, but rather
the things that are at times use-
fully and beneficially suggested by
our brethren and colleagues, to
account them, if they be true and
lawful, as our own." Ep. Ixxi. ad
Quintum,p. 127.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
1 6. "For first to Peter, upon
whom He built the Church, and
from whom He appointed and
showed that unity should spring
(Nam Petro primum Dominus, su-
per quern (sdificavit ecclesiam, et
unde unitatis originem instituit et
ostendif), the Lord gave this power
that that should be loosed in hea-
ven which he should have loosed on
earth. And, after the resurrection
also, He speaks to the Apostles, say-
ing, As My Father hath sent me,
even so send I you" &c., quoting S.
John, xx. 21-23. Ep. Ixxiii. ad
Jribaian. p. 131.
17. "Whither shall he come that
thirsteth ? To heretics where the
fountain and river of water is no
way life-giving, or to the Church
which is one, and was by the voice of
the Lord founded upon one (Peter),
who also received the keys thereof
(Qutz unaest, et super unum, qui et
claves ejus accepit, Dominivoce fun-
data esf). She it is that alone holds
and possesses the whole power of
her Spouse and Lord." Ib.p. 132.
1 8. "Peter also to whom the
Lord commends His sheep to be
fed and guarded (Petrus etiam cui
oves suas Dominus pascendas tu-
endasque commendaf], on whom He
laid and founded the Church, says,"
&c. De Habitu Virg. p. 176.
19. " To the seven children there
is evidently conjoined their mother,
the origin and root (origo et ra-
dix) which afterwards bare seven
Churches, herself having been found-
ed first and alone, by the voice of
the Lord, upon Peter (Ipsa prima
ut una super Petrum Domini voce
fundata)." De Exhort. Martyr,
p. 270.
20. " The Lord says to Peter, /
say unto thee, saith He, that thou
art Peter, and tipon this rock I
will build My Chiirch, &c. Upon
that one (Peter) He builds His
Church, and to him He assigns His
sheep to be fed. And although to
all the Apostles, after His resurrec-
tion, He gives an equal power, and
says, As My Father hath sent me,
even so send I you, &c. ; yet, in
order to manifest unity, He has, by
His own authority, so placed the
origin of that same unity, as that
it begins from one. Certainly, the
other Apostles also were what Peter
was, endowed with an equal fellow-
ship both of honour and power, but
the commencement proceeds from
unity, and the Primacy is given to
Peter (Exordium ab unitate pro-
ficiscitur, et primatus Petro datur],
that the Church may be set forth
as one, and the Chair as one. . . .
He who holds not this unity of the
Church, does he think that he holds
the faith ? He who strives against
and resists the Church, he who
abandons the Chair of Peter, upon
whom the Church was founded,
does he feel confident that he is in
the Church ? " De Unitate, p. 195.
21. " God is one, and Christ is
one, and the Church is one, and the
Chair one, founded, by the Lord's
word, upon a rock (et una ecclesia,
et cathedra una super petram
Domini voce fundatd), another altar
and a new priesthood, besides the
one altar and the one priesthood,
cannot be set up." Ep. xl. ad Pleb.
A 53-
COMMENT.
S. Cyprian, the most illustrious
Father of the Ante-Nicene period of the
Church, was Bishop of Carthage and
Primate of Africa. He flourished with-
2 4
S. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
in 150 years after the death of S. John.
His doctrine respecting the Primacy of
S. Peter is very apparent. He held
that S. Peter was the first chosen by
our Lord ; that He founded and built
the Church upon him ; that He gave
him the keys and commended to his care
His sheep, to be fed and guarded.
S. Cyprian, indeed, believed that all
the Apostles were " equal" to S. Peter
in "power," and that they had "an
equal fellowship" with him, "both of
honour and power ; " yet, he adds, " in
order to manifest unity, He has, by
His own authority, so placed the origin
of that same unity, as that it begins
from one. . . . and the Primacy is
given to Peter, that the Church may
be set forth as one, and the Chair as
one." This last clause is held to be
spurious, but the Benedictine editors,
who were careful, after a strict critical
investigation, to expurgate all interpola-
tions from the text of S. Cyprian as
well as of other Fathers, have deli-
berately retained it as genuine. But this
is not worth contention here, for there
are other passages, undisputed, which
equally serve our purpose. S. Cyprian
saysin one of his epistles (see Extract, No.
15), that, whenS. Paul remonstrated with
S. Peter in reference to his conduct at
Antioch, he (Peter) did not " assume
anything arrogantly, so as to say that he
held the Primacy, and that obedience
ought rather to be paid to him" by nov-
ices. Now, there are two points to be
noted, the Primacy of Peter on the one
part, and obedience on the other part,
by novices, to S. Peter. Now the ques-
tion immediately arises, if the Primacy
on the one hand, and obedience on the
other, were novelties unheard of in the
primitive age, how comes it that S.
Cyprian mentions them ? His argu-
ment is very simple ; he is commend-
ing S. Peter for his humility, in that,
notwithstanding that he held the Pri-
macy, and that obedience on the part of
novices was due to him, yet, for all
that, he received S. Paul's rebukes
with meekness ; not silencing him, by
claiming "anything to himself insolent-
ly," or by assuming "anything arro-
gantly," that is, his Primacy.
This allusion, then, to an office evi-
dently existing, indicates that in the opi-
nion of S. Cyprian, S. Peter possessed
the Primacy. Then, again, with regard to
the unity of the " Chair;" if the clause
in the passage quoted above be spurious,
then the following undisputed one will
supply its place. " God is one, Christ
one, and the Church one, and the
Chair one, founded by the Lord's word
upon a Rock." (See Extract, No. 21.)
Therefore, the meaning of S. Cyprian
is clear, viz., that while all the Apostles
were equal in power and honour, yet
to manifest unity the Lord "so placed
the origin of that same unity," as it
should proceed from one, " and the
Primacy is given to Peter, that the
Church may be set forth as one, and
the Chair one. " But what is the exact
meaning of the word Primacy ? Here
we arrive at the main point under dis-
cussion. Primatus signifies the chief
place, the highest estate, pre-emin-
ence ; that is, one who fills the chief
place. This word is used to express
the office of an Archbishop or Metro-
politan, which is one not of mere honour
or rank, but of rule and authority. The
34th canon apostolical provides that
nothing of importance shall be done by
the Bishops of any country without
the consent of him who is the First
amongst them, i.e. the Primate ; and vice
versa. The Primate or Metropolitan, or
he who was the First, had a co-ordinate
authority with the Bishops subject
to him. The CEcumenical canon pro-
vides that no Bishop shall be chosen
or consecrated without his consent ;
so that the Metropolitan is the source
of order, mission, and jurisdiction, within
his province. So that S. Cyprian, when
alluding to the Primacy of S. Peter in the
apostleship, and to the obedience due to
him on the part of novices, evidently
believed that the Prince of the Apo-
stles held an office in the apostolic
college somewhat analogous to that
of a Primate, Archbishop, or Metro-
politan of a province. It is by
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
reason of this Primacy or Chieftain-
ship which S. Peter held, that he was
commissioned to "speak for all," and
to reply ' ' with the voice of the Church. ''
"There is, "as S. Cyprian forcibly in-
forms us, "one Baptism, and one Holy
Ghost, and one Church founded by
Christ our Lord upon Peter, for an
Original and Principle of unity;" (see
Ext. No. 14), to whom the Lord de-
livered the keys, and to whom He com-
mended His sheep to be fed and
guarded.
S. FIRMILIAN.
A.D. 231.
22. " But howgreathis (Stephen's)
error, how exceeding his blindness,
who says remission of sins can be
given in the synagogues of here-
tics, not abiding on the foundation
of the one Church, which was once
first established by Christ on a
Rock, may hence be understood that
to Peter alone Christ said, What-
soever thou shalt bind, &c. ; and
again, in the Gospel, when Christ
breathed on the Apostles alone, say-
ing, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, &c.
The power, therefore, of forgiving
sins, was given to the Apostles, and
to the Churches which they, sent
forth by Christ, founded, and to the
bishops who, by vicarious ordina-
tion, have succeeded to them. . .
And here, in this matter, I am
justly indignant at this so open and
manifest folly of Stephen, that he,
who so prides himself on the place
of his episcopate, and contends that
he holds the succession of Peter,
upon whom the foundations of the
Church were laid, introduces many
other rocks (Qui sic de episcopatus
sui loco gloriatur, et se succes-
sionem Petri tenere contendit, su-
per quern fundamenta ecclesicz col-
locata sunt, multas alias petras
inducat], and sets up the new build-
ings of many Churches, while by
his authority he maintains that
there is baptism amongst them. . .
Stephen, .who proclaims that he
occupies by succession the Chair of
Peter, is moved with no kind of
zeal against heretics." Inter Ep. S.
Cyp. Ep. Ixxv. p. 148.
COMMENT.
Firmilian was Bishop of Csesarea in
Cappadocia, and was a friend of Origen
and S. Cyprian. The point in the above
extract is this, that he, in accordance
with the belief of the whole Church
believed that to S. Peter alone, in the
first instance, Christ said, "Whatsoever
thou shalt bind,' 1 ' 1 &c. ; and that "upon
(S. Peter) the foundation of the one
Church was laid ; " and, further, that
afterwards the keys were given to the
Apostles of the Church.
26
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
S. PETER OF ALEXANDRIA.
A. D. 306.
23. " Peter, who was the pre-
f erred one to the Apostles" (*O TF^-
xgro$ ray
Canon, ix. Galland. T. iv. p. 98.
COMMENT.
S. Peter was Bishop of Alexandria. of the Apostles ; the one judged su-
He says that S. Peter was o ffgoxgirog perior to the rest.
ruv ourorrokuv, that is, the preferred one
EUSEBIUS.
A. 0.325.
24. " His Apostle and Disciple
Peter, who had been chosen before
the rest (*O Tcoivrcav ctvruv K^oKt-
*gjpev*), without torment or threat
from a ruler, denied Him thrice."
Demons. Evang. 1. iii. n. 7, p. 123.
25. " The providence of the Uni-
versal Ruler led, as it were, by the
hand to Rome, that most powerful
and great one of the Apostles, and,
on account of his virtue, the Mouth-
piece (or, Leader) of the rest, Peter,
against that sad destroyer of the
human race (Simon Magus). He,as
a noble general (appointed) of God
. rav
. o? oioc. TI? ytvaios rov
, armed with heavenly
weapons, brought the precious mer-
chandize of intellectual light from
the East to the dwellers in the
West. H. E. 1. ii. c. 14, p. 63, 4.
26. "He became a stranger to
these His brethren (Ps. Ixviii. 9), at
the time of His Passion, when all
His disciples leaving Him fled, and
he, the very Head of the Apostles
Peter, denied Him thrice." Comm.
in Ps. Ixix. /. i. p. 373, Nov. Col-
lect.
COMMENT.
Eusebius, the first great historian
of the Church, says, that S. Peter was
chosen before the rest of the Apostles.
The verb vgoxgivco means to choose be-
fore all others, to pick out, to select.
Eusebius, then, intended to state that S.
Peter had been chosen in preference to
the other Apostles, evidently as their
Chief. Evidently, because, in his com-
mentary on the Psalms, he styles him
" the very Chief of the Apostles."
The word KO^UQCUOS signifies, one stand-
ing at the highest point or head, i.e.
the Head man or Chief. {See Extract,
No. 26.) That Eusebius considered S.
Peter as holding a position distinct
from the other Apostles, is clear from
his styling him " that most powerful
and great one, " who as " a noble Gene-
ral, armed with heavenly powers,
brought," &c. (Extract, No. 25). The
word ffr^arnyos signifies a general or
leader of an army. In the estimation,
then, of Eusebius, S. Peter was the
Head, the Leader, and the Ruler or
Governor of the Church.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
S. JAMES OF NISIBIS.
A.D. 340.
27. " And Simon, the Head of the
Apostles (Simon, caput discipulo-
runi), he who denied Christ, saying,
/ saw Him not, and cursed and
swore that he knew Him not, as
soon as he offered to God con-
trition and penitence, and washed
his sins in the tears of his grief,
our Lord received him, and made
him the Foundation, and called him
the Rock of the edifice of the
Church (et vocavit eum petram
cedificii ecclesi<z)" Orat. vii. De
Pcenit. n. 6, p. Ivii. Galland. t. v.
p. Ixxxiv.
COMMENT.
S. James, Bishop of Nisibis, in
Mesopotamia, describes S. Peter as
*' the Head of the Disciples," whom our
Lord made " the Foundation, and called
him the Rock of the edifice of the
Church." The word caput represents
that member which exercises the func-
tions of government of the whole body.
When, then, S. Peter is called the
Head, it is signified that in him is the
seat of authority and government. He,
too, is the Foundation of the spiritual
building, which rests upon him, and is
by him, the Rock, doubtless, hewn
from the Rock Christ, sustained in
unity and strength.
S. HILARY OF POICTIERS.
A.D. 356.
28. " On an occasion that the
Only-Begotten spoke to His dis-
ciples certain things concerning His
Passion, and Peter expressed his ab-
horrence, as if it were unworthy of
the Son of God, He took up Peter,
to whom Hehad just before given the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, upon
whom He was about to build the
Church (super quern ecclesiam tzdi-
ficaturus erat), against which the
gates of hell should not in any way
prevail, who, whatsoever he should
bind or loose on earth, that should
abide bound or loosed in heaven,
this same Peter then, when ex-
pressing his abhorrence in such re-
proachful terms, He took up with,
Get behind me, Satan, thou art an
offence to Me. For it was with Him
so sacred a thing to suffer for the
salvation of the human race, as
thus to designate with the reproach-
ful name Satan, Peter, the first Con-
fessor of the Son of God, the Foun-
dation of the Church (ecclesice fun-
damentum}, the Door-keeper (Jani-
torem] of the heavenly kingdom,
and in his judgment on earth a
Judge of heaven (et in terreno ju-
dicis judicem cash}" Tract, in Ps.
cxxxi. n. 4, p. 447.
29. " Peter believeth the first, and
is the Prince of the Apostolate
(Apostolatus est princeps)? Comm.
in Matt. c. 7, n. 6, p. 642.
30. " And in sooth Peter's con-
fession obtained a worthy recom-
pense. Blessed is he that is praised
as having both remarked and seen
28
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
beyond the ken of human eyes, not
regarding what was of flesh and
blood, but by the revelation of the
heavenly Father, beholding the Son
of God, and judged (judicatus)
worthy to be the first to acknow-
ledge what was in the Christ of
God. Oh ! in thy designation by a
new name, happy Foundation of the
Church, and a Rock worthy of the
building up of that which was to
scatter the infernal laws, and the
gates of hell, and all the bars of
death ! O blessed Keeper of the gate
of heaven, to whose disposal are de-
livered the keys of the entrance into
eternity ; whose judgment on earth
is an authority prejudged in heaven,
so that the things that are either
loosed or bound on earth, acquire
in heaven too a like state of settle-
ment. (O in nuncupatione novi
nominis felix ecclesta fundamen-
turn, dignaque cedificatione illius
petra, qua infernas leges, et tar tar i
portas, et omnia mortis claustra
dissolveret ! O beatus c&li janitor,
cujus arbitrio claves aterni aditus
traduntur, cujus terrestre judicium
prcejudicata auctoritas sit in ccelo /
ut quce in terris aut ligata sint aut
soluta, statuti ejusdem conditioner,
obtineant et in ccelo."} Comm. in
Matt. c. xvi. n. 7, p. 690, 691.
31. ". . . And from blessed Simon,
who after his confession of the mys-
tery, was placed under the building
of the Church, and received the keys
of the kingdom of heaven. (Beatus
Simon cedificationi ecclesia subja-
cens et claves regni cazlestis acci-
piens}." De Trinit. L vi. n. 20,
P. 891, 892.
COMMENT.
S. Hilary was Bishop of Poictiers,
and was in his day a great star in the
firmament of the Church. He testifies
that our Lord gave the keys to S. Peter,
" upon whom He was about to build
His Church." He calls him "the
first Confessor of the Son of God, the
Foundation of the Church, the Door-
keeper of the heavenly kingdom ;" and
he adds that in his judgment on earth
"he is a Judge of heaven ;" and he
moreover styles him "The Prince of the
Apostolate." It is impossible to doubt
what S. Hilary means by the title of
*' Prince," certainly not a mere Primus
inter pares. S. Hilary, no doubt, with
S. Cyprian, believed in the co-equality
of the Apostles in power and honour ;
but he, notwithstanding, held with
Origen that there was ' ' a something
peculiar to Peter' 1 ' 1 a prerogative su-
perior to the others otherwise he could
not have thus apostrophized with any
truth, "O blessed Keeper of the gate
of heaven, to whose disposal are de-
livered the keys of entrance into eter-
nity, whose judgment on earth is an
authority prejudged in heaven, so that
the things that are either loosed or bound
on earth acquire in heaven too a like state
of settlement." (Extract, No. 30.)
If S. Peter was nothing more than
a Primus inter pares, such language
could not with any truth have been ad-
missible. S. Hilary then believed that
S. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles,
the supreme Head of the Church, the
supreme Door-keeper, and the supreme
Judge ; in a word, that he was the
Centre of unity, and the Foundation
and Origin of unity and jurisdiction.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
2 9
S. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
A.D. 363.
32. " Peter the Chiefest and Fore-
most (leader) of the Apostles (n^o?
j before a little maid,"
&c. Catech. ii. n. 19, /?. 31.
33. [In reference to the over-
throw of Simon Magus by the
united prayers of SS. Peter and Paul,
this Father says] : " And though
the thing be wonderful, it is no
wonder : for it was Peter, he who
bears with him the keys of heaven,
(J> reig Khtis rav ovgoivav rgj^ig*y).
It is not worth our wonder ; for it
was Paul, he who was caught up
into the third heaven." Catech. vi.
n. is, p. 96.
34. " Our Lord Jesus Christ then
became man, but by the many He
was not known. But wishing to
teach that which was not known,
having assembled the disciples,
He asked, Whom do men say that
I the Son of Man am ? . . . .
And all being silent (for it was be-
yond man to learn) Peter, the Fore-
most of the Apostles, and Chief
Herald of the Church
gvtpcttos xjgy, not usng
language of his own finding, nor
persuaded by human reasoning, but
having his mind enlightened from
the Father, says to Him, Thou
art the Christ, not simply that,
but, the Son of the living God.
And a blessing follows the speech
.... Blessed art thou? &c.
Catech. xi. n. 3,/. 150.
35. " In the power of the same
Holy Spirit, Peter, also the Fore-
most of the Apostles, and the Key-
bearer of the kingdom of heaven
(TJJ$ fiotrih&ietg T&V ovgcivav Khtioov
%<>$)> healed Eneas the paralytic
in the Name of Christ." Catech.
xvii. n. 27, p. 227.
COMMENT.
S. Cyril describes S. Peter as the
Chiefest and Foremost of the Apostles.
The words, Ko^v^atoruros and trgvro-
ffrKms are exceedingly strong terms, the
former signifying standing at the head
or foremost place ; the latter, standing
in the first rank. S. Cyril in his de-
scription of the exploits of S. Peter
and S. Paul, in their conflict with Si-
mon Magus, draws a distinction be-
tween the two, which is noteworthy.
He says, alluding to the overthrow of
Simon, "It is no wonder : for it was
Peter, he who bears with him the keys
of heaven ; . . . for it was Paul,
he who was caught up into the third
heaven." Although S. Paul no doubt
shared with S. Peter in the use of the
keys, yet, according to S. Cyril, the
latter was the Key-bearer (See Extract,
No. 35); or, as S. Hilary says, "the
Door-keeper of the heavenly kingdom."
(Ext. No. 28.) S. Cyril styles S. Peter
as the Chief Herald of the Church. It
is. clear, then, that S. Cyril held that
S. Peter was the Chief Ruler of the
Church.
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
S. OPTATUS, OF MILEVIS.
A.D. 368.
36. " Blessed Peter, to whom after
his denial, it were enough if he ob-
tained pardon, merited both to be
preferred (preferri} before all the
Apostles, and he alone received of
the kingdom of heaven the keys to
be communicated to the others (et
claves .... communicandas
cceteris, solus accepit) . . . The
Head of the Apostles (caput aposto-
loruiri) could so have governed
himself as not to incur a crime of
which he would have to repent."
De Schism. Don. /. vii. n. 3, Gal-
land, t. v. p. 501.
COMMENT.
S. Optatus was bishop of a city
in Numidia. He asserts that S. Peter
' ' merited to be preferred before all the
Apostles," and that " he alone received
of the kingdom the keys to be commu-
nicated to the others." This explains the
meaning of S. Cyprian, when he said, that
the Lord founded His Church "first and
alone" "upon Peter, for an original and
principle of unity" (See Extract, 14), "for
whom he appointed and showed that unity
should spring " (Ext. 16), as we shall
see further on, from S. Augustine,
who says that the Church was founded
singly upon Peter, to be afterwards en-
larged so as to include all the Apostles.
It is evident that S. Peter, for a time,
was the sole Apostle, whom the Lord
established as the Rock and Foundation
of the Church ; the one Source of juris-
diction and authority to the Church.
Afterwards our Lord addressed the
eleven who were to share with S. Peter
in the government of the Church. S.
Optatus, then, well expresses the truth
that he (Peter) alone received of the
kingdom the keys, to be communicated
to the others." See above what Ter-
tullian and Origen said (Extracts, 6
and 9). This reminds me of a some-
what parallel case under the Law :
" And the Lord said unto Moses,
Gather unto me seventy men of the
elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to
be the elders of the people, and officers
over them ; and bring them unto the
tabernacle of the congregation, that
they may stand there with thee. And
I will come down, and talk with thee
there : and I will take of the Spirit
which is upon thee, and will put it
upon them ; and they shall bear the
burden of the people with thee, that
thou bear it not thyself alone." (Numb,
xi. 1 6, 17.) The parallel of course must
not be pressed too far, but nevertheless, it
explains much. God had chosen Moses
as His sole Representative, and as the sole
Ruler of the people. As the duties of
government increased, they were found
to be over-burdensome to Moses, God
provided a remedy by instituting col-
leagues to share with him in the ad-
ministration of the government. This
is what our Lord provided in the case of
S. Peter. For a short while he was the
sole Apostle, who alone and singly pos-
sessed the keys. Our Lord, foreknowing
the necessity of making a similar pro-
vision, as in the case of Moses, ap-
pointed eleven other Apostles, who were
to share with S. Peter in the government
of the Church. As God took of Moses'
Spirit and put it upon the seventy elders,
so did our Lord extend the power of
the keys from S. Peter to the rest,
that all might be equal in power to
him, yet subject to him, whom alone
He appointed to be the Foundation and
Rock, and to whom alone He said,
" Feed my sheep." S. Optatus, in af-
firming that S. Peter alone received of
"the kingdom the keys to be commu-
nicated to the others," inferred two
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
great truths : (i) that S. Peter received
in the first place the keys alone ; and
(2) that the other Apostles received the
keys from our Lord ; but, as Tertullian
says (Ext. 6), through S. Peter. These
are in perfect accord with the doctrine
of S. Cyprian and other Fathers. S.
Optatus describes S. Peter as the Head
(caput) of the Apostles, and this further
explains his meaning. For it is from
the Head all government and authority
proceed ; and so it was with S. Peter,
for he was the Head, the Foundation and
Source from whence unity did spring.
S. EPHRAEM, OF SYRUS.
A.D. 370.
37. " Mount Sinai falls in the
tenth year ; it sings hymns of praise
to the Lord that is born. Of old,
Sion melted at His Presence, and
fell away. But it will soon per-
ceive Him aimed at with stones
thrown by impious hands : he
that was to build His Church upon
Cephas, receives on Him stones.
Admire the workmanship of the
divine Artificer." T. ii. Syr. Serm.
xiii. in Nat. Dom. p. 433-34.
38. ... " Have they (Bardesanes
and Manes) not even respected the
sentence of the Apostle, who con-
demns such as say, / am of Cephas?
Now if it was the duty of the sheep
to refuse even the name of Cephas,
although he was the Prince of the
Apostles, and had received the keys,
and was accounted the Shepherd
of the flock, what execration is
to be deemed too dreadful for him,
who fears not to designate sheep
that are not his, by his own
name." T. ii. Syr. Serm. Ivi. Adv.
Hares, p. 559.
39. "To whom, O Lord, didst
Thou entrust that most precious
pledge of the heavenly keys ? To
Bar Jonas, the Prince of the Apos-
tles, with whom, I implore thee,
may I share thy bridal chamber ;
and thee, most holy assembly of
Apostles .... to you also, ye Pro-
phets, &c. T. iii. Syr. Parasn. 33,
p. 486.
40. " Peter, who was called Ce-
phas, he who was captured on the
sea-shore, and who received a testi-
mony from the great Pastor, that
Upon this rocklwillbuildmy church,
by means of the priesthood re-
ceived also the keys of heaven, as
worthy (of them "). T. iii. Gr. De
Sacerd.p. 3.
41. Thee, O Simon Peter, will I
proclaim the blessed, who boldest
the keys, which the Spirit made.
A great and ineffable word, that he
binds and looses those in heaven,
and those under the earth . . .
O thou blessed one, that obtainedst
the Place of the Head and of
the Tongue, in the body of thy
brethren, which (body) was en-
larged out of the disciples and sons
of thy Lord." Asseman. Bibl. Ori-
ent, t. \.p. 95.
42. We hail thee, Peter, the
Tongue of the disciples ; the Voice
of the heralds ; the Eye of the
Apostles ; the Keeper of heaven ;
the First-born of those that bear
the keys." T. iii. Gr. in SS. Apost.
p. 464.
COMMENT.
The opinions of S. Ephraem are
in accord with that of other Fathers.
There is a remarkable passage, well
worthy of notice (See Extract, No. 38. )
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
Writing against the sect of Manes, he
says, " Have they not even respected
the sentence of the Apostle, who con-
demns such as say, I am of Cephas?
Now if it was the duty of the sheep to re-
fuse even the name of Cephas, although
he was the Prince of the Apostles,
and had received the keys, and was ac-
counted the Shepherd of the flock, what
execration," &c. His argument brings
out in relief the exalted position of S.
Peter. This Father condemns all sects,
pointing out their iniquity, he con-
demns too, Manes, (and in him all other
schismatics), " who fear not to desig-
nate sheep that are not his, by his own
name," for if it was unlawful even for
the Chief of the Church, the Prince of
the Apostles, and the Shepherd of the
flock, to designate his own sheep by
his own name, much less was it lawful
for Manes or any such to so designate
his own sect. This is his argument.
It is impossible to suppose that any
author would make use of such an ar-
gument to condemn schism, if he did not
believe that S. Peter was the Head and
Chief of the apostolic college, and Chief
Shepherd of the Church. The following
language is very strong, " O thou (Peter)
blessed one that obtainest the Place of
the Head, and of the Tongue, in the
body of thy brethren." The Head, pro-
perly speaking, is Christ ; when, then, it
is said S. Peter obtained the Place of the
Head, is meant (it is submitted) the po-
sition of Christ in the Church during
His absence. So the fathers believed that
S. Peter was the Vicar of Christ. He
was also the " Tongue in the body of the
brethren;" i.e. he delivered to them
the oracles of God. This he did in the
matter of circumcision among the Gen-
tiles at the Council of Jerusalem.
S. GREGORY, OF NYSSA.
A.D. 370.
43. " Peter, with his whole soul,
associates himself with the Lamb ;
and, by means of the change of
his name, he is changed by the
Lord into something more divine ;
instead of Simon being both called
and having become a Rock (Peter)
. . . . The great Peter did not
by advancing by little and little
attain unto this grace, but at
once he listened to his brother,
believed in the Lamb, and was
through faith perfected, and, hav-
ing cleaved to the Rock, became
Peter (a Rock irprtyviis rif jrfrg*
IlgTgof iysvgro"). T. \. Horn. xv.
in C. C antic, p. 691.
44. " Through Peter He gave to
the Bishops the key (if*
of the heavenly honours." T. iii.
De Castig.p. 314.
45. " The memory of Peter, the
H ead of the Apostles ( w^Ai rav
*WT0A), is celebrated ; and mag-
nified indeed with him are the
other members of the Church ; but
(upon him) is the Church of God
firmly established. For he is, agree-
ably to the gift conferred upon him
by the Lord, that unbroken and
most firm Rock upon which the Lord
built His Church. (Ovros yctg
Koipw" Alt. Or. De S.
Steph. Galland. t. vi. p. 600.
COMMENT.
S. Gregory was Bishop of Nyssa.
He states his opinion of St. Peter's
position very explicitly. He says that
he first listened to his brethren, then
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
33
believed in the Lamb, and was per-
fected through faith : secondly, that
cleaving to the Rock, that is Christ, "he
became Peter," that is, that he himself
became a Rock. S. Gregory maintains
that in changing his name, he was
changed " into something more di-
vine ; " for by virtue of the gift con-
ferred upon him, he became " that un-
broken and most firm Rock upon which
the Lord built His Church " (See Ex-
tract, No. 45). Two of the results, follow-
ing this change of name, are mentioned
by S. Gregory, (i) that the " key of
heavenly honours " was given to the Bi-
shops "through Peter." Here the har-
mony between this Father, S. Opta-
tus, S. Cyprian, Origen, and Ter-
tullian, is apparent, namely, that S.
Peter was the Origin and Principal,
whence the unity of the priesthood
welled forth. He was the one Founda-
tion of Apostolic power which Christ
established, and Bishops who were
equally endowed with Apostolic power,
received it through S. Peter. (2) The
second result, mentioned by this Father,
is, that S. Peter was regarded as " the
Head of the Apostles. " Indeed, xitpa*.*
signifies the Head, and, like caput,
is the name of that principal member,
which is charged with the function of
ruling and governing the whole body
subject to it. Such, then, is the expressed
doctrine of S. Gregory, viz. that S.
Peter was the Rock of the Rock, on
which the Church was built and firmly
established ; and by the changing of
his name to Peter, Christ made him
" something more divine," pointing him
out as the Rock of the Church, and as
THE HEAD (the definite article is pre-
fixed) of the Apostles, through whom
(Peter) the "key of heavenly honours "
were conferred upon the Bishops.
S. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM.
A.D. 370.
46. "Seest thou that of the disciples
of Christ, all of whom were great
and deserving of the choice, one is
called a Rock (J p& KIT^O, *#Agme<)
and is entrusted with the Founda-
tions of the Church; whilst another
is the best beloved, and reposes
on the breast of Jesus ; and the
rest bear with the Prior Honour (thus
bestowed (<psgou<r;v oi homo] TW TT^A-
T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18, p.
591.
47. " Neither does a man know,
though he be the parent of an evil
like unto Judas, whether his off-
spring shall be called the god-like
Paul, or be like unto Peter, Peter
who became the unbroken Rock,
and who had the keys delivered un-
to him (7TTg>J5<ippay/05 y6v2Tj$ *A>j?&*
A*X;OVTS)." T. ii. Carm. 2, p. 51.
48. " Peter, the Chief of the dis-
ciples, but he was a Rock (IljTgo?
pu,6vTuv a,xo<;, #A>u* Uzr^og v), not as
a fisherman, but because full of
zeal." T. ii. p. 790.
COMMENT.
S. Gregory was first Bishop of Na-
zianzum and afterwards Patriarch of
Constantinople, and esteemed one of
the great doctors of the Eastern Church.
He affirms that S. Peter was named
the Rock, and was entrusted with the
foundations of the Church ; that he not
only was called the Rock, but that he be-
D
34
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
came the unbroken Rock, and that to
him were delivered the keys. S. Gregory
declares him to be the " Chief of the
disciples."
The word cixgos literally means either
highest, topmost, or outermost. But
concerning degree^ it signifies the highest
of its kind. S. Peter was, therefore,
regarded as the highest in the Apostolic
Office, and having also the strength of
the Rock, he was able to succour and
support his brethren.
S. MACARIUS OF EGYPT.
A.D. 371,
49. " For of old Moses and Aaron,
when this priesthood was theirs, suf-
fered much ; and Caiaphas, when
he had their Chair, persecuted and
condemned the Lord. . . Afterwards
Moses was succeeded by Peter, who
had committed to his hands the
new Church of Christ, and the true
priesthood." Horn. xxvi. n. 23,
Galland. T. vii. p. 101.
50. "Jannes and Mambre opposed
Moses, and as Simon (Magus) set
himself against that Chief, Peter.
Ib. Ascet. de Patient.
n. 3, p. 1 80.
COMMENT.
S. Macarius was a contemporary
of S. Athanasius, and a friend of S.
Anthony. He regards S. Peter as the
successor of Moses ; and that, as Moses
was directed to build up the polity of
Israel and to govern the people in his
day, so, in like manner, was S. Peter
commissioned to perform similar func-
tions for the foundation, establishment,
and government of the new Israel, the
Kingdom of Christ. In another place he
contrasts Jannes and Mambre, who op-
posed Moses, with Simon Magus, setting
"himself up against that Chief, Peter."
S. BASIL.
A.D. 371.
51. " When we hear tLe name of
Peter, that name does not cause our
minds to dwell on his substance,
but to figure to our minds the pro-
perties that are connected with
him. For we at once, on hearing
that name, think of the son of him
that came from Bethsaida, Andrew's
brother ; him that was called from
amongst fishermen unto the Minis-
try of the Apostleship; him who, on
account of the Pre-eminence of his
faith, received upon himself the
building of the Church (TO v
T. i. /. ii.
Adv. Eunom. n. ^,p. 240.
52. The house of God, which is
the Church of the living God, the
foundations of which are on the
holy mountains, for it is built upon
the foundation of Apostles and Pro-
phets. One also of these mountains
was Peter, upon which Rock the
Lord promised to build His Church
itnyyt/Aafv
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
35
T. i. Comment, in Esai. c. ii. n. 66,
P- 427.
53. "And when he, the instru-
ment of such and so great a judg-
ment ; he the minister of the so
great wrath of God upon a sinner ;
that blessed Peter, who was pre-
ferred (9rgoKg<0i/s) before all the
disciples ; who alone received a
greater testimony and blessing than
the rest ; he to whom were entrusted
the keys of the kingdom of hea-
ven, &c." T. ii. p. i. Proazm. de
Jiidic. Dei, n. 7, p. 221.
COMMENT.
S. Basil, one of the great doctors
of the Church, was Bishop of Csesarea,
in Cappadocia. He says we ought
not to dwell on Peter's substance,
that is, his flesh, or his mere person,
but on the properties connected with
him. When we hear his name (Peter),
we, he says, think of him who was
called from a humble fisherman unto the
Ministry of the Apostleship ; who, "on
account of the Pre-eminence of his faith,
received upon himself the building of
the Church," i.e. that S. Peter being
found worthy was appointed the Master
builder of the kingdom of our Lord.
S. Basil considers the Church, built upon
the Apostles and Prophets, to be founded
upon the holy mountains, i.e. upon many
mountains, one of which was the Moun-
tain of S. Peter; upon which Rock, i.e.
upon S. Peter's Mountain (for remember
that the " Stone became a great Moun-
tain," see Daniel, ii. 35) "the Lord
promised to build His Church." There
can be no doubt of S. Basil's mean-
ing, that the Mountain of S. Peter,
i.e. the Church of S. Peter, was the
governing Church, the principal Church,
that " more powerful principality,"
which S. Irenseus described it to be,
to which it is necessary that the other
mountains, i.e. the other churches,
should "resort" as to the centre of unity.
This, too, is in harmony with what
S. Cyprian said, "To the seven child-
ren there is evidently conjoined their
Mother, their Origin and Root, which
afterwards bare seven Churches, her-
self having been founded first and alone,
by the voice of the Lord, upon Peter,"
(see Extract, No. 19). S. Peter's
Church, and S. Peter's Mountain, on
which it is built, is that great mother-
Church, from which all other Churches
proceed, and by which they are sus-
tained. S. Basil affirms that S. Peter
was preferred to all the disciples, and
that he alone received a greater testimony
and blessing than the rest; even him
who "was intrusted with the keys of
the kingdom of heaven."
S. EPIPHANIUS.
A.D. 385.
54. ". . . And the blessed Peter, who
for awhile denied the Lord, Peter
who was theChiefest of the Apostles,
he who became unto us truly a
firm Rock upon which is based
the Lord's faith, upon which (Rock)
the Church is in every way built
TgoVav) ; first, in that he con-
fessed that Christ was the Son of
the living God, and heard that upon
this Rock of firm faith I will build
my Church. . . . Further, he then
also became a firm Rock of the
building, and Foundation of the
house of God ( ivravQet
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
oixoooutiSj xoci Qtftihtog o'lxov 0ov),
in that having denied Christ, and
being again converted, being both
found of the Lord and found
worthy to hear, Feed my sheep and
feed my lambs." Adv. H ceres, p.
500.
55. " Holy men are therefore
called the temple of God, because
the Holy Spirit dwells in them ; as
that Chief (xogvtpetiog) of the Apos-
tles testifies, he that was found
worthy to be blessed by the Lord,
because the Father had revealed
unto him. To him then did the
Father reveal His true Son, and he
is blessed j and the same (Peter)
furthermore reveals the Holy
Ghost. This was befitting in that
First of the Apostles, that firm
Rock upon which the Church of
God is built (g^gj rov TT^UTCV rai
TW <rrgggay, 1^
rov gy epj
and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. The gates of
hell are heretics and heresiarchs.
For in every way was the faith con-
firmed in him who received the keys
of heaven j who looses on earth and
binds in heaven. For in him are
found all the subtle questions of
faith. ... He was aided by the
Father, so as to be (or, lay) the
Foundation of the security (firm-
ness) of the faith (jw ct,<rtpciteK>t,v rttg
TTKrrtag gjt6>.<iy) . . He heard from
that same God, Peter, feed My
lambs j to him was entrusted the
flock ; he leads the way admirably
in the power of his own Master
( TrtTTtFTtvfMvog rtjy Troipvqv' o x.oe,Xug
ooqy&v gy Tq ovvoifiti Toy lotov ot<r-
STO'TOV)." T. ii. in Anchor, n. 9, p.
COMMENT.
S. Epiphanius was Bishop of Sa-
lamis in Cyprus. He affirms that
S. Peter was "the Chiefest of the
Apostles," that he became unto the
Church "a firm Rock, upon which is
based the Lord's faith," upon which
"the Church is in every way built :"
against which the gates of hell, that is,
heretics and heresiarchs, shall not pre-
vail. This Father also says that S.
Peter, though he denied the Lord, yet,
on his conversion, was found worthy to
hear the words, " Feed My sheep ; " so
that, according to S. Epiphanius, S.
Peter received the commission to be
the Chief Pastor of the flock. To S.
Peter the Father revealed the Son and
also the Holy Ghost, and he adds,
"This was befitting," as S. Peter was
" the First of the Apostles, and that firm
Rock upon which the Church of God is
built," who received the keys, and in
whom was found the solution of "all
the subtle questions of faith." It is im-
possible not to see that this Father re-
garded S. Peter as far above his co-
apostles in pre-eminence and authority;
for "to him," he says, "was entrusted
the flock," and "he leads the way ad-
mirably in the power of his own Mas-
ter." When S. Epiphanius penned
this last clause, the ruling idea in his
mind must have been that S. Peter, like
Moses of old, was acting in behalf of our
Lord as his special representative.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
37
S. AMBROSE.
A.D. 385.
56. " It is that same Peter to
whom He said, Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my
Church. Therefore where Peter is,
there is the Church; where the
Church is, there death is not, but
life eternal ; and therefore it was
added, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it, and, / will give
to thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. Blessed Peter, against
whom the gates of hell prevailed
not, nor were the gates of heaven
closed against him ; but who, on
the contrary, destroyed the porches
of hell and opened the heavenly
places." T. i. In Ps. xl. n. 30, p.
879, 880.
57. " In fine, Peter, after having
been tempted by the devil, is set
over the Church (Petrus ecclesitz
pr&ponitur}. The Lord, therefore,
foreshowed (referring to S. Luke,
xxii. 31, 32) what that was, that he
afterwards chose him as the Pastor
of the Lord's flock (quodpostea eum
pastor em eligit Dominici gregis).
For to him He said, But when
thou art converted strengthen thy
brethren." Ib. in Ps. xliii. n. 40, p.
904.
58. "Therefore did Christ also
commit to Peter to feed His flock,
and to do the will of the Lord,
because He knew his love." Ib. in
Ps. cxviii. (Mem.} n.^,p. 1131.
59. "The ship is not agitated
wherein prudence sails, where per-
fidy is not, where faith breathes.
For how could that be agitated, over
which he (Peter) presided, in whom
is the Foundation (firmamentum) of
the Church ? . . . Though the rest
are ordered to let down their nets,
yet to Peter alone is it said, Launch
out into the deep; that is, into the
depths of disputations . . . Into this
deep of disputation the Church is
led by Peter (ecclesia a Petro du-
cititr), so as to see thence rising
again the Son of God, thence flow-
ing the Holy Spirit. . . . They of the
synagogue came to Peter's ship ;
that is, unto the Church." T. \.
Expos, in Luc. I. iv. n. 70, 71, 77,
PP- 1353-4-
60. "... Christ is the Rock, For
they drank of that spiritual Rock that
followed them, and that Rock was
Christ, and He did not refuse to
bestow the favour of this title even
upon His disciple, so that he, too,
might be Peter (or Rock), in that he
has from the Rock a solid constancy,
a firm faith (ut et ipsg sit Petrus,
quod de petra habeat soliditatem
constanticE)? Ib. I. vi. n. 97, pp.
1406-7.
61. " Peter was grieved because
he is asked the third time, Lovest
thou Me? For he is questioned
who is doubted ; but the Lord does
not doubt; and He inquires not to
learn, but to teach, now that He is
about to be raised to heaven, whom
He was leaving unto us, as it were,
theVicar of His own love (amorissui
nobis velut vicar ium relinquebaf).
For thus have you it, Simon, son
of John, lovest thou me ? Yea,
Lord, Thou knowest that T love
Thee. Jesus saith to him, Feed my
sheep. . . . Who else could readily
make this profession for himself?
And, therefore, because he alone
amongst all makes this profession,
he is preferred before all (omnibus
antefertur], for love is greater than
all. . . . And now he is not ordered,
as at first, to feed His lambs, nor
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
His younger sheep, as in the se-
cond instance, but His sheep, that
the more perfect might govern the
more perfect (perfectiores ut perfec-
tior gubernaref}." Ib. L x. n. 175-6,
/. 1542.
62. "...What fellowship, then,
can these men (Novatians) have
with thee ; men who receive not
the keys of the kingdom, and who
deny that they ought to forgive
sins ? Which, indeed, is rightly
acknowledged on their parts ; for
they have not Peter's inheritance
who have not Peter's Choir (non
habent Petri hcereditatem, qui Petri
sedem non habent}, which with
impious disunion they rend asunder :
but they act wickedly in that they
deny that even in the Church sins
can be pardoned ; whereas to Peter
was it said, I will give thee the keys,
&c. ; whereas also that vessel of the
Lord's election says, To whom ye
forgive, &c. (2 Cor. ii. 10). Why
then do they read Paul if they
think that he erred so impiously as
to claim unto himself his Lord's
rights? But he claimed what he
had received: he usurped not what
belonged not to him." T. ii. De
Pan. I. i. c. vii. n. 32, 33, p. 399.
63. " Further, that thou mayest
know that, as man, He prays ; as
God, He commands ; thou hast in
the Gospel that He said to Peter,
/ have prayed for thee that thy
faith fail not. But to that same
Peter when He said on an earlier
occasion, Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God, He answered,
Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock
I will build my Church, and I will
give unto thee the keys of the king-
dom of heaven. How could he not
confirm his faith, unto whom of
His own authority He gave the king-
dom, and whom when He styles a
Rock, He pointed (indicavit] out
the Foundation (firmamentuni) of
the Church ?" T. ii. /. iv. De Fide,
c. v. n. 56, /. 531.
64. "Thou art silent, O Simon
Peter, whilst the rest reply, though
thou art the First (cum ipse sis
primus], and though thou dost,
even not asked, put thy questions.
... He, therefore, who had been
silent . . . when he heard, Rut
whom say ye that I am ? at once,
not unmindful of his position, ex-
ercised the Primacy ; the Primacy,
to wit, of confession, not of honour,
the Primacy of faith, not of rank ;
that is to say, Now let none sur-
pass me, now is my part. . . . This,
then, is that Peter who answers
for the rest, yea, as above the rest
(pro ceteris apostolis, immo prce
ceteris), and therefore is he called
the Foundation, because he knows
how not only to keep his own, but
also that in common (to all). . . .
Faith, therefore, is the foundation
of the Church, for not of Peter's
flesh, but of his faith, was it said that
The gates of hell shall not prevail
against it; but that confession van-
quished hell. And this confession
has shut out more than one heresy ;
for whereas the Church, like a good
ship, is often buffeted by many a
wave, the Foundation of the Church
ought to have strength to withstand
every heresy." Ib. De Incarn. c.
iv.. 30, 32, 33; etc.v.n. i,A7i-
u.
COMMENT.
S. Ambrose, some time Bishop of Peter was the Chief Pastor of the flock,
Milan, and one of the most illustrious
Doctors of the Church, teaches that S.
and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
I. With respect to the inquiry of our
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
39
Lord, " Whom say ye that I am?" S.
Ambrose says that S.Peter, " at once
not unmindful of his position, ex-
ercised the Primacy ; the Primacy, to
wit, of confession, not of honour, the
Primacy of faith, not of rank ;" that is,
that in answering this question, as the
Representative of the rest, he receives
the Primacy of faith, so that he First
confessed whom he First believed. This
"confession vanquished hell." The
Foundation of the Church is based, not
upon the flesh of Peter, but upon his
faith, against which the gates of hell shall
not prevail.
2. In his exposition of the incident
connected with the two ships at the
Lake Gennessaret, recorded in S. Luke,
S. Ambrose points out that when our
Lord directed S. Peter to laiinch oiit
into the deep, he signified by the deep
"the depths of disputation," into
which "the Church is led by Peter."
From this we learn that it is one of
the prerogatives of S. Peter to ex-
pound the truth to the Church ;
i.e. as S. Chrysostom says, as "the
Teacher of the whole universe." This
office he exercised at the Council of
Jerusalem, for he taught the whole
Church the truth as he had received it
from Heaven (for the revelation that the
Gentiles were to be fellow-heirs, was
revealed to him alone, even as the Di-
vinity of our Lord had been on a former
occasion) and they accepted his teach-
ing and confirmed his dogma. Even
S. James' judgment was founded upon
that of S. Peter. This opinion of S.
Ambrose is supported by S. Hilary
(See Ext. 28).
3. But S. Ambrose asserts that S.
Peter was the Vicar of Christ. There is
no mistaking the meaning of the word
vkarius, that is, one occupying the
place of another. He says that our
Lord, when about to be raised to hea-
ren, left unto the Church S. Peter, as
the " Vicar of His own love," that is, he
was to stand in Christ's Stead in the
performance of the functions of Chief
Pastor. S. Ambrose is not the only one
who has taught that S. Peter was ap-
pointed Vicar of Christ ; S. Ephraem
Syrushad expressed that same sentiment
when he said, " O thou blessed one,
that obtainedst the Place of the Head "
(See Ext. 41); and also subsequently
S. Peter Chrysologus, who says, He com-
mended His sheep to be fed by Peter
"in His Stead;" and S. Epiphanius
meant the same when he said, that he
(Peter) "leads the way admirably in the
power of his own Master." (See Ext.
No. 55). It seems, then, the belief of
both East and West that S. Peter filled
the office of our Lord, viz. that of
the Head of the universal Church ; and
certainly this is abundantly implied, for
how could he, who was the co-Rock,
the co-Foundation, the Key-bearer with
Him, theConfirmer of the brethren, and
the Chief Pastor of the flock, by express
delegation, how could he who had
been commanded, by his own single
authority, to open heaven to the Gen-
tiles, how could he who in all things
assumed the functions of the Head, be
otherwise than the Vicar of Him from
whom he has received all these exalted
offices?
4. Holding this doctrine S. Ambrose
is perfectly consistent when he affirms
that S. Peter was "set over the Church;"
praponitur signifies set over in the
sense of giving one the charge or com-
mand of any place or business, i.e.
to make one Ruler or Chief. S. Am-
brose means, then, that S. Peter was
set over the Church as its Governor and
Ruler. Hence, then, we understand the
further statement of S. Ambrose that
"where Peter is there is the Church,"
that is, all who are in communion with
S.Peter as the Vicar of Christ, and Head
of the Church, form together with him
the Church. Hence, again, the contrary
position, "They have not Peter's inherit-
ance who have not Peter's chair," i.e.
they who are without, i.e. out of the
communion of S. Peter, are not in the
Church, for the Church is in Peter,
and the brethren who are in union with
him.
The doctrine, then, of S. Ambrose is
perfectly clear, viz. that S. Peter was
4 o
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Foundation
and the Rock of the Church, the Chief
and Head of the Church, the Chief Judge
not, there is not the Church; and those
who are not in union with the chair of
S. Peter, have no share in his inherit-
in controversies of faith, and the Chief ance. Such is S. Ambrose's testimony
Pastor of the flock ; that wherever he is,
there is the Church, and wherever he is
in regard to the position of this great
Apostle.
S. JEROME.
A.D. 385.
64*. " If, then, the Apostle Peter,
upon whom the Lord built the
Church (Petrus, super quern Do-
minus fundavit ecclesiam\ has re-
corded that the prophecy and pro-
mise of the Lord was at that time
fulfilled, how can we fix on another
time, as on fancy?" T. iv.Ep.xxvii.
Pt. \\.col. 64.
65. "But you say that the Church
is built upon Peter, though in an-
other place the same thing is done
upon all the Apostles, and all re-
ceive the keys of the kingdom of
heaven, and the strength of the
Church is settled equally upon
them ; yet for this reason One is
chosen out of the Twelve, that a
Head being appointed, the occasion
of schism might be removed. (Ta-
men propterea inter duodecim unus
eligitur, ut capite constitute, schis-
matis tollatur occasio.} But why
was not John, the virgin, chosen ?
Deference was paid to age, seeing
that Peter was older; lest one yet a
youth, and almost a boy, would be
set above (praferretur] men of ad-
vanced age." Ib. adv. Jovin. PI. \\.
col. 170.
66. " As Plato was the prince of
philosophers, so was Peter the Prince
of the Apostles, on whom the Church
of the Lord in enduring massive-
ness was built ; a Church which
neither by the assaulting wave, nor
by any tempest, is shaken." Ib.
contr. Pelag. PI. ii. col. 491.
67. " Thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I 'will build my Church. As
He bestowed light on His Apostles,
so that they were to be called the
light of the world, and as they ob-
tained other titles from the Lord,
so also to Simon, who believed on
the Rock Christ, was given the name
Peter (Rock). And in accordance
with the metaphor of a rock, it is
justly said to him, / will build my
Church upon thee (ALdificabo ec-
clesiam nieam super te}." Ib. I. iii.
Comm. in Matt. PL \. col. 74.
COMMENT.
S. Jerome, a Priest and Doctor
of the Church, affirms that " the Lord
built his Church upon S. Peter," and
although it is true that the keys were
given to all the Apostles, and that the
strength of the Church was settled
equally upon all, yet " One is chosen
out of the Twelve, that a Head being
appointed the occasion of schism might
be removed." The word caput is here
used, showing that this Headship was to
be a governing power; and indeed S.
Jerome's reasoning involves it, for how
could schism be prevented, and unity
maintained by the One Chosen Head,
unless he was armed with the necessary
authority and power to act when need-
ful ? Much stress is laid upon S. Jerome
comparing the principatus of S. Peter
with that of Plato over philosophers,
showing thereby that S. Jerome held
only a primacy of honour ; but there is
a wide distinction between the primacy
of Plato and that of S. Peter, for of the
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
latter it is said that " the Church of the
Lord in enduring massivenesswas built."
No doubt schools of philosophy were
founded on Plato's doctrines, but who
ever said to him, " I will give thee the
keys," or "Feed My sheep?" A cer-
tain resemblance doubtless there is be-
tween the two Primacies ; but one thing
is clear, that what S. Jerome meant with
regard to S. Peter, was, that he should
have and exercise the Primacy of au-
thority, and as a Head rule the bre-
thren that schism may be prevented.
S. CHRYSOSTOM.
A. 0.387.
68. " Peter himself the Head or
Crown of the Apostles, the First in
the Church (jj xopvtpv T&V ctTrttrTGhuv ,
o TTQUTOS sv TV) IxxAWoi), the Friend of
Christ, who received a revelation, not
from man, but from the Father, as the
Lord bears witness to him, saying,
Blessed art thou, &c. This very
Peter and when I name Peter I
name that unbroken Rock, that firm
Foundation, the Great Apostle, the
First of the disciples (
.... TOV Trparov TUV ^<0>jT&)y), the
First called, and the First who
obeyed he was guilty of a deed
not slight, but exceeding great, even
the denying of the Lord." T. ii.
Horn. iii. de Posnit. n. 4, p. 300.
69. " And yet after so great an
evil (his denial), he again raised
him to his former honour, and en-
trusted to his hand the Government
of the universal Church ( T v \7ct~
vg o!x.ov{tivtx%i; ixxhvcrjotg in-
T. ii. Horn. v. de Pcenit.
n, 2, p. 309.
70. " Great was God's consider-
ation towards this city (Antioch), as
He manifested by deeds, inasmuch
as Peter, who was set over the whole
habitable world ; he, in whose hands
He placed the keys of heaven; him,
to whom He intrusted the doing
and supporting all things (Toy
5 rug
a TTXVTOS, aytiv KXI
) ; him He ordered to tarry
here for a long time ; thus this one
city (Antioch) was to him equiva-
lent to the whole world." Ib. In. S.
Sq.M.*. 4,^.579.
71. "Peter, the Leader of the
choir of the Apostles, the Mouth
of the disciples, the Pillar of the
Church, the Buttress (foundation) of
the faith, the Foundation of the con-
fession, the Fisherman of the uni-
verse." r. iii. Horn, de Dec. Mill.
Talent. . 3,^.4, 5.
72. Peter, that Leader of the
choir, that Mouth of the rest
of the Apostles, that Head of the
brotherhood, that One set over the
entire universe, that Foundation of
the Church (5 xg0A T?? (par fag
tKtl'vqs, o tv^q oi
ffW-nj?, o Otp&i'og TVS
T. vi. In illud, hoc Scitote, n. 4, p.
282.
73. " Jesus saith to Simon Peter,
Simon, son of John, lovest thou
Me more than these? And why,
then, passing by the rest, does He
discourse with Peter concerning
these things ? He was the Chosen
One of the Apostles, and the Mouth
of the disciples, and the Head of
the choir (Jlx.x.(>tTo<; qv rav CLTCO-
x.oc.1 a-rouos, rav [totSnTav, x,at
OV o<>v' For this cause
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
also did Paul come upon an occa-
sion to see him before the rest. And
withal showing him, that thencefor-
ward he must be confident, as, hav-
ing done away with his denial, He
(Christ) places in his hands the Go-
vernment over the brethren (iyyjiii-
and He brings not forward that de-
nial, neither does He reproach him
with the past, but says to him, If thou
love me, preside (vgt^riwv) over
the brethren." T. viii. Horn. Ixxxviii.
in Joan. n. \.p. 525.
74. " And should any one say,
1 Why then did James receive the
throne of Jerusalem ?' This is my
answer : That He appointed this
man (Peter) not teacher of that
throne, but of the habitable globe.
("OT< TOVTOV ov TOV Qgovov, aXhcc TVS
Ib. n. 6, p. 527.
75. " And in those days Peter
stood up in the midst of the dis-
ciples, and said (Acts, i. 15.) Both
as being ardent, and as having had
intrusted to him by Christ the
flock ; as the First of the choir, he
always is the First to begin the dis-
course. Lo, there were a hundred
and twenty; and he asks for one out
of the whole multitude. Justly, he
has the First authority in the matter,
as having had all intrusted to him
ty%zigirQiis}. For to
him Christ said, When thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren"
T. ix. Horn. iii. in Act App. n. 3.
p. 26.
76. " For if on account of the
two brethren they were filled with
indignation, much more here ; for
they had not yet had the Spirit
vouchsafed to them. But after-
wards they were not such men.
For everywhere they yielded the
First honours to Peter (^TFXVTX^V
TUV TTQtHTiiuv < nrct,(> > (&yjuov<ri)i and put
him forward in the addresses to
the people, although more roughly
disposed than any of them." T. vii.
Horn. 1. in Matt. n. i,p. 515.
77. " See how Paul speaks after
Peter, and no one restrains ; James
waits and starts not up, for he
it was to whom had been in-
trusted the Government* (rw a$-
%vv iyKtX,tii<roif*,tvog)." T. ix. Horn.
xxxiii. in Act. App. n. 2, p. 255.
78. " For this cause not even in
the kingdom is the honour equal;
nor amongst the disciples were all
equal ; but the three were pre-emi-
nent amongst the rest, and amongst
these three again there was much
difference. For with God there is a
very exact method even to the
lowest. Yea, for one star differeth
from another star in glory, is said.
And though all were Apostles, and
all were to sit on twelve thrones,
and all had left their goods, and all
companioned with Him, still it was
the three He took. And again, even
of these three He said that some
were under, and some superior (#<
/ 9 ~ V > ~
TOVTMV avTav twt Tivecs
.) To sit on my right
hand and on my left is not, he
says, mine to give, but to them for
whom it is prepared. And He sets
Peter before them (#/ TOV
* The editor of " Faith of Catholics" says, in a note on the word ^v, which
he translates government, that in the same vol. Horn. ii. inEp. Rom, p. 474 (Paris,
1837), is used for the sovereign empire of Rome, " having recently acquired
the tmpire of the world" (rf otavftiv>i{ rnv &%riv). (See Faith of Cath., note,
vol. ii. p. 35.)
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
43
$1 etvrZv 7rOTi6v)<n), saying, Lovest Horn. xxxi. in Ep. ad Rom. n. 4,
thou Me more than these ? And J ohn p. 7 50.
was loved above the rest." Ib.
COMMENT.
S. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, and one of the great Doctors
of the Church, is very explicit in the state-
ment of his opinion concerning S. Peter's
position in the Apostolic Hierarchy. He
says that S. Peter is the "Head or Crown
of the Apostles," "The First in the
Church," " The Leader of the Choir,"
" The Mouth of the Disciples," " The
Pillar of the Church," " The Buttress of
the Faith," "The Foundation of the
Confession," "The Teacher of the habit-
able Globe," "The Fisherman of the
Universe," " The Head of the Bro-
therhood," &c. Titles, it must be con-
fessed, indicating the prerogative of
ruling, teaching, leading, and of re-
presenting the Church by himself alone.
The two Greek words, translated Head,
are x.o^v<tfn or Kitped.*, signifying, the one
the Crown of the head, and the other the
head itself; so that S. Chrysostom be-
lieved that in S. Peter was the royalty of
our Lord, and that he was'" the Head of
the brotherhood. S. Peter was then the
Supreme Pastor, the Supreme Governor
or Ruler of the Church, invested with
all the prerogatives of royal authority.
And this is plain from this Father's
further asseverations, for he avers that
the Lord "entrusted to his hands the
government over the universal Church,"
that he was " set over the whole habit-
able world," " in whose hands He
placed the keys of heaven," to " whom
He entrusted the doing and supporting
of all things," to whom " was entrusted
by Christ the flock." This is language
which cannot by any possibility be
ignored or explained away. It is plain
that this Father held the Supremacy of
S. Peter to the fullest extent, consistent
with the rights of the rest of the Apostles.
But let us examine the above extract
more closely, " Government over the
universal Church." The word rtiv
iffiffreiffiKv, signifies command, govern-
ment, direction, it includes the office of
general, inspector, or overseer. S. Peter
then had the Government and Direction
of the universal Church. " Set over the
whole habitable world," and "set over
the entire universe;" thewords used here
are lvi<rroi<rav and a-goa-rums, the former
signifying chief, commander, or general
in command, an inspector, or superinten-
dent, Chief President ;* the latter a chief,
or leader, superintendent, an overseer or
director, a president, a guardian, a
patron, a protector. There can be little
doubt, then, that S. Chrysostom meant
to say, that to S. Peter was committed
the Government of the whole world.
To " whom He entrusted the doing
and supporting all things." The verb
1-TiT^ifu signifies to transfer or bequeath,
to entrust as to a trustee, a guardian or
vicegerent, so that this great doctor held
that the Lord committed all things, con-
nected with His Church, to the care of
S. Peter.
(i) But perhaps the most valuable testi-
mony of S. Chrysostom is to be found in
those Homilies which treat upon S.Peter's
administration of the Government within
a few years after the ascension, (i.) In
the election of a new Apostle in the
room of Judas Iscariot: a vacancy having
occurred, it was S. Peter's duty to pro-
vide for the election of a new Apostle :
why? S. Chrysostom answers, Be
cause (i) "as having had entrusted to
him by Christ the flock," i.e. as Chief
Pastor, his business was to cause pastors
to be chosen for the well-being of the
flock; (2) because "as the First of
the choir, he always is the First to
begin the discourse," /. e. as holding the
Chief President of the Church. (See Liddell Lex.}
44
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
Primacy ot honour ; and (3) because,
"as having had all entrusted to him,"
"justly, he was the First authority in the
matter," i. e. as "having had placed in
his hands the Government over the
brethren." The word *{tfr*fi*t sig-
nifies one standing in front, at the
head, as having authority and power to
command others ; the kindred word
vr%offra.ffts has a similar meaning. He
then who had the First authority in this
matter, exercised it by directing the
election of an Apostle to be made on
certain conditions to the vacant chair.
It is manifest, then, that in this proceed-
ing S. Peter acted the part of the Chief
Pastor, and the Chief Governor or Ruler
of the universal Church.
( 2) The visit of S. Paul to S. Peter.
"For this cause also did Paul come
upon an occasion to see him (Peter)before
the rest?" What was "that cause?"
because S. Peter was " the Chosen One
of the Apostles," " the Mouth of the
disciples," and " the Head of the
choir." In a word, because of his
Supremacy. By this visit S. Paul re-
cognised S. Peter as the Head and Chief
Pastor of the Church.
(3. ) The Council of Jerusalem. S.
Chrysostom says, " See how Paul speaks
after Peter . . .James waits and starts not
up, for he it was to whom had been
intrusted the government." There
seems to be some difference of opinion
whether "he" in the last clause of this
passage refers to S. Peter or S. James.
The translator of S. Chrysostom's
Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles,
in the Library of the Fathers, has, with-
out note or comment, without even the
use of brackets, substituted "Jam.es"
in the place of the pronoun " he. " The
following is his version : ' ' There was
no arrogance in the Church. After
Peter Paul speaks, and none silences
him : James waits patiently, not starts
up (for the next word). Great the
orderliness (of the proceedings). No
word speaks John here, no word the
other Apostles, but held their peace, for
James was invested with the chief rule,
and thinks it no hardship." (/&/. xxxiii.
in Act. App. p. 455 ; Lib. Fath. Oxf.)
The following is the text : OVTUS oiibiis
rvfpos %v Iv TV Ixx^nffiK, aXXa *roXAj fl
st"ra|/a' xai oget, (Lira. Utr^ov HauXeg
i, xa.i oifetig \Wiffro{ttti' 'laxufios
xa/ ovx aKowfibu, ixtTvas ya
. outiv 'lacivvys
,' eiititv 01 aXXa* a,<ffoff<r'oXoi tpfeyyovra.!'
i, &c., Horn, xxxiii. in Act.
App. T. ix. . 2, p. 255. Bened. 1731.
It is, however, of very little consequence
to whom the IxiTvos ("he") refers. It
is quite possible, and not improbable,
that S. James occupied the chair of the
Moderator, in virtue of his position as
Bishop of the then holy city, and,
especially so, because of his near rela-
tionship to Christ, as "The Lord's
Brother." It is not, however, essential
that the Chief Ruler on all occasions, either
personally or by deputy, should preside.
At the Council of Chalcedon the officials
of the Emperor presided, notwithstand -
ing the presence of the Legates, who do
not seem to have recorded any protest
against their so doing. The real ques-
tion at issue is this, not who presided,
but who determined the controversy,
which was the occasion for convoking
the Synod? If we read the account,
as given in the Acts of the Apostles,
two facts are apparent, (i) that S. Peter
informed the council of the truth he
had received, and (2) that his definition
or decree was accepted and confirmed
by the whole Church, S. James himself
basing his own judgment upon that of S.
Peter. But whatever S. Chrysostom
meant, it must be clear that he could
not have intended to assert that to S.
James had been committed the govern-
ment of the Church, for this would have
been a direct contradiction to his oft-re-
peated testimony in favour of S. Peter's
Supremacy. The above extract plainly
shows this. Nor could he have meant
to say, that S. James was "the Teacher
of the World," for he had already com-
mitted himself to a different opinion in
the following words : ' ' Why did James
receive the throne of Jerusalem ? This
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
45
is my answer: that He appointed this
man (Peter), not teacher of that throne
(Jerusalem), but of the habitable world.''''
(See Ext. 74.) It must be concluded
that S. Chrysostom, if he believed S.
James presided (which, to say the least,
is doubtful), did not ignore S. Peter's
office, even in this council, as " the
Teacher of the World."
S. Chrysostom's doctrine concerning
S. Peter is very manifest, viz. that he was
the Chief Pastor, Chief Ruler, and Chief
Judge, to whom the Lord intrusted the Go-
vernment and sustainmentof His Church.
PRUDENTIUS. (A.D.405.)
79. " And already have most as-
sured pledges of this hope ; for here
already reign two Princes of the
Apostles one the Apostle of the
Gentiles, the other holding the First
chair, flings open the portals of
eternity, that have been entrusted to
him."
(Heic nempe jam regnant duo
Apostolorum principes,
Alter vocator gentium,
Alter cathedram possidens
Primam, recludit creditas
./Eternitatis januas. )
Hymn \\.in Honor. S.Laurent, v. 459-64.
Galland, T. viii. p. 440.
COMMENT.
Prudentius was a Spanish poet.
The point in this extract is that he
regards S. Peter and S. Paul as the
two reigning Princes of the Apostles
one of the Gentiles ; the other, as the
occupant of thejFirst chair, "flings open
the gates of eternity," which had been
placed under his charge as, according
to S. Hilary, "the Gate-keeper,." and
S. Cyril, "the Key-bearer."
POPE S. INNOCENT. (A.D. 410.)
80. " Let us therefore, begin, with
the help of the holy Apostle Peter,
through whom both the Apostolate
and the Episcopate took their rise
in Christ (per quern et apostolatus et
episcopatus in Christo ccepit exor-
dium"} Ep. ii. Galland. t. viii.
. 2,^.547.
S. AUGUSTINE. (A.D. 400.)
81. " If the order of bishops suc-
ceeding to each other is to be con-
sidered, how much more securely,
and really beneficially, do we reckon
from Peter himself, to whom, bear-
ing a Figure of the Church, the
Lord says, Upon this rock I will
build my Church." T. ii. E. liii.
Generos. col. 91.
82. "... He began to wash
the feet of His disciples ....
and then it is added, He went
therefore to Simon Peter, as if He
had already washed the others, and
after them He came to the First, for
who can be ignorant that the most
blessed Peter is the First of the
Apostles (primum apostolorum) ?"
T. iii. Tract. Ivi. in Joan. n. i, col.
476.
83. " Of this Church, Peter, the
Apostle, on account of the Primacy
of his Apostleship ( pr op ter aposto-
latus sui primatum), bore a cha-
racter which represented the whole
Church. For as to what personally
regards him, he was by nature but
one man, by grace one Christian, by
a more abundant grace, one, and that
the First Apostle ; but when there
was said to him, I will give unto him
the keys, &c., He signified the whole
4 6
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
Church, which, in this world, is,
by divers trials, as it were, by rains,
rivers, and tempests, agitated, but
falls not, because it was built upon
a Rock, whence Peter derived his
name. For a rock (petra) is not
derived from Peter (Pelro), but
Peter from a Rock, as Christ is not
derived from Christian, but Chris-
tian from Christ. For therefore
does the Lord say, Upon this rock
I will build my Church, because
Peter had said, Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God. Upon
this Rock, therefore, which thou hast
confessed, I will build My Church.
For Christ was the Rock ; upon
which Foundation, even Peter him-
self was built. For other founda-
tion can no man lay but that which
is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The
Church therefore which is founded
on Christ, received in Peter the
keys of the kingdom of heaven
from Him, that is, the power of
binding and of loosing sins." T. iii.
Tract, cxxiv. in Joan. n. 5, col.
599-
84. " We know that Peter was a
fisherman : what then could he
give up, to follow our Lord? Or
his brother Andrew, or John and
James, the sons of Zebedee, them-
selves also fishermen ; and yet
what did they say? Behold, we
have forsaken all, and followed
Thee. Our Lord said not to him,
Thou hast forgotten thy poverty;
what hast thou resigned, that thou
shouldest receive the whole world ?
He, my brethren, who resigned not
only what he had, but also what
he longed to have, resigned much.
. . . . Peter did indeed resign
the whole world : and Peter did indeed
receive the whole world." T. iv. in
Psal. ciii. Serm. iii. n. 16, col. 871.
85. " For as some things are said
which seem peculiarly to apply to
the Apostle Peter, and yet are not
clear in their meaning, unless when
referred to the Church, whom he is
acknowledged to have figuratively
represented, on account of the Pri-
macy which he bore among the
disciples (propter primatum quern
in discipulis habuif) ; and it is
written, / will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
other passages of the like purport ;
so Judas does represent those Jews
who were enemies of Christ." Ib. in
Psal. cviii. n. I, col. 911, 12.
86. " The Gospel (S. Matt, xiv.),
which has just been read, touching
the Lord Christ, who walked on
the waters of the sea; and the Apos-
tle Peter, who as he was walking,
tottered through fear, and sinking
in distrust, rose again by confes-
sion, gives us to understand that
the sea is the present world, and the
Apostle Peter the Type of the one
Church. For Peter is in the order of
Apostles First (primus), and in the
love of Christ most forward, answers
oftentimes alone for all the rest.
Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ
asked, Whom men said that He
was, and when the disciples gave
the various opinions of men, and
the Lord asked again and said,
But whom say ye that I am?
Peter answered, Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God.
One for many gave the answer,
Unity in many (unus pro multis
dedit responsum, unitas in multis].
Then said the Lord to him, Blessed
art thou, Simon Barjonas ; for flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in hea-
ven. ThenHe added, A ndl say unto
thee. As if He had said, " Because
thou hast said unto Me, Thou
art the Christ, &C.; I say unto
thee, Thou art Peter. For before
he was called Simon. Now this
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
47
name Peter was given him by the
Lord, and that too a Figure, that he
should signify the Church. For see-
ing that Christ is the Rock (petrd],
Peter is the Christian people. For
the Rock (petra) is the original
name. Therefore Peter is so called
from the Rock, not the Rock from
Peter ; as Christ is not called Christ
from the Christian, but the Chris-
tian from Christ. Therefore, he
saith, Thou art Peter; and upon
this Rock, which thou hast con-
fessed, upon this Rock which thou
hast acknowledged, saying, Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living
God, will I build my Church; that
is, upon Myself, the Son of the
living God, will I build My Church.
I will build thee upon Myself, not
Myself upon thee. For Men who
wished to be built upon Men, said,
/ am of Paul; and I of Apollo s;
and I of Cephas, who is Peter.
But others who did not wish to be
built upon Peter, but upon the Rock,
said, But I am of Christ. And when
the Apostle Paul ascertained that he
was chosen, and Christ despised, he
said, Is Christ divided? was Paul
crucified for you ? or were you bap-
tized in the name of Paul? And, as
not in the name of Paul, so neither
in the name of Peter; but in the
Name of Christ: that Peter might
be built upon the Rock, not the Rock
upon Peter. This same Peter
therefore, who had been by the
Rock pronounced blessed, bearing
the Figure of the Church, holding
the Principate of the Apostleship
(apostolatus principatum], a very
little while after that he had heard
that he was blessed, a very little
while after that he had heard that he
was Peter, a very little while after
that he had heard that he was to
be built upon the Rock, displeased
the Lord when He had heard of
His future Passion, for He had
foretold His disciples that it was
soon to be. ... Yet see this
Peter, who was then our Figure ;
now he trusts, and now he totters ;
now he confesses the Undying, and
now he fears that he should die.
Wherefore ? because the Church of
Christ hath both strong and weak
ones ; and cannot be without either
strong or weak; whence the Apostle
Paul says, Now we that are strong,
&c. (Rom. xv. i.) In that Peter
said, Thou art the Christ, &>c. he
represents the strong ; but in that
he totters, and would not that
Christ should suffer, in fearing death
for him, and not acknowledging the
Life, he represents the weak ones of
the Church. In that one Apostle
then, that is, Peter, in the order of
the Apostles First and Chiefest, in
whom the Church was Figured, both
sorts were to be represented, that
is, both the strong and the weak ;
because the Church doth not exist
without them both." T. v. Serm.
Ixxvi. in Matt. n. 1-4, col. 290-1.
87. "When our Lord then was
speaking on this occasion, He said,
that He is the Shepherd, He said
also that He is the Door. You find
them both in that place, both / am
the Door, and / am the Shepherd.
In the Head He is the Door, the
Shepherd in the Body. For
He saith to Peter, in whom singly
He formeth the Church (in quo
uno format ecclesiam) ; Peter, lov-
est thou Me ? he answered, Lord,
I do love Thee. Feed My sheep.
And, a third time, Peter, lovest thou
Me? Peter was grieved because
He asked him the third time; as
though He who saw the conscience
of the denier, saw not the con-
fession faith. [Drawing a compari-
son between S. Peter and an invalid
who knew not his strength, S.
4 8
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
Augustine continues] : Peter then
was at that time the invalid, and
the Lord the Physician. The former
declared that he had strength, when
he had not ; but the Lord touching
the pulse of his heart, declared that
he should deny Him thrice. And
so it came to pass, as the Phy-
sician foretold, not as the sick
presumed. Therefore, after His
resurrection, the Lord questioned
him, not as being ignorant with
what a heart he would confess the
love of Christ, but that he might
by a threefold confession of love,
efface the threefold denial of fear."
Ib. Serm. cxxxvii. n. 3, col. 463.
88. " But what now ? The Lord
asketh him, as ye heard when the
Gospel was being read, and saith
to him, Simon, son of John, lovest
thou me more than these ? He
answered, and said, Yea, Lord,
Thou knowest that I love Thee.
And again the Lord asked this
question, and a third time He asked
it. And when he asserted in reply
his love, He commended to him the
flock (et respondenti dilectionem,
commendavit gregem}. For each
several time the Lord Jesus said to
Peter, as he said, / love Thee; Feed
my lambs, feed My little sheep. In
this one Peter was figured the unity
of all pastors, of good pastors, that
is, who know that they feed Christ's
sheep for Christ, not for them-
selves." (In uno Petro figurabatur
unitas omnium pastorum, &c.) Ib.
Serm. cxlvii. n. 2, col. 489.
89. " For Peter in many places
of the Scriptures appears to per-
sonate the Church; especially in that
place where it was said, I give unto
thee the keys, &c., what ! did Peter
receive these keys, and Paul not
receive them? Did Peter receive
them, and John, and James, and
the rest of the Apostles, not receive
them ? Or are not these keys in
the Church, where sins are daily
remitted ? But since in Figure
Peter represented the Church, what
was given to him alone (quod illi
uni datum est\ was given to the
Church ? Peter then represented
the Church, the Church is the Body
of Christ." Ib. Serm. cxlix. n. 7,
col. 492.
90. " For not without cause
among all the Apostles doth Peter
sustain the Person of this Church
Catholic (non enim sine causa inter
omnesApostolos hujus ecclesice catho-
licce personam sustinet Petrus] ; for
unto this Church were the keys of
the kingdom of heaven given, when
they were given unto Peter : and
when it is said unto him, it is said
unto all, Lovest thou Me? Feed
My sheep" T. vii. De Agone Chris-
tiana, n. 32, col. 190.
COMMENT.
S. Augustine was Bishop of Hippo,
and one of the most illustrious Doctors
of the Church. He considers S. Peter
as the ' ' Type, " the Figure, the Represen-
tative of the Church. The Rock, he
interprets to be Christ, on whom S.
Peter was himself built. He says that
the Church was formed "singly" in
S. Peter, that the keys were given
"alone" to him, so that until our
Lord extended the commission to the
other Apostles, S. Peter was "singly"
the Church. He therefore represented
the Church, yea, he alone "sustained
the Person of the Church." And not
only was he in a general sense to re-
present the Church, but also specially the
strong and the weak ; this was typified,
when he confessed the Divinity of Christ,
and became a Rock from the Rock
Christ ; and when he denied His Lord,
thereby representing the weakness of
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
49
some in the Church. S. Peter then was
truly a perfect Figure and Representative
of the Church, including both the weak
and the strong : but he was more, for he
" singly" was made the Church, and he
" singly" received the keys, the em-
blem of supreme jurisdiction. This is
evidently a replication of Tertullian's
and S. Cyprian's doctrine. The former
taught that the keys were through him
(Peter) granted to the other Apostles ;
and the latter, that he was the Origin
and Principle of unity, from whence the
unity of the priesthood did rise. So that
S. Augustine's doctrine is in perfect
harmony with the Fathers before him.
But we now arrive at the main point,
Why was S. Peter the Figure of the
Church? Why did he personate the
Church? S. Augustine replies without
hesitation, in one place, "On account of
the Primacy (primatus) of his Apostle-
ship ;" and in another, because he held
the " Principate (principatus'] of the
Apostolate." The words primatus and
principatus denote much more than a
mere Primacy of honour, or of order ;
the former word has been explained
above (see comment, p. 24), the latter
signifies sovereignty, dominion, the chief
power or government, so that there
cannot be any doubt that this eminent
Father and Doctor believed, with his
cotemporaries and predecessors, that
S. Peter was the Head and Prince of
the Apostles, and the Centre of unity,
from whom, as from a fountain, the
Church of Christ arose, having her
foundations laid upon the Rock of Ages,
which he (Peter), as a Rock (hewn from
the true Rock), was commissioned to
Sustain, Govern, and Feed.
S. MAXIMUS.
A.D. 424.
91. "On account of this confes-
sion, the blessed Apostle merited
to hear from the mouth of the Lord,
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock,
&*c. That is, thou art the First to
confess Me on earth, and I will
make thee to have a perpetual
Primacy in heaven, and in My
Kingdom. And what more just
than that the Church should be
built on him, who gives so mighty
a Foundation to the Church. (Id
est tu me confessus es prbmis in
terrisj ego te in coelo regnoque meo
perpetuuwi faciam habert prtma-
tum. Et quid justius ....
quam ut supra eum fundaretur ec-
clesia, qui tantum dedit ecclesicE
fundamentiim.} What could be
more religiously done, than that he
should receive the keys of heaven,
he who revealed the Lord of the
heavenly kingdom ; inasmuch as he
who opened to believers the gates
of faith, the same should also open
for them the gates of heaven."
Serm. Ixxii. De Diet. Ev. " Vos estis
sal terrcz" Galland. /. ix. p. 393.
COMMENT.
S. Maximus was Bishop of Turin :
he asserted that to S. Peter was given
a perpetual Primacy in heaven and in
(Christ's) Kingdom, that is, the Church.
This Father seems to hold that S.
Peter held the Primacy of the Church
above, as well as the Primacy of the
Church below ; and in both cases in
perpetuity. Holding the keys of heaven,
he opens to believers on earth the gates
of faith, and above the gates of heaven.
There is no doubt Maximus believed
that S. Peter held the Primacy, i.e., not
of order, but of Authority ; for he who
possesses the Key, is the Master of the
house.
E
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
POPE S. BONIFACE.
A.D. 419.
92. " The blessed Apostle Peter,
to whom by the Lord's voice was
granted the highest place of the
priesthood (arx sacerdotit], is be-
yond measure gratified," &c. Ep.
iv. Rufo, n. i, Galland. t. ix. p. 49.
93. " The institution of the uni-
versal Church took its beginning
from the honour bestowed on
blessed Peter, in whom its Gov-
ernment and Headship reside. (/-
stitutio universalis ecclesice de beatt
Petri sumsit honore principium, in
quo regimen ejus et summa con-
sistif}. For from him as its Source
did ecclesiastical discipline flow
over all the churches, when the
culture of religion had begun to
make progress." Ep. xiv. Epis.
Thess. Galland. t. ix./. 57
COMMENT.
S. Boniface maintains that S. Peter
occupied " the highest place in the
priesthood. " The expression arx sacer-
dotii, is very strong, indicating that S.
Peter was the Crown of the priesthood :
S. Boniface, also affirms that ' ' the uni-
versal Church took its beginning from the
honour bestowed on the blessed Peter,"
"in whom the (Church's) Government
and Headship reside, for from him as its
Source did ecclesiastical discipline flow
over all the churches ; " this agrees
with what S. Cyprian affirmed of " the
Chair of Peter, from whence the unity
of the priesthood took its rise."
S. CYRIL, OF ALEXANDRIA.
A.D. 424.
94. Commenting on Thou art Si-
mon, the son of Jonas, &v ., (S. John,
i. 42) " He suffers him no longer
to be called Simon, exercising au-
thority and rule over him already as
having become His own. But by a
title suitable to the thing, He changed
his name into Peter, from the word
petra (rock) ; for on him He was
afterwards to found His Church."
T. iv. Comm. in Joan. p. 131.
95. " And even the blessed Peter,
though set over the holy disciples
rav ctyav
says, Lord, be it far from
me" &c. Ib. 1. xi. p. 924.
96. "If Peter himself, that Prince
of the holy disciples (etvro? rav
was upon an occasion," &c. Ib.
I. xii./. 1064.
97. " Besides all these, let there
come forward that Leader of the
holy disciples (o ray pa&qrav jjyov-
/tgv5 nerves), Peter, who, when the
Lord, on a certain occasion, asked
him, Whom do men say that the
Son of Man is? instantly cried out,
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God." T. v. Pt. 2. Horn. viii.
De Fest. Pasch. p. 105.
98. "When, therefore, the Lord
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
intimated the denial of His disciple firm thy brethren; that is, Be thou
(Peter), He said these words : /
have prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not; He straightway infers and
utters the language of consolation :
And after thou art converted con-
the Foundation and the Teacher of
those who by Faith come unto
me." S. Luke, c. xxii. Apiid Cord.
Mai. Nov. Bibliot. Pat. T. ii.
^.419, 420.
COMMENT.
S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria,
believed that in the changing of S. Peter's
name, the Lord signified, that " on
him He was afterwards to found His
Church." He styles him " the Prince "
and " Leader of the holy disciples." He
further affirms that when our Lord said,
When thou art converted, &<:., He made
S. Peter " the Foundation and the
Teacher" of all the Faithful. This
is very strong testimony to S. Peter's
Supremacy.
THEODORET.
A.D. 424.
99. Quoting S. Luke, xxii. 31-2,
he says, "For as I, Christ said,
despised not thee when thou wast
shaken, so do thou also be a Sup-
port to thy brethren when troubled,
and grant them that help of which
thou hast partaken, and do not cast
down the falling, but raise up those
who are in danger. For, for this
cause do I suffer thee to stumble
first, but permit thee not to fall,
providing stability, through thee,
for the wavering. Thus did this
great Pillar support the tottering
world, and suffered it not in any
wise to fall, but placed it upright,
and made it firm, and received a
command to feed the Lord's sheep"
T. iii. Or at. de Carit. p. 1309.
COMMENT.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, seems
to regard S. Peter much as S. Augus-
tine did, as a Type of the Church,
especially of its weak members. He
considers that he was permitted to
stumble, but not to fall, i.e., from the
faith, in order that Stability through
him might be provided for the wavering.
Hence is he that " great Pillar of a totter-
ing world," which he has placed upright
and made firm ; and hence, he re-
ceived the command " to Feed the Lord's
sheep."
S. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS.
A.D. 440.
ioo. " Henceit is that the Master all the earth (Ps. xcix). Hence it
Himself seeks for helpers, for asso- it is that, when about to return to
ciates to take charge of the whole heaven, He commends His sheep
world, saying, Sing joyfully to God, to be fed by Peter, in his Stead,
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
(vice sua ut pasceret
commendat}. Peter, says He,
lovest thou Me ? Feed My sheep"
Serm. vi. In Ps. xcix./. 10.
101. " As Peter obtained his
name from a Rock, because he was
the First, that merited to found the
Church by the firmness of his
faith, so Stephen was so called
from a crown, because he was the
first who merited to engage in con-
flict for the name of Christ. . . .
Let Peter hold his long-established
Princedom (principatum) over the
Apostolic Choir ; let him open the
Kingdom of heaven for those who
enter in ; let him with power bind
the guilty ; with clemency absolve
the penitent." Serm. cliv. p. 217.
COMMENT.
S. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ra-
venna, believed that our Lord, who
was about to return to heaven, did ap-
point S. Peter in His Place, as the feeder
of the sheep, and to have the charge of
the whole world. This Father then sup-
posed that Peter was, in a special sense,
appointed the Vicar or Representative of
Jesus Christ ; and in this he agrees with
S. Ambrose and S. Ephraem Syrus, who
expressly assert this doctrine, and with
others, as S. Epiphanius, who imply the
same in their writings. He apostro-
phizes S. Peter to hold his long-esta-
blished Primacy or Government over the
Apostolic Choir, using the word prin-
cipatum, which, as has been seen, sig-
nifies the principality or sovereignty of
the Apostleship. He holds that the keys
are in the possession of S. Peter as the
Custodian.
POPE S. LEO.
A.D. 440.
1 02. "Though Peter alone re-
ceived many things, nothing passed
unto any one else without his par-
ticipation in it. ... Out of the
whole world the one Peter is
chosen, to be set over the vocation
of all the nations, and over all the
Apostles, and all the Fathers of the
Church ; that so, though there be
in the people of God, many priests
and many pastors, Peter especially
(or, of his own right) may rule all,
whom Christ also rules primarily
(or, as the Head) (omnes tamen pro-
prie regat Petrus, quos principaliter
regit et Christus] . . . He is the First
in the apostolic dignity. When he
said, Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God; Jesus answers
him, Blessed art thou, Simon; My
Father which is in heaven. . . and
I say to thee, that is, as My Father
has manifested to thee My Divinity,
so do I make known to thee thy ex-
cellence. For thou art Peter; that is,
whereas I am the inviolable Rock;
I that Chief Corner - stone ; I who
make both one (^^\X\.6}, I the Found-
ation besides which no one can lay
other, nevertheless thou also art a
Rock, because thou art consolidated
by My power, that what things are
mine by My power, may be common
to thee by being made partaker of
them with Me. Upon this strength,
he says, I will raise an everlasting
temple, and the lofty building of
My Church, reaching unto heaven,
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
53
shall arise on the firmness of this
faith. The gates of hell shall not
hold, the bonds of death shall not
bind, this confession ; for this word
(voice), is the word (voice) of life.
. . . For which cause it is said to the
most blessed Peter, To thee I will
give the keys, &c. The right of
this power passed also indeed to
the other Apostles, and what was
ordained by this decree, has passed
unto all the Princes of the Church,
but not in vain is that intrusted to
One which may be intimated to all.
For, therefore, is this intrusted to
Peter individually (or, especially),
for as much as the pattern of Peter
is set before all the Rulers of the
Church. . . . [Referring to the
words, Confirm thy brethren, S.
Luke, xxii. 32, he says] The danger
from the trial of fear was common
to all the Apostles, and they stood
equally in need of the aid of the
divine protection. . . . And yet of
Peter special care is taken by the
Lord, and for the faith of Peter in
particular does He pray, as though
the condition of the rest would be
more secure, provided the mind of
Peter was not subdued. In Peter,
therefore, is the strength of all
defended, and the aid of divine
grace is so disposed as that the
firmness which is bestowed on Peter
by Christ, may be conferred by
Peter on the Apostles (per Petrum
apos tolis confer atur}. Wherefore,
my beloved, since we see that so
great a safeguard has been di-
vinely instituted for us, reasonably
and justly do we rejoice in the
merits and dignity of our Leader,
giving thanks to our everlasting
King and Redeemer, the Lord
Jesus Christ, for that He gave so
great power to him whom He made
the Prince of the whole Church
(quern totius ecclesia principem
fecit] ; that if it so be that any
thing is rightly done by us in these
our days, and rightly ordered, it be
referred to his doing, to his govern-
ing, unto whom it was said, And
when thou art converted, strengthe?i
thy brethren; and to whom, after the
resurrection, the Lord, for a triple
confession of everlasting love, with
a mystic meaning thrice said, Feed
my sheep? T. i. Serm. iv. in An-
niver. Assumpt. c. i.-iv. col. 16-19.
103. Alluding to S. Peter's con-
fession, S. Leo says, "And by this
his loftiness of faith, he gave so
much pleasure, as to receive the
sacred Firmness of an inviolable
Rock, upon which the Church being
founded, it should prevail over the
gates of hell and the laws of death."
T. i. Serm. li. HomiL Sabbat, ante
Secund. Dom. Quadr. c. i. col. 193.
104. " But the Lord willed the
sacrament of this office (of the
apostolic trumpet) to pertain to
all the Apostles in such manner, as
that He placed it principally in the
blessed Peter, the Chief of all the
Apostles, and wishes His gifts to
flow unto the whole body, from him
(Peter) as from a Head ; that whoso
should dare withdraw from the
solidity of Peter, might know him-
self to be an alien from the divine
mystery. For it was His will that
this man whom He had taken
into the fellowship of an indivisible
unity (or, taken for the connexion
of an indivisible unity) should be
named that which Himself was (i.e.
the Rock), by saying, Thou art
Pe-ter, and upon this rock I will
build My Church, that the building
of an everlasting temple might, by
the marvellous gift of the grace of
God, be compacted together in the
Solidity of Peter, by this Firmness
strengthening His Church, so as
that neither human temerity should
54
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
be able to injure (assault) it, nor
the gates of hell prevail against
it" T. i. Ep. x. ad Episcopos per
Provinc. Viennens. constitutes, in
caussa Hilarii Arelat. Epis. c. i, 2,
col. 633-35.
COMMENT.
S. Leo affirms (i) that though S.
Peter received many things, yet nothing
passed unto any one else "without his
participation." This is confirmed in
the Gospel, wherein it is very clear, that
while S. Peter received the fulness of
every prerogative without other Apostles
sharing at first, at least, in them, yet none
of them received any thing apart from
S. Peter. This is an echo of the doc-
trine of S. Augustine, who said that S.
Peter received the Church "singly,"
i.e. without the participation of others,
because in him alone was there the
Church. Hence S. Leo says, that S.
Peter who alone received all things, had
a right to rule all.
2. Christ, he declares, ' ' is the inviolable
Rock," and the " First Corner-stone,"
yet S. Peter is nevertheless a Rock, an
"inviolable Rock," because he is con-
solidated by the power of Christ, and,
what things belong to Christ, by His
power, he (Peter) is made partaker of
them. Upon this strength, then, that is,
uponChrist the inviolable Rock, and upon
S. Peter the consolidated Rock, is raised
the everlasting Temple of God, against
which the gates of hell shall not prevail.
3. The keys were delivered to S.
Peter, but the "right of this power,
passed to all the other Apostles, and
unto all the Princes of the Church;"
but, S. Leo adds, " Not in vain is
that intrusted to One, which may be in-
timated to all." From this it would
appear that S. Peter is the sole custo-
dian of the keys, but the use of them is
in the power of all other Apostles and
Bishops, in union with him. S. Peter
may use them without reference to his
co-Apostles, while they on the other
hand could not do so except in concord
with him. This seems to be S. Leo's
doctrine.
4. Alluding to the trials that would
risit the Apostle, S. Leo says, "that
special care was taken that the faith
ofS. Peter should not fail, as though the
condition of the others would be more
secure, if he did not succumb." In
this Apostle, then, is the strength of all
defended, and that by the Firmness
bestowed upon him, it may be con-
ferred by S. Peter upon the other
Apostles. The commission, Strengthen,
or confirm, thy brethren, according to S.
Leo, meant, that a Prerogative of power
might be in Peter, which would enable
him to uphold the faith of the Church.
5. S. Peter, then, being endowed with
the Prerogatives of Christ, on whom
with Christ his Master the Temple of
the Lord has been raised, and having
received so much power, is made the
Prince of the whole Church, its Ruler
and Governor, the Confirmer of the
brethren and the Chief Pastor of the
flock.
6. But S. Leo says that our Lord
willed that sacrament of his office
should pertain to all the Apostles, but
in such manner, as it is placed prin-
cipally in S. Peter, the Chief of the
Apostles, and that from him, as from a
Head, all His gifts should flow to the
whole body. This is in harmony with
many preceding Fathers, who taught
that S. Peter was the Origin and Source
of the priesthood.
7. S. Leo considers that communion
consists in being in union with S.
Peter, for he says that if any one should
" dare to withdraw from the Solidity of
Peter, might know himself to be an alien
from the divine mystery." For as our
Lord had taken S. Peter into the fel-
lowship of an indivisible unity, having
named him from himself, the Rock, on
which He built the Church, which is
compacted together in the Solidity of
Peter, so all who are not in union with
S. Peter are aliens. In a word, S.
Leo regards S. Peter as the sole Centre
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
55
of unity. And he agrees with S. Au-
gustine, who holds that S. Peter was
the Figure of the Church, on whom
singly the Church was founded, and
hence everything that proceeds from S.
Peter is of the truth, and such as does
not proceed from him, is of error.
S. Leo, then, believes as follows :
(l) That S. Peter received all things
alone, the others not without his partici-
pation ; (2) That he is with Christ, the
inviolable Rock, upon whom the Temple
of God is raised. (3) That he received
the keys, but the other Apostles shared
with him in their use ; (4) That he was
the Confirmer of the brethren ; (5) That
he was Prince of the whole world, the
Ruler of the Church, and the Feeder
of the people ; (6) That while all shared
in his prerogatives, yet he possessed
them principally, and that from him, as
an Original, all gifts flow to the whole
body: and lastly, that all are aliens
who are not joined to S. Peter.
POPE S. FELIX.
A.D. 490.
105. "I am also cheered by the
purport of your letter, wherein you
have not omitted to state that
blessed Peter is the Chief of the
Apostles and the Rock of faith (sum-
mum apostolorum beatum Petrum,
et petram fidei esse], and have
judiciously proved that to him were
intrusted the keys of the heavenly
mysteries." Ep. iv. Imper. Zenoni,
Galland, t. x. p. 671-72.
COMMENT.
S. Felix expresses S. Peter's position
by summum. This may signify any
sort of extreme exaltation. It may
mean he was the highest in rank and
dignity, or in authority and power.
But as he asserts that S. Peter was the
Rock of faith, then he must be under-
stood as declaring that S. Peter was the
Chief authority in all that concerned the
faith.
POPE S. GELASIUS.
A.D. 492.
106. Referring to the adjudication
of the Primacy to Rome, he says,
" as being men who bore in mind
the Lord's sentence, Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will
build My Church, &c. And again
to the same Peter, Lo ! I have
prayed for thee that thy faith fail
not, and converted, confirm the
brethren? and that sentence, If
thou lovest Me, feed my sheep.
Wherefore, then, is the Lord's dis-
course so frequently directed to
Peter ? Was it that the rest of the
holy and blessed Apostles were not
clothed with his virtue ? Who dare
assert this? No, but that, by a
Head being constituted, the oc-
casion of schism might be re-
moved ; and that the compact bond
s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
of the body of Christ, thus uni-
formly tending, by the fellowship
of a most glorious love, to one
Head, might be shown to be one ;
and that there might be one Church
faithfully believed in, and one house
of the one God and of the one Re-
deemer, wherein we might be nour-
ished with one bread and one chalice.
. . . . There were assuredly
twelve Apostles, endowed with equal
merits and equal dignity ; and
whereas they all shone equally with
spiritual light, yet was it Christ's
will that One amongst them should
be the Ruler (prince) (principem),
&c." Galland, t. x. p. 677.
COMMENT.
S. Gelasius, referring to the several
commissions to S. Peter, asks, whether
the other Apostles did not participate
in them? Thus he affirms and main-
tains the equality of all the Apostles in
merit and dignity, yet, evidently quot-
ing S. Jerome, says, " was it Christ's
will that One amongst them should be
the Ruler," that the occasion of schism
might be avoided. S. Peter then ac-
cording to this Pope was the Head and
Ruler, the other Apostles sharing with
him equally in merit and dignity, yet,
nevertheless, subject to him.
S. AVITUS.
A.D. 494.
107. " Peter, the Head of the* the Princes." Fragm. i. Galland*
Apostles, that is, the Prince of /. x. p. 746.
57
II. -ANALYSIS OF PATRISTIC DOCTRINE RELATIVE TO
S. PETER.
The evidence adduced in the preceding chapter respecting the
Primacy of S. Peter, is now arranged analytically, in order that the
teaching of the primitive age on this subject may be fully understood and
comprehended.
I. THE PRIMACY GENERALLY.
S. Peter, "Chosen The First." S. Cyprian, Extract, No. 15.
S. Peter, " The First Confessor of the Son of God." S. Hilary, Ex-
tract, No. 28.
S. Peter " merited to be Preferred before all the Apostles." S. Optatus,
Extract, No. 36.
S. Peter, " The First-born of those who bear the keys." S. Ephraem,
Extract, No. 42.
S. Peter had " The Prior honour." S. Gregory Naz. Extract, No. 46.
The " blessed Peter who was Preferred." S. Basil, Extract, No. 53.
" Who (Peter) Alone received a Greater testimony and blessing than
the rest." Ib.
S. Peter, " First of the Apostles." S. Epiphanius, Extract, No. 55.
"He (Peter) is Preferred before all." S. Ambrose, Extract, No. 61.
" Thou (Peter) art The First." Ib. Extract, No. 64.
S. Peter had " The Primacy of confession " and " of faith." Ib.
S. Peter, " The First in the Church." S. Chrysostom, Extract, No. 68.
S. Peter, " The Chosen One of the Apostles." Ib. Extract, No. 73.
S. Peter, "The First of the Choir." Ib. Extract, No. 75.
" Who can be ignorant that the most blessed Peter is The First of the
Apostles ?" S. Augustine, Extract, No. 82.
" Peter in the order of the Apostles First." Ib. Extract, No. 86.
II. THE ROCK.
i. The Rock is Christ. "The Rock Christ." S. Jerome, Extract,
No. 67.
" For Christ was The Rock, upon which Foundation even Peter him-
self was built." S. Augustine, Extract, No. 83.
" Peter is so called from The Rock, not The Rock from Peter ; as
Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from
Christ." Ib. Extract, No. 86.
58 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
" Christ The Inviolable Rock." S. Leo, Extract, No. 102.
2. The Rock is S. Peter. S. Peter, " called The Rock, whereon the
Church was to be built." Tertullian, Extract, No. 5.
S. Peter " The most Solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the
Church." Origen, Extract, No. 7.
Christ " called him (Peter) The Rock of the edifice of the Church.' 7
S. James of Nisibis, Extract, No. 27.
S. Peter, " happy Foundation of the Church, and a Rock worthy of the
building." S. Hilary, Extract, No. 30.
S. Peter, " That Unbroken and most Firm Rock upon which the Lord
built His Church." S. Gregory of Nyssa, Extract, No. 45.
" Peter who became The Unbroken Rock." S. Gregory of Nazianzum,
Extract, No. 47.
" Upon which Rock (Peter) the Lord promised to build His Church."
S. Basil, Extract, No. 52.
S. Peter " became unto us truly a Firm Rock ; on which is based the
Lord's faith; upon which the Church is in every way built." S.Epiphanius,
Extract, No. 54.
S. Peter " became a Firm Rock of the building." Ib.
S. Peter, " That Unbroken Rock." S. Chrysostom, Extract, No. 68.
S. Peter received " the sacred firmness of an Inviolable Rock, upon
which the Church being founded," &c. S. Leo, Extract, No. 103.
III. THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.
" The Church was to be built," i. e. on Peter. Tertullian, Extract,
No. 5.
S. Peter, " That great Foundation of the Church." Origen, Extract,
No. 7.
" Peter upon whom is built Christ's Church." Ib. Extract, No. 10.
"On him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded." Ib.
Extract, No. n.
" Peter on whom the Church had been built." S. Cyprian, Extract,
No. 12.
" Peter, upon whom the Church was to be built." Ib. Extract,
No. 13.
" One Church founded by Christ our Lord upon Peter." Ib. Extract,
No. 14.
" Upon whom (Peter) He built His Church." Ib. Extract, No. 15.
" On whom (Peter) He laid and founded the Church." Ib. Extract,
No. 1 8.
"Upon that one (Peter) He builds His Church." Ib. Extract,
No. 20.
" Peter upon whom The Foundations of the Church were laid." S. Fir-
milian. Extract, No. 22.
" Upon whom (Peter) He was about to build the Church." S. Hilary,
Extract, No. 28.
S. Peter "happy Foundation." Ib. Extract, No. 30.
" He that was to build His Church upon Cephas." S. Ephraem,
Extract, No. 37.
ANALYSIS OF PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 59
" (On Peter) is the Church of God firmly established." S. Gregory
of Nyssa, Extract, No. 45.
S. Peter "intrusted with The Foundations of the Church." S. Gregory
of Nazianzum, Extract, No. 46.
" He (Peter) a Firm Rock ; upon which is based the Lord's faith ; upon
which the Church is everyway built." S. Epiphanius, Extract, No. 54.
" In whom is The Foundation of the Church." S. Ambrose, Extract,
No. 59.
Faith of Peter " The Foundation of the Church." Ib. Extract, No. 64.
" Upon whom (Peter) the Lord built the Church." S. Jerome, Ex-
tract, No. 64.
" The Church is built upon Peter." Ib. Extract, No. 65.
" On whom (Peter) the Church of the Lord in enduring Massiveness
was built." Ib. Extract, No. 66.
S. Peter "The Firm Foundation." S. Chrysostom, Extract, No. 68.
S. Peter " The Foundation of the confession." Ib. Extract, No. 71.
" S. Peter That Foundation of the Church." Ib. Extract, No. 72.
"In whom (Peter) Singly He formeth the Church." S. Augustine,
Extract, No. 87.
" For on him (Peter) He was afterwards to found His Church. 5 '
S. Cyril of Alexandria, Extract, No. 94.
" Be thou (Peter) The Foundation and The Teacher of those who
by Faith come unto Me." Ib. Extract, No. 98.
IV. S. PETER THE VICAR, OR REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRIST.
The Church " having been founded First and Alone, by the voice of
the Lord, upon Peter." S. Cyprian, Extract, No. 19.
"... To Peter Alone Christ said, Whatsoever thou shalt bind" &c.,
and afterwards to the other Apostles. S. Firmilian, Extract, No. 22.
" O thou blessed one (Peter) that obtainedst the Place of the Head."
S. Ephraim, Extract, No. 41.
" To Peter Alone is it said, Launch out unto the deep .... into
the depths of disputation the Church is led by Peter." S. Ambrose,
Extract, No. 59.
"Whom (Peter) He was leaving with us, as it were, the Vicar of His
own love." Ib. Extract, No. 61.
" How could He not confirm His faith, unto whom, of His own au-
thority, He gave the Kingdom, and whom, when He styled a Rock, He
pointed out The Foundation of the Church." Ib. Extract, No. 63.
"He (Peter) who was Set Over the whole habitable world ....
to whom He intrusted the Doing and Supporting all things." S. Chry-
sostom, Extract, No. 70.
" Peter .... The Pillar of The Church, The Buttress of the
faith, The Foundation of the confession, The Fisherman of The universe."
Ib. Extract, No. 71.
"He places in his hands The Government over the brethren." Ib.
Extract, No. 73.
" Peter did, indeed, receive the whole world." S. Augustine, Extract,
No. 84.
60 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
" Hence it is that the Master Himself seeks for helpers, for associates
to take charge of the whole world. . . . Hence it is that when about to
return to heaven He commends His sheep to be fed by Peter in His
Stead." S. Peter Chrysologus, Extract, No. 100.
" Peter is chosen to be Set Over the vocation of all the nations," c.
S. Leo, Extract, No. 102.
" That what things are Mine by My power, may be Common to
thee being made Partaker of them with Me." Ib.
V. S. PETER THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CHURCH.
" One speaking for all, and replying with The Voice of the Church.''
S. Cyprian, Extract, No. 12.
" O thou blessed one (Peter), that obtainedst The Place of The Head,
and of The Tongue, in the body of thy brethren, which was enlarged out of
the disciples and sons of thy Lord." S. Ephraem, Extract, No. 41.
" We hail thee, Peter, The Tongue of The disciples, The Voice of The
heralds, The Eye of the Apostles, The Keeper of heaven, The First-born
of those that bear the keys." Ib. Extract, No. 42.
" Where Peter is there is the Church." S. Ambrose, Extract, No. 56.
" This, then, is that Peter who Answers for the rest, yea, as Above
the rest." Ib. Extract, No. 64.
" Peter . . . The Mouth of The disciples, The Pillar of The Church,
The Buttress of the faith, The Foundation of the confession, The Fisher-
man of the Universe." S. Chrysostom, Extract, No. 71.
S. Peter, " to whom bearing a Figure of the Church." S. Augustine,
Extract, No. 81.
S. Peter "bore a Character which Represented the whole Church."
Ib. Extract, No. 83.
" The Apostle Peter The Type of the one Church." Ib. Extract,
No. 86.
" Now this name Peter was given him by the Lord, and that too a
Figure that he should Signify the Church." Ib.
" Peter is the Christian people." Ib.
" This same Peter, therefore, who had been by the Rock pronounced
' blessed,' bearing The Figure of the Church, holding The Principate (or
The Sovereignty) of the Apostolate." Ib.
"In this one Peter was Figured the unity of all pastors." Ib. Extract,
No. 88.
" In Figure Peter Represented the Church." Ib. Extract, No. 89.
S. Peter " sustains the Person of this Church Catholic." Ib. Extract ^
No. 90.
VI. THE CHURCH FOUNDED IN S. PETER SINGLY AND ALONE.
" What in a previous passage was granted to Peter Alone (the keys)'
seems here to be shown to be granted" to other Apostles. Origen, Extract,
No. 9.
The Church " having been founded First and Alone, by the voice of
the Lord upon Peter." S. Cyprian, Extract, No. 19.
ANALYSIS OF PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 6 1
" To Peter Alone Christ said, Whatsoever thou shalt bind, &v.," and
afterwards, &c. Firmilian, Extract, No. 22.
" He (Peter) Alone received ... the keys, to be communicated, &c."
S. Optatus, Extract, No. 36.
" S. Peter, The First-born of those who bear the keys." S. Ephraem,
Extract, No. 42.
" Who (Peter) Alone received a greater testimony of and blessing than
the rest." S. Basil, Extract, No. 53.
" To Peter Alone is it said, Launch out into the deep." S. Ambrose,
Extract, No. 59.
" In whom (Peter) Singly He formeth the Church." S. Augustine,
Extract, No. 87.
" What was given to him (Peter) Singly was given to the Church."
Ib. Extract, No. 89.
VII. S. PETER THE ORIGIN AND SOURCE OF UNITY AND
JURISDICTION.
" Remember that the Lord left here the Keys (of heaven) to Peter, and
Through him to the Church." Tertullian, Extract, No. 6.
The " Church founded by Christ our Lord upon Peter, for an Original
and Principle of unity." S. Cyprian, Extract, No. 14.
" From whom (Peter) He appointed and showed that Unity should
Spring." Ib. Extract, No. 16.
" He has, by His own authority, so placed the Origin of that same
Unity, as that it Begins from One (Peter). Ib. Extract, No. 20.
" He (Peter) Alone received of the Kingdom of heaven the Keys to be
Communicated to the others." S. Optatus, Extract, No. 36.
" Through Peter He gave to the Bishops the Key of the heavenly
honours." S. Gregory of Nyssa, Extract, No. 44.
" Through whom (Peter) both the Apostolate and the Episcopate took
their Rise in Christ." S. Innocent, Extract, No. 80.
" The Church, therefore, which is founded on Christ, Received in Peter
the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven." S. Augustine, Extract, No. 83.
" What was to him (Peter) Singly given, (i. e. the Keys) was Given
to the Church." Ib. Extract, No. 89.
" The institution of the universal Church took its Beginning from
the honour bestowed on blessed Peter." S. Boniface, Extract, No. 93.
" For from him (Peter) as its Source did ecclesiastical discipline Flow
over all the Churches." Ib.
" And wishes His gifts to Flow unto the whole body, from him (Peter)
as from a Head." S. Leo, Extract, No. 104.
VIII. THE DIVINE COMMISSION TO PETER.
i. Supreme Jurisdiction. " Who (Peter) obtained ' the Keys of the
Kingdom of heaven,' and the Power of loosing and of binding in heaven
and in earth." Tertullian, Extract, No. 5.
62 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
" That Peter should have Something Peculiar Above" the other
Apostles respecting the use of the Keys. Origen, Extract, No. 9.
" With regard even to those things which seem to be common to
Peter" and the other Apostles, " much Difference and Pre-eminence in
the words spoken to Peter (/. e. about the Keys) Beyond those spoken " to
the other Apostles. Ib.
" The Lord Gave this Power that that should be loosed in heaven
which he (Peter) should have loosed on earth." S. Cyprian, Extract,
No. 1 6.
Peter, " who also Received the Keys thereof." Ib. Extract, No. 17.
" To whom (Peter) He had just before Given the Keys of the King-
dom of Heaven .... who, 'whatsoever he should bind or loose on earth,
that should abide bound or loosed in heaven." S. Hilary, Extract,
No. 28.
" Peter . . . the Door-keeper of the heavenly Kingdom, and in his
Judgment on earth, a Judge in heaven." Ib.
" O blessed Keeper of the gate of heaven, to whose Disposal are
delivered the Keys of the entrance into eternity; whose Judgment on earth
is an Authority prejudged in heaven, so that the things that are either
loosed or bound on earth, acquire in heaven too a Like State of settle-
ment." Ib. Extract, No. 30.
" He who Bears with him the Keys of heaven." S. Cyril of Jerusalem,
Extract, No. 33.
" Peter, the Key-bearer of the Kingdom of heaven." Ib. Extract,
No. 35.
" And he Alone Received of the Kingdom of heaven the Keys to be
communicated to the others." S. Optatus, Extract, No. 36.
" To whom (Peter), O Lord, didst thou Intrust the most precious
pledge of the heavenly Keys." S. Ephraem, Extract, No. 39.
" Thee, O Simon Peter, will I proclaim the blessed, who Holdest the
Keys, which the Spirit made. A great and ineffable word, that he binds
and loosens those in heaven, and those under the earth." Ib. Extract,
No. 41.
Peter ..." who had the Keys Delivered unto him." .S 1 . Gregory of
Nazianzum, Extract, No. 47.
" To whom (Alone) were Intrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of
heaven." S. Basil, Extract, No. 53.
" Who (Peter) Received the Keys of heaven; who looses on earth and
binds in heaven. For in him (Peter) was Found all the Subtle Questions
of faith." S. Epiphanius, Extract, No. 55.
" He (Peter) in whose hands He Placed the Keys of heaven." S. Chry-
sostom, Extract, No. 70.
" Let Peter Hold his long-established Principate over the Apostolic
choir ; let him open the Kingdom of heaven for those who enter in ; let
him with Power bind the guilty ; with Clemency absolve the penitent."
S. Peter Chrysologus, Extract, No. 101.
2. S.Peter the Supreme Pastor. "When the Chief Authority as regards
the feeding of the sheep was Delivered to Peter." Origen, Extract,
No. ii.
ANALYSIS OF PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 63
" Peter also to whom the Lord Commends His sheep to be Fed and
Guarded." S. Cyprian, Extract, No. 18.
"To him (Peter) He Assigns His sheep to be Fed." Ib. Extract,
No. 20.
S. Peter " was Accounted the Shepherd of the flock." S. Ephraem,
Extract, No. 38.
" He afterwards Chose him (Peter) as the Pastor of the Lord's flock."
S. Ambrose, Extract, No. 57.
" Having had Intrusted to him (Peter) by Christ the flock." S. Chry-
sostom, Extract, No. 75.
" But when He asserted in reply His love, He Commended to him
(Peter) His flock." S. Augustine, Extract, No. 88.
" Thus did this great Pillar (Peter) support the tottering world . . .
and Received a command to Feed the Lord's sheep" Theodoret, Ex-
tract, No. 98.
" Hence it is that, when about to return to heaven, He Commends His
sheep to be Fed by Peter in His Stead." S. Peter Chrysologus, Extract,
No. 100.
IX. CO-EQUALITY IN THE APOSTOLATE.
"What in a previous passage, was granted to Peter alone, seems
(here) to be shown to be granted to all who have addressed three admo-
nitions to all sinners But, as it was fit that
Peter should have something peculiar above those who should thrice
admonish .... and truly, if we sedulously attend to the evangelical
writings, even in them we may discover, with regard even to those things
which seem to be common to Peter and to those (i.e. the other Apostles)
who have thrice admonished the brethren, much difference and pre-
eminence in the words spoken to Peter, beyond those spoken in the second
place." Origen, Extract, No. 9.
"And although to all the Apostles after His resurrection He gives an
equal power .... yet, in order to manifest unity, He has by His
own authority so placed the Origin of the same unity, as that it be-
gins from one. Certainly, the other Apostles also were, what Peter was,
endowed with an equal fellowship both of honour and power, but the
commencement proceeds from unity." S. Cyprian, Extract, No. 20.
" The strength of the Church is settled equally upon them (i.e. the
Apostles); yet for this reason one is chosen out of the Twelve, that a Head
being appointed, the occasion of schism might be removed." S. Jerome,
Extract, No. 65.
" But though all were Apostles, and all were to sit on twelve thrones,
, . . . still it was the three He took. And again, even of these three,
He said that some were under, and some superior. And He sets Peter
before them." S. Chrysostom, Extract, No. 78.
" What ! did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them ?
Did Peter receive them, and John, and James, and the rest of the Apostles
not receive them ? . . . . But since in figure Peter represented the
Church, what was given to him singly was given to the Church." S.
Augustine, Extract, No. 89.
64 s PETER'S SUPREMACY.
" The right of this power (the keys) passed also indeed to the
other Apostles, and what was ordaimed by this decree, has passed unto
all the Princes of the Church, but not in vain is that entrusted to one,
which may be intimated to all." S. Leo, Extract, No. 102.
" But the Lord willed the sacrament of this office to pertain to all
the Apostles in such manner as that He placed it principally in the
blessed Peter." Ib. Extract, No. 104.
" There were assuredly twelve Apostles, endowed with equal merits
and equal dignity ; and whereas they all shone equally with spiritual
light, yet was it Christ's will that one amongst them should be the Ruler."
S. Gelasius, Extract, No. 106.
X. S. PETER THE SUPREME HEAD AND RULER.
" When The Chief Authority as regards the feeding of the flock was
delivered to Peter." Origen, Extract, No. 1 1.
" So as to say that he (Peter) held The Primacy." S. Cyprian,
Extract, No. 15.
" Peter, who was The Preferred One to the Apostles." S. Peter of Alex-
andria, Extract, No. 23.
" He The Very Head of the Apostles, Peter, denied Him thrice."
Eusebius, Extract, No. 26.
" Simon, The Head of the Apostles." S. James of Nisibis, Extract,
No. 27.
" Peter, The Prince of the Apostolate." S. Hilary, Extract, No. 29.
" Peter, The Chiefest and Foremost of the Apostles." S. Cyril of Jeru-
salem, Extract, No. 32.
" Peter The Foremost of the Apostles and Chief Herald of the Church.' 7
Ib., Extract, No. 34.
" Peter, who was The Foremost of the Apostles, and The Key-bearer
of the kingdom of heaven." Ib. Extract, No. 35.
Peter, " The Prince of the Apostles." S. Ephraem, Extract, No. 39.
Peter "that obtained The Place of the Head." Ib. Extract, No. 41.
" Peter, The Head of the Apostles." S. Gregory of Nyssa, Extract,
No. 45.
" Peter, The Chief of the disciples." S. Gregory ofNazianzun, Extract,
No. 48.
" Peter, who was The Chiefest of the Apostles." S. Epiphanius, Ex-
tract, No. 54.
" Peter .... is Set Over the Church." S. Ambrose, Extract, No. 57.
" One is chosen out of the Twelve, that a Head being appointed, the
occasion of schism might be removed." S. Jerome, Extract, No. 65.
" As Plato was the prince of the philosophers, so was Peter The Prince
of the Apostles, on whom the Church of the Lord in enduring massiveness
was built." Ib. Extract, No. 66.
" Peter himself The Head of the Apostles." S. Chrysostom, Extract,
No. 68.
" And intrusted to his (Peter's) hand The Government of the universal
Church." Ib. Extract, No. 69.
ANALYSIS OF PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 65
" Inasmuch as he Peter, who was Set Over the whole habitable
world." Ib. Extract, No. 70.
" Peter .... That Head of the Brotherhood That one Set over the
entire universe." Ib. Extract, No. 72.
Peter " The Head of the Choir." Ib. Extract, No. 73.
" If thou (Peter) love Me, Preside over the brethren." Ib.
" Peter, The Apostle, on account of the Primacy of his Apostleship."
S. Augustine, Extract, No. 83.
" Peter did indeed Receive the whole world." Ib. Extract, No. 84.
" Peter holding The Principate of the Apostolate." Ib. Extract, No. 86.
" Peter, in the order of the Apostles, First and Chiefest." Ib.
" To whom (Peter) by the Lord's voice was Granted the Highest
Place of the priesthood." S. Boniface, Extract, No. 92.
" In whom (Peter) its Government and Headship reside." Ib. Ex-
tract, No. 93.
" Peter though Set Over the holy disciples." S. Cyril of Alex.
Extract, No. 95.
" If Peter himself, That Prince of the holy disciples." Ib. Extract,
No. 96.
" Be thou (Peter) . . . The Teacher of those who by faith come unto
Me." Ib. Extract, No. 98.
" Let Peter hold his long-established Princedom over the Apostolic
Choir." 6". Peter Chrysol. Extract, No. 101.
" Out of the whole world the one Peter is chosen to be Set Over the
vocation of all the nations." S. Leo, Extract, No. 102.
" That so, though there be in the people of God many priests and
pastors, Peter especially may Rule all." Ib.
" Whom he (Peter) made The Prince of the whole Church." Ib.
" Peter The Chief of all the Apostles." Ib. Extract, No. 104.
" And wishes His gifts to flow unto the whole body from him (Peter),
as from a Head." Ib.
" Blessed Peter is The Chief of the Apostles." S. Felix, Extract,
No. 105.
" Yet was it Christ's will that One (Peter) amongst them should be
The Ruler." 6*. Gelasius, Extract, No. 106.
" Peter The Head of the Apostles, that is The Prince of the Princes."
S. Avitus, Extract, No. 107.
According to the testimony of the Holy Fathers of the primitive age,
it is clear that S. Peter was regarded as the Vicegerent of Jesus Christ,
and the Representative of the Catholic Church ; and hence he became
the Rock and Foundation of the Church ; its Source of Jurisdiction ;
and, moreover, its Head, its Governor, and its Supreme Pastor.
66
PART III.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM.
It is time now to inquire what can be advanced against the Scriptural
and Patristic argument on the subject of S. Peter's Supremacy in the
hierarchy of the holy Apostles and Disciples of the Lord. As Dr. Barrow's
" Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy" seems to be the most exhaustive
work on the Anglican side of this great question, we cannot do better than
adopt it as our text-book, feeling sure that every argument that can be
adduced against the position claimed for S. Peter will be found therein.
Dr. Barrow admits that S. Peter may have had a u Primacy of worth
or merit," " of repute," and " of order or bare dignity." We will pass over
his observations on these points, and confine ourselves to the main
question of the " Primacy," of " power, command, or jurisdiction," which
he denies S. Peter ever received from our Lord.
I.
NECESSITY OF A " CLEAR REVELATION."
Dr. Barrow thus commences his argument : " For such a power
(being of so great importance) it was needful that a commission from
God, its founder, should be granted in downright and perspicuous terms ;
that no man concerned in duty grounded thereon, might have any doubt
of it, or excuse for boggling at it ; it was necessary not only for the
apostles, to bind and warrant their obedience, but also for us, because it is
made the sole foundation of a like duty incumbent on us ; which we
cannot honestly discharge without being assured of our obligation thereto,
by clear revelation or promulgation of God's will in the Holy Scripture."
(Supremacy, p. 49 ; see also/. 85, Oxf. Edit. 1836.)
Now, surely, there is something fundamentally erroneous in the above
statement of the learned Doctor. From the premiss which he here lays
down, it would follow that no dogma of the Church would be binding on
the consciences of men, unless there could be found a " clear revelation or
promulgation of God's will on the subject in the Holy Scripture."
Let us test this. No member of the Church of England will deny that
the great doctrine of the "Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity" is a
fundamental one, involving the penalty of damnation, if not accepted and
believed. But it may be questioned very much whether this tremendous
dogma could be apprehended, even by the most learned scholar, with-
out the authoritative exposition of the Catholic Church.
There is only one passage which expressly asserts the unity of the
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 67
Three Persons, but the nature of that unity is not, either in this or any
other part of the Bible, very clearly defined, certainly not in such " down-
right and perspicuous terms" as would satisfy Dr. Barrow. " There are
Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost, and these Three are One." (i .5". John, v. 7.)
Let us consider three points the co-eternity, the co-equality, and the
con-substantiality of the Three Persons, which are essential parts of the
doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Can this be so clearly proved from the
Bible (without the aid of the Church) as to exclude all possibility of
dispute, even from good and intelligent Christians ? The passage above
states that the Three Persons are One, but what is meant, generally,
by " One ?" There are various sorts of unity ; as, for instance, the
" unity" between a father and a son, and between a husband and his
wife. It is known that the father and son are of one substance, i. e. that
the flesh of the son is derived from his parents, but it cannot be said
that he is either co-eternal, at least from the beginning of life, or co-
equal with them. Then, again, a husband and wife are one, but they are
neither consubstantial, nor of similar age, nor co-equal. Therefore the
mere assertion that the Three Persons are One does not necessarily
prove " the Trinity in Unity," nor " the Unity in Trinity ;" inclusive of
the fundamental verities of consubstantiality, co- equality, and co-
eternity. But let us suppose that the authenticity of the passage in
i John, v. 7, above quoted, to be at least doubtful, as Home, Dr. Clark,
Bishop Marsh, and others maintain.* In that case we should be under
the necessity of concluding that there existed in Scripture no direct proof
for the establishment of the great doctrine respecting the Holy Trinity
(for this is the only passage which declares explicitly that the Three
Persons " are one"), and consequently we should be compelled, if we
adopted Dr. Barrow's rule of Scripture interpretation, to reject as utterly
untenable this mysterious and awful dogma, disbelief in which entails
eternal punishment. Dr. Barrow, indeed, admits the principle of implicit
Revelation, but only on the condition that it is so " pregnantly implied"t
as would " serve to satisfy any reasonable man, and to convince any
froward gainsayer." (See sup. p. 85.) But is the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity so " pregnantly implied/' that any intellectually gifted man, who
had never before heard of the dogma, could by the mere force of his reason-
ing powers discover it, even on the surface of Holy Scripture ? It is very
true that Christ said, " I and My Father are one " (S. John, x. 30) ; but
it is equally true that on another occasion He said, " Why callest thou
Me good? none is good, save one, that is God." (S.Luke, xviii. 19.)
And again, " I go to My Father ; for My Father is greater than I." (S.
John, xiv. 28.) And when alluding to the final judgment, He informs His
disciples that " of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (S. Mark,
xiii. 32.) Now these passages seem to strike at the belief that Christ was
* See Horne^ Introd. Holy Scrip, vol. ii. pt. i. c. iii. s. iv. pp. 141-3, and
vol. iv. pt. ii. c. iv. s. vi. pp. 448, 449. Lond. : 1839.
f The original is "imply."
68 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
God, and, by consequence, to disprove the notion that He was co-eternal,
co-equal, and consubstantial with the Father. Then, further, under
similar conditions, it would be impossible for any man, by his mere
reasoning faculties, to discover the doctrine of the Consubstantiality of
the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son, and His Procession from
both ; so it cannot be asserted with any truth that these doctrines are so
clearly expressed, or so " pregnantly implied," that a person who had
never been instructed on those points could, without the Tradition of the
Church, have discovered them for himself. Of course every Catholic
believes that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is contained in Holy
Scripture, and understands how to interpret seemingly contradictory
passages, but without the infallible guiding voice of the Church it is im-
possible for any man, no matter what may be the depth of his erudition,
to discern these and other tremendous truths of the Gospel.
Then, again, it is very doubtful whether there is any " clear revelation
or promulgation of God's will in the Holy Scripture" respecting the
Apostolical Succession, which is held to be essential to the very being of
the Church. Holy Scripture tells us that S. Paul ordained S. Timothy,
Titus, &c., and that he directed them to ordain " elders in every city ; "
but, where in the New Testament is the necessity of Holy Orders
asserted in such " downright and perspicuous terms" or so " pregnantly
implied" as would satisfy controversialists of Dr. Barrow's stamp?
I venture, then, to assert that the position Dr. Barrow has assumed
is fundamentally unsound, and if applied for the proof of some of our
holy doctrines (without the light of God's Church) would necessarily
result in the undermining of that Faith which the Apostles received from
our Lord, and which they handed down to their successors. We have
all seen how the protestant principle (i. e. " the Bible alone") has
worked in England, Scotland, and other countries ; how every system,
not excluding the Church of England, has fallen into serious heresies
respecting some of the fundamental dogmas of Religion. For it should
be borne in mind that the Holy Ghost in Scripture does not profess
invariably to teach every verity with precision ; the inspired writers, as a
matter of fact, assume on the part of Christians a previous knowledge of
the elements of Divine truth, and there cannot be a doubt that when the
Evangelists and the Apostles wrote the Gospels and the Epistles, they
intended them for the instruction, not of heathens, but of Christians.
The position, then, of Dr. Barrow is untenable. But in the case of
S. Peter's Supremacy, I venture to deny that there is no " clear revelation
and promulgation of God's will in the Holy Scripture." Indeed there is
more said about S. Peter, and the Office he was to fill, than upon any
doctrine of Christianity. It appears to me that the terms by which
our Lord delivered to S. Peter his commission are clear and precise.
" Thou art Peter (a Rock), and upon this Rock I will build my Church ;"
" I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven ; " " When
thou art converted, Strengthen, confirm, or fix immovably, thy bre-
thren ;" " Feed My sheep," and " Feed My lambs." These words were
never addressed to any other Apostle, and I submit that, apart from
all glosses^ his commission was " granted" in such " downright and
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 69
perspicuous terms, that no man concerned in duty grounded thereon,
might have any doubt of it, or excuse for boggling at it." I say,
apart from all glosses, because the difficulty of understanding the
true meaning arises not from any obscurity in the sacred text itself, or
from the want of " a clear revelation and promulgation of God's will in
the Holy Scripture," but from the variety of interpretations that have
been put upon it, not by the Primitive Fathers so much as by modern
Anglican Divines, whose main object is to get rid, by fair means or
otherwise, of the Papal authority, and to substitute in its stead the Royal
Supremacy, which, as now enforced by the Crown, is the most impious
and blasphemous assumption of ecclesiastical jurisdiction ever attempted
by secular rulers.
II.
S. PETER'S COMMISSION.
Dr. Barrow asserts that " if St. Peter had been instituted sovereign
of the apostolical senate, his office and state had been in nature and
kind very distinct from the common office of the other apostles, as the
office of a king from the office of a subject." (Sup. p. 51.) Dr.
Barrow is inaccurate in his statement of the relations between S. Peter and
the Twelve. To this day it is no article of Faith in the Roman Church,
nor is it the opinion of any section of Roman Catholics, that the Pope is
the Sovereign of the Bishops, in the same sense as the king is the
sovereign of a people. The whole Episcopate, inclusive of the Pope,
form together one High-priesthood, the difference consisting, not in
superiority of Order, but in Jurisdiction.
The following passages from writings of celebrated Popes explain the
position of S. Peter and his successors in the apostolical and episcopal
college :
Pope S. Leo says, " The right of this power (the keys) passed also
indeed to the other Apostles, and what was ordained by this decree has
passed unto all the Princes of the Church, but not in vain is that intrusted
to one which may be intimated to all." (T. i. Serm. iv. in Anniver.
Assumpt. c. i.-iv. col. 16-19.) " But the Lord willed the sacrament
of this office (apostolic trumpet, i.e. evangelization of the world) to
pertain to all the Apostles in such manner, as that He placed it
principally in the blessed Peter, the Chief of all the Apostles, and
wishes His gifts to flow unto the whole body from him (Peter) as
from a Head ; that whoso should dare withdraw from the solidity of
Peter, might know himself to be an alien from the divine mystery."
(Id. Ep. ad Epis. per Pr ovine. Vienn. constitutes, in caussa Hit. Arelat.
(Epis.c.i.p.6^}
Pope S. Gelasius, " There were assuredly twelve Apostles, endowed
with equal merits and equal dignity; and whereas all shone equally with
7o s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
spiritual light, yet was it Christ's will that one amongst them should be
the Ruler or Prince." (Galland. T. x. p. 677.)
And again, Pope S. Celestine, in his letter to the Council of Ephesus,
" This charge of teaching has descended in common to all bishops. We
are all engaged to it by an hereditary right ; all we who having come in
their (Apostles') stead, preach the Name of our Lord to all the countries
of the world, according to what was said to them, * Go ye and teach all
nations."' (Labbe, Condi, t. ii. col. 88.)
S. Celestine does not, indeed, assert in this epistle S. Peter's Supre-
macy, but who can doubt that he held it, when by virtue of his position as
successor of S. Peter, he deposed Nestorius from the see of Con-
stantinople by his own sole authority, S. Cyril of Alexandria, acting
by commission from him, the (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus confirm-
ing without reserve all he had done in this case ? All the Apostles were
equal as to priestly honour and dignity, yet S. Peter was the Ruler and
the Prince. Upon this point the Fathers are very explicit, for they assert
that S. Peter was " preferred to all the Apostles," that he was First in
Authority, " in whom was the control over the brethren." These are
terms which imply not a mere Primacy of order or worth, but a Primacy
of Rule, Government, and Authority. Therefore, though the Apostles
were not subjects of S. Peter in the sense that subjects are to their lawful
king, yet they were under his rule and government, and in order to
exercise lawfully their mission they must perforce be in his communion.
Dr. Barrow makes a great point in the fact that S. Peter was not
called " Arch-apostle, Arch-pastor, High-priest, Sovereign Pontiff," * &c.
It is doubtful whether the first order in the ministry was known exclu-
sively by the title of Bishop in the first age ; so the absence of a mere
title proves nothing.
The title of Archbishop or Metropolitan, though very ancient, does not
appear to have been in use in the days of the Apostles. But after all it
is not the title which determines a man's authority, but the functions he
performs. Did S. Peter assume the Leadership, or did he not ? Did he
not by his own sole authority (I mean apart from the Apostles) expand the
Kingdom so as to admit the Gentiles ? Did he not determine the question
about circumcision at the first Council of Jerusalem ? And did not S. Paul
visit him, seeing none of the other Apostles, save James, the Lord's brother ?
If these queries, or any one of them, can be answered in the affirmative
(no other Apostle exercising similar functions), then it must be conceded
that S. Peter had a defined position, distinct from the other Apostles, and
that consisted in his being the Head and Chief.
Dr. Barrow adds, " There was indeed no office above that of an
apostle known to the apostles or to the primitive church" (Sup. p. 52).
This is quite true. The Apostles were a confederate body, subject to one
Head and Leader, who possessed an authority at least co-ordinate with
them, so that if S. Peter could not exercise supreme authority without
* Tertullian (A.D, 195-218), after he became a heretic, ironically describes the
Pope, as "The Supreme Pontiff." De Pudic. n. I.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 7 1
their consent (which, however, he did in the case of the Gentiles), they
at any rate could not without his concurrence. This must be evident
if the Fathers are correct that S. Peter was invested with the Prerogative
of Government.
III.
COUNTER ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SUPREMACY OF
S. PETER.
Dr. Barrow affirms that our Lord " at several times declared against
this kind of Primacy, instituting equality among His apostles, prohibiting
them to affect, to seek, to assume, or admit a superiority of power one
above another." (Sup. p. 52). This is a sweeping assertion, but what are
the proofs he adduces ? Dr. Barrow, in the first place, quotes a portion of
the famous passage, "And there was also a strife among them, which of them
should be accounted the greatest ; and He said unto them, The kings of
the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; and they that exercise authority
upon them, are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so : but he that
is greatest among you, let him be as the younger ; and he that is chief
as He that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat,
or he that serveth ? is not he that sitteth at meat ? but I am among you
as he that serveth." (S. Luke, xxii. 24-27.) Why Dr. Barrow should have
omitted the concluding verse of this extract, is inexplicable, for it has,
surely, much to do in determining our Lord's meaning. The object of
our Lord Was (i) to declare, that the Kingdom of God was not to be a
temporal or secular one, in the ordinary sense of the word ; (2) to re-
prove ambition and lust of dominion and power ; and (3) to inculcate
humility. The error Dr. Barrow has fallen into, is, in assuming that
the words, " he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger ;
and he that is chief, as he that doth serve," precluded the appointment
of one of them as their chief. Had he quoted the last verse, " For whether
is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth ? is not he that
sitteth at meat ? but I am among you, as He that serveth :" he would
have seen the point of our Lord's reproof, not that there was to be no
Head, but that he that aspired to be the Chief should be as the younger,
and " as he that doth serve ; " and then He points to Himself as their
model of humility, "but I am among you, as He that serveth." This
last clause, which the Doctor omitted, gives the key to our Lord's
meaning, viz., that ambition shall be punished by degradation. Doctor
Barrow asserts that the Lord checked this ambitious spirit in the
Apostles, " not by telling them, that He already had decided the case in
appointing them a superior, but rather by assuring them, that He did
intend none such to be ; that he would have no monarchy, no exercise
of any dominion or authority of one among them over the rest." (Siip.
p. 53.) Did He? Let us see: immediately after Christ had adminis-
tered this reproof, He constituted His kingdom, appointing His Apostles
X
72 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
as kings to rule over it, and then, turning to S. Peter, He said, " Simon,
Simon, behold ! Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you
as wheat ; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and when
thou art converted, Strengthen (or confirm, or make fixed) thy brethren."
Was not S. Peter, by these words, appointed to a position of Superiority
to the other Apostles ? If not, how could he become their prop, their sup-
port, and their confirmer ; in a word, their centre of unity ? But Dr.
Barrow ignores the force of this passage, and evidently considers it of no
importance in this inquiry : the early Fathers, however, thought other-
wise. S. Ambrose, quoting it, and comparing with it the words, " Thou
art Peter," says, " How could He not confirm his faith, unto whom, of His
own authority, He gave the kingdom, and whom He styles the Rock, He
pointed out the Foundation of the Church." (See T. ii. /. iv. De Jide
c. v. n. 56, p. 531.) S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, considers that
when Christ said, " When thou art converted confirm thy brethren,"
( \ that S. Peter was henceforth to be " the Foundation and Teacher of all
who should come to Christ by Faith." (See Mai, Nov. Bibliot. Pat. T. ii.
pp. 419, 420.) S. Leo, likewise referring to the same passage, informs us
that " special care is taken by the Lord, and for the faith of Peter in
particular does He pray, as though the condition of the rest would be
more secure, provided the mind of Peter was not subdued. In Peter,
therefore, is the strength of all defended, and the aid of divine grace is
so disposed as that the firmness which is bestowed on Peter, may be con-
ferred by Peter on the Apostles." (See T. i. Serm. iv. in Anniver.
Assumpt. c. i.-iv. col. 16-19). It is impossible, then, honestly to ignore
the literal interpretation of the passage in question, for it signifies what
it clearly means, viz. that S. Peter was directed by his Lord to confirm or
strengthen with the enduring firmness of the Rock (which he had now
become by Christ's appointment) the faith of his brethren of the Apostolic
College.
2. The learned Doctor further says, " Was St. Peter a rock, on which
the Church was to be founded ? Be it so : but no less were they all : for the
wall of Jerusalem, which came down from heaven, had twelve foundations,
on which were inscribed the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb ; and
we, saith S. Paul, do all build upon the foundation of the prophets and
apostles, Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone; whence equally,
saith S. Jerome, the strength of the Church is settled upon them." (Sup.
59, 60.) Now had Dr. Barrow thought for one moment, he would
have seen that although it is true that all the Apostles were founda-
tion stones of the city wall, yet the First Stone was pre-eminent, and
not only pre-eminent, but predominant. It was a Jasper stone, the same
stone which is the symbol of the Lamb, and the same stone which com-
posed the material of the city wall : so that while it is quite true that all
the Apostles were rocks and stones, yet S. Peter's Rock is THE ROCK,
on which the Church is built; and S. Peter's Stone the Jasper
the material of the wall. The passage taken from S. Jerome is inac-
curately quoted, it is this : " The strength of the Church is settled equally
upon them (the Apostles) ; yet for this reason ONE is chosen out of
the Twelve, that a Head being appointed, the occasion of schism might
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 73
be removed." (See Rev. xxi. 11-20, and S. Jerom. t. iv. Adv. Jovin.
PI. ii. Col. 170.)
3. Dr. Barrow next demands, " Had St. Peter a power given him of
binding and loosing effectually? so had they, immediately granted by
our Saviour, in as full manner, and couched in the same terms : If
thou shalt bind? &c. (Sup. p. 60.) This is but partially true. Though all
had the power of binding and loosing, yet the Keys, the symbol of
supreme jurisdiction, were given to S. Peter alone. The other Apostles
had the use of them, in union with S. Peter ; but not otherwise. When
Christ addressed the Twelve, saying, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven," &c. (S. Matt, xviii. 18), S. Peter asked
him, " How oft shall my. brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till
seven times ? " to which our Lord answered, " I say not unto thee until
seven times, but until seventy times seven." (Ib. xviii. 21, 22.) The
Primacy of Jurisdiction, in the use of the keys, is here -apparent, so that
while all had the use of them, yet S. Peter had them principally. On
this point, Origen says, " But as it was fit even though something in
common was spoken of Peter, and of those who should thrice admonish
the brethren, that Peter should have something peculiar above those
who should thrice admonish ; this was previously ordained separately
respecting Peter : thus, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven, before (it was said) and whatsoever you shall bind on earth,
and what follows : and truly, if we sedulously attend to the evangelical
writings, even in them we may discover, with regard even to those
things which seem to be common to Peter and to those who have
thrice admonished their brethren, much difference and pre-eminence in
the words spoken to Peter, beyond those spoken to in the second
place." (T. iii. in Matt. Tom. xiii. n. 31, p. 613-4.)
4. Dr. Barrow gets rid of the famous passage, " Feed My sheep," by
referring to Eph. iv. n, and Acts, xx. 28, to show that all the Apostles had
an equal share in the pastoral charge of the flock. He quotes also the
first commission to the Apostles, to evangelize the world, and concludes
in the words of S. Chrysostom, they were all in common intrusted with
the whole world, and had the care of all nations (Sup. p. 60, 61); and yet in
another place this Father thus comments on the words, " And in those
days, Peter rising up in the midst of the disciples :" " Both as being
ardent, and as having had intrusted to him by Christ the flock ; as the
First of the Choir, he always is the First to begin the discourse
justly he has the First authority in the matter, as having had all intrusted
to him." (T. ix. Horn. iii. in Act, App. n. 3, p. 26.)
IV.
APOSTOLIC CUSTOM.
Our author, respecting the practice of the Apostles, asserts that " in
the Apostolic history, the proper place of exercising his power ... no footstep
thereof doth appear." And he adds, "We cannot there discern whether St.
74 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
Peter did assume any extraordinary authority, or that any deference by his
brethren was rendered to him, as to their governor or judge" (Sup. p. 63).
One would have thought that if a member of an association on all occa-
sions, when present, assumed the functions of a president, or a director,
or a moderator ; if he always when present, acted, or spoke in the name
of, and on behalf of the society he belonged to; and if it was the case,
that no other member, when this person was present, ever took upon
himself this position, reasonable people would without any hesitation con-
clude that he had some right or authority, either inherent in himself or
by delegation from a superior power, or by the election of his brethren
to presume so to act. Now two startling facts are apparent to any careful
student of Scripture,. especially of the Acts of the Apostles: (i) That S.
Peter on every occasion, when present, did assume and exercise the right
of leading, directing, and governing the body over which he undoubtedly
seems to have been the recognised Head and Chief; and (2) That there
is no evidence whatever, direct or indirect, that S. Peter was ever elected
by his brother Apostles to this position ; but there is very strong tes-
timony, both direct and indirect, in S. Matthew, that our blessed Lord
did choose him to be His Representative and the Ruler of the Church.
Let us take what examples there are which are given us in Holy
Writ.
i. The first act of the Apostolic College, after the Ascension of Christ,
was to fill up the vacancy caused by the treason and death of Judas
Iscariot. " In those days," says the inspired historian, "Peter stood up
in the midst of the disciples, and said. . . . Men and brethren, this Scrip-
ture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth
of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that
took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of
this ministry." Then describing the death of Judas, and quoting the
59th Psalm, continues : " Wherefore of these men which have companied
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us,
beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was
taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His
resurrection." (Acts, i. 21, 22.) The assembled disciples then proceeded to
elect a successor to Judas Iscariot. S. Peter's action here was that of a
Ruler or Governor, or as one who had received authority to see that the
offices of the Church were duly filled up. Dr. Barrow, ignoring the tone
and matter of S. Peter's address, that one "must be ordained," says that
" he did indeed suggest the matter, and lay the case before them ; he first
declared his sense, but the whole company did choose two, and referred
the determination of one to lot, or to God's arbitration." (Sup. p. 64.)
This language seems to me a thorough misconception of the case. In
reading over the address of S. Peter, it means far more than to " suggest the
matter," much more than the declaration of " his sense." The whole form
and matter of the address is that of one who had authority, and its tone is
that of command, couched in the language of love and courtesy. This
will appear evident if we examine carefully the terms of his address,
which maybe thus summarised : (i) The announcement of the vacancy ;
(2) The statement of the necessity of a successor being appointed ; and
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 75
(3) The decree concerning the qualification of the candidate, viz. one who
had companioned with Christ and the Apostles from the commencement
of the Lord's ministry till the Ascension. And it should be noted, not-
withstanding Dr. Barrow's gloss, that there is not a particle of evidence
producible that S. Peter ever consulted the other Apostles. S. Chrysostom
says he so acted " as having had intrusted to him by Christ the flock . . .
as having had all intrusted to him." The fact that the appointment was
made by election, proves nothing against the position of the Apostle,
for in every part of the Church from the earliest period, Bishops have
been elected, subject to the confirmation of the Metropolitan, either
by all the clergy and laity of the diocese, or by the Chapter of the
Cathedral ; and in this matter of the election of S. Matthias, there is
nothing to show that his election had not been approved of by S.
Peter.
2. Dr. Barrow adduces the narrative of the institution of the Diaconate
and the election of Deacons. He says the " twelve did call the mul-
titude of disciples, and directed them to elect the persons ; and the
proposal being acceptable to them, it was done accordingly ; they chose
Stephen, &c., whom they set before the Apostles, and when they had prayed,
they laid their hands upon them" (Sup. p. 64). There is nothing here
which in any way excludes the action of S. Peter. Indeed, when on
every other occasion the Twelve assembled we find S. Peter taking
the lead as the Director of the business in hand, it is simply absurd to
object that, because in this single instance his name is not separately
mentioned, he did not perform his accustomed duties as the Head of
the Apostolic Body.
3. The next incident Dr. Barrow appeals to as justifying his argument,
is that of the first Synod of Jerusalem. (Acts, xv.) He says, " In that
important transaction about the observance of Mosaical institutions, a
great stir and debate being started, which St. Paul and St. Barnabas by
disputation could not appease, what course was then taken ? Did
they appeal to St. Peter as to the supreme dictator and judge of con-
troversies ? Not so ; but they sent to the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem
to inquire about the question. ... In this assembly, after much debate
passed, and that many had fully uttered their sense, St. Peter rose ^tp, with
apostolical gravity, declaring what his reason and experience did suggest,
conducing to a resolution of the point ; whereto his words might
indeed be much available, grounded, not only upon common reason, but
upon special revelation concerning the case ; whereupon St. James,
obeying that revelation, and backing it with reason drawn from Scripture,
with much authority pronounceth his judgment : Therefore, saith he,
/ judge (that is, saith St. Chrysostom, / authoritatively) say, that we
trouble not them, 6-v. And the result was, that according to the proposal
of St. James it was by general consent determined to send a decretal
letter unto the Gentile Christians, containing a canon, or advice directive
of the practice in this case. // then seemed good to (or was decreed by)
the Apostles and elders, with the whole Church to send and the letter
ran thus : 'The Apostles, and elders, and brethren, to the brethren of the
Gentiles' Now in all this action .... where can the sharpest sight
76 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
descry any mark of distinction or pre-eminence which St. Peter had in
respect to the other Apostles ? Did St. Peter in anywise behave himself
like his pretended successors upon that occasion ? What authority did
he claim or use before that assembly, or in it, or after it ? Did he
summon or convocate it ? No ; they met upon common agreement.
Did he preside there ? No ; but rather St. James, to whom (saith St. Chry-
sostom) as Bishop of Jerusalem, the government was committed. . . . Did
he more than use his freedom of speech becoming an apostle, in argu-
ing the case and passing his vote ? No ; for in so exact a relation
nothing more doth appear. Did he form the definitions, or pronounce
the decree resulting ? No ; St. James rather did that ; for (as an
ancient author saith) Peter did make an oration, but St. James did make
the law. Was, beside his suffrage in the debate, any singular approba-
tion required from him, or did he by any bull confirm the decrees? No
such matter ; that was devices of ambition, creeping on and growing up
to the pitch where they are now. In short, doth any thing corre-
spondent to papal pretences appear assumed by St. Peter, or deferred to
him?" (Sup. pp. 64-66.) There is nothing in the account of the first
synod of Jerusalem, which militates in any way against S. Peter's posi-
tion as Head of the Apostolic College. Dr. Barrow treats S. Peter's
action in this council almost with contempt, as if he had but little to
do in the determination of the great question to be decided. He
says, S. Peter declared " what his reason and experience did suggest,
conducing to a resolution of the point." Now if we look carefully
at the speech which he delivered, we find two things, (i) a narrative how
God had revealed to him the points about the matter ; and (2) a reproof
directed against those who enforced Judaism upon the Gentiles. " Now,
therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts,
xv. 10.) His address is not suggestive, as Dr. Barrow seems to believe ;
but authoritative and conclusive. This is clear from what follows ;
for after S. Paul and S. Barnabas had spoken, recounting "what
miracles and wonders had been wrought among the Gentiles by them,"
S. James rose up and delivered his decree, based on the judgment of S.
Peter. " Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles,
to take out of them a people for His Name ;" and after showing how
this was agreeable to prophecy, adds, " Wherefore my sentence or decree
is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned
to God." I confess I cannot conceive a stronger proof of S. Peter's position
in the council than this which is recorded. A disagreement arises, a
council assembles to consider it, and after much disputing, S. Peter ad-
dresses the Synod, and, in point of fact, settles it, by delivering the oracle
of God on the subject, which the whole assembled body immediately
accept, and promulge in the form of the decree addressed to the Gentile
Church. " The result " then was not " that according to the proposal of
S. James," merely, but according to the judgment of S. Peter, accepted
by S. James and the whole Church. This seems to me the true interpre-
tation to be put upon this transaction. Clearly S. James did not by
his own single authority determine this question, he says, Wherefore, my
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 77
sentence is ; and that sentence, or decree, was without doubt founded upon
what fell from S. Peter.
With respect to the formal manner of celebrating this council,
there is nothing to show that S. Peter did not " summon or convocate
it," or that he did not " preside there ; " nor is there any authority for
supposing that S. James did so ; nor is there anything said about
confirming the decrees : but one thing is evident, viz., that S. Peter
must have assented to them, inasmuch as they were founded upon tfiat
judgment, or whatever it is called, which he delivered. I conclude this
part of the subject with two extracts from the Homilies of S. Chrysostom,
whom Dr. Barrow so often quotes against S. Peter : " But observe how
Peter does everything with the common consent ; nothing imperiously."
Horn. iii. in Acts, Lib. Fath. p. 37. " Like the commander of an army,
he (Peter) went about, inspecting the ranks, what part was compact,
what in good order, what needed his presence. See how on all occa-
sions he goes about as foremost. When an Apostle was to be chosen, he
was the foremost : when the Jews were to be told, that they were not
drunken, when the lame man was to be healed, when harangues are to be
made, he is before the rest. When the rulers were to be spoken to, he was
the man ; when Ananias, he : .... And look ; when there was
danger, he was the man, and when good management (was needed) ; but
where all is calm, then they act all in common, and he demands no
greater honour (than the others)." (Horn. xxi. in Acts, ib. p. 300.) Can
any one suppose for one moment, that S. Chrysostom believed, that S.
Peter was merely suggesting what was to be done in this council, or that
he was merely " arguing the case and passing his vote ? " There can be
no doubt he acted as the Head, and the Chief of the Apostolic body. He
was the man that quashed the disputation, he informed the council of
the will of God, and the council obeyed, and promulged the decree, ac-
cordingly.*
4. Dr. Barrow thinks he has made a good point against S. Peter's
position, when "they of the circumcision contended with him," with
respect to his receiving the Gentile Cornelius into the Church ; and he
infers from this that they had no notion of " his supreme unaccountable
authority (not to say of that infallibility, with which the canonists and
Jesuits have invested him)." (Sup. p. 66.) If this argument proves any-
thing, it tells against S. Peter, as an inspired Apostle. The circumcision
party seems to have been a very troublesome one, and withal impatient
of authority. It was this party, who "taught" in defiance of apostolic
authority, " saying, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses,
ye cannot be saved." (Acts, xv. i.) S. Paul and S. Barnabas resisted
them, and " had no small discussion and disputation with them," but all
to no purpose, they would not submit to their authority, although they
were men full of the Holy Ghost ; and nothing would satisfy them, until
the matter had been brought before the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
The fact then of this insubordinate party opposing S. Peter witnesses
* With respect to the passage from S. Chrysostom, quoted by Dr. Barrow,
to the effect that S. James presided, see " Comment," supra, p. 44.
;3 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
nothing against his Supremacy ; and the mere circumstance of this
Apostle condescending to them, "gently satisfying them with reason,"
really proves nothing.
Dr. Barrow adds, " Further, so far was S. Peter from assuming com-
mand over his brethren that he was upon all occasions ready to obey their
orders, as we may see by this passage, when, upon the conversion of
divers persons in Samaria, it is said that the Apostle hearing it, did send
to them Peter and John, who going down, prayed for them, that they
might receive the Holy Ghost. The Apostles sent him ; that, had he
been their sovereign, would have been somewhat unseemly and pre-
sumptuous, for subjects are not wont to send their princes, or soldiers
their captain ; to be sent being a mark of inferiority, as our Lord
himself did teach: a servant, said He, is not greater than his lord,
nor he that is sent greater than he that sent him. (Sup. p. 67). If Dr.
Barrow's argument can be sustained, then S. Paul and S. Barnabas were
inferior to the Church of Antioch, and our Lord Himself to the Apostles.
We will discuss these two points separately. The Church of Antioch
was afflicted by the party of the circumcision alluded to above, and
S. Paul and S. Barnabas not being regarded by their party as of
sufficient authority to settle the questions they raised (notwithstanding
they were inspired men) " determined that Paul and Barnabas, and
certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and
Elders about this question." (Acts, xv. 2.) The Apostle of the Gentiles,
together with his co-apostle, according to Dr. Barrow's method of argu-
ment, was inferior to the authorities of the Church of Antioch, because
they sent him up to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles respecting this
point ! Again, Dr. Barrow has quoted our Lord's words, " A servant is
not greater than his lord ;" but this passage, together with another
similar one, tells forcibly against his argument. Two incidents occurred
in the upper chamber, where Christ and His disciples were eating
the Passover. The one incident which Dr. Barrow has referred to was
the washing of the disciples' feet, which was followed by the words of our
Lord, " You call Me Master and Lord ; and ye say well, for so I am. If
I thus, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to
wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you
should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The
servant is not greater than his lord ; neither he that is sent greater than
He that sent him." Christ was here teaching His Apostles humility,
and the duty of serving others, and He points to Himself as their model
of humility.
In order to have ascertained the true meaning of our Lord, Dr.
Barrow should have referred to another passage similar in import, but
with a most important addition, " For whether is greater, he that sitteth
at meat, or he that serveth ? is not he that sitteth at meat ? but I am
among you as he that serveth." (S. Luke, xxii. 27.) Now if Dr. Barrow's
argument is really cogent, then it would follow that Christ was inferior to
His own Apostles, because he said, " I am among you as he that serveth,"
for he had just said that he that sitteth at meat is greater than he that
serveth. During the last Passover which our Lord kept He acted the
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 79
part of a servant, nay, as a menial, for he had washed the disciples' feet ;
so low had He condescended that it was not until He had threatened
S. Peter with the loss of his high position that he yielded to His humility.
This argumentum ad absurdum shows how untenable is the Doctor's
position. As our Lord had served the Apostles, so did S. Peter serve his
brethren, so also did S. Paul and S. Barnabas serve the Church of
Antioch, but in so doing they were not acting the part of inferiors any
more than their Master, when He said, " I am among you as one that
serveth."
5. Upon the words, " I am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and I of
Cephas ; and I of Christ," Dr. Barrow argues, " Now supposing the case
had been clear and certain (and if it were not so then, how can
it be so now?) that St. Peter was sovereign of the Apostles, is it
not wonderful that any Christian should prefer any apostle or any
preacher before him ? as if it were now clear and generally acknow-
ledged that the Pope is truly what he pretendeth to be, would any-
body stand in competition with him, would any glory in a relation to
any other minister before him?" (Sup. p. 69.) It is evident that Dr.
Barrow has mistaken the drift of the passage in question ; so far from its
witnessing against S. Peter, it tends to establish his position as the Chief
Apostle. As S. Chrysostom's remarks on this text are extremely apposite,
they shall be employed as an answer in refutation of Dr. Barrow's absurd
argument. " * I say contentions] saith he (i. e. Paul), * I mean not about
private matters, but of the more grievous sort.' That every one of you
saith j for the corruption pervaded not a part, but the whole of the Church.
And yet they were not speaking about himself (Paul), nor about Peter,
nor about Apollos ; but he signifies that if these were not to be leaned
on, much less others. For that they had not spoken about them, he
saith further on : And these things I have transferred in a figure unto
myself and Apollos, that you may learn in us not to think above what is
written. For if it were not right for them to call themselves by the
name of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas, much less of any other.
If under the Teacher and the First of the Apostles, and one that had
instructed so much people, it were not right to enrol themselves, much
less under those who were nothing." (Horn. iii. in i Cor. c. i. v. 12.
Observe how fundamentally the great S. Chrysostom, one of the most
illustrious Doctors of the Church and Dr. Barrow differ in their inter-
pretation. The latter is of opinion that the preference of other Apostles
to S. Peter contributes to prove that S. Peter had no superiority, whereas
the former maintains that S. Paul strengthens his reproof by his graduated
method of argument. S. Chrysostom's comment may be thus paraphrased,
" It is not lawful for you, Corinthians, to call yourselves after the name of
any man not from Paul, not from Apollos, no, not even may you enrol
yourselves under the name of Peter, " the Teacher and the First of the
Apostles," for in so doing you divide, as far as you can, the Church."
Indeed, S. Chrysostom gives his reason for this method of argument, for
he says, " He (Paul) hath arranged his statement in the way of climax."
(Ib.) S. Paul, writing his own Epistle, in the spirit of humility (as is
natural to holy men) puts his own name lowest in order, then Apollos,
8o s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
and then highest of all S. Peter, the Chief Apostle- -showing that not
even the name of Peter should be used as the designation of any sect or
party in the Church.
But let us suppose that S. Chrysostom's comment on the words, " 1
am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," is untenable, still
there is nothing in them which in any way affects S. Peter's place in the
Apostleship. Dr. Barrow asks triumphantly, assuming S. Peter " was
Sovereign of the Apostles," " Is it not wonderful that any Christian
should prefer any apostle, or any preacher before him ?" But, surely,
Apollos was inferior in ecclesiastical rank, and in jurisdiction to both
S. Peter and S. Paul, and yet notwithstanding, some of the Corinthians
seem to have preferred him to these great Apostles, " is it not wonderful
(then) that any Christian should prefer a "preacher" (to use Dr. Barrow's
expression) " to an apostle ?" It would, therefore, follow from the
Doctor's mode of argument, that both S. Peter and S. Paul were not
superior to Apollos, because he was by some preferred to them ! This
alone demonstrates the utter absurdity of Dr. Barrow's argument, for in
his endeavours to upset the Chieftainship, he knocks down the Apostle-
ship ! It may be fairly concluded, then, that the passage under discussion
does not witness against the position of S. Peter as the Head of the
Apostles ; if anything, it supports it. Of the two interpretations the
ancient and the modern S. Chrysostom's is natural, and in harmony
with other parts of Scripture, and in accordance with Catholic Tradition,
whereas Dr. Barrow's is unnatural, unscriptural, contrary to the Tradi-
tion of the Church, and forced.
It is to be noted that the learned Doctor refers to S. Clement, and
puts himself under the protection of S. Augustine. The former merely
reminds the Corinthians of their schism in the time of the Apostles, with-
out entering into any details, so why the Doctor should have quoted
him, is not apparent ? The latter Father S. Augustine Dr. Barrow
must have known, would have rejected his interpretation, for he has
over and over again asserted, in language too plain to be misunderstood,
that S. Peter held the " Primacy of the Apostles." and the " Princedom
of the Apostolate."
6. S. Paul's visit to S. Peter, Dr. Barrow considers as one only " of
respect and love ; " or " to confer with him for mutual edification and
comfort ; or at most to obtain approbation from him and the other
apostles, which might satisfy some doubters, but not to receive his com-
mands or authoritative instructions from him ; it being, as we shall after-
wards see, the design of St. Paul's discourse to disavow any such de-
pendence on any man whatever." (Sup. pp. 70, 71.)
In the text itself, no reason is given for the Apostle going up to
Jerusalem to see S. Peter, nor is there any account of what passed be-
tween them, so it is impossible to form any decided opinion one way or
the other on this incident. The reasons advanced by Dr. Barrow may
be tenable, but it is doubtful whether they would naturally occur to any
one who was not prejudiced against S. Peter's claim. Those who
believe that S. Peter was the Head of the apostolic body, see at once the
object of S. Paul's visit ; those who hold the contrary opinion that S. Peter
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 8 I
was no greater than any other Apostle, naturally believe that it was, as
Dr. Barrow concludes, one merely of "respect and love." But then
arises an important question, if the object of the visit was only to
show "respect and love," and to "confer for mutual edification and
comfort," how comes it that the other Apostles were excluded from all
share of that " love and respect," which S. Paul was anxious to show ?
Dr. Barrow seems to have perceived that such a question might be
asked, and very conveniently he adds the words, " at most to obtain ap-
probation from him (S. Peter) and the other Apostles." Here is an
inaccuracy. S. Paul does not say that he saw " the other Apostles," but
on the contrary, " other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the
Lord's brother." Therefore it was not the object of the Apostle to pay
"respect and love" to ten of the Apostles, nor to " confer " with them,
" for mutual edification and comfort," but to visit only one of them, even
S. Peter. This was the object of his visit. He indeed saw S. James.
Why ? because he was " the Lord's brother," and the Bishop of Jeru-
salem ; and not to have visited him would have been an act of disrespect,
but his object was to " see Peter." " Then, after three years, I went
up to Jerusalem to see Peter ;" (Gal. i. 18), these are the words of the
text. Dr. Barrow quotes S. Chrysostom, to the effect, that this visit to
S. Peter was really nothing more than one of "respect and love :" let us,
however, examine the extract he has favoured us with. " What can be
more humble than this soul? After so many and so great exploits,
having no need at all of Peter, or of his discourse, but being in dignity
tqual to him (for I will now say no more), he yet doth go up to
him, as to one greater and ancienter j and a sight alone of Peter is
the cause of his journey thither; and he went, saith he again, not
to learn anything of him, nor to receive any correction from him, but
this only that he might see him, and honour him with his presence"
But why did not Dr. Barrow continue the quotation? For had he
done so, he would have ascertained S. Chrysostom's opinion more accu-
rately. The following sentence is in immediate sequence to that which
he has given us. " He (Paul) said not /^gfv, that is to see Peter (only),
but iff-To^ja-oci, that is to behold and observe him, as men are accustomed
to speak when observing the great and splendid cities they visit. Much
more, then, did he (Paul) deem it worth the toil of (going up to Jeru-
salem) if only he might see this man (Peter)." ( T. x. ad Gal. c. i. v. 1 8,
p. 631, edit. Migne.) Surely this sentence, which the learned Doctor
conveniently omitted, implies far more than that S. Paul visited S.
Peter out of mere " respect and love." A great and splendid city in the
age of S. Chrysostom meant something more than a similar de-
scription of such cities as, for instance, Liverpool, or Manchester, or
Leeds. "A great and splendid city" at that period meant such cities as
Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, and perhaps
York, &c., each of which was a capital or a metropolis of a chief or
subordinate government. Let us now transpose S. Chrysostom's simile
from a city to an emperor or governor. S. Paul, soon after his con-
version, heard of one who was regarded by Christians as occupying a
very peculiar position in the Church ; that he was named by the Lord a
G
82 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
Rock; that upon that Rock Christ built His Church; that to him He
gave the keys of heaven ; that against the Church so built upon him the
gates of hell should not prevail ; that He commissioned him to confirm or
strengthen the brethren, and to feed the sheep and lambs of the flock.
Well, S. Paul desires to behold this great man, who is the Head, the
Chief, the Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church; he therefore
resolves to go up and " observe him," as men travel to the capital to
" observe" the emperor, that they may feast their eyes on him, who is the
symbol and personification of imperial power, grandeur, and splendour.
According to S. Chrysostom, such a man was S. Peter, whom S. Paul
" went up to Jerusalem to see," only far greater than an emperor, and whose
power by divine delegation was far superior to that of any earthly potentate.
But in order that there may be no mistake as to S. Chrysostom's opinion
touching this visit, let us turn to another passage taken from one of his
homilies on S. John's Gospel, which Dr. Barrow ought to have quoted :
"Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thouMe more than
these ? &*c. And why. then, passing by the rest, does He discourse with
Peter concerning these things ? He was the Chosen One of the Apostles,
and the Mouth of the disciples, and the Head of the choir. For this
cause, mark these words, "for this cause also did Paul come upon an
occasion to see him before the rest. And withal showing him, that
thenceforward he must be confident, as having done away with his
denial, He (Christ) places in his hands the Government (7rpo<rrctFJxv*)
over the brethren." (T. viii. Horn. Ixxxviii. in Joan. n. \,p. 525.) What
then is the truth of this matter ? Clearly this, that all the Apostles were
equal in dignity, all were constituted Apostles by our Lord, but one was
chosen to be the Head, in order, as S. Jerome informs us, "that the
occasion of schism might be removed ; " and hence, S. Paul's visit was
intended, at least, to honour his Chief, his Superior, and his Prince.
7. " St. Paul doth often purposely assert to himself an independent
and absolute power, inferior or subordinate to none other, insisting
thereon for the enforcement or necessary defence of his doctrine and
practice .... As for his call and commission to the apostolical
office, he maintaineth (as he meant designedly to exclude those pretences,
that other Apostles were only called in partem solicitudinis with St. Peter),
that he was an apostle, not from men, nor by man, btit by Jesus Christ,
and God the Father j that is, that he derived not his office immediately
or mediately from men, or by the ministry of any man, but immediately
had received the grant and charge thereof from our Lord ; as indeed the
history plainly showeth, in which our Lord telleth him, that he did
constitute Him an officer, and a chosen instrument to Him, to bear His
fiame to the Gentiles" (Sup. p. 73.) But what does Dr. Barrow infer from
this ? All the Apostles were equally Apostles, "not of men, nor by man,
but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father." Every one of them, no less
* In "The Library of the Fathers," the Editors translate this word, "Chief
authority among the brethren." (See Horn. S. Chrysos. in S. John, p. 790.)
But it means more than this. viz. to have authority and power to command others.
According to this Father, S. Peter was not merely the " chief authority among,"
but he had the " government over," the brethren.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 83
than S. Paul, had been called and constituted an Apostle by Him ; and
yet human instrumentality was employed by our Lord after His with-
drawal from this earthly scene. It was by election by men, guided
by the Holy Ghost, that S. Matthias was chosen in the room of
Judas Iscariot ; and in the case of S. Paul himself, after his call, he had
to submit to baptism by a human minister ; and when the time had
arrived for him to assume his apostleship, the Holy Ghost said to
certain men, who were "prophets and teachers/' "Separate Me, Bar-
nabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. And
when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they
sent them away." (Acts, xiii. 2, 3.) So that whatever S. Paul might have
meant by the assertion that his office had been derived from heaven,
and not from man, he could not have intended to deny, that he had had
to stfbmit to baptism, and the imposition of hands, by human ministers,
before he could have obeyed the call of Jesus, and before he could
have promulged that revelation, which he had received direct from the
court of Heaven. Bearing this in mind, that he was no more than an
Apostle, that all the other Apostles had equally with him received their
revelation direct from the Lord Jesus, and remembering also that two
at least, if not all, had received their apostolic power by the ministration of
men, it does not seem difficult to conclude, that if S. Paul did not intend
by his language to ignore his own obligations to Ananias of Damascus,
and the prophets and teachers at Antioch, no more did he intend to ignore
the position of S. Peter in the Apostolic College, who had been con-
stituted by Christ as the Supreme Prince of His Kingdom, and the
Supreme Pastor of His Church. Dr. Barrow then had no authority for
asserting that S. Paul "meant designedly to exclude those pretences
that other Apostles were only called in par tern solicitudinis with St. Peter."
He does not touch the question of canonical (if I may use such a word
here) relationship of the Apostles to each other, or to their Chief ; he
simply asserts his position as equal in dignity and authority with the
other Apostles, a position which is really not disputed.
It is true that very little is said about S. Peter in any of S. Paul's
Epistles, but what little is said, is with respect for him and his office.
The visit to S. Peter, let Dr. Barrow assert what he pleases, was one
intended to do honour to his Chief, at least so thought S. Chrysostom.
Then, again, it is to be remarked, that sometimes in speaking of the
Twelve, he distinguishes their Chief by name. " Have we not power
to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the
brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (i Cor. ix. 5.) If S. Peter had
no greater jurisdiction or authority than any other of the Apostles, why
does S. Paul separate his name from them, as if he was their Superior ?
The evident meaning of this seems to be, that S. Paul claimed to
have certain privileges as other Apostles had, as the brethren of
the Lord, and even as S. Peter had. The favourite author of Dr.
Barrow, S. Chrysostom, has a commentary on this text : " Observe
his (S. Paul's) skilfulness. The Leader of the Choir stands last in his
arrangement : since that is the time for laying down the strongest of
84 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
all one's topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point
out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the Foremost champion,
and in him (S. Peter) who was intrusted with the keys of heaven."
(Horn. xxi. in i Cor. ix. 5, Lib. of Path. p. 280.) What little then
is said about S. Peter in S. Paul's Epistles, is with respect, recognising
implicitly, at least, his exalted position as the Head of the apostolic
body.
8. Dr. Barrow makes much of the passage in the Galatians, " I with-
stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. ii. u.) He
thus argues, "which behaviour of St. Paul doth not well consist with
the supposition, that St. Peter was his superior in office (quoting S.
Jerome) ; if that had been, Porphyrius with good colour of reason
might have objected procacity to St. Paul in taxing his betters ; for he
then indeed had showed us no commendable pattern of demeanour
towards our governors, in so boldly opposing St. Peter, in so openly cen-
suring him, in so smartly confuting him." (Sup. p. 76.) Dr. Barrow is
somewhat satirical in his argument, and thinks he has planted a mortal
blow against the notion of S. Peter's Supremacy. Why should not
S. Paul rebuke S. Peter, his Superior, if he erred, not in faith, but in
conduct ? Do the princes and great men of a kingdom never rebuke
their Sovereign, if he, by his conduct and policy, endanger the peace of
the realm, or the rights and liberties of his people? And does the
administration of such a rebuke or remonstrance amount to a denial of
his kingly office ? S. Ambrose more than once severely censured the
Emperor's conduct, and on one occasion imposed upon Theodosius a
public penance for a great crime ; did he thereby deny his imperial
rights and prerogatives ? Certainly not ; no more did the rebuke, which
S. Paul, who was not a subject of S. Peter, in the ordinary sense of the
term, imply any denial on his part of that superiority which S. Peter
according to the Scriptures, "as interpreted by the Catholic Fathers
and ancient Bishops" undoubtedly possessed? Dr. Barrow quotes
S. Cyprian, and appeals to S. Chrysostom to support his views, that
this rebuke was administered "upon supposition that St. Peter and
St. Paul were equals, or (as S. Cyprian calleth them) colleagues and
brethren, in rank co-ordinate." (Sup. p. 78.) Here, again, is a sup-
pressio vert; no doubt the Apostles were co-equal and co-ordinate, but
did they deny that S. Peter was their Chief, their Head, and their
Prince ? S. Cyprian says, " The Lord said to Peter, / say unto thee,
that thou art Peter? &*., upon that one (Peter) He builds His Church,
and to him assigns His sheep to be fed. And although to all the
Apostles after His resurrection, he gives an equal power, and says, As
My Father sent Me, even so send I you, &>c.j yet, in order to manifest
unity, He has, by His own authority, so placed the origin of that same
unity, as that it begins from one. Certainly, the other Apostles also
were what Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship both of honour
and power, but the commencement proceeds from unity He
who strives against and resists the Church, he who abandons the
Chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he feel con-
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 85
fident that he is in the Church?"* (De Unitate,p. 195.) Again, " God
is one, and Christ one, and the Chair one, founded by the Lord's Word,
upon a Rock." (Ep. xl. ad Pleb.} " Peter also, to whom the Lord
commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid and
founded the Church." (De Habitu Virg. p. 176.) In the face of
these testimonies, how can it be asserted with any truth that in S.
Cyprian's opinion S. Peter did not hold a position superior in jurisdiction
to the other Apostles ?
Dr. Barrow further says that " he (S. Cyprian) doth, indeed plainly
enough in the forecited words, signify that in his judgment St. Peter
had done insolently and arrogantly if he assumed any obedience
from St. Paul." (Sup. p. 78.) It is really sickening to witness Dr.
Barrow's mode of perverting and misquoting the Fathers. This is what
S. Cyprian really says, " For not even did Peter, whom the Lord had
chosen the First, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul
afterwards disputed with him respecting circumcision, claim anything to
himself insolently, or assume anything arrogantly,f so as to say, that he
held the Primacy (primatum, chief government), and that obedience
ought rather to be paid to him by those who were novices, and had
come after him . . . giving, to wit, to us an example of unanimity and
patience, &c." (Ep. Ixxi. adQuintum,p. 127.) Can there be a doubt of
S. Cyprian's belief that S. Peter held the Primacy, though on this
occasion he yielded to S. Paul's remonstrance, because he knew that he
was right ? So far from this extract witnessing against S. Peter's position,
it confirms it ; for if the Primacy had been an innovation of a later age,
how could S. Cyprian have even alluded to an office which, according to
Dr. Barrow, did not at that time exist ?
The Doctor appeals also to S. Augustine, and asserts that he " also
doth in several places of his writings make the like application of this
passage" (Ib.) ; and yet this great Father witnesses that S. Peter had
" the Primacy (primatuin) of the Apostleship," that he figured and per-
sonated the Church, "because he held the Princedom (principatum)
of the Apostolate." (T. iii. n. 5, col. 599, and v. col. 291.) This is suffi-
cient to show how utterly unscrupulous Dr. Barrow is in his manipulation
of the Fathers for the objects he has in view.
S. Paul's reproof of S. Peter does not in any way touch the question
of his Supremacy ; and Dr. Barrow's argument on this subject is
pointless.
I have now I think answered all the principal arguments advanced
by Dr. Barrow against S. Peter's Supremacy, so far as the practice of the
Apostles is concerned, and what do they amount to ? Absolutely to
nothing; and I think I have shown in most of the several cases,
as, the appointment of S. Matthias to the apostleship, and the judgment
of the Council of Jerusalem, that S. Peter really held and exercised an
authority which none of the other Apostles aspired to ; and as regards
* See remarks on this passage in Comment, supra, p. 24.
t See Comment, supra, p. 24.
86 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
other matters, such as the " visit " to S. Peter, and the reproof of the
Apostle by S. Paul, really nothing can be proved against the lawful-
ness of the office he occupied.
9. But there are other points in apostolic practice which the Doctor
has altogether omitted to notice, which I will now touch upon.
( i .) The position occupied by S. Peter on the day of Pentecost ought
not to have been passed over. When the Jews ridiculed the Apostles,
mocking them, saying, " These men are full of new wine," it was
S. Peter, who, "standing up with the eleven," after rebuking them,
delivered that remarkable sermon, which resulted in the conversion of
many to the faith of Christ. It was to S. Peter principally that these
converts looked for assistance, for they " said unto Peter, and the rest
of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts, ii. 37.)
Now on the hypothesis that there was no Chief of the Apostles, that no
one Apostle had been set over the rest, by what authority did S. Peter
venture in the name and in behalf of his brethren, to address the people,
rebuking them, and expounding authoritatively the ancient prophecies ?
Why did not S. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, assume this position ; in
the absence of a Supreme Head, he would have been the proper person to
have been the mouthpiece of the Apostles. The fact then of S. Peter
assuming this office at the moment of the out-pouring of the Holy Ghost,
and in the presence of the brethren, is conclusive evidence of the Primacy
of S. Peter's power, a primacy derived from the commission he had
received, viz., to hold and use the keys, and to feed the sheep and
lambs of the Church.
(2.) The opening of the Kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles, by S.
Peter alone, without the previous concurrence of his brother Apostles, and
thereby changing the whole character of the Church, from an exclusive
communion to a universal body, was, in the extremest sense, an act of
supreme authority. No doubt he was commanded by God to do as he
did, but then 'why did God choose him to make known His will respect-
ing the heathen ? And why did He inspire him to admit without the
knowledge and consent of his brethren, Cornelius, and the Gentiles ?
The answer is obvious, because he held the keys, and he was commanded
to use them in their favour.
In the apostolical history, then, there may be, to use the Doctor's
language, discerned several important "footsteps," which show con-
clusively S. Peter's Supremacy. First, the direction that a new Apostle
should be ordained in the place of Judas Iscariot ; Secondly, the ad-
dress of S. Peter to the mocking Jews as the mouthpiece of the Church,
and that too in the presence of S. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem ;
Thirdly, the opening of the Kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles by S.
Peter alone, independently of his brethren ; Fourthly, the judgment of
S. Peter, on the circumcision case, at the Council of Jerusalem, followed
by S. James, whose decree was founded on the judgment of S. Peter ;
and Lastly, the visit of S. Paul to S. Peter, after his conversion, in
recognition, according to S. Chrysostom, of his Headship. The instances,
advanced by Dr. Barrow to disprove S. Peter's Supremacy, are nihil
ad rem. The fact of the institution of the order of Deacons by the
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 87
Twelve proves nothing against S. Peter, for he was a consenting party ;
and the rebuke of S. Peter by S. Paul is no greater argument against his
right to rule, than a similar remonstrance administered by the Prime
Minister, or any peer of England to the Queen, would prove that she
was not Sovereign. Dr. Barrow has failed to assail in any one point of
practice S. Peter's undoubted Supremacy.
V.
COUNTER ALLEGATIONS.
I will now consider Dr. Barrow's assertion, that some of the other
Apostles might be proved to have been supreme Heads of the
Church. It is alleged that "upon the same grounds, on which a Su-
premacy of power is claimed for S. Peter, other apostles might also
challenge a superiority therein over their brethren." (Sup. p. 81.) Dr.
Barrow instances S. James and S. John, "who upon the same pro-
babilities had (after S. Peter) a preference to the other apostles." (Ib.p. 82.)
Now one or two questions occur to me. Did our Lord ever say to S. James
or to S.John, " I will givethee the keys ? " or did he ever say, " Strengthen
or confirm thy brethren ? " or, " Feed my sheep and lambs ? " Did either
S. James or S. John preside at the first assembly at Jerusalem, on the
occasion of the election of S. Matthias? Did they, or either of them,
ever address the people in the name and in behalf of the eleven ? Had
they, or either of them, any share in the admission of the Gentiles into
the Church? When the Council of Jerusalem met, did they, or either
of them, determine the controversy, except as in union and in agreement
with S. Peter, who had previously determined the point in question ? If
Dr. Barrow could show a single instance of these, or any other of
the Apostles, taking the lead, and speaking in their behalf, then
something might be said in their favour. Not even did S. Paul ever
speak in the name of his brethren. Dr. Barrow alludes to the sur-
naming of these Apostles as Boanerges, " signifying the efficacy of their
endeavour in their Master's service." Nobody disputes the privileges
and powers of these Apostles as Sons of Thunder ; but why, then,
dispute the meaning of Peter, the Rock, Peter, the Foundation,
Peter, the Representative of the Church ? Why dispute the " efficacy
of his endeavour in his Master's service," to use the keys in their
fulness of jurisdiction and power, and as a Rock to support the
brethren, and to protect and sustain the sheep of the Church? If
Boanerges is to be considered, much more Pelrus. True, S. John
was " the disciple whom Jesus loved" but is there any evidence
whatever that our Lord ever gave him a commission distinct from the
other Apostles ? In the first chapter of the Acts, we find the Apostles
S. Peter and S. John associated, but the latter always following the lead
of S. Peter. And besides, though he was the one "Jesus loved," it does
not follow that he was for that reason the fittest, in the mind of his Master,
for the Headship of the Church. S. James was no doubt our Lord's kins-
88 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
man after the flesh, but that does not constitute any claim to occupy the
Chief Place. It formed no part of the Lord's practice to benefit His earthly
relatives and friends, merely because they were connected with Him by
ties of consanguinity or personal affection. He selected twelve men,
whom He knew were adapted for the work He had designed for them
to perform. Of that number, after a severe trial of faith and love, he
selected one for the Chief Place, and he who first believed, who first
confessed Him, and who declared his love, even beyond the others,
obtained the principal throne in the Kingdom of Grace.
VI.
ADMISSIONS.
\
But the learned Doctor admits the whole question when he informs
his readers that the Fathers style S. Peter ''f$gxi> (the prince); x.o^v(poiioy
(the ringleader); g<pAjv (the head); jrgog^ov (the president); a^uyov (the
captain); ^^yo^v (the prolocutor); Tr^aro^rdr^ (the foreman) ; 9rg0War*>
(the warden); 'Ux^ircy rav ctTrorrohM (the choice or egregious Apostle) ;
majorem (the greater, or grandee among them) ; primum (the first, or
prime Apostle)." (Sup. p. 104.)
Dr. Barrow, however, endeavours to get rid of the force of these titles,
by asserting that they are " hyperbolical flash or flourish," which occurs
in the writings of the Fathers, " it being well known that they in their
encomiastic speeches, as orators are wont, following the bent and gaiety
of fancy, will sometimes overlash." (Ib.}
No doubt poetical authors are given to flights of imagination; but then
if they are men of sense they start from some substantial foundation.
When any poet addresses a high-flown panegyric to a Sovereign,
especially if she be a lady, bestowing upon her all manner of exalted titles,
and expatiating extravagantly on her virtues and her beauty, her glory as
a Queen, the magnificence and splendour of her court; are we to con-
clude that all this is nothing more than "hyperbolical flash or flourish,"
that is, that there is no truth whatever underlying all this extravagance ?
And are we bound, consequently, to believe that after all she is in no sense
a Sovereign, and that her splendid court, so graphically described, is only
an imaginary assembly of aerial worthies from some fairy land ? If so r
then the sweet music of the muse is nothing better than frivolous non-
sense. No believer in that article of the Creed, " I believe in one
holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," can with any feelings of loyalty to
Christ and His saints, believe that the Fathers of old were no better
than crack-brained enthusiasts, who exercised their imaginative faculties
without the governing principle of a sober and discriminating reason.
And if Dr. Barrow is right, that all these varied modes of expressing the
nature of that office S . Peter filled be nothing better than " hyperbolical
flash or flourish," then, indeed, the literature of the Church is little
better than rubbish. I assert, if the Fathers declare that S. Peter was
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 89
the " Prince," " the Head," or the " Captain," &c., then we are bound to
believe they meant what they said, and I therefore claim Dr. Barrow as
a witness-in-chief against himself to this fact which he acknowledges,
though he endeavours, on the principle, I suppose, that the end justifies
the means, to elude the force of the evidence, by the baseless assumption
that they were merely giving rein to their " gaiety and fancy," and
did consequently " overlash." It is really pitiable to see how a man of
talent, like this Doctor, can so overreach himself in his vain and futile
efforts to demolish that Rock which Christ planted in the midst of the
earth, and which He defied all hell to destroy.
There is one point more to be touched upon ; Dr. Barrow says, " We
may observe that such turgid eulogies of St. Peter are not found in the
more ancient Fathers ; for Clemens Romanus, Irenaeus, Clemens Alex-
andrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmilian, when they mention
St. Peter, do speak more temperately and simply, according to the current
notions and traditions of the Church in those times : using, indeed, fair
terms of respect, but not such high strains of courtship about him."
(Sup. p. 105). Possibly, but what then? Did Dr. Barrow mean to say
that none of the early Fathers believed in S. Peter's high position as " the
Head," " the Prince," and " the Captain ?" It has been shown above
that they did ; and for further proof, the reader is referred to pp. 17-25
of this work, where he will find ample testimony as to this point.
VII.
CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, after carefully examining Dr. Barrow's argument
against the Supremacy of S. Peter, I am confirmed in my opinion that
that doctrine so clearly enunciated by the Fathers, is unassailable.
The counter evidence presented by the Doctor in his treatise will not
bear investigation. Dr. Barrow lays great stress on S. Paul's exalted
position in the Church, quoting the words of S. Gregory I., that he "was
made Head of the nations, because he obtained the Principate of the
whole Church." (Sup. p. 109.) But all the Apostles were Principates of
the whole Church, for their jurisdiction was universal, though subject to
one, of whom it was said that he held " the Princedom of the Apostolate ;"
that is, as S. Avitus says, " the Prince of the Princes," and for
this purpose, as S. Jerome witnesses, " that the occasion of schism
might be removed." But S. Gregory does not forget S. Peter, for
he says, in allusion to S. Paul's rebuke, " And yet in the matter
of circumcision (he) boldly rebuked the notion of one (Peter) by great
inequality his Superior." (Mor. Pt. ii. /. x. n. 9.) Many of the passages
from the Fathers are disgracefully garbled, and some, by supplying
the context or the clause immediately following the quotations (which
the learned Doctor conveniently omits), essentially modify, if they do
not always absolutely contradict, the position he labours to establish. And
90 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
as regards the vast amount of evidence in favour of the Supremacy of
S. Peter, he is discreetly silent, contenting himself with an allusion to
the assignment of certain " titles " expressive of S. Peter's office, which
he describes as "hyperbolical flash or flourish." His attempt to show
that other Apostles were sometimes similarly titled is nihil ad rem, for
to render such evidence effective, he should have shown (which he has
not attempted to do), that each of them exercised those functions of
government and administration, which were peculiar to the office, the
Fathers assert, S. Peter filled. In his eagerness to prove the absolute
equality of the eleven to S. Peter, Dr. Barrow has unaccountably
overlooked the other side of the case, viz., that S. Peter was in His
position, as the appointed Rock and Foundation of the Church, as
the Origin and Centre of unity, as the Prince of the Apostles, and the
Chief Pastor of the universal Church, co-equal and co-ordinate with the
college of the Apostles ; and further, that while S. Peter could act in-
dependently of his brethren, there is no evidence to show that the
Apostles, on the other hand, could have performed their functions, except
as in union with him. Indeed, this is implied by the very fact that he
was esteemed by the Fathers as the Head and Prince. Such seems to
be the clear evidence of Scripture and of primitive antiquity.
SECOND INQUIRY.
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
SECOND INQUIRY.
PAPAL SUPREMACY.
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.
UNDER " the First Inquiry" Jwo_positions, have, it is maintained,
been established : (i) That Christ our Lord did deliver to S. Peter '.'
a commission distinct in kind from that of the other Apostles, which
empowered him to rule and govern the Kingdom and Church He had
founded, as its Supreme Head and Chief Pastor ; and (2) That S^Peter I <
after the ascension, with the tacit approval of his brethren, exercised
this office of Supreme Head and Chief Pastor. If the language of
Holy Scripture is to be understood in a natural sense, i.e., according
to its plain grammatical construction, and if the unanimous testimony
of the early Fathers is to be relied upon, then this position of the
Prince of the Apostles is absolutely unassailable. Dr. Barrow, per-
ceiving the vital point of the controversy, has laboured with all his
might, with what success has been seen, to overthrow the arguments
advanced in behalf of S. Peter's claim ; for he well knew that if S. Peter
really possessed an independent commission to rule and govern the
Apostolic College and the Catholic Church, thejnain point in the
Controversy has been irrefragably established, viz., that Christ did in-
stitute a supreme executive authority, which He delivered exclusively
to S. Peter. But it was shown how baseless were the learned Doctor's
arguments, and it was further proved that they were supported by a
system of misquotations from Scripture and the Fathers, most of
which when the immediate context, or succeeding clause or sentence
was supplied, meant the exact opposite he intended. In point of fact,
he proved conclusively S. Peter's Supreme Apostleship.
Unless, then, Scripture and the Fathers are to be interpreted in
a sense contrary to the ordinary rules of construction, I have a right
to assume, especially after the solid proofs advanced under the
94 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
" First Inquiry," that S. Peter was appointed by our Lord to the office
of Supreme Head and Pastor of the universal Church, in which ca-
pacity he ruled and governed the Church \ exercised the power of
the keys, i.e., the Supreme Jurisdiction ; and performed the function
of Chief Pastor over all, the Apostles included.
Starting then from this premiss, I venture to assert, that a suc-
cession to S. Peter's Chair, together with all the prerogatives ap-
pertaining to it, is a necessity that is, if it be granted that the
Polity which Christ instituted was intended to endure till the close of
the Christian dispensation.
I.
MONARCHY, THE GOVERNMENTAL LAW OF GOD IN
THE UNIVERSE.
It cannot be supposed that any work undertaken by Almighty
God can be defective, or be otherwise than " very good ; " nor can it
ever cease in its operations, until the time fore-ordained has been
fully accomplished. Let us pause and consider this point somewhat
in detail. Almighty God, from the moment He began to create the
heavens and the earth, conducted His great work according to
method, and when He had completed it, established a fixed unalter-
able law, by which the whole universe would be continually governed
and sustained. Let us raise our eyes to the heavens above, and con-
template there the beauty and the grandeur of those celestial orbs,
which night after night illuminate the spacious universe of God. See
how Law reigns supreme in all its glory and excellence. Reflect
how it is by a Law as unchangeable as God Himself, that each
planet revolves on its own axis with a rapidity we can scarce mea-
sure ; that each runs its ceaseless course along its appointed orbit
round its central sun ; that millions of solar systems, including our
own, with their suns, and planets, and satellites, are for ever revolving
round some grand Central Luminary, which under' God propels, and
regulates, and illuminates the mighty orrery of the vast and stu-
pendous universe. It is indeed a subject worthy of contemplation
that Law reigns predominant within the entire circumference of
occupied space.
Let us now descend to our own earth. There was a time when
this planet was a shapeless and formless mass, when darkness covered
the earth, and when it was void. I pass over the causes of that
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 95
chaotic condition, as beside the purpose of this inquiry. When God
resolved upon its reconstruction, what did He do ? He first restored
this world, and then established once and for all His Law, for the go-
vernment, perpetuation, and conservation of all that He had made.
The great fundamental Law which He instituted was, that each
department should contain the germ or " the yielding seed after
its kind," by which provision the animal, the vegetable, and mi-
neral kingdoms, are for ever maintained in all their integrity.
Nothing illustrates this great principle of Law more than the contem-
plation of the smallest insect that lives, a creature which cannot be
discerned by the naked eye of man. Observe how complete is every
department of its invisible (to us) organization, how every member
performs its function with the same order and precision, as that of
the largest of the animal creation. In nature then, from the heavens
to this lower earth, from the glorious manifestation of God's power
in the immensity of the firmament, down to the minutest particle of
living matter, Law reigns supreme, as perfect as on the day it was
created by the Almighty Legislator, needing no amendment, un-
alterable, and eternal in its duration for its specified period or dis-
pensation.
But further, Law reigns not only throughout the universe and in
nature, but in God's government of His universal Realm. Little is said
in Scripture respecting the mode by which God carries on, as it were,
His universal government of heaven and earth, but there are indica-
tions by which we may ascertain with sufficient accuracy the funda-
mental principles of His executive Law. There can be no doubt that
the system which He has ordained, is that which is called hier-
archical. The angelic hosts, whose employment is to execute the
will of God all over the wide world, are divided into several orders
and ranks, each of which has its place in the great economy of God's
universal government. We know nothing of their employments in
the myriads of orbs that float in the heavens ; but we may, however,
learn much from analogy derived from what has occurred in our
own world. Any one who is conversant with the Bible knows that
in the affairs of men and nations, angel hosts have had much to do.
Even in the strifes of nations, especially when God's peculiar people
were especially concerned, they have taken an active part. The
angelic guard that protected the Israelites from Pharaoh (Exod. xiv.) ;
the slaughter of the enemies of Hezekiah by the Angel of the Lord
(2 Kings, xix. 35) ; and the action of the luminous Being that Daniel
saw in an attitude of opposition to Persia, which seems to have
" withstood " him, until he was assisted by Michael (Dan. x. 13) ; show
with clearness, the method God has prescribed for the execution of
96 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
His will all over the world ; and judging from analogy, in every
part of the inhabited heavens, viz., by His angelic army, which
daily and hourly wait in adoring posture at the threshold of
His great presence-chamber. What a picture does Micaiah paint
of this great court of the Lord of All ! " I saw the Lord sitting on
His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him, on His
right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade
Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ? And one said
on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came
forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade
him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith ? And he said, I will
go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.
And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also : go forth,
and do so." (i Kings, xxii. 19-22.) This graphic account gives one
an insight into the court of Heaven, where God is sitting on His
throne, and governing all things, as it were, with the aid and assist-
ance of His celestial council. God in council, His creatures being
His counsellors, is an idea far transcending our earthly compre-
hension, and there let us leave it, for explanation is impossible ; but
this much we see, viz., that the angelic hosts are the counsellors, ap-
parently, of God, and the instruments for executing His divine will.
We arrive now at the important part of the subject under discus-
sion. What is the primordial principle of God's Governmental Law ?
The true answer, it is submitted, is MONARCHY; or, if I may be
permitted to coin a new word, CENTRALISM. The monarchical
or central principle is the norm of God's governmental system. He
Himself is the Monarch of monarchs. In the heavens above, the sun
rules its own system, the planets receiving their light from that great
luminary, and all revolving round it as their common centre. In the
order of nature, each animate and inanimate system is governed
either by its own head, its own root, or its own germ, from which it is
developed and sustained for its allotted term of life or existence. In
the angelic hosts, we have glimpses given us of this principle of mo-
narchy, " But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me (the
great angel whom Daniel saw) one and twenty days : but lo, Michael,
one (or rather ' The First/ see marginal reference) of the chief princes,
came to help me." (Dan. x. 13). S. Jude describes Michael as " the
archangel" (S. Jude, 9), and S. Paul evidently alluded to the same
great " archangel" (i Thess. iv. 16) ; for he it is who seems to be the
agent employed (so to speak) on that great day when those " that sleep
in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some
to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan. xii. i, 2.) Again, "And
there was war in heaven ; Michael and his Angels fought against the
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 97
dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels." (Rev. xii. 7.) What a
beautiful picture does this give us of the hierarchical system, which
God has established in the heavens for the purpose of working out His
will in every part of the wide universe : and of what does that system
consist? A chief with his subject angels. "Michael and his
angels," i.e., the Angelic Hosts under their leader and head. Here
we see the monarchical system as a fixed Law in the divine con-
stitution of the universal Realm of Almighty God. But S. Michael
was not only the chief of an order in the angelic hierarchy, he was
and is the Chief of the Princes, " the First of the Chief Princes," i. e.,
of those who, like Gabriel, " stand in the presence of God," and who
go forth, whenever sent, to execute the commands of the Lord.
The following curious passage in the " Recognitions of Clement"*
fully supports this idea of " Monarchy" and " Centralism" as the Go-
vernmental Law of God : " Then Peter began to instruct me in this
manner : ' When God had made the world, as Lord of the universe,
He appointed Chiefs over the several creatures, over the trees even,
and the mountains, and the fountains, and the rivers, and all things
which He had made, as we have told you ; for it were too long to
mention them one by one. He sets, therefore, an angel as chief
over the angels, a spirit over the spirits, a star over the stars, a
demon over the demons, a bird over the birds, a beast over the
beasts, a serpent over the serpents, a fish over the fishes, a Man over
men, who is Christ Jesus. But He is called Christ by a certain
excellent rite of religion : for as there are certain names common
to kings, as Arsaces among the Persians, Caesar among the Romans,
Pharaoh among the Egyptians, so among the Jews a king is called
Christ?" (Recog. 1. i, c. xlv.)
We have now arrived at two conclusions, (i) That Almighty God
governs by means of a fixed Law, which was perfect from the first,
needing no amendment, and which remains in full force and opera-
tion as long as the term fore-ordained shall last ; and (2) that the
fundamental principle of that Law is what I call, for want of a better
word, MONARCHY that is, that under God all things proceed re-
spectively from one, are propagated from one, governed by one, ancl
maintained in unity, integrity, and vigour by one. In a word, the
monarchical or the central principle is the basis on which the
universal Governmental Law of God, both in the natural and the
celestial systems, is founded and sustained.
* This work, though attributed to S. Clement, was not written till the third
century, and it is doubtful who was the real author of it. It is described by some
as a sort of religious romance. It is quoted in the text, because it witnesses
to the fact, that the idea of monarchy or centralism in animate and inanimate
creation, was an accepted principle in that early age.
H
98 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
II.
MONARCHY, THE GOVERNMENTAL LAW OF GOD
IN HIS KINGDOM ON EARTH.
Now if the sentiments expressed above are sound, we shall have
a right to assume that this universal law would be applied by
Almighty God to His political and ecclesiastical government upon
earth, in which we now are more especially interested. I say we have
a right to assume this, because the mind of God is, like Himself,
universal ; it is one, and unchangeable. " He is the same yesterday,
to-day, and for ever." Duality of thought and principle, on any one
point, is impossible with God, for on each He once for all con-
ceives, once for all wills, and once for all executes, and it being neces-
sarily " very good," what He wills is so perfect, that it is incapable of
improvement. If then the monarchical or central principle is the
fundamental Law of God in His administration of the universe, and
of the many-ordered Hierarchy that stand right and left of the great
white throne, it follows as an evident consequence that its applica-
tion must be universal and eternal that is, that whatsoever God
creates, whether in unoccupied space beyond the sidereal system, or
on this lower earth, wherein we dwell, the same principle will prevail,
for being a Law once enacted by God, it can be neither repealed
nor modified.
Let us now proceed to inquire whether this monarchical or central
principle has been established in the hierarchical system God has
introduced into this world?
i. After the creation, God addressed these words to Adam, "Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it : and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. i.
28.) And then in order to show how God had made Adam lord of
the whole earth, He caused all the animals He had created to be
brought before him to be named, " and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Ib. ii. 19.)
His dominion included all his children that should be born of him,
and his children's children, for the commission he received was to
" replenish the earth," with his seed, and to " subdue it," that is, to
reduce all to subjection to himself. The monarchical principle was
thus introduced into the world by God Himself in the person of
Adam. By his rebellion he forfeited his high trust, but we shall see
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 99
how God provided a remedy, and in so doing carefully maintained
in all its integrity the same unalterable Law.
2. By the Fall, the world was reduced to a moral chaos, every one
did right in his own eyes, and the imaginations of men were evil con-
tinually, so much so that God determined to destroy the world He
had made. Subsequently He commenced the great work of moral
re-creation, by the call of Abraham, who was destined to be the
foundation of that great Polity which was at the proper time to be
inaugurated, from whom was to proceed a people, a peculiar people
and a nation of kings and priests ; from whom too was to arise the
Messiah, the Second Adam, the Redeemer and restorer of fallen
humanity. About the fifth century after the call of Abraham, this
great Polity was introduced into the world, in the midst of thunder,
lightnings, and earthquakes, " the voice of the trumpet exceeding
loud." Upon this great occasion, God delivered to His people the
Law, full, complete, and as perfect for its purpose, as that Law which
He had ordained for the government and maintenance of the heavens,
and the earth, and of all things therein. That this was so, is ma-
nifest, from the circumstance that the authorities of the kingdom of
Israel had no power to alter " one jot or one tittle of the Law."
The Law political, ecclesiastical, and ceremonial continued in
full vigour and operation until the consummation of the Mosaic dis-
pensation.
Now what was the essential principle of the Law of Moses
so far as regards the executive and governmental department of this
ecclesiastico-civil state? As with the Hierarchies of heaven, so it
was on earth in the Kingdom God had established ; it consisted of
the monarchical or central system, /. e. government and jurisdiction,
flowing from and centering in one person. Any one who reads
the Pentateuch cannot fail to perceive that Moses was the Vice-
gerent of Almighty God, and as such he was the Governor, the
Ruler, the Prince, and the supreme Judge over all the people.
This supremacy was enforced by Almighty God on every occasion
when the people rebelled against his authority. Witness the case
of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and their miserable followers. But
the exalted position of Moses was still more manifested when
the magnitude of his work led him to seek from God assistants in
his government How did God respond to this? "And the Lord
said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of
Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and
officers over them and bring them unto the tabernacle of the con-
gregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come
down and talk with thee there ; and I will take of the spirit which is
100 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
upon thee, and will put it upon them ; and they shall bear the burden
of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone." (Numb.
xi. 1 6, 17.) I know not any proof more incontestable than this,
that God had appointed Moses as His Vicar in the government of
Israel j and when the work became so great that he could no longer
administer it without assistance, God appointed seventy of the
elders of the people to be his associates in the government ; and in
order to manifest unity, and to maintain the supremacy of His
Vicar, He, instead of pouring upon them His Spirit immediately from
Himself, He took of the spirit of Moses, and put it upon them,
" and when the spirit rested upon them they prophesied." We see
then how the universal principle of monarchy was introduced by
God into the Kingdom He had constituted. It was the same in the
Priesthood, which consisted of a High Priest, who had authority over
the priests of the Tabernacle ; but the jurisdiction of the whole
Kingdom was, under the Law, reserved to the Head of the State.
It will perhaps be asserted, that this monarchical system died
with Moses, but fortunately Holy Scripture itself refutes this idea.
To Moses succeeded Joshua, who " was full of the spirit of wisdom ;
for Moses had laid his hands upon him : and the children of Israel
hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses."
(Deut. xxxiv. 9.) From the death of Joshua to Saul there was an
interim of nearly 400 years, during which we find the monarchical
principle in full force. About fifteen Judges* ruled and judged Israel,
after intervals of interregnum and anarchy, in the course of those
four centuries. To them the people looked for judgment and protec-
tion, and God Himself recognised their authority in a variety of
ways.
It had been contemplated from the very beginning, and indeed it
was part of the original scheme of Almighty God, to establish a
dynastic monarchy in the kingdom of Israel ; and this was a further
proof of the universality and perpetuity of that principle of govern-
ment which had from all eternity been maintained by the Most High.
" When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth
thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I
will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me ;
* It is held by some that the term "Judges," used in the English Bible,
does not accurately represent the original Hebrew word skophetim, which is said
to signify " Rulers of the people." See Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature,
Article Judges. Calmet observes, "The authority of Judges was not inferior to
that of Kings : it extended to peace and war : they decided causes with absolute
authority ; but had no power to make new laws, or to impose new burdens on the
people." See Calmet's Diet, of Bible, Article Judges.
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. IOI
thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy
God shall choose : one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king
over thee." (Deut. xvii. 14.) We know how some three centuries hence
Saul was nominated by God as king, and on his forfeiture, David
and his heirs for ever.
The monarchical system thus prevailed from the very commence-
ment of the divine Polity of Israel, and continued till its dissolution ;
and we know, too, that the office of the High Priest never failed till
the close of the dispensation.
3. We have come now to the commencement of that period of
the world's history when our Lord made His appearance on earth as
the God-Man, who was the anti-type of Moses, the lineal heir of
David, the legitimate King of Israel, and the successor of Aaron,
inasmuch as He was the Lord of Aaron, and united in Himself the
office of Priest and Victim. In a word, the Kingly and Priestly
dignity merged into Him as the Son of God and the Son of Man.
The mission of our blessed Lord was threefold : (i) to re-
construct fallen humanity ; (2) to create a new Polity, for the union
into one nation of all His people ; and (3) to make an atonement
for the sins of the whole world, thereby reconciling fallen man with
God.
Assuming that the monarchical or central system is that which
was originally constituted by God, and that it has ever been in
full operation, both in heaven and on earth, to the exclusion of all
other systems, we have a right to suppose that Christ would per-
petuate the same principle in the Polity He was about to institute.
I say we have a right to suppose so, because the mind of God (and
Christ was and is God) is unchangeable, being the same " yester-
day, to-day, and for ever." If then the monarchical or central
system is that which God originally ordained for the government of
all things animate and inanimate ; if this system prevails among the
Hierarchies of the court of heaven ; if it is true that the starry hosts
obey their common centres, and if all centres are governed, as has
been said, by one grand Central Luminary situated somewhere in the
midst of space ; and if it is further true that this monarchical or central
system was introduced on this earth, and continued in its integrity
up to the period of the First Advent, then by virtue of God's im-
mutability this system must have been introduced into the Polity He
constituted before His departure from this planet, and which He in-
tended to continue till the end of the world. It is an impossibility it
could be otherwise, for else He would be changeable in mind, and
diverse in His mode of action. I repeat, then, we have a right to
suppose from the precedents of all former ages, that in the constitution
102 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
of His new Kingdom He would establish therein the monarchical or
central principle of government.
The Gospel informs us that He did so. As Moses had been
appointed the Vicar of God for founding, establishing, and building
up His kingdom, and for governing the chosen people under the
former Dispensation, so did Christ constitute S. Peter as His
second self (as S. Augustine says) for a like purpose in the new
Kingdom He had called into existence ; and, further, as God
selected the elders of the children of Israel to become associates
with Moses in the government of Israel, so did Christ select in
His lifetime eleven Apostles to share with S. Peter in the great
work of ruling the new Israel. Under the " First Inquiry," it was
abundantly proved from Scripture, and by the testimony of the
Fathers, that S. Peter was appointed to be the Rock and Foundation
of the Church, to be the Head and Governor of the Body, and the
Supreme Pastor of the universal Flock. It is impossible then for
any one to deny, with any truth, that the monarchical or central
system was established by Christ in His Kingdom and Church, by
which it was to be governed and sustained for ever. Nothing can
be more clear than the Gospel account of S. Peter's monarchical
position, for He, as has been proved, received a commission from
God, distinct and separate from the other Apostles, whereas they
received nothing without him. Indeed it is remarkable that in
the several commissions that were given to the Apostles in common,
concerning government and jurisdiction, either a saving clause in
S. Peter's favour is to be found, or some inference given showing
the distinction between him and his Apostolic brethren. For
example, when Christ, addressing the twelve, said, " Whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye
shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," S. Peter immediately
asks his Lord for instructions, saying, " Lord, how oft shall my brother
sin against me, and I forgive him ? till seven times ?" Then Christ
answered, " I say not unto thee, Until seven times, but Until seventy
times seven." (S. Matt, xviii. 18, 21, 22.) It is impossible to com-
pare the promise that our Lord made to all the Apostles generally,
with what passed between Christ and S. Peter, without perceiving that
the peculiar position of the Chief Apostle was not overlooked.*
And the same thing is to be observed when after the Resurrection
Christ actually conferred the power of remitting and retaining sins
upon all the Apostles, He reserved for S. Peter the Supreme
Pastorate of the whole Church. (S. John, xxi. 15-17.) Again, when
He constituted His kingdom, and appointed all the Apostles as
* See Origan's remarks on this passage under the First Inquiry, p. 20,
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 103
His Viceroys, He at the same time pointed out S. Peter as the one
to whom they were to look for strength and support in all that
concerned the Faith. (S. Luke, xxii. 32.)
The great principle, then, of monarchy was established by Jesus
Christ in His new Kingdom ; and the one chosen to rule, confirm,
and shepherdise the flock, was S. Peter, and S. Peter alone, to the
exclusion of all the Apostles, save as in union with him.
4. The next point to be discussed is, Did Christ intend this
monarchy to continue after S. Peter's death ?
Now we have already seen that the monarchical or central prin-
ciple is universal and everlasting. We have seen how this principle
prevails in the heavens and on the earth, in the Angelic Hosts that
surround the court of the Most High j we have perceived how God
thus recognised this principle when He created Adam, and gave him
dominion over all things, how He introduced it into the Polity
of the elder dispensation, and also into that Kingdom which Jesus
Christ created before His departure to the realms above. If all this
is true (and it cannot be disputed), how could the monarchical or
central principle cease on the death of S. Peter ? If the Lord really
did constitute S. Peter as the Head and the Supreme Pastor of the
Church, the Source of jurisdiction (for he had the keys), and the
Centre of unity, how could those offices become extinct on the
decease of the Chief Apostle ? It is impossible, and for this reason,
because, as has been said, the mind of God is unchangeable, and
consequently having once for all willed that all things should be
sustained by Unities, it follows that His Kingdom which He had
constituted should for ever be governed and maintained by ONE
who should be His Representative and Vicar. In a word, what
S. Michael was to the angelic Hierarchies, what Moses, Joshua,
the Judges, and the Kings were to Israel, that S. Peter and his
successors were to be to the universal Kingdom of grace.
The Second Inquiry, to which this is an introduction, will furnish
the proofs for the Supremacy of the Successors of S. Peter to his
Chair in the Holy Roman Church. Holy Scripture will be consulted,
so far as it can help our inquiry, and afterwards the Tradition of the
Universal Church of the first five centuries. This evidence it is
proposed to divide into three sections, shewing first the testimony of
individual Fathers ; secondly, the witness of plenary councils, which
for the most part assume the fact of the Supremacy of the Roman
Pontiffs ; and thirdly, the acts and proceedings of Popes, by which it
will be seen that from tfie very commencement of the Christian
Church they have exercised the office of Chief Pastor in every part of
the Christian world.
104 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
I would, however, maintain that evidence on this subject is in
point of fact unnecessary ; it would not really signify if every folio of
Fathers and Councils had been lost, as many have perished in the
days of persecution. What we have to do is to ascertain the funda-
mental Law of God in His governmental and executive department.
If monarchy or centralism should be found to be a universal prin-
ciple in all creation, in the realms above, in the various worlds
which roll their course in boundless space, in the three kingdoms of
our earth, animate and inanimate; and further, if God introduced
this identically same principle in the Mosaic Polity, then by virtue
of His consistency and immutability He could not have constituted
the Catholic Church otherwise than as a monarchy, and having so
done, as has been proved, it follows as a certain consequence that
the monarchical principle must continue in full vigour and integrity
until the Sovereign Lord of all shall return to resume in His own
Person the monarchy He had delegated to S. Peter, and to the
Roman Pontiffs, the successors to his Cathedra and prerogatives.
SECOND INQUIRY.
II. WHETHER THE BISHOPS OF ROME ARE THE SUC-
CESSORS OF S. PETER IN HIS OFFICE AS HEAD OF
THE BROTHERHOOD, AND AS THE CHIEF PASTOR
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH; AND, FURTHER, WHE-
THER THEY, THE SAID BISHOPS OF ROME, HAVE
BEEN RECOGNISED AS SUCH FROM PRIMITIVE
TIMES.
PART I. HOLY SCRIPTURE.
" . . . . And the Stone that smote the image became a great
mountain, and filled the whole earth And in the days of these
kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be
destroyed : and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall
break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for
ever." (Dan. ii. 35, 44.)
" And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (a Rock), and upon this
Rock I will build My Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it." (S. Matt. xvi. 18.)
" And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter
(or Paraclete), that He may abide with you for ever (g/ 5 rov aiavat) ; even
the Spirit of Truth." (S. John, xiv. 16, 17.)
" All power is given unto Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye, there-
fore, and teach all nations And, lo, I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the world (or, all the days till the close of the age or
dispensation, Wc-#s ras ti^&^otg tag TVS <rvyTtA.tiag rov etlavos). Amen." (S.
Matt, xxviii. 18, 20.)
" The Church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth
you." (i S. Peter, v. 13.)
OBSERVATIONS.
It is impossible to read these passages without perceiving that the
Kingdom which our Lord had created, together with the governing
Apostolic College, was intended to be an institution of perpetual du-
ration.
i. The Prophecy is very distinct in this respect in its utterance ;
the Kingdom which grew out of the Stone (*. e. Christ, the True Stone,
and Peter, the Secondary Stone) and became a great universal spiritual
empire, is declared to be impregnable and everlasting, for it is said it
" shall not be destroyed ;" it " shall not," like other nations, be subdued
106 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
and " left to other people ;" but, on the contrary, it " shall break in
pieces, and consume all these kingdoms (/. e. the kingdoms included in the
prophecy), and it shall stand for ever." No language can possibly be
stronger or more explicit, " It shall never be destroyed ;" " it shall stand
for ever." The only point is when does this prophecy begin to be fulfilled
at the first coming of Christ, or subsequently, after His second advent ?
The answer to this question may be perceived in the Prophecy itself, as
interpreted by the light of history. According to the Prophecy, up to
the moment of the descent of the Stone, the Roman Empire, together
with the incorporated kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Macedonia,
was standing erect in its integrity, and in all its grandeur, power, and
pride. After the descent of the Stone, it gradually disappears, and in the
place of it there is established a great Universal Empire, expressly called
" the Kingdom of God" a Kingdom which " shall never be destroyed,"
and which " shall stand for ever."
Now to determine these points whether the Prophecy has been in
some measure at least fulfilled, we must ask ourselves this question, Is
the Roman Empire (the legs of the Image and the fourth Beast) at
this moment existing in its full proportion, power, and greatness (for such
is the condition at the moment it is struck) 1 If it is, then the Stone has
not yet come, and the Kingdom has not been erected. But, on the
other hand, if the RomanEmpire has fallen, then it is manifest that the
Stone has smitten it ; and the prediction concerning this Universal
Empire which grows out of this Stone has begun to be fulfilled, is still
in the course of fulfilment, and will be finally accomplished in the reign
of glory.
Let us now examine a few historical facts, (i.) Our Lord constituted
His Kingdom and Church upon S. Peter, whom He called a Stone, and
afterwards transformed him, metaphorically, into a Rock. (2.) Upon
the eve of His Passion He delivered the Kingdom to S. Peter and the
other Apostles, charging the former as soon as he was converted to
confirm the brethren, and just before His Ascension, to shepherdise
the universal flock. (3.) S. Peter, the Stone and Rock, came to Rome,
and there, in conjunction with S. Paul, the great Apostle of the Uncircum-
cision (i. e. the Gentiles), founded and constituted the Holy Roman
Church, which they made, as S. Irenaeus says, a superior Principality,
and in that Church S. Peter established his Cathedra, (4.) After this
the decline of the Roman Empire commenced ; (5.) The capital was
by Constantine translated from Rome to Byzantium, and (6.) subse-
quently, Rome became the property of the Church, and is at this moment
the metropolis and centre of Christendom.
Observe how the prophecy has long ago begun to be fulfilled, for the
Stone Christ has founded His Kingdom ; He sent His Chief Apostle
Peter also the Stone to smite the Roman Beast, and lo ! it has fallen,
and its place and Capital become the spoil of the conqueror.
Those who assert that this prophecy of the Stone and the Kingdom of
Christ is still future, rely much upon the language of some of the early
Fathers. But it is doubtful whether the testimony of the Fathers with
respect to unfulfilled prophecy can be relied upon as infallible. Christ
S. PETER AT ROME. IO/
gave no commission to His Church to interpret beforehand the language
of prophecy, except only certain Apostles and others whom the Holy
Ghost specially named, as for example, S. John, who in point of fact
expounded, expanded, and continued the predictions of Daniel. Now
there are several reasons why we who live in this period of the world
cannot depend with certainty upon the opinions of the Fathers respecting
unfulfilled prophecy. In the first place, the tradition of the anti-Nicene
age is not very clear, for many commentaries then existing were lost, and
moreover, it does not appear to have been very free from corruption ;
certain it is that the later primitive Fathers of the fourth, fifth, and sixth
centuries differed from their predecessors of the three first ages ; they cer-
tainly did not regard the expositions of S. Irenseus, Tertullian, &c. as
on all points conclusive and binding upon them. Secondly, for the
interpretation of some of the prophecies they had not, of course, the
advantage of historical evidence for proving the correctness of their
speculations, and consequently it was more than probable that they
would err in many particulars. They certainly were in error when they
supposed that the Second Advent was close at hand ; on this point even
the Apostles were mistaken; so that, except on doctrines of faith and
morals, the exposition of the Fathers on prophecy, though of course
extremely valuable, cannot be accepted as infallibly true. Prophecy is
like the " lamp of fire" which Abraham saw passing through the " horror
of great darkness" of futurity, emitting to centuries beyond, its mysterious
rays, indicating here and there some historic feature, or some scene in
the great drama of the world of the future not yet performed. The
shadowy forms of future events are more or less distinct, but the details
by which alone the prediction and fulfilment can be harmonised are
generally wanting. The early Fathers, then, who lived at the time when
the prophecy of the " Stone" and the " Mountain" were but beginning to
be fulfilled, were not altogether qualified to discuss the whole scope of
the predictions of Daniel and S. John. They knew that Rome was the
fourth Beast, and that upon the final fall of the Roman Empire Antichrist
was to arise, to be followed quickly by the Second Advent, the last judgment
and the triumph of the Church; but it never could have entered their minds
to suppose, without a revelation, that Pagan Rome was destined to fall before
the destruction of the empire subject to it ; that the Tarpeian Rock was
to become the Rock of Peter ; that its place was to be given to the King-
dom and Church of Christ, of which Rome was be the metropolis, and
the Chief Pastor of the flock its Sovereign Lord. We who live in the
nineteenth century, having behind us the long vista of past events, may
see many things by the light of historical facts, which, short of a
special revelation, they never could even have imagined. If then the
Fathers, or some of them, assert that the Stone will not descend till the
end of the world upon the Image and the fourth Beast, may they not be
partially, or even entirely, mistaken ? May it not be open to us, in this
age of the world, to affirm, in accordance with fact, that Rome having
fallen, the Stone is proved to have come, and that the Kingdom of God
has been set up, never to be destroyed. The Stone will doubtless come
a second time, to complete the work, for the destruction of the remnants
108 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
of the Babylo-Roman Empire, which will be represented finally by
Antichrist, but that does not affect the fact that it has already annihilated
imperial Rome.
And, after all, is not the existence of Rome at this moment as the
glorious Capital of the Universal Empire of Christ under the Pope- King,
the successor of the Stone Peter the sign to us that the prophecy
has been at least partially fulfilled, the Stone having come and grown
into that great mountain which filleth the whole earth, whose summit is
now piercing the heavens ?
This great visible and material, yet spiritual, Empire of Christ, the
centre of which is Rome, is, according to the terms of the prophecy, one
that is everlasting, for " it shall never be destroyed ;" it " shall not
be left for other people," but it " shall stand for ever," in its unity, its
strength, and its glory, for it is founded upon the massive and adamantine
Rock.
2. When Christ founded His Church on S. Peter, He said that "the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It cannot be doubted that He
who said these words regarded the Rock, and the Church built upon it,
I. e. upon S. Peter, as a perpetual institution. Had the Rock and the
Church disappeared from the earth on the decease of S. Peter and the
Apostles, then the gates of hell would have prevailed, i. e. would have
prevailed to destroy our Lord's work on earth ; for this Rock was a visible
symbol of the power, the strength, the indivisibility, and the everlasting
endurance of the Church as a visible organisation ; and further, it was a
guarantee, pronounced in terms most absolute, that it would have a
never-ending life. The devil could have had no greater triumph than that
this Rock and Church should only have had a mere temporary existence
on earth.
3. The promise that the Holy Ghost should abide with the Apostles
for ever, and that Christ Himself should be present all the days till the
consummation, demonstratively proves that the Apostolate was never to
die. This promise was made to the Apostles alone ; to no one else did our
Lord address Himself. The Apostles are now all dead, the dispensation
is not yet closed, for this cannot be until the Second Advent. It was then to
the office of the Apostleship that this promise was made. This is a proof
which cannot be gainsayed, that the Apostolate as a corporate body, was
endowed with an inextinguishable life. Indeed, after the Ascension we
learn how this corporate life was to be perpetually sustained, viz. by the
succession to the several thrones as they became vacant. When Judas
Iscariot fell, his place was filled up by the election of S. Matthias, who was
numbered with the eleven Apostles ; and so it has continued to this day,
as Apostolic Prelates deceased, others were appointed to their chairs,
and thus the Apostolate never ceases to live. As we say, the king never
dies, so in the Church the Apostolate enjoys an everlasting life on earth.
4. This brings us now to a very important point of our inquiry. If
the Apostolic succession be a verity, then it must be maintained in its full
integrity. It has been proved under the " First Inquiry" that Christ did
constitute one of the Apostles as the Head of the Brotherhood, and the
Chief Pastor of His universal Flock ; it follows as a necessary con-
S. PETER AT ROME.
109
sequence that if there be an Apostolic succession at all, there must be
a succession to the office of the Head and Chief, This is a self-
evident verity. Grant the premiss that Christ formed a divine Polity,
consisting of an earthly Head and Body, which should " never be
destroyed," and which should " stand for ever," then a perpetual suc-
cession to the office of the Head, no less than to the Body itself, is proved
to be a law of perpetual obligation. It is impossible to avoid this con-
clusion, if S. Peter was really constituted the Rock of the Church, the
Custodian of the keys, the Confirmer of the Brethren, and the Shepherd
of the entire Flock. That he was so constituted has been, as just stated,
abundantly proved under the " First Inquiry," and no testimony can be
more unanimous than that of the holy Fathers on this point from the
earliest period of ecclesiastical history.
The Apostolical succession, then, necessarily involves a succession to
the chief office, no less than to the several members of the Apostolic
College an office which Christ Himself established for the purpose, as
S. Jerome and others say, of removing the occasion of schism.
5. If this be so, how is it that nothing is said about S. Peter's
succession in the Holy Scriptures ? S. Peter was martyred at Rome in
A.D. 67, and the Gospel and Epistle of S. John together with the
Apocalypse, are said to have been written some twenty years afterwards,
how is it that nothing is to be found in those books of the successors of
S. Peter as the Head and Chief of the Church? The simple answer to
this is that the scope of the Apostle's writings did not include any account
of Church government. The Gospel of the fourth Evangelist was written
for the main purpose of providing the Church with an inspired testimony
of the Divinity of our Lord, and of supplementing the other Gospels.
His three Epistles were intended to promote faith and charity, and to
warn all against idolatry, and especially against the Antichrist. The
Apocalypse is taken up with those mystical prophecies relating to the
chief events affecting the Church in future ages. There was, therefore, no
special reason why this Apostle should touch upon the government of the
Church. Indeed the Apostles are remarkably silent on this point, even
as regards their own inspired authority. S. Paul, it is true, here and there
threatens to excommunicate heretical and evil persons, but on questions
of ecclesiastical government he is silent. And so also is S. James and S.
Jude. All the faithful were fully acquainted as to this point, so there was
no necessity to allude to it. The Church was an inspired body, under
the government of a living system, of which all were cognizant, so that it
was unnecessary to advert to such questions. It is assumed that the New
Testament is exhaustive as regards doctrine and discipline, but there is
no proof of this to be found anywhere in the Scriptures.* It was written
* The writing of the Gospel of S. John implies that the previous Gospels of S.
Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke, were not as a whole complete. This Gospel by
S. John was written about A.D. 90, evidently for the purpose of supplementing the
three previous Gospels. At the end of his Gospel he says, "And there are also many
other things' which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I
suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be
IIO THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
for the Faithful, and almost every book assumes on their part a previous
knowledge of truth. The object of the Apostles in their writings was
to build up on a foundation already laid, to exhort the good to persevere,
to support such as were weak, and to warn the wicked of evil to come if
they did not repent.
6. There is one more point to be considered, viz., whether there is
any evidence in Scripture that S. Peter was ever at Rome ? The follow-
ing is the only passage that throws any light on this question : " The
Church which is at Babylon saluteth you." (i Pet. v. 13.) There
is little doubt that Babylon here meant Rome.* Home says, " From a
written. " (S. John, xxi. 25. ) In the Acts of the Apostles, we are informed that Jesus,
after His resurrection, " showed himself alive after His Passion .... being seen
of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
( Acts, i. 3. ) Doubtless He spoke of the doctrine and the discipline the Apostles
were to teach and to enforce, and probably something was said respecting Church
government. But so far as we know, very little, if any, of what was said
during these forty days, was committed to writing by the Apostles. It was
stored in the treasury of the Church's tradition, and delivered to the safe keeping
of the Apostolic Sees.
Then, again, St. Paul alludes to a " form of sound words," to a "form of
doctrine," to something that was "committed to (S. Timothy's) trust," and to
certain "traditions and ordinances," which do not appear to have been written by
the Apostles in their inspired Books. It is impossible then to assert that the New
Testament is exhaustive, either as regards doctrine or discipline. This is a
Protestant idea, which has no other foundation than the opinions of their leading
divines. For obtaining a true knowledge of truth we must go to the Church, to the
existing Church, which S. Paul says is "the Pillar and ground of the Truth,"
and therefore it is an infallible authority on all matters concerning the Church.
* It by no means follows, it is submitted, because the Babylon in S. Peter's
Epistle signified Rome, that the Babylon in the Apocalypse is also Rome, and this
for the following reasons :
1. It is evident that Babylon is the name proper of the capital of the ancient
Chaldaic empire, and subsequently the mystical designation of the seat of empire
in its Roman development, and also hereafter of that great city which will be
subject to the Antichrist.
Nebuchadnezzar saw in its full stature, under the form of a human figure, the
several empires that would intervene between himself and the coming of Christ,
and, again, the fortunes of certain portions of the empire, culminating in the rise,
progress, and destruction of its last king. Daniel also saw the same thing under
the type of the four beasts the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the inde-
scribable monster that denoted the fourth kingdom. Pagan Rome was mystically
the Babylon as long as the fourth empire of the Babylonian Image remained in its
full glory and integrity.
2. The following observations will, it is thought, show that Rome of the pre-
sent and future ages cannot be the Apocalyptic Babylon. In the first place, the
blasphemous power with seven heads and ten horns which S. John saw arise in
the distant future, was one distinct from that which was existing in his day, viz.
the Roman empire ; it was altogether a new development of the Babylonian
mystery. The key to the whole prophecy would seem to be contained in the fol-
lowing passage, "And there are seven kings ; five are fallen, and one is, and the other
is not yet come ; and when he cometh he must continue a short space. And the
S. PETER AT ROME. 1 1 1
careful examination of the evidence adduced for the literal meaning of
the word Babylon, and of the evidence of its figurative or mystical ap-
plication to Rome, we think that the latter (i.e. Rome) was intended, and
beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into
perdition." (Rev. xvii. n.) The future Babylon, the Capital of the Antichrist, in S.
John's time was "not yet come," therefore Rome, it may beheld, cannot be the mystic
Babylon of prophecy. This will appear more clear if we consider what may be under-
stood by the seven kings. Many attempts have been made to interpret this passage,
but none have been satisfactory, and the reason of this seems to be, because most
commentators have assumed that Babylon and Rome are the names of one and the
same city. Let us see whether another view may not be worth some considera-
tion ; the seven kings evidently typify those seven powers which are distinguished
for their opposition to God and His people. These may be enumerated as
follows : Egypt, which persecuted the children of Israel ; Assyria, which made
captive the ten tribes, and trod under foot their dominion ; Babylon, which
carried off and enslaved the Jews ; the fourth and fifth, Medo-Persia and the
Macedonian Empire, which succeeded to Babylon, and more or less continued the
oppression, till, under Cyrus, the Jews returned to their native land, and -rebuilt
the Temple ; the sixth, the Roman empire, which destroyed Jerusalem, and dis-
persed to the four quarters of the world the miserable Jews. The first five had
fallen in S. John's time ; the sixth was the power that was " now is ; " the seventh
that which was "not yet (then) come." Upon the fall of the seventh the Empire
will be divided into ten kingdoms, of which one will be that infidel eighth power,
which S. John saw rise out of the sea. Babylon would then appear to be the
mystic name of all these powers, for they are all one according to the Apocalypse,
"being of the seven, and goeth into perdition; " Babel was the root, the building
of which was the first public act of rebellion against God ; Babylon, under Ne-
buchadnezzar, was the head of the prophetic image ; Rome was the mistress of
Judaea long before the fall of Jerusalem, and was aptly called Babylon ; Constan-
tinople, under the Turkish phase of the Roman empire, continues the persecution
of God's people, and is fully entitled to the mystic designation of Babylon. From
this it would appear that the Babylon of prophecy signifies that power, which is
noted for its rebellion against God, and the persecution of His people. It would
seem, then, on these grounds, and also on the fact that in S. John's time, the
kingdom of Antichrist had "not (as) yet corne," that the infidel power seen by
S. John in the long distant future, was distinct from the Rome and the Roman
Empire of his period, and consequently it may be concluded that the Apocalyptic
Babylon is not the same city as the ancient Capital of the world.
Secondly. And historical evidence seems to confirm the probability of this
view. Two remarkable events concerning Rome point to this conclusion, (i)
The translation of the seat of govemment from Old Rome to Byzantium, or Con-
stantinople. By this act alone, it is contended, Rome ceased to be mystic Baby-
lon ; for it ceased to be the head or metropolis of the empire as a whole. Constan-
tinople succeeded to the royalties of Rome (Rome retaining only an honorary
precedence) and became the heir to its mystical title of "Babylon." (2) The
offering of Rome and its provinces to God by Pepin, and their occupation by the
Chief Pastor of the universal fold of Christ as its Sovereign Lord, dissolved for ever
all connexion between that ancient capital and the Babylonian empire. It seems
then plain that ecclesiastical and modern Rome cannot possibly be mystic Baby-
lon.
3. Again, the prophetic description of the future Babylon is totally at variance
112 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
for the following reasons : i. This opinion is confirmed by the general
testimony of antiquity, which .... is of no small weight.
Eusebius relates, on the authority of Clement of Alexandria and
with the character and condition of ecclesiastical Rome. The Apocalyptic Ba-
bylon is described as a first-rate commercial city, its great men are merchant-
princes, who trade with all the world, and all the world is made rich by her mer-
chandise. She trades in "gold, and silver, and precious stones, and (in) pearls,
and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine-wood, and all
manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and (in)
brass, and iron, and marble, and cinnamon, and odours, and ointment, and frank-
incense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and
horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men." (Rev. xviii. 12, 13.) " Ship-
masters," and "sailors," "and as many as trade by sea," crowd her streets, and
ships abound in her harbours. Now what resemblance is there between this
great Babylon and Rome as it is ? Is the holy city at this moment, the em-
porium of commerce ? are its chief men merchant-princes, and its inhabitants,
sailors and ship-masters or artizans ? and are ships seen navigating the Tiber, or
lying at anchor at Civita Vecchia, the ancient Ostia ? The two cities differ in
toto in every particular, there is no resemblance whatever between the Holy
City and the future Babylon.
4. Let us now inquire if there are any indications in Scripture where the future
mystical Babylon will be situated. Will it be London, popularly called the
modern Babylon, Paris, Constantinople, Jerusalem, or Alexandria ? The
Apocalypse, it is submitted, throws some light on this question. It will be
remembered that the ten toes of the Image, and the ten horns of the fourth Beast
symbolised ten kings, which shall appear after the final fall of the empire, among
which will arise a little horn or kingdom, which will become very great and
powerful, and be remarkable for its hatred of God and the saints. This is the
predicted Antichrist, and S. John, supplementing the prophecy of Daniel, informs
us of the quarter of the world from whence he will appear. He says, " And I stood
upon the sand of the sea, and saw abeast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads
and ten horns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which
I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his
mouth as the mouth of a lion : and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat,
and great authority." (Rev. xiii. I, 2.) If these symbols are identical with
those in the book of Daniel, then there can be little doubt that the kingdom
of Antichrist will be composed of that portion of the old Babylo-Roman empire, as
was typified by the lion, the bear, and the leopard ; even that dominion as was com-
prised in the Macedonian empire under Alexander the Great. The last mystic Baby-
lon will then necessarily be situated somewhere in this dominion, and in close
proximity to the sea or some considerable river. It will probably be Byzantium,
i.e. Constantinople, for these three reasons (i), because it is the capital of the exist-
ing remnant of the old Babylo-Roman empire, in consequence of the translation
of the seat of government thither from old Rome ; (2) because it is the most
eligible port in Oriental Europe for commerce on a large scale ; and (3) because
it is admirably suited to be the seat of government of a great, overbearing, and
dominant power.
5. There is one more point which must be touched upon : it is alleged be-
cause the Pontiff is Sovereign of Rome, therefore he is officially the Man of Sin,
i.e. the Antichrist, and the false prophet. This view is justified because it is sup-
posed by controversialists that Rome is the mystic Babylon of prophecy, and, as
S. PETER AT ROME. 1 1 3
Papias Bishop of Jerusalem, that Mark's gospel was written at the
request of Peter's hearers in Rome ; and that " Peter makes mention of
Mark in his first Epistle, which was written at Rome itself. And that he
(Peter) signifies this, calling that city figuratively Babylon, in these
words, The church which is at Babylon, elected jointly with you, saluteth
you. And so does Mark my son" This passage of Eusebius is transcribed
by Jerome, who adds positively that " S. Peter mentions this Mark in his
first Epistle, figuratively denoting Rome by the name of Babylon ; the
church which is at Babylon, &c." (Ecumenius, Bede, and other Fathers,
also understand Rome by Babylon. ... 2. From the total silence of
ecclesiastical history, it is not probable that Peter ever visited Babylon
in Chaldasa ; and Babylon in Egypt was too small and insignificant to
be the subject of consideration. 3. Silvanus, or Silas the bearer, was
the faithful 'brother, or associate, of S. Paul in most of the churches which
he had planted. And though he was not at Rome with the apostle when
he wrote his last Epistle to Timothy, he might naturally have come thither
soon after ; and have been sent by Paul and Peter jointly, to confirm the
Churches in Asia Minor, &c., which he had assisted in planting. But
in the Prophecy of the "seven kings," it " goeth into perdition. " Having, as
it is submitted, shown that ecclesiastical Rome is not the Babylon of the present
or the future, it follows, too, that the Pope-King cannot be either the infidel king
or false prophet of the Apocalypse.
But there are other reasons why this is impossible. The peculiarity of Anti-
christ is, that he denies "the Father and the Son." and that "Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh," (i S. John, ii. 23, and iv. 3,.) Another peculiarity is, that the
Antichrist blasphemes "God," "His Name, and His tabernacle, and them that
dwell in heaven," i.e. the Saints and Angels (Rev. xiii. 6) ; and, further, that the
false prophet uses his influence to cause the world to worship the image of Antichrist,
the blasphemer of God and the saints, and to cause all who decline to do so "to
be killed." Now, whatever opinions Anglicans and Protestants may entertain of
the Pope and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, one thing they must admit as
certain, that none of the Popes have ever denied the Father and the Son, or that
Christ has come in the flesh ; or have ever blasphemed God, His tabernacle,
and His Saints ; and certainly none of them have ever, as yet, caused the world
to worship the image of Caesar, or any other potentate. The complaint is all the
other way, that they have been too dogmatic in matters of faith, that they have
honoured the Saints too much, and that they have been too fond of humbling kings
to the dust.
It is a fact, which none can gainsay, that the whole history of the Papacy is
one standing witness and protest against all impugners of Catholic doctrine, against
the false liberalism of the age, and against the arrogance and tyranny of kings.
Enough has been said to demonstrate that it is utterly impossible that ecclesi-
astical or modern Rome can be the Apocalyptic Babylon.
N.B. I wish to modify a passage in page 3 of this work, which has been
already printed, "This colossal empire first tottered, declined, and then was
utterly annihilated" This is true of Rome and the West, but, in the East, it would
seem that the Roman empire still lingers under the Turkish rule ; when it ulti-
mately falls, it will according to the prophecy, be divided into ten kingdoms or
states, one of which will be the Antichrist.
I
1 14 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
Silvanus, Paul, and Peter, had no connection with (literal) Babylon,
which lay beyond their district ; and therefore they were not likely, at
any time, to build upon another's foundation. The Gospel was preached
in Persia and Parthia (i.e. where literal Babylon was situated) by
the apostle Thaddeus, or Jude, according to Cosmas. ... 4. The Jews,
to whom this Epistle was written, were fond of mystical appellations, es-
pecially in their captivities : Edom was a frequent title for their Heathen
oppressors ; and as Babylon was the principal scene of their first capti-
vity, it was highly probable that Rome, the principal scene of their
second, and which so strongly resembled the former in her " abomina-
tions, her idolatries, and persecutions of the saints," should be denomi-
nated by the same title. And this argument is corroborated by the
similar usage of the Apocalypse, where the mystical application is un-
questionable. (Rev. xiv. 8 ; xvi. 19 ; xviii. 2, &c.) It is highly probable,
indeed; that John borrowed it from Peter ; or rather that both derived it,
by inspiration, from the prophecy of Isaiah (xxi. 9). 5. The second
Epistle is generally agreed to have been written shortly before Peter's
death ; but a journey from (literal) Babylon to Rome (where he unques-
tionably suffered) must have employed a long time, even by the shortest
route that could be taken, and Peter must have passed through Pontus,
&c., in his way to Rome, and therefore it must have been unnecessary for
him to write. Writing from Rome, indeed, the case was different, as he
never expected to see them more. (Home's " Introd. to Study of the
Holy Script" vol. iv. pp. 435, 436. Lond. 1839.) Maitland observes, " At
this time Rome is first called Babylon by St. Peter, who thus prepares his
readers for the coming transfer of Old Testament prophecies in the
Apocalypse. This use of the name is so entirely in conformity with the
usual style of Rabbinical disguise, that the Apostle's meaning was never
doubted till the fifteenth century." (Apost. School of Prophecy, p. 106.
Lond. 1849.) The arguments of these two Anglican divines in favour of the
Babylon mentioned in S. Peter's first Epistle being Rome is exhaustive. In
the fifteenth century attempts were made to prove that this Babylon did not
mean Rome, in order, if possible, to effect the destruction of the Papacy
by cutting it off from its fountain-head, S . Peter, the first Pontiff; but
the testimony of the Fathers and ecclesiastical history, as will be shown
in the proper place, is so clear and unmistakable that there is no room
to doubt the fact that S. Peter really was at Rome, and that he did, in
conjunction with S. Paul, found and constitute the Roman Church.
Holy Scripture then informs us of the following important facts (i),
that the Kingdom and Church which Christ established was to be an
everlasting one, which should " never be destroyed," but which should
" stand for ever ;" (2) that "the gates of hell should not prevail against
it ;" (3) that the Paraclete, "even the Spirit of Truth," should abide in the
Apostolate " for ever :" and (4) that Christ would be present all the days
of the Christian dispensation with His Apostolate: these sacred promises
taken together demonstratively prove that the divine Kingdom which
Christ instituted was designed to have a perpetual existence, even unto
the end of the dispensation. This great fundamental truth being estab-
lished, two conclusions necessarily follow ; first, a succession to the
S. PETER AT ROME. 115
Apostolate in order to maintain its political existence ; and, secondly, a
succession to the office of the Chief Pastor and Prince for the good
government of the body, and that all occasion of schism might be re-
moved. It has been further shown that Holy Scripture witnesses to the
fact that S. Peter was at Rome at the time he indited his first epistle,
for Babylon, according to the ancients, signified heathen Rome.
The Fathers of the Church will next be consulted for the purpose
of ascertaining not only whether S. Peter ever was really at Rome,
but whether he established there his Cathedra, and thus made it the
chief and ruling Church.
i6
PART II.
CONSENSUS PATRUM.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE STUDY OF THE PRI-
MITIVE FATHERS RESPECTING THE SUPREMACY.
There are two points to be established under this head, (i) That S.
Peter visited Rome, and erected in that city his Cathedra, or Chair of
teaching ; and (2) That his Successors, Bishops of Rome, succeeded
to his Primacy, together with all the prerogatives included in that
term.
i. In order that the reader may thoroughly appreciate the evidence
that will be adduced, it is necessary he should bear in mind several im-
portant particulars ; first, that the Fathers agree with one voice that S.
Peter held a position distinct from all the other Apostles ; that, while all
were equal to him in merit and dignity, and in the power of priesthood,
yet he was nevertheless regarded as the Foundation of the Church, the
Source of Unity, the Head of the Brotherhood, and the Chief Pastor of
all the Faithful. If the reader doubts this, let him again peruse the
evidence as contained under the " First Inquiry," and he will see that
this position of the First Apostle is abundantly proved. Secondly, that,
according to the written Word of God, monarchy or centralism is God's
universal Law in all that concerns government, and therefore it was an
impossibility, so to speak, for Him to constitute His Kingdom and
Church in any other form than as a monarchy, i. e. establishing it upon
one person in the first instance, whom He appointed His Vicegerent,
committing to him the government of the Brotherhood and the supreme
pastoral care of the entire flock. This, we have seen, has been done in
the person of S. Peter, who was a Rock from the Rock, a Sovereign
deputed by the Sovereign of all, and a Shepherd, the deputy of the True
Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. Thirdly, that, if S. Peter really was
made the Vicar of Christ, and in accordance with that universal Law
of monarchy and centralism, it must be conceded that whatever See
S. Peter finally selected as his own, wherein he erected upon an im-
movable foundation his Cathedra, that there, and there alone, and for
ever, would be the seat of government of Christ's universal Kingdom and
Church, and that consequently this Cathedra would necessarily become
the original source of all authority, and power, and jurisdiction to the
whole Church, even as the throne of an earthly kingdom is the source of
jurisdiction and honour to every one subject to it.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. Ii;
The reader, then, in studying the evidence for the Supremacy of
Rome, is bound to take these primary questions into consideration, and
apply them for the interpretation of passages from the Fathers, which
will be adduced both implicit and explicit bearing upon this subject.
It is therefore essential to remember that the Patristic evidence under
the "Second Inquiry" rests upon that contained under the "First
Inquiry" the one is the base of the other, the former being the " crown
of the edifice." For if there be a Rock or Foundation on earth, and that
Rock or Foundation be S. Peter, then there must be a superstructure ;
and, conversely, if there be a superstructure, there must necessarily be a
base on which it stands.
In order, then, to appreciate the evidence for the Supremacy, it is
necessary to bear these points in mind. What we have to do is to
endeavour fully to comprehend the true position of S. Peter who he
was, and what our Lord made him and, then, the nature of the Papal
Supremacy, and of what prerogatives it consisted. The two S. Peter
and the Successors to his Chair are inseparable ; what one was in all
that concerned government and jurisdiction, the other was, is, and ever
will be.
If our Lord had made no distinction between S. Peter and his brother
Apostles, then the Papal Supremacy is a blasphemous usurpation : if He
did, then the Successors to his Chair must be endowed with the same
governmental authority. I assert this, because it is impossible to con-
ceive that God could have formed a Church polity, consisting of an
earthly Head and Body, intended to last till the close of the Christian
dispensation, and permit the principal and governing member thereof
to become extinct on the death of the Prince of the Apostles and the
Shepherd of the flock. If then Christ ever did appoint an earthly Head
to His Body the Church, there must unquestionably be an earthly Head
now ; and that Head must necessarily be the Prelate for the time being
of that See, who has always been recognised as such from the very com-
mencement of Christianity, I am conscious of much repetition of this
argument, but it is unavoidable, for it is a matter of observation that
those who study the Fathers with reference to the Papacy, are apt to
forget that they the Fathers have spoken very strongly in favour of
S. Peter's position, which in point of fact is the foundation of the whole
governmental and executive Law of the universal Church.
2. I pass on now to another important point in reference to this
subject. Much stress is laid by controversialists upon the alleged paucity
of evidence respecting the Roman Supremacy, and hence it is that
Anglicans and Protestants assume that by reason of this there is no
sufficient proof existing for this Supreme Authority.
This argument appears to me utterly fallacious : if pressed, it would
be equally fatal againt the Episcopate. Protestants are consistent, for
they reject both Papacy and Episcopacy; Anglicans are inconsistent,
because they accept the latter on scanty evidence, and reject the former
on the same grounds. True, S. Ignatius and S. Cyprian strongly enforce
the rights of Bishops, but it is equally true that Ignatius addressed the
Church of Rome as the presiding Church, that S. Irenasus and S. Cyprian
Il8 CONSENSUS PATRUM.
described it as the Principal or Chief Church, the latter adding, " Where
is the Chair of Peter, from which (i. e. from the Chair AND the Principal
Church) the unity of the Priesthood took its rise." Is it consistent, then,
for Anglicans to lay great stress on the testimony of those illustrious
saints on behalf of Episcopacy, and reject or ignore the equally plain
language of these and other Fathers with respect to the exalted position
of the Roman Church ?
Again, it is not customary for the Fathers to dilate on subjects in
which no fundamental difference of opinion exists. In the New Testa-
ment the Apostles say very little about themselves, and the constitution
of the Church. The Gospel contains the several commissions of our
Lord to S. Peter and to the Apostles, but in the Acts and the Epistles
we find no explanation of their scope and meaning. S. Peter's position
as Head and Leader is assumed ; it is impossible to read the Acts of
the Apostles without observing that S. Peter took this office on himself,
as a matter of course, and that his brother Apostles not only did not
protest, but by their silence on the subject, and their co-operation and
agreement with him, fully admitted his right. So in like manner with
respect to the commissions to the Apostles generally, they allude to
them here and there, but they enter into no details.
If the Apostles were for the most part silent concerning their own
office, and that of their Chief, it is not unreasonable to believe that the
ante-Nicene Fathers should, upon the whole, observe a similar reticence
respecting the relation that subsisted between themselves and the
Supreme Pontiff. During the first three centuries there were disputes
about points of faith, but none (except perhaps by the Montanists) as
regards the Popedom, so there was no occasion to say much about it.
That the supreme authority of the Pope was tacitly assumed and ad-
mitted, is evident from the conduct of S. Polycarp, who visited the
Roman See for the settlement of the Paschal question ; from the language
of S. Irenseus and Polycrates, who, while protesting against the severity
of Pope S. Victor, said nothing in opposition to his right of supervision
over the Church ; from the writings and conduct of S. Cyprian ; and
even in the case of Apiarius, on which so much stress is laid by
Anglicans, and which will be considered in a subsequent part of this
work. The circumstance, then, that little is said about the Papal Su-
premacy, tells no more against the supreme authority of the Holy See
than a similar reserve on the part of Bishops does against the Episcopate,
and Apostles against the Apostolate.
But, further, there are other reasons which will account for the
alleged paucity of evidence, and for the apparent quiescence (i. e. so far
as we know) of the Papacy during the first three centuries. First, the
loss of much of the literature of the early Primitive Church : for aught
we know, much valuable evidence has by consequence perished. If we
may rely upon Eusebius, the first Historian of the Church, this was
so ; and he mentions several writers whose works have been lost,
wherein information on this subject might possibly have been obtained.
Secondly, we must recall to our recollection the ten persecutions that
decimated the Church, with scarce intermission, during those three long
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. I 19
bloody centuries. During that period the intercourse between Popes
and Bishops was necessarily, in a large measure at least, suspended.
The Church in those ages was, more or less, in an abnormal state
many of the Bishops were in hiding, the Priests were in many instances
severed from the people, and their flocks were scattered like sheep in the
howling wilderness, torn to pieces and devoured by wolves and wild
beasts. No better illustration can be given of this terrible period than
the fact that out of some thirty Popes who reigned from S. Peter to the
Council of Nicaea, full twenty-five were martyred, and the rest were
Confessors. This alone explains the alleged inaction of the Popes, for
it was an impossibility for them, except at rare intervals, to exercise
their universal Pastorate beyond the provinces immediately contiguous to
Rome.
Considering all things, it is wonderful that we have any evidence at
all during those terrible ages, either of the fact of the Supremacy or of
the action of the Papacy. But what evidence we do possess, as will be
seen presently, is extremely weighty.
3. There is, however, another question which is ignored by Anglicans
and Protestants, and which they do not attempt to explain in any fair
and satisfactory manner, viz. that no sooner is the pressure of the Pagan
government removed from the Church than we find the Popes exercising
their supreme authority all over the world, in the East no less than in the
West, advising, admonishing, censuring, and punishing all who rebelled
against the Faith and the Holy See ; convoking, conjointly with the
Emperors, (Ecumenical Councils, approving or disapproving the deci-
sions of the Fathers, confirming or annulling them as they judged
expedient. We find them also deposing, by their own single authority,
heretical Bishops, inclusive of the heretical Patriarchs of such great Sees
as Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. Anglicans allege this was
the result of ambition on the part of successive Popes, effected under
favourable circumstances. But there are overwhelming difficulties against
this argument ; first, the Popes who did exercise this tremendous power
were well known as men not merely of exemplary lives, but remarkable
for great sanctity, and for humility which is the stepping-stone to sanc-
tity; no thoughts of ambition could have had place in their minds. It is
evident that the Supreme Jurisdiction they claimed and exercised was
one which they had received from their predecessors, who in their turn
had obtained it from S. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, in whose
Cathedra they sat. And not only did the Popes claim and exercise this
power, but we find that Emperors and Fathers conceded it to them as
their undoubted right ; even the (Ecumenical Councils admitted it in
the most ample manner. How, then, are we to account for this pheno-
menon ? Are we to suppose that Fathers, (Ecumenical Councils, and
Popes, all conspired to effect an innovation in the governmental system
of the universal Church, of so grave a nature as to amount to a thorough
revolution, overthrowing the form of government Christ had established,
and the ecclesiastical constitution He had instituted, and in its place
setting up an irresponsible and despotic Ruler, whom they regarded, not
merely as the Head of the Church, but as the living Vicar and Repre-
120 CONSENSUS PATRUM.
sentative of our Lord and God, endowed with all His prerogatives and
powers ? Are we then to conclude that Popes, Councils, and Fathers,
consented to such an innovation as this that is, if it was an innovation ?
It is simply an impossibility. How, then, are we to account for the exhi-
bition of Papal power and authority in the fourth century ? The true
answer to be given is, that when the persecutions ceased, it resumed
its rightful position, and Fathers and Councils admitted it without
question, because they knew it was founded on a divine institution (i) in
the person of S. Peter ; and (2) after him in the Successors to his Chair
till the end of time. In the presence, then, of the overwhelming tes-
timony of the post-Nicene age, the allusions of the early Fathers to the
authority of the Holy See become intelligible ; the shadows of truth
thrown out here and there, grow into substance, implicitness of language
is rendered explicit.
In approaching, then, the study of the evidence for the Papal Supre-
macy, it is necessary to take into consideration (i) the exalted position of
the Apostle S. Peter, as declared in the Scriptures and maintained by the
Fathers ; (2) The great fundamental principle of Law ordained by God
for the government of the world and of religion, viz. monarchy and
centralism ; and (3) If S. Peter really had been appointed the Head and
Chief ; and if monarchy or centralism be a fundamental Law of God in
matters relating to government, then the See which can be proved always
to have exercised this office must necessarily be that primatial See to
which all Churches are, by Law divine, subject. And further, if the
student of this question be puzzled at the alleged paucity of the evidence
to be found in the ante-Nicene age, and of the comparative inaction of
the Popes during that period, he should take into consideration the cir-
cumstances of the times, the reticence of the Fathers concerning matters
not in dispute, the bitter persecutions that ravaged the Church during
those times, which necessarily caused for a season the almost entire
suspension of all ecclesiastical offices the Papal no less than the
Episcopal and other circumstances which would of themselves alone
account for the little that is said respecting the Supremacy during the
first three centuries. And, lastly, he is bound, I think, before dismissing
as untenable the early primitive evidence for the Supremacy to account,
if he can, for the manifestation of Papal power in the fourth century,
with the evident consent of all the Fathers and Councils of that period.
If he be possessed of a logical mind, he must perforce conclude, either
that the Papal power, so freely employed in the fourth century, was an
innovation of that age an innovation, mark, accepted by the universal
Church or if this hypothesis be regarded as impossible, as assuredly it
is, then he will conclude that the tradition of the fourth century in respect
to the Roman Supremacy was derived from the three preceding ages,
originating in S. Peter, the Chief of the Apostles, who received his
vicariate from his Master, the Lord Jesus Christ.
121
I. S. PETER AT ROME.
S. CLEMENT.
A.D. 91.
i. " But not to dwell upon ancient
examples, let us come to the most
recent spiritual heroes. Let us take
the noble examples furnished in
our generation. Through envy and
jealousy the greatest and most
righteous pillars (of the Church)
have been persecuted and put
to death. Let us set before our
eyes the illustrious Apostles. Peter,
through unrighteous envy, endured
not one or two, but numerous la-
bours ; and when he had at length
suffered martyrdom, departed to the
place of glory due to him. Owing
to envy, Paul also obtained the re-
ward of patient endurance, after
being seven times thrown into cap-
tivity .... after preaching both
in the East and West . . . suffered
martyrdom under the Prefects."
First Epist. to Cor. c. v.
COMMENT.
S. Clement, Bishop of Rome, in his
epistle to the Corinthians, evidently
alludes to S. Peter and S. Paul as having
been at Rome, and as having there
suffered. He does not enter into par-
ticulars ; he speaks of events well known
to all, and points to the Apostles, &c. as
examples to all the faithful. " Not to
dwell upon ancient examples, let us
come to the most recent spiritual heroes.
Let us take the noble examples fur-
nished in our generation ;" and then he
refers to S. Peter, and to S. Paul who
suffered martyrdom under the Prefects.
He does not say who were the Prefects,
or in what country they served ; but he
speaks of " the Prefects" as evidently the
Prefects of Rome, under whom he suf-
fered. This is, however, a matter other
Fathers will explain, which will appear
as we progress further in this work.
S. IGNATIUS.
A.D. 107.
2. " Entreat Christ for me, that by
these instruments I may be found
a sacrifice. I do not, as Peter and
Paul, issue commandments unto
you. They were Apostles ; I am
but a condemned man." Ep. ad
Rom. c. iv.
122
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
COMMENT.
It is impossible not to see by the
manner S. Ignatius names S. Peter and
S. Paul in this epistle that he was
alluding to them as specially connected
with the Roman Church. The great
anxiety of his soul was to be martyred,
and he entreats the Roman Christians
" not to show an unreasonable good-
will towards him," that is, to take no
steps to hinder the realisation of his
great desire. He says, I do not com-
mand you, as did the Apostle S. Peter
and Paul, who founded and established
your glorious Church, but I entreat
you to allow me to have my own way. It
is impossible to entertain any reasonable
doubt that S. Ignatius alluded to those
Apostles as the Fathers and founders
of the Roman Church. S. Peter had,
according to this Father, visited Rome.
S. CLEMENT AND S. PAPIAS.
A.D. 91-118.
3. " This account (i. e. the writ-
ing of the Gospel of S. Mark) is
given by Clement in the sixth book
of his Institutions, whose testimony
is corroborated also by Papias,
Bishop of Hierapolis. But Peter
makes mention of Mark in the
first Epistle, which he is also said
to have composed at the same city
of Rome, and that he shows this
fact by calling the city by an un-
usual trope, Babylon ; thus, ' The
Church at Babylon, elected toge-
ther with you, saluteth you, as also
my son Marcus.'" Apud EMS. H.
E. I. ii. c. 15.
COMMENT.
The value of this extract is that it the Romans.
explains the meaning of " Babylon,"
at the end of S. Peter's First Epistle
(v. 13), which S. Papias explained to
S. Peter was, therefore,
at Rome. S. Papias was Bishop of
Hierapolis, and was a disciple of S.
Polycarp, if not of S. John himself.
S. DIONYSIUS AND CAIUS.
A.D. CIR. 168-202.
4. " But I can show the trophies
of the Apostles. For if you will go to
the Vatican, or to the Ostian road,
you will find the trophies of those
who have laid the foundation of
this Church. And that both suffered
martyrdom about the same time,
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, bears
the following testimony, in his dis-
course addressed to the Romans.
' Thus, likewise, you by means of
this admonition, have mingled the
flourishing seed that had been
planted by Peter and Paul at Rome
and Corinth. For both of these
having planted us at Corinth, like-
wise instructed us ; and having in
like manner taught in Italy, they
suffered martyrdom about the same
time.'" Apud Eus. 1. ii. c. 25.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
I2 3
COMMENT.
Caius, an ecclesiastic, in his dispute
with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian
sect, points to the trophies of the
Apostles, which any one might find at
the Vatican, and in the Ostian Road,
where, in the former, was buried S.
Peter, and in the latter, S. Paul. He
then quotes S. Dionysius of Corinth,
who flourished A.D. 168, and testified
that the Apostles Peter and Paul founded
the Church in Rome and in Corinth,
and were martyred there.
S. IRE1SMEUS.
A.D. 178.
5. " Matthew also issued a written
gospel among the Hebrews in their
own dialect, while Peter and Paul
were preaching at Rome, and lay-
ing the foundations of the Church."
Adv. Hares. 1. iii. c. i, n. i, p. 174.
6. " .... The very great, the
very ancient, and universally known
Church, founded and constituted
at Rome by the two most glorious
Apostles, Peter and Paul." Ib.
l.\\\.c. 3, n. 2, p. 175.
COMMENT.
The witness of S. Irenseus is very
explicit. He says distinctly that S.
Peter and S. Paul preached in Rome,
and laid the foundations of the Church,
which Church they there "founded and
constituted." S. Irenaeus was a dis-
ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the
Apostle S. John, and therefore he
could not be ignorant of the fact that
S. Peter had been at Rome, and
had there, in concert with S. Paul,
founded and constituted the Roman
ciple of S. Polycarp, who had been Church.
TERTULLIAN.
A.D. 195.
7. " .... Let us see what . . .
the Romans plose at hand trumpet
forth, to whom both Peter and
Paul left the Gospel, sealed with
their blood." T. ii. Adv. Marcion.
I. iv. n. 5,/. 366. Migne.
8. " .... As that of the
Romans does that Clement who
was in like manner ordained by
Peter." Ib. De Prescript. Hceret. n.
32, p. 46. Migne.
9. " But if thou art near to
Italy, thou hast Rome . . . where
Peter had a like Passion with the
Lord, where Paul is crowned with
an end like the Baptist, &c." Ib.
n. 36, p. 49. Migne.
COMMENT.
Tertullian, a contemporary with S.
Irenaeus, bears the same explicit witness
S. Clement as Bishop of the Holy
City, and that he there suffered martyr-
to the fact that the Apostle S. Peter dom.
had visited Rome, that he ordained
I2 4
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
S. CYPRIAN.
A.D. 246.
10. " Cornelius was made Bishop Ep. lii. ad Anton, p. 68.
(of Rome) .... at a time ....
when the place of Fabian (Bishop
of Rome), that is when the Place of
Peter (locus Petri] and the grade
of the Sacerdotal chair was vacant."
ii. " .... They dare to sail
and to carry letters .... to the
Chair of Peter, and to the Chief
Church, &c." Ep. Iv. ad Cornel.
COMMENT.
S. Cyprian, in agreement with his
predecessors, carries on the tradition,
and affirms that Rome is the " Place of
Peter," where "the Chair of Peter"
is located. It is evident S. Cyprian
believed that S. Peter had been at
Rome, and had there founded the
Roman Church.
EUSEBIUS.
A.D. 325.
12. " This, however, did not con-
tinue long (/. e. the success of
Simon Magus) for immediately
under the reign of Claudius, by the
benign and gracious providence of
God, Peter, that powerful and great
Apostle, who by his courage took
the lead of all the rest, was con-
ducted to Rome against this pest of
mankind. He, like a noble com-
mander of God, fortified with divine
armour, bore the precious mer-
chandise of the revealed light from
the East to those in the West, an-
nouncing the Light itself, and salu-
tary doctrine of the soul, the pro-
clamation of the Kingdom of God."
Eus. H. E. I ii. 6. 14.
13. " The divine word having
thus been established among the
Romans, the power of Simon
(Magus) was soon extinguished and
destroyed together with the man.
So greatly, however, did the splen-
dour of piety enlighten the minds
of Peter's hearers, that it was not
sufficient to hear but once, nor to
receive the unwritten doctrine of
the Gospel of God, but they per-
severed in every variety of en-
treaties, to solicit Mark as the com-
panion of Peter, and whose Gospel
we have, that he should leave them
a monument of the doctrine thus
orally communicated in writing."
Ib.c. 15.
14. "Thus Nero publicly announc-
ing himself as the chief enemy of
God, was led on in his fury to
slaughter the Apostles. Paul is,
therefore, said to have been be-
headed at Rome, and Peter to
have been crucified under him. And
this account is confirmed by the
fact that the names of Peter and
Paul still remain in the cemeteries
of that city even to this day." Ib.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 125
COMMENT.
Eusebius, the first ecclesiastical his- age. He also in Rome " proclaimed
torian, informs us from the records of the Kingdom of God." Hence S.
the Church and of the State, to which Peter was originally the sole founder
he had access, that S. Peter arrived at of the Roman Church. Eusebius gives
Rome in the reign of Claudius, A.D. us a most important proof of the fact
44, and came there in the first in- of S. Peter and S. Paul having been
stance in his capacity as the Leader of at Rome, viz. that in his day their
the Apostles and Commander of the names still remained in the cemeteries
Faithful, to overthrow Simon Magus, of that city. This is conclusive evidence
the most powerful magician of that of S. Peter having been at Rome.
S. OPTATUS OF MILEVIS.
A.D. 368.
15. " . . . Thou canst not then 16. " Peter, therefore, first filled
deny that thou knowest that in the that individual Chair .... to him
city of Rome, on Peter the first succeeded Linus ; to Linus suc-
was the episcopal Chair conferred, ceeded Clement ; &c." Ib. n. 3, 4.
wherein might sit of all the Apostles
the Head, Peter." De Schism.
Donat. lii. n. 2, p. 471.
COMMENT.
This Father, in concert with all Rome, and that he established his
others, believed that S. Peter was at Cathedra in the imperial city.
S. JEROME.
A.D. 385.
17. " Envy avaunt ; away with but Christ, I am joined in commu-
the pride of the topmost dignity of nion with your Holiness, that is,
Rome ; I speak with the Successor with the Chair of Peter." T. iv.
of the Fisherman, and the disciple Ep. xiv. Ad Damas. Papam, col.
of the Cross. Following no chief 19, 20.
COMMENT.
S. Jerome, too, held that the Ca- and that Pope Damasus was his Suc-
thedra of Peter was located in Rome, cessor in that Chair.
S. EPIPHANIUS.
A.D. 385.
1 8. " For, in Rome Peter and Cletus, then Clement, the contem-
Paul were the first both Apostles porary of Peter and Paul, of whom
and Bishops; then came Linus, then Paul makes mention in his Epistle
126 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
to the Romans .... whether it the Apostles, he was appointed by
was that while the Apostles were Bishop Cletus, we do not clearly
still living, he received the impo- know .... However, the succes-
sition of hands as a Bishop from sion of the Bishops in Rome was
Peter, and having declined that in the following order : Peter and
office he remained unengaged .... Paul, and Cletus, Clement, &c."
or whether after the succession of T. ii. Adv. Hares, n. 6, p. 107,
COMMENT.
S. Epiphanius informs us that in both Apostolic and Episcopal functions.
Rome S. Peter and S. Paul "were the S. Peter was, therefore, at Rome, and
first both Apostles and Bishops ;" that was its first Bishop,
is, that they exercised at the same time
S. CHRYSOSTOM.
A.D. 387.
19. " .... For, it was befitting of the Apostles. But after having
that that city (Antioch) which, be- had him as our Teacher, we did
fore the rest of the world, was not retain him, but surrendered
crowned with the Christian name, him to regal Rome." T. iii. Horn. ii.
should receive as Shepherd the First In Inscr. Act. n. 6, p. 70.
COMMENT.
This great Oriental Father has no dition of the Church, and that Tradi-
doubt whatever of the fact that S. Peter tion was that S. Peter first settled in
translated his Cathedra from Antioch the golden city ; but says S. Chry-
to Rome. As he was a Priest of the sostom, "we did not retain him, but
great Church of Antioch, he was ne- surrendered him to regal Rome."
cessarily well acquainted with the Tra-
S. AUGUSTINE.
A.D. 400.
20. " Nay, if all throughout the Peter sat, and in which Anastasius
world were such as you most idly now sits, done to thee ?" T. ix.
slander them, what has the Chair /. ii. Contr. Litt. Petili. n. 1 1 8,
of the Roman Church, in which p. 300. Migne.
COMMENT.
No one can doubt, when S. Augus- thee ?" that he held with all others, his
tine asked Petilianus, " What has contemporaries and predecessors, that
the Chair of the Roman Church, in S. Peter came to Rome, and erected in
which Peter sat, and in which Ana- that city his Cathedra,
stasius (the then Pope) now sits, done to
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE.
It must be manifest to every reasonable mind, after examining the
evidence which has been adduced, that S. Peter visited Rome in the
reign of the Emperor Claudius, and that he there established his
Cathedra. His reign as Bishop of Rome seems to have been, according
to Eusebius, about twenty-five years, at the end of which period he
suffered martyrdom.
From the time of S. Clement all the Fathers who have alluded to the
subject, witness to the fact of S. Peter having visited Rome, and having
there, together with S. Paul, founded the Holy Roman Church, establish-
ing therein his Cathedra. S. Ignatius, A.D. 107, in his epistle to the
Roman Church, evidently believed that S. Peter and S. Paul were its first
Apostles and Bishops. S. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 118), held
that Babylon, from which place S. Peter indited his first Catholic
Epistle, was Rome. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (A.D. 168), addressing
the Romans, refers to S. Peter and S. Paul as the founders of the Church,
both in Rome and Corinth ; and Caius (A.D. 202) points to the " trophies
of the Apostles" as existing in Rome in his day. S. Irenasus, the early
disciple of S. Polycarp, who had been ordained Bishop by S. John the
Apostle, speaks of " Peter and Paul" " preaching at Rome", and laying
the foundations of the Church." Tertullian, too, witnesses that " both
Peter and Paul left the Gospel" at Rome, which "they sealed with their
blood." S. Cyprian, also, the greatest of the ante-Nicene Fathers, de-
scribes Rome as the " Place of Peter," where the " Cathedra of Peter" is
located. Eusebius, the first Ecclesiastical Historian, not only testifies
that S. Peter had been at Rome, and had there with S. Paul been
martyred ; but he declares the important fact, that in his day the names
of S. Peter and S. Paul still remained in the cemeteries of that city. The
other Fathers which follow S. Optatus of Milevis, S. Jerome, S. Epi-
phanius, the great S. Chrysostom, and that profound theologian S.
Augustine, unanimously bear witness that S. Peter not only visited
Rome, but that he planted there his Cathedra.
As we advance in this work we shall see that the Popes, both before
and after the Council of Nicasa, and all the Councils which have ever
touched upon this point, assert with one voice the indisputable fact that
S. Peter came to Rome, that he was Bishop of Rome, that he established
in that imperial city his Chair, and committed to his Successors to that
Chair his Prerogatives as Vicar of Christ, as the Head of the Brother-
hood, and as the Supreme Pastor of the universal Flock.
128
II. THE PAPAL SUPREMACY,
i. TESTIMONY OF FATHERS AND DOCTORS.
S. IGNATIUS.
A.D. 107.
21. " Ignatius .... to the Church
which hath found mercy in the
Majesty of the Father Most High,
and of Jesus Christ His only Son,
beloved and enlightened in the Will
of Him who willeth all things, which
are in accordance with the love of
Jesus Christ, our God, and which
(Church) presides (7rgo*tojT*0 in
place of the Romans, all-godly, all-
gracious, all-blessed, all-praised, all-
prospering, all-hallowed, and pre-
siding (trgMMtftytfifli) over the Love
(TJJS #yeiTj$) with the Name of
Christ, with the Name of the
Father (ftgurTawfto
Ep. ad Rom. Procem.)
COMMENT.
The testimony of this Father to the
position and character of the Roman
Church is especially valuable, as he was
a disciple of S . John the Apostle, and
was martyred within six years after his
death. The following points are worthy
of notice : (i.) The Church of Rome
is described as * ' beloved and enlight-
ened in the Will of Him who willeth
all things, which are according to the
love of Jesus Christ our God." (2.) As
"all-godly, all-gracious, all-blessed, all-
praised, all-prospering, all-hallowed. "
(3.) As presiding "in the place of the
Romans," "presiding over the Love,
with the Name of Christ, with the Name
of the Father." It was remarked in the
comment on this passage under the
" First Inquiry" (see pp. 17, 18), that
this description of the Roman Church,
as contained in the Prooem to the
Epistle to that Church, differs essentially
from those prefixed to Epistles ad-
dressed to the other Churches. The
difference is so marked that it must
have been intended, and it consists in
this, that while all the other Churches
addressed are renowned for their gifts
and privileges, the Roman Church is
distinguished for its high prerogatives
and virtue, which may be thus summed
up in Presidency, Perfection, and
Power.
i. The verb cr^xa^a/, translated
"presiding over," signifies literally to sit
before, or in front ; if used in reference
to a city, it means to preside or rule
over it. When then S. Ignatius speaks
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
129
of the Church " presiding over," or rul-
ing "in the place of the Romans," and
"over the Love," he alludes to the
Church, which was endowed with a
higher principality than that of any
other Church in a word, the Church
which is the Chief or presiding Church.
That S. Ignatius uses the word -
Ka.6^u.i in the sense of a ruling or go-
verning presidency, is clear from his
use of the same verb in some of his
other writings ; for instance, " I exhort
you to study to do all things with a
divine harmony, while your Bishop
presides in the place of God (r^-
xa.0nfi.ivov TOV iviirxowou its ro-rov 0y), and
your presbytery in the place of the as-
sembly of the Apostles, along with your
deacons .... Be ye united 1 with your
Bishop, and those who preside over
you (\vu6riT& <ru ivriffxovru, xett ro7g ru-
xativftivois')." (Ep. Mag. c. vi. ) It is
clear that S. Ignatius employs the verb
"presiding over" in the sense of one
ruling in the place of God, in a word,
as His Vicar. That he so employs this
word is further evident from his incul-
cating the duty of subjection to the
Bishop and the Presbytery, to the end
that unity may be maintained. " Dea-
cons to the Presbyters, as to High
Priests ; the Presbyters and Dea-
cons, and the rest of the Clergy, to-
gether with all the people, and the
soldiers, and the governors, and Caesar
(himself) to the Bishop ; the Bishop to
Christ, even as Christ to the Father.
And this unity is preserved through-
out." (Ep. ad Philad. c. iv.) This
perfect unity is compared to the strings
of a harp, ' ' for, " saith he, ' ' your justly-
renowned presbytery, worthy of God,
is fitted as exactly to the Bishop as the
strings are to the harp." (Ep. ad
Ephes. c. iv.) When addressing or-
dinary Churches, he does not, in
speaking of the Bishop, distinguish the
several grades in the Episcopate, be-
cause every Bishop is to the diocese the
Vicar and representative of Christ ; to
the diocese he is, immediately under
Christ (being lawfully appointed), the
centre of unity, and the source of Juris-
diction. But in his Epistle to the
Roman Church, he there recognises
its exalted position, as " presiding or
ruling in the place of the Romans," and
as "presiding or ruling over the Love :"
using on behalf of the Roman Church
precisely the same term as he does in
respect to the Bishop, to whom all the
clergy and laity of a diocese are subject.
As, then, all those in the diocese are
under the Bishop, so all, inclusive of
Bishops, are subject to the See of Rome.
S. Ignatius says the Roman Church
" presides over the Love (TJJ? elyuwns). "
What is the meaning of this word ?
From the context, from what follows,
and from the use of the term in this
same Epistle, and in that to the Smyr-
nseans, it would seem that it referred
to Christ, the Sacraments, and the
Church. In the Epistle of this Father
to the Romans, he says, ' ' My Love
has been crucified" (c. vii. ) Some
think this refers to carnal desires, but
more probably to Christ, for whom he
desired martyrdom. This seems so,
because after speaking of the ' ' water
that liveth and speaketh," which is
" within (him)," he expresses his
earnest wish to receive "the Bread of
God," and to " drink of God, namely,
His Blood, which is incorruptible Love
and eternal life." (Ib.) To the Smyr-
naeans he wrote, " It is not lawful, with-
out the Bishop, either to baptize or to
celebrate a Love-feast ; but whatsoever
he shall approve of, that is well pleasing
to God, so that every thing that is done
may be secure and valid" (c. viii. ) The
" Love-feast" here cannot be under-
stood by what was ordinarily meant by
"love-feasts, "following, as it does, im-
mediately after Baptism, and the ne-
cessity of the Bishop's license or faculty
for celebrating the Sacrament of Baptism
and this ' ' Love-feast, " in order that what
is "done may be secure and valid, "shows
clearly enough that S. Ignatius meant
here the "Blessed Eucharist." The
word (Love), too, is used in Scripture
in several senses ; ( I ) in reference to
130
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
Christ the Bridegroom ; and (2) to
the Church as the Spouse of Christ.
Love in its highest, purest sense, taken
in connexion with ourselves as human
beings, has reference to that love which
exists in the holy marriage estate. So
holy and so pure is this love that S.
Paul compares it to the love Christ en-
tertains for His Church, which is His
Bride. "This is a great mystery (a
Sacrament)," he says, " but I speak
concerning Christ and the Church."
( Eph. v. 32. ) It is then abundantly
clear that when S. Ignatius used these
words, " presiding and ruling over
the Love," he meant to express the
Presidency, i. e. the ruling Presidency
over the Sacraments, and over the
whole Church of God. Dollinger thus
interprets S. Ignatius' meaning, "who,
in the superscription of his letter to the
Romans, gives the Supremacy to their
Church, naming it the Directress of the
testament of Love, that is, of all Christ-
ianity." Hist, of the Church, translated
by Cox, vol. i. /. 255, Lond. 1840.
2. The next point is the Perfection
of the Roman Church, for it is de-
scribed (i) as " beloved and enlightened
in the Will of Him;" (2) as "all-
Godly, all - gracious, all -blessed, all-
praised, all-prospering, all-hallowed. "
It is impossible to read these words
without concluding that S. Ignatius
believed that the Roman Church was
endowed with the gift of perfection.
For, first, it is so illuminated that it
possesses the full knowledge of the
divine Will, and hence, in the second
place, it is "all-Godly," that is, full of
sanctity; " all -gracious," abounding
with the grace of God ; " all-praised,"
worthy of all glory and honour; " all-
prospering," *'. e. overflowing with
merits; "all-hallowed," in that it is
sanctified for the great function it has
to perform in relation to its presiding
over the Love. No language can be
more exhaustive than that which is em-
ployed by this Eather, and it is im-
possible to help seeing that he believed
that the Church of Rome was the
sacred depository of all Sanctity and
Faith, and hence its dominion over all
the Faithful the sons and daughters
of the marriage of Christ and His
Church, by which they are "members
of His Body, of His Flesh, and of His
Bones."
3. The Roman Church presides with
power, for she does so " with the Name
of Christ, with the Name of the Father."
The Name of Jesus is the Name of
Power, at the hearing of which Satan
trembles, by the invocation of which
the Church becomes armed with all the
might of heaven. Christ is called the
Rock the Rock of Ages a Name
symbolic of indivisible unity, of massive
strength, of immovable durability, and
irresistible power. This Name he gave
to Peter. "Thou art Peter" (a Rock),
and upon this Rock He founded and built
His Church, against which the gates
of hell should not prevail. It is a
historical fact, as has been proved, that
the Rock which Christ created out of
Himself, the True Rock, even Peter,
came in person to Rome, and there
founded and constituted, together with
S. Paul, the Apostle of the Uncircum-
cision, the Holy Roman Church, es-
tablishing in it his Cathedra, and trans-
mitting to it (i.e. to his Successors to
that Chair) the Name of Christ, which
he had received, in order that they
might, with the full authority of the
Name of Jesus, and with the tenacious
and immovable power and strength of
the enduring Rock, "preside" during
the absence of the Lord, "over (His)
Love" the Church Universal, per-
forming the part of the Good Shepherd.
Such are the great truths contained
in this most remarkable Procem to the
Epistle of this Father to the Romans,
wnich letter, with the testimony of S.
Irenaeus, will prove demonstratively the
great doctrine of the Roman Supremacy
over the whole Catholic Church.
Many attempts have been made to
create difficulties touching the authen-
ticity of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, in-
cluding that to the Romans, but in
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
vain. Indeed all excuse for doubt was
set at rest on the discovery in 1838,
1839, and 1842, of some of the Syriac
MSS. of this Father, (and among them
the Epistle to the Romans, ) supposed to
belong to the sixth, the seventh, or
eighth century. The Prooem in the
Syriac version of this Epistle is much
shorter than the standard one, but it
contains all that is needed for this in-
quiry ; it is as follows : ' ' Ignatius . . .
to the Church which has received grace
through the greatness of the Father
Most High ; to her who presideth in
the place of the region of the Romans,
who is worthy of God, and worthy of
life, and happiness, and praise, and re-
membrance, and is worthy of prosperity,
and presideth in (or over) Love, and
is perfected in the law of Christ un-
blamable."
Here we discern the same great
truths as were drawn from the standard
version, Presidency and Perfection ; for
the Church of Rome is said to " pre-
side," and to be "worthy of God,"
" worthy of life, and happiness, and
praise, and remembrance, and is worthy
of prosperity." And it possesses Power,
inasmuch as "it is perfected in the law
of Christ unblamable."
S. IREN^US.
A.D. 178.
22. "But as it would be a very long comes down to our time by means
task to enumerate in such a volume
as this the successions of all the
Churches, we do put to confusion
all those who, in whatever manner,
whether by an evil self-pleasing,
by vain-glory, or by blindness, and
perverse opinion, assemble in un-
authorised meetings ; (we do this,
I say), by indicating that tradition,
derived from the Apostles, of the
very great, the very ancient, and
universally known Church founded
and constituted at Rome by the
two most glorious Apostles, Peter
and Paul ; as also (by pointing
out) the faith preached to men, which
of the successions of the Bishops.
For it is a matter of necessity that
every Church should agree (or,
assemble) with this (the Roman)
Church, on account of its pre-
eminent authority (or, its more
powerful or superior principality :
Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter
potentiorem (or, potiorem) princi-
palitatem necesse est omnem con-
venire ecclesiam), that is, the faith-
ful everywhere, inasmuch as the
Apostolical tradition has been pre-
served continuously by those who
exist everywhere." Adv. Harej.
1. iii.<r. 3, n. 2, pp. 175, 176.
COMMENT.
The testimony of S. Irenseus is es-
pecially valuable, for it gives us an in-
sight into the constitution of the Catholic
Church, as it was understood, in very
early times, within little more than half
a century after the death of the last sur-
viving Apostle. The following is what
S. Irenaeus asserts, put into modern
language :
i. He holds that when heresy and
schism prevail, recourse should be had
to the Apostolical Churches, where the
succession has been preserved, on the
ground that they have retained the
Apostolic Tradition. He, however, says,
that "as it would be an endless task
to enumerate the successions of all the
Churches," it would be sufficient to refer
to one particular Church, by which the
lawfulness of those schismatic assemblies
may be tested. The Church he selects
as all-sufficient for this purpose is the
Holy Roman Church. The point to
be considered here is, why did he se-
I 3 2
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
lect the Roman Church in preference
to any other church ? S. Irenseus him-
self furnishes the answer : (i) Because
it was "founded and constituted by the
two most glorious Apostles Peter and
Paul;" (2) Because "it is a matter of
necessity that every Church should agree,
or assemble, with this Church." And he
proceeds to state why this is necessary,
viz. (3) Because " of its pre-eminent au-
thority" (or more literally, according
to the Latin translation) " of its more
powerful principality." It will be re-
collected that Christ divided His King-
dom into Twelve Principalities, answer-
ing to the Twelve Tribes of Israel, one
of which was the principal or chief one.
Before the Incarnation Judah possessed
this privilege, and afterwards, in the
Spiritual Israel S. Peter, by express
appointment of Christ. S. Peter came
to Rome, and in concert with S. Paul,
the Apostle of the Uncircumcision,
founded and constituted the Holy
Roman Church, and made it a superior
or more powerful Principality. It has
been maintained by some that the
greatness of the Roman Church was
derived from the fact of its having been
established in the Imperial city. But
there are several fatal objections to this
opinion, first, because the city at that
time was a Pagan one, governed not
only by a Pagan Emperor, but its re-
ligion was essentially Pagan, and al-
though the number of the Faithful were
numerous, yet they bore no such pro-
portion to the population as could
justify the notion that the glory of the
Church in Rome at that time was in
consequence of the rank of that great
city. The Bishops of Rome, before the
conversion of the Empire, possessed
no privileges whatever of a civil or po-
litical character ; on the contrary, they
were regarded as rebels to the Emperor,
and enemies to society, and they were
hunted down like wild beasts ; the streets
and theatres of Rome being plentifully
watered with their blood. It cannot be
said that a Church which for many a
long year had to hide in the dark ca-
tacombs under Rome, could have en-
joyed any principality of a civil status,
or by reason of the grandeur of the
city. But let us examine more carefully
the text. S. Irenseus does not say that
the pre-eminence of the Roman Church
was due to the fact that it was the
Church of the Imperial city, but that
it was itself "a more powerful Principality,
ad hanc Ecclesiam, to this Church by
reason of "its more powerful Princi-
pality," that is, that in relation to all
other Churches throughout the world it
was superior in dignity and power, not
because of its connexion with Imperial
Rome, but because, as the context infers,
of its foundation by S. Peter, who was
the Chief of all the Apostles, and by S.
Paul in union with him, who was the
Chief Apostle of the Uncircumcision.
The original Greek of this work of
S. Irenaeus has been much corrupted,
and in many parts lost ; it is supposed
that the original for principalitatem was
either vgu<ri7ov* or a^v 5 let us examine
the exact meaning of each of these
words. U^caruov literally signifies the
chief rank, or the first place, i.e. the
Primacy. The definition of Primacy
must depend upon the meaning of the
whole passage in which the word occurs.
If it has reference to mere gradations of
rank, as for instance in the peerage,
it signifies no more than Primacy of
honour and courtesy, as we say, So
and so is the premier duke, or the
premier earl ; but if used in relation
to the king, or governing authority,
then it means, primacy in jurisdiction,
authority and power. There is a
passage in the New Testament which
fixes this rendering of the word, when
employed in reference to a Sovereign
Head. "And He (i.e. Christ) is the
Head of the Body, the Church : who is
the beginning, the first-born from the
* It is worthy of remark that in /. iv. c. 38, n. 3, /. 284, the Greek for prin-
cipatlitatem is -r^urtvti.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
133
dead ; that in all things He might have
the pre-eminence ("v yivvirett y vrcceriv
aurof -x-guTivctiv.") Col. i. 1 8. There
can be no question then that in this
passage, the word v^anvuv signifies a
Primacy of Supremacy, that is, that
Christ, who is the Head of the Body,
the Church, is Supreme in all things.
To interpret S. Irenaeus' meaning of
the words "superior pre-eminence or
principality (<ru<ri7ov," ) we must ascer-
tain the object he had in view in writing
this passage, and the expressions he
uses in describing the relation of other
Churches to the Roman Church. He
points to the Roman Church as the one,
as containing the fulness of Divine
Tradition : he affirms that it had been
"founded and constituted by the two
most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul ;"
and further, he gives the reason why re-
ference should be made to this Church,
"For to this Church," he says, "on
account of its superior pre-eminence (or,
more powerful principality), it is ne-
cessary, that every Church ....
agree (or resort to, or assemble with").
Why " necessary " {necesse esf) be-
cause of " its superior pre-eminence (or
more powerful principality"). If this
' ' pre-eminence " had been one merely
of courtesy or of honour, as is alleged,
then it would not have been ' ' necessary,"
or rather absolutely necessary, as the
word necesse ought to be rendered
for every Church, that is, the Faithful
on all sides, to " agree with, or resort."
The word necesse est (absolutely neces-
sary) fixes the interpretation of " pre-
eminence " in this passage, as signifying
a Supremacy of authority, to whom
the Church or ' ' the Faithful on every
side," were obliged to "agree, or as-
semble with."
But a further reason is given for this
"superior pre-eminence," viz. the Tra-
dition which is from the Apostles, even
" the two most glorious Apostles, Peter
and Paul," from whom was derived
' ' that faith announced to all men, which
through the succession of Bishops has
come done to us," by which " we put to
confusion all those, who, in whatever
manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing,
by vain-glory, or by blindness and per-
verse opinion, assembled in unauthorised
meetings," i.e. schismatically. "For to
this Church, on account of its superior
pre-eminence, it is absolutely necessary,
every Church, that is, the Faithful on
all sides, should agree," that is, assemble
with, in agreement, for such is the true
rendering of the word, convenire. The
Roman Church then, by reason of its
foundation, its tradition, and its superior
pre-eminence, or more powerful princi-
pality, possesses the prerogatives of the
Primacy, not of honour or rank merely
(in the modern meaning of the word),
but of power and authority, for if it
' ' is absolutely necessary " that every
Church should agree, or assemble with
this Church, it follows that she must
be Supreme. The drift, then, of the
whole passage, determines the meaning
of the word K^ufilov (pre-eminence). As
then, our Lord, the Head, was pre-emi-
nent (<*ca<rii>av) over all things, as stated
in the Epistle to the Col. (i. 18), so is the
Roman Church pre-eminent (&/>iariiov)
over all Churches, i.e., she is their
Supreme Mistress.
If the word ag#j is the one employed
in the original of S. Irenseus' work, then
there can be no doubt what he meant
by it. When used in reference to king-
doms and polities, it signifies a spiritual
or temporal dominion or sovereignty.
The word a^Jiv in various forms is used
by the inspired writers in this sense, as
for example, #*/, Rom. viii. 38 ;
I Cor. xv. 24; ??, Eph. i.2i ; <
Hi. IO ; a5, vi. 12 ; a^f, Col. i. 1 6 ;
*&, n - 10-15 5 "?X<*''S> Titus, iii. I.
Our Lord employs this same word, when
speaking of magistrates, or rulers, as
in S. Luke, xii. II ; xx. 20. Liddell
thus interprets this word, when it re-
lates to kingdoms, &c., " The first
place or power, sovereignty, dominion,
first in Pind., A/; *?%*> &**> <*?%*'*,
&c., also gen. rei, *# ruv vtav, vns
6a.\a,ffffntt "rvs *A<r/y, power over them,
Thuc. 3. 90, &c 2, A save-
134
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
reignty, empire, realm, as
B/xxot/ a^5, i.e., Persia, Macedonia,
[i.e. the Persian empire or realm of
Cyrus], Hdt. I. 91 ; Thuc. I. 128, &c. 3.
In Att. Prose, a magistracy, office in the
government, dgxvv oi^nv, Xajt/3av/v, to
hold an office, Hdt. 3. 80 ; 4. 147 . . .
4, in plur., ai a.^a.'t (as we say) the au-
thorities, magistrates of the country,
Thuc. 5. 47, of Deer. ap. Andoc. n.
29 ; also * a^Ji collectively, " the
government,' 1 Dem. 1145. 26, &c. (Gr.
Lex. Liddell and Scott, see p. 189, Oxf.
1864.) Some of the Fathers too, such
as S. Chrysostom (T. ix. Horn, in Ep.
ad Rom.} uses the same word oi^x,*
to express the Roman Empire.
The Latin rendering of the word,
whichever it was (i.e. irgunTov or et%jv)
is, principalitatem, which denotes princi-
pality, dominion, or sovereignty ; and
inasmuch as the Latin translation is
very ancient, this term principalitatem
may be fairly taken as interpretative of
the original, especially, too, as both the
context and the clause immediately fol-
lowing require some such word to ex-
plain what this Father so evidently in-
tended.
It may seem pedantic to enter into
these particulars, for every scholar is fully
aware of the exact signification of
these words when applied to kingdoms,
polities, and their rulers ; but as it seems
to be a point with Anglican and Protes-
tant controversialists, not to give the
full meaning of these terms, when the
Church of Rome is in question, it is
necessary to remind them, that when-
ever either of them is employed to de-
scribe the Roman ecclesiastical princi-
pality or dominion, the intention, as S.
Irenseus so clearly infers, is to assert
that that pre-eminence or principality
of the Roman Church, was one which
consisted of its being the Chief among
all other ecclesiastical principalities, do-
minions, and powers, to which Supreme
Authority all are subject.
In conclusion, I would observe that
the testimonies of these two Apostolic
fathers, S. Ignatius of the East, and S-
Irenseus of the West the one a dis-
ciple of S. Peter, and the other of S.
Poly carp (who was a spiritual son of
S. John the Apostle), are conclusive,
viz., that the Roman Church was re-
garded as the presiding Church, "pre-
siding over the Love," i.e. the Church,
"with the Name of Christ," and "with
the Name of the Father; " and that that
Church, by reason of its foundation, of
its tradition, and, above all, on account
of its Superior Pre-eminence, or more
powerful principality, was the Head
and Mistress of all Churches, for it is
said, it was "absolutely necessary,"
that "all Churches should agree or as-
semble " with her, the Roman Church.
Thus these Fathers taken together,
prove demonstratively the Roman Supre-
macy.
TERTULLIAN.
A.D 195.
24. " Come now, thou that wilt
exercise thy curiosity to better
purpose in the business of thy
salvation, run over the Apostolic
Churches, in which the very chairs
of the Apostles, to this very day,
preside over their own places, in
which their own authentic writings
are read, echoing the voice, and
making the face of each present.
Is Achaia near to thee ? Thou
hast Corinth. If thou art not far
from Macedonia, thou hast Philippi,
thou hast the Thessalonians. If
thou canst travel into Asia, thou
hast Ephesus. But if thou art
near to Italy, thou hast Rome,
whence we also have an authority
at hand. That Church how happy !
on which the Apostles poured out
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
135
all their doctrine with their blood ;
where Peter had a like passion with
the Lord ; where Paul is honoured
with an end like the Baptist's; where
the Apostle John was plunged into
boiling oil, and suffered nothing,
and was afterwards banished to an
island ; let us see what she hath
learned, what taught, what fellow-
ship she hath with the Church of
Africa likewise." T. ii. De Pre-
script. Hares, n. 36,^. 49. Migne.
TERTULLIAN, WHEN A HERETIC.
25. " I hear that an edict has
been issued, and that a peremptory
one. The Supreme Pontiff, for-
sooth, the Bishop of Bishops (Pon-
tifex maximus, quod est, episcopus
episcoporum), says, ' I give absolu-
tion even for the sins of adultery and
fornication to those who have done
due penance. This is read in the
Church, in the Church is this pro-
claimed, and she a virgin ! ' " T. ii.
De Pudicit. c. I, p. 981. Migne.
26. " Tell me, thou most benign
interpreter of God " Ib.
27. " And thou, O good Shepherd
and most blessed Pope, preachest
penitence to adulterers, &c." c. 1 3,
p. 1003.
28. " .... Let me behold then
now, may it please your Apostle-
ship, some prophetical signs, and
I will acknowledge your divine
right, and you may assert your
claim to the power of forgiving
such sins. But if it is only the
functions of discipline that you
possess, and if it is not by sove-
reignty, but only in your ministe-
rial capacity, that you preside, who
or what are you to pardon, you,
who neither showing yourself a pro-
phet nor an Apostle, lack the virtue
out of which pardon proceeds? But
do you say the Church has the power
of forgiving sins? This is mine
rather both to assert and to admin-
ister, for I have the ParacleteHimself
saying in the new prophets, ' The
Church can forgive, but I will not,
lest other should sin.' The spirit
of truth (i.e. Montanus) can pardon
fornications ; but he will not, as it
would be for the evil of many.
Now, in your own opinion, pray
whence do you usurp this right of
the Church ? (i.e. of Montanus, &c.)
If because the Lord said to Peter,
On this Rock I will build My
Church, and to thee I have given the
keys of the kingdom of heaven ; or,
Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose
on earth shall be bound or loosed in
heaven; if on this it is you presume
that the power of binding and loos-
ing has descended to you, that is, to
the whole Church which is related
to Peter ; who are you to overturn
and change the manifest intention
of our Lord to confer this privi-
lege upon S. Peter personally? . . .
Why then do you claim it for the
Church ? and your Church indeed ;
you carnal man ! In accordance
with this personal privilege of
Peter, that power suits an Apostle,
or a Prophet, and the Spiritual. For
the very Church is properly and
principally the Spirit Himself. The
Church is the Spirit through a Spi-
ritual man, not a number of Bis-
hops ; the Church which the Lord
has placed in three" (i.e. in Mon-
tanus, Prisca, and Maximilian.)
Ib. c. 21, p. 1023-6.
136
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
COMMENT.
Tertullian follows S. Irenseus in his
method of treating heretics, first refuting
them, and then appealing to the Tradi-
tion of the several Apostolical Churches.
When pointing to Rome, his language
becomes more marked and peculiar.
*' That Church" (the Roman), exclaims
Tertullian, "how happy! on which the
Apostles poured out all their doctrine
with their blood ; where Peter had a
like passion with the Lord ; where Paul
is honoured with an end like the Bap-
tist's ; where the Apostle John was
plunged into boiling oil, and suffered
nothing." Yes, how happy ! that
Church in the foundation of which the
Prince of the Apostles the chosen de-
puty of Christ the great Apostle of the
Gentiles, and the beloved Apostle, the
sacred Seer under the new Law, con-
joined in that great work, of establish-
ing therein, in all the fulness of truth
and authority, that sacred depository
of faith ; whereby the whole Church
might be kept in the truth, and main-
tained in unity and concord, the faith-
ful commended, and heretics and schis-
matics condemned.
There can be no doubt that Tertul-
lian believed that the Church of Rome
was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul,
that in that Church they poured out all
their doctrine, S- John co-operating
with- them. It is clear from the lan-
guage he adopts when speaking of the
Church of Rome, that he regarded it as
a pre-eminent authority, inasmuch as
it had these Apostles as its founder
and source of doctrine. With respect
to S. Peter, Tertullian had affirmed,
that nothing was hidden from him,
that he "was called the Rock whence
the Church was to be built," and that
he had "obtained the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, and the power of loosing and
of binding in heaven and on earth."
(De Prescript, n. 22.) So when S,
Peter came to Rome, he established
there the Rock of which he was the
visible representative, bringing with
him the keys : hence it was, as S. Ig-
natius said, that the Roman Church
"presided over the Love, with the
Name of Christ, (and) with the Name
of the Father :" and, as S. Irenaeus
declared " a more powerful Principa-
lity," with which "it is a matter of
absolute necessity that eveiy Church
should agree." Well indeed might Ter-
tullian exclaim, " Thou Church, how
happy ! " for it had for its ancestor
the Chief of the Apostles, the Vicar of
Jesus Christ.
This testimony of Tertullian is ex-
tremely valuable, as it illustrates what
was said above (p. 118), viz., that the
early Fathers, unless there was some ne-
cessity, seldom entered into particulars
respecting the regime or discipline of
the Church. Tertullian the Catholic
does no more than -touch upon the
status of the Roman Church ; but as
a heretic, he addresses himself more ex-
plicitly, and in his insane wrath against
the Pope gives, involuntarily, no doubt,
clear testimony as to the nature of that
position in the Church which the Pope
filled. Speaking ironically and pro-
fanely, he commits himself to the fol-
lowing explicit statements. That the
Pope was regarded ( I ) as " the Supreme
Pontiff,* the Bishop of Bishops;"* (2)
as "the Interpreter of God;" (3) as
" the good Shepherd and most blessed
Pope ; " (4) as holding and dispensing
the jurisdiction symbolised by the keys ;
(5) as " Presiding Bishop," in which
capacity he presumed to forgive sins.
* These titles subsequently became common to all Bishops, but the point of
Tertullian's attack of the Pope is, that he claims to be the Chief Pontiff of the
whole Church, to be the representative of S. Peter, to whom were granted personally
the keys, and to be the Shepherd of the flock. His quarrel was, that the Pope
usurped a power which belonged, as he maintained, to Montanus.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
137
Tertullian further abuses the Pope for
claiming that power for himself, by
virtue of his spiritual descent from S.
Peter, to whom our Lord said, " On
this Rock I will biiildMy Church, &c ; "
and for the Church which is related to
this Apostle.
Now on what grounds did Tertullian
reject the authority of the Supreme
Pontiff? Was it because he was of
opinion that so exalted an office could
not be held by a man ? Certainly not.
His opinion was, that S. Peter pos-
sessed these high prerogatives personally
only, and that consequently they were
not transmissible, but lapsed to the
Divine donor, to be again committed
to special persons judged by the Holy
Spirit as suitable for the purpose.
" The Church," says he, " is the Spirit,
through a spiritual man," as for instance,
Montanus and himself. Catholics hold
that the Church of Christ was placed
under the care of Peter and his Suc-
cessors ; Tertullian, first in Peter, and
subsequently, in Montanus.
The testimony of Tertullian as re-
spects the regime and discipline of the
Church in her executive government,
is perfectly clear and conclusive, viz.,
that the Pope was regarded in the
second century as the Head and Chief
of the Catholic Church, as the Supreme
Pastor of the universal fold, and the
dispenser of the supreme jurisdiction as
symbolised by the keys. How forcibly
does Tertullian, the heretic, in his mad
opposition to the Pope, explain and
illustrate the language of S. Ignatius and
S. Irenteus on the Roman Supremacy !
S. CYPRIAN.
A.D. 246.
29 . " To the seven children there
is evidently conjoined their mother,
the origin and root (origo et
radix] , which afterwards bare se-
ven churches, herself having been
founded first and alone, by the
grace of the Lord, upon Peter.
(Ipsa prima et una super Petrum
Domini vocefundata]" De Exhort.
Martyr, p. 270.
30. " God is one, and Christ
is one, and the Church (is) one,
and the Chair (is) one, founded, by
the Lord's word, upon a Rock (et
una ecclesia, et cathedra una super
petram Domini vocefundata]. An-
other altar and a new priesthood,
besides the one altar and the one
priesthood cannot be set up." Ep.
xl. ad Pled., p. 53.
31. "Certain persons however
sometimes disturb men's minds by
their reports, representing some
things otherwise than the truth is.
For we, furnishing all who sail hence
(/. e. to Rome) with a rule, lest in
their voyage they any way offend,
know well that we have exhorted
them to acknowledge and hold to
the Root and Womb of the Ca-
tholic Church." Ep. xlviii. ad Corn,
p. 59.
32. " Cornelius was made Bishop
(of Rome) by the judgment of God
and His Christ, by the testimony of
almost all the clergy, by the suf-
frage of the people who were pre-
sent at a time when no one had
been made (Bishop) before him ;
when the Place of Peter, and the
Rank of the Apostolic Chair, was va-
cant (cum Fabiani locus, id est, cum
locus Petri et gradus Cathedra
sacerdotalis vacaret]." Ep. lii. ad
Antoni.p. 68.
33. " Moreover, after all this, a
138
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
pseudo-bishop having been set up
for themselves by heretics, they dare
to sail, and to carry letters from
some schismatics and profane per-
sons, to the Chair of Peter, and to
the Principal Church (or, Chief
Church, ecclesiam principaleni),
whence the unity of the priesthood
took its rise ; nor do they consider
that the Romans are those whose
faith was praised in the preaching of
the Apostle, to whom faithlessness
can have no access (ad quos perfidia
habere non possit accessum)
For since it has been decreed by
all of us, and it is alike equitable
and just, that the cause of each
individual be heard there where the
crime was committed ; and a por-
tion of the flock has been assigned
to the several Shepherds which each
is to rule and govern, having here-
after to render an account of his
conduct to the Lord; it therefore be-
hoves those over whom we preside
not to run from place to place,
nor, by their crafty and deceitful
temerity, to bring into collision the
cohering concord of the Bishops ;
but there to plead their cause,
where they can hear both accusers
and witnesses of their crime ; un-
less, perhaps, to a few desperate
and abandoned men, the authority
of the Bishops appointed in Africa
seems inferior, Bishops who have
already passed judgment upon
them." Ep. Iv. ad. Cornel. p. 86.
34. " Wherefore it behoves you to
write a very full letter to our fel-
low-bishops established in Gaul, that
they no longer suffer the fro ward and
proud Marcianus, an enemy both to
the mercy of God and the salvation
of the brethren, to insult even our
college, because he seemeth as yet
not to be excommunicated by us,
who this long while boasts and
publishes, that, siding with Nova-
tian and following his frowardness,
he has separated himself from our
communion .... How idle were
it, dearest brother, when Novatian
has been lately repulsed and cast
back and excommunicated by the
Priests of God throughout the
world, were we now to suffer his
flatterers still to mock us, and to
judge respecting the majesty and
dignity of the Church. Let letters
be addressed from thee to the pro-
vince and to the people dwelling at
Aries, whereby Marcianus being
excommunicated, another may be
substituted in his room, and the
flock of Christ, which to this day
is overlooked, scattered by him and
wounded, be again collected to-
gether Signify plainly to us,
who has been substituted in Aries
in the room of Marcianus, that we
may know to whom we should direct
our brethren, and to whom write."
Ep. Ixvii. ad Step., p. 115, 117.
35. " . . . . And since there are
many other and heinous sins in
which Basilides and Martialis are
held implicated ; in vain do such
attempt to usurp the Episcopate,
it being evident that men of that
mind can neither" preside over the
Church of Christ, nor ought to
offer sacrifices to God ; especially
since our colleague Cornelius (the
Pope), a peaceable and righteous
Priest, and by the favour of the
Lord honoured also with martyr-
dom, long since decreed, in conjunc-
tion with us and with all the Bishops
constituted throughout the whole
world, that such men might indeed
be admitted to do penance, but
must be kept back from the Orders
of the Clergy and the honour of
the Priesthood." Ep. LXVIII. ad
Clerum et Pleb. in Hisp. p. 119, 120.
36. " In order to the settling cer-
tain matters, and regulating them
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
139
by the aid of our common counsel,
we deemed it necessary, dearest
brother, to assemble and hold a
a council, whereat many Prelates
were gathered together. In which
council many things were pro-
pounded and transacted. But where-
on chiefly we thought it right to
write to thee, to confer with thy
gravity and wisdom, is that which
most concerneth the Episcopal au-
thority, and the unity as well as
the dignity of the Catholic Church
descending from the ordinance of
the Divine appointment, &c. . . .
These things, dearest brother, by
reason of our mutual respect and
single-hearted affection, we have
brought to thy knowledge, believing
that what is alike religious and
true will, according to the truth of
thy religion and faith, be approved
by thee also. But we know that
some will not lay aside what they
have once imbibed, nor easily
change their resolves, by keeping
the bond of peace and concord
with their colleagues, retain certain
practices of their own which have
been once adopted among them.
In this matter we neither do violence
to any, nor lay down a law, since
each Prelate hath, in the govern-
ment of the Church, his own choice
and free-will, hereafter to give ac-
count of his conduct to the Lord."
Ep. Ixxii. ad Steph.pp. 128, 129.
37. " Wherefore since the Church
alone has the living water and
the power of baptizing and cleans-
ing men, whoso says that one can
be baptized and sanctified by No-
vatian (the Antipope), must first
show and prove that Novatian
is in the Church, or presides over
the Church. For the Church is
one, and being one, cannot be
both within and without. For if
she is with Novatian she cannot be
with Cornelius (the Pope). But if
she was with Cornelius, who suc-
ceeded the Bishop Fabian as by law-
ful ordination .... Novatian is not
in the Church ; nor can he be reck-
oned as a Bishop, who, succeeding
to no one, and despising the evan-
gelical and apostolic tradition, has
sprung from himself. For he who
has not been ordained in the Church
can neither have nor hold to the
Church in any way .... And,
therefore, the Lord, intimating to
us that unity cometh from divine
authority, lays it down, saying, /
and My Father are one. To which
unity reducing His Church, he says
again, " And there shall be one flock
(grex) and one Shepherd." But if
the flock is one, how can he (No-
vatian) be numbered among the
flock who is not in the number of
the flock? or how can he be es-
teemed a pastor who while the
true Shepherd (i.e. Cornelius) re-
mains, would preside over the
Church of God by successive or-
dinationsucceeding to no one,
and beginning from himself, be-
comes a stranger and a profane
person, an enemy to the Lord's
peace and to the divine unity, not
dwelling in the house of God, that
is the Church of God ? . For
even Korah, Dathan, and Abiram,
knew the same God as did the
priest Aaron, and Moses. Living
under the same law and religion,
they invoked the one and true God,
who was to be invoked and wor-
shipped ; yet because they trans-
gressed the ministry of their office,
in opposition to Aaron the priest,
who had received the legitimate
priesthood by the condescension of
God and the ordination of the
Lord, and claimed to themselves
the power of sacrificing, divinely
stricken, they immediately suffered
140
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
punishment for their unlawful en-
deavours ; and sacrifices offered ir-
religiously and lawlessly, contrary
to the right of Divine appointment,
could not be accepted, nor profit
them .... and yet those men had
not made a schism, nor had gone
abroad (though) in opposition to
God's priests, rebelled shamelessly
and with hostility ; but this, these
men (the Novatians), are now doing
who divide the Church, and, as
rebels against the peace and unity
of the Church, attempt to set up a
Chair (or Cathedra) for themselves,
and to assume the Primacy, and to
claim the right of baptizing and of
offering." Ep. Ixxvi. ad Magnum,
p. 154-
COMMENT.
The witness of S. Cyprian on the
subject of this Work is extremely va-
luable, the more so because he held
very high notions respecting the dignity,
equality, and independence (these words
being rightly and canonically under-
stood) of the universal Episcopate. S.
Cyprian went so far as to say that a
Bishop was responsible to no one, and
that no one could judge him except the
Lord. This opinion, it is obvious,
if pressed too far, would not only
tend to upset the Papacy, but would be
detrimental to all discipline whatever,
and extinguish the authority even of
Provincial and General Councils. S.
Cyprian in several of his Epistles had
occasion to speak of the position of the
Holy See and its Pontiff, and we shall
perceive that he was not behind hand
in recognising its Supreme authority.
Before his time the external unity of
the Church had not been broken, that
is to say, that, although heresies had
abounded, yet there had not been as yet
any Bishop against Bishop, or altar
against altar.
The election of Novatian by a section
of the Roman clergy and people, after
the vacancy of the Holy See, caused
by the death of Flavian, had been filled
up, was the first formal act of schism, and
Novatian became in consequence the
first anti-Pope. S. Cyprian exercised
all the influence he possessed, in con-
cert with the reigning Pope, to destroy
this schism, as may be seen in his
addresses to the Pope and other Pre-
lates. The occasion of that schism gave
S. Cyprian many opportunities for al-
luding to the origin, the dignity, and
the authority of the Roman Church,
which we now proceed to consider.
i. The first point which calls for
notice is the expression, ' ' the Place of
Peter.'" S. Cyprian evidently used these
words, in two senses, (i) "the Place of
Peter" in the Apostolic Hierarchy,
and (2) "the Place" where he estab-
lished his Cathedra.
(I.) Under the "First Inquiry" it
was shown that in S. Cyprian's opi-
nion S. Peter was not only "chosen
the First," but that the Lord Jesus
Christ " laid and founded," and
"built His Church" "first and alone
upon Peter;" that he made him " an
Original and Principle of Unity ; ? ' that
He delivered to him the keys, " that
that should be loosed in heaven which
he should have loosed on earth ;" and
further, He commended His Sheep to
be by him "fed and guarded." S.
Peter, therefore, became the Represen-
tative of Christ, and also the Repre-
sentative of the Church, "for he spoke
for all, and replied with the voice of the
Church." S. Peter was then the Foun-
dation, the Source, and the Principle
of Unity, the Head and Governor of
the Church, and the Shepherd of the
entire Flock. Such was " the Place of
Peter" in the Apostolic Hierarchy, and
in the whole Church.
But in order thoroughly to under-
stand what "the Place of Peter" means,
we must investigate S. Cyprian's ex-
pression, " Origin and Principle of
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
unity." The following will explain
this: "To the seven children there
is evidently conjoined their mother,
the Origin and Root, which afterwards
bare seven Churches, herself (/. e. the
Root and Mother Church) having been
founded first and alone, by the voice
of the Lord, upon Peter." The Church,
thus founded on Peter, ' ' first and alone, "
is the Mother Church, from which all
other Churches, as from an Original,
spring ; so truly so that unless they are
derived originally from Peter, they are
no true Churches at all. Again, not
only is the Church built upon Peter as
upon an Original, it is also the ''Root,"
and the " Principle of Unity," that is
the law by which the unity of the Church
is maintained ; for the Root is not only
the Source of life to the tree, it is also
its sustainer, severance from which is
nothing less than death. Hence S.
Cyprian says, that "to the seven chil-
dren (/. e. Churches) is evidently con-
joined their Mother," i.e. the Mother
Church built on, and proceeding from
S. Peter for she not only bare them,
but nourished them at her breast. Hence,
also, S. Cyprian taught that the Church is
one, "and was by the voice of the Lord
founded upon one (Peter), who also re-
ceived the keys thereof." She it is (viz.
the Church founded on Peter) "that
alone holds and possesses the whole
power of her Spouse and Lord :" that is,
the Church which originates in Peter,
which is in union with Peter, and which
is conjoined to him, as the child to the
mother, and the tree to the root, and
governed by this Principle or Law of
unity, is alone, to the exclusion of all
others, that one indivisible Church,
which alone "holds and possesses the
whole power" of Jesus Christ, as the
King of kings, and the High Priest
over the one household of God, both
in heaven and earth. And this unity
founded on, and maintained by Peter
as the Origin, Root, and Principle of
unity is powerfully described by S.
Cyprian in these words : ' ' God is one,
and Christ is one, the Church is one,
and the Chair one, founded by the
Lord's voice upon a Rock" (i.e. Peter,
for the Mother Church was built on
Peter). Another altar and a new priest-
hood, besides the one altar and the
one priesthood (i.e. that which origin-
ated in Peter), cannot be set up. At
the risk of repetition of much that has
been already said on this subject un-
der the " First Inquiry," it has been
deemed important to explain as fully
as possible what was meant by the
"Place of Peter" in the Church of
Christ as originally established by our
Lord. We observe, then, these in-
controvertible facts, viz. that the Church
was founded upon one ; that the Church
so founded upon one was the Origi-
nal, the Root, and the Mother of all
Churches : that this one Church was in
S. Peter alone, and consequently he be-
came the recipient of all the Royalties
and Prerogatives of Christ his Master ;
and the Church so founded upon him
" first and alone" became the Mother
Church of all Churches.
(2.) This " Place of Peter," S. Cyprian
explicitly informs us, the Bishop of
Rome occupied. ' ' Cornelius was made
Bishop (of Rome) ... at a time when no
one had been made (Bishop) before him;
when the Place of Peter, and the grade
of the Apostolic Chair, or Cathedra,
was vacant." This means, of course,
the "Place of Peter" at Rome; and
the " grade of the Apostolic Chair"
signifies the pre-eminent authority of
the Apostle, as the Supreme Head and
Pastor, the Vicar of Christ, and the
Representative of the whole Catholic
Church. There can be no doubt that
the words, "grade of the Apostolic
Chair," refer to the " Place of Peter ;"
and the " Place of Peter," first, to
the city of Rome, where he established
his Cathedra, and secondly, to the
position he himself (Peter) filled, and
still fills in the person of his Succes-
sors, for the time being, in the Hier-
archy of the Catholic Church. As S.
Peter was the Origin, the Source, and
Principle or Law of Unity, as he
1 4 2
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
alone was the Key-bearer, and the
Shepherd of the entire Flock, so were all
his Successors to his Cathedra, each in
his generation the Origin, the Source,
the Principle or Law of Unity, and also
the Key-bearer and Pastor of the Uni -
versal Flock. But more than this. S.
Cyprian held that the Church specially
built upon Peter was "the Root and
Matrix of the Church," to which " the
Seven Churches," i. e. the whole Church,
"were conjoined," as to its root or
mother ; that is to say, that as no branch
can possibly be part of the Tree unless
it be "conjoined" to its root, so no
Church can be a Church unless it is
"conjoined" to its Mother, which S.
Cyprian affirms was that Church which
was founded ' ' first and alone " by
the voice of the Lord upon Peter.
The Roman Church, with its Pontiff,
succeeded to the dignity and prero-
gatives of "the Place of Peter" the
offices of the Root, Mother, and Matrix,
were continued in that Church, which by
virtue of the Cathedra of Peter there
established, became for ever the Mother
and Mistress of all Churches. As in
the case of S. Peter and the Church
built on him, personally, so it was with
his Successors to his " Place ;" and the
Roman Church, and all Churches
throughout the world which are ' ' con-
joined" to her, are true Churches ; and
all such as are not so " conjoined" are
no true Churches, no more than a
Branch is part of a Tree, when severed
from its parent Root.
2. That this is S. Cyprian's doctrine
is clear from what he wrote to Pope
Stephen. He complains to him that
certain heretics with letters from schis-
matics and profane persons, dared to
sail, and to carry these letters "to the
Cathedra of Peter, and to the Principal
or Chief Church, whence the unity of
the Priesthood took its rise." We see
here how the " Place of Feter" appears
in the "Cathedra of Peter," thus oc-
cupied by his Successor S. Stephen ; the
Church in immediate connexion with
which, being by virtue of the presence
of that Cathedra, the " Principal or the
Chief Church," from which " the unity
of the Priesthood took its rise." Here
is demonstrated the " Source," the
"Origin," and " Principle of Unity,"
for it was from that Cathedra and that
Chief Church "that the unity of the
Priesthood took its rise. " And further it
is shown how that Cathedra and Church
is the Root and Matrix of the whole
Church, for S. Cyprian in another
place says, " For we, furnishing all who
sail hence (i. e. to Rome) with a rule,
lest in their voyage they any way offend,
know well that we have exhorted
them to acknowledge and hold to the
Root and Matrix of the Catholic
Church ;" that is, the Roman Church,
for the place they were sailing to was
Rome, and this epistle of S . Cyprian
was addressed to the Pope. Again,
S. Cyprian describes the Church of
Rome as the Principal or Chief Church
(ecclesiam principalem). There can be
no doubt that this word Chief Church
signifies the ruling and governing Church,
and this for the following reasons : be-
cause (i) of "the Place of Peter ;" (2)
of the "Cathedra of Peter," which
stands in the midst of the Roman Church,
and which is occupied by its Pontiff;
(3) because the unity of the Priesthood
took its rise in that "Place," in that
" Cathedra," and in that Church ; and
(4) because the Roman Church is the
Root and Matrix from which the whole
Catholic Church proceeded : hence the
irresistible conclusion that the Church
of Rome, with its Cathedra, occupying
the " Place of Peter," is the Principal
or Chief, or ruling Church, union with
which is indispensable to the catholicity
of all churches, separation from which
is ecclesiastical dissolution.
That this is a correct view of S.
Cyprian's doctrine of the Roman Supre-
macy, is evident from what he has
further said respecting the Novatian
schism.
In a letter which S. Cyprian ad-
dressed to Magnus, his son in Christ,
he first of all establishes the fact that
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
143
the Church is one, and cannot be di-
vided, and consequently she " cannot"
be both "within" and "without" that
is to say, the true Church remains one and
indivisible, notwithstanding schisms, for
they who make the schism are "with-
out" the Church's communion. Hence
he asserts that " if she is with No-
vatian (the antipope) she could not
be with Cornelius (the true Pope) ;
but if she were with Cornelius, who suc-
ceeded the Bishop Fabian by lawful
ordination . . . (this) Novatian is not
in the Church," "and," he continues,
" if the Flock is one, how can he
(Novatian) be numbered among the
Flock, who is not in the number of the
Flock? or how can he be esteemed
a Pastor, while the true Shepherd
(i. e. the Roman Bishop Cornelius) re-
mains and presides over the Church of
God by successive ordination ?" Then,
further on, S. Cyprian compares the No-
vatian schism to the rebellion of Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram against " Aaron,
the priest, who had received the legiti-
mate priesthood by the condescension
of God." " And yet these men had
not made any schism, nor had gone
abroad, (though) in opposition to God's
priests they had rebelled shamefully and
with hostility. But this, these men, i.e.
the Novatians now do, who rending
the Church, and rebelling against the
peace and unity of Christ, attempt
to set up a Chair or Cathedra for them-
selves, and to assume the Primacy."
Now there are three points herein to
be noted, (i) the indivisible unity of
the Church, so that if Novatian was
Pope, Cornelius (the true Pope) was
not even in the Church, and vice versa ;
(2) the Flock being one, has but one
Shepherd, i.e. according toS. Cyprian,
Cornelius, who "presided over(notthe
Roman Church merely, but) the Church
of God ;" and (3) the Novatians, en-
deavouring to establish a Chair or
Cathedra, and to assume the Primacy.
This Primacy which they claimed, was
the Primacy of the Roman Church, whose
Bishop, S. Cyprian said, " presides over
the Church of God," that is, over that
one universal Flock, which cannot be
divided. Can there be the remotest
doubt that in S. Cyprian's opinion the
Roman Bishop held the Primacy ? He
even puts him in antithesis to the High
Priest Aaron, against whom Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram rebelled, showing
thereby that the Chief Priest of the
Church under the Law, and the Chief
Priest under the Gospel, both held
under their several economies a some-
what similar position.
(3) But did S. Cyprian believe that the
Primacy of the Pope was one of honour,
or of authority and power ? The follow-
ing incident will prove which it was. His
letter to Pope S. Stephen, urging him
to take measures for effecting the depo-
sition of Marcianus, Bishop of Aries in
Gaul, is conclusive on this point.
" Wherefore," says S. Cyprian, " it be-
hoves you (Pope S. Stephen) to write a
very full letter to our fellow-Bishops
established in Gaul, that they no longer
suffer the froward and proud Marcianus
.... to insult our College. . . .
Let letters be addressed by thee to
the Province, and to the people of
Aries, whereby Marcianus being ex-
communicated, another may be sub-
stituted in his room .... signify
plainly to us who has been substituted
at Aries for Marcianus, that we may
know to whom we should direct our
brethren, and to whom to write." Here
we observe S. Cyprian asking the
Pope, (i) to address a very " full letter"
to the Bishops of Gaul, i. e. France ; (2)
to exhort them not to suffer Marcianus
any longer to insult the Episcopate ;
(3) to address also the Province and
people of Aries to substitute another
Bishop in the room of the excommu-
nicated Marcianus ; and (4) after the
election to inform the African Bishops,
with whom they are in future to hold
communion in the See of Aries. Now
if the Pope was nothing more than a
Bishop, or a Metropolitan, or the Pa-
H4 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
triarchof the Suburbicarian provinces,* Aries. Upon the hypothesis that all
or if he had merely a Primacy of honour, Bishops are equal, and that no Bishop
it is clear he had no right to address is responsible to any earthly Chief,
such a letter of authority to the Galilean but to Christ alone, it is manifest that
Bishops, urging them to proceed to ex- S. Cyprian was urging the Pope to do
tremities with the schismatic Prelate of what he had no right to do, viz. to in-
* It has been the policy of Anglican and Protestant commentators to maintain
that the Patriarchate of Rome only included the ten Suburbicarian Provinces
" which were immediately subjected to the civil disposition and jurisdiction of the
vicarius urbis" Bingham, who entertains this opinion, remarks, "Some think
that the Bishop of Rome was only a Metropolitan when this canon was made, as
Launoy, Bishop Beveridge, Bishop Stillingfleet, Dr. Cave ; according to whose
sentiments it must follow that the Suburbicarian Churches were the district, or
subject of his Metropolitan power. Brerewood and Spalatensis, after S. Jerorne,
think he was properly a patriarch ; and I have showed elsewhere also that there
are some reasons to countenance their opinion ; but then the limits of this patriarchal
power were still the same (according as it was at Alexandria) and the ten provinces
of the Roman diocese were the legal bounds of his jurisdiction, And so Du Pin
amongst the Romanists makes no scruple ingenuously to confess ; exempting Ger-
many, Spain, France, Britain, Africa, Illyricum, and seven of the Italic provinces,
from any subjection to the Roman Patriarch in those first and primitive ages." Bing.
Antiq. Bk. ix. c. i, sect. 10. We will admit, for the sake of argument, that it is
true that the Patriarchate proper of Rome only included what were called the
Suburbicarian Provinces, and that all other provinces beyond these were not
subject to him in his capacity as Patriarch. We know that certain Bishops hold
several offices in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. A Metropolitan is both a Primate
having jurisdiction over a Province consisting of any number of Bishops and
at the same time what we now understand by the term Diocesan Bishop. A
Patriarch is both a Diocesan Bishop and a Metropolitan, as well as a Primate.
What is there to prevent us from accepting the truth, that the Prelate of the Holy
See is (i) a Diocesan Bishop ; (2) a Metropolitan ; (3) a Primate, (4) a Patriarch, and
(5) a Pope, i.e. Supreme Chief over all Patriarchs, Primates, Metropolitans, and
Bishops of the Universal Church. Assuming then that Bingham is correct, viz. that
the Patriarchate of Rome included only the ten Suburbicarian Provinces, in what
capacity did S. Cyprian address Pope S. Stephen, urging him to write a very
"full letter" to the Bishops of Gaul or France, exhorting them in fact to do
their duty in reference to Marcianus ; and also another letter to the province and
people of Aries, to substitute another Bishop in his room ; and then after the
election to inform him (S. Cyprian) and the Bishops of Africa, with whom he and
they were to communicate ? If France was not within the Patriarchate of Rome,
and if its Bishop had no jurisdiction as Patriarch simply, it is clear to demon-
stration that S. Cyprian was invoking an authority of a far higher grade or degree
than that of a Patriarch. In a word, he was setting in motion, for the deliverance
of the Church from schism, the power of the Papal Chair of S. Peter, to which all
episcopal chairs throughout the world are subject. Assuming that Anglican and
Protestant controversialists are correct that the Patriarchate proper of Rome is
limited to the Suburbicarian Provinces, the action of the Pope in France can only
be justified on one ground, viz. that he was, besides Patriarch, the Chief Shepherd
of the Universal Church, whose authority is conterminous with the whole world.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
145
terfere in the ecclesiastical affairs of
a distant province, where he had no
jurisdiction. And further, if it was
true that all ecclesiastical matters should
be settled in each Province, without any
interference of any foreign Bishop, no
matter how high or exalted his rank in
the Episcopal Hierarchy, then it was an
act of gross disrespect to the Bishops of
Gaul for S. Cyprian to petition the Bishop
of Rome to address them a " very full
letter," evidently of remonstrance ; and
not only the Bishops, but the people like-
wise, urging them to expel Marcianus,
and to substitute another in his room.
The Bishops of Gaul were perfectly com-
petent to do what was proper, without
the action of the Pope, i. e. if he had no
jurisdiction over them.
But it is manifest from this letter of
S. Cyprian that he believed the Pope
was invested with an authority which he
himself did not possess as Bishop of
Carthage and Primate of Africa. He
believed that the Pope, as the one Shep-
herd of the one Flock, presided over
the Church of God. He believed this,
because he succeeded to the " Place of
Peter," to the "Cathedra of Peter,"
and being by consequence the Prelate
of the "Principal or Chief Church," he
had plenary jurisdiction and authority
over the whole Catholic Church. It is
impossible to doubt the nature of S.
Cyprian's doctrine. Anglicans have en-
deavoured to explain away all these testi-
monies, but, as we shall see further on in
this work, without any success.
In conclusion, S. Cyprian, the most
illustrious Father of the ante-Nicene age,
taught that the " Place of Peter" in the
Apostolic College and in the Church,
consisted of his being the Foundation,
the Source and the Principle of unity,
the key -bearer having power to open
and shut heaven at his pleasure, the
one to whom the Lord committed the
feeding and guardianship of the entire
Flock ; in a word, that S. Peter was
the Source and Centre of unity, and the
Chief Pastor of the universal Church. S .
Cyprian further taught that the seven-
fold Church was conjoined to its Root
and Mother, herself being founded upon
S. Peter, so that union with S. Peter
was essential to Catholic unity, sever-
ance from which is destruction. To this
" Place of Peter" the Bishop of Rome
succeeded, occupying the "Cathedra of
Peter," and thereby elevating the Roman
Church to the grade and dignity of the
Presiding and Ruling Church. Hence
he says that Cornelius, as the one
Shepherd of the one Flock, "presides
over the Church of God." Hence
he asserts that the Roman Church is
the Root and Matrix, /. e. the original
Church built on Peter, from which " the
unity of the Priesthood took its rise. "
And because the Church of Rome oc-
cupied this high position, S. Cyprian
called upon the Pope to address the
Bishops of Gaul and the people of Aries,
a country distant from Rome, and
far beyond the confines of his province
and patriarchate, according to Angli-
cans, to expel a schismatic Bishop, and
to elect a successor. No testimony for
the Papal authority can be stronger than
this. If S. Cyprian did not mean this,
then his language is utterly unintelli-
gible.
S. FIRMILIAN.
A.D. 257.
38. " . . . . And here in this Stephen, that he who so prides him-
matter I am justly indignant at self on the Place of his Episcopate,
this so open and manifest folly of and contends that he holds the
L
146
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
succession of Peter, upon whom
the foundations of the Church were
laid, introduces many other rocks,
and sets up the new buildings of
many Churches, while by his au-
thority he maintains that there is
baptism amongst them . . . Stephen,
who proclaims that he occupies by
succession the Chair of Peter, is
moved by no kind of zeal against
heretics." Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep.
Ixxv. p. 148.
COMMENT.
Firmilian, in his epistle to S . Cyprian,
says that Pope S. Stephen "prides him-
self on the Place of his Episcopate, and
contends that he holds the succession of
Peter, upon whom the foundations of the
Church were laid ;" and also that he
" occupies by succession the Chair or
Cathedra of Peter." Now the point to
be noted is this, he complained of S.
Stephen's laxity in that he was ' ' moved
by no kind of zeal against the heretics,"
that is the burden of his complaint. He
does not, either directly or indirectly,
deny S. Stephen's assertion and claim,
which he would have done, especially
as an Oriental Bishop, if it had not
been founded upon a divine law, handed
down from the days of the Apostles.
The fact that Firmilian makes no
objection whatever to the Pope's claim
is a witness of its legitimacy ; there is
no escape from this conclusion.
S. HILARY OF POICTIERS.
A.D. 356.
39. "And you (Julius) most dearly
beloved brother, though absent
from us in the body, were present
in mind concordant, and will ; and
your plea of absence was honourable
and required ; lest, that is, either
schismatical wolves might steal
and plunder stealthily, or heretical
dogs, smitten with rabid frenzy,
might madly bark ; or doubtless
that serpent the devil, scatter the
venom of his blasphemies. For
this will be seen to be best, and by
far the most befitting thing, if to
the Head, that is to the See of the
Apostle Peter, the priests (Bishops)
of the Lord report from every one of
the provinces (. . . si ad Caput, id est
ad Petri Apostoli sedem, de sin-
gulis quibusque provinciis Domini
referant sacerdotes^) " Fragm. ii.
exopere Historico (exEpist. Sardic.
Condi, ad Juliunf), n. 9, p. 629.
COMMENT.
The age in which S. Hilary lived was
distinguished for the greatest trial the
Catholic Church ever had to endure.
The Arian heresy had, indeed, been con-
demned by the great Council of Nicaea,
but it took many years to root it out of
the Church. S. Athanasius was by turns
supported and condemned by the Em-
peror, and at last by his authority ejected
from his See. At this time two Arian
and semi-Arian Councils were held,
which condemned the Catholics and
supported the heretics. From the first
quarter of the fourth century to the close
of the seventh the Church was employed
in repelling, condemning, and rooting
out heresies, and punishing schismatics.
If the Papacy was a real Divine Power,
we should naturally expect that this
state of things would force it into
vehement action ; that the orthodox
would appeal to it for protection, and
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
147
urge the Sovereign Pontiffs to exercise
their coercive jurisdiction to the utmost
extent of their power. Up to this period
there had not been many opportunities
for invoking this supreme authority, but
now, as we shall see, there were many
occasions for its beneficial exercise.
S. Hilary, referring to the state of
things alluded to above, says it is "by
far the most befitting thing, if to the
Head (capttt\ that is to the See of the
Apostle Peter, the Priests of the Lord
report from every one of the provinces."
Here is a distinct acknowledgment that
the Apostolic See is the Head, and by
virtue of the Cathedra of Peter at Rome ;
and it is more than inferred that S.
Julius, the then occupant of that Ca-
thedra, was not only the Successor of
the Apostle Peter, but that S. Peter
presided by him in his own See. In
order that the force of this expression
may be fully understood, let us recall
to our recollection what this Father had
committed himself to when commenting
upon the office S. Peter filled in the
Apostolic College. It will be remem-
bered that he had described him as the
"Prince of the Apostolate, " "the Foun-
dation of the Church, and the Rock
worthy of the building up that (Church)
which was to scatter the infernal laws
and the gates of hell, and all the bars
of death ;" and he further described
him as the " Door-keeper of the hea-
venly Kingdom, and in his judgment
on earth a Judge of heaven," " to
whose disposal are delivered the keys
of the entrance into eternity, whose
judgment on earth is an authority pre-
judged in heaven, so that the things
that are either loosed or bound on
earth, acquire in heaven too a like state
of settlement." (See sup. pp. 27, 28.)
Such, in S. Hilary's opinion, was the po-
sition of S. Peter in respect to the whole
Church. According to this Father,
the Pope, i. . the " See of the Apostle
Peter," which he in succession filled,
occupies a similar office. ' ' To the Head
(the Pope), that is to the See of the
Apostle Peter, the Priests (Bishops) of
the Lord (should) report from every
one of the provinces ; " why ? Because
of the Prerogative of Supremacy which
is vested in the " See of the Apostle
Peter," by the authority of which su-
preme judgment is pronounced, which
judgment " acquires in heaven a like
state of settlement." Comparing S.
Hilary's comment on S. Peter with that
on the Succession to his Cathedra, we
necessarily draw the following conclu-
sion : (i) That as S. Peter was the
" Prince of the Apostolate," so the Pope
is the " Prince of the Episcopate ;" (2)
That as S. Peter was the "Door-
keeper of the heavenly Kingdom," so
is the Pope ; (3) That as the " keys of
the entrance into eternity" were " at the
disposal" of S. Peter, so are they at the
disposal of the Successors to his Chair ;
and (4) That as S. Peter's "judgment
on earth" acquired a " like state of
settlement" in heaven, so does the
judgment of his Successor to his Ca-
thedra acquire a similar "state of set-
tlement in heaven." Nothing can be
clearer than S. Hilary's evidence ; he be-
lieved that the Cathedra or See of Peter
was an ever-standing authority in the
Church, to which, as to the Head, the
Bishops of all the Provinces of the
Universal Church were bound to refer.
S. Hilary rightly shows the distinction
between the power of the Popes and the
See, for it is not to him as a mere
Bishop that the Churches are bound to
" refer," but to the See of Peter, that
is to the Pope sitting and pronouncing
ex-cathedra, in which capacity the de-
cisions of the Pope are binding upon
all.
148
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
S. OPTATUS OF MILEVIS.
A.D. 368.
40. ". . .We have, therefore, proved
that to be the Catholic Church,
which is spread over the whole
earth. We have now to commem-
orate its adornments, and to see
where are the five marks, which
by you are propounded as six ;
amongst which (marks) the Chair
is the first, where unless a Bishop
sit, the second gift, which is the
angel (i.e. Bishop ?), cannot be
added ; and we have to see who
first filled the Chair, and where
(he filled it). ... Thou canst not
then deny that thou knowest how
in the city of Rome, on Peter,
first was the episcopal chair con-
ferred, wherein might sit of all the
Apostles the Head (caput\ Peter ;
... so that in that one Chair, unity
might be preserved by all ; nor did
the other Apostles, each contend
for a distinct Chair for himself;
and that whoso should set -up
another chair against the Single
Chair, might at once be a schismatic
and a sinner. Peter, therefore, first
filled that individual Chair, which
is the first of the marks (of the
Church) ; to him succeeded Linus ;
to Linus, Clement ; to Clement ....
to Damasus, Siricius, who is now
our colleague, with whom the
whole world, by the mutual ex-
change of circular letters, is con-
cordant with us in one fellowship
of communion. . . . But you say
that you have a certain chair in
the city of Rome. This is a branch
of your error, shooting forth from
falsehood, not from the root of
truth. In fact, if Macrobius be
asked what chair he fills in that
city, can he answer, ' Peter's
Chair ? ' which I do not know that
he even knows by sight, and unto
whose memorial, like a schismatic,
he has not approached.
"... Whence, then, is it that
you strive to usurp unto yourselves
the keys of the Kingdom of heaven,
you who sacrilegiously fight against
the Chair of Peter (gut contra ca-
thedram Petri sacrilegio
militatis), by your presumption and
audacity Since then it is
manifest, and clearer than the
light, that we are in connexion
with so many countless nations,
and that so many provinces are in
connexion with us, you now see
that you, who are but a portion of
our country, are by your errors se-
parated from the Church, and in
vain claim for yourselves the de-
signation of the Church with its
marks, which are rather with us
than with you ; marks which it is
evident are so connected together
and indivisible, that it is felt that
one cannot be separated from the
other. For they are, indeed, reck-
oned by (distinct) names, but they
are united in the body (the Church)
by a single act of the understand-
ing, as are the fingers in the hand,
which we see are kept distinct by the
divisions between them. Whence
he that holds one, must needs hold
all, as each cannot be separated
from the rest. Add to this, that
we are in possession not of one (of
these marks), but we have them as
properly ours. Of the aforesaid
marks, then, the Chair is, as we
have said, the first, which we have
proved is ours through Peter, and
this first mark carries with it the
angel (or jurisdiction)." De Schism.
I. ii. . 1-6, /. 470-2.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
149
COMMENT.
This Father is, perhaps, the first who
defines with some precision the nature
and limits of Catholic communion. He
alludes to the five marks or notes by
which the Church is known. The first
mark is the Chair or Cathedra in which
is seated the Bishop. To distinguish
the schismatic from the orthodox Bi-
shop, he says, we must ascertain "who
first filled the Chair, and where he
filled it." But this is not sufficient, for
even the Bishop of an original See
might be a heretic, and, consequently,
excommunicated ; a further test is evi-
dently required. This S. Optatus sup-
plies; he says, "Thou canst not deny
. . . that in the city of Rome on Peter
first was the episcopal Chair (or
Cathedra) conferred, wherein might sit
of all the Apostles the Head (Peter) ;
that in that One Chair unity might be
preserved by all. " And explaining how
this unity is maintained, he adds, "None
of the other Apostles ever contended
for a distinct Chair for himself, that
is, that although all had their Chairs
yet they were united and subject to the
One Chair of Peter." And, further,
in order to show what constitutes formal
schism, he affirms that "whoso should
set up another Chair against that single
Chair, might at once be (known) as a
schismatic and a sinner." This Father
then proceeds to show that the Cathedra
of Rome is the Cathedra of Peter,
wherein sit all his Successors to the
Holy See. " Peter therefore first filled
that individual Chair (or Cathedra),
which is the first of the marks ; to him
succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement, to
Clement," and then so on, down to
" Siricius," the reigning Pope in S.
Optatus' time. The Roman Chair, then,
i.e. S. Peter's Chair, is the first mark of
the Church. From this, then, we
learn what is the Law of Unity and
what constitutes schism. If the Roman
Cathedra of Peter be the first mark of
the Church, then all other Chairs must
necessarily be subject to it ; and all
who refuse to be subject to it are unques-
tionably schismatical. It follows, then,
that the Catholic Church is that com-
munion which is conjoined to the Head,
who sits in the Cathedra of Peter at
Rome ; and that community which de-
clines to be subject to that Cathedra is
no part of the Church, it is " without,"
it is alien, it is schismatical, and by
consequence in a state of open rebellion
against Christ and his Vicar. How
completely in harmony this doctrine is
with that of S. Cyprian, who held that
the "Chair (was) one, founded upon a
Rock," as much one as "God is one,
and Christ is one, and the Church one. "
These two Fathers, then, agree that the
Chair /'. <?. the one single Chair of Peter,
even that Chair which was established
in Rome, to which all other Chairs are
subject, is the chief mark or note by
which the true Catholic Church is dis-
cerned, and by which schism is detected
and condemned.
S. BASIL.
(A.D. 370.)
41. " We have looked forward to
the visit (I^r/Ws^y) of your kindli-
ness (Pope Damasus) as the only
solution of these things (viz. the state
of religion, and of heresy in the
East) ; and your marvellous love,
as exhibited in times past, has al-
ways consoled us: and we have
had our minds strengthened for a
while, by the delightful rumour
that we were to have a visit
from you d
150
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
But as this hope has failed us,
unable to endure any longer, we
have come to this step, to appeal
to you by letter to move you to
help us, and to send persons who
agree with us in sentiment, who
may reconcile those who are at
variance ; restore to mutual love
the Churches of God ; or, at all
events, make those who are the
causes of this disunion more clearly
known to you : that thus it may
be to you also henceforward plain,
with whom you ought to communi-
cate. And, after all, we ask no-
thing new; but a thing usual with
the other blessed and God-loving
men of old, and especially with
you. For we know, our know-
ledge being derived from an unin-
terrupted remembrance (of the
fact), from inquiries from our fa-
thers, and from records which
are even now preserved amongst
us as that Dionysius (A. D. 259),
that most blessed Bishop, who was
eminent amongst you for ortho-
doxy, and other virtues, visited by
his letters our Church of Caesarea,
and comforted by them our fathers,
and sent persons to redeem our
brethren from slavery. But things
are now with us in a more difficult
and sad position, and need great
care. For, we grieve not over the
overthrow of earthly buildings, but
over the downfall of churches ; nor
do we behold bodily slavery, but
the slavery of souls daily effected
by those who are battling for
heresy. So that unless you be
moved to aid us at once, you will
not, in a short time, find any one
to stretch out your hand to, as all
will have passed under the sway
of heresy." T. iii. Ep. Ixx. Ad
Damas.p. 164.
42. " One of those that cause us
the greatest trouble is Eustathius, of
Sebaste . . . who having been de-
prived of his bishopric, for the same
cause that he had been previously
deposed at Militina (for Arianism),
devised, as a way of being restored,
a journey unto you. And what it
was that was proposed to him by
the most blessed Bishop Liberius
(of Rome), and what it was that he
assented to, we know not, except
that he brought back a letter that
restored him, which when he had
shown to the synod of Tyana, he
recovered his see. Since, then, from
you has arisen his power to injure
the Churches, and he has used the
confidence given him by you to the
subversion of many, from you must
come also the correction, and must
be communicated to the Churches
by letter, on what account he was
received, and how that since he
has now changed, he has destroyed
the effect of the favour thus granted
to him by the Fathers." T. iii.
Ep. cclxiii. Occident, p. 587-8.
COMMENT.
This great Oriental Prelate and Doc-
tor regarded St. Peter as the Apostle
"who was preferred before all the dis-
ciples ;" to whom were "intrusted the
keys of the Kingdom of heaven ;" and
who, on "account of the pre-eminence
of his faith received upon himself the
building of the Church." To the Suc-
cessor of this Apostle in his Cathedra,
does S. Basil appeal for assistance for
the rescue of the Church of Csesarea and
the brethren from the slavery of heresy.
In his letter to Pope Damasus he
says, "We have looked forward to the
visit of your kindliness." This word
" visit " he expressed by iviffxi-^iv, which
signifies supervision by a "ruler" or
"general," or by one who has authority
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
to "visit." That this is the evident
meaning of "visit" is clear from what
S. Basil further adds, viz. that S. Diony-
sius "visited by his letters our Church
of Csesarea." S. Basil recognised the
authority of the Pope, as visitor of his
diocese of Caesarea, and consequently
he believed that his jurisdiction ex-
tended to the easternmost part of the
world, i.e. that his jurisdiction was
universal.
Acknowledging, then, as he does, the
Papal supremacy, S. Basil first appeals
to Pope S. Damasus, for " help" in the
straits he and the Oriental Church were
in; and "to send persons who agree
with us in sentiment," i.e. who are
orthodox, "who may reconcile those
who are at variance;" and "restore
to mutual love the Churches of God."
In a word, he asked the Pope to send
legates to restore peace to the afflicted
Churches. S. Basil apologises, as it
seems, for thus troubling the Pope,
for he says, "We ask nothing new ; but
a thing usual with the other blessed and
God-loving men of old, and especially
with you;" that is, that Bishops seek
the aid of other Bishops under great
emergencies, but especially of that Bi-
shop who holds the first place, and who
has authority to "visit" either in per-
son, or by his legates, or by his letters.
And now follows a very remarkable
piece of evidence which throws much
light on the ante-Nicene doctrine of
Papal supremacy. It seems that when
heresy enslaved the Church of Csesarea
in the time of S. Basil's predecessors, S.
Dionysius of Rome ' ' visited by his let-
ters our Church of Csesarea, and com-
forted by turns our fathers, and sent
persons to redeem our brethren from
slavery." Hence we see the action of
the Church of Rome in the ante-Ni-
cene age, in a Church situated in the
far east, which was aided by the Roman
Pontiff.
But S. Basil gives us a very import-
ant statement, which shows that the
Pope's authority, even before his time,
was regarded as superior even to a council.
Eustathius of Sebaste had been deposed
for heresy, and he appealed to the Pope,
and was restored by his authority ; S.
Basil says, "What it was that was pro-
posed to him by the most blessed Bishop
Liberius, and what it was that he as-
sented to, we know not, except that he
brought back a letter that restored him,
which when he had shown to the synod
of Tyana, he recovered his See." This
Bishop seems to have imposed on the
Pope, and that injury was done in conse-
quence of his restitution, is clear from S.
Basil, who adds, " Since from you has
arisen the power to injure the Churches,
. . . from you must come also the cor-
rection. "
It is impossible not to perceive
that S. Basil regarded the Pope as
Supreme Bishop ; as one who possessed
the prerogative of visitation of the whole
Church, and whose authority extended
even so far as to supersede the decision
of a Synod with respect to the con-
duct of Bishops. Had he no such power,
S. Basil would not have been content
with a mere complaint of its misuse in
a particular instance ; he would have
loudly protested, as in duty bound,
against the arrogancy of the Pope in
assuming a right which did not canoni-
cally belong to him ; and doubtless, too,
the synod of Tyana would not have sub-
mitted to be over-ruled in a judgment
at which they had probably arrived
after much care and consideration.
152
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
S. AMBROSE.
(A.D. 385.)
43. " He called the Bishop to him,
and not accounting any grace true
which was not of the true faith,
he inquired of him whether he
agreed (or, assembled) with the
Catholic Bishops, that is, with the
Roman Church (percontatusque ex
eo est utrumnam cum episcopis ca-
tholicis, hoc est, cum Romano, Ec-
clesia conveniref)" T. ii. /. i. De
Excessu Fratris, n. 47, p. 1126.
44. " Thou, O Lord, didst say to
Peter, when he excused himself
from Thy washing his feet, If I
wash thee not, &c., what fellowship,
then, can these men (Novatians)
have with Thee : men who received
not the keys of the Kingdom, and
who deny that they ought to for-
give sins ? Which is, indeed, rightly
acknowledged on their part ; for
they have not Peter's inheritance
who have not Peter's Chair (non
habent Petri hereditatem, qui Petri
sedem non habent)" Ib. De Pcenit.
1. i. c. vii. n. 32, 33, p. 399.
45. "Yet was your clemency (the
Emperor) to be petitioned, not to
suffer the Head of the Roman
world the Roman Church to be
thrown into confusion ; for thence
flow unto all the rights of vener-
able communion." Ib. Ep. xi. Con-
di. Aquil. Impp. Gratian. Valen-
tin, et Theodos. n. . 811.
COMMENT.
The evidence taken from S. Am-
brose's works, touching the Supremacy,
is extremely valuable, and is of itself
sufficient to prove the whole question
under discussion.
1. He first lays down the fundamen-
tal principle that no "grace " is " true,"
that is, no "grace "is really genuine,
unless it be of the "true Faith." By
"the true Faith" he means, of course,
the Catholic Faith. According to S.
Ambrose, no heretic, no schismatic, no
person not in communion with the
Catholic Church, no matter how good
and virtuous he may be, can possibly
possess any genuine " grace, " i. e. that
grace which is the peculiar offspring of
the Holy Ghost through the Catholic
Church.
2. This principle being laid down,
S. Ambrose next shows how the ortho-
doxy of a Bishop may be tested. He
says, "he called the (heretical) Bishop to
him, and asked him ' whether he agreed
or assembled with 'or rather whether
he communicated with the Catholic
Bishops," for unless he was in their
communion, he could not claim to be
an orthodox or Catholic Bishop. But
it was further necessary that it should be
clearly understood what was meant by
the term "Catholic Bishops." We know
how in these days some Bishops of the
Reformed Church, and all the Bishops of
the East, assert that they are Bishops of
the Catholic and Apostolic Church : it is
therefore essential we should compre-
hend what is understood by "Catholic
Bishops." S. Ambrose explains this un-
equivocally by adding the qualifying
words, ' ' the Roman Church. " To be a
"Catholic Bishop," then, he must of
necessity be in communion with " the
Roman Church," otherwise he is no
Catholic Bishop at all, but a heretic
and a schismatic. The Roman Catholic
Church is, according to this great
Father, the alone Catholic Church,
being composed of the local Roman
Church, and all the Churches through-
out the world in communion with her.
3. That this is the doctrine of S.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
153
Ambrose is clear from two or three
of his statements. Alluding to the
Novatian schismatics, he asks, " What
fellowship, then, can these men," and
we may add all schismatics and here-
tics, ' ' have with Thee ; men who re-
ceive not the keys of the Kingdom?"
They have no fellowship with Christ,
that is, no sacramental communion with
Him; for they have "not the keys of
the Kingdom." Without the keys there
can be no entrance, and if there can be
no entrance into the Kingdom of heaven,
there can be no salvation ; therefore
heretics and schismatics cannot be
saved, that is to say, through the minis-
tration of the Church ; for not believing
in the covenant of grace they cannot be
saved by those means which Christ has
provided, and according to the terms
of the covenant He has prescribed. But
how is it that schismatic Bishops have
not the keys ? Because they have no
jurisdiction, and S. Ambrose gives the
reason, ' ' for they have not Peter's in-
heritance who have not Peter's See :"
that is, they do not inherit the juris-
diction of S. Peter, unless they are
attached to, or rather in communion
with, the See of Peter ; that is the Roman
Church, as this Father has above in-
ferred, when he described "the Catho-
lic Bishops " as synonymous with " the
Roman Church." The jurisdiction of
the keys, the power of opening and
shutting heaven, the right of entrance
into the Kingdom of heaven, ceases to any
Bishop or Priest who is cut off from the
communion of the See of Peter, and
consequently all confessions and abso-
lutions pronounced by confessors, out of
the Roman Catholic pale, are invalid :
and further, that salvation cannot be
obtained by persons out of the Roman
Catholic Church, except by a special
act of God's mercy, who alone knows
the hearts of men. But what hope
can any man have if he knows the
truth and remains out of the commu-
nion of the alone Catholic Church ? that
is, the Roman Church, which is the See
of Peter; "for they have not Peter's
inheritance who have not Peter's See : "
or, in other words, who are not in com-
munion with the Chair or See of the
Roman Church.
4. That this is the indisputable doc-
trine of S. Ambrose is rendered much
more evident in his epistle, which ob-
tained the sanction of the council of
Aquileia, to the Emperor ; he tells
them "not to suffer the Head of the
Roman world the Roman Church
to be thrown into confusion." Three
points are here mentioned, " the
Head," "the Roman World," "the
Roman Church." The " Roman
Church " is identical with " the Roman
World," i.e. the Roman Empire, and
that empire comprising within its limits
the whole civilised world. Over the
Roman Church was, according to S.
Ambrose, a Head, that is, of course,
the Pope, who occupied the See of
Peter : to him were subject the four
Patriarchs, who governed the eastern
portion of the empire : to him were
subject every Archbishop, Primate, and
Metropolitan of the western part; in a
word, the Sovereign Pontiff was the
Head of every Bishop in the Empire,
that is, of every Bishop of the Universal
Church. Here we have an unmistak-
able assertion by S. Ambrose that the
Pope was the Head Bishop of the World,
the presiding Bishop, to persecute whom
was ' ' to throw the whole Roman world,
the Roman Church into confusion."
But why should the persecution of the
Bishop of Rome have this effect ? If
he was only the first Bishop, if he held
the primacy of honour and rank merely,
if he was nothing more than a Primus
inter pares (first among his equals), how
could any calamity befalling him in-
dividually, or his Chair particularly,
throw the " Roman World the Roman
Church into confusion?" for if all
Bishops were equal, and all had their juris-
diction direct from Christ, it would not
have signified, ecclesiastically and canon -
ically speaking, whether the Bishop of
Rome were deposed, and his Chair or See
abolished ? S. Ambrose, however, gives
154
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
the reason why this would throw "the
Roman world the Roman Church,"
(that is, the whole Catholic Church)
" into confusion ;" and it is this, "for
thence flow unto all the rights of vener-
able communion." From this it is
manifest that by the term Head, S.
Ambrose means a Sovereign Pontiff
over the whole Church, one who is
the source of all ecclesiastical authority
and jurisdiction, one from whom the
right of communion proceeds. So much
so that whenever the Pope is perse-
cuted, or made captive, the whole Church
is thrown into confusion ; the regular
course of jurisdiction becomes inter-
rupted, and canonical communion liable
to be suspended.
The witness of this great Father
and Doctor is plain (i), That no grace
is genuine unless it be of the true
faith ; (2) That orthodoxy consists of
communion with the Catholic Bishops ;
(3) That by Catholic Bishops is meant
Bishops in communion with the Roman
Church ; (4) That schismatics have not
the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, be-
cause they have no inheritance from the
apostle S. Peter, on account of their not
being in union with the See of Peter ;
and, finally, this Father informs us that
the Head of the Roman Church, is the
Source of communion to all, that is, that
to be in Catholic communion we
must be united to this Head. Here we
perceive how his doctrine is the same as
that of S. Cyprian, S. Optatus, S.Irenaeus,
and S. Ignatius. The stream of the
apostolic tradition touching the Supre-
macy of the Holy See, which originated
in the words of our Lord to S. Peter,
and testified first by the Apostolic
Father S. Ignatius, flows on, receiving
more and more consistency till the
whole world will, in time, receive the
truth, viz. that the Catholic and Apo-
stolic Church is that Church, and that
Church alone, which adheres to the
Chair of the apostolic Roman See, the
Mother and Mistress of all Churches.
S. JEROME.
A.D. 385.
46. "... Therefore have I
thought that I ought to consult the
Chair of Peter, and the faith that
was commended by the mouth of
the Apostle, seeking now the food
of my soul from that place where,
in other days, I received the robe
of Christ. . . . Wherefore, although
your greatness deters me, yet does
your mildness invite me. From a
priest a victim asks safety; from
a shepherd a sheep asks protection.
Envy avaunt ; away with the pride
of the topmost dignity of Rome :
I speak with the Fisherman's (Pe-
ter's) Successor, and the disciple
of the cross. Following no chief but
Christ, I am joined in communion
with your Holiness, that is, with
the Chair of Peter. Upon that
Rock I know that the Church is
built. Whosoever eats the Lamb
out of this house is profane. If any
be not in the ark of Noah, he will
perish whilst the deluge prevaileth.
And as, for my sins, I have wan-
dered to that desert, which bounds
Syria, and I cannot at all times,
with such a distance between us,
ask for the holy of the Lord at the
hands of your Holiness; therefore,
do I here follow your colleagues,
the Egyptian confessors, as my
little skiff lies concealed behind
those deeply laden vessels. I know
not Vitalis ; I repudiate Meletius ;
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
155
I am a stranger to Paulinus.
Whosoever gathereth not with thee,
scatter eth^ that is, whosoever is not
of Christ, is of Antichrist. {Faces-
sat invidia. . . . Romani culminis
recedat ambitio, cum s^iccessore pis-
catoris. . . . loquor. Ego nullum
primum, nisi Christum sequens,
Beatitudini tuce, id est Cathedrce
Petri, communione consoctor. Su-
pra illam petram cedijicatam eccle-
siam scio. Quicumqite extra hanc
domum agnum comederit, profa-
nus est. Si quis in area Noe non
fuerit, peribit regnante diluvio. . . .
Quiciimque tecum non colligit,
spargitj hoc est, qui Christi non
est, Antichristi est."} T. iv. Ep.
xiv. AdDamas. Papam, Col. 19, 20.
47. " The Church here is rent
into three parts, each of which is
eager to drag me to itself. . . .
Meanwhile I cry aloud, If any one
is united to the Chair of Peter, he
is mine (ego interim clamito, si
quis Cathedrce Petri jungitur, meus
est.} Meletius, Vitalis, and Pau-
linus, all assert that they adhere to
thee : I might assent, if only one of
them declared this : as it is, either
two, or all of them, are liars.
Wherefore, I beseech your Holi-
ness, by the cross of the Lord
that, as you follow the Apostles
in honour, you may follow them
in merit, you would, by your let-
ter, make known to me with whom
I ought to hold communion in
Syria. (Ut mihi, litteris tuis,
quern in Syria debcam communi-
care, significes."} Ib. Ep. xvi. col.
22, 23.
48. " For your admonition con-
cerning the canons of the Church,we
return you thanks ; but meanwhile,
know that we have had no earlier
custom (as nothing is dearer to
us) than to guard the rights of the
Christ, and not to move the land-
marks of the fathers, and ever to
bear in mind the Roman Faith,
commended by the mouth of an
Apostle, and of which faith the
Church of Alexandria boasts that
it is a partaker." Ib. Ep. Ivii. ad
Theoph. col. 597.
49. " And because I am afraid
you have by report learnt, that
in certain places the venomous
plants even yet live and put forth
shoots, I think, in the pious affec-
tion of my love, that I ought to
give you this warning, that you
hold fast the faith of holy Inno-
cent, who is both the Successor and
the son of the aforesaid named man
(Anastasius), and of the Apostolic
Chair. (Illudtepio charitatis affectu
prcemonendam puto, ut sancti Inno-
centii, qui Apostolicce Cathedrce, et
supradicti viri successor et Jilius
est, teneas fidem;} nor, however
wise and shrewd you may seem to
yourself, receive any strange doc-
trine." Ib. Ep, xcvii. Ad. De-
metri. n. 16, col. 793.
COMMENT.
There are some very weighty asser-
tions made by this great Doctor of the
Church upon the Roman Supremacy.
S. Jerome, it will be remembered, re-
specting S. Peter and the Twelve, said,
" that the strength of the Church was
settled equally upon the Twelve, yet it
was the will of the Lord that one should
be chosen the Head, in order that the
occasion of schism might be re-
moved." He now addresses himself to
the Successor of S. Peter the Head
at Rome, whom lie recognises as holding
in the Church a similar position. "I
speak unto the Successor of the Fisher-
man (Peter) and the disciple of the
cross. Following no chief but Christ,
I am joined in communion with your
156
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
Holiness (the Pope), that is, with the
Chair of Peter. Upon this Rock (Pe-
ter) I know that the Church is built.
Whosoever eats the Lamb (/. e. the
Eucharist) out of this house (i. e. the
Church in union with the Chair of
Peter) is profane." Here we observe
again how the Cathedra of Peter at
Rome is the source of communion, so
that all who are not united with that
Chair are not of the Catholic Church.
This is clearly what S. Jerome means,
for he says, " If any be not in the ark
of Noah (i. e. the Church in union with
the Chair of Peter), he will perish
when the deluge prevaileth ; and as
for my sins, I have wandered to the
desert which bounds Syria, and I can-
not at all times, with such a distance
between us, ask for the help of the
Lord at the hands of your Holiness ;
therefore," he concludes, "do I now
follow your colleagues, the Egyptian
confessors, and my little skiff lies con-
cealed behind those deeply laden ves-
sels." S. Jerome, with many others,
was harassed by the many heresies and
schisms that prevailed, and he looks to
Rome for solution and guidance. " I
know not Vitalis," says he, emphat-
ically ; "I repudiate Meletius : I am
a stranger to Paulinus : whosoever ga-
thereth not with thee, scattereth ; that
is, whosoever is not of Christ, is Anti-
christ." It is unquestionable that S.
Jerome regarded the Pope as the one
Head of the Church, whom he felt he
was bound to obey and follow, because
he was the Successor of the Fisher-
man, and sat in the "Cathedra of
Peter." This view of S. Jerome is
conf rmed in another of his Epistles.
" The Church here is rent into three
parts, each of which is eager to drag
me to itself. . . . Meanwhile I cry aloud,
If any one is united to the Chair of Peter,
he is mine. Meletius, Vitalis, and Pau-
linus, all assert that they adhere to
thee (the Pope) : I might assent, if only
one of them declared this : as it is, either
two, or all of them, are liars. Where-
fore I beseech your Holiness . . . you
would, by your letter, make known to
me with whom I ought to hold com-
munion in Syria." Again, we perceive
how the Cathedra of Peter is the one
beacon of the universal Church, the
guide of all Shepherds, to whom they
look for illumination, direction, and as-
sistance, under all emergencies.
S. Jerome then, like S. Optatus and
S. Ambrose, holds (i), That the Ca-
thedra of Peter at Rome is the govern-
ing and ruling Church ; (2), That the
Church is that body which is in com-
munion with that Chair ; (3), That he
who eats the Lamb (/'. e. the Eucharist)
out of that house (/. e. the Church in
union with that Chair) is profane ; and
(4), That in all doubts and diffi-
culties, reference is to be made to the
Apostolic See for their settlement.
Such is the teaching of this most illus-
trious Doctor of the Church.
S. CHRYSOSTOM.
A.D. 387.
50. " Christ, speaking to the possession of those very sheep,
Leader of the Apostles, says, Peter,
lovest thou Me? and upon his
affirming that he did, he replies,
If thou lovest Me, feed My Sheep.
. . . Why did Christ shed His
Blood? That He might obtain
which he entrusted to Peter, and
to his Successors (J (rat, Tr
ra nTA> xati ro7g UIT txtivov
g/v.)" T- i- l > De Sacerd. n. i.
P- 371-
51. "And, as I have named Peter,
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
157
I am reminded of another Peter
(Flavian, Bishop of Antioch), our
common father and teacher, who
has both inherited Peter's virtue
and his Chair (at Antioch). Yet
this is one privilege of this our city
(Antioch) that it hap! at first, as
teacher, the Leader of the Apostles.
For, it was befitting that this city
which, before the rest of the world,
was crowned with the Christian
name, should receive as Shepherd
the First of the Apostles. But after
having had him as our Teacher, we
did not retain him, but surrendered
him to regal Rome. T. iii. Horn. ii.
In Inscr. Act. n. 6, p. 70.
52. " Now that you have become
acquainted with all these things, my
honoured and religious Lords, dis-
play that vigour and zeal which
becomes you, so as to repress so
great a wickedness which has in-
vaded the Churches . . . Vouchsafe to
write back how that which has been
wickedly done by one party, whilst
I was absent, and did not decline
a trial, has no force, as indeed it
has not of its own nature; and that
they who have been proved to have
acted thus against all law, be sub-
jected to the laws of the Church ;
and allow us to enjoy uninter-
ruptedly your letters, and love, and
all the rest, as we formerly did.
. . . Having stated all the above
matters, and you having learnt
everything more clearly from the
religious Lords, my fellow Bishops,
bring to this matter for me, I be-
seech you, that zeal which is re-
quired at your hands." T. iii. Ep. i.
ad Innocent, n. 4, p. 520.
COMMENT.
Of all the Fathers and Doctors, per-
haps this great Prelate is the most
explicit on the subject of S. Peter's po-
sition in the Church. He regards him
as "the First," "the Head," "the
Leader," and " the Teacher," not of
any particular place, but " of the whole
world." He describes him as the "un-
shaken Rock," and the "sure Founda-
tion" of the Church, to whom was
committed ' ' the charge of the sheep
and lambs of the flock. "
S. Chrysostom informs us that not
only were the sheep entrusted to S.
Peter, but they were "entrusted to
Peter and his Successors " that is, to
the Successors to his Chair of Teaching.
At first he established his see at An-
tioch, and then, to use the language of
S. Chrysostom, "We," (i.e. the Church
of Antioch), "did not retain him, but
surrendered him to regal Rome :" that
is, when S. Peter translated his Chair to
Rome, the capital of the world : for it
was meet that the Chief of the Apostles
should rule the Church in the chief city
of the world.
S. Chrysostom, when Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, gave effect to his belief in
the supreme authority of the Roman
Church ; for, in the midst of his diffi-
culties and persecutions, in which he
was plunged by the violence of the
Patriarch of Alexandria and others, he
had recourse to the Pope and Church
of Rome. He called upon the Church
to "display that vigour and zeal" for
which it was celebrated, for the purpose
of repressing " so great a wickedness
which was revealed to Christians." He
implores the Pope to write to the effect
" that what has been wickedly done by
one party," in his absence, and when
asking to be tried, " has no force ;"
and that they who have acted illegally
may "be subjected to the laws of the
Church." It is impossible to have a
clearer recognition of the Prerogatives
of the Roman Church, as the Chief of
all Churches, than what is contained in
this memorable epistle to the Sovereign
Pontiff, and his episcopal counsellors.
S. Chrysostom witnesses to the fact
that the sheep were committed first to
I 5 8
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
S. Peter, and after him to his Suc-
cessors ; and secondly, that S. Peter
translated his Cathedra to Rome, and
that the Roman Pontiff had jurisdiction
over all Bishops, for he himself, one of
the greatest and most dignified of the
Episcopate, sought his intervention,
when in difficulties and suffering from
injustice and hardship.
S.AUGUSTINE.
A. D. 400.
53. " The Christian religion is to
be held by us, and the communion
of that Church, which is Catholic,
and is called Catholic, not only by
its own members, but also by all
its adversaries ; for in spite of them-
selves, even the very heretics, and
disciples of schism, when speak-
ing not with their fellows, but with
strangers, call the Catholic Church
nothing elsebutthe Catholic Church.
For they cannot be understood, un-
less they distinguish her by that
name by which she is designated
by the whole world." T. i. De
Vera Relig. n. 12, col. 561.
54. " That city (Carthage) had a
Bishop of no slight authority, who
was able not to heed the multitude
of enemies conspiring against him,
when he saw himself united by
letters of communion, both with the
Roman Church, in which the Prince-
dom of the Apostolic Chair has
always been in force (Romance Ec-
clesice, in qua semper apostolicce
cathedrce viguit principatus\ and
with other lands, whence the Gospel
came into Africa itself, where he
might be ready to plead his own
cause, if his adversaries should
attempt to alienate those Churches
from him." T. ii. Ep. xliii. Gloria
et aliis Donat. n. 7, col. 69.
55. " For if the order of Bishops
succeeding to each other is to tye
considered, how much more se-
curely, and really beneficially, do
we reckon from Peter himself, to
whom, bearing a figure of the
Church, the Lord says, Upon this
Rock I will build My Church, &C.
For to Peter succeeded Linus ; to
Linus Clement, &c. ; to Damasus
Siricius ; to Siricius Anastasius."
T. ii. Ep. liii. Generoso, n. i, 2,
col. 90, 91.
56. " In the Catholic Church . . .
the agreement of peoples and of
nations keeps me ; an authority
begun with miracles, nourished
with hope, increased with charity,
strengthened by antiquity, keeps
me ; the succession of priests
(Bishops) from the Chair itself of
Peter, unto whom the Lord, after
His resurrection, committed His
sheep to be fed, down even to the
present Bishop, keeps me ; finally,
the name itself of the Catholic
Church keeps me a name which, in
the midst of so many heresies, this
Church alone has, not without
cause, so held possession of (or
obtained), as that though all heretics
would fain have themselves called
Catholics, yet, on the inquiry of
any stranger, ' Where is the meeting
of the Catholic Church held?' no
heretic would dare to point out his
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
159
own basilica or house." T. viii.
Contr. Ep. Manich. Fundam, n. 5,
col. 1 10.
57. "Who is ignorant that the
Princedom of the Apostolate, is to
be preferred before every Episco-
pate ?" T. ix. DC Bapt. contra
Donat. I. ii. n. 2, col. 65, Ant-
verp. 1700.
58. " The Eastern heresy endea-
voured to unite itself with that of
Africa. This is the more evident,
because no Eastern Catholic ever
communicated by letters with the
Bishop of Carthage, except through
the Bishop of Rome (quod ad Car-
thaginis episcopum Romano prce-
tcrmisso, nnnquam Orientalis Ca-
tholica scriberety Cont. Crescon.
Donat. L iii. n. 38.
59. " Your letters reached me when
I was at Cassarea, whither I had
been brought by an ecclesiastical
necessity laid upon us by the ve-
nerable Pope Zosimus, the Bishop
of the Apostolic See." Ep. cxc. ad
Op fat. n. i.
COMMENT.
It is impossible to doubt that S.
Augustine held the doctrine of the Su-
premacy of the Holy See.
i. In the extract first given from his
works, it is evident that he regarded the
Catholic Church as something very
different from other bodies which have
dissented or seceded from the Church ;
and he notices the very significant
fact, that external religious communities
never call themselves or each other by
the Catholic name, nor do they ordi-
narily describe the Catholic Church by
any other than the name of " Catholic."
" For in spite of themselves," he says,
" even the very heretics and disciples
of schism, when speaking not with their
fellows, but with strangers, call the
Catholic Church nothing else but the
Catholic Church."
It is certainly to be noted that this
remark of S. Augustine is equally ap-
plicable to the present day. Neither
the Church of England, by her Bishops
and Clergy, nor any Protestant sect by
its ministers, ever (as a rule) style the
Roman communion otherwise than as
"the Catholic Church." If a stranger in
a town inquire where is " the Catholic
Church," he is certain to be directed, not
to "the Parish Church," but to "the
Catholic Chapel."
The Church of England has never
claimed the name "Catholic" exclu-
sively for herself, and she does not, as
a rule, describe her children as " Ca-
tholics," but almost universally as
' ' Churchmen. " The Episcopal Church
in Scotland has formally adopted the
style of the " Protestant Episcopal
Church of Scotland ;" and similarly the
Anglican communion in the United
States.
The Oriental Churches are not known
under any other name than as the
"Orthodox Greek Church," and the
vast number of sects, Episcopal or
otherwise, are distinguishable by the
name of Armenian, Greek, Coptic,
or Nestorian ; and non-episcopal com-
munities by the names of their founders,
Luther, Calvin, Wesley, &c. The
Holy Roman Church alone enjoys, by
universal consent, the exclusive use of
the name " Catholic ;" for when men
speak of her they, as a general rule,
simply call her "the Catholic Church"
a name or style they never give to
any other religious community without
a qualifying prefix, such as Anglican or
English, Orthodox or Greek. As a
matter of fact, then, the only Church in
the world which by universal custom is
denominated " the Catholic Church"
is that Church which, throughout the
world, is in communion with the Chair
of S. Peter at Rome.
2. Now the question is, what did S.
Augustine understand by "the Catho-
lic Church?" The evidence adduced
i6o
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
will show what he meant by the
term.
The most striking passage in reference
to this subject is that wherein he gives
his reasons for continuing a Catholic.
These may be thus summarised, (i)
unity and universality; (2) antiquity;
(3) the Chair of Peter ; and (4) the
Catholic name.
We have already commented on what
he has said respecting the ' ' Catholic
name." Let us ascertain what he un-
derstands by the " Chair of Peter," and
that will determine what he means by
the term "Catholic Church." What,
then, does he mean by "the Chair of
Peter?" Does he suppose, as some
have done, the existence of separate
Chairs in every See i. e. as distinct and
independent of the one Chair of the
Roman Church ? Does he believe that
all Bishops, whether in communion
with the See of Rome or not, are
equally Successors of S. Peter, and that,
consequently, all Clergy and Laity ad-
hering to them, are necessarily in com-
munion with the Catholic Church ?
That is to say, if S. Augustine were
now living would he regard Orthodox
Greeks and Anglicans as Catholics ?
No doubt all Bishops are in a sense the
Successors of S. Peter, inasmuch as
whatever priestly powers they possess
by valid ordination, were derived ori-
ginally from him, on whom our Lord
" first and alone" established His
' Church ; but this is not his meaning in
this passage. The Chair he alludes to
is not by any means an ideal Chair, but
a real one, for he says, "The Chair
itself of Peter," i.e. not any episcopal
Chair, but one particular Chair, which
is located somewhere, and which is the
depository of certain tremendous powers,
by which the Church is cemented in an
indivisible unity, and by which it is
known and identified. Two questions
arise (i) What are the prerogatives of
the " Chair of Peter?" and (2) Where
is the place in which it stands ? S. Au-
gustine, as was seen under the " First In-
quiry," believed that S. Peter was in "the
order of the Apostles First ;" that " he
bore the figure of the Church ;" that he
" represented the whole Church ;" that
he "sustained the Person of the Church ;"
that he "received the whole world."
Hence, according to this Father, he
held the " Primacy of the Apostleship, "
and " the Princedom of the Aposto-
late," to whom the Lord committed the
feeding of the Sheep. In the Chair,
then of S. Peter, were vested all the
rights, prerogatives, and royalties of the
Chief of the Apostles. It was to the
existence of this Chair that S. Augus-
tine pointed, as a reason for his con-
tinuing in the Catholic Church. Where,
then, (2) was that Chair located ? His
answer is, in the Roman Church, for he
says, * ' The Succession of priests (Bishops)
from the Chair itself of Peter, unto
whom the Lord committed His sheep
to be fed, down to the present Bishop,
keeps me." And again, ' ' For if the order
of Bishops succeeding to each other is
to be considered, how much more
securely and really beneficially do we
reckon from Peter himself, to whom,
being a figure of the Church, the Lord
says, Upon this Church I will build My
Church, &c. ; " and then he adds the
Roman line of Bishops as his Successors,
" For to Peter succeeded Linus ; to
Linus Clement, &c. ; to Damasus Si-
ricius ; to Siricius Anastasius," the pre-
siding Bishop of his day. The Chair of
S. Peter, to which S. Augustine points
as an essential mark or note of the
Catholic Church, by which it is known,
is acknowledged by him to be in the
Roman Church : in a word, the Ca-
thedra of Rome is the Cathedra of
Peter, and hence, according to this
Great Father and Doctor, the See of
Rome is the visible symbol of unity in
the Catholic Church, by which the
Catholic Church is known, and com-
munion with which alone gives one a
title to the name of Catholic. Hence
then the expression -of S. Augustine,
"the Succession of Priests (Bishops)
from the Chair of Peter itself ....
down to the present Bishop" (that is
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
161
the Bishop of Rome of the day) ' ' keeps
me," i.e. I am a Catholic because I
am a Roman Catholic. And this doc-
trine of S. Augustine is rendered still
more clear from the following : " That
city (Carthage) had a Bishop of no
slight authority, who was able not to
heed the multitude of enemies con-
spiring against him, when he saw him-
self united by letters of communion
with the Roman Church, in which the
Princedom of the Apostolic Chair has
always been in force, and with other
lands," &c. It is manifest that Ceci-
lian's independence of his enemies was,
according to S. Augustine, in conse-
quence of his being in communion prin-
cipally with the Roman Church, which
possessed "the Princedom of the Apo-
stolic Chair," and which " Princedom"
had"always beeninforce :" and secondly,
with the Church throughout the world
in communion with Rome. What,
then, made Cecilian's position so strong,
was his union with the Apostolic See,
in which were vested all the prero-
gatives of the Apostle S. Peter. By
the term "Catholic Church," then, S.
Augustine understood not any episcopal
Church like that of the East, or of Eng-
land, but that one great community
which is one and universal, and which
is in visible communion "with the Chair
itself of Peter," and which is established
in one city alone, viz. the city of Rome.
That S. Augustine really believed
in the superior authority of the Roman
Chair is evident from his acceptance of
a commission from the Pope which
the Pope had no right to appoint, and
S. Augustine to accept, except on the
hypothesis of this superiority to visit
on his behalf the Church of Csesarea in
Mauritania, then distracted with the
Donatist sect, which the local Catholic
Bishop could not subdue, for the pur-
pose of delivering it from heresy and
schism, and of restoring peace. In his
letter to S. Optatus, he says, he was
"brought there by an ecclesiastical ne-
cessity, laid upon (him) by the venerable
Pope Zosimus, the Bishop of the Apo-
stolic See."
Such, then, is the evidence of this
great Father and Doctor of the
Church, who held that the Roman
Catholic Church throughout the world
was the alone Catholic Church, to the
exclusion of all other religious Commu-
nities, and this because he believed (i)
That in the Chair of S. Peter was vested
" the Princedom of the Apostleship ;"
(2) That this Chair is located in Rome,
and that the Bishops of the Apostolic
See are in their time his representatives,
succeeding to all his royalties and pre-
rogatives ; (3) That "the Princedom
of the Apostolic Chair has always," i. e.
from the very beginning, "been in
force" in that Church an expression
indicative of superiority of jurisdiction,
authority, and power : and (4) That in
consequence of this " Princedom of the
Apostleship" vested in the Apostolic
See the Church of Rome is neces-
sarily the Head of the whole Church,
union with which is essential to the
lawful use of the "Catholic" name,
and to all the privileges of Catholic
communion.
S. PAULINUS.
A.D. 418.
60. " I appeal to the justice of your
Holiness, my Lord Zosimus, vener-
able Pope. The true faith is never
troubled, and this especially in
the Apostolic Church, wherein the
teachers of a corrupt faith are as
easily detected as they are truly
punished .... that they may
have in them that true faith which
the Apostles taught, and which is
held by the Roman Church, and by
all the teachers of the Catholic
faith." Libell. adv. Ccelest. Zozimo
oblatus, n. i, Galland. t. ix./. 32.
M
1 62
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
COMMENT.
S. Paulinus, a deacon of Milan a
city out of the Patriarchate proper of
Rome bears witness to the pre-emi-
nence of the Roman Church, for he dis-
tinguishes it from all other Churches :
which would be unintelligible, if it was
nothing more than a branch of the Cath-
olic Church. As S. Paul, in his allusion
to the Apostles, separates S. Peter's
name from them as one at least pre-
eminent, so does S. Paulinus in like man-
ner with respect to the Catholic Church,
naming the Roman Church first, and
secondly, " the teachers of the Catholic
faith."
BACCHIARIUS.
A.D. 420.
61. " If, for one man's fault,
the population of a whole province
is to be anathematised, then will
be condemned also that most
blessed disciple (of Peter), Rome to
wit, out of which there have sprung
up not one, but two or three, or
even more heresies, and yet not one
of them has been able either to
have possession, or to move the
Chair of Peter, that is, the Seat of
Faith .... Seeing that the
institutes of the Apostolic doctrine
exhort us, to produce to all that ask
us the reason of the faith and hope
that is in MS, we will not delay to place
the rule of our faith before your Ho-
liness, who are the builder of that
edifice" (qui artifex es ipsius csdi-
ficii.} De Fide, n. 2, Galland, T. ix.
pp. 183,4.
COMMENT.
This learned monk of the fifth cen-
tury believed most firmly in the Ro-
man Supremacy. According to him,
the Roman Church contains the "Chair
of Peter ; " and although many heresies
have arisen, and the population of a
whole province have in consequence
been anathematised, yet not one of these
heresies has "been able either to have
possession or to move the Chair of
Peter, that is, the seat of the Faith."
This is strong evidence of the indefec-
tibility of the Roman Church, that
heresies cannot obtain possession of
it ; and that the Chair of Peter is im-
moveable. Here we are reminded of
the word of our Lord : " Upon this
Rock I will build my Church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it,"
that is, as the Fathers say, that neither
heresies nor vices shall prevail so as to
overthrow that Church which is built
upon Peter, whose visible symbol is his
Chair. But this " Chair of Peter," this
Father affirms, is the "Seat or See of
Faith," that is, that containing as S.
Ignatius, S. Irenaeus, Tertullian and
others say the fulness of apostolical
tradition, being " enlightened in the
will of him, " and being ' ' all-godly,
all-gracious, all-blessed, all-praised, all-
prosperous, all-hallowed, and having
the Presidency in the place of the Ro-
mans, and presiding over the Love,"
it possesses the great privilege of being
the Depository of Faith, and, by conse-
quence, the prerogative of being the
Teacher of the world. That this was
evidently the opinion of this Father, is
clear from what he says respecting the
Pope, whom he declares is ' ' the Builder
of that edifice," that is, the Catholic
Faith.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
163
S. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA.
A.D. 424.
62. " That these things really are
so, let us produce a witness most
worthy of faith, a most holy man,
and Archbishop of all the habitable
world, that Celestine, who is both
Father and Patriarch of the mighty
city of Rome (ag^sWa-xoTrov
, TUtTl^C* Ti KOCt
Klh'sirrivov TOV TV*;
), who himself also exhorted
thee by letters, bidding thee de-
sist from that maddest of blas-
phemies, and thou didst not obey
him." T. v. P. ii. Encom. in 6".
Mariam Deip. p. 384.
COMMENT.
The testimony of this illustrious Fa-
ther, the great defender of the faith in
the fifth century, is most remarkable.
In his letter to Nestorius, he describes
Pope S. Celestine (i) as "Archbishop
of all the habitable world ; " and (2)
as " Father and Patriarch of the mighty
city of Rome." This is the first time
that the several offices of the Bishop of
Rome are formally and accurately de-
scribed: and coming from the great
patriarchal See of Alexandria is very
conclusive evidence of the real position
of the Holy See in the universal Catho-
lic hierarchy. S. Cyril, in this passage,
distinguishes the three grades in the
Roman Church proper : (i) as Father,
or Bishop of the diocese (to use modern
language) of Rome ; (2) as Patriarch,
or Father of Fathers, to its provinces,
which, according to Anglican and Pro-
testant controversialists, consist only of
the Suburbicarian provinces ; and (3 ) as
the Pontifex Maximus, or Chief Pontiff,
or ' ' Archbishop of the whole habitable
world." By this testimony of the Pope's
universal jurisdiction, S. Cyril admitted
his own inferiority, i.e., as to grade,
to the Sovereign Pontiff, and the
duty of submitting himself to his autho-
rity as his Head and Chief. This he
proved indeed when he obeyed the
mandate of the Pope to depose Nes-
torius from his See, in the name and by
the authority of the Holy See, if he did
not recant his wicked error within a
very limited period of grace. But in
order to understand S. Cyril's meaning,
let us carefully examine his language,
and the terms he employs : " Arch-
bishop of the whole habitable world."
The word d^nyria-Kovos, every one will
admit, signifies Chief Bishop, or one
who has the rule or authority over all
Bishops within the province or Patri-
archate subject to him. The code of
the universal Church, especially in the
East, recognises several episcopal grades,
from the diocesan Bishop to the Metro-
politan, the Metropolitan to the Exarch,
or other superior prelate, and these to
the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pro-
visions were made for appeals from the
lower to the higher, and from the higher
to the chief authority; which, in the East,
was the Patriarch of the imperial city of
Constantinople. Now, it is to be ob-
served, that each of these jurisdictions,
even the largest of them, was limited.
The Patriarchate of that great city was
the most extensive in the world (I mean
Patriarchate, strictly and ecclesiasti-
cally so called), for it comprised the
whole of the eastern division of the Em-
pire ; but to that division it was limited.
But, according to S. Cyril, the Roman
Bishop was Archbishop or Chief Bishop,
not of any part of the empire, but of
all the habitable world, i. e. of every
part of the known world, where there
were souls to be saved. While then
the jurisdiction of the Patriarchates was
limited to certain large ecclesiastical
domains, that of the Pope was, according
164
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
to this great Father, conterminous with
the boundaries not only of the Roman
empire, but of all kingdoms, states, and
dominions, in a word, to use his own
phraseology, ' ' the whole habitable
world."
But let us seek for the grounds of
these opinions of S. Cyril. There can
be little doubt, that he believed Pope S.
Celestine to have obtained his universal
jurisdiction from the Apostle S. Peter.
Concerning that Apostle he had taught
that he was named Peter, because upon
him the Church was to be founded.
He also taught that this blessed Apostle
had been "set over" the holy disciples,
as their " Prince," and " Leader : " he
further taught, that S. Peter was the
"Teacher of all those who by faith
should come " unto Christ. With all
other Fathers S. Cyril believed that S.
Peter established his Chair in the city
of Rome ; also that the Bishop of
Rome was his Successor to that Chair,
and, consequently, he held that the Bishop
who occupied that Chair in his day,
S. Celestine was not only the "Father
and Patriarch of the mighty city of
Rome," but also "the Archbishop of
the whole habitable world," to whom
were subject, as Chief Pastor, all Pa-
triarchs, himself included, Exarchs,
Archbishops, Metropolitans and Bi-
shops ; all priests of whatever rank, and
finally every soul who named the name
of Christ.
THEODORET.
A.D. 424.
63. " If Paul, that herald of the
truth, that trumpet of the Holy
Ghost, repaired to the Great Peter
to bring from him an explanation to
those of Antioch, who were disput-
ing concerning questions of the law;
with much greater reason do we,
who are so worthless and lowly,
hasten to your Apostolic Throne, to
receive from you a remedy for the
wounds of the Churches. For it
pertains to you to hold the Primacy
in all things. For your Throne is
adorned with many prerogatives
ot Vf&lV TO
Other
cities indeed, their vastness, their
beauty, the number of their citizens
adorn ; and some, which have not
these recommendations, are illus-
trated by certain spiritual gifts : but
on your city (Rome), the Giver of
good things has bestowed a trea-
sury of good things. For she is
the greatest, and most illustrious of
cities ; she rules the world, and
overflows with a crowd of citizens.
Add to this that she now enjoys a
victorious Supremacy, and has given
her name to subject nations. But
her faith especially adorns her ;
and the divine Paul, a witness
worthy of faith, cries out, that your
faith is spoken of in the whole
world. . . . She contains also within
herself the tombs of our common
fathers and teachers of the truth,
Peter and Paul, tombs which illu-
minate the souls of the faithful.
Their thrice - blessed and divine
twin-star rose indeed in the East, and
diffused its beams on all sides, but
had the setting of its existence, by
choice, in the West, and thence even
now illumines the world. These
have made your Throne most illus-
trious ; this is the culminating
point of your blessings. And their
God has even now made illustrious
their Throne, having established
therein your Holiness emitting the
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
165
rays of orthodoxy. . . . But we,
after having admired your spi-
ritual wisdom, give praise to the
grace of the Holy Spirit which
spoke through you, and we pray
and beseech, and beg and suppli-
cate your Holiness, guard from in-
jury (i7rtx,(tvvoti} the storm -tossed
Churches of God. . . . But I
await the sentence (Trt^ptvu rw
^YiQtv) of your Apostolic Throne,
and I pray and beseech your Holi-
ness to aid me (or guard me from
injury), who appeal to your upright
and just judgment, and to order
me (lirctpvvoti f/tot TO ogdov v
to hasten to you, and
to exhibit my teaching, which fol-
lows in the footsteps of the Apos-
tles. . . . But do not, I pray
you, reject my supplication, nor
despise my miserable grey hairs so
insulted after so many labours. But,
above all things, I beg to learn
from you, whether I must needs ac-
quiesce in this unjust deposition,
or not ; for I await your sentence.
And should you command me to
abide by what has been adjudged,
I will do so, and to no one will I
give further trouble, but will await
the just judgment of our God and
Saviour." T. iv. Ep. cxiii. Leoni
Papa, pp. 1187-1192.
64. "... I, therefore, be-
seech your Holiness to persuade the
most holy and blessed Archbishop
(Leo) to use his Apostolic Power
and to order me to hasten to your
Council. For that most holy Throne
has the Sovereignty over the
Churches throughout the universe
on many grounds (i%u y^ ' Kxva-
ruv Kara, TV* /-
srAA), and for this, above all
others, that it has remained free
from all taint of heresy, and no one
holding sentiments contrary (to the
truth) has sat in it, but it has pre
served the Apostolic grace uncor-
rupted." Ib. Ep. cxvi. Renato
p. II97-
COMMENT.
Theodoret, another Oriental prelate,
is not behindhand in his testimony for
the Supremacy of Rome. Comparing
the city of Rome with other cities, he
says, " Other cities, indeed, their vast-
ness, their beauty, the number of their
citizens adorn; and some which have
not this recommendation, are illustrated
by certain spiritual gifts : but," continues
he, " on your city (of Rome) the Giver
of good has bestowed a treasury of good
things," not merely in stately grandeur
and power, but a "victorious Supre-
macy," that is, not a Supremacy of
physical power, but a Supremacy of
faith, her great glory arising from the
fact, that she contains within her walls,
the "tombs of our common Fathers
and Teachers of the truth, Peter and
Paul, tombs which illuminate the
souls of the faithful." The " twin-star,"
he says, arises in the East, but "had
the setting of its existence, by choice,
in the West," that is, in Rome, "and
thence even now illuminates the world."
Such is the glory of Rome in the esti-
mation of this Father, as Mistress, not
merely of the political world, but of the
world of Faith, that is, the Universal
Church. Hence Theodoret had grounds
for saying, we "hasten to your Apo-
stolic (Roman) Throne, to receive from
you a remedy for the wounds of the
Churches : for it pertains to you," the
Sovereign Pontiff, and Successor of S.
Peter and S. Paul, "to hold the Pri-
macy in all things, for your Throne is
adorned with many prerogatives."
Such was the opinion of this illustrious
Prelate. But as a proof that his words
1 66
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
were not mere expressions of courtesy
meaning nothing, he formally recog-
nised the Papal Supremacy over him-
self, for he, in reference to his own
difficulties, (as he had been unjustly
deposed,) said, "I await the sentence
of your Apostolic Throne, and I pray
your Holiness to aid me, who appeal to
your upright and just judgment, " and he
beseeches him "to summon him," that
he may exhibit his teaching, and prove
to him that he " follows in the footsteps
of the Apostles ; " and should the Pope
confirm the judgment of deposition pro-
nounced upon him, he will abide "by
what has been adjudged." It is impos-
sible not to perceive that this Eastern
Bishop regarded the Pope as Supreme.
But to remove all doubts as to his be-
lief in this matter, it will be sufficient
to quote another epistle of his, in which
he declares that the "most holy Throne"
of Rome, "has the Sovereignty over
the Churches throughout the Universe
on many grounds," inasmuch as, apart
from other reasons reasons which he
has already given it "has remained
free from all taint of heresy," and "has
preserved the Apostolic grace uncor-
riipted." This last clause has an im-
portant bearing, on the subject of this
Work, for had the Roman Supremacy
been a corruption of primitive dis-
cipline, (and no Pope has pushed it
further than Pope S. Leo) he could
not have asserted, with truth, that
"the Apostolic grace" had been pre-
served " uncorrupted." If the Papal
authority had been a usurpation, the
corruption would have been of so
glaring a nature, that the Roman
Church would have ceased to have been
regarded by the Catholic episcopate as
any thing better than the conventicle of
Antichrist. Theodoret, however, held
the Roman Supremacy, as it had the
" Sovereignty over the Churches," and
this because of its origin and perfect
freedom from heresy. Theodoret agreed
with S. Cyril, the Prelate of the great
Oriental See of Alexandria, that the
" Successor of S. Peter of Rome was the
Archbishop of all the habitable world,"
as well as " Father and Patriarch" of
the holy city.
S. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS.
A.D.
65. "We exhort you, honoured
brother (Eutyches), that in all
things you obediently attend those
things which have been written by
the most blessed Pope (Leo) of the
city of Rome, because blessed Pe-
ter, who lives and presides in his
own See, gives, to those who seek,
the true faith. For we, in our so-
licitude for truth and faith, cannot,
without the consent of the Bishop
of the City of Rome, hear causes
440.
of faith." (In omnibus autem hor-
tamur te . . . . ut his, quce a beato
Papa Romance civitatis script a
sunt, obedient er attendas, quoniam
beatus Petrus, qui in propria sede
vivit et pr<zsidet, prcestat queer en-
tibus fidei veritatem. Nos enim
pro studio pads et fidei extra con-
sensum Romance civitatis episcopi
causas fidei audire non possumus.)
AdEutych. Ep. Leon. /. i. Ep. xxv.
p. 743. Migne.
COMMENT.
S. Peter Chrysologus affirms (i)
that the " Blessed Peter lives and pre-
sides in his own See," (2) that "with-
out the consent of the Bishop of Rome,"
causes concerning the Faith may not
be heard. This Father held that the
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
I6 7
Roman Church was supreme over all
causes having reference to the Catholic
Faith, and this because S. Peter "lives
and presides in his own See." This
doctrine is in perfect accord with that
which had been held and taught by all
preceding Fathers who have written on
this question.
SOCRATES.
A.D. 419.
66. " Athanasius was scarcely
able to reach Italy .... at the
same time also Paul of Constan-
tinople, and Asclepas of Gaza, and
Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of Ga-
latia Minor, and Lucius of Adria-
nople, who had each, for different
causes, been accused and driven
from their churches, arrived at the
imperial city. They make known
their individual cases to Julius, Bi-
shop of Rome, and he, in the exercise
of the Prerogative peculiar to the
Church of Rome (o di, tin
armed (strengthened) them with
authoritative letters, and sent them
back to the East, having restored
to each his own see, and severely
blaming those who had rashly de-
posed them. And they having de-
parted from Rome, and confiding
in the letters of Bishop Julius, re-
covered their churches." Then fol-
lows the counter-declaration of the
Arian Bishops, to the effect " that
it was not his province to take
cognisance of their decisions with
reference to the expulsion of Bis-
hops from their Churches," and
Julius's reply, which asserts that
a " canon of the Church ordains
that Churches ought not to make
decrees contrary to the decree of
the Bishop of Rome." H. E. I. ii.
c. 15, 17.
SOZOMEN.
A.D. 445.
67. " It is a sacerdotal law that
the things done contrary to the
decree of the Bishop of the Ro-
mans be looked upon as null."
(E?v
<;
TOV 'Petpetiav ITCIO-XOTTOV.) H. E.
/. iii. c. 10, p. 245.
COMMENT.
This is an account of an appeal of
the great S. Athanasius, Paul, Patriarch
of Constantinople, and other Bishops,
who had been deprived of their Sees by
the Arians, to S. Julius, Bishop of
Rome. The following most important
facts are attested by Socrates : ( I ) That
these Bishops came to Rome for the
purpose just mentioned : (2) That the
Pope entertained their appeal ; (3) That
by virtue of a " Prerogative peculiar
to the Church of Rome," he restored
each to his See, and sent them back
armed with his " authoritative" letters ;
and (4) That he severely blamed those
who had deprived those Prelates ; and
on their disputing his authority, he in-
formed them that according to eccle-
1 68
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
siastical law no decisions of the Churches
are valid unless sanctioned by the
Bishop of Rome." The salient point
in the account is the allusion to a
" Prerogative peculiar to the Church
of Rome," as a right fully acknow-
leged by the Universal Church, and
especially by the great Athanasius, the
illustrious defender of the Faith, who
received back his See, by means of the
exercise of this Prerogative. The Greek
word vrgovopia, translated " Preroga-
tive," signifies a privilege, derived not
merely from a canon or statute, but
from universal usage, that is, from the
Common Law of the Church. And
Socrates witnesses to several rights
which proceeded from this Papal Pre-
rogative, viz. the right to judge epi-
scopal causes, and to restore Bishops
unjustly deprived, and to assent to or
veto (for this is inferred) the decrees of
the Churches. These rights were not
derived from the Council of Sardica,
or indeed from any Council, but from an-
cient usage. Sozomen puts it more
strongly, "It is a sacerdotal law that
the things done contrary to the de-
cree of the Bishop of the Romans be
looked upon as null." There cannot
be a more exhaustive testimony in
favour of the Papal Supremacy than
that given by these two ecclesiastical
historians, which may be thus summed
up; viz. Nothing can be done, no
decree, or judgment, or ordinance, can
bind the whole Church, without the
consent of the reigning Pontiff.
S. VINCENT OF LERINS.
A.D. 445.
68. ". . . . Pope Stephen, Pre-
late of the Apostolic See, resisted
with the rest of his colleagues in-
deed, but still beyond the rest ;
thinking it, I suppose, becoming
that he should excel all the rest as
much in devotion for the faith as
he surpassed them in authority of
place." (Si reliquos omnes tantum
jftdei devotione vinceret, quantum
loci autoritate super abat^) Adv.
Hares, n. 6. Migne, t. &&,pp. 445-6.
69. "And for proof that not
Greece alone, or the East only, but
also the Western and Latin world,
were always of the same opinion,
there were also read there (at the
Council of Ephesus) some letters of
S. Felix Martyr, and of S. Julius,
Bishop of the City of Rome, ad-
dressed to certain individuals. And
that not only the Head of the world
but also the other parts, might give
their testimony to that judgment;
from the South they had Cyprian."
Ib. n. 30. Ib. 68 1.
COMMENT.
The testimony of this Father is espe-
cially valuable, and ought to be con-
clusive with Anglican Divines and Theo-
logians, for, from the. Reformation down
to this time, they have appealed to his
doctrine as justifying their position and
state of separation in Christendom.
The famous saying, Quod semper, quod
ubique, et quod ab omnibtis traditum est,
(whatever has been held always, every-
where, by everyone) has been relied
upon as their mainstay. But they
have overlooked what he asserts with
regard to the Roman Church. He
affirms that the Pope surpasses his
colleagues in the episcopate, "in au-
thority of place," and also that he is
the "Head of the world." "Au-
thority of place," and "the Head of
the world," must be taken together in
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
169
order to ascertain S. Vincent's doctrine.
The Head is of course the governing
member of the body; and inasmuch as
the Head is the governor and ruler of
the body, it necessarily surpasses all
other members " in authority of place."
The hand and the foot are members of
the body equally with the Head, but who
is there that would assert that either the
hand or the foot have power to direct
the movements of the body, or control
the will and the mind ? At best they are
but instruments of, and subject to the will
and authority of the Head, for carrying
into effect what it wills. S. Vincent
believed that the Roman Pontiff filled
this position in the Body mystical, the
Church; and therefore it was that he,
"the Head of the world," surpassed
all the Bishops "in authority of place."
Anglican theologians have accepted his
rule respecting tradition, but they have
paid no regard to S. Vincent's allu-
sion to a living authority. The works
of the Fathers are invaluable, but they
need interpretation. Plenary Councils
can be but seldom celebrated ; but there
is one authority which never dies, i.e. t
"The Head of the world," who sur-
passes all bishops "in authority of
place" the Sovereign Pontiff.
VICTOR VITENSIS.
A. D. 490.
70. "If the king wishes to know
our faith, which is the one true
faith, let him send to his friends,
and I too will write to my brethren,
that my fellow-bishops may come
men who may be able with me
to demonstrate to you our common
faith ; and especially the Roman
Church, which is the Head of all
the Churches (et prcscipue Ecclesia
Romana, qua caput est omnium
eccleszarum") De Persec. Afric.
L ii. c. 18,^. 215, Migne.
S. AVITUS.
A.D. 494.
71. "We were anxious in mind,
and fearful, in the matter of the
Church of Rome, as feeling our
own position tottered, in that our
Head was assailed (in laces sito
vertice). If the Pope of that city
is called into question, not a Bi-
shop merely, but the Episcopacy
will now seem to totter." (si Papa
urbis vocatur in dubium, episcopa-
tus jam videbitur, non episcopus
vacillare) . Ep. xxxi. Galland. t. x.
p. 724.
72. "As you know that it is the
law of the Councils that, if any
doubt have arisen in matters which
regard the state of the Church,
we are to have recourse to the
Chief Priest of the Roman Church,
like members adhering to (fol-
lowing) our Head, I have, with the
consent of the Bishop of Vienne,
sent with anxiety our service of
due veneration (quasi ad caput nos-
trum, membra sequentia recurra-
mus .... debitce venerationis
obsequium) to the holy Hormisdas,
or to whomsoever else may now be
Pope." Ep. xxxvi. Gailand. /. x. p.
726.
I/O
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
COMMENT.
S. Avitus had expressed his belief
that S. Peter was " the Prince of the
Princes," that is, while all the Apostles
were Kings in the Kingdom of Christ,
S. Peter was appointed King over
them, to whom they were to look up to as
the Rock (as his name signifies), from
whom they were to seek confirmation
in the faith, and by whom, as the Chief
Shepherd, they were to be sustained.
Holding S. Peter's arch-principality in
the Apostolate, we are prepared for
what this Father affirms respecting the
Pope. He says, if that one Head the
Church of Rome be assailed, we feel
"that our own position tottered;" "if the
Pope of that city is called in question,
not a Bishop merely, but the Episcopate
(i.e. all the Bishops) will now seem to
totter. " What a picture does this gives us
of the real constitution of the Catholic
Church in the primitive ages. How
thoroughly dependent was every member
of the ecclesiastical polity on its living
visible Head. As in the case of the hu-
man body, if the head be assailed, and
struck down, every limb is paralysed,
or if not paralysed, moves violently in
every direction, without order or method,
and the body itself becomes convulsed.
Of all the members of the body none
is so delicate as the head, none so liable
to injury. Hence the anxiety of this
Father for the safety of the Pope as the
Head and Chief Priest of the sacer-
dotal order; for, if assailed, their posi-
tion also immediately "totters," that is,
it is liable in consequence to be para-
lysed. There can be no doubt that he-
retics had many advantages in the early
primitive times, when by reason of the
fearful persecutions, the Papal authority
was by the force of circumstances more
or less inactive. The " Head was as-
sailed," and the members were left to
their own resources. During the abey-
ance of the Papal power, Gnosticism,
Arianism, &c., the fruitful mothers of
innumerable heresies, were able to take
root in the Church: it was not till the Pa-
pacy asserted and used the divine power,
authority, and jurisdiction, that they were
rooted out and the Church restored to
orthodoxy and unity. General Councils
indeed have made decrees, but they
were powerless to execute them with-
out the action of the Sovereign Pontiff.
The Church is indebted to a Julius,
who restored Athanasius ; to a Damasus,
to an Innocent, to a Celestine, and to
a Leo, for the maintenance of the Faith,
the destruction of error, and the re-
storation of unity to the storm-tossed
Churches. And it is to be observed
that the Church has never been so
united as when the authority of the
Sovereign Pontiff was fully respected
and obeyed.
S. Avitus then affirmed a most impor-
tant truth, that the Episcopate totters if
"that one Head, the Roman Church,
be assailed;" and in this he agrees
with S. Ambrose, who in his day ad-
monished the Emperor, " not to suffer the
Head of the world the Roman Church
to be thrown into confusion, for thence
flow to all the rights of venerable
communion." This Father also coun-
selled that " if any doubt arise in mat-
ters which regard the state of the
Church," we should have recourse to
the Chief Priest of the Roman Church,
like members adhering to their Head."
This is in accordance with the example
of S. Jerome, who sought the counsel
of the Pope when the Eastern Church
was torn to pieces with heresy and
schism.
SUMMARY OF PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.
IT has already been proved that S. Peter came to Rome, and there,
with S. Paul, founded and constituted the Holy Roman Church. The
evidence adduced in this Section proves demonstratively the Supremacy
of the Roman Church and of its Sovereign Pontiffover the whole Catholic
Church, by virtue of the institution of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul,
previous to their martyrdom.
1. We are informed by the Fathers (i) That the Roman Church was
" founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and
Paul ;" (2) That the Sheep were first " entrusted to Peter," and sub-
sequently to his Successors ; (3) That the Chair of the Roman Church
" is the Chair of Peter," " in which sat the Head of all the Apostles
Peter ;" (4) That " from the Chair of Peter itself, unto whom the Lord
after His Resurrection committed His Sheep to be fed, down even to the
present Bishop" of Rome, z. e. to Peter and his Successors in the Roman
Church, " the feeding of the universal Flock was committed ;" (5) That
consequently the City and Church of Rome has ever been regarded by
Catholics as " the Place of Peter/' containing " the Chair of Peter," and
known as pre-eminently " the Apostolic See," " the See of Peter," &c.
The Fathers then were not slow to acknowledge the great truth
that " Peter lives and presides in his own See ;" that is, that each of his
Successors to his Chair or Cathedra, exercises his jurisdiction over
all the Church. Whatever, then, are the rights and prerogatives of the
Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, these derive their origin solely
from the Apostle S. Peter, who received from Christ a three-fold com-
mission, viz. to exercise His Supreme Jurisdiction, as symbolised by
the exclusive gift of the keys ; to confirm in the Faith his Brethren of
the Apostolate, and to Shepherdise the entire Flock.
2. By virtue, then, of Rome and the Roman Church becoming the
" Place of Peter," wherein is erected " the Chair of Peter," the Church
became necessarily the " Foundation," " the Root," " the Matrix," and
tho "Mother" of all the Churches upon earth, from which " the unity of
the Priesthood took its rise," and from which " the right of venerable
communion flows to all."
Such, then, was the position of the Church of Rome, in consequence
of the establishment therein of " the Chair or Cathedra of Peter," wherein
sits his Successor for the time being, who represents and executes the
commission which S. Peter received exclusively from his Lord and
Master.
SUMMARY.
3. Hence it followed that the Fathers describe the Roman Church
(i) As the Presiding Church ; " presiding in the region of the Romans,"
" Presiding over the Love" i.e. the Church "with the Name of Christ,
and with the Name of the Father ;" (2) As the Church possessing a
" Superior or more powerful Principality ;" (3) As " the Chief Church ;"
(4) As " Head of all the Churches ;" (5) As having " the Sovereignty
over all Churches throughout the Universe," whence the " Princedom of
the Apostolic Chair has always been in force," whence " the unity of the
Priesthood took its rise," and with which Church all other Churches
" must agree or assemble with," that is, be in its communion.
4. Hence, also, the Bishop of Rome has been styled (i) " The
Presiding Bishop ;" (2) "Supreme Pontiff ;" (3) " The Bishop of Bishops ;"
(4) "The Interpreter of God;" (5) "The Good Shepherd;" (6) "Pre-
sident over the Church of God ;" (7) " Archbishop of the whole ha-
bitable globe," as well as " Father and Patriarch of the mighty City of
Rome ;" and (8) Chief and Head of the Church.
5. It is natural to suppose, that if the Church of Rome and the
Supreme Pontiff were to occupy so exalted a position as the Locum
tenens of the blessed Apostle Peter, God would so protect this
Church as that it should never fall from the Faith, for if it should,
the whole Church would fall likewise which if the word of Christ
is to be relied upon, is an impossibility. Accordingly, the Fathers
do not scruple to say (i) That the Church of Rome " is enlightened in
the Will of God ;" (2) That the Chair of Peter " is the Seat of Faith ;"
(3) That the Pope is the Builder of the Edifice, i. e. of Faith ; (4) That
the Roman Church " is all-Godly, all-gracious, all-blessed, all-praised,
all-prospering, and all-hallowed ;" (5) That " faithlessness has no access ;"
and (6) That it is " free from all taint of heresy."
Certain it is, that while every other Apostolic Throne has fallen from
the Faith, even to a denial of the divinity and of the human nature of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and even to this day refusing to affirm the truth that the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son thereby dividing the Substance
the Apostolic See has ever taught the Faith, the whole Faith, and
nothing but the Faith, as it was received from the beginning. Not a
single one of Rome's Bishops, when teaching ex Cathedra, has ever pro-
pounded a heresy. Liberius may have fallen under pressure ; Honorius
may have suffered himself to be deceived (a heretic he certainly was not,
if we may interpret his epistles literally) ; other Popes, or private
Doctors, may have entertained contradictory opinions on theological
questions, but as Sovereign Pontiff, exercising the Supreme Jurisdiction
as derived from S. Peter, when teaching the Church, and when
defining the Truth received from their predecessors, none have ever
departed from the Faith, and every dogma that has been promul-
gated by Popes, whether it be Transubstantiation or the Immaculate
Conception, will be found in harmony with Scripture Revelations and
the Tradition of the Holy Catholic Church. " Faithlessness has (never
had) any access'" to the Holy Roman Church ; that has ever been " free
from all taint of heresy."
6. The Prerogatives of the Roman Church and the Sovereign
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. 173
Pontiff, naturally, follow from the presence of the " Chair of Peter."
Upon this point the Fathers speak with great clearness. They assert
(i) That " the Princedom of the Apostolic See" has always been in
force in the Roman Church, i. e. that the Sovereign Pontiffs for the time
being, possess in themselves supreme Jurisdiction over the whole Church,
and over all persons and causes appertaining to the Church ; (2) That
they are Supreme Judges over all causes of Faith, for Bishops " cannot,
without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome, hear causes of
Faith f (3) That the Bishop of Rome is Supreme over every Province and
Diocese of the universal Church, for " to the Head, that is, to the Apostle
Peter," " who lives and presides in his own See," " the Priests (Bishops) of
the Lord from every one of the Provinces" should " refer;" (4) That he is the
Visitor, personally, or by his Legates, or by his Letters, of every province
and diocese of the universal Church, to which he may address " very
full Letters," admonishing and censuring, as the case demands, any
Bishop or Bishops he deems expedient ; and (5) That he is Supreme over
all Councils (Ecumenical, plenary, and provincial and that Councils
cannot lawfully determine any question of Faith without reference to
Rome, nor may any decree of any sort be promulged " contrary to the
decree of the Bishop of Rome ;" (6) That it is a Sacerdotal Law that
" things done contrary to the decree of the Bishop of Rome is null ;" and
(7) That where Bishops have been deposed by plenary or provincial
Councils, the Pope can, if he deems there is sufficient cause, restore them
by means of his " Letters."
7. The Fathers are very explicit as to what they understand by the
Catholic Church ; and their testimony on this point brings out into
high relief the exalted position of the Holy Roman See. They under-
stand the " Catholic Church" to be that Body which is in union with the
Roman Church. Of the many Chairs or Cathedrae which are scattered
all over the Catholic world, one " Chair or Cathedra" is regarded as
so pre-eminently exalted, as (so to speak) to throw all other " Chairs"
into the shade. " God is One, and Christ is one, and the Church is one,
and the Chair is one, founded by the Lord's word upon a Rock," i. e.
upon Peter, upon whom the Church was " founded first and alone." As
then, there is but one Lord and one Church, so is there but one Chair,
" in which sat of all the Apostles the Head Peter .... that in this one
Chair unity might be preserved by all." None of the other Apostles
ever contended " for a distinct Chair for himself:" by which we learn the
truth, that he who should "set up another Chair against the Single
Chair" might be known as " a schismatic and a sinner." Hence the Chair
of Peter at Rome is the first mark or note by which the Catholic Church
is known. The Catholic Church, then, is that Body which is in union
with the Chair of Peter, in which he ever lives and presides in the
persons of his Successors ; and that Church or other Community which
is not in union with that Chair is heretical and schismatical, " for they
have not Peter's inheritance who have not Peter's Chair."
(2.) Again, the Fathers understand by the words " Catholic Bishops"
Bishops in communion with the Roman Church. It was that great
Doctor, S. Ambrose, who furnished the test whereby we should be able to
174 SUMMARY.
discern whether a Bishop is a Catholic Bishop. " He (Satyrus) called the
Bishop to him .... he inquired of him whether he agreed (or assembled)
with (i. e. whether he was in communion with) the Catholic Bishops,
that is with the Roman Church." So that, to be a Catholic Bishop, it is
essential that he should be in outward, as well as internal communion
with the Apostolic See.
(3) Once more, the "rights of venerable communion" flow from the
Head of the Roman Church, so that adhesion to the Roman Head is
absolutely essential to the lawful use of the Blessed Sacraments of the
Church, and for the right exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. This
doctrine is supported by the remarkable saying of S. Jerome : " Upon
this Rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever eats the Lamb out of
this House (i. e. Roman Church) is profane." Again, " Whosoever
gathereth not with thee (the Pope), that is, whosoever is not of Christ, is
of Antichrist ;" that is, he that is not in union with the Pope as the
Vicar of Christ, " is of Antichrist." The Holy Catholic Church, then, is
that Body and exclusively that Body which is in living communion
with the Sovereign Pontiff ; whose episcopal Chairs are in union and in
subordination to the " Single Chair," which stands in the Roman Church ;
and whose rights of venerable communion derive their source and supply
from the Head of the Roman Church.
Anglicans and Protestants will, doubtless, assert anew the co-equality
of all Bishops ; and they will point to the strong statements of S. Ignatius
and S. Cyprian, but they must not forget that both these Fathers have
given overpowering evidence in favour of the Roman Supremacy. No
language can be more explicit than that of S. Ignatius, nor stronger than
that of S. Cyprian. They, indeed, laid great stress on the dignity and
perfect independence within his own diocese of every individual Bishop ;
but, notwithstanding, both these Fathers taught distinctly and unequi-
vocally the superiority of the Roman Church. The former asserted it
was the Presiding Church " presiding in the region of the Romans ;
presiding over the Love." The latter described it as the " Chief Church,
whence the unity of the Priesthood (Episcopate) took its rise." And S.
Cyprian had occasion to give effect to this his belief, for he it was who
urged Pope S. Stephen to take action in Gaul for the expulsion of
Marcianus, Bishop of Aries, to which he would have had no right
except as the Head and Chief Bishop of the Universal Church.
The evidence of the Fathers of the first five centuries proves that
by virtue of S. Peter having planted his Chair in Rome, and having
there erected the Roman Church into a Presiding Church, or Principal
Church, the Sovereign Pontiffs have ever possessed a superior juris-
diction over the Universal Church, to them has been committed its
government, and the charge of feeding the Sheep and Lambs of Christ.
This ri^ht, be it observed, is derived from no merely ecclesiastical
source, but from Christ, through His Vicar, S. Peter.
II.
TESTIMONY OF CECUMENICAL AND PLENARY
COUNCILS.
COUNCIL OF NIC^EA.
FIRST CECUMENICAL.
A.D. 325.
i. THE COUNCIL SUMMONED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SEE
AND OF THE EMPEROR.
73. " Arius, the divider of the Synod at Nicaea." Sermo. Pros-
Trinity, arose, and forthwith Con- phonet. Condi, ad Constant, (iv.)
stantine always Augustus, and Sil- Imp. vide Condi. CEcumen. \\.Act.
vester, of praiseworthy memory, xviii. Hard. act. Condi. Collect. T.
assembled the great and famous iii. col. 1418.
2. SELECTION OF BISHOPS.
74. " As soon as the evil of heresy most holy Bishop of Rome to de-
began to reach that pitch which liberate on the subject at Nice."
the Arian blasphemy has now at- Dam. ad. Epis. Illyric. apud.
tained, three hundred and eighteen Theod H. E. /. ii. c. 22.
of our Fathers were selected by the
3. Hosius PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND LEGATE OF THE
HOLY SEE.
75. " For concerning that truly he not in the summer preside (or
great and happy old man Osius lead) the Synod (/. e. of Nicaea)
(Hosius), concerning whose sane- (W#$ y#g ov xaOwyvxraro crtwov)."
tity it is needless to speak, inas- S. A than. Oper. T. i. Apolog. de
much as it is well known to all, and fuga sua, n. 5,/. 649, Migne.
to the Fathers themselves who 76. " The most celebrated person
were driven into exile ; for he was of the Spaniards (Hosius) took his
not an obscure old man, but of all seat among the rest. The Prelate
men the most illustrious; for did of the Imperial city was absent
176
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
through age, but his Presbyters were
present, and filled his place." Eus.
Vit. Constant. I. iii. c. 7.
77. " Hosius was, I believe, Bishop
of Cordova in Spain, as I have
before stated ; Vito and Vincentius
presbyters of Rome ; Alexander,
Bishop of Egypt (Alexandria) ; Anas-
tathius, of Antiochia Magna; Ma-
carius, of Jerusalem ; and Harpo-
cration, of Cynopolis, were present.
The names of the rest are fully
reported in The Synodicon of Atha-
nasius, Bishop of Alexandria." Soc.
H.E. l.i.c. 13.
78. "The author (Eusebius) re-
lates that Osius (Hosius), Bishop
of Cordova, and Bito (Vito) and
Vincentius, priests of the Church
of Rome, Legates, were present."
Gelas. Cyzicen. Hist. Condi. Nicani
Admonit. Migne, T. 85 (Series gr.)
col. 1 1 88.
79. " Osius (Hosius) himself, also
celebrated by name and for his
great reputation, who obtained the
place (t7fg%av KOI,} TOV tWay) of Sil-
vester, Bishop of Great Rome, to-
gether with the Roman Presbyters
Bito (Vito) and Vincentius, and
many others, were present sitting
with him (in the Council). Ib. I. ii.
c. v. col. 1230.
80. " The holy, great, and uni-
versal synod of holy Fathers as-
sembled at Nicaea, through the
blessed and holy Osius (Hosius),
himself Bishop of Cordova in Spain,
holding the place of the Bishop of
Rome (iTriftWTois xcci TOV TOTTOV TOV
T%$ 'PitfUUin lirurxoTFov), with the
aforesaid Presbyters of the same
See (of Rome), gives another in-
terpretation." Ib. c. xii. col. 1250.
8 1. " But since mention has been
made of the aforesaid Osius (Ho-
sius), it is necessary to intimate to
all Catholics that this same honour-
able man was present among the
cccxvui. most holy Fathers at
Nicaea, in Bithynia ; and that he,
with the Presbyters Vincentius and
Victor (Vito?), was appointed by
the Apostolic See" (to represent it.)
Leo. T. ii. De 'Ant. Collection, et
Collect. Can. Append, ad Opera.
Pars III. c. ii. col. clxxxvii. J. and
P. Bailer. Venet. 1757.
4. CONFIRMATION OF ANCIENT CUSTOMS.
82. " Let the ancient customs pre-
vail, namely, those in Egypt, and
Libya, and Pentapolis ; let the
Bishop of Alexandria have power
over all these, seeing that the same
is customary with the Bishop of
Rome (\ieifa jcect TU be, Ty 'Papy
t7Ticrx.o7ra>TovTo <rvvv)6t$ \<TTIV). Like-
wise, in Antioch and other pro-
vinces, let the privileges be secured
to the Churches. Saving to the
Metropolis (/. e. Constantinople) its
proper dignity, let the Bishop of
>Elia (Jerusalem) have the next
place of precedence ; because cus-
tom and ancient tradition has ob-
tained that he should be honoured."
Can. vi. vii. Labbe", S. Condi. T. ii.
col. 35-
5. THE PASCHAL QUESTION.
83. " Wehave the gratifying intelli-
gence to communicate to you, con-
ducive to unity of judgment on
the subject of the most holy feast
of Easter ; for this point which has
been happily settled, through your
prayers, so that all the brethren in
the East who have heretofore kept
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
177
this feast when the Jews did (i. e.
the Passover), will henceforth con-
form to the Romans and to us, and
to all who from the earliest times
have observed our period of cele-
brating Easter." Synod. Ep. Alex-
and. Eccles. Soc. H. E. I. i. c. 9.
6. SYNODICAL EPISTLE TO THE POPE.
84. " Forasmuch as all things con-
cerning the divine mysteries have
been enforced to ecclesiastical pro-
fit, which pertained to the strength
of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church, we report them to your
Roman See, having translated them
from the Greek. Whatever, then,
we have ordained in the Council of
Niccea, we pray may be confirmed
by the fellowship of your counte-
nance" (Quidquid autem constitui-
mus in conciho Nicceno, precamur
vestri oris consorlio confirmetur}.
Labb. T. ii. col. 79.
COMMENT.
There have been many disputes be-
tween Anglican and Catholic contro-
versialists respecting the Papal position
in the first great (Ecumenical Council
which assembled at Nicaea. As nothing
remains of that Council save the Creed
and the Canons, and the Synodical epi-
stles, no explicit testimony is to be found,
one way or the other. There is, however,
some implicit evidence to be obtained
from the decrees and Synodical Epistles,
and some collateral, sufficient at least to
prove the superior pre-eminence of the
Roman Church.
1. The Sixth CEcumenical Council
informs us that the Nicene Council was
summoned by the joint authority of the
Emperor and the Pope, that is to say,
that the Prelates of the Catholic Church
were convened by the Pope's command,
and that the Emperor consented to the
convocation, and provided for the ne-
cessary expenses of the Bishops.
2. According to Theodoret, the 318
Fathers assembled at Nicaea " were se-
lected by the most holy Bishop of Rome
to deliberate on the Arian heresy," &c.
It is true this passage in his history is
disputed, but Valesius maintains its ge-
nuineness.
3. Eusebius informs us that the Pope
appointed certain Presbyters, who "were
present at the Council, and filled his
place." This expression reminds us of
a similar one in S. Cyprian's Epistle to
Cornelius, in which he spoke of the
Roman See or Cathedra as the " Place
of Peter. " What, then, was the nature
of this " Place" which the Papal
Legates filled at Niceea? Without doubt
" the place" of S. Silvester the Pope,
the Chief of all the Brotherhood, and
the Supreme Pastor of the entire Flock,
who himself filled the " Place of Peter"
in the city and Church of Rome. The
Pope, then, by his representatives, oc-
cupied in the Council of Nicaea the pri-
matial " Place of Peter."
It is, however, a matter of dispute
whether Hosius, or Osius, presided over
the Council as Legate of the Pope.
That he did preside in that character
is attested by Gelasius Cyzenicus and
by Pope S. Leo, who both say that he
did ; the former stating more than
once in his history, that he " obtained
his (Pope Silvester's) Place." S. Atha-
nasius also infers the same in his
"Apologia de fuga sua." Two rea-
sons sumce, it is submitted, to show
that this must have been the case.
First, it may be affirmed that if the
Papal authority was so far acknow-
ledged that the Council itself was sum -
moned by the Pope, no less than by
the Emperor (as the Sixth CEcumenical
Council informs us, and the Fathers
must have seen the Acts, now unfor-
tunately lost), it seems self-evident that
the Pope must have presided, either
N
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
in person or by deputy. For it is an
axiom in the science of government
that he who possesses the Prerogative
of summoning his whole order to the
Council Chamber, must of necessity be
entitled to preside over it, and direct
and control the proceedings, for none
can lawfully summon a whole king-
dom (and the Church is an Universal
Empire) by its representatives, to a Ge-
neral Council or Parliament, unless he
is the recognised Head and Chief. This
Prerogative principle we may perceive
carried out in miniature in every part
of the Church. The Bishop has the
power to summon, preside over, direct
and control the Diocesan Synod ; the
Metropolitan similarly the provincial
Council ; and the Patriarch likewise
his General Council, composed of the
Metropolitans and Bishops of the se-
veral provinces comprising his pa-
triarchate. So in like manner the Pope,
inasmuch as he is the Head of the
Universal Episcopate, alone possesses
and exercises the right of convocating
or calling an (Ecumenical Council. No
doubt the Emperor's authority was
needed, and for this simple reason, that
the Pope could not lawfully collect a
vast number of Bishops from various
parts of the earth, to meet in a city
within the Emperor's dominions without
his permission and assistance. Hence it
was, as the Sixth CEcumenical Council
asserts, that the Council of Nicaea
was assembled by " Constantine, always
Augustus, and Silvester of praiseworthy
memory." Upon the ground then of
the Papal Prerogative of summoning a
Universal Council his right of presiding
is proved, and therefore Hosius must
have occupied the place of President
on behalf of the Pope, as his Vicar and
Legate. But there is another reason
why this must have been the case, and
this is found in the circumstance of
Hosius subscribing first, followed im-
mediately by the two Roman Priests.
On this point Hefele well argues. He
writes, " Schrockle says that Osius was
the first to sign, on account of his
great .credit with the Emperor ; but
this reasoning is very weak ; the Bishops
did not sign according to the greater or
lesser degree of favour they had with
Constantine. If this rule had been
followed, Eusebius of Csesarea ought to
have been one of the first to sign. It
is important to know in what order the
signatures of the Council were given.
The study of the lists proves that they
followed the order by province. The
Metropolitan signed first, and after him
followed the Suffragans ; the Metro-
politan of another province then signed,
and after him came the signatures of
the Suffragan Bishops of his province.
As to the enumeration of the provinces
themselves no regular plan was ad opted;
thus the province of Alexandria came
in the first line, then that of Thebaid
and Lybia ; after which Palestine,
Phoenicia ; and after the latter, only, the
See of Antioch. At the head of each
list of signatures was always inscribed
the name of the ecclesiastical province
to which they belonged ; but this indi-
cation is omitted in the signature of
Osius, and in those of the two Roman
Priests. They sign the first, and with-
out the designation of the diocese. It
may be objected, perhaps, that the
Synod being principally composed of
Greek Bishops, it was wished to pay
the compliment to Western Bishops by
letting them sign first, but this hypo-
thesis is inadmissible, for at the end of
the list of signatures at the Council are
found the names of the representatives
of the ecclesiastical provinces of the
Latin Church. Since Gaul and Africa
were placed at the end, the province of
Spain would certainly have been added
to them, if Osius had only represented
this province at Nicaea, and if he had
not possessed a higher dignity which
entitled him to a far superior position.
The two Roman Priests did not re-
present a particular Church, but the
directorium of the whole Synod ; there-
fore no name of any diocese is placed
above their signatures a fresh proof
that in him and his colleagues we must
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
179
recognise the xfiib^ of which Eusebius
speaks. The analogy of the other
Councils permits us to come to the
same conclusion, in particular the ana-
logy of the Council of Ephesus, in
which Cyril of Alexandria, who per-
formed the functions of Papal Legate,
as Osius did at Nicaea, signed the first
before all his colleagues." Heftle, Hist.
Condi. T. i. Introd. 5, //. 41, 42.*
There can be no room for doubting
that Hosius, or Osius, really did pre-
side at the Council of Nicaea as Legate
of the Pope, and that in that character
he subscribed the decrees.
4. ' ' Let the ancient customs prevail. "
If the Roman See was really the " Place
of Peter," as S. Cyprian asserted ; if
the Roman Church was the " Chief
Church, from which the unity of the
Priesthood took its rise," as this same
Father alleged ; if this great Church
was, as S. Irenaeus said, "a Superior
or more powerful Principality ;" if the
Roman Church "Presided over the
Love," i.e. the Church and the Sacra-
ments as S. Ignatius declared, then
whatever was customary in connexion
with the exercise of the Prerogative of
the Holy See, without doubt they received
in these words, " Let the ancient cus-
toms prevail" a synodical recognition
and confirmation. If the language of
the Fathers above named had been re-
garded as heretical ; if the assertions of
some of these same Fathers, together
with Origen and Tertullian, respecting
the exalted dignity and position of S.
Peter, had been false ; if the appeal of
the Corinthians to Pope S. Clement,
and S. Clement's reply ; the appeal of
Marcion, the interference of S. Victor
in the affairs of the East, andS. Stephen
in those of France, at S. Cyprian's in-
stigation ; and also in the matter of Re-
baptism in Africa, in which S. Cyprian
was concerned, were un canonical and
contrary to lawful custom, the great
Council of Nicaea would have been careful
when confirming the "ancient customs"
of the Churches, to add a protest against
Roman ambition and arrogance. But
the Council on this point is silent, and
by its silence recognises and approves
the " ancient customs" of the Roman
Church, no less than those of all other
Churches.
But this canon, in confirming the
" ancient customs," expressly points to
the Roman Church as the authority for
the settlement of what " ancient cus-
toms" are lawful. This may be in-
ferred from the following language,
" Let the ancient customs prevail,
namely, those in Egypt, and Libya, and
Pentapolis ; let the Bishop of Alexandria
have power over all these, seeing that
the same is customary for the Bishop of
Rome, t Likewise in Antioch and other
provinces, let the privileges be secured
to the Churches." It is manifest that
the customs of this Church of Rome
were regarded by the Council as of
sufficient authority for the guidance of
* Translated from the French of M. 1'Abbe Goschlen, et M. 1'Abbe
Delarc. Paris, 1869.
+ The following remarks upon Rufinus, in connexion with this canon, made by
Fleury, are very apposite: "Rufinus, who lived in the same century as the
Council of Nicaea, explains the power which is attributed to the Pope in this canon
(6th), by saying that he had the care of the suburbicarian Churches, which signifies
some extent of provinces subject to Rome in a particular manner. But whatever
this obscure word (suburbicarian) means, it only regards the Bishop of Rome as
the Patriarch of the West, without prejudice of his position as Chief of the
Universal Church, so well established in the preceding centuries. However, it is
thought that the attempts of the Meletians against the jurisdiction of the Bishop
of Alexandria were the occasion of this canon." Flenry, H. E. 1. xi. c. xx.
/. 148, 9. Paris, 1693.
i8o
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
other Churches. This is a recognition
at least of the Pre-eminence of the
Roman Church.
The canons may be regarded as a full
confirmation of the rights and liberties
of all Churches, inclusive of Rome, so
that whatever Prerogatives the Church
of Rome enjoyed from the beginning
and these have been to a great ex-
tent described by the preceding Fathers
were fully recognised by this Council.
5. Another point is to be noted. The
important question of the proper time
for observing Easter had long been in
dispute. There were two traditions,
one from S. Peter, which observed the
Paschal solemnity on the Sunday, and
the other from S. John, which celebrated
it on the actual anniversary of our
Lord's Resurrection. Various attempts
had been made to establish uniformity
of practice, but without effect. S. Poly-
carp travelled all the way from Smyrna
to Rome to induce the Pope to conform
to S. John's rule, and S. Victor, some
forty years after, endeavoured to compel
the East to submit to the tradition of
S. Peter. It was reserved for the
Council of Nicaea, if not to effect this
object, at least to confirm the Roman
custom ; "for that point also," so says
the Synodical epistle, "has been happily
settled through your prayers, so that
all the brethren in the East, who have
heretofore kept this festival when the
Jews did, will henceforth conform to the
Romans and to us, and to all who from
the earliest times have observed our
period of celebrating Easter. " The ques-
tion arises, Why the Roman custom,
more than that of the East ? The only
answer is, that in conflicting traditions
of discipline the Roman custom is that
which should prevail ; and this, without
doubt, because of the Supremacy of
S. Peter, and of his Successors, who
occupy his "Place." This is another
implicit proof in favour of the superior
authority of the Roman Church.
From what remains of the proceed-
ings of the Council of Nicsea as collected
from early ecclesiastical historians, and
such decrees as have been preserved,
we learn (i) That the Council was sum-
moned by the joint authority of the
Emperor and Pope S. Silvester ; (2)
That the 318 Bishops who sat in the
Council were selected by the Pope ;
(3) That he appointed Legates to re-
present him, "who were present and
filled his place ;" and (4) That the
customs of the Churches were to pre-
vail, and that when custom was diverse
and conflicting, the practice of the
Roman Church must be followed.
From what little has come down
to us concerning this Council, it is
reasonable to conclude that the acts,
had they been preserved, would have
contained much valuable evidence for
the Supremacy of the Holy See ; but
sufficient has been adduced to prove the
high Pre-eminence of that Church and
its Bishop, whose legates, though two
of them were Presbyters, took prece-
dence of all the Patriarchs and Bishops,
their subscription to the decrees having
been affixed first in order, because of
the Place of S. Silvester, which they by
delegation filled.
COUNCIL OF SARDICA.
A.D. 347.
APPEALS TO THE POPE.
85. " If judgment be passed upon
any Bishop, and he thinks he has
sufficient grounds for referring
the matter to another judgment ;
let us honour the memorial (me-
moriam) of the holy Apostle Peter,
by providing that the parties who
entertained the case shall write to
Julius, Bishop of Rome, and if he
judges that a trial be renewed, let
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
181
it be renewed." Can. ill. Labb.
Condi. T. ii. col. 659.
86. " To this let it be added, that
when a Bishop has been deposed
by the neighbouring Bishops, no
Bishop shall after such appeal be
substituted in the Chair until the
case has been determined by the
judgment of the Bishop of Rome."
Can. iv. Ib.
87. " If a Bishop shall have been
accused, and sentence passed by
the Bishops of his own district as-
sembled in Council, and they shall
have deposed him from his See
(grade) ; if the said Bishop shall
appeal to the Bishop of the Roman
Church, and request a hearing, if
it seems to him right that the judg-
ment should be renewed, he may
deign to write to the Bishops of the
neighbouring provinces, requiring
them diligently to re-examine the
whole case, and decide according
to the truth. But if he who asked
his case to be reheard shall move
by his entreaty the Bishop of Rome
to send his Presbyters de latere suo,
it shall be in the power of the (said)
Bishop to exercise his own dis-
cretion ; and if he shall judge that
they (the Legates) shall be sent,
invested with his authority, let it
be so as he shall determine. But
if, on the other hand, he is of opi-
nion that the Bishops (of the pro-
vince or neighbourhood ), are not
sufficient to terminate the matter,
let him act as he shall determine
according to his own most wise
judgment." Can. vii. Ib. col. 646.
2. SYNOD. EPISTLE TO THE POPE.
88. " For this seems to be the best
and most suitable, if the Priests of
the Lord in every province refer to
the Head, that is to the Apostolic
See of Peter" (si ad caput, id est y
ad Petri Apostoli sedem). Ib. col.
690.
COMMENT.
This Council was summoned by
order of the Emperors, and it as-
sembled in May A. D. 347. There were
upwards of 300 Bishops present some
from Spain, Gaul (France), Italy, Africa,
Macedonia, Palestine, Cappadocia, Pon-
tus, Cilicia, the Thebaid, Syria,
Thrace, Mesopotamia, &c. Among
these, or perhaps in addition, there
were about eighty of the Eusebian
party, who were semi-Arians, whose
object was the condemnation of the
great S. Athanasius.
The testimony of this plenary council
to the Supremacy of the Chair of S.
Peter is very full and complete. Great
abuses arising from frequent translations
of Bishops, Bishop Hosius proposed
certain reforms, which were drawn up
in the shape of canons of discipline, in
which provisions were made for the
protection of Bishops unjustly con-
demned.
I. The first thought that naturally oc-
curred to the Fathers was " the Chair of
S. Peter :" " Let us honour the memo-
rial of the holy Apostle Peter." The
Fathers of the Church had ever re-
garded S. Peter as the Prince of the
Apostles, the Head of the Brotherhood,
and the Chief Pastor of the Flock, and
therefore say they, " Let us honour the
memorial," that is the Chair, the symbol
of authority, or the shrine of the ' ' holy
Apostle Peter."*
* The word " memoriatn" signifies more than "memory," or the act of
calling to mind a past e/ent, or a person long deceased. It expresses the symbol
182
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
2. Their second thought was his
Successor, Julius. " Let us honour the
memorial of the holy Apostle Peter, by
providing that the parties who enter-
tained the case shall write to Julius,
Bishop of Rome." Here they couple
the names of S. Peter and his Successor,
S. Julius, who occupied his Cathedra,
exercising his authority and jurisdiction.
To him, then, the parties who entertained
the case were to write, i. e. to report to
the Pope. Their report was to be made,
not to the Pope as a mere Metro-
politan or Patriarch, but to him who,
as the Successor of S. Peter, occupied
his "Place." That this was so is evi-
dent from two circumstances, (i) The
connexion between "the holy Apostle
Peter" and "Julius," his Successor to
his Cathedra, which the Council fully
recognised ; and (2) The fact that this
was the declaration of not Latin Bishops
only, but also of such Catholic orientals
as were then present, inclusive of the
illustrious S. Athanasius.
3. After this follow certain canons
of discipline relating to appeals. The
Council provides, ( i ) That after an ap-
peal has been lodged, the Bishop of
Rome may, "if he judge" expedient,
order a new trial : (2) That pending
the appeal, no new Bishop should be
substituted in the room of the appel-
lant ; (3) That if a new trial be or-
dered, the Pope "may deign to write
to the Bishops of the neighbouring
provinces, requiring them to re-examine
the whole case, and decide according
to the truth ;" and, finally, that if the
applicant shall desire it, the Pope may
" send his Presbyters" (de latere suo),
invested with his authority; and the
case to be decided "as he shall deter-
mine. " In these three canons the fol-
lowing principles are conceded: (i)
The right to hear appeals, either by
neighbouring Bishops, i. e. of provinces
contiguous to that concerned, or by
Presbyters whom he may appoint as
his Legates, who were to hear the cause
on the part, and in the name of the
Pope, and "by his authority "determine
the same. The words, however, " as
he (the Pope) shall determine," may
signify more than this ; they may in-
clude a further reference to himself;
that is, that the Legates should report
the case to the Pope, and that then
he would himself finally determine the
cause.
4. After passing these canons, the
Fathers address the Holy Father in a
Synodical Epistle, in which they say,
" It seemed to be best and most suit-
able" that "the Priests (Bishops) of the
Lord in every Province," should refer
" to the Head, that is the Apostolic S ee. "
Here we have a distinct recognition by
the 300 Bishops, who were present at
this Council, of the Supremacy of the
Pope, in his capacity as Successor to
S. Peter in his Cathedra.
It has been held that these con-
cessions, as these canons are held to
be by some, were personal to Pope S.
Julius, and not in recognition of the
by which we are reminded of such event or person. In the highest mysteries of the
Church, the Sacred Elements, when offered and consecrated, are the memorials of
the Great Sacrifice on the Cross, for they represent and typify, and even more than
this, for they are the very things which they signify by which the Church carries on
and continues the great Sacrifice (after an unbloody manner) till the end of time.
Then, again, the Shrine of a Saint in any Church or place is the memorial or
representation of the Saint; so also is a tomb or sepulchre in a cemetery the
memorial of a departed one. So also in literature, Chronicles and Records are the
memorials of history. There is then no violence done in translating the word
metnoriam, as 'signifying not merely a calling to recollection the great Apostle S.
Peter, but his memorial, his symbolical representative, that is his Cathedra and
his See, " whence," as S. Cyprian says, " the Unity of the Priesthood took its
rise."
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
133
Supremacy of the Holy See. If in every
instance the name of the Pope had been
employed instead of that of his See and
his official title, this objection might
possibly have been tenable, but at best
it would be an exceedingly weak and
inconclusive one. But the name only
occurs once in the above canon; and
there in such intimate connexion with
S. Peter, as to show that they were
recognising his position, not on ac-
count of his personal holiness or capa-
bility, but because he occupied the
" Place of Peter." In other canons
his name does not appear, but his official
title, as " until the case has been de-
termined by the judgment of the Bishop
of Rome," *. e. the Bishop for the time
being. Then again the canons allude
to his appointing Legates to re-hear
and determine a cause on his behalf,
which they were to do by " his Autho-
rity." Here is a recognition of some
special " Authority" in the See of
Rome, or, as Socrates expresses it, of
" a Prerogative peculiar to the Church
of Rome" something which was not
inherent in other Sees. What was that
"Authority?" It was the " Authority"
of S. Peter exercised by the Bishop for
the time being of the Apostolic See ; it
is " best and most suitable," wrote the
Fathers to the Pope, " that the Priests
( Bishops) of the Lord in every province ' '
i.e. in every part of the Church, East no less
than West should "refer to the Head,
that is, to the Apostolic See of Peter."
These concessions, then, were not to
S. Julius personally, i. e. as apart from
the See, but to " the Apostolic See,"
of which he was the then Incumbent.
Nor were these concessions in the strict
sense of the term. From the very
commencement the Popes have always
enjoyed the Prerogative or right of visit-
ing personally, or bydeputy, or by letters,
every province and diocese of the Uni-
versal Church. This visitorial power
was exercised by S. Clement, to whom
the Church of Corinth appealed against
the seditious ; by S. Victor, who threa-
tened the Orientals with excommunica-
tion if they did not conform to the
Roman method of keeping Easter,
which severity, indeed, was protested
against, not the right assumed by
the Pope ; and by S. Stephen, in the
case of the re-baptism of heretics.
This visitorial power was set in motion
by S. Cyprian himself, when he urged
the Pope to coerce the Bishops of Gaul to
expel Marcian from the see of Aries.
The canons of Sardica contained no
new principle of ecclesiastical govern-
ment ; at best they were but a new appli-
cation of the ancient common law of
the Church, which was judged more
conducive to the better enforcement of
discipline.
Whether this Council is (Ecumenical
or not does not affect the question under
discussion ; which consists rather in the
testimony of Catholic Bishops of every
province in the West, and of a few in
the East, inclusive of S. Athanasius, to
the Papal Supremacy, as derived from
the "holy Apostle Peter," and "the
Apostolic See of Peter," declared to be
the "Head" of the Church, and to
which " the Priests of the Lord in every
province (should) refer."
COUNCIL OF AQUILEIA.
A.D. 381.
89. "... Yet your Clemency (the communion" (tamen totius orbis
Emperor) should be petitioned not Romani caput Romanam ecdesiam
.... inde enim in omnes vene-
randce communionis jura dema-
to suffer the Head of the Roman
world the Roman Church to be
thrown into confusion, for thence
flow unto all the rights of venerable
nant}. Synod. Ep. ad Impp. Labb.
S. Condi. T.u.p. 1185.
1 8 4
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
COMMENT.
This was a General Council of the
West, which assembled to condemn the
Arians and other heretical sects which
had their origin in them. Among them
was Ursinus, the Antipope, who sought
the overthrow of the legitimate Pope.
S. Ambrose, who had the chief ma-
nagement of this Council, proposed a
synodical letter to the Emperor Gratian,
which was approved by the Council, in
which the Emperor is entreated " not
to hear him any more, and firmly to
withstand all his importunities, not only
because he had favoured the heretics,
but because he endeavoured to disturb
the Roman Church, which was the
Head of the whole Empire, and from
which the right of venerable commu-
nion extends to all the other Churches."
See Fleury (Newman's tran.} H. E.
Bk. viii. c. xvi.
Now, it should be observed, that at
the time of S. Ambrose the boundaries
of the Roman Empire and the Catholic
Church were conterminous. The whole
Empire was Christian, and though the
Church may have overflowed at that
time in a partial degree the limits of
the Empire, yet not to any such extent
as to justify the notion that the domi-
nion of the Church at this time in any
great degree exceeded territorially that
of the Empire in its ancient integrity.
When then this Western Council af-
firmed the fact that the Roman Church
was the Head of the Roman Empire, as
Fleury has it, they meant that the
Roman Church and her Pontiff was the
Head of the Universal Church, from
whom, as from a fountain, " the rights
of venerable communion" "flow unto
all ;" or according to Fleury, " extend
to all the other Churches." This is,
indeed, a most remarkable testimony
in favour of the universal jurisdiction
of the Sovereign Pontiff and of the
Roman Church. For observe what it in-
cludes, viz. the Patriarchates of Constan-
tinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem,
and all other sees situated within the
Roman Empire, East and West. We
see now what the word caput (or Head)
signifies : not merely as a title of honour
or courtesy, but one which implied su-
preme jurisdiction and authority. For
if it did not mean this, how could an
Antipope, successfully seizing the Apo-
stolic See, and occupying it in place of
the canonical Pope, have the effect of
throwing into confusion the whole
Church, and of interrupting (for this is
necessarily implied) the stream of vene-
rable communion ? It cannot be doubted
that this is a most remarkable testimony
in behalf of the Roman Supremacy, and
coming from so great a Bishop as S.
Ambrose, and from the representatives of
the provinces of Gaul, Africa, and other
parts of the West, it furnishes an over-
whelming proof, as to what was held
touching the fundamental principle of
ecclesiastical government and commu-
nion.
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
I8 5
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
SECOND (ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.
A.D. 381.
i. NECTARIUS.
90. [The Pope was not present
at this Council, nor did he send re-
presentatives. The following ac-
count is given in Fleury's Eccle-
siastical History of the election of
Nectarius to the See of Constanti-
nople :] " The Emperor recom-
mended it to the Bishops to con-
sider very carefully who was the
most worthy, and they were di-
vided about the choice. There was
at that time at Constantinople an
old man named Nectarius, who was
very venerable for his dignity, his
age, and graceful appearance
His virtues, particularly his gentle-
ness, procured him the admiration
of everybody, but he was not yet
baptized. Being ready to set out
in order to return to his own
country, he went to visit Diodorus,
Bishop of Tarsus, to know if he
had any business to be done at
home, and to take his letters. Dio-
dorus was then considering with
himself upon the choice of the
Bishop of Constantinople. When
he considered Nectarius' white hair,
his majestic countenance, and the
gentleness of his disposition, it
made him think him worthy to fill
that place, and he stopped at that
thought. He then consulted the
Bishop of Antioch. The Emperor
desired the Bishops to write down
the names of such as they thought
worthy of the See, reserving to
himself whom he would choose.
He made choice of Nectarius.
Everybody was surprised ....
and when they were informed that
he was not so much as baptized,
they were the more surprised at
the Emperor's choice At
length they (the Bishops) yielded
to the Prince's will, and the incli-
nation of the people, who likewise
desired Nectarius. He was bap-
tized, and while he still wore the
habit of a neophyte, he was de-
clared Bishop of Constantinople,
with the general consent of the
whole Council Theodosius
sent deputies from his court with
certain Bishops, to desire a formal
letter from the Pope in confirma-
tion of their choice of Nectarius."
Fleury, H. E. B. xviii. c. 5. Trans,
by Newman.
1 86
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
2. CASE OF MACEDONIUS.
91. "The Emperor and the Ca-
tholic Bishops represented to them
that they had sent a deputation to
Pope Liberius, under the direction of
Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste ; and
that for some time they had volun-
tarily communicated with the Ca-
tholics, without making any dis-
tinction ; that they therefore did
not do well in overthrowing the
faith which they had opposed, and
leaving the good part which they
had chosen." Ib. c. 6.
3. THE PRIMACY.
92. " That the Bishop of Constan-
tinople have the dignity of honour
next after the
Bishop of Rome, for Constantinople
is New Rome." Canon iii.
T. \\.p. 1125.
COMMENT.
The Pope was not present at this
great Council, neither did he send any
Legates ; it became GEcumenical on
its being accepted by the West, and
confirmed by the Pope.
There are two points worthy of con-
sideration, viz. the case of Nectarius
arid the Primacy ; this latter I propose
to reserve for the comment on the
Council of Chalcedon.
The case of Nectarius, if we could
be quite sure of its being genuine,
is conclusive as far as it goes. It
is not to be found in the acts of the
Council, and it is well known that
some of them have been lost. The
only authority known is the account
given of it by S. Boniface in his Epistle
to Macedonius, about the year 422,
that is, about forty years after the
celebration of this Council a period
sufficiently short for S. Boniface to
have been corrected, if he had made a
mistake. The strong probability is that
the account is perfectly correct. At
all events, having the word of so holy
a Pope as S. Boniface, we shall assume
it is so, and submit the evidence for
what it is worth.
The See of Constantinople became
vacant on the resignation of S. Gre-
gory of Nazianzum, its Patriarch,
who was after the death of Meletius of
Antioch its President. It was necessary
that a new appointment should be made
as soon as convenient. The Emperor
directed the Bishops to write down the
names of such persons as they deemed
worthy. They did so, and the Em-
peror selected Nectarius, an aged' man,
who had not been as yet baptized,
though a believer in Christ. The choice
of Theodosius was at first opposed by
the Prelates, but subsequently they
yielded to his wishes. Having agreed
upon a fit person, the next step was
his ordination, consecration, and in-
stallation. Did the Bishops immediately
proceed to perform these functions ?
Apparently not. Why? Because some-
thing else had to be done before Nec-
tarius could be canonically consecrated
and installed. What was that? The
confirmation of the Pope. "Theo-
dosius," it is said, " sent deputies from
his court with certain Bishops to desire
a formal letter from the Pope in con-
firmation of their choice of Nectarius."
Now if the Pope had occupied no
higher office than that of any other
great Bishop, if he had not been su-
perior to even the Council itself, it
was inconceivable and unnecessary to
have sent a deputation all the way
to Rome to ask for the Papal con-
firmation of the Bishop nominate and
elect. According to the code of the
Universal Church then in force, every
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
I8 7
Bishop was constituted by his col-
leagues of the Province in which his see
was situated, subject to the assent of the
Metropolitan. The Metropolitan had
to be confirmed by the Patriarchs. In
that case the immediate action of the
Apostolic See was not necessary. All
that was needful was that the new
Bishop on taking possession of his See
should forward to the Pope, and to
the Patriarch and other Bishops, his
confession of faith. But who had
authority to confirm a new Patriarch ?
It is evident from their conduct that
this plenary Council had no such autho-
rity ; from whence, then was Nectarius
to derive his jurisdiction ? The syno-
dical epistle of the Council of Aquileia
fitly answers this question. It will be
remembered that when there was a
danger of Gratian supporting the Anti-
pope Ursinus, S. Ambrose and this
council in their sy nodical epistle to
him, petitioned him not " to suffer the
Head of the Roman world the Roman
Church to be thrown into confusion :
for," they added, "thence flow unto
all the rights of venerable communion. "
Theodosius then and the Bishops, as
good Catholics, approached by deputa-
tion the throne of the Apostolic See, to
ask for " a formal letter from the Pope
in confirmation of the choice of Nec-
tarius."
It is objected, however, that this
application was not in recognition of
the Papal Prerogative, but to obtain
the consent of the great Bishop of
Rome, in order that no difficulties
might afterwards arise. But on the
hypothesis that the Pope was no more
than an equal to the other Patriarchs,
though first in honour, it was utterly
unnecessary to ask his consent to their
election. The Fathers assembled at
Constantinople, in the very place where
the vacancy occurred, were fully com-
petent to supply all that was required
(if this hypothesis be granted) their
power was superior to the Pope, whose
decrees would have been binding upon
him. The question raised refutes itself.
Assuming, then, that this account
of the deputation to Rome is genuine,
it is conclusive evidence of the Papal
Supremacy over all the Sees in Chris-
tendom. But even if it were proved
to be spurious, this would not touch the
question ; for the Council of Aquileia,
just quoted, informs us of the earthly
source of all communion ; and that of
Sardica, of the Prerogative of the Pope
as ultimate Judge in all controversies
relating to the Episcopate.
COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE.
A.D. 410.
93. " We have considered that
what has been done by us was to be
made known to your holy charity,
that to the decrees made by our
lowliness might be added the Au-
thority of the Apostolic See" (etiam
Apostolicce sedis adhibeatur aucto-
ritas). Galland. t. viii. ep. xxvi.
P. 59, I-
COMMENT.
It is impossible to deny that the
assent of the Apostolic See is neces-
sary to give ecclesiastical validity to
the decrees of plenary councils. The
Synodical Epistle of the Council of
Carthage, the decrees of which were
prepared by S. Augustine, witnesses to
the form that conciliar decrees ordi-
narily took effect ; (l), By the judgment
of the Bishops in Council, and (2), By
the additional " Authority of the
Apostolic See." This demonstrates
the necessity, for what are some-
times called " National Councils,"
1 88
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
obtaining the Papal confirmation before
they are promulgated. It is this con-
firmation that gives them binding au-
thority. This point will be touched
upon again in the Comment on the
CEcumenical Council of Chalcedon.
94. "As the Lord, by the chief
gift of His grace, hath placed you
in the Apostolic See, and hath fur-
nished our times with such a Chief
.... we pray that you will deign to
extend your pastoral diligence to
the great dangers of us poor weak
members of Christ. . . We think
COUNCIL OF MILEVIS.
A.D. 416.
that .... they who hold such per-
verse sentiments will more readily
yield to the Authority of your Holi-
ness, which is derived from jt-he
clear light of the Scriptures" (de
claro Scripturarum lumine de-
prompts). Labb. S. Condi, t. iii.
col. 388, 9.
COMMENT.
The African Bishops who assembled
in Milevis regarded the Roman as
"the Apostolic See," i.e. the See of
the Apostle Peter ; and they recognised
the Roman Bishop as " Chief," i. e. as
Chief of the Episcopate. They ask him
to commiserate their weak condition ;
and they add that "they who hold such
perverse sentiments will more readily
yield t he Auth ority of your Holiness ;"
which they say "is derived from the
clear light of the Holy Scriptures." This
expression shows that the Fathers were
in this epistle regarding the Pope in
h s character, not as Patriarch, as some
think' but as the Supreme Pastor : for
the foermr r office is strictly an eccle-
siastical one, whereas the latter is Scrip-
tural. The Scriptures they referred to are
evidently "the following : ' ' Thou art
Peter," " To thee will I give the keys of
the kingdom of heaven." " Whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
"Confirm thy brethren." "Feed My
sheep." "Feed My lambs." They
unquestionably referred to all or some
of these passages ; for there are none
else they could have referred to ; and
by so doing they point to the origin
of that " Authority," they request the
Pope to exercise, which they say is de-
rived from the " clear light of the Scrip-
tures;" that is, that the language of
Scripture is so plain that to doubt his
"Authority" is impossible. From this
it follows that they believed the Pope
filled the "Place of Peter," and was
his Successor in the government of the
Universal Church, and also was in pos-
session of its supreme jurisdiction, as
symbolised by the keys.
This testimony is so far valuable, as
it materially assists us in the right under-
standing of the proceedings of another
Council in Africa, which questioned the
Pope's right to restore Apiarius, who
had been condemned for gross immoral
conduct.
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
I8 9
COUNCIL OF EPHESUS,
THE THIRD (ECUMENICAL.
A.D. 431.
i. EPISTLE OF POPE S. CELESTINE TO S. CYRIL, PATRIARCH OF
ALEXANDRIA.
95. " Wherefore, having added
to you the authority of our Throne,
and using with power our Authority
of place (e-vv06<p0g/<rjj$ <roi roivvv TV$
TOV vp&rtgov O^ovov, xott rj
TOV TQ7TOV
you will exact with ri-
gorous firmness this definite sen-
tence, that either within ten days,
counting from the day of this admo-
nition, he shall anathematise, by a
confession under his own hand, this
wicked assertion of his, and shall
give assurance that he will hold,
concerning the generation of the
Christ and our God, the same faith
as the Church of the Romans, and
of your Holiness, and the religion
the world holds ; or if he will
not do this, your Holiness, hav-
ing at once provided for this
Church (Constantinople), will let
him know that he is in every way
removed from our Body." Ep. ad
Cyril, in Condi. Ephes. Labbe, t. iii.
col. 898, 9.
2. CONDEMNATION OF NESTORIUS FOR CONTUMACY.
96. "Nestorius himself. . . refused
to obey the citation and to receive
the Bishops who were sent to
him on our part .... and having
convicted him .... of holding
and teaching impious doctrine,
being compelled by the necessity
of the canons, and by the Letters
of our most holy Father and Col-
league, Celestine, Bishop of the
Roman Church ; after having shed
many tears, we are agreed upon
this unhappy sentence. Our Lord
Jesus Christ, whom he hath blas-
phemed, has declared by this holy
Council that he is deprived of the
episcopal dignity, and excluded
from all ecclesiastical assemblies."
Ib. col. 1078.
190
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
3. ARRIVAL OF THE PAPAL LEGATES WITH THE LETTERS OF THE
POPE.
97. " Subsequently the Legates of
the Apostolic See arrived, bringing
with them the Letters of Pope S.
Celestine, which were read to the
Council. After which the Legate
Philip said : ' We acknowledge
our thanks to the holy and vene-
rable Synod, that the Letter of our
holy and blessed Pope having been
read to you, you have united
your holy members by your holy
voices and acclamations to that
holy Head ; for your blessedness
is not ignorant that the blessed
Peter the Apostle was the Head
of all the Faith (on Mtyct,** O*K
TK Trio-nets), as also of the Apos-
tles.' " Ib. act. ii. col. 1 147-50.
98. "Projectus, the Legate, said:
* Remark the form of the Letter
of our venerable Father Celestine :
he does not pretend to instruct
you, as if you were ignorant, but
aims at putting you in remem-
brance of what you know already,
wishing you to execute that on
which he has long ago adjudicated.'"
Ib. col. 1147.
99. " Firmus, Bishop of Cappa-
docia, said: ' The holy Apostolic See
of Celestine has decided this affair,
and has pronounced sentence on it
before in the Letter addressed to
Cyril of Alexandria .... In accord-
ance with which sentence, and in
furtherance thereof, we have pro-
nounced a canonical judgment
against Nestorius, the term which
was granted him for recantation
being over-past, and we having
waited long beyond the day fixed
by the Emperor.' " Ib. Labbe* t. iii.
act. ii. col. 1147.
4. DEPOSITION OF NESTORIUS.
100. "When the acts of the Council
had been read, Priest Philip, Legate,
said : ' No one doubts but that
Peter, the Exarch and Head of the
Apostles (o ^i^gx* 5 Kt * { K ^ ( P al ^* ) v
#7roffT0Ay), Pillar of the faith and
Foundation of the Catholic Church,
received from our Lord Jesus Christ
the keys of His Kingdom, and
power to bind and loose sins, and
that even to the present time he
lives, and exercises these judicial
powers in his Successors. Our holy
Pope, Bishop Celestine, who at
this time holds his Place (o ^tee^o-^og
KCCI T07roTjjg))T>$), has sent us to
represent him in this holy Council,
which our most Christian Empe-
rors have convened in order to
preserve intact the Catholic Faith,
which has descended to them from
their ancestors.' [He then sums
up the proceedings against Nesto-
rius, and adds] : ' The sentence
pronounced against him remains
firm, agreeable to the judgment
of all the Churches [East and
West]. Let Nestorius therefore
know that he is cut off from the
communion of the priesthood of
the Catholic Church.' " 7. coL
1154, 55-
101. " Bishop Arcadius, Legate,
next delivered judgment : ' . . . .
According to the tradition of the
Apostles and the Catholic Church,
and in accordance also with the
decision of the most holy Pope
Celestine, who sent us to execute
his part of this business, and pur-
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
IQI
stiant to the decrees of the holy
Council, let Nestorius know that
he is deprived of the episcopal
dignity, excluded from the whole
Church, and from the communion
of all Bishops.'" Ib. col. 1155-8.
102. " Bishop Projectus, also Le-
gate : ' I too, by my authority as
Legate of the Apostolic See, being
joined by my brother to execute this
sentence, declare that Nestorius,
enemy of the truth and corrupter of
the faith, is deprived of the epi-
scopal dignity, and of the commu-
nion of all orthodox Bishops.' *--
Ib. 1158.
103. " S. Cyril : ' Since, then,
we, beloved of God, have executed
the sentence of the most holy Bishop
Celestine, of the holy Synod con-
gregated in the metropolitan city
of Ephesus, against the heretic Nes-
torius, let the acts of what passed
yesterday and to-day be joined to
the preceding, that they may signify
their consent by subscription.'"
Ib. 1158.
5. SYNODICAL EPISTLES.
104. The following was sent to
the Emperor : " God, favouring your
zeal, has stirred up that of the
Bishops of the West to avenge the
injury done to Jesus Christ ; for,
although the length of the journey
is such that they could not all
come to us, yet they assembled in
a synod of their own, Celestine,
the holy Bishop of Rome, himself
presiding. They approved our
opinions concerning the faith, and
cut off from the priesthood those
who differ from us. Celestine had
already declared the same before
the meeting of the Council, by his
Letter to the most holy Bishop
Cyril, whom he also appointed to
act in his stead. He has now
again confirmed it by Letters sent
to the Council of Ephesus by the
Bishops Arcadius and Projectus,
and the Priest Philip, his vicars.
On their arrival they made known
to us the opinion of the whole
Council of the West, and have also
witnessed, in writing, that they
perfectly agree with us in regard
to the faith. We therefore inform
your Majesty of this, that you
may be assured that the sentence
we have now pronounced is the
common judgment of the whole
world " Ib. col. 1159.
105. In the synodical letter ad-
dressed to Pope Celestine is the fol-
lowing : " After the acts relating to
the deposition of the impious Pela-
gians, &c., and their adherents, had
been read in the Council, we or-
dered that the sentence which your
Holiness pronounced against them
should remain firm, and we are all
unanimous in looking upon them as
deposed. For your fuller informa-
tion we send you the acts and
subscriptions of the Council." Ib.
col. 1329-1338.
COMMENT.
This is the first CEcumenical Council
of which we have an accurate and full
account. All that we have of the
Council of Nicsea the first CEcume-
nical are the Symbol of Faith, the
Canons, the Synodical Epistles. Of the
attitude the Legates assumed, their
speeches, and their proceedings, we are
left for the most part in ignorance, in
consequence of the loss of the original
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
documents. At the second CEcumenical
Council the Legates were not present,
this Council having subsequently be-
come General, on its acceptance by the
West, and its confirmation by the Pope.
For the first time, then, we have a full
account of the manner and form of an
CEcumenical Council, and of the rela-
tion that subsists between it and the
Sovereign Pontiff.
Upon the arrival of the Legates
two Bishops and a Priest they de-
livered the Letters of the Pope, which
were read to the Council ; they then
addressed the Council, describing the
assembled Prelates as ' ' holy members, "
united " by'their voices and acclamations
to that holy Head ;" for they add, " Your
blessedness is not ignorant that the
blessed Peter the Apostle was the
Head of all the Faith, as also of the
Apostles." This was a formal an-
nouncement that S. Peter, the founder
of the Roman Church, was " the Head
of the Faith and of the Apostles ;" and
this, it will be remembered, is in ac-
cordance with one of the commissions
our Lord delivered to the Apostle,
' ' Confirm, or strengthen, thy Brethren :"
that is, he was to execute the office of
confirming with the strength of the
Rock the Faith of the Apostolate, to
whom each Apostle was to look up to
as his Head. The Legates at another
time advance a step further in their pro-
nouncement : " No one doubts but that
Peter, the Exarch and Head of the Apo-
stles, Pillar of the Faith, and Foundation
of the Catholic Church, received from
our Lord Jesus Christ the keys of His
Kingdom, and power to bind and loose
sins, and that even to the present time he
(Peter) lives and exercises these judicial
powers in his Successors." The several
commissions which our Lord delivered
to S. Peter, inclusive of the Supreme
Jurisdiction, as symbolised by the keys,
were transmitted to his Successors ; not
to his Successors generally, but to the
Bishops of Rome, for they assert that
Bishop Celestine of Rome " at this time
holds his Place." This is in accord-
ance with the doctrine of S. Cyprian,
who asserted that Rome was "the
Place of Peter," where is "the Ca-
thedra of Peter, and the Principal
Church, whence the unity of the Priest-
hood took its rise," which "Place"
Cornelius then occupied, and at the
period of the Council, the " holy Pope,
Bishop Celestine." The judicial power,
then, of S. Peter descended to his Suc-
cessors, the Bishops of Rome, which
power the Pope had exercised against
the heretic Nestorius, the Council being
assembled to confirm what had been
done. As Peter, then, was the Head of
the whole Faith, and of the Apostles,
so also are his Successors, each in his
turn, Head of the Faith and of the
Episcopate.
The Legates, occupying this ground
in behalf of their master the Pope, and
occupying his place as the Successor of
S. Peter, after summing up the evidence,
pronounce sentence in his name : " The
sentence pronounced against him (Nes-
torius) remains firm, agreeable to the
judgment of all the Churches. Let
Nestorius know that he is cut off from
the communion of the Priesthood of
the Catholic Church." The second
Legate likewise pronounced, "Accord-
ing to the tradition of the Apostles and
the Catholic Church ; in accordance
also to the decision of the most holy
Pope Celestine, who sent us to execute
his part of this business, and in pur-
suance of the decrees of the Holy
Council, let Nestorius know that he is
deprived of the episcopal dignity, ex-
cluded from the whole Church, and
from the communion of all Bishops."
And another Legate also pronounced :
" I too, by my authority as Legate of
the Apostolic See, being joined with
my brothers to execute this sentence,
declare that Nestorius, enemy of the
truth and corrupter of the Faith, is de-
prived of the episcopal dignity, and of
the communion of all Catholic Bishops."
S. Cyril also, who had been appointed
by the Pope to preside and to act " in
his (the Pope's) stead, and for the Coun-
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
193
cil, announces the sentence passed
upon Nestorius by the Pope, and the
approval by the Legates of " the judg-
ment passed by the holy Council upon
the heretic Nestorius," directs that
the acts be prepared for subscription
by the Fathers.
The position of the Pope in the
Council was as the Successor of the
Apostle S. Peter, the Head of the
Faith, and the Exarch and Chief of
all the Apostles, who alone possessed
the prerogative of the Supreme Juris-
diction, which he exercised against
Nestorius, both before the celebration
of this Council and in the presence of
the assembled Prelates of the world.
The attitude the Pope assumed was
that of Supreme Judge, whose judg-
ment the whole Episcopate in Council as-
sembled were bound not merely to defer,
but to submit to, and accept, as the
voice of the Apostle Peter. Now if this
assumption of Supreme Authority was
founded on no warranty of either Scrip-
ture or Tradition, would the Fathers,
of whom the greater part were Orien-
tals, and extremely jealous of their
rights, have quietly, and without pro-
test of any kind, submitted to it ? To
estimate this properly, we must realise
what an awful crime it would be for any
man claiming to be the Head of the
Faith, the Head of the Church, and to
be the Supreme Judge in all matter*
concerning the Faith, if such claim had
no other foundation than pride of place
and of power. Such an assumption, if
unfounded, was not only arrogant and
presumptuous to the greatest degree ; it
was heretical, wicked, profane, and
blasphemous. If the position assumed
by the Legates on behalf of their master
the Pope had been an innovation, we
should naturally have expected at least
a remonstrance, or a protest, if not an
anathema, followed by instant deposi-
tion.
But the assembled Fathers accept
the position assumed by the Pope with-
out a murmur of dissent. Firmus,
Bishop of Cappadocia, a See in Asia
Minor, said, " The Apostolic See of
Celestine has decided this affair (of
Nestorius), and has pronounced sen-
tence upon it before, in the Letter ad-
dressed to Cyril of Alexandria .... in
accordance with which sentence, and in
furtherance thereof, we have pronounced
a canonical judgment against Nestorius,
the term which was granted him (i. e.
the ten days allowed by the Pope) for
recantation being over past ; and we
having waited long beyond the day
fixed by the Emperor." Here is a dis-
tinct recognition of the Papal position
of Supreme Judge over the Patriarch
of the (then) Second See of the world,
the chief seat of authority in the East,
and of the Imperial City. The other
Bishops follow suit, and not a word
is to be found of remonstrance or pro-
test against the action of the Pope in
having by his own sole authority de-
posed Nestorius, or against the lofty
attitude the Legates assumed before the
Council, to whom they declared, (i)
That the blessed Peter was " the Head
of the Faith," " the Exarch and Head of
the Apostles, the Pillar of the Faith, and
Foundation of the Catholic Church,"
" who received from our Lord Jesus
Christ the keys of His Kingdom, and
power to bind and loose sins :" (2)
That S. Peter " lives and exercises
these judicial powers in his Successors :"
and (3) That " our holy Pope Bishop
Celestine" (of Rome) "at this time
holds his Place," that is, "his Place of
Head of the Faith," and "the Exarch
and Head" of the whole Church, and
consequently the office of that Supreme
"Judicial power," which S. Peter re-
ceived from Christ, and which he exer-
cises by his Successors, and, in the
present instance, in the person of S.
Celestine, Bishop of the Apostolic See.
S. Cyril, the President of this great
Council, and the Patriarch of the
second Apostolic See, fully admitted
all the pretensions of the Pope, when he
accepted his commission to execute his
sentence upon Nestorius, and to pre-
side "in his stead" over this Council ;
O
194
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
and also when he described S. Celestine
as "Archbishop of all the habitable
world," as well as " Father and Pa-
triarch of the mighty city of Rome."
The Council of Ephesus then, together
with its President, accepted the Papal
Supremacy in its fulness.
COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON.
FOURTH (ECUMENICAL.
A.D. 451.
i. EXPULSION OF DIOSCORUS, PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA, BY COM-
MAND OF THE POPE'S LEGATES, FROM HIS PLACE IN THE
COUNCIL.
106. "Bishop Paschasinus, Vicar
of the Apostolic See, stood up
with his colleagues and said,
' We have orders from the
blessed Bishop of Rome, who is the
Head of all the Churches, that
Dioscorus should not sit in the
Council ; therefore, so please your
greatness, let him go down, or we
must depart.' .... The Magistrates
and senators said, 'What is the
specific charge against the most
reverend Bishop Dioscorus ?' Lu-
centius,the (other) Vicar of the Apo-
stolic See, replied, ' He (Dioscorus)
must assign a reason for the sen-
tence he passed ; for he has pre-
sumed to exercise the office of Judge,
which does not belong to him, and
to hold a council without the au-
thority of the Holy See a thing
which is never lawful, and cannot
be made lawful' (quod nunquam
licuit, numguam factum est). Pas-
chasinus said, ' We cannot act con-
trary to the orders of our most
blessed Pope, or to the canons of
the Church, or to the institutions of
the Fathers.' Upon this Dioscorus,
by order of the Magistrates, left his
place, and took his seat in the
midst of the assembly." Labbe, S.
Condi. 7. iv. col. 863-6.
2. ADMISSION OF THEODORET TO THE COUNCIL.
107. " Constantinus, the most de-
voted secretary to the Sacred Con-
sistory, commenced reading the
letter from (the Emperor) Theodo-
sius the Younger, to Dioscorus, who
summoned the (Arian) Council of
Ephesus. As it expressly forbade
Theodoret to be present there, the
Magistrates said, ' Let the most
reverend Bishop Theodoret enter
that he too may take part in the
Council, since the most holy Arch-
bishop Leo has restored him to the
episcopal office, and the most pious
Emperor has ordered that he should
assist at the holy Council.' .
Theodoret came forward, and said,
' I have presented a petition to the
Emperor in which I set forth the
cruelties I have endured ; I beg
that it may be examined.' The
Magistrates said, 'The Bishop
Theodoret, having recovered his
rank from the Archbishop of Rome,
has now entered as a prosecutor ;
wherefore to avoid confusion let
us finish what we have begun.'"
Ib. col. 873-4.
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
195
3. THE EUTYCHIAN HERESY.
108. "Cecropius, Bishop of Sebas-
topolis, said, ' The affairs of Eutyches
sprang into sudden importance ;
the Archbishop of Rome gave a de-
cision about it, and we follow him ;
we have all subscribed to his Letter.'
The Bishops cried out, ' That say
we all ; the exposition that has
been given is sufficient, it is not
lawful that another should be
made.'" Id. 1207.
109. " . . . . When the reading
was done (i.e. of S. Leo's Letter),
the Bishop exclaimed, ' This is the
faith of the Apostles : We all be-
lieve this, the orthodox believe this,
anathema to him who believes not
thus. Peter has thus spoken by
Leo ; the Apostles taught this,
Leo's doctrine is pious and true ;
Cyril taught this ; let the memory
of Cyril be eternal. Leo and Cyril
teach the same. Anathema to him
who does not believe. This is the
true Faith This is the Faith
of the Fathers Why was not this
done at (the heretical council of)
Ephesus ? This is what Dioscorus
concealed.'" Ib. col. 1235.
4. TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF DIOSCORUS.
no. [Then the three Legates],
"Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boni-
face, holding the Place of the blessed
Leo, the Bishop of old Rome, pro-
nounced the sentence in these
terms : ' The outrage committed
against the Canons by Dioscorus,
late Bishop of Alexandria, has
been plainly proved by the evidence
adduced both in the former session
and in this. He received to his
communion Eutyches, who was
condemned by his own Bishop.
He persisted in maintaining that
what he did at Ephesus was well
done, though he ought to mourn
for it, and ask pardon, as the others
have done. He would not permit
the Letter of Pope Leo to Flavianus,
of sacred memory, to be read, he
even excommunicated the most
blessed and holy Archbishop Leo
of great Rome. Several complaints
have been presented against him to
the Council. He has been three
times cited, and refuses to pay obe-
dience. Wherefore, the most holy
Archbishop of Rome, Leo, by us
and this present Council, thrice
blessed, and with the Apostle S.
Peter, who is the Rock and Founda-
tion of the Catholic Church and of
the orthodox faith, deprives him of
the episcopal dignity and every
sacerdotal ministry. The Council,
therefore, will decree concerning
him in conformity with the canons."'
Ib. 1303-6.
5. THE PRIMATIAL RANK.
in. " We, following in all things
the decisions of the holy Fathers,
and acknowledging the canon of the
1 50 most religious Bishops, do also
determine and decree the same
thing respecting the privileges
(^go-/3g/&)v) of the most holy city of
Constantinople, New Rome. For
the Fathers with good reason
granted to the See of Old Rome its
high privileges (TT^<T^UOL\ because
it was the reigning city. By the
same consideration the 150 most
religious Bishops were induced to
decree that New Rome, the hon-
oured seat of empire and residence
of the Senate, should possess equal
privileges
196
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
in ecclesiastical things ; and
be second in rank after her
so that only the Metropolitans of
Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and
the Bishop of those dioceses which
are among the barbarians, shall be
ordained by the See of Constanti-
nople, on their receiving a notifi-
cation that a canonical election
has taken place : but it must be
understood that each Metropolitan
of these dioceses shall along with
his comprovincials ordain the Bis-
hops of the provinces according to
the canons." Ib. col. 1691-4.
6. OBJECTION OF THE LEGATES.
112. " The Legates directed Pas-
chasinus (one of them) to address
the following remonstrance to the
Magistrates: ' Yesterday, after you
and ourselves had withdrawn,
something, we are told, was trans-
acted which we consider opposed
to the Canons : we desire it may be
read, that all our brethren may see
whether it be just or no.' [After
some altercation] Ae'tius, the Arch-
deacon, speaking of the Legates,
said, ' If they have received any
injunctions, on this head, let them
be produced.' Boniface the priest
read a paper which contained the
following order of Pope Leo : ' Do
not suffer the decrees of the
Fathers to be infringed or en-
croached upon by any rash changes ;
preserve in all things the dignity
of Our Person, which you repre-
sent ; and if any, as may happen,
relying on the splendour of their
cities, should attempt any usurpa-
tion, do you oppose, them with be-
coming resolution.' The Magis-
trates said, ' Let the Canons be
produced by both parties.' [Then
followed the reading of the sixth
Canon of Nicaea, and the decree
of the Council of Constantinople,
&c., after which] the Magistrates
said, ' It appears from the deposi-
tion, first of all, that the Primacy
and the Precedency of honour (va>
TTPUTUQt, X.OLI TH)V t%Ot(g6TOV Tlftqv}
should be preserved, according to
the Canons, for the Archbishop of
Old Rome, but that the Archbishop
of Constantinople ought to enjoy the
same privileges of honour (rcov XVTUV
TT^urfitiav ry)$ Tipvii) $ and that he
has a right to ordain the Metropo-
litans of the dioceses of Asia, Pon-
tus, &c. These are our views,
let the Council state theirs.' The
Bishops shouted, ' This is a just
proposal ; we all say the same, we
all assent to it ; we pray you dis-
miss us,' with other similar excla-
mations. Lucentius, the Legate,
said, 'The Apostolic See ought not
to be degraded in our presence ;
we therefore desire yesterday's pro-
ceedings which relate to the Canons,
be rescinded ; otherwise let our
opposition be inscribed in the acts
that we may know what we ought
to report to the Pope, and that he
may declare his opinion of the con-
tempt of his See and subversion
of the Canons.' The Magistrates
said, ' The whole Council approves
of what is said.'" Ib. col. 1731-58.
7. SYNODICAL EPISTLE TO THE POPE.
113. "... Which like to a golden
chain coming even unto us by the
precept of the Law-giver, thou (Leo)
hast kept, being the constituted
Interpreter to all of the blessed
Peter" (vocis beati Petri omni-
bus constitutus inter pres.} Ib. col.
1774, 5-
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
197
114. " . . . Over whom thou indeed
hast presided, as the Head over
the members." (Quibus tu quidem
sicut membris caput prceeras in his
qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevo-
lentiam prceferendo.} Ib. col. \ 7 7 5 .
115. "... Over and above these
offences, extending his madness
against him (Leo), to whom the
Custody of the Vineyard is com-
mitted by the Saviour (cui vinece
custodia a Salvatore commissa est\
that is, against your holy Apostle-
ship, meditating excommunication
against thee, who hastenedst to
unite the body of the Church." Ib.
1775-
1 1 6. "... We have to inform you
that there are other things that we
have ordained for the establishing
of order, and the maintenance of
canonical discipline, under the per-
suasion that our proceedings would
have your approval and confirma-
tion as soon as you were made
aware of them. We confirmed then
the Canon of the 150 Fathers of
Constantinople, which ordained that
the Bishop of that city should have
privileges of honour after your most
holy and Apostolic Chair, in the
conviction that you dispose of your
favours without any invidious feel-
ing towards your brethren, so you
would extend your wonted care to
the Church of Constantinople, and
enlighten it with your Apostolic
ray. Deign, therefore, most holy
and most blessed Father, to allow
our decision. Your Legates, we
acknowledge, were averse to this
measure, no doubt from a desire of
securing to you the honour of ad-
vancing, in the first instance, the
matter of order, as well as the matter
of faith. We acted, however, in
accordance with the wishes of the
Emperor, the Senate, and the Im-
perial city. Honour then, we pray
you, our judgment, with your de-
cree, that as we have been united
to our Head in agreeing upon what
was right, so the Head, too (i.e. the
Pope), may confirm the becoming
act of the children. So will our
pious princes be pleased, who have
ratified as a law whatever your Ho-
liness has determined." (Rogamus
igitiir, et tuis decretis nostrum
honor a judicium j et sicut nos ca-
pite in bonis adjicimus consonan-
tiam, sic et summitas tua filiis
quod decet adimpleat. Sic enim
pii principes complacebunt, qui
tamquam legem tua sanctitatis ju-
dicium firmaverunt?) Ib. col. 1779.
COMMENT.
Strong indeed is the testimony of
the CEcumenical Council of Ephesus
for the Papal Supremacy, but it is
nothing compared to that of the great
Synod of Chalcedon, also CEcume-
nical. The Legates of the Pope as-
sumed precisely the same position in
this Council as they did at Ephesus.
They maintained before the Council the
Superiority of the Pope as the Head of
the Episcopate, connecting his authority
with that of S. Peter, the origin and
source of all his Prerogatives, and who
lives and judges through his Succes-
I. The first point to be considered is
the expulsion of Dioscorus, Patriarch of
Alexandria, from his seat in the Coun-
cil, by command of the Pope, speaking
through his Legates, " We have orders,"
say the Legates, "from the blessed Bis-
hop of Rome, who is the Head of all
the Churches, that Dioscorus should
not sit in the Council." This was a
peremptory command, addressed to the
Emperor's officers, who were present,
and to the Council itself a command
which, if not instantly obeyed, would
have been followed by their departure
from the Council. " Therefore," say
198
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
they, " let him go down, or we must
depart. "
The Magistrates seem to have been
taken by surprise, but the Legates
exclaimed, " We cannot act contrary
to the orders of our most blessed Pope,
and the Canons of the Church." The
result was, that Dioscorus, the Patriarch
of the Second Apostolic Throne, had
to vacate his seat in the Council, and
to sit " in the midst of the assembly."
The Magistrates and Council of some
600 Fathers, most of whom were
Orientals obeyed the Papal com-
mands, and permitted their Brother
Prelate to be deprived of his seat.
To give one an idea of this exer-
cise of Supreme power, let us suppose
the case of Queen Victoria commanding
a Peer to vacate his seat in the House
of Lords, or the Emperor Napoleon
directing one of the Senate to cease
to take part in the deliberations of
the national Council. Would either the
House of Lords or the French Senate
submit to such a stretch of authority
without a murmur? But the Pope is
a greater person than any Sovereign
greater than the Emperors of old,
for he was the recognised Vicar of
Jesus Christ ; and whatever he com-
mands is instantly to be obeyed under
penalty of excommunication, for he,
sitting in "the Place of Peter," "alone
holds and possesses the whole power"
of his Master. So Dioscorus had to
submit to the Papal sentence, the Magis-
trates and the Council acquiescing.
2. But what were the grounds of this
despotic action of the Papacy ? Because
Dioscorus had "assumed the office of
Judge, which did not belong to him,
and presumed to hold a (plenary) council
without the authority of the Holy See :
a thing which is never lawful, nor can
be made lawful." This was no new
claim advanced by the Popes. Socrates
the historian admits it as part of the
Canon law of the Church ; and Pope
S. Julius alludes to it in his letter to the
Arians, as a Prerogative well known to
all as belonging to the Holy See. That
it was no new claim is evident from the
silence of the Emperor's Officials and of
the Council, and their acquiescence in
the sentence of the Pope against Dios-
corus, in consequence of his violating
this law. So that it is a well-ascer-
tained law, virtually at least confirmed
by this great Synod, that no plenary
Council can be celebrated in any part
of the Universal Church without the
sanction of the Pope ; and he who pre-
sumes thus to intrude upon the Prero-
gative of the Holy See is liable to be
visited by deprivation of his episcopal
rights by the sole sentence of the Pope.
3. The restoration of Bishop Theo-
doret, by the act of the Pope alone, is
another testimony of the Supremacy of
the Holy See over every diocese. This
the Imperial Officials and the Council
(for they were a consenting party) re-
cognised, for they said, " Let the
most reverend Bishop Theodoret enter,
that he too may take part in the
Council, since the most holy Arch-
bishop Leo (of Rome) has restored him
to the episcopal office." The Pope
then may not only deprive by his
single Authority, but he can likewise by
his own sole act restore a Bishop to
his See.
4. The condemnation of Eutyches
affords another example of Papal ac-
tion. Cecropius, Bishop of Sebas-
topolis an Eastern diocese said,
" This offence of Eutyches sprang into
sudden importance : the Archbishop of
Rome gave a decision about it, and we
follow him ; we have all submitted to
his Letter." Why the Pope more than
any other Bishop, if he had no higher
authority? The Bishops, on hearing
this, cried out, " That say we all : the
exposition (Leo's) that has been given
is sufficient ; it is not lawful that
another should be made." Why not
another, if equally orthodox ? The an-
swer to this query is best given by the
Bishops, who, when the reading of the
celebrated Tome had been completed,
exclaimed, " This is the Faith of the
Apostles : we all believe this ; the
orthodox believe this ; anathema to
him who believes not this. Peter has
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
199
thus spoken by Leo ; the Apostles
taught this ; Leo's doctrine is pious and
true ; Cyril taught this ; let the memory
of Cyril be eternal. Leo and Cyril
teach the same." " Peter has thus
spoken by Leo ;" S. Peter had himself
drawn up the exposition, that is to say,
S. Leo declared the doctrine ex Ca-
thedra, by which he executed his office
of Teacher of the Universal Church. It
was unlawful, then, to make another
dogmatic exposition, for the one was
orthodox and conclusive. But S. Cyril's
name is coupled with S. Leo, and this
because of the part he took in the last
General Council. But he did not act as
a simple Bishop, nor merely as the Patri-
arch of the great Church of Alexandria ;
he acted as the delegate of the Pope.
" In his stead" he excommunicated and
deposed Nestorius, and " in his stead"
he presided at the Council of Ephesus.
It was, then, in his character as Vicar of
the Pope that he thus acted, and when
he launched his Twelve Anathemas.
The Fathers then admitted, without
qualification, the position of the Pope,
as the Representative of S. Peter, the
Teacher of the whole Church. ' ' Peter
has thus spoken by Leo," showing that
S. Peter still teaches, by his Successors,
from his Chair, which is situated in the
midst of the Roman Church.
5. The form by which Dioscorus
was condemned furnishes another im-
portant witness to Supreme Papal Ju-
risdiction. The Legates commence by
recapitulating the offences Dioscorus
had been guilty of, (i) The breach of
the canon law, in holding a council
without the sanction of the Holy See ;
(2) His receiving into his communion
Eutyches ; (3) His still maintaining that
what he did at (the pseudo-Council of)
Ephesus was well done ; (4) His re-
fusal to permit the Letter of Pope
Leo to Flavian to be read; (5) His
presumptuous threat to excommunicate
the Pope, &c " Wherefore,"
concludes the Legate, "the most holy
Archbishop of Rome, Leo, by us and
this present Council thrice blessed, with
the Apostle Peter, who is the Rock
and Foundation of the Catholic Church
and of the orthodox Faith, deprives him
of the episcopal dignity, and every sa-
cerdotal ministry. The Council, there-
fore, will decree concerning him in
conformity with the canons." Such
was the sentence pronounced in the
name of the Pope, and with the autho-
rity of the Council S. Peter pro-
nouncing sentence through his Repre-
sentative in his See, and the Bishops of
the Catholic Church united to him.
6. The next point is the celebrated
28th canon, which is relied upon by
Anglicans as justifying their state of
separation from Rome ; and as a most
powerful, and, indeed, invincible argu-
ment against the alleged arrogant claims
of the Holy See to Supremacy. When
Constantinople became the capital of
the Empire, the residence of the Em-
peror, and the place where the Senate
assembled, it was natural its Bishop
should be elevated to the highest pos-
sible rank in the episcopate. The
canon of the Second General Council
provided " that the Bishop of Constan-
tinople (should) have the dignity of
honour (vr^fffiiia, T>JJ nftws) next after
the Bishop of Rome, for Constantinople
is New Rome." The canon of this
Council (Chalcedon) thus enacted :
" The Fathers, with good reason,
granted to the See of ancient Rome its
high privileges (ra, vrgsfffitTa), because
it was the reigning city ; by the same
consideration the 150 Bishops were in-
duced to decide that New Rome, the
honoured seat of empire, and the re-
sidence of the Senate, should possess
equal privileges (-r^fffttiui} in eccle-
siastical matters, and be second in
rank," &c. It has been assumed that
the object of the canon was to place the
Church of Constantinople, on all points,
upon an exact equality with Rome. Now
all that the canon declares with respect
to Rome is this, that in consequence
of its being the reigning city, the ' ' dig-
nity, or Privilege of honour" (for such
is the correct translation of roc n^iff-
$i7oc.} should be accorded to the elder
Regal Rome. This did not include
2OO
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
that higher office which he held as
the Successor of S. Peter ; it was simply
the "dignity, or Privilege of honour"
due to him as the Bishop of the Imperial
City. It should be remembered that
from the conversion of the Empire the
Pope had, in addition to his office of
Patriarch and Pope, a dignity derived
from " the honour of the Roman city."
Valentinian III. evidently alluded to this
in one of his epistles : " Since, there-
fore, the authority of the sacred synod
(Nicaea) has confirmed the Primacy of
the Apostolic See, on account of the
merit of Peter, the Chief of the corona
of Bishops, and of the Dignity of the
city of Rome ; let no one presump-
tuously dare to attempt anything un-
lawful in opposition to the Authority
of that See." The Primacy of the
Pope was of a double nature, (i) on
account of his being the Successor of S.
Peter ; and (2) because of his being
the Bishop of the Imperial City. Now
we know as a matter of fact that the
Metropolitans of the Church derive
their rank from the circumstance of their
sees being situated in the chief metro-
politan cities of the empire. We are also
aware that an elaborate code of eccle-
siastical law came into existence in con-
sequence of this metropolitical system
of Church government. Provision was
made for appeals from Bishops to the
Metropolitan, and from the Metropo-
litan to the Patriarch, who together with
his Bishops sitting as assessors, delivered
judgment on the conduct of Bishops.
When the Emperor desired that Con-
stantinople should be erected into a
Patriarchate, he intended it should be
similar in all respects to the Patriarch-
ates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.
That is to say, as Patriarchs they all
should rank equally, Constantinople
having the " dignity of honour" next
after the Patriarch of Rome, because Con-
stantinople was new Rome. When the
Fathers proposed or adopted this Canon,
they did not intend to elevate the See
of Constantinople to the same level as
the Apostolic See ; their idea was not to
set up a rival Chair in the East, which
should exclude the Supremacy of the
Roman Pontiff; they meant no more
than that the See of New Rome should
possess a similar status in ecclesiastical
matters as that of Old Rome in a word,
they desired that the Patriarchate of
Constantinople should be in all respects
equal to the Patriarchate of Rome. They
had no intention to aspire to the Papacy
an office higher than the Patriarchate.
They did not claim for themselves the
Prerogatives of S. Peter and of his Suc-
cessors to his Cathedra ; they claimed
no more than equal ecclesiastical pa-
triarchal privileges. This is all that the
Canon really means.
Anglicans will probably deem this
exposition of the 28th canon as forced
and unnatural ; yet, as we shall see, it
is in accordance with the letter and
spirit of the reply of the Magistrates
to the objections of the Legates, and of
the synodical epistle to the Pope. The
Magistrates carefully distinguish be-
tween the "Primacy" of Authority and
power, and the ' ' dignity, or privilege of
honour." TIgwTi7a, the word translated
" Primacy, " as proved in the ' ' Comment"
on S. Irenseus, signifies Pre-eminence
in the sense of the Head, or governing
member of the Body. The Magistrates
say that the "Primacy," or governing
authority, as well as the " Precedency
of honour, should be preserved accord-
ing to the canons for the Archbishop of
old Rome ;" but as regards the Chair
of Constantinople, they add, "The
Archbishop of Constantinople ought to
enjoy," not the Primacy of Authority
(vguTtTct}, but "the same dignity or
privilege (-r^ff^uuv) of honour." That
is, as the Emperor before referred to
said, "The Primacy of the Apostolic
See, on account of the merit of Peter
and the Dignity of the city of
Rome," i. e. as the then Imperial city.
The distinction, then, between the
Chair of S. Peter and the Chair of
Constantinople could not be more ex-
actly drawn than it was by the Ma-
gistrates of the Emperor the Primacy
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
201
of Authority, and the Precedence of
honour to Rome, and a similar dignity
of honour to New Rome. In the
Synodical Epistle to the Pope, the
Fathers are equally careful not to
confound the two Primacies. They
first declare that the Pope is " the con-
stituted Interpreter to all (i.e. the Faith-
ful) of the blessed Peter." Secondly,
that "to him (the Pope) is committed
by the Saviour the Custody of the Vine-
yard," i.e. the Universal Fold. And
they further assert that he presided over
the Council "as the Head over the mem-
bers, i.e. the Bishops who formed the
Council." This is plain testimony of
the Pope being far Superior to any other
Bishop of the Church, not excepting
even the Patriarch of Constantinople.
And when treating upon this Canon, to
the effect that they had ordained that
the Bishop of Constantinople "should
have the privilege of honour after ( his)
most holy and Apostolic Chair," they
express their hope that he (the Pope)
would extend (his) wonted care to the
Church of Constantinople, and (will)
enlighten it with (his) Apostolic ray."
The Fathers who used this language
could not possibly have intended any
severance of the old relation between
that see and the Apostolic See. They
then pray that he would " deign, there-
fore," i. e. condescend, calling him
" most holy and blessed Father," " to
allow this decision." This is the lan-
guage of inferiors to superiors, the at-
titude of supplicants to a Chief. After
this they intercede on -behalf of that
Church, reminding the Pope of " the
wishes of the Emperor, the Senate, and
the people of the imperial city," and
they conclude their prayer thus: " Ho-
nour, then, we pray you, our judgment
with your decree, that as we have been
united to our Head (i. e. the Pope) in
agreeing upon what is right, so the
Head too (i. e. the Pope) may confirm
the becoming act of the children. So
will our pious Princes be blessed who
have ratified as a law whatever your
Holiness has determined." In the face
of this language can it be for a moment
supposed that when the Fathers of Chal-
cedon (or rather the remnant of them,
for the greater part had left), drew
up this 28th canon, they intended
to provide that the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople should possess Prerogatives
similar to those of the Successors of S.
Peter in the Apostolic See? If they
regarded the Pope as "the constituted
Interpreter to all of blessed Peter," "to
whom the Custody of the Vineyard
was committed by the Saviour," as the
"Head" and the "Father," can it be
supposed that they meant to erect a
second " Interpreter," a second Custo-
dian of the one Vineyard, and to trans-
pose one of the " members" into a
second Head, and to promote a child
(for they call themselves " children,")
into the dignity of a second Common
Father of the Universal Church? The
whole force of this epistle, the lan-
guage they employ, is a proof that such
was not their intention. Their sole ob-
ject, as stated above, was "to give to
the See of Constantinople the Imperial
City the " dignity, or privilege of ho-
nour," after Rome, that is, the ecclesias-
tical position of the Second Patriarch of
the Universal Church, not the office
and dignity, and Prerogative of the
Sovereign Pontiff, the Successor of
S . Peter in the Cathedra of Rome. An-
glicans, in quoting this canon against
the Roman Supremacy, never refer the
reader to the speech of the Emperor's
officials, or to the exposition of it as
contained in the Synodical Epistle of
the Council ; and for this reason, that it
completely contradicts the interpreta-
tion they put upon it, by which they
have misled the English people, and
caused them to continue in their state
of schism and rebellion against the Holy
See of blessed Peter.
This CEcumenical Council, second to
none in importance, which, together with
the first three, were regarded by S.
Gregory the Great as the Four Gospels,
and which are so venerated by England
that they are actually included in her Sta-
2O2
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
tute Law, witnesses to the following high
Prerogatives of the Holy See :( I ; That
it is Supreme over Bishops, in that t
can by its own sole authority depose
and restore Bishops, even such exalted
Prelates as the Patriarchs ; (2) That its
authority over Councils is supreme, in
that they must execute its commands
and its judgments 5(3) That no plenary
Council may be held without its sanc-
tion ; (4) That when it teaches ex
Cathedra it does so with the voice of
Peter, who lives and presides over his
own See by his Successors ; (5) That
when it pronounces judgment, it does so
by " the authority of the blessed Peter ;"
(6) That the Pope is the " Head," and
the Bishops the "members ;" (7) That
he is the " Father," and they the "chil-
dren;" (8) That he "is the constituted In-
terpreter to all of blessed Peter," and (9)
That to him is committed by the Saviour
the Custody or care of " the Vineyard,"
i.e. the Universal Church. In a word,
the Holy, Great, and Sacred CEcume-
nical Council of Chalcedon, by its acts
and words, accepts the doctrine that the
Pope, by virtue of his Succession from
S. Peter, is the Head of the Brother-
hood, the Father of the Faithful, the
Confirmer of the Brethren, the Guardian
and Custodian of the Catholic Church,
and the Shepherd of the Universal
Fold.
BISHOPS OF THE PROVINCE TARRAGONA (SPAIN).
A.D. 465.
117. "Even though no necessity of
ecclesiastical discipline had super-
vened, we might indeed have had
recourse to the privilege of your
See ; whereby, the keys having
been received after the resurrec-
tion of the Saviour, the matchless
(or individual) preaching of the
most blessed Peter had for its
object the enlightenment of all
men throughout the world ; the
Princedom (principatus] of whose
Vicar, as it is eminent, so it
is to be feared and loved by all.
Accordingly, we, adoring in you the
God whom you serve blamelessly,
have recourse to the faith com-
mended by the mouth of the
Apostle ; thence seeking for an-
swers, whence nothing by error, no-
thing by presumption, but all with
pontifical (pontificali] deliberation
is prescribed. These things being
so, there is, however, amongst us a
false brother, whose presumption, as
it can no longer be passed over in
silence, so also does the urgency
(necessity) of the future judgment
compel us to speak. [Then, stat-
ing the ground of complaint against
Silvanus, they add :] As therefore
these acts of presumption which
divide unity, which make a schism,
ought to be speedily met, we ask
of your See that we be instruc-
ted, by your Apostolical directions,
as to what you would have be
observed in this matter. ... It will
assuredly be your triumph if in the
time of your Apostleship, the Ca-
tholic Church hears that the Chair
of Peter prevails, if the fresh seeds
of the tares be extirpated." Labbe,
t-v.p. 56, 57-
COMMENT.
The Bishops of this province in
Spain were troubled with an heretical
brother, and they appeal to the Pope
for the settlement of the case. They
begin their epistle by mentioning their
right to have recourse, under all neces-
sities, to "that Privilege" of the See
of Rome which consists in the Supre-
macy of jurisdiction, as symbolised by
the keys which our Saviour delivered to
the See through the blessed Peter. They
then mention the peculiar office of the
CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
203
Pope, as undoubtedly derived from S.
Peter, saying, "The Princedom of
whose Vicar (i.e. the Pope, vicar of
Peter), as it is eminent, so it is to be
feared and loved by all :" loved by
Catholics, but feared by the hetero-
dox. They then conclude their epistle
by asking for "Apostolical directions "
as to what " should be done in this
matter of their false brother."
COUNCIL OF ROME.
A.D. 494.
1 1 8. "We have also thought that it
ought to be noticed, that although
the Catholic Churches, spread over
the world, be the one bridal cham-
ber as it were of Christ, yet has
the Roman Church been, by cer-
tain synodal constitutions, raised
above the rest of the Churches ;
yea also, by the evangelical voice
of the Lord our Saviour, did it
attain the Primacy (voce Domini et
Salvatoris nostri primatum obtin-
#//), Thou art Peter, and upon
this Rock, &c. There has been also
added the dwelling there of the
most blessed Apostle Paul, the ves-
sel of election ; who, not at a dif-
ferent time, as heretics mutter, but
at the same time, and on one and
the same day, was crowned, toge-
ther with Peter, by a glorious death
in the city of Rome, suffering under
Nero ; and together did they con-
secrate the above-named Roman
Church to Christ the Lord, and
by their precious and memorable
triumph have raised it above all
other churches in the whole world.
The first See, therefore, of the Apos-
tle Peter is the Roman Church,
which has no spot or wrinkle, or
any such thing." Labbe, t. v. col.
386.
COMMENT.
The following points are to be no-
ticed : (i) That the Church of God is
the one Bridal Chamber, that is, it is one
and indivisible ; as Christ is one, so the
Church is one. (2) That "the Roman
Church, by certain synodal constitu-
tions, has been raised above the rest
of the Churches." These constitutions,
doubtless of ante-Nicene or Apostolical
times, have long ago perished, as many
other valuable documents of antiquity.
Socrates, in his History, alludes to some
such canons. (3) But this Primacy
is derived originally from "the Lord
our Saviour," evidently alluding to the
three-fold commission S. Peter re-
ceived, to judge, as the keys typify, to
confirm the brethren, and to shepherdise
the flock. And (4) That S. Peter and S.
Paul did "consecrate the above-named
Roman Church to Christ the Lord ;"
and by their precious and memorable
triumph they "have raised it above all
the Churches in the whole world."
Doubtless it will be objected that this
Council was an interested one, and there-
fore its testimony is not worth much.
But the real point is this, that no ob-
jections were ever raised, and no protests
ever made against these Papal assump-
tions of Superior power and authority
by the Bishops of any part of the Church.
East or West. It is impossible to con-
ceive that the Patriarchs, Priests, and
Metropolitans of the Universal Church
would have been silent, if these assump-
tions had had no foundation to rest
upon; indeed they would have betrayed
their trust if they had not loudly pro-
tested against such arrogant claims.
Their silence and acquiescence prove
that the Roman Council had only
spoken the truth.
2o;
SUMMARY OF CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
THE evidence extracted from the plenary Councils, especially those
which are CEcumenical, is exhaustive ; and he who studies it with any
care can arrive at only one conclusion.
1. These Councils testify that S. Peter was the " Head of the Faith,"
and "the Exarch and Head of the Apostles."
2. They witness to the truth (i) That the Pope "sits in the Place of
Peter ;" (2) That he is " the constituted Interpreter to all (i.e. the Faithful)
of the blessed Peter ;" (3) That " Peter speaks by (him) ;" (4) That to him
" is committed by the Saviour the Custody of the Vineyard," that is, the
Holy Catholic Church ; and (5) That the Roman Church, by virtue of its
consecration by S.Peter and S. Paul, "has been raised above the rest of
all the Churches."
3. With respect to the Prerogatives of the Pope, as flowing from the
commission granted to S. Peter, and through him to his Successors, these
Councils admit, without a dissentient voice (i), That the Pope is the
Teacher of the Church, " for Peter speaks by " his Successors ; (2) That
he is Supreme in jurisdiction, for by virtue of his inheriting S. Peter's
judicial power, he, by his own sole authority, deposes and restores Bishops
inclusive of the Patriarchs (witness the cases of Nestorius and Dioscorus,
and that of Theodoret whom he restored) ; (3) That he can depose a
Bishop from his sacerdotal ministry ; and (4) That he is the source of the
Priesthood, for from him " flows to all the right of universal communion;"
so that no Church or Priesthood can lawfully celebrate, administer,
or receive sacraments, unless they are in communion with the Holy
Roman Church.
4. The Supremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff over all Synods is attested
by even CEcumenical Councils. It would seem (i) That is the case of
CEcumenical and Plenary Councils, no Council can lawfully be held
" without the authority of the Holy See ; " (2) That no canon or ordi-
nance can be made without the sanction of the Apostolic See ; (3) That
in the case of CEcumenical Councils, the Pope has the selection of the
Bishops who are to take part in them ; (4) That no Bishop can retain
his seat, if the Pope objects ; (5) That Bishops restored by the Pope are
eligible to a seat in Councils ; (6) That the Pope presides either personally
or by his Legates ; (7) That the judgment and decrees of Councils,
whether they relate to faith, discipline, or persons, are made, as a rule,
pursuant to, and in accordance with, the previous judgment of the Holy
SUMMARY OF CONCILIAR EVIDENCE. 205
See ; (8) That Councils on the termination of their sessions, apply to the
Pope for the confirmation of their decrees ; and (9) That the Pope con-
firms or annuls them as he deems expedient. It is very manifest that
Catholic Synods, and especially the (Ecumenical Councils, accept the
doctrine (i) of the Supremacy of S. Peter, " the Rock and Foundation of
the Faith," whom they regard as " the Head of the Faith," as " the
Exarch and Head of the Apostles ; " and (2) of the Pope who " sits in
the Place of Peter," as " his Vicar," by whom S. Peter teaches and judges,
and by whom he rules and governs the Universal Church.
Anglicans will no doubt appeal to the Council of Carthage in
which S. Cyprian presided, and another African Council, in which a
dispute arose respecting the case of Apiarius (which will be hereafter
more particularly considered), but what authority can these Councils
have against the (Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalce-
don, which have accepted every one of the Prerogatives above enu-
merated ? The (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus confirmed without
comment the sentence pronounced by the Pope alone, and, what
is more, in submission to his supreme authority ; " Nestorius himself
. . . . refused to obey a citation and to receive the Bishops who
were sent to him on our part and having convicted him
. . . . of holding and teaching impious doctrine, being compelled
by the necessity of the canons, and by the Letter of our most holy Father
and colleague Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church . . . we have
agreed upon this unhappy sentence." The Bishops here regarded the
Pope in two capacities, first, as their Father, and secondly, as their col-
league. As Father he was their Pope, their Superior, and their Sovereign
Pontiff, whose " Letters" they felt bound to carry into effect. Firmus,
the Bishop of Cappadocia, said, " The Holy Apostolic See of Celes-
tine has decided this affair, and has pronounced sentence on it before in
the letter addressed to Cyril of Alexandria, and in accordance with 'which
sentence, and in furtherance thereof, we have pronounced a canonical
judgment against Nestorius, the time which was granted him (by the
Pope) for recantation being over past, and we having waited beyond the
time fixed by the Emperor." S. Cyril also, the Patriarch of the second
Apostolic See, says, " Since then we have executed the sentence of the
most holy Bishop Celestine, and of the judgment passed by the Council
against the heretic Nestorius." This (Ecumenical Council thus re-
cognised the supreme authority of the Pope in the case of Nestorius.
The (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon testifies still more amply in
favour of the Papal Supremacy. It was this Council which declared that
the Pope was " the constituted Interpreter to all of the blessed Peter ;" that
he was the appointed Guardian of the Vineyard, and that Councils could
not be summoned without the sanction of the Holy See. It was in this
Council that the Pope by his Legates, by virtue of his Supremacy,
deprived Dioscorus of Alexandria of his seat in the Council ; and by the
same authority was Theodoret restored to his Episcopal rights. What-
ever may be the merits of the last African Council alluded to, their
authority must yield to that of the (Ecumenical Councils, which have
admitted to the full the Papal Supremacy.
2O6 SUMMARY OF CONCILIAR EVIDENCE.
Some, perhaps, will object that these high pretensions of the Apostolic
See were not formally decreed by this Council. Of course not, for it was
not customary for the Supreme executive authority to derive its authority
from a lower grade in the same order. The Prerogatives of the Queen
of England were not derived from the Lords and the people ; they are, as
Elackstone says, inherent in herself, i. e. her Sovereignty ; nor do
the rights of the Lords spring from the Commons. It is by no act of
Parliament that the Crown of England is supreme, though acts of Parlia-
ment have confirmed its Prerogatives. The whole authority of the Crown
is assumed. So also as respects the Papacy, it is by no canon that it
exists ; it is not derived from the Bishops, nor from any general synod ;
it is derived solely from S. Peter, who obtained it from Christ Himself.
Canons and Constitutions have, indeed, confirmed the Primacy, but they
never presumed to confer it on the Bishop of Rome. Indeed they could
not, for he possessed it before any Council was ever convoked.
The Conciliar evidence for the Papacy is conclusive ; and when we
consider that the weightiest evidence proceeds from Oriental Bishops
who were always jealous of their rights it becomes absolutely im-
pregnable.
III.
IMPERIAL TESTIMONY.
AURELIAN.
A.D. 265.
119. " Paul (of Samosata) there-
fore, having fallen from the Epi-
scopate, and from the true faith, as
already said, Domnus succeeded in
the administration of the Church
of Antioch. But Paul, being un-
willing to quit the church (i.e.
the temporalities), an appeal was
made to the Emperor Aurelian,
who decided most equitably in the
business, ordering the church (/. e.
the temporalities) to be given up
to those whom the Christian Bi-
shops of Italy and Rome should
appoint." Eus. H. E. I. vii. c. 30.
COMMENT.
Paul of Samosata, .Patriarch of An-
tioch, had been deposed for heresy ;
but he declined submission to the sen-
tence, and retained the temporalities of
his See. The Emperor was appealed
to, and he decided that they were to
be given up "to those whom the
Christian Bishops of Italy and of
Rome should appoint." Supposing the
Roman Church was not superior to other
Churches, it is not easy to understand
why they ("the Bishops of Italy and
of Rome") should have been preferred
to the orthodox Bishops of the Patri-
archate. This decree of the Emperor
is an acknowledgment of (i) the supe-
riority of the Italian Church, and (2)
of its Chief Pontiff; which Church S.
Ignatius had declared "presided in the
region of the Romans, "and "presiding
over the Love," and which S. Irenaeus
affirmed, when he said that " every
Church must agree or assemble with this
Church ;" and S. Cyprian, that it was
" the Chief Church, whence the unity of
the Priesthood took its rise." This
testimony is free from all possible sus-
picion, inasmuch as this Emperor was
a heathen, and consequently a tho-
roughly disinterested witness.
GRATIAN.
A.D. 370.
120. "He (Gratian) immediately enacted a law enjoining that the
manifested the piety with which he
was endued, and consecrated the
first-fruits of his empire to God. He
pastors who had been banished
should be restored to their flocks,
and that the churches should be
208
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
given up to those who held com-
munion with Damasus, who was
the Bishop of Rome, and highly
celebrated on account of the sanc-
tity of his life ; for he was ready to
say and do everything in defence
of the Apostolical doctrines. He
had succeeded Liberius in the go-
vernment of the Church. Gratian
sent Sopor, a renowned military
chief, to carry the law into exe-
cution, to drive away from the
Churches, as wild beasts, those
who preserved the blasphemies of
Arius, and to restore the Churches
to the faithful pastors, and to the
holy flocks. This law was exe-
cuted in all the provinces without
opposition. In Antioch, however,
which was the metropolis of the
East, many disputes arose in con-
sequence." Theod. H.E. I. v. c. 2.
COMMENT.
In this epistle of the Emperor Gra-
tian we have a distinct recognition of
the position of the Pope, as the source
of venerable communion to all the
Churches (as S. Ambrose and the
Council of Aquileia testified), in the
East no less than in the West. In
restoring the churches to the orthodox
pastors, the Emperor, following the
precedent set by Aurelian, command-
ed that they should be delivered up
" to those who held communion with
Damasus," Bishop of Rome. The
execution of this order was confided
to Sopor, " a renowned military chief,"
who "carried the law into execution
... in all the provinces," i. e. both in
East and West. The greater part of
the ecclesiastical provinces submitted
without opposition, but Antioch re-
sisted. This Emperor thus believed
in the Papal supremacy, obedience to
which he enforced all over the world.
GALLA PLACID I A.
A.D. 450.
TO HER SON,
121. "While our first care, on en-
tering the ancient city, was to render
due worship (cufami) to the blessed
Apostle Peter, the most reverend
Bishop Leo, who was himself ador-
ing at the altar of the martyr (S.
Peter), remained awhile, after he
had ended his prayers, and com-
plained to me, with tears, about
the state of the Catholic faith,
calling to witness the Chief of the
Apostles, to whom we had just had
recourse. He was surrounded by
many Bishops, whom, on account
of the Princedom or dignity pecu-
liar to the Place (Rome, i. e. his
THEODOSIUS.
See), he had assembled from the
numerous cities of Italy .....
By their favour, then, may your
kindliness direct, in opposition to
the prevailing confusion, that the
true faith of the Catholic religion
be preserved immaculate, namely,
by seeing that in accordance
with the form and definition of
the Apostolic See, which we both
alike venerate as of surpassing
(authority) (Ytat KMTO, rov TVTTOI KCAI
TOV o>ov TOV aTratnohiKov 6ovov ov
opoiag ag
Flavian may be se-
cured from harm in his see, and
IMPERIAL EVIDENCE.
209
the matter be transferred to the
judgment of a Council, and the
Apostolic See, in which he who was
first worthy to receive the heavenly
keys ordained the Princedom (prin-
cipatuni) of the Episcopate." In-
ter Ep. Leon. T. i. Ep. Ivi. col.
859-62, Migne.
COMMENT.
The Empress Galla describes to us
the Court of the Pope, so to speak ;
and this throws great light as to how
the office of the Pope was regarded by
the Church. This princess, while re-
maining at Rome, went to worship at
the shrine of S. Peter. S. Leo, the
Pope, was apparently at that time be-
fore the altar of the Apostle, adoring
his Lord and God. After he had ended
his prayer, he " remained awhile," and
in conversation with the Empress de-
plored the state of the Church. "He
was surrounded," the Empress says,
"by many Bishops," who "had as-
sembled from the numerous cities of
Italy." Why was this? The Empress
informs us that this was on account of
the Princedom or dignity peculiar to the
Place, i. e. of his See. This gives us an
idea of the Pope's exalted position and
dignity as the Successor of the Chief of
the Apostles.
The conversation the Pope had with
Galla had its effect, for in her letter she
admonished her son Theodosius to " di-
rect that the faith of the Catholic religion
be preserved immaculate," "in accord-
ance with the form and definition of the
Apostolic See, which," she adds, "we
both alike venerate, as of surpassing (au-
thority)." No language can be more ex-
plicit than this, which signifies in effect
that the Roman Pontiff is Supreme in
all matters of faith and discipline.
Indeed, according to the Empress, a
Council is nothing without the co-
ordinate authority of the Pope ; for in
the case of Flavian, she says, "Let the
matter be transferred to the judgment
of the Council and the Apostolic See,
in which he (S. Peter) who was first
worthy to receive the heavenly keys,
ordained the Princedom of the Episco-
pate." No evidence can be more ex-
haustive than what has fallen from this
Empress.
THEODOSIUS AND VALENTINIAN III.
A. 0.450.
1 22. " Since, therefore, the autho-
rity of the sacred Synod (of Nicaea)
has made firm the Primacy of the
Apostolic See, on account of the
merit of Peter, Chief of the Corona
of Bishops, and of the dignity of the
city of Rome, let no one presump-
tuously dare to attempt anything
unlawful in opposition to the Au-
thority of that See. Then at length
will the peace of the churches be
maintained, and all will acknow-
ledge their rulers." Inter Ep. Leon.
T. i. Ep. xi. col. 637, Migne.
VALENTINIAN in.
" When I came to Rome di-
vinely pleasing, I proceeded on the
following day to the Basilica of the
Apostle Peter, and there, after hav-
ing worshipped a night and a day,
I was requested by the Bishop of
Rome, and also by others who were
with him, having been assembled
from various provinces, to write
to your Clemency concerning the
Faith .... We are bound by the
tradition of our ancestors, with all
P
2IO
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
devotion, in our time to defend and
maintain inviolate, both the Dignity
of particular (or peculiar) reverence
to the blessed Apostle Peter, seeing
that the most blessed Bishop of
Rome, to whom antiquity has at-
tributed the Princedom of the Priest-
hood over all, may have both place
and liberty to judge concerning the
Faith and the Priests" (i.e. Bishops).
Ib. Ep. Iv. Valent. ad Theod. Imp.
col. 857-10.
COMMENT.
These Emperors assert that the " Pri-
macy of the Apostolic See " was made
firm by the Council of Nicaea. Owing
to the loss of the acts of that Council
we are unable to ascertain the fact for
ourselves, but we may well accept the
authority of the Emperors as entirely
disinterested. It was, indeed, shown
that the words of canon vi. confirming
"the ancient customs" involved it, for
had this Primacy been from the be-
ginning (as it has been abundantly
proved that it was), it was necessarily
included in that canon. It is then a
matter proved that the Bishop of Rome
possessed the Primacy. But now let
us inquire what sort of Primacy ? Was
it a Primacy of honour, of prestige, of
rank ? and merely because of the dignity
of the Imperial city ? The Emperors'
evidence is directly contrary to such an
idea. They say, " It was (i) on account
of the merit of Peter, Chief of the
Corona of Bishops" (the Episcopate is
the Crown of the Priesthood). It was
then, because S. Peter had founded the
Roman Church, and planted therein
his Cathedra or Chair, that it became
originally entitled to the Primacy. But
the Emperors add (2) " On account of
the .... dignity of the city of Rome."
When the Empire became Christian, it
was in the nature* of things that the
Bishop of Rome, who held the Pri-
macy, by virtue of his succession to
the Chair of Peter, should also have
a Primacy of dignity and honour, on
account of the grandeur of the city of
which he was the Bishop." The Em-
perors thus witness to a double Primacy
in the Bishop of Rome, the one as de-
rived from S. Peter, which is divine and
Apostolic; and the other, from the
Emperor, which was human and po-
litical. As shown under the section
of Councils, this greatly explains the
meaning of the canons of Constantinople
and Chalcedon respecting the Second
Primacy of the See of Constantinople.
But when the Emperors alluded to the
Primacy of the Apostolic See, " on ac-
count of the merit of Peter, Chief of
the Corona of Bishops, and of the
Dignity of the city of Rome," did they
understand a Primacy of honour or
rank only, or of Supremacy and power ?
The answer is contained in the clauses
following : " Let no one presump-
tuously dare to attempt anything un-
lawful in opposition to the Authority
of that See." The Primacy then was
one of "Authority," not that of mere
rank or honour, to which every one was
to submit. But Valentinian, in a letter
to Theodosius, his colleague in the
Empire, employs much stronger lan-
guage ; after referring to the "peculiar
reverence" due "to the blessed Apostle
Peter," he adds, that to " the most
blessed Bishop of Rome' ' ' * antiquity has
attributed the Princedom of the Priest-
hood over all" a position which im-
plies authority and power to rule the
whole body of the Kingdom and Church
of God.
From the evidence of this Em-
peror (who had no interest in sup-
porting a usurpation of authority, on
the contrary, it was politically against
his interest as a mere secular Ruler), it
is plain to demonstration that the Pri-
macy of Rome from the beginning was
one not of courtesy or of dignity, but
of Sovereignty and Supremacy over the
Universal Household of God.
IMPERIAL EVIDENCE.
211
MARCIAN AND VALENTINIAN III.
A.D. 451,
123. " We deem it right, in the first
instance, to address your Holiness,
holding as you do the Headship of
the Episcopate of the divine Faith
(/ V / > /
TqV Ti G-JJV
begging and beseeching your Holi-
ness to pray for the strength and
stability of our Empire, and that
designs and counsels may be so
ordered that every error being re-
moved by the Synod (Chalcedon)
now to be assembled by your autho-
rity (rov avOivTovvTog) the greatest
peace may be established among
the Bishops of the Catholic faith."
Inter Ep. Leon. Ep. Ixxiii. T. i.
col. 899, Migne.
MARCIAN.
124. Writing to the Pope, coun-
selling him about the place where
the Fourth (Ecumenical Council
should meet, the Emperor adds,
" Where all the most holy Bishops
may assemble, and decree con-
cerning the religion of Christianity
and the Catholic Faith, as your
Holiness by your own disposition
shall define according to the Eccle-
siastical Rules." Ib. Ep. Ixxxvi.
T. i. col. 903-6, Migne.
126. " Which (the non-arrival of
the Pope's confirmation) has been
the cause of much doubt to the minds
of some who still pursue after the
vanity and perversity of Eutyches,
whether your Holiness has sanc-
tioned the decrees of the sacred
Synod (Chalcedon). Whereupon
your Holiness will see fit to send
letters, whereby it may be evident
to all the churches and peoples
that what has been transacted in
the sacred Synod has the sanction
of your Holiness." Inter Ep.
Leon. T. i. Ep. ex. col. 1019, Migne.
COMMENT.
Marcian and Valentinian acknow-
ledge in their joint letter to the Pope
that he held " the Headship of the
Episcopate of the Divine Faith," and
they state that the Council of Chal-
cedon was soon about " to assemble
by his (the Pope's) authority." And
Marcian, in another letter to the same
Pope on the Council of Chalcedon,
expresses his desire that it will execute
"what his Holiness," "according to ec-
clesiastical rule, shall define." And
on the conclusion of the Council, find-
ing that the Pope delayed his confirma-
tion of its proceedings, he addresses
him another letter, begging him, in
fact, to send letters whereby " it may
be evident to all the churches and
peoples, that what has been done has
the sanction of your Holiness."
SUMMARY OF IMPERIAL TESTIMONY.
No Emperor or Sovereign would, if he could help it, acknowledge an
imperium in imperio: an empire within his empire or kingdom. The whole
history of States shows how jealous the civil authority has ever been of any
independent power established within their territorial limits. It is difficult
to understand how even the catholic Emperors of old could have tolerated
a Universal Empire, under the government of an independent Supreme
Head, except on one only supposition, viz., that it possessed an authority
which even to them was unimpeachable. This authority they evidently
believed to be nothing less than divine, and therefore they, as obedient
sons of Christ, submitted to it without a murmur.
Now after an examination of their proceedings and their letters,
it is plain that they regarded the city of Rome as, in a peculiar sense,
ecclesiastical property : inasmuch as it was the Place S. Peter selected
for the site of his Cathedra, from which the unity of the Priesthood and
the rights of venerable communion should ever after proceed. S. Peter
himself, they knew, was the Chief and Head of all the Apostles and
Bishops, to whom was due " a peculiar reverence."
Believing then, as the Catholic Emperors undoubtedly did,* in the
doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, they could not do otherwise
than believe in an Apostolical Succession from S. Peter as the Head
of the Church. Hence they held that S. Peter " ordained the Prince-
dom of the Episcopate:" hence, too, they described the Pope as
having that "Princedom," or "dignity," which is " peculiar" to the See,
and as having " the Headship of the Episcopate, and of the Divine
Faith." In consequence then of this exalted position, the Emperors of
both East and West did all in their power either to exterminate or to
honour them. Before the conversion of the Empire, every Pope, save
about five (out of thirty-five Pontiffs) was martyred ; no other See was
so honoured in this respect as the Primatial one ; it would seem that
the Devil, knowing full well that Rome was the supreme seat of divine
authority, and that the Church of that city was primarily the subject of
our Lord's promise to S. Peter, that " the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it," exercised all his malignant energy to effect her destruction.
The demoniacal Emperors of Rome strove their utmost to destroy the
Presiding Church, that imperium in imperio which they so much
dreaded, but in vain. That they, or some of them, were well aware of
the Primatial Authority of that See is evident from the judgment of
IMPERIAL EVIDENCE. 2 1 3
the heathen Emperor Aurelian (A.D. 265) in the case of Paul of Samosata
who was Bishop of Antioch. This Prelate, who had been deposed,
nevertheless schismatically retained his Church, and the ecclesiastical
authorities had to appeal to the Emperor in order to obtain possession
of the temporalities. This Emperor, though a heathen, was a just man,
whose mind was governed by the principles of law and equity, and he de-
cided upon depriving Paul of his Church, and handing it over, not to the
Bishops of the province or patriarchate, but to " the Christian Bishops
of Italy and Rome." Why to the Prelates of " Italy and Rome," and
" not of the East ?" The only answer that can be given is, that he knew
according to the ecclesiastical law, that the Church of Rome (i.e. Rome and
the circumjacent cities together forming the province) was the " Presiding
Church," and the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Pontiff, to whom was
committed the government of the Church, and to whom the Patriarchal
Churches were especially subject. On no other ground could the
Emperor Aurelian have handed over this Church to " Bishops of Italy
and Rome."
Since the conversion of the Empire, the Catholic Emperors ever re-
cognised most fully this position, testifying that the Bishop of Rome has
the " Princedom of the Episcopate," and " of the Faith," whose judg-
ment, " according to the form and definition of the Apostolic See, is of
surpassing" authority, that is, cannot be impugned by any earthly
authority. And this they admitted because of the " reverence due to the
Apostle Peter," who had ordained the Roman Primacy, to " which
antiquity has attributed the Princedom over all."
So real was the belief in the Supremacy of the Pope, that eccle-
siastical judgments were left to his cognizance, and when heretical
pastors were expelled by the authority of the Emperors from their Sees,
the churches were "given up to those who held communion with
Damasus, who had succeeded Liberius in the government of the Church:"
and when CEcumenical Councils were to be summoned, this was done by
the " Authority " of the Pope, who presided over them by his legates, and
confirmed their decrees. Such was the position the Emperors of
both East and West believed that the Pope occupied in the Universal
Church. Before the conversion of the Empire, they honoured the
Roman Church by compassing her destruction, and afterwards (at least
the Catholics) by venerating her, and, as far as they could, adding to
her dignity.
The account Galla gives of the court of the Pope is extremely
interesting, and it illustrates how exceedingly exalted was the office he
filled, when adoring before the altar of the blessed Peter, she saw him
" surrounded by many Bishops," who were in attendance on him, " on
account of that Princedom and Dignity" " which were peculiar to his
See."
The Catholic Emperors then testify that the Pope, by virtue of his
succession from S. Peter, is " the Head of the Episcopate," and "the
Head of the Faith," and that his Supremacy extended over the whole
Universal Church.
2I 4
PART III.
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, &c.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
Having collected and arranged in chronological order the evidence
for the Papacy as contained in the documents of the Catholic Fathers,
Councils, and Emperors, it is now proposed to submit, for the considera-
tion of those seeking the truth, some of the proceedings of the Popes
commencing from the earliest antiquity.
It is, indeed, much to be regretted that nearly all the epistles of the
Popes of the ante-Nicene age have perished, together with many of the
writings of the Fathers, and almost all the acts of the councils of that
period. The collection known as " Isidore's False Decretals," are
admitted to be utterly untrustworthy, but it may be open to doubt
whether all of them are forgeries ; but as they have not been pressed
into the service of this work, no further allusion to them is necessary.
Fortunately there are other sources of information left for us, viz. the
Ecclesiastical Historians, who had access to all then extant documents,
and were consequently conversant with the chief events of that glorious
age. To these historians an appeal has been made for what information
they can give us, and it will be found that they are more than sufficient
for the purpose.
It is not proposed to add " Comments" to the documents connected
with each Pope, for to do so would only be recapitulating what has already
been too frequently repeated. Whatever observations may be needed
will be found at the end of this Part.
I. POPE S. CLEMENT I.
A.D. 91-107.
To THE CHURCH OF CORINTH.
The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God
sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called. . . . Owing, dear brethren,
to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to
ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our
ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 215
attention to the points respecting which you consulted us, and especially
to the shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the Church
of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such
a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be
universally loved, has suffered grievous injury. [Then follow praises and
admonitions, &c.] These things, beloved, we write unto you, not merely
to admonish you of your duty, but also to remind ourselves. For we are
struggling in the same arena, and the same conflict is assigned to both
of us. Wherefore let us give up vain and fruitless cares, and approach
to the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling. Let us attend to
what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who bought
us Let our whole body, then, be preserved in Christ Jesus ; and
let every one be subject to his neighbour, according to the special gifts
bestowed upon him These things, therefore, being manifest to us,
and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us
to do all things in order, which the Lord has commanded us to do at
stated times. He has enjoined offerings and services to be performed by
us, and this not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and
hours. When and by whom He desires these things to be done, He
himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things,
being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable
unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed
times are accepted and blessed ; for, inasmuch as they follow the laws of
the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to
the High-priest (i.e. the Bishop), and their one proper place is prescribed
to the Priests, and their one special ministrations devolve on the Levites
(*. e. Deacons). The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order,
living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going
beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him Take up the
Epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time
when the Gospel first began to be preached ? Truly, under the inspira-
tion of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas and
Apollos, because even, then partialities had been formed among you.
But that partiality for one before another entailed less guilt upon you,
inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards Apostles, already
of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved.
But now reflect who those were that had persecuted you and lessened
the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved
yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that
such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient
Church of the Corinthians should be, on account of one or two persons,
engaged in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has
reached not only us, but those who are unconnected with us ; so that,
through your infatuation, the Name of the Lord is blasphemed, while
danger is also brought upon yourselves. [Then follow exhortations to
charity.] Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit
yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending
the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud
2i6 s. PETER'S SUPREMACY.
and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that
you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ,
than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope
of His people May God .... who chose our Lord Jesus
Christ, and us through Him, to be a peculiar people, grant to every
soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace,
patience, long-suffering, self-control, purity, and sobriety, to the well-
pleasing of His Name, through our High Priest and Protector Jesus
Christ Send back speedily to us, in peace and with joy, these our
messengers to you, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortu-
natus ; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony
we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the
more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you."
Epist. i. ad Cor. c. I, 38, 40, 41, 47, 57, 58, 59.
II. POPE S. ANICETUS.
A.D. 157-8.
VISIT OF S. POLYCARP, BISHOP OF SMYRNA.
"And when the blessed Polycarp went to Rome, in the time of
Anicetus, and they had a little difference among themselves likewise
respecting other matters, they were immediately reconciled, not dis-
puting much with one another on this head (i. e. the Paschal contro-
versy). For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe
it, because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord
and the rest of the Apostles with whom he associated ; and neither did
Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, who said that he was bound
to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him. Which things
being so, they communed with each other ; and in the church Anicetus
yielded to Polycarp, out of respect, no doubt, the office of consecrating ;
and they separated from each other in peace, all the Church being at
peace ; both those that observed, and those that did not observe, main-
taining peace." Eus. H. E. I. v. c. 24.
III. POPE S. VICTOR.
A.D. 193.
i. THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY.
It having become the opinion of the Church that the Feast of Easter
ought to be celebrated on the Lord's day, and not upon the week-day
on which the anniversary of the Resurrection might happen to fall, the
Pope addressed the Asiatic Churches to that effect ; but the Asiatic
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 21?
Bishops under Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, objected, pleading Apo-
stolic custom ; whereupon " Victor, the Bishop of the Church of Rome,
forthwith endeavoured to cut off the Churches of all Asia, together with
the neighbouring Churches, as heterodox, from the common unity. And
he publishes abroad by letters, and proclaims that all the brethren there
are excommunicated. But this was not the opinion of all the Bishops.
They immediately exhorted him, on the contrary, to contemplate that
course that was calculated to promote peace, unity, and love to one
another." Eus. H. E. L v. c. 24.
2. EXCOMMUNICATION OF THEODOTUS, FATHER OF ARIANISM.
" How, then, could it happen that since the doctrine of the Church
has been proclaimed for so many years, that those until the times of
Victor preached the Gospel after this manner ? And how are they so
devoid of shame as to utter these falsehoods against Victor, well know-
ing that Victor excommunicated that currier Theodotus, the leader and
father of this God-denying apostasy, as the first one that asserted that
Christ was a mere man V Id. c. 28.
IV. THE ROMAN CLERGY DURING THE VACANCY* OF
THE HOLY SEE.
i. THE ROMAN CLERGY TO THE CARTHAGINIAN CLERGY.
A.D. 250-52.
" We have been informed by Crementius, the sub - deacon, who
came to us from you, that the blessed Father Cyprian has for a certain
reason withdrawn ; in doing which he acted quite rightly, because he is
a person of eminence, and because a conflict is impending, which God
has allowed in the world, .... since, moreover, it devolves upon us, who
appear to be placed on high in the Place of the Shepherd, to keep watch
over the flock ; if we be found neglectful, it will be said to us, as it was
said to our predecessors also, who in such wise negligent, had been
placed in charge, that we have not sought for that which was lost, and
had not corrected the wanderer, and had not bound up that which was
broken, but have taken of their milk and been clothed with their wol; and
then also the Lord Himself, fulfilling what had been written in the Law
and the Prophets, teaches, saying, ' I am the good Shepherd, who lay
down My life for the sheep.' ... To Simon, too, He speaks thus : ' Lovest
thou Me ?' He answered, * I do love Thee.' He saith to him, * Feed
My sheep.' We know that this saying arose out of the very circum-
stance of his withdrawal, and the rest of the disciples did likewise. We
are unwilling, therefore, beloved brethren, that you should be found
hirelings, but we desire you to be good Shepherds, since you are aware
* The Holy See was vacant for two years on account of the persecutions.
2l8 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
that no slight danger threatens you if you do not exhort our brethren to
stand steadfast in the faith, so that the brotherhood be not absolutely
rooted out, as being of those who rush headlong into idolatry And
there are other matters which are incumbent on you, which also we
have here added, as that, if any who may have fallen into this tempta-
tion begin to be taken with sickness, and repent of what they have done,
and desire communion, it should in anywise be granted them. Or if you
have widows or bedridden people, who are unable to maintain them-
selves, or those who are in prisons or are excluded from their own dwell-
ings, these ought in all cases to have some to minister to them," &c.
Inter Ep. Cyp. Ep. ii.
2. S. CYPRIAN TO THE ROMAN CLERGY.
" . . . . Having ascertained, beloved brethren, that what I have
done and am doing has been told you in a somewhat garbled and un-
truthful manner, I have thought it necessary to write this letter to you,
wherein I might give an account to you of my doings, my discipline, and
my diligence ; for, as the Lord's commands teach, immediately the first
burst of the disturbance arose, and the people with violent clamour re-
peatedly demanded me, I, taking into consideration not so much my own
safety as the public peace of the brethren, withdrew for a while, lest by
my over-bold presence the tumult which had begun might be still provoked.
. " . . And what I did, these thirteen letters, sent forth at various times,
declare to you, which I have transmitted to you; in which neither counsel
to the clergy nor exhortation to the confessors, nor rebuke, when it was
necessary, to the exiles, nor my appeals and persuasions to the whole
brotherhood, that they should entreat the mercy of God, was wanting to
the full extent that, according to the law of faith and the fear of God, with
the Lord's help, my poor abilities could endeavour .... But afterwards,
when some of the lapsed .... broke forth with a daring demand, as
though they would endeavour by a violent effort to extort the peace that
had been promised them by the martyrs and confessors ; concerning
these also I wrote twice to the clergy, and commanded it to be read to
them ; that for the mitigation of their violence in any manner for the
meantime, if any had received a certificate from the martyrs when
departing this life, having made confession, and received the imposition
of hands on them for repentance, they should be remitted to the Lord
with the peace promised them by the martyrs. Nor in this did I give
them a law, or rashly constitute myself the author of the direction ; but as
it seemed fit both that honour should be paid to the martyrs, and that
the vehemence of those who were anxious to disturb everything should
be restrained; and when, besides, I had read your letter which you
lately wrote hither to my clergy by Crementius, the sub-deacon, to the
effect, that assistance should be given to those who might, after their
lapse, be seized with sickness, and might penitently desire communion ;
I judged it well to stand by your judgment, lest our proceedings, which
ought to be united and to agree in all things, should in any respect be
different. The cases of the rest, even although they might have received
PAPAL ACT A, EPISTLES, ETC. 2 19
certificates from the martyrs, I ordered altogether to be put off, and to be
reserved till I should be present, that so, when the Lord has given to
us peace, and several Bishops shall have begun to assemble in one
place, we may be able to arrange and reform everything, having the
advantage also of your counsel." Ib. Ep. xiv.
3. S. CYPRIAN TO THE ROMAN CLERGY.
"After the letters that I wrote to you, beloved brethren, in which
what I had done was explained, and some slight account was given of
my discipline and diligence, there came another matter which ought not
to be concealed from you any more than the others. For our brother
Lucian, who himself also is one of the confessors earnest indeed in
faith and strong in virtue, but little established in the reading of the
Lord's Word has attempted certain things, constituting himself for a
time an authority for unskilled people, so that certificates written by
his hand were given indiscriminately to many persons in the name of
Paulus ; whereas Mappalicus the martyr, cautious and modest, mindful
of the law and discipline, wrote no letters contrary to the Gospel, but
only moved with domestic affection for his mother, who had fallen, com-
manded peace to be given to her But Lucian, not only while Paulus
was still in prison, gave everywhere in his name certificates written with
his own hand, but even after the decease of Paulus persisted in doing the
same things under his name. ... In order, in some measure, to put a stop
to this practice, I wrote letters to them, which I have sent you under the
enclosure of the former letter, in which I did not fail to ask and per-
suade them that consideration might be had for the law of the Lord and
the Gospel." [S. Cyprian then gives an account of the proceedings of
Lucian, &c., and then continues :] " I have sent a copy to you of the
letters that I wrote to my clergy about these matters, and moreover what
Caldonius, my colleague, of his integrity and faithfulness wrote, and what
I replied to him. I have sent both to you to read. Copies also of the
letters of Celerinus, the good and stout confessor, which he wrote to
Lucian the same confessor also what Lucian replied to him I have
sent to you ; that you may know both my labours in respect of every-
thing and my diligence, and might learn the truth itself, how moderate
and cautious is Celerinus the confessor, and how reverent both in his
humility and fear for our faith ; while Lucian, as I have said, is less
skilful concerning the understanding of the Lord's Word, and by his
facility, is mischievous on account of the dislike that he causes for my
reverential calling But your letter which I received, written to
my clergy, came opportunely ; as also did those which the blessed con-
fessors, Moyses and Maximus, Nicostratus, and the rest sent to Saturni-
nus and Aurelius, and the others, in which are contained the full vigour
of the Gospel and the strong discipline of the law of the Lord. Your words
much assisted me, as I laboured here, and withstood with the whole
strength of faith the onset of ill-will, so that my work was shortened from
above, and that before the letters which I last sent you reached you,
you declared to me that according to the Gospel law your Judgment was
strongly and unanimously concurrent with mine." Ib. Ep. xxii.
220 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
4. THE ROMAN CLERGY TO S. CYPRIAN.
' Although a mind conscious to itself of uprightness, and relying
on the vigour of evangelical discipline, and made a true witness to
itself in the heavenly decrees, is accustomed to be satisfied with God for
its only Judge, and neither to seek the praises nor to dread the charges
of any other, yet those are worthy of double praise who, knowing that
they owe their conscience to God alone as the Judge, yet desire that
their doings should be approved also by their brethren themselves. It
is no wonder, brother Cyprian, that you should do this, who, with your
usual modesty and inborn industry, have wished that we should be
found not so much Judges of, as sharers in, your counsels, so that we
might find praise with you in your doings while we approve them ; and
might be able to be fellow-heirs with you in your good counsels, because
we entirely accord with them. In the same way we are all thought
to have laboured in that in which we are all regarded as allied in the
same agreement of censure and discipline That we are not saying
this dishonestly, our former letters have proved, wherein we have de-
clared our opinion to you, with a very plain statement, both against those
who had betrayed themselves as unfaithful by the unlawful presentation
of wicked certificates, as if they thought that they would escape those
ensnaring nets of the devil ; whereas not less than if they had approached
to the wicked altars (Pagan), they were held fast by the very fact that
they had testified to him ; and against those who had used those certifi-
cates when made, although they had not been present when they were
made, since they had certainly asserted their presence by ordering that
they should be so written Far be it from the Roman Church to
slacken her vigour with so profane a facility, and to loosen the nerves
of her severity by overthrowing the majesty of faith ; so that when the
wrecks of your ruined brethren are still not only lying, but are falling
around, remedies of a too hasty kind, and certainly not likely to avail,
should be afforded for communion ; and by a false mercy, new
wounds should be impressed on the old wounds of their transgression ;
so that even repentance should be snatched from these wretched beings,
but their greater overthrow But once more, to return to the point
whence our discourse appears to have digressed, you shall find subjoined
the sort of letters that we also sent to Sicily ; although upon us is
incumbent a greater necessity of delaying this affair, having, since the
departure of Fabian (the late Pope), of most noble memory, had no
Bishop appointed as yet, on account of the difficulties of affairs and
times, who can arrange all things of this kind, and who can take
account of those who are lapsed, with authority and wisdom. However,
as you also have yourself declared in so important a matter, it is
satisfactory to us, that the peace of the Church must first be main-
tained ; then, that an assembly for counsel being gathered together,
with Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and confessors, as well as with the
laity who stand fast, we should deal with the case of the lapsed." Inter
Ep. Cyp. Ep. xxx.
PAPAL ACT A, EPISTLES, ETC. 221
V. POPE S. STEPHEN.
A.D. 253-7.
i. QUESTION OF RE-BAPTISM.
" Cyprian, who was Bishop of the Church of Carthage, was of opinion
that they (heretics) should be admitted on no conditions, before they
were first purified from their error by baptism. But Stephen, who thought
that no innovations should be made contrary to the tradition, that had
prevailed from ancient times, was greatly offended at this. Dionysius,
therefore, after addressing to him many arguments by letter on this
subject .... writes as follows : ' Now I wish you to understand, my
brother, that all the Churches throughout the East, and further, all
that were formerly divided, have been united again. All the Bishops,
also, are everywhere in harmony, rejoicing exceedingly at the peace that
has been established beyond all expectation. These are Demetrianus of
Antioch, Theoctistus of Caesarea, &c. &c., and all the Churches of
Cilicia, Firmilianus, and all Cappadocia ; for I have mentioned only
the more distinguished of the Bishops by name, that neither the length
of my letter, nor the burden of my words, may offend you. All the pro-
vinces of Syria and Arabia, which at different times you supplied with
necessaries, and to whom you have now written, Mesopotamia, Pontus,
and Bythinia, and, to comprehend all in a word, all are rejoicing every-
where at the unanimity and brotherly love now prevailing, and are
glorifying God for the same.' Such are the words of Dionysius. [In a
subsequent letter to Pope S. Xystus he thus wrote :] ' He (Stephen) had
written before respecting Helenus and Firmilianus, and all those from
Cilicia, and Cappadocia, and Galatia, and all the nations adjoining,
that he would not have communion with them on this account, because
they, said he, rebaptized the heretics. And behold, I pray you, the
importance of the matter. For in reality, as I have ascertained, decrees
have been passed in the greatest councils of the Bishops, that those who
come from the heretics, are first to be instructed, and then are to be
washed and purified from the filth of their old and impure leaven.
But respecting all these things I have sent letters, entreating them.'
After stating other matters, he proceeds : ' But I have also written to our
beloved and fellow -presbyters, Dionysius and Philemon, who agreed
before with Stephen in sentiment, and wrote to me on these matters.
Before, indeed, I wrote briefly, but now more fully.' " Eus. H. E. I. vii.
c> 3 4, 5-
2. S. CYPRIAN MOVES THE OFFICE OF THE HOLY SEE AGAINST
MARCIANUS, BISHOP OF ARLES, IN FRANCE.
" Wherefore it behoves you to write a very full letter to our fellow-
Bishops established in Gaul, that they no longer suffer the froward and
proud Marcianus to insult our college Let Letters
222 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
be addressed from thee to the province and people of Aries, whereby
Marcianus being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his
room, and the flock of Christ, which to this day is overlooked, scattered
by him and wounded, be again collected together .... Signify plainly
to us, who has been substituted in Aries in the room of Marcianus, that
we may know to whom we should direct our brethren, and to whom
write." S. Cyp. Ep. Ixvii. ad Step. p. 115, 117.
VI. POPE S. JULIUS.
A.D. 342.
I. TO THE EUSEBIANS.
" It behoved you, beloved, to come hither (Rome), and not to refuse
^ti a.7rot.vTy<rot.i, teat pv 7ra6tiTv<rao-6ce,i) } in order that this business may be
terminated ; for reason requires this Oh, beloved ! the judgments of
the Church are no longer in accordance with the Gospel, but are (by you,
Arians) to the inflicting of exile and of death. For even though any
transgression had been committed, as you pretend, by these men (i.e.
S. Athanasius, Paul of Constantinople, &c.), the judgment ought to have
been in accordance with the ecclesiastical rule, and not thus. It behoved
you to write to all of us, that thus what was just might be decreed by
all. For they who suffered were Bishops, and the Churches that suffered
no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why
were we not written to concerning the Church, especially of Alexandria ?
or, are you ignorant that this has been the custom first to write to us,
and thus what is just be decreed from this Place (Rome) ? If, therefore,
any such suspicion fell upon the Bishop there (Alexandria), it was befit-
ting to write to this Church (Rome). But now they'who acquainted us
not, but did what they themselves chose, proceed to wish us, though
unacquainted with the facts, to become supporters of their views. Not
thus were Paul's ordinances, not thus have the Fathers handed
down to us, this is another form, and a new institution. Bear with
me cheerfully, I beseech you, for what I write is for the common good.
For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, the same do
I make known to you ; and these things I would not have written to
you, deeming them manifest to you all, had not what has been done con-
founded us." Ep. ad Eusebian. n. 6, 21. Galland. T. v. p. 6, 13.
2. HISTORICAL ACCOUNT.
BY SOCRATES.
" Eusebius, however, could by no means remain quiet, but as the
saying is, left no stone unturned, in order to effect the purpose he had
in view. He therefore caused a synod to be convened at Antioch, in
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 223
Syria,. under pretence of dedicating a Church which Constantine, the
father of the Augusti, had commenced, and which had been com-
pleted by his son Constantius in the tenth year after the foundations were .
laid : but his real motive was the subversion of the doctrine of consub-
stantiality. There were present at this synod ninety Bishops from various
cities. Nevertheless Maximus, Bishop of Jerusalem, who had succeeded
Macarius, declined attending there, for the recollection of the fraudulent
means by which he had been induced to subscribe the deposition of
Athanasius. Neither was Julius, Bishop of Ancient Rome, there, nor
did he indeed send a representative ; although the ecclesiastical rule
(or canon) expressly commands that the Churches shall not make any
ordinances without the sanction of the Bishop of Rome." Soc. H. E.
I. ii. c. 8.
" . . . . Eusebius having thus far obtained his object, sent a depu-
tation to Julius, Bishop of Rome, begging that he would himself take
cognizance of the charges against Athanasius, and order a judicial inves-
tigation to be made in his presence. But Eusebius was prevented from
knowing the decree of Julius concerning Athanasius, for he died a short
time after the Synod (Antioch) was held
.... After experiencing considerable difficulties, Athanasius at
last reached Italy .... At the same time also Paul, Bishop of Con-
stantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of Galatia
Minor, and Lucius of Adrianople, who had each from different causes
been accused and driven from their churches, arrived at the Imperial
city. They made known their individual cases to Julius, Bishop of
Rome ; and he, in the exercise of the Prerogative peculiar to the
Church of Rome, armed them with authoritative Letters, and sent them
back to the East, having restored to each his own See, and severely
blaming those who had rashly deposed them. And they having
departed from Rome, and confiding in the Letters of Bishop Julius,
recovered their Churches. These persons considering themselves treated
with indignity by the reproaches of Julius, assemble themselves in
(an Arian) Council at Antioch, and dictate a reply to his Letters, as the
expression of the unanimous feeling of the whole synod. It was not his
province, they said, to take cognizance of their decisions in reference to
the expulsion of any Bishops from their Churches, seeing that they had
not opposed themselves to him when Novatus was ejected from the
Church. Such was the tenor of the Eastern (Arian) Bishops' dis-
claimers of the right of interference of Julius, Bishop of Rome." Ib.
c. xi. xii. xv.
" Another accusation was now framed against Athanasius by the
Arians, who invented this pretext for it. The father of the Augusti had
long before granted an allowance of corn to the Church of the Alex-
andrians for the relief of the indigent. This they asserted had usually
been sold by Athanasius, and the proceeds converted to his own
advantage. The Emperor giving credence to this slanderous report,
threatened to put Athanasius to death : who becoming alarmed at the
intimation of this threat, consulted his safety by flight, and kept himself
concealed. When Julius Bishop of Rome was apprised of these fresh
224 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
machinations of the Arians against Athanasius, and had also received the
letter of Eusebius, then (just) deceased, he invited the persecuted
Prelate to come to him, having ascertained where he was secreted. The
epistle of the Bishops who had for some time before assembled at
Antioch, just then reached him, together with others from several Bishops
in Egypt, assuring him that the entire charge against Athanasius was a
fabrication. On the receipt of these contradictory communications,
Julius first replied to the Bishops who had written to him from Antioch,
complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter,
and charging them with a violation of the canons, in neglecting to request
his attendance at the Council, seeing that by ecclesiastical law, no de-
cisions of the Churches are valid unless sanctioned by the Bishop of
Rome : he then censured them with great severity for clandestinely
attempting to pervert the faith." Ib. c. 17.
BY SOZOMEN.
"Athanasius, on leaving Alexandria, fled to Rome. Paul, Bishop of
Constantinople, Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, and Asclepas, Bishop of
Gaza, repaired thither at the same time. Asclepas, who was strongly
opposed to the Arians, had been accused by them of having thrown
down an altar, and Quintian had been appointed in his stead over the
Church of Gaza. Lucius also, Bishop of Adrianople, who had on
some accusation been deposed from his office, was dwelling at this
period in Rome. The Roman Bishop, on learning the cause of their
condemnation, and on finding that they held the same sentiments as
himself, and adhered to the Nicene doctrines, admitted them to com-
munion ; and as by the dignity of his seat the charge of watching over
the orthodox devolved upon him, he restored them all to their own
Churches. He wrote to the Bishops of the East, and rebuked them for
having judged these Bishops unjustly, and for having disturbed the peace
of the Church by abandoning the Nicene doctrines. He summoned a few
of them to appear before him on an appointed day, in order to account to
him for the sentence they had passed, and threatened to bear with them
no longer, should they introduce any further innovations. Athanasius
and Paul were reinstated in their bishoprics, and they forwarded the
Letter of Julius to the Bishops of the East. The (Arian) Bishops were
highly indignant at this Letter, and they assembled together at Antioch,
and framed a reply to Julius, replete with elegance and the graces of
rhetoric, but couched in a tone of irony and defiance. They confessed in
this epistle that the Church of Rome was entitled to universal honour
(<><A<mW<* 0gg<v), because it had been founded by the Apostles, and had
enjoyed the rank of a Metropolitan Church from the first preaching of
religion, although those who first propagated a knowledge of Christian
doctrine in this city came from the East They called Julius to
account for having admitted Athanasius to communion, and expressed
their indignation against him for having insulted the Synod, and abrogated
their decrees ; and they reprehended his conduct, because they said it
PAPAL ACT A, EPISTLES, ETC. 22$
was opposed to justice and to the canons of the Church. After these
complaints and protestations, they proceeded to state that they were
willing to continue on terms of unity and communion with Julius, pro-
vided that he would sanction the deposition of the Bishops whom they
had expelled, and the ordination of those whom they had elected in their
stead, but that, unless he would accede to those terms, they would have
recourse to hostility. They added, that the Bishops who had preceded
them in the government of the Eastern Churches had offered no oppo-
sition to the deposition of Novatian by the Church of Rome." Sozomen,
H. E. Lib. iii. c. 8.
" The Bishops of Egypt having sent a declaration in writing that
these allegations (i. e. the charge against S. Athanasius of having sold
the wheat that the Emperor had provided for the poor in Alexandria)
were false, and Julius having been apprised that Athanasius was far from
being in safety in Egypt, sent for him to his own city. He replied at
the" same time to the letter of the (Arian) Bishops who were convened at
Antioch, and accused them of having clandestinely introduced novelties
contrary to the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, and of having violated
the laws of the Church, by neglecting to invite him to their synod ; for
it is a sacerdotal law (vopog /egar/xo;), which declares that whatever is
executed contrary to the decree of the Bishop of Rome is null and void."
3. MARCELLUS, BISHOP OF ANCYRA, TO POPE S. JULIUS.
"Whereas certain of those who were formerly condemned for not
believing rightly, and who were confuted by me at the Council of Nicsea,
have dared to write to your Holiness (S. Julius) against me, as though my
sentiments were neither orthodox nor ecclesiastical, seeking to transfer to
me their own crime, therefore had I deemed it necessary to come to
Rome, and admonish thee to summon those who have written against
me, that, on their coming, I might convict them on two heads ; that what
they have written against me is false, and that they still continue in their
former error, and that they have made impious attempts both against
the Churches of God, and us who preside over them. But as they have
not chosen to appear, though thou hast sent presbyters to them, and I
have for a year and three whole months done this, I have deemed it neces-
sary, being about to depart hence, to present to thee, written with mine
own hand, in all sincerity, a written profession of my faith " [then follows
an account of his faith.] " This faith .... I both preach in the
House of God, and I have now written to thee, retaining a copy of it for
myself; and I beg of thee to write, in a letter to the Bishops, a counter-
part to this, for fear lest some who knew me not perfectly, and who
believe what these men have written, be led into error." Ep. ad Jidium,
Galland. t. v.p. 16, 17.
226 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
VII. POPE S. DAMASUS.
A.D. 370.
i. S. PETER, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.
" . . . . He (S. Athanasius) left as his successor (in the See of
Alexandria) Peter, a devout and excellent man. Upon this the Arians,
emboldened by their knowledge of the Emperor's religious sentiments,
again take courage, and immediately inform him of the circumstance.
He was then residing at Antioch, and Euzoius, who presided over the
Arians of that city, eagerly embracing the favourable opportunity thus
presented, begs permission to go to Alexandria, for the purpose of putting
Lucius the Arian in possession of the Churches there. The Emperor,
acceding to this request, Euzoius proceeds forthwith to Alexandria,
attended by the imperial troops, and Magnus, the Emperor's treasurer ;
they were also the bearers of an imperial mandate to Palladius, the
Governor of Egypt, enjoining him to aid them with a military force.
Wherefore, having apprehended Peter, they cast him into prison ; and
after dispersing the rest of the clergy, they place Lucius in the episcopal
chair. . . . Peter, however, has exposed them in the letters he addressed
to all the Churches, when he had escaped from prison, and fled to Da-
masus, Bishop of Rome As soon as the Emperor Valens
left Antioch, all those who had anywhere been suffering persecution,
began again to take courage, and especially the Alexandrians. Peter
returned to that city from Rome, with letters from Damasus, the Roman
Bishop, in which he confirmed the Homoousian faith, and sanctioned
Peter's ordination." Soc. H. E. I. iv. c. 20, 21, 22, 37.
2. To PROSPERUS AND OTHER BISHOPS OF NUMIDIA.
" Although, dearest brethren, the decrees of the Fathers are known to
you, yet we cannot wonder at your carefulness as regards the institutes
of our forefathers, that you cease not, as the custom ever has been, to
refer all those things, which can admit of any doubt, to us, as to the Head,
(capuf] that thence you may derive answers, whence you received the
institution and rule (normam} of living rightly. Wherefore are we
mindful that you also are not forgetful of the canons which command
this to be done. Not that you are in any way deficient in the knowledge
of the law of the Church, but that, supported by the authority of the
Apostolic See, you may not deviate in anything from its regulations. .
. . . It does with reason concern us, who ought to hold the chief
government in the Church (the Chief Helm of the Church), if we by our
silence favour error" (summo, .... gubernaculd). Ep. v. Prospero,
Numid. et aliis, Labbe, t. ii. col. 876-882.
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 22/
3. To VALERIANUS AND OTHER ORIENTAL BISHOPS.
" Now could any disadvantage arise from the number of those who
assembled at Rimini, seeing that it is certain, that neither the Roman
Bishop, whose opinion ought to have been sought for before that of all
others (cujus ante omnes fuit expetenda sententid), nor Vincentius, who
during so many years persevered in the priestly office without blame,
nor others, gave any consent whatever to the decrees of that assembly."
Ep. i. Synod. Orientalibus, Galland, t. vi. p. 321.
3. TO THE BISHOPS IN THE EAST CONCERNING THE CONDEMNATION
OF TIMOTHY, DISCIPLE OF THE HERETIC APOLLINARIUS.
" Most honoured children, in that your friendliness bestows on the
Apostolic Chair the reverence due, you confer the greatest honour upon
yourselves. For although especially in this holy Church wherein the
holy Apostle sitting taught in what way it beseems us to hold the
key which has been put into our hands (decet nos quodam modo clavum
tenere quern regendum suscepimus\ yet do we confess ourselves unequal
to the honour ; but therefore do we strive in every way, if it may be
that we may be able to attain unto the glory of that blessedness. Know,
therefore, that long since we deposed (cut off) the profane Timotheus,
the disciple of the heretic Apollinarius, with his impious doctrine
Why then, do you again require from me the deposition of the same
man, who even here by the Judgment of the Apostolic Chair, while
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, was also present, was deposed together
with his master Apollinarius ? But if this man, as if he had some
hope .... gains over certain unstable persons, with him shall
also perish whosoever it is that chooses to resist the rule (canon)
of the Church." Ep. ix. Synod. Orient. Ib. p. 337.
VIII. POPE S. SIRICIUS.
A.D. 386.
To HIMERIUS, BISHOP OF TARRAGONA IN SPAIN.
" Taking into account my office, it is not for me to choose, on whom
it is incumbent that there should be a zeal for the Christian religion
greater than that of all other persons, to dissemble, and remain silent.
I bear the burdens of all who are heavily laden ; yea, rather in me that
burden is borne by the blessed Apostle Peter, who we trust, in all
things, protects, and has regard to us who are the heirs of his Go-
vernment (Hczc portat in nobis beatus Apostolus Petrus, qui nos in
omnibus, ut confidimus, administrationis suce protegit et tuetur hceredes^
" Let it suffice that faults have hitherto been committed in this
matter; and now let the above-named rule be observed by all priests
228 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
(Bishops) who do not wish to be rent from that solid Apostolic Rock
upon which Christ constructed the Universal Church." Ep. i. Ad Himer
Tarrac. n. I 2. Galland. t. vii. p. 533,4-
IX. POPE ANASTASIUS I.
A.D. 399.
To JOHN, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM.
" Far be this from the Catholic discipline of the Roman Church . . .
Assuredly care shall not be wanting on my part to guard the faith of the
Gospel for my people ; and to visit by Letter, as far as I be able, the
members of my body, throughout the divers regions of the earth (par-
tesque corporis mei, per spatia divers a terrarum}, to prevent any be-
ginning of a profane interpretation from creeping in, which may have
for its object to confound devout minds, by spreading its darkness."
Ep. i. Ad Joan. Jerosol. n. 5, Galland. /. viii. p. 247, 8.
X. POPE S. INNOCENT.
A.D. 410.
i. To VICTRICIUS, BISHOP OF ROUEN.
" Though, dearest brother, agreeably to the worth and honour of the
priesthood, wherewith you are eminently distinguished, you are ac-
quainted with all the maxims of life and doctrine, contained in the eccle-
siastical law, neither is there anything which you have not gathered from
your sacred reading yet, seeing that you have earnestly
requested to be made acquainted with the pattern and authority of the
Roman Church {Ecclesice Romance normam atque auctoritateiri), I have,
from my profound respect for your wish, sent you digested regulations of
life, and the approved customs, whereby the people who compose the
churches of your country may perceive, by what things and rules
the life of Christians, each according to his own profession, ought to be
restrained ; and also what discipline is observed in the Church of the
city of Rome. It will be for your friendliness diligently to make this
known throughout the neighbouring people, and to communicate to our
fellow-priests (Bishops), who preside over their respective churches in
those countries, this book of rules, as an instructor and a monitor, that
they may both be acquainted with our customs, and, by diligent teach-
ing, form, in accordance with the faith, the manners of those who flock
unto them. Let us, therefore, begin with the help of the holy Apostle
Peter, through whom both the Apostleship and the Episcopate took their
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 229
rise in Christ " (per quern et apostolatus et episcopates in Christo ccepit
exordium?) . . . These, then, are the things which it behoves every
Catholic Bishop, having before his eyes the judgment of God, hence-
forward to observe That if any causes, or contentions, arise
between clergy of the higher, or even of an inferior order, the dispute be
settled agreeably to the Synod of Nicaea, by an assembly of the Bishops
of that same province ; and that it be not lawful for any one
to leave these priests (Bishops), who by the will of God govern the
Church of God, and to have recourse to other provinces. If any
greater causes shall have been brought forwarder discussed), let them,
after episcopal judgment, be referred to the Apostolic See, as the synod
(of Nicaea) resolved,* and a blessed custom requires." Ep. ii. ad Victric.
n. i, 2, 3, 5, 6, Galland. t. viii./. 547.
2. TO THE BISHOPS IN THE SYNOD OF TOLEDO IN SPAIN.
" An exceeding anxiety has often kept me in fear about the dissen-
sions and schisms of the churches in Spain, which report loudly declares
are daily spreading and advancing with more rapid strides ; the needful
time has now come wherein it is not possible any longer to defer the
much-required correction, and wherein a suitable remedy must be pro-
vided. For our brother, Hilary, my fellow- Bishop, and Elpidius, pres-
byter, partly moved by the love of unity, partly influenced, as they ought
to be, by the ruinous evils, under which your province labours, have
journeyed to the Apostolic See (ad sedem apostolicam commearnnf] ;
and in the very Bosom of faith, have, with sorrow and lamentation, de-
scribed how peace has been violated within your province." Ep. iii,
n. i. Ib.p. 551.
3. TO RUFUS AND OTHER BISHOPS IN MACEDONIA.
" After having caused your letter to be several times read to me, I
noticed a kind of injury was done to the Apostolic See, unto which, as
unto the Head of the Churches (quasi ad caput ecclesiarum), that state-
ment was sent, the sentence of that See being still treated as doubtful.
The renewed questioning contained in your report compels me, there-
fore, to repeat in plainer terms, that subjects concerning which I remem-
ber having written to you." Ep. xvii. n. \. Ib. p. 575.
4. To ALEXANDER, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH.
" Observe, therefore, that this (privilege) has been assigned to this
city (Antioch), not so much on account of its magnificence, as because
it is known to have been the first see of the First Apostle, where the
Christian religion took its name, and has had the honour to have held
within it a most celebrated assembly of the Apostles ; a city which
* This signifies the written and the unwritten Law, or, in legal language, the
Statute and the Common Law. The Council of Sardica enacted the canon of
appeal, but it was part of the Common Law of the Church, that all greater causes
should be carried to Rome. Custom, legally, is part of the Common Law.
23O THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
would not yield to the city of Rome, save that Antioch was honoured
by him (Peter), but temporarily, whereas this city (Rome) glories in
having received him to herself, and that he there consummated (his mar-
tyrdom)." Ep.xxiv.n.1. Ib.p. 584.
5. To DECENTIUS, BISHOP OF GUBBIO.
" . . . . For who knows not, or notices not, that what was de-
livered to the Roman Church by Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and
is to this day guarded, ought to be observed by all men, and that nothing
ought to be superinduced (or, introduced), which has not (that) authority,
or which may seem to derive its precedent elsewhere, clear especially
as it is that no one has founded churches throughout the whole of Italy,
Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Sicily, and the inter-adjacent islands, except
those whom the venerable Apostle Peter, or his Successors, appointed
Priests (i.e. Bishops) .... But if they read of no other, for they never can
find any other, they ought to follow what is observed by the Roman
Church, from which there is no doubt that they derived their origin, lest
whilst they court strange assertions, they be seen to set aside the Head
(caput] of their institutions. It is well known that your friendliness has
often been at Rome, been present with us in church, and cognizant of
the customs which prevailed both in consecrating the Mysteries, and in
the other secret (offices). We should assuredly consider this sufficient
for the information, or the reformation of your Church, should it be that
your predecessors have in any respect not held with, or held differently
from us, had you not thought that we were to be consulted on certain
matters. On these we send you replies, not as thinking you in any respect
ignorant, but that you may regulate your people with greater authority ;
or should any have gone aside from the institutions of the Roman Church,
that you may either yourself admonish them, or not delay to point them
out to us, that we may know who they are who either introduce novelties,
or who think that the custom of any other Church, than that of Rome, is
to be followed. Ep. xxv. ad Decent, n. i, 3. Ib. p. 586.
6. To THE COUNCIL OF MILEVIS.
" Amongst other cares of the Roman Church, and the occupations of
the Apostolic See whereby we are busied in a faithful and medicinal
handling of the consultations by divers parties our brother and fellow-
Bishop, Julius, has unexpectedly pressed on my notice the letter which
you have, with a more than ordinary solicitude for the faith, sent me
from the Council held at Milevis .... Carefully, therefore, as was
befitting, do you consult what is the secret wish of this Apostolic dignity
(congrue apostolici consulitis honoris arcana), a dignity, I repeat, upon
which falls besides those things that are without, the care of all the
Churches, as to what opinion is to be held in matters of such moment ;
having herein followed the pattern of an ancient rule, which you, equally
with myself, know has always been observed by the whole world. But I
pass these things by ; for I do not think but that this is manifest to your
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 231
prudence. Yea, why have you confirmed this by your own act, but that
you know that, throughout all the provinces, answers to questions always
emanate from the Apostolic Spring. Especially, as often as questions of
faith are agitated, I am of opinion that all our brethren and fellow-
Bishops ought not to refer but to Peter that is, to the Author of their
name and honour even as your friendliness has now referred (to ascer-
tain) what may be for the common weal of all the churches throughout
the whole world (quod per omnes provincias de apostolico fonte petentibus
responsa semper emanent. Prcssertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur,
arbitror omnes fratres et co-episcopos nostros non nisi ad Petrum, id
esf, sui nominis et honoris auctorem referre debere, -velut nunc retulit
vestra dilectio, quod per totum mundum possit ecclesiis omnibus in com-
mune prodesse^) For the authors of these evils must needs be more
cautious, in seeing themselves, upon the report of two synods, separated
from the communion of the Church, by the Decree of our sentence.
. . . . Wherefore, we do by the authority of the Apostolic Power
(Apostolici vigoris auctoritate), declare Pelagius and Celestius the in-
ventors, to wit, of novel words, which, as the Apostle has said, are of no
edification, but rather are wont to beget most foolish questions, de-
prived of the communion of the Church." Ep. xxx. ad Condi. Milev,
n. 1,2, 6. Ib.p. 602-3.
7, To AURELIUS, BISHOP OF CARTHAGE, AND OTHERS.
" Keeping to the precedents of ancient tradition, and mindful of the
discipline of the Church, you have in your examination of the things of
God (which it is fitting should be treated of with the utmost care, by
priests (Bishops), and especially by a true, and just, and catholic
Council), in an undeniable manner, established the firmness of your re-
ligion, no less now by consulting (me), than when you previously passed
your sentence ; approving, as you have done, by a reference to our Judg-
ment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See (scientes quid apostolica
sedi debeatur), knowing that all of us, who have been placed in this
position, desire to follow that Apostle, from whom the episcopate itself,
and the whole authority of this title, has been derived. With him for our
model, we both know how to condemn what is evil, and to approve of
what is commendable. Yea, even this, that ye guard by your priestly
office theinstitutes of the Fathers, which you think are not to be trampled
on, they, by a judgment not human, but divine, having decided that
whatsoever should be transacted, though in provinces remote and distant
from us, they would account that it was not to be completed, until it had
come to the knowledge of this See, that so the entire sentence, if justly
pronounced, might be confirmed by the Authority of this See, and the
rest of the churches thence derive (that they may proceed, like as all
waters, from their own parent spring, and the pure stream of an uncor-
rupted Fountain-Head may flow throughout the divers regions of the whole
world) what to order (non prius ducerent finiendum, nisi ad hujus sedis
notitiam perveniret, ut tota hujus auctoritate justa quce fuerit pronun-
tiatio firmaretur, indeque sumerent cetera ecclesice (uelut de natali suo
232 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
fonte aqua cunctce procederent, et per diversas totiits mundi regiones
puri latices incorrupti manarent] quid pr<zdpere\ whom to cleanse," &c.
Ep. clxxxi. Aurelio et ctzteris qui in Condi. Carthag. in Ed. Bened.
S. Agust. t. ii. p. 949.
8. To FELIX, BISHOP OF NOCERA.
" We cannot wonder that your friendliness follows the institutes of
those who have gone before you, and refers unto us, as unto the Head
and Chief of the Episcopate (ad nos quasi ad cap^lt atque ad apicem
episcopatus referre], whatsoever can cause any doubt ; that by con-
sulting the Apostolic See, to wit, it may, even out of doubtful matters
decide on something that is certain, and that ought to be done."
Ep. xxxvii. FeUd, n. I. Galland. T. v'iii.p. 608.
XI. POPE S. ZOSIMUS.
A.D. 417.
TO AURELIUS AND OTHERS, BISHOPS IN THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE.
" Although the tradition of the Fathers has assigned so great an
Authority to the Apostolic See, that no one should dare to dispute about
a Judgment given by it, and that See, by laws and regulations, has
kept to this ; and the discipline of the Church, in the laws which it
yet follows, still pays to the name of Peter, from whom that See (or
discipline) descends, the reverence due, for canonical antiquity, by uni-
versal consent, willed that so great a Power should belong to that
Apostle, a Power also derived from the actual promise of Christ our
God, that it should be his to loose what was bound, and to bind what
was loosed, an equal state of Power being bestowed upon those who,
by His will, should be found worthy to inherit his See, for he has
charge both of all the Churches, and especially of this One wherein he sat ;
nor does he allow any storm to shake one particle of the Privilege, or
any part of the Sentence of that See to which he has given his name as
a foundation firm and not to be weakened by any violence whatever,
and which no one can rashly attack but at his peril ; seeing then, that
Peter is a Head of such great authority, and that he has confirmed the
subsequent decrees (or statutes) of the Fathers ; that, by all laws and
regulations, both human and divine, the Roman Church is strengthened :
and you are not ignorant, you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you
are not ignorant, that we rule over his Place, and are in possession also
of the Authority of his name (par potestatis data conditio in eos, qui
sedis hereditatem, ipso annuente, meruissent . . . ut tarn humanis quam
divinis legibus et disdplinis omnibus firmetur Romana Ecdesia, cujus
locum nos regere, ipsius quoque potestatem nominis obtinere, non latet
vos\ nevertheless, though so great be our Authority that none may
PAPAL ACT A, EPISTLES, ETC. 233
refuse (or reconsider) our Sentence (ut nullus de nostra possit retractare
sententia)) we have not done anything, which we have not, of our will
referred by letter to your knowledge, conceding this to the Brotherhood."
p.\\. Ad Africanos, Galland. T. ix. pp. 15, 16.
XII. POPE S. BONIFACE.
A.D. 419.
i. To RUFUS, BISHOP OF THESSALONICA.
" The blessed Apostle Peter, as you have faithfully expressed your-
self in your letter, looks on you with his own eyes to see how you dis-
charge the office of a supreme ruler. Nor can he fail to be near you, he
who was appointed the perpetual Shepherd of the Lord's sheep ; nor can
he, in whom we read that the foundation of the Universal Church was
laid, help paying regard to any church wheresoever it may t)e. On you,
dearest brother, devolves the entire care of those churches, which you
will recognise as having been, by us, entrusted to you as the vicegerent
of the Apostolic See." Ep. v. Rufo, Episc. Thessal. Galland. t. ix. p. 50.
2. TO THE BISHOPS IN THESSALY.
" The institution of the Universal Church took its beginning from
the honour bestowed on blessed Peter, in whom its Government and
Headship reside (institutio univer salts ecclesics de beati Petri sumsit
honor e principium, in quo regimen ejus et summa consistif]. For from
him, as its Source, did ecclesiastical discipline flow over all the churches,
when the culture of religion had begun to make progress. The precepts
of the Synod of Nicaea bear no other testimony ; insomuch that that
Synod did not attempt to make any regulations in his regard, as it saw
that nothing could be conferred that was superior to his own dignity
(merit) ; it knew, in fine, that everything had been bestowed on him
by the Word of the Lord. It is, therefore, certain that this Church is
to the churches spread over the whole world, as the Head is to its own
members ; from which Church whoso has cut himself off becomes an alien
from the Christian religion, whereas he has begun not to be in the same
bonds of fellowship (cum videret nihil supra meritum suum posse con-
ferri, omnia denique hide noverat Domini sermone toncessa. Hanc ergo
ecclesiis toto orbe diffusis velut caput suorum certiim est esse membrorum,
a qua se quisquis abscidit^fit Christiana religionis extorris, cum in eadem
non co2perit esse compage]. Now I hear that certain Bishops, the Apo-
stolic right despised, are attempting a novelty which is in direct opposi-
tion to the special Injunctions of Christ, seeing that they are trying
to separate themselves from communion, or, to speak more correctly,
from the communion of the Apostolic See ; seeking aid from men to
whom the regulations of the Church have never given their sanction that
they should be of superior authority . . . Receive, therefore, from us an
234 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
admonition and a rebuke, of which we offer one to the Prelates (who
side with us), the other to the separatists (quoting i Cor. iv. 21). . . . For
you know that both are in blessed Peter's Power, to rebuke, that is, with
meekness the meek, and the proud with a rod. Wherefore, show to the
Head the honour due to it (servate honorem debitum capiti] ; for we
would not have the members at variance with each other, as the strife
between them reaches unto us, when our brother and fellow-Bishop, Rufus,
is accounted by you a person to be contemned. ... It is not becoming
in the brethren to feel galled at another's power. Assuredly, as the
Apostolic See holds the Princedom for this, that it may receive the
lawful complaints of all (ideo tenet sedes Apostolica Principatum,
ut querelas omnium licentes accepted], if in anything his correc-
tion seemed to be excessive, it became you, by sending an embassy, to
appeal to us, upon whom you may see the charge of everything devolves
(quos curam omnium rerum manere videatis) .... Let this novel
presumption cease. Let every one who accounts himself a Bishop, obey
our ordinance. Let no one presume to ordain Bishops throughout
Illyricum, without our fellow-Bishop Rufus be privy to it." Ep. xiv. Epis.
Thess. Ib.p. 57.
XIII. POPE S. CELESTINE.
A.D. 423.
i. To THE BISHOP OF ILLYRICUM.
" We in a special manner are constrained by our charge, which re-
gards all men, we on whom Christ has, in the Person of the holy Peter
the Apostle, when He gave him the keys to open and to shut, im-
posed as a necessity to be engaged about all men." Ep. iii. Ad Episc.
Illyr. Galland. t. ix. p. 292.
2. To S. CYRIL, PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA.
" Therefore let all those whom he has separated from his communion
understand that they continue in ours, and that from this time he himself
(Nestorius) cannot continue in communion with us, if he persists in
opposing the Apostolic doctrine. Wherefore you shall execute this
Judgment with the Authority of our See, acting in our Stead, and having
our Power delegated to you ; and that if, in the space of ten days after
he has received this admonition, he does not expressly anathematise
his impious doctrines, and promise to confess, for the future, that faith
which the Roman Church and your Church and all Christendom teach
concerning the generation of Jesus Christ our God, your Holiness may
forthwith set about to provide for this Church (of Constantinople) under
the full assurance that in such a case it is necessary that he should be
utterly separated from , our body." Labbe, Condi. T. iii. col. 898-9.
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 235
3. To NESTORIUS, THE HERESIARCH.
". . . . Know that if you do not teach concerning Jesus Christ our
God, what is held by Rome, Alexandria, and all the Catholic Churches,
and which up to your time was held by the holy Church of Constantinople ;
and if within ten days after the receipt of this third admonition, you do
not unequivocally, and in writing, condemn this impious novelty, which
tends to put asunder what Scripture joins, you are excluded from the
communion of the whole Catholic Church. We have directed this
Sentence and all the other writings to be taken by the Deacon Posi-
donius to the Bishop of Alexandria, that he may act in our Place (TOTTO-
vt^ai) ; and that our decree may be known to you and all our brethren."
Ibid. 911-14.
4. To THE FAITHFUL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
[A letter was addressed by this Pope to the people of Constantinople,
exhorting them to constancy, and offering them consolation. He an-
nuls the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Nestorius, from
the time he commenced to propagate his errors ; and he informs them
that he has commissioned S. Cyril of Alexandria " to act in his Stead "
(rvv t)ftiTtoc,v <tict$o%w ctTrtvtipoiftiv), and concludes with a formal statement
of the terms of his Sentence. The same in substance is forwarded to the
Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, to Rufus of Thessalonica, and
Flavian of Philippi. Ibid., col. 914, 923.]
XIV. POPE S. XYSTUS III.
A.D. 434.
To JOHN, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH.
" You have learned by the result of this present business what it is to
agree in sentiment with us. The blessed Apostle Peter, in his Succes-
sors, has transmitted what he received (beatus Petrus in successoribus
sms, quod acceptt, hoc tradidif]. Who would separate himself from his
doctrine, whom the Master Himself declared to be the First amongst the
Apostles?" Ep. vi. Ad Joan. Antioch. n. 5, Galland. T. ix./. 529.
XV. POPE S. LEO THE GREAT.
A.D. 440.
i. To THE METROPOLITANS IN ILLYRICUM.
" And whereas our care is extended throughout all the churches, this
being required of us by the Lord, who committed the Primacy (govern-
ment) of the Apostolic dignity to the most blessed Peter in reward of
his faith, establishing the Universal Church on the solidity of him, the
236 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
Foundation (quia per omnes ecclesias cura nostra distenditur, exigente
hoc a nobis Domino, qui Apostolicce dignitatis beatissimo apostolo Petropri-
matum fidei sutz remuneration* commisit, ^lniversalem ecclesiam in
fundamenti ipsi2is soliditate constitiiens] ; wherefore, following the
example of those whose memory is venerable unto us, we have com-
mitted to our brother and fellow- Bishop, Anastasius, to act in our Stead
(vicem nostram commisimus] . . ." T. i. Ep. v. Ad Episcopos Metrop.per
Illyricum, c. 2, p. 617.
2. TO THE BISHOPS OF THE PROVINCE OF VlENNE.
"... But Hilary, about to disturb this line of conduct which has
ever been, by our Fathers, both laudably held to, and beneficially pre-
served, and about to trouble the state of the churches, and the concord
of the priests has departed (from Rome), desiring so to subject you to
his own power, as not to suffer himself to be subject to the blessed
Apostle Peter (ut se beato Apostolo Petro non patiatur esse siibject*m\
claiming to himself the ordinations of all the churches throughout
Gaul, and transferring to his own dignity that which is due to the
Metropolitan priests (Bishops) ; by lessening also, with arrogant words,
the reverence (due) to the most blessed Peter, to whom, while the
power of binding and loosing was given him beyond the others, yet
was the care of feeding the sheep more especially assigned. To whom
whoso thinks that the Princedom (principatuni) is to be denied, he can
in no wise lessen the dignity of Peter, but, puffed up with the spirit of
his own pride, he sinks himself down into hell." Ib. Ep. x. Ad Episcopos
per Provinc. Viennens. constitutes, in causa Hilarii Arelat. c.2, p. 635.
3. To ANASTASIUS, BISHOP OF THESSALONICA.
" For the connexion of our union cannot be firm, unless the bond of
charity bind us together into an inseparable solidity .... The cohe-
sion of the whole body produces one healthfulness, one beauty ;
and this connexion requires indeed the unanimity of the whole body,
but demands especially concord amongst the priests (Bishops), whose
dignity, though it be common to them all, yet is not their order uniform ;
since even amongst the most blessed Apostles, in likeness of honour there
was a certain diversity of power ; and whereas the election of them all
was equal, nevertheless to One was it given to be Pre-eminent over the
rest. (Quibus cum dignitas sit communis, non est tamen ordo generalis ;
quoniam et inter beatissimos Apostolos in similitudine honoris fuit quce-
dam discretio potestatis ; et cum omnium par esset electio, uni tamen
datum est, ut ceteris prceemineret^ Out of which pattern also has arisen
the distinction amongst the Bishops, and by a mighty regulation
has it been provided against, that all claim not all things to themselves,
but that there be individuals in individual provinces, whose sentence
should, amongst the brethren, be accounted the first ; and again, that
certain others, constituted in the greater cities, should take upon
them a wider solicitude, through whom the Universal Church might
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 237
flow together to the One Chair of Peter, and no part be anywhere at
variance with its Head" (per quos ad unam Petri sedem universalis
ecclesicB cura conflueret, et nihil usquam a suo capitt dissideret). Id.
Ep. xiv. Ad Anastasium Thessalon. Episc. c. xi. pp. 691, 692.
4. To THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS.
" We rejoice in the Lord . . . that what things He had first defined
by our ministry, He has confirmed by the irrevocable assent of the whole
Brotherhood, that He might show that to have truly emanated from
Himself, which having been established by the First of all the Sees, has
received the judgment of the whole Christian world, that herein also
the members may be in agreement with the Head. And lest the
assent of the other sees with that One, which the Lord appointed to
preside over the rest, might seem to be flattery, or some other hostile
suspicion might creep in, there were at first some found to doubt our
Judgments. . . . Finally, the excellence of the sacerdotal office is much
more illustrious, when the authority of the chiefs is in such wise derived,
as that the liberty of the inferior is accounted in no particular lessened.
" Herein also do we wish to be aided by the solicitude of your
watchfulness, that you would, by your own report, inform the Apostolic
Chair of what progress is made by the Lord's truth in your districts ; in
order that we may aid the priests of those countries in whatsoever matters
usage may demand." Ib. cxx. Ad Theodoret. Epis. Cyr. c. vi. pp. 1219-
1227.
5. To MAXIMUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH.
" It behoves your friendliness to see clearly, with all your soul, over
the government of which church the Lord has willed you to preside, and to
be mindful of that doctrine, which the most blessed Peter, Chief of all
the Apostles, established throughout the whole world indeed, by a uniform
teaching, but by a special instruction in the cities of Antioch and of
Rome. ... It behoves you, therefore, to be, with the utmost vigilance
careful, lest heretical pravity may claim anything unto itself; since it
becomes you, by your sacerdotal authority, to resist such, and frequently,
by your reports concerning the progress of the churches, to inform us of
what is doing. For it is proper that you be a partner with the Apostolic
Chair in this solicitude ; and to produce confidence in acting, be con-
scious of the privileges of the third see, which do not suffer to be
limited in anything by the ambition of any individual ; for so great is
the reverence for the Nicene canons, that I neither have permitted, nor
will I permit, the things settled by the Holy Fathers to be violated by any
innovation" (nee permiserim, necpatiar aliqua novitate violari). Ep. cxix.
ad Max. Antioch. c. 3, p. 121.
6. EXTRACTS FROM SERMONS.
" He therefore also rejoices at your affection, and he recognises
in the partners of his own honour, the observance of the Lord's insti-
tution, approving of that well-ordered charity of the whole Church, which,
238 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
in the see of Peter, acknowledge Peter" (probans ordinatissimam totius
ecclesice caritatem, qu<z in Petri sede, Petrum suscipit). Ib. Sermo ii.
de Natal. Or din. suce, c. 2, pp. 9, 10.
" The solidity of the faith which was commended in the Prince of the
Apostles is perpetual ; and as what Peter believed in Christ is permanent,
so is what Christ instituted in Peter permanent. ... In these ways, there-
fore, my beloved, this day's festival celebrated with a reasonable ser-
vice; that is in the person of my lowliness, he be acknowledged, be ho-
noured, in whom both the solicitude of all pastors, with the care of the
sheep entrusted to them, still continues, and whose dignity fails not even in
his unworthy heir. Wherefore the Presence so decreed by me, and so
honourable, of my venerable brethren and fellow-priests (Bishops) is the
more devout and religious, if so be that they refer the affection with which
they have vouchsafed to be present at this solemnity, principally to Peter,
whom they know not only to be the Prelate of this Chair, but the Primate
also of all Bishops. When, therefore, we address our exhortations'to the
care of your Holinesses, believe that he, in whose Stead we act, is speaking."
Ib. Serm. iii. Anniver. Assump. c. 2-4, pp. 11-13.
" For although all pastors soever preside with special solicitude over
their own flocks. . . . Yet .... neither is there any one's administration
which is not a portion of our labour ; so that while recourse is had from
every part of the world, to the See of the blessed Apostle Peter, and that
love of the Universal Church, which was enjoined on Peter by the Lord, is
also required of our administration, we feel that so much the greater
burden weighs upon us, as we are indebted for more than all."
. . . He (Peter) ceases not to preside over his own See, and he enjoys
a never-ceasing fellowship with the everlasting Priest (Christ). For that
solidity which Peter, himself also made a Rock, received from the Rock
Christ, has passed onwards to his heirs also, and wheresoever any firm-
ness is exhibited, the constancy of that Pastor is undeniably apparent."
Ib. Serm. v. Nat. Or din. c. ii. iv. pp. 20, 25.
" Yet is this day's festival (S. Peter and S. Paul), besides that rever-
ence which it has deserved from the whole Universe, to be venerated
with special and peculiar exultation by this city, that where the depar-
ture (death) of the Chief Apostle was made glorious, there be, on the day
of their martyrdom, pre-eminent gladness. For thou, O Rome, are the
men through whom the Gospel of Christ shone upon thee, and thou who
wast the teacher of error hast become the disciple of truth. . . . These
are they who advanced thee to this glory, to be a holy nation, a chosen
people, a priestly and royal city ; that by the See of the blessed Peter,
made the Head of the universe, thou mightest rule more widely by divine
religion than by earthly empire. For although, enlarged by many
victories, thou hast extended the right of empire by land and sea, yet,
what the toil of war has subdued to thee is less than what Christian peace
has subjected to thee (per sacram beati Petri sedem caput orbis effecta,
latius prczsideres religione divina, quam dominatione terrena .... minus
tamen est quod tibi bellicus labor subdidit, quam quod pax Christiana
subjecit). . . . For, when the twelve Apostles, having received through
the Holy Spirit the gift of speaking in all tongues, had, with the districts
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 239
of the world distributed amongst them, undertaken to embrace the world
with the Gospel, the most blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostolic
order, is assigned to the Capital of the Roman Empire, that the light of
truth, which was manifested for the salvation of all nations, might more
effectually diffuse itself from that Head throughout the whole body of the
world." (Petrus princeps Apostolici ordinis ad arcem Romani destinatur
imperil: ut lux veritatis qu<z in omnium gentium revelabalur salutem,
efficacius se ab ipso capite per to turn mundi corpus effunderef)." Id.
Serm. Ixxxiii. c. 1-3. In Natal App. Petri et Fault, pp. 321-323.
XVI. POPE S. FELIX III.
A.D. 490.
i. To THE EMPEROR ZENO.
" Therein also has shone forth your magnanimity, that you desire that
the affairs of the Church, even as heaven ordained, be settled by the
administration of her Pontiffs; and that you wish that whoever is de-
clared to have been raised to the priestly office, be thence supported,
whence, by the will of Christ the full grace of all Pontiffs has been
derived. I am also cheered by the purport of your letter, wherein you
have not omitted to state that blessed Peter is the Chief of the Apostles,
and the Rock of faith, and have judiciously proved that to him were
entrusted the keys of the heavenly mysteries. . . . Most venerated
Prince, vicar (vicarius) such as I am, of blessed Peter, I do not extort
these things, as with the authority of Apostolic Power, but I confidently
implore them as an anxious Father. . . . For so in me, his vicar, such as I am,
does the blessed Peter ask, as Christ Himself asks it in Peter, who suffers
not his Church to be rent in pieces. . . . Let the peace of the churches
be genuine ; let there be a real unity, seeing that the paternal faith, and
the communion of blessed Peter, ought to be preferred before any indi-
vidual whomsoever " (quoniam cuicumqiie persontz paterna fides, et beati
Petri communio debet prtzferri). Ep. iv. Imper. Zenoni, Galland. t. x.
#.671,72.
2. To FLAVIAN, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
" There are many circumstances which cause me to rejoice at the
ordination of your friendliness, and which bid me hope, by God's bless-
ing, that the result will be the peace of the Church. . . . Finally, because
almost everything which has been done since you first attained to your
dignity, manifests both the graciousness of the Sovereign's clemency
towards us, and also exhibits signs of your intentions ; matters being, to
wit, referred according to rule, to the Apostolic See, by which, by Christ's
concession, the dignity of all priests is confirmed. (Dum scilicet adAposto-
licam sedem regulariter destinatur, per quam, largiente Christo omnium
solidatur dignitas sacerdotuvi). Because also the letters of your friend-
240 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
liness confesses that blessed Peter was the Chief of the Apostles, and the
Rock of faith, as having the keys committed to him, the dispenser of
heavenly mystery." Ep. v. ad Flavian. Episc. Constantinop. Id. pp.
672, 3.
XVII. POPE S. GELASIUS.
A.D. 492.
i. PETER, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.
" But granting for a while that this man (Peter, Bishop of Alexandria)
has repented .... yet it never will be taught, never will it be shown,
never assuredly will it be proved, that his purgation was lawful, seeing
that it was not conducted according to the proper regulations. For no
one either could, or ought to expel, or recall the Bishop of the Second See
without the consent of the First. Unless it is perhaps to be in this con-
fusion, and troubled state of affairs that neither the existence of a first,
nor of a second, nor of a third see ought to be regarded or attended to
in accordance with the ancient statutes of our Fathers ; and the Head
being removed, as we see, all the members are to be at variance and
strife with each other, and that is to be seen amongst us which was
written concerning the people of Israel : In those days there was no king
in Israel, every man did which was right in his own eyes (Judges, xxi.
24). For with what reason and what consistency can other sees be de-
fended, if the ancient and long-existing reverence be not paid to the See of
the most blessed Peter, the First See, by which the dignity of all priests
(Bishops) has always been strengthened and confirmed (Si primce ....
beatissimi Petri sedi antiqua et vetusta reverentia non defertur, per quam
omnium sacerdotum dignitas semper est roborata atque firmata), and to
which, by the invincible and special judgment of the 318 Fathers, the
highest honour was adjudged, as being men who bore in mind the
Lord's sentence, Thou art Peter, &c., and again to the same Peter, / have
prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, &c., and that sentence, If thou
lovest Me, feed My sheep. Wherefore, then, is the Lord's discourse so
frequently directed to Peter ? Was it that the rest of the holy and blessed
Apostles were not clothed with like virtue? Who dare assert this? No,
but that, by a Head being constituted, the occasion of schism might be
removed ; and that the compact bond of the Body of Christ, thus uni-
formly tending, by the fellowship of a most glorious love, to one Head,
might be shown to be one ; and that there might be one Church faith-
fully believed in, and one house of the one God, and of the one
Redeemer, wherein we might be nourished with one Bread and one
Chalice . . . There were assuredly twelve Apostles endowed with equal
merits and equal dignity ; and whereas they all shone equally with
spiritual light, yet was it Christ's will that One amongst them should be
The Ruler (prince), and him by an admirable dispensation, did Christ guide
to Rome, the queen of nations, that in the principal (or first) city, He
might direct that First and Principal (Apostle) Peter. (Duodedm certe
PAPAL ACT A, EPISTLES, ETC. 241
fuere apostoli, paribus meritis parique dignitate suffulti; cumque omnes
aqualiter spirituali luce fulgerent, unum tamen principem esse ex illis vo-
luit Christus . . . ut in prcecipua urbe vel prima primum et ptcecipuum
dirigeret Petriim"} And there, as he shone conspicuous for power of doc-
trine, so also made glorious by the shedding of his blood, does he repose
in a place of everlasting rest, granting to the See which he himself
blessed, that it be, according to the Lord's promise, never overcome by
the gates of hell, and that it be the safest harbour for all who are tempest-
tossed. In that harbour (See of Rome) whosoever shall have reposed,
shall enjoy a blessed and eternal place of safety, whereas he that shall
have despised it, it is for him to see to it what kind of excuses he will
plead at the day of judgment." T. x. Galland^p. 677.
2. To THE EMPEROR ANASTASIUS.
". . . . And if the hearts of the faithful ought to submit to all
Bishops generally, who rightly handle holy things, how much the rather
is consent to be yielded to the Prelate of that See, whom both the supreme
Godhead has called to be Pre-eminent over all priests (Bishops) and the
accordant piety of the whole Church has at all times honoured." Ad
Imp. Anastas. Labb. Condi, t. v. Col. 308.
2. TO THE BISHOPS OF DARDANIA.
" The First See both confirms every Synod by its own Authority, and is
their perpetual Guardian, by reason to wit of its Princedom, which the
blessed Apostle Peter having received from the mouth of the Lord, the
Church nevertheless seconding both always has held and retains." Ad
Epis. Dardan. Labb. ib. col. 326.
4. DECREES OF COUNCIL OF ROME, A.D. 494.
" The holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has been raised
above the other churches, not by any synodal decrees, but from the
evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour has it obtained the Primacy,
He saying, Thou art Peter, &c." Decret. Condi. Rom. sub Gel. Ib. col.
386.
POPE ANASTASIUS II.
A.D. 496.
To THE EMPEROR ANASTASIUS.
" Through the ministry of my lowliness . . . may the See o fblessed Peter
hold the Princedom assigned to it by the Lord our God in the Universal
Church (Sedes beati Petri in universali ecclesia assignatum sibi a Domino
Deo teneat prindpatum"}. Ep. ad Anast. Aug. Labb. t. iv. col. 1^.78.
242 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
OBSERVATIONS.
It seems imposible to suppose that all these holy and devoted Popes,
nearly every one of whom in the ante-Nicene age were martyrs, and, sub-
sequently, many, especially under the Arian Emperors, were confessors,
could have invented what is called the Papal Supremacy. And yet,
if the Papal Supremacy is not of God, what is it but an anti- Christian
innovation ? There is no allusion by any Father, or Council, to any
canon, constitution, or ordinance, as having ever been proposed or
adopted for the creation of this Power. Canons have been spoken of as
once existing which affirmed a principle, as, for instance, it is unlawful to
make any constitutions contrary to the decree of the Pope. The Council
of Nicasa implicitly included the Primacy in its sixth canon, and other
synods have confirmed certain Privileges in favour of the Holy See, but
nowhere can we find any statement which, either explicitly or implicitly,
asserts that the Papal Authority was created by the Church. Nor can it
be discovered that any particular Pope ever invented this office, or for
the first time assumed it. S. Julius, S. Innocent, S. Celestine, and S. Leo,
may, owing to the peculiar circumstances of their times, when heresies
abounded, have stretched their Prerogative and Power to the very
fullest extent, but none of these created the office they assumed to fill.
Along the whole august line of Popes we find this universal Jurisdiction
exercised in various degrees, at one time perhaps imperceptibly, in con-
sequence of the perfectness of the Church's unity and harmony, or more
probably because of the terrible persecution that at one age prevailed, and
at another with vehemence, accompanied with interdict and excommuni-
cation, followed by the deposition or restoration of Prelates of the first
magnitude. The well-known saying of S. Gregory is a befitting com-
mentary on what has been just stated, " I know not," says he, " what
Bishop is not subject to (the Apostolic See), if any fault be found in
Bishops. But where no fault requires it, all are equal according to the
estimation of humility."
Another point must not be omitted to be stated, and that is, that not
a single Father is to be found who gives the remotest hint of the begin-
ning of this Papal Office. Certain it is that when it was in full force and
operation in the fourth and fifth centuries, not a word of protest was heard
or expressed against Papal assumption of universal Jurisdiction. So far
from there not being any protest, it is admitted to the fullest extent even by
(Ecumenical Councils. Nor, as has been already shown in the body o
this work, is there a word of remonstrance against this Papal authority
in the ante-Nicene age ; doubtless opposition was raised against certain
acts of the Popes, in cases of over-severity, as in the Paschal question ;
of episcopal rights, as in the matter of S. Cyprian and the execrable
Apiarius ; but none as regards the office itself. Indeed, the Fathers,
from the very beginning, assume the existence of this Papal power,
and, moreover, they made ample use of it for the quenching of heresies.
The heretics too, schismatics, and bad Bishops and priests, were not
slow to seek the assistance of the Papal authority for promoting their own
ends, so that the acceptance of the Papal Supremacy, together with the
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 243
Superior Jurisdiction annexed to it, was as universal as possible. If, then,
neither Popes, nor Councils, nor Fathers, have created this exalted
Supreme Power in the Church, whence is it ? Is it from God or from man ?
Is it a divine or an ecclesiastical Institution ? For the reasons above
given, it cannot be the latter ; it must therefore be the former. Under the
"First Inquiry," it was proved demonstratively that S. Peter was appointed
to the Chief Government of the Church ; and under the " Second
Inquiry," that he came to Rome and established in that city his Cathedra
or Chair, and that the Bishops of Rome have regularly succeeded to that
Chair, together with all the Prerogatives attached to it, so that the Divine
commission which S. Peter had received from Christ, for the government of
the whole Church, has passed to his Successors. Popes, Councils, and
Fathers, have said, "Peter lives and Presides in his own See;" we all
know the constitutional maxim, " The King never dies ;" so may it be said
as truly, the " Fisherman never dies," he lives in his Successors, he pro-
nounces judgment by them ; and in and by them he still rules the
Universal Church. The Papacy, then, so far from being a human or
ecclesiastical Institution, is, on the contrary, intensely Divine ; for its
origin can be discovered only, first in S. Peter himself, and then in the
Lord Jesus Christ, who created S. Peter as His Vicar on earth, with a
commission to hold the keys, to confirm the Faith of the Brethren, and
to shepherdise the Universal Fold. How is it possible, then, to have
even a reasonable doubt that the Papacy is really and truly a Divine
Institution ?
It is time now to examine briefly some of the Epistles and other docu-
ments immediately connected with the Papacy.
i. The first Papal Epistle is that of S. Clement, who was Bishop of
Rome till A.D. 107. It is generally believed to have been written
A.D. 97, during the Domitian persecution. So great was the authority of
this Epistle that, it was read in many churches as Scripture.
Now in examining this Epistle we observe that the Corinthian Church
being in trouble, appealed to Pope S. Clement for aid and counsel,
" We feel," says the Pope, " we have been somewhat tardy in turning our
attention to the points respecting which you consulted us ; and especially
to the shameful and detestable sedition, -utterly abhorrent to the elect
of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a
pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be
loved, has suffered grievous injury." It cannot be doubted, then, that
the Corinthians appealed to the Pope concerning certain points which
are not stated, and concerning the sedition with which that Church was
afflicted. The question raised is this, Why did the Corinthians appeal
to Rome in preference to any other See ? S. John the Apostle was living
then, how was it they did not seek his inspired assistance? True, he
himself might have been in exile, but they might have sought him in his
exile, as many did S. Paul, when confined to his own hired house at Rome.
A voyage to Smyrna or to Patmos was not so arduous an undertaking as
a journey to Rome, which was at least twice as distant. And if we
suppose that S. John was inaccessible, some observations would naturally
have been made in their reference to the Pope and in his reply to them.
244 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
The omission to appeal to S. John, the only surviving Apostle of the
Lord Jesus, is at least noteworthy.
Again, on the hypothesis that all Bishops are equal in jurisdiction, why
did not the Corinthians seek the aid of the Bishops of the neighbouring
countries, who would have been equally as competent to aid them as
S. Clement was ? Perhaps they might have regarded S. Clement as a
personal friend, who had been the companion of S. Paul, but the
appeal, if we may judge from the Epistle, was not to S. Clement personally,
but to the Church of Rome, of which he was the presiding Pontiff. Why
then to the Church of Rome more than any other ? The answer is
obvious. With S. Ignatius they believed that the Church of Rome was the
Presiding Church, and therefore they laid their grievances at the feet of the
Pope, with a view to obtaining redress. S. Clement addresses them, though
humbly and meekly, yet in the tone of a Superior. It is impossible
not to perceive that the author of this Epistle believed his Church and
himself to be in the possession of full authority to advise and direct all
churches i. e. churches far beyond what was afterwards described as
the Patriarchate whenever necessity demanded. This S. Clement and
the Roman Church do ; reciting the fact of the appeal, the Pope,
after giving the Corinthians praise and admonition, gives direction
concerning the conduct of the faithful, and respecting the various
functions assigned to Bishops, the Priests, and the Deacons. He then
addresses himself to the seditious, blaming them for their conduct,
and concludes by commanding the Church of Corinth to " send back
speedily" the messengers, " that they may sooner announce to us "the
restoration of peace and harmony.
It is impossible, in reading this Epistle carefully, not to see that it
was written by one who believed himself to possess plenary Authority
and Jurisdiction for dealing with the case submitted to him for counsel
and redress.
2. The visit of S. Polycarp to Rome for the settlement of the Paschal
controversy is certainly a recognition of the exalted office of the Pope.
It cannot be supposed that this Saint would have travelled many hundred
miles from Smyrna to Rome merely for the purpose of conversing with
the Pope on this question, if no result was to follow.
What result did he expect ? Nothing less, surely, than a settlement
of the controversy. Doubtless he hoped for a settlement in accordance
with the tradition he had received from S. John ; and in all probability,
being ignorant of that derived from S. Peter, he was disappointed
at the failure of his self-imposed mission. This termination is, as
is well known, held by Anglicans as witnessing against the Roman
Supremacy : this view, however, will be considered in another portion of
our work. But there remains the fact recorded in history that S. Polycarp,
instead of wasting his time in visiting those Patriarchs (as they were
afterwards styled) who were nearer to him, and who (on the suppo-
sition that all Bishops, without exception, were equal in jurisdiction)
might have disposed of this question as any other Prelate, went
straight to the fountain-head, to that Church which is said to be the
source " whence the Unity of the Priesthood took its rise." This witnesses
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 245
to the greatness of the Roman Church, to the exalted position of the
Pontiff, and t the Jurisdiction of that Church and Pontiff, who, if he
had deemed it expedient, would have determined the controversy as he
should judge right.
3. This Paschal controversy broke out afresh about forty years after.
Many Synods seemed to have been held on this question, convened in
pursuance of the Pope's directions. Almost all appear to have agreed
that Easter should be celebrated, not as the Jews kept the Passover, but
on the Lord's day nearest the vernal equinox ; and Pope S. Victor
endeavoured to enforce this decree throughout the Universal Church.
He met with resistance from Polycrates and the Bishops of Asia Minor,
whom he threatened with excommunication if they did not comply with
his commands. Many of the Bishops, both in the East and West, re-
monstrated with the Pope, not on account of his assumption of universal
authority, but on account of his over-severity. This point will be enlarged
upon presently, but what we have now to observe, is the exercise of Au-
thority by Pope S. Victor over provinces and dioceF^-s far beyond his
Province and Patriarchate.
4. The Letter of the Roman clergy to the Carthaginian Clergy
during the exile of S. Cyprian, is a very strong proof of the doctrine of
the Papal Supremacy. It is customary, whenever a vacancy occurs in
the Cathedra of a diocese, for the Chapter to assume pro tempore the
jurisdiction of the vacant Chair.* So in the case of the Roman
Church, it would seem to have been the practice in primitive times
during the vacancy of the See, for the clergy to assume for the time
the functions of the Pope. The Letter they addressed testifies fully to
this authority of the Papal office : " Since, moreover, it devolves upon us,
who appear to be placed on high, in the Place of the Shepherd, to keep
watch over the flock." They then refer to the words of our Lord : " I
am the Good Shepherd, who lay down My life for the sheep ;" and then
immediately allude to the commission of our Lord to S. Peter, " To
Simon, too, He speaks thus, ' Lovest thou Me?' He answered, 'I do
love Thee/ He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep."' The connexion
between these words, together with those just before, " I am the Good
Shepherd," and the " Place of the Shepherd," which they then pro
tempore occupied, is obvious. They referred to the Divine office of the
Papacy, at that time vacant by reason of the persecutions ; they point to
the commission of S. Peter (whose Place Rome was and is), reminding
the Carthaginian clergy of its Superior authority. They then proceed to
give them such admonitions and counsel as they deemed for their good.
S. Cyprian, in his correspondence with the Roman Clergy, enters no protest
against their assumption of authority; on the contrary, in one of his
letters he comments approvingly on the directions they had given to his
Clergy during his exile. This Letter, it is submitted, is very strong
evidence in favour of the Papal Prerogative to visit by Letters distant
provinces of the Church.
* This is customary to this day in the See of Canterbury.
246 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
5. S. Stephen, who succeeded S. Cornelius, assumed the right to
determine by his own Authority the controversy about the re-baptism of
persons baptized out of the Church, and he, on account of the non-
compliance of S. Cyprian, Firmilian, and the Bishops of Cilicia, Cap-
padocia, Galatia, and of the adjoining provinces, refused to hold
communion with them. As this matter has furnished materials for the
controversy against the Roman Supremacy, its consideration is reserved
for another part of this work ; but, whether S. Stephen was right or
wrong, it is unquestionable that he exercised universal Jurisdiction, as
his predecessors had done.
6. I have entered somewhat minutely into the acts of the Papacy of
the ante-Nicene age, because it is so often alleged that no evidence for the
Papal Supremacy is to be found in that period. Indeed it seems to me that
there is quite sufficient to show that when occasions arose it was really a
living and active power, exercised by the different Pontiffs from time to
time, by counselling, by admonishing, by censuring, and by punishing
Bishops and others for heresy, schism, or contumacy. We have a dis-
tinct reference made to the commission to S. Peter " to feed the sheep"
by the clergy of Rome, as indicating the source whence they pre-
sumed to address the clergy of Carthage. And when we compare the
Papal Supremacy, as exercised by the ante-Nicene Popes, with the
doctrine of Holy Scripture and the testimony of S. Ignatius, S. Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Origen, S. Cyprian, Firmilian, S. Peter of Alexandria
all of whom flourished before the great Council of Nicaea was held it
is simply impossible to come to any other conclusion than that this
high and exalted office owes its origin, not to man, but to Christ our
Lord, and His servant S. Peter, who planted his Chair that Chair which
he received from Him in the heart of the Imperial city of Rome.
7. It is unnecessary to comment upon the various documents connected
with this subject which appeared after the Council of Nicaea, for they
all, more or less, speak for themselves; and after perusing them no one can
doubt what was the nature of that power of which the Popes claimed to be
in possession, and which they exercised with an unsparing hand for the
extirpation of the fearful heresies that sprang up like noxious weeds from
the fourth to the seventh century. Suffice it to say that these docu-
ments, as a whole, assert (i) That S. Peter was the Source and Origin
of the Apostolate and the Episcopate, that the Church took her be-
ginning in him, and that from him " ecclesiastical discipline flowed to
the Churches :" (2) That the See of Rome is the See of Peter, hence is
it frequently described as " the Apostolic See," " the See of Peter," and
" the Holy See :" (3) That Rome is " the pattern" or " normal" Church,
the "Bosom of Faith," the "Head of the Church," and " the Head of the
Universe :" (4) That the Bishop of Rome is the Head, and the Bishops
in general the members, of his Body, in whom is the Chief Government,
and to whom is committed the charge of the '" helm :" (5) That
the Prerogatives of the Sovereign Pontiff consist of his being " the
Guardian of the Vineyard," and " the Judge of Faith," the right
to be first consulted, whose judgment is indisputable : (6) That he has
the right to confirm Bishops to their Sees, and power, if need be, to
PAPAL ACTA, EPISTLES, ETC. 247
excommunicate and depose them, to confirm Synods, and to annul the
sentences of Bishops ; and (7) That Roman custom must be followed,
that nothing may be introduced into the churches without his
authority, that no Council may be held without the sanction of the
Pope, and that no canon may be made contrary to his decree.
All these claims have been made from time to time, and all these
powers have been exercised by the Roman Pontiffs, not in secret,
but openly, in their Letters and other missives to Bishops and Councils,
so that if these claims had been destitute of any lawful foundation it
was competent for the whole Church to have remonstrated with the
Popes, to have disclaimed utterly their pretensions, to have declined all
submission to them, and, finally, to have repelled them from their
communion. But not a murmur of dissent is heard from any part of
the Catholic Church, save in some matters involving the privileges of
the Episcopate, no, not even when the language of the Popes was the
most outspoken, and when their actions were the most despotic. The
Universal Church never questioned the Pope's right to excommunicate
and depose Nestorius and Dioscorus, Patriarchs, respectively, of Con-
stantinople and Alexandria ; on the contrary, she magnified their office,
not scrupling to employ such language as this : " Thou art the constituted
Interpreter to all of the voice of the blessed Peter." Thou art the
" Custodian of the vineyard." Thou art the " Head," and we " the
members." Thou art our "Father," and we "the children." There
can be no doubt whatever that the position which the Popes assumed in the
fourth and fifth centuries was assumed with the unanimous consent of the
Universal Catholic Church, in the East no less than in the West ; and,
therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn is this, that the Primitive
Church of the first five centuries believed that S. Peter had received a
special commission from the Lord to rule the Universal Church ;
that S. Peter established his Cathedra in Rome ; that the Roman
Pontiffs are his Successors in that Cathedra ; and that as such, they have
succeeded to all his Powers and Prerogatives as the Chief of the Brother-
hood, the Supreme Pastor of the Flock, the Head and Judge of Faith,
and the Guardian of the one Fold of the one Lord.
248
PART IV.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM.
INTRODUCTORY.
One would think, after perusing the vast amount of evidence which
has been collected that there could scarcely be any room for an " Audi
Alteram Partem." Certainly no evidence in favour of any office, or
dignity, or privilege, could be more voluminous, more consistent, and con-
clusivej than that which has been adduced for the Papacy. The Fathers
generally, the CEcumenical and Plenary Councils, and the Catholic
Emperors of East and West, with one consentient voice, have accepted,
to the full, the doctrine of the Supremacy of the Holy See. How, then,
can there be any room for counter evidence of such an extent as would
neutralise the multifarious proofs that have been advanced ? Doubtless
opponents may appeal to the language of a few individual Bishops, and
even of a few Councils, protesting against some particular Papal act deemed
to be arbitrary or unjust ; but this is not testimony against the Papal
position any more than protests of ministers or parliaments are against
the office, prerogatives, and rights of the Sovereign of the Realm. If,
indeed, it were possible to produce evidence of any great extent such as
would directly controvert the plain testimonies of Fathers, Councils, and
Emperors in favour of the Roman Supremacy, as derived from S. Peter,
then the whole structure of Christianity would necessarily fall : and for
this simple reason, that if the Fathers should be found to contradict
themselves on a vital point of faith (and if the Papacy be true, it is a
vital part of faith) their testimony for Christianity itself would no longer
be trustworthy.
But inasmuch as many objections have been raised against the
tenability of the Roman position, it is necessary that the most important
ones should have a fair consideration.
I.
S. PETER'S PREROGATIVES.
It is all e ged by Dr. Barrow and others that the Primacy, of what-
ever it consisted was personal to S. Peter, that is to say, it did not pass
to his Successors. To meet this objection, it will be sufficient to
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 249
consider three questions, truthful answers to which will determine this
point.
First, in granting the commission to S. Peter to exercise the
Prerogative of the Supreme Jurisdiction, as symbolised by the keys,
which he alone received, a commission which was addressed solely to
himself by our Lord did Christ, by word or action, limit it to S. Peter
personally ? It is sufficient to say that there is not a vestige of authority
for such a limitation to be found in Holy Scripture ; but, on the contrary,
such a notion is opposed to the very design which our Lord had in mind
when He founded His Church ; for the Body corporate which He instituted
was destined to continue for ever, that is, till the close of the dispen-
sation, as the following passages plainly testify : " The gates of hell shall
not prevail against it." (S. Matt, xvi.) " I will pray the Father, and He
shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever,
even the Spirit of Truth." (S. John, xiv. 16.) " Lo, I am with you alway
even until the end of the world," or more literally, " all the days till
the consummation." (S. Matt, xxviii. 20.)
It is absurd to suppose that the Body politic, which was intended
to continue till the end of time, should, on the death of the Apostles,
lose that organization and government with which Christ had supplied it.
If then an earthly Head had been provided, it follows, as a necessary
consequence, that this Headship must continue no less than the Body.
As before observed, if an executive and governmental authority over
the Body had been deemed necessary, it can never cease to be necessary
till that Body shall be dissolved.
Secondly, Have the Successors of S. Peter at Rome continuously and
from the beginning claimed the Primacy by virtue of that commission
which he (Peter) received from Christ ? Ecclesiastical history proves
that they have, and not only claimed, but constantly exercised it.
Thirdly, Did the Primitive Church object to the claim ? The evi-
dence adduced demonstrates that she did not. Why did the Church of
Corinth appeal to Rome for assistance in her trouble ? Why did
S. Polycarp travel all the way to Rome to obtain some decision con-
cerning the period of keeping Easter? How was it that Tertullian,
after he fell from the truth, scornfully gave in detail the titles of the
Pope, and the characteristics of his Office, as then commonly understood,
if no such right existed ? On what possible grounds did S. Cyprian
set in motion the Pope's authority against the Bishop of Aries, if it is true
that the Pope was no more than the Bishop of a diocese, the Metropolitan
of a province, or the Patriarch of a patriarchate, of which France,
according to Anglican authority, formed no part ? Even in the cases of
S. Victor, S. Stephen, and S. Zosimus (which I will consider specially
farther on), who were violently opposed, no protest has ever been
recorded against Papal Prerogatives as derived from S. Peter.
After the conversion of the Empire, and the consequent relief of the
Church from the pressure of persecution, we find the claims of the Pope
not only enforced, but admitted to the full, by both Bishops and people,
including even the Catholic Emperors of East and West.
There is nothing, then, to show that the Prerogatives of S. Peter were
250 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
personal to himself; Scripture, as has been proved, presumes a suc-
cession, and it is clear that the Primitive Church not only did not
resist it, but, on the contrary, admitted it. It is evident, then, that the
Prerogatives of S. Peter passed to the Successors of his office of Su-
preme Bishop and Pastor.
II.
S. PETER, BISHOP OF ROME.
It is maintained that, although S. Peter was at Rome, yet he did not
sit there as Bishop. It is alleged, too, that the office of Apostle and
Bishop could not be held by one and the same person. Dr. Barrow says
that " St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome would confound the offices which
God made distinct ; for God did appoint first apostles, then prophets,
then pastors and teachers; wherefore St. Peter, after he was an apostle,
could not well become a bishop : it would be such an irregularity, as if a
bishop should be made a deacon." (Supp. p. 119.) There is a fallacy
in this argument. It is alleged that one person cannot hold two offices
which God had made distinct. But it is well known that S. Peter and
S. Paul and the other Apostles did hold and exercise two or more distinct
offices. In the first place, S. Peter, S. Paul, and S. John were both
Apostles and Prophets, the last-named being pre-eminently the Seer of
the New Testament. S. James was both Apostle and also Bishop of
Jerusalem. S. Paul, too, was Universal Apostle, and also specially
the Apostle of the Uncircumcision. In S. Peter there were three
offices (i), that of the Foundation and the Supremacy; (2), of the
Apostleship generally, and (3), especially of the Circumcision. If he,
then, and the other Apostles did hold two or more offices, why
should it have the effect of " confounding the offices which God made
distinct," for S. Peter to become the local Bishop of Rome, notwithstanding
that he was the Chief Pastor of the whole flock ? The question, however,
is one of fact, did S. Peter make Rome his See, and did he establish
there his Chair or Cathedra ? The testimony of all antiquity is conclusive
on this point ; and it is admitted by all that the Roman Chair is the
" Chair of Peter," and hence Rome has been described as being pre-
eminently "the Holy See," "the See of Peter," and " the Apostolic See."
That S. Peter was Bishop of Rome seems to be incontestable ; for if he
had not been so, what did S. Ignatius mean when he described the Roman
Church as the Presiding Church ? On what other ground did S. Irenseus
assert that the Church of Rome was a " Superior and more Powerful Prin-
cipality, with which every Church must agree, or assemble," than that
it had been " founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles
Peter and Paul," and that in it was treasured the fulness of Apostolic
Tradition ? and why did S. Cyprian, too, say that Rome was the " Place
of Peter," in which is the " Chair of Peter, and the Principal Church,
whence the unity of the Priesthood took its rise ?"
It seems, then, plain that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that he
established in that Church his Cathedra or Chair.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 251
III.
THE ROMAN PONTIFFS, S. PETER'S SUCCESSORS.
No one who has read ecclesiastical history, even superficially, can
have failed to perceive that the Bishops of Rome have ever been regarded
as the Successors of S. Peter, and as the occupants, for the time being, of
his Chair in the Holy City. This fact is as indisputable as that Queen
Victoria is the successor of William the Conqueror and of Alfred the
Great. The only point is, did the Prerogatives of S. Peter, as the Head of
the Brotherhood, and the Chief Pastor of the flock, pass to those Succes-
sors to his Chair? It is alleged, however, that there is an essential differ-
ence between an Apostle and a Bishop, and that consequently what
might have been the case with the Apostle would have been impossible
as respects the Bishop. This distinction is maintained by Barrow : " The
apostolical office, as such, was personal and temporary ; and therefore,
according to its nature and design, not successive or communicable to
others in perpetual descendence from them." (Supp. p. 112.) Before this
objection can be met, let us understand of what the essence of an Apostle
consists. As the name infers, he is a person sent on an ambassage to repre-
sent an office, and to defend and maintain the interests of the Sovereign
Ruler who appointed him. Now the Apostles were sent for the following
purposes : (i), To witness the fact of the Resurrection ; (2), To carry into
effect our Lord's commands respecting the foundation and establishment
of His Kingdom and Church ; (3), To govern this Kingdom ; (4), To
preside over the worship of Almighty God, and as priests to offer the
unbloody Sacrifice of the altar ; (5), To preach the Gospel to all nations ;
and (6), To provide for the spiritual nourishment of all believing souls :
and in order that they might at first perform this work according to
Christ's instructions, they were each personally inspired by the Holy
Ghost, who remained with them, as it were, after the manner of a
Person, not only ruling them by His influence, but by His commands often
audibly delivered. Now the only distinction which is apparent between
the Apostles of our Lord and their Successors is, that the former were
personal witnesses of the Resurrection, and that they held a direct
commission to lay the foundations of the Church. In the performance
of these two functions, they, of course, could have no Successors, properly
speaking ; for after the decease of their generation there could be no
longer any personal witnesses of the fact of the Resurrection ; and the
foundations, once laid, could, of course, never be re-laid. S. Paul
himself, in these respects, is no Apostle ; for he was not a personal
witness of the Resurrection : what he knew about it was by revelation, not
as an eye-witness ; nor can it be said that he in any sense founded
the Church, for it had been already founded, before his own conversion,
on the Twelve Apostles. But these two offices of the Apostolate did
not by any means exhaust the Apostleship ; for there remained the
functions of government, of Priesthood, and of the Pastorate. All these
offices were, on the departure of our Lord, in the Apostleship alone.
The seventy Elders received from Christ no authority as Priests or
Pastors ; the utmost extent of their commission was to preach, to visit,
252 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
and heal the sick. In the Apostolate alone centred every office of
Church Government and Priesthood. If, then, the Apostolate died with
the last surviving Apostle, as Dr. Barrow would infer, then we are at
this moment without any authorised Ruler or Priest in religion. And
Dr. Barrow supports this idea by asserting that an Apostle is a func-
tionary who can only be appointed immediately by God in Person. But
happily we know that this is not true ; for S. Matthias, the successor of
Judas Iscariot, was nominated by the Apostles and the whole Church,
and by them elected under the supervision of the Holy Ghost, "and he
was numbered with the Eleven Apostles." (Acts, i. 26.) And in the case
of S. Paul himself, he was indeed called miraculously to the ministry,
but he received his mission by the agency of men. And we know also
that others, as S. Timothy, S. Titus, S. Silvanus, &c. &c., were
associated with the Apostles in the Government of the Church, and these
were expressly called "Apostles."* Dr. Barrow, then, is wrong when
he asserts that the Apostolate has no succession, and that to institute
an Apostle it is necessary he should have his call miraculously from
heaven. The only difference, then, between the Twelve Apostles
and their Successors is, in (i) the personal testimony of the Lord's
Resurrection; (2) the commission to found the Church; and (3) the
gift of personal inspiration to enable them to perform their proper
work ; but in the office of Governor or Ruler over the Household of God,
of Priesthood, and of the Pastorate, if we may rely upon Scripture and
primitive Tradition, they had without doubt Successors, who exhibited
their authority, their power, and their infallibility, not indeed by means
of miraculous or outward manifestations of the Holy Ghost, but by that
personal indwelling which was promised to the Apostolate in the words ;
" I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter (the
Paraclete), that He may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of
Truth." And again : " Lo, I am with you all days until the consumma-
tion."
Now, if the Apostolate has a succession to the office of Government and
Priesthood, how can it be denied that S. Peter, the Head of the Aposto-
late, should not have Successors also ? Like his brother Apostles, he had
an extraordinary and an ordinary office in his position as Head. He was
(i) the sole Foundation and Origin of the Church, and (2) he was the
Rock on which the Church was to be built. As the Rock and Foundation
can be but once laid, as there cannot be more than one original fount, so
consequently, to these offices S. Peter could have no proper Successor.
But with respect to his Supreme Government the Supreme Jurisdiction
which he had by virtue of the gift of the keys, the Supremacy in matters
* SS. Barnabas, Timothy, Silvanus, Epaphroditus, Titus, and the Brethren,
were called Apostles, avoo-ToXoi, see Acts, xiv. 14, i Thess. i. I, and ii. 6, Phil,
ii. 25, and 2 Cor. viii. 23. Bingham observes, "The most ancient of these
(titles) is the title of Apostle, which in a large and secondary sense is thought by
many to have been the original name for Bishops, before the name Bishop was
appropriated to their order." Antiq. Book II. c. ii. s. i.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 253
regarding the faith, and the supremacy as Chief Pastor of the one fold he
necessarily had Successors, and for this reason, because if such an office
was deemed necessary by our Lord, when all the Chief Governors were
personally inspired, it could not be otherwise than needful in after
times, when the Rulers of the Church would no longer be personally
under similar supervision of the Holy Ghost. It is held, however, that
the same argument applies to S. Peter, and that therefore he could have
no Successors to his Primacy. But S. Peter received a promise for him-
self, which none of the other Apostles singly ever did receive : " The gates
of hell shall not prevail against" My Church, as built upon "the
Rock ;" so that, that Church, which is built upon Peter alone, possesses
the privilege of indefectibility, while Churches proceeding from the other
Apostles enjoy no such immunity. As a matter of fact no Bishop of
Rome has ever been a heretic. Liberius may have fallen from fear;
Honorius may have allowed himself to have been deceived ; but not a
single Pope, when declaring the doctrine of the Church, and speaking
ex cathedra, has ever promulged a heresy. The Bishops of other
Apostolic Thrones as Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem have frequently
fallen, at one time denying the Divine, at another the Human, nature of
our Lord ; and to this day they all reject the dogma of the Procession
of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, thus dividing the
Substance.
The Apostle S. Peter obtained a guarantee for the Church built and
proceeding from him, that it should never be trampled under the feet of
the Devil : and hence the difficulty of a Successor to his Supreme Govern-
ment is at once met and disposed of. While the successions of the
other Apostles may fail, and their descendants fall into heresy, we
have a solemn guarantee from our Lord that the succession in S. Peter's
Church shall never fail, and that it shall never fall into heresy. Having
now disposed of these difficulties, let us recall to our minds the facts
of the case ; for after all it is simplv_^a matter of fact. Now it has
already been proved that the Blsliops of Rome from the time of S. Peter
have claimed and exercised the office of the Head of the Brotherhood and
Chief Pastor of the one Flock ; it has also been shown that the Primitive
Church admitted the Papal position, and further, that the Catholic Empe-
rors submitted to an imperium in imperio, which they would never have
done if they had not been persuaded that it was founded under the most
indefeasible title possible, viz. Right Divine. There can be no doubt
that to the exalted office of S. Peter there were Successors, and that
all the ordinary functions of Supreme Government, on the decease of S.
Peter, passed to all those who in their day personated and repre-
sented him.
254 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY.
IV.
THE ROMAN ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCEDOM.
Dr. Barrow declares that " the ground of that eminence which the
Roman Bishop did obtain in the Church, so as in order to precede other
bishops, doth shake this pretence. The Church of Rome was indeed
allowed to be the principal Church, as St. Cyprian calleth it : but why ?
Was it preferred by Divine institution? No, surely; Christianity did not
make laws of that nature, or constitute differences of places ? Was it in
regard to the succession of St. Peter ? No ; that was a slim, upstart device ;
that did not hold in Antioch, nor in other apostolical churches. But it
was for a more substantial reason ; the very same on which the dignity
and pre-eminency of other churches was founded ; that is, the dignity,
magnitude, opulency, opportunity of that city in which the bishop of
Rome did preside : together with the consequent numerousness, quality,
and wealth of his flock ; which gave him many great advantages above
other his fellow-bishops : It was, saith Rigaltius, called by St. Cyprian the
principal Church, because constituted in the principal city" Supp. p. 230.
Now it may at once be conceded that the civil dignity of Rome con-
tributed to magnify the grandeur and prestige of the Roman Church, but
I deny that the dignity of the Roman Ecclesiastical Principality was
derived from the greatness of the Imperial city. Every one who has read
the history of any war, knows well enough that it is a main part of the
plan of every campaign to seize, as strategetical points, the principal cities
of the country invaded ; and chiefly its metropolis: and for this end, that
if once the army is master of the capital and the chief cities therein, the
conquest of the whole country is secured. The conquerors, no doubt,
obtain a certain glory from the greatness of the cities they have taken ;
but who is there that would assert that their greatness was consequent
on the prestige of the fallen cities ? Who is there that would deny that
the author of their dignity and state was the potentate who commanded
them to invade and conquer ?
The Catholic Church is often called the Church Militant, and this
because it is an aggressive power, instituted by the Lord for the specific
purpose of subduing the world to His Divine sceptre. To accomplish
this end, He has appointed divers officers, such as Bishops, Priests, Dea-
cons, &c., all of whom He has placed under the charge of one Com-
mander-in-chief, viz., S. Peter, and the Successors to his gover 
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11